Worldwide pickets against Church of Scientology on the 10th / Project Chanology

[Arrian]

Right now, every year, about 10.1 million children under the age of five die each year because there is no profit in saving them (there has been a 60% reduction in that death rate recently, however --so it was much worse recently). In a single decade, that 101 million children who could be saved if there was profit in giving them food and medicine. That doesn't include all the other ways people die for profit or because there is no profit in saving them.

This assumes that these children would be saved under a different economic system (global communism, for instance). I'd dispute that. That's not to say the current situation is acceptable - it's not, which is one of the reasons Doctors Without Borders headed our list of charities this year. It could be a lot better, even w/o changing the basic economic system in the world. The words "good governance" spring to mind.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

Well, in nearly every socialist country, as awful as they were, that death rate dropped like a rock. For example after the Chinese Revolution, average life expectancy went from 35 to 65. That's nearly doubling the life expectancy, think about that. Before the revolution, a million people a year died from starvation. After, not so much, although they did have a bad famine in 1960-61. For all their faults, socialist countries made saving lives of everyone a priority, not just those who had money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Arrian
This assumes that these children would be saved under a different economic system (global communism, for instance).

Wow! You really have no idea about what communism is do you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, in nearly every socialist country, as awful as they were, that death rate dropped like a rock. For example after the Chinese Revolution, average life expectancy went from 35 to 65. That's nearly doubling the life expectancy, think about that. Before the revolution, a million people a year died from starvation. After, not so much, although they did have a bad famine in 1960-61. For all their faults, socialist countries made saving lives of everyone a priority, not just those who had money.

Talk about disingenuous. Guess what ended only a few years before the Chinese Revolution?

[chequita guevara]

So you think thirty years of warlordism, and a hundred fifty years of colonialism and imperialism are unrelated to capitalism?

[DirtyMartini]

I'm no historian, but I think he meant WWII, or even the Chinese revolution itself.

I also wonder about the degree of "fair and balanced" reporting coming out of the PRC in the wake of the revolution. From where do your life expectancy numbers come.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
I'm no historian, but I think he meant WWII

YOUR_WINNER!

[DirtyMartini]

[Alinestra Covelia]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




Talk about disingenuous. Guess what ended only a few years before the Chinese Revolution?

Well, you're right in that the Civil War was a confounding factor. But it's also worth pointing out that socialist systems tended to stress the state's responsibility in giving economic, health, and education to the individual (and then counterbalancing that with reduced privacy, personal freedoms, etc.) You can definitely dispute whether the Chinese Communist Party was wholly effective in bringing those benefits to the people (and lately the government seems to have recognized that that model wasn't sustainable). But under the CCP the bottom line did indeed rise up - barefoot doctors gave basic health care and the number of people living in or near poverty shrank.

Not that I'd advocate a return to the bad old days of Maoist rule. But credit where it's due.

[Kuciwalker]

But under the CCP the bottom line did indeed rise up - barefoot doctors gave basic health care and the number of people living in or near poverty shrank.

Not that I'd advocate a return to the bad old days of Maoist rule. But credit where it's due.

And we have no idea if the credit is due to their policies, or the end of over a decade (more like 2 decades, IIRC) of war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
I'm no historian, but I think he meant WWII, or even the Chinese revolution itself.

WWII in China had been going on since 1931, and the warlord period since 1919. Nor was the situation in China all that great before then either. China was pretty much ****ed since the Brits showed up with ships full of opium and soldiers.

Also keep in mind that the Chinese Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating Japan in China, as Chiang Kai-Shek was more interested in fight the Reds than the Japanese.

[Kuciwalker]

WWII in China had been going on since 1931

Thank you for supporting my point

[chequita guevara]

You think that you had a point?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The Black Book of Communism claims my comrades killed or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 100 million people from 1917 to 1991. I'm in no position to argue for or against that number. The wildest claims would put the USSR and the PRC together at 160 million, and that wouldn't include horror shows like Ethiopia of Cambodia (which was actually anarchist-politically, even though they called themselves Communists).

Right now, every year, about 10.1 million children under the age of five die each year because there is no profit in saving them (there has been a 60% reduction in that death rate recently, however --so it was much worse recently). In a single decade, that 101 million children who could be saved if there was profit in giving them food and medicine. That doesn't include all the other ways people die for profit or because there is no profit in saving them.

That's what I find interesting. Does the Black Book of Communism count people who died of starvation and other indirect means of the actions of communists? How many did the Communists not save?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Also keep in mind that the Chinese Red Army was chiefly responsible for defeating Japan in China, as Chiang Kai-Shek was more interested in fight the Reds than the Japanese.

I think you're mixing them up.