25 Total Votes

Yes he ruined it

15 votes
1 comment

No it was bad anyways

5 votes

What? Communism is good

3 votes
1 comment

It never could have worked

2 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T20:49:37.4717284-05:00
@jif You forgot about China
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T20:50:42.6481106-05:00
Yeah, but some argue its worked in China. I kind of agree anyways,. Not under Mao though, and human rights has a long way to go.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T20:53:37.6898196-05:00
Sadly the mandate of heaven worked better than communism.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T20:54:51.2598912-05:00
Agreed, but China has showed that communism has some gains. They have moved to free market though, so I would argue they are no longer communist, but Center left authoritarians.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T20:56:49.9610521-05:00
Yes they indeed accomplished communist goals, but they proved communism was indeed a down-grade from the previously used mandate of heaven.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T20:59:12.2495642-05:00
The mandate of heaven was even worse. There was no unity, but a bunch of warlords claiming that the rulers should be overthrown. I stand to reason the mandate is worse.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:11:51.8496334-05:00
Mao Zedong killed 45 million and is the greatest murderer in the world's history[1], the leadership of the mandate of heaven typically had local leaders who where only overthrown by the people if the ruled the people poorly. To be fair it's more of a form of local dictatorship where the citizens had the ability to switch leaders. (which may simply occur through debate and reasoning.) Conflict between warlords could occur, but was rare and killed far less than 45 million while it also ruled much longer than communism did. Source: [1]
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:14:08.6971814-05:00
To be fair the people did indeed unify around Confucianism
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:15:50.7529820-05:00
I told you communism under Mao sucked. China isn't even communist anymore. They are centrist authoritarian liberals. And the deaths didn't come from him directly, or were they even a result if government democide. (Still bad though)
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:16:43.8055049-05:00
And about 600 million people were lifted from extreme poverty after Mao died, when China was still communist. They were the only UN country to fulfill the poverty goals.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:20:29.9133543-05:00
Can you give me a source for this?
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:24:47.2819119-05:00
As you can see, 40 years a go 80% of China was in extreme poverty. I don't know how to prove to you that the majority of deaths were not democide. Its like a conspiracy theorist assigning you the BOP. Of course, all this happened after Mao's death http://s.Wsj.Net/public/resources/images/OB-XC741_POVERT_E_20130417171914.Jpg
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:25:20.6968977-05:00
My mistake, here you go
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:28:17.7260665-05:00
The UN mandated goal for developing nations with extreme poverty was to cut the extreme rate in half. China was the only nation to succeed in this goal, and far exceeded the expectations, in one of the most stunning economic revolutions. The administration that came after Mao's death instituted major reforms that led it closer to a free market economy. You can own your own business now, and its no longer communist. Its still authoritarian though, and that needs to change.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:30:00.6249857-05:00
It was actually a part of the UN's millennium goals....Http://www.Un.Org/millenniumgoals/archive.Shtml
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:31:32.4808015-05:00
A. Your link doesn't work B. How have I suggested the majority of deaths were democide?
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:31:53.0244267-05:00
Thanks for the new link/s.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:32:03.5562007-05:00
And I'm actually curious how you'll argue that uplifting 83% of the population from extreme poverty is a failure?
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:34:41.2549103-05:00
You said that Mao killed 45 million people. I argued that this was true, but not a result of direct or intentional killings. You countered this, which is why I argued back. You claim that Mao killed 45 million people, and probably not all by himself, so I'm left to assume that the government participated under his leadership. And I argue against this claim as the government did not commit any large scale democide. Did some exist? Yeah, but not on a organized level.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:37:44.0127831-05:00
Not its your turn. Prove that the administration was responsible for all 45 million deaths. You can't give me the democide argument, and the famine one is weak, but at least has some merit.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:39:13.9941599-05:00
Well they are SLIGHTLY less poor, but today 72% of the chinese population makes less than $5 a day, and 40% make less than $2.50 a day. If the goal of communism is to be slightly less poor then I conced they've done it.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:42:03.7856483-05:00
@jif ---- Mao did initiated political policies that led to the deaths of over 45,000,000 million people. However, I guess you could argue that I used the word murderer incorrectly.
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:43:44.2502923-05:00
No, slightly less poor is a huge, fallacious understatement. The global poverty rate designated by the UN is 1.25$. Anything over the global poverty rate gives people a fair chance at survival. The average weath of a Chinese citizen went up 500%, and due to these reforms, 600 million people are fed and not starving. And due to obvious inflation rates, the Chinese dollar has a different value. Especially among the Chinese, and since many Chinese belong to state owned corporations, they do not receive high incomes, as housing and food is provided by the government. Http://www.Un.Org/millenniumgoals/poverty.Shtml
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:45:08.0629427-05:00
And I appreciate your half concession. The actual number can be debated though, as I believe that one is highly inflated. None the less, a lot of people died, and his policies were controversial. Again, thanks for the concession.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:54:32.0993788-05:00
I don't see how it's fallacious, can you list the fallacy. Anyways, notice that your graph continues post-2,000 you have even admitted that communist has already fallen in China so it seems unfair to attribute the lowered poverty rate to communism. (I just noticed this) In addition I received another page not found from your source however I will concedethis anyway since communism (arguably post-communism) lowered the extreme poverty rate.
Actionsspeak says2014-04-08T21:55:27.7286222-05:00
To be honest I need to do homework, but this was rather hard to stop :D
Jifpop09 says2014-04-08T21:58:01.4913874-05:00
Alright, I appreciate your second concession.
Shadowhuntress says2014-05-03T17:22:44.9345731-05:00
I think Stalin corrupted Russian communism, but not communism in general

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.