I’m not an ML, but it’s undeniable that the Cuban, Chinese, and Russian revolutions absolutely improved upon the dogshit, previous systems, such as fascist Batista, brutal Tsarist Russia, and agrarian peasantry in China.
Whether or not moving in a different direction would have improved society more is debatable, but it’s undeniable that their conditions improved.
the Russian and Cuban systems primarily changed due to modernization and not anything the system did (don’t make the liberal mistake of assuming the advances of modernity are inherent to the system at the time), but China actually got Worse until it “liberalized” its markets and started pulling foreign capital investment
Life expectancy actually doubled under Mao, it’s not correct to say it got worse in and of itself. Mao made a ton of mistakes, famously so, but there were good things from it.
it’s important to look at these kinds of numbers in context, the average life expectancy for the vast majority of Mao’s rule was around 30, only going up to 50-60 in the last few years, still lagging behind even the farther east soviet provinces
I mean ya, but it’s not that impressive, at that point it basically meant that the Chinese government stopped doing stuff that actively caused early death towards the very end of Mao’s life
Yes, but transforming power structures doesn’t equate to killing opponents. It is neither sufficient nor necessary. The success of some revolutions shouldn’t be attributed to lethal violence.
That’s a different point to your original, and one I’m more likely to agree with, though with the additional point that sometimes revolution is necessary to set a new base for a new superstructure, even if you can do so without violence.
I’m not an ML, but it’s undeniable that the Cuban, Chinese, and Russian revolutions absolutely improved upon the dogshit, previous systems, such as fascist Batista, brutal Tsarist Russia, and agrarian peasantry in China.
Whether or not moving in a different direction would have improved society more is debatable, but it’s undeniable that their conditions improved.
the Russian and Cuban systems primarily changed due to modernization and not anything the system did (don’t make the liberal mistake of assuming the advances of modernity are inherent to the system at the time), but China actually got Worse until it “liberalized” its markets and started pulling foreign capital investment
Life expectancy actually doubled under Mao, it’s not correct to say it got worse in and of itself. Mao made a ton of mistakes, famously so, but there were good things from it.
it’s important to look at these kinds of numbers in context, the average life expectancy for the vast majority of Mao’s rule was around 30, only going up to 50-60 in the last few years, still lagging behind even the farther east soviet provinces
Sure. It still happened.
I mean ya, but it’s not that impressive, at that point it basically meant that the Chinese government stopped doing stuff that actively caused early death towards the very end of Mao’s life
Yes, but transforming power structures doesn’t equate to killing opponents. It is neither sufficient nor necessary. The success of some revolutions shouldn’t be attributed to lethal violence.
That’s a different point to your original, and one I’m more likely to agree with, though with the additional point that sometimes revolution is necessary to set a new base for a new superstructure, even if you can do so without violence.