Who was better for China?

>literally the only kind of US support he got while on the mainland was arms
the US attempted many times to broker a peaceful end to the 1945-1949 civil war which would have allowed him to remain in power

This guy

It would've allowed Mao to stay in power too, a la North and South Korea. Considering everyone thought the Nationalists were going to win the civil war, those peace attempts were more favourable for Mao.

Hong Xiuquan

The Great Famine was caused by Mao exporting China's crops to communist countries

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
no

this

...

>But Pinochet was great for Chile
>Having US puppets in charge of your country factually guarantees its success

Veeky Forums, ladies & gentlemen.

>tried to stop the red gaurds

*tips fedora*

and save the forbidden city

>unified China

Don't make me fucking laugh. It was effectively ruled by hundreds of different warlords who would actively undermine Chiang and contradict his orders. ROC was a mess and when the War with Japan came, and later the Communists, Chiang found that most of his army woulf listen to the warlords instead who refused to fight most battles.

>refused to fight most battles

warlords were definitely a problem militarily, but they would almost always definitely fight when ordered to. How effective they would be in that regard is another matter entirely.

>What is Republic of Vietnam?
>What is Republic of China?

Here we go

I guarantee you every one of those bullshit stats were even worse before he came in, bub. Worse and heading toward Chavez levels.

And yet, you don't see Pinochet on T-shirts. Strange, how these ubiquitous, classless right wingers are so silent.

Not the one who killed 45 million Chinese.

>no refutation, just butthurt
I still believe him, user.
>two countries that went down the shitter when their puppets left and didn't recover until they started accepting a little american capitalism again
Woah, feels like learning!

>cucked

He's probably American. That would be the opposite of cucked.

Pinochet was bad for Chile and controlling your own government is far superior to being the slave of another, you dumbass.

>Pinochet was bad for Chile
No he wasn't, he was bad for socialists :^)

>controlling your own government
Is indeed a lovely scenario, but not one that commies are very good at. Let's talk about how much "control of their own government" the chinese had under mao, for example.
You want to talk about "slavery", well we have two flavors of it here - one that accompanies miracles, and ends with the dictator puppet ceding his government back to the people, voluntarily in his own lifetime. That's the Chilean flavor.
Then there's the chinese flavor. Which tastes like famine, death, and a perpetual stupidity that's gone on far past its time.

Allende wasn't a socialist and he certainly wasn't like Mao at all. Stop getting all your info from incorrect /pol/ infographs.

>got into power without any international help
Yeah, the Soviet Union granting a fuckload of assistance to KMT military training which enabled the Northern Expedition to happen was nothing.

>Pinochet was bad for Chile
leftypol pls leave

Mao because he was cooler.

>Allende wasn't a socialist
Lol what? Why are tankies so historically illiterate?

>unified china
Source?

Allende never put the means of production into the worker's hands. He was a capitalist.

Mmmmm nope

As I understand it one perverted Chinese culture with a foreign socio-political organization that cast out everything that came before it, and the other was a natural evolution that preserved its soul

But he wanted to. Which is why his government started a whole series of nationalizations and land grabs, which caused the economy to tank.

He was 100% a socialist.

>socialism works lmao

>it didn't work because they didn't try hard enough!

>it was not real socialism! If it had been real socialism it would have worked, obviously!

>and the other was a natural evolution that preserved its soul
Communists really need to stop talking about their inevitable natural evolution theories.

>Pinochet was a monster who ruined Chile's economy ;(

do you even read posts before you reply to them?

I was mostly referring to Chiang not becoming ruler through any sort of CIA-backed coup.

Did you know that there was no Chinese concept or word for "democracy" and "nationalism" until they adopted a loanword from Japanese?

KMT Nationalist "Democracy" was just as much a foreign sociopolitical force as Retarded Communism.

>still lower GDP per capita in 1989 than in 1971

Lmao great job Pinochet. Being marginally better than a commie is such an achievement.

literally wikipedia my man
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Expedition

that only stands to reason that there would not be a word for democracy, or an identity for the people, they were a mess of peasants ruled by dynasties for ages

however, nationalism is a logical movement for a people, and communism is some foreign globalist concept of class warfare that doesn't even have a basis for comparison in the east.

That's because Chile's economy was so thoroughly destroyed that rebuilding it took time
>this economically illiterate retard probably thinks you can fix an economy overnight

I'll see your guy and raise you this guy: Zhang Xianzhong

>that dip in '84

Wrong. It was because Pinochet's extreme neoliberalism came crashing down during the 1982 crisis. His economists had to moderate his policies after that, he wasn't nearly as competent as his followers pretend he was. His experiment from the 70s is widely considered a failure by contemporary economists, and Chile grew far more, in a far more sustainable way during the 20 years of centre-left Concertacion governments than during his 17 year dictatorship.

Would Christian China be any different?

Worse

>His experiment from the 70s is widely considered a failure by contemporary economists,
Lmao

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

The real answer is Prince Gong

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Gong

>he's too much of an illiterate to read his own links

Some economists(such as Nobel laureateAmartya Sen) have argued that the experience of Chile in this period indicates afailureof the economic liberalism posited by thinkers such as Friedman, claiming that there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called “pureMonetaristexperiment”). After the catastrophicbanking crisis of 1982the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous socialist regime, and sustained economic growth only came after the later reforms that privatized the economy, while social indicators remained poor.Pinochet’s dictatorship made the unpopular economic reorientation possible by repressing opposition to it. Rather than a triumph of the free market, theOECDeconomistJavier Santisodescribed this reorientation as “combining neo-liberal sutures and interventionist cures”. By the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had “cooled itsneo-liberalideological fever” and “controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands”.

Amartya Sen, in his bookHunger and Public Action, examines the performance of Chile in various economic and social indicators. He finds, from a survey of the literature on the field:

The so-called "monetarist experiment" which lasted until 1982 in its pure form, has been the object of much controversy, but few have claimed it to be a success...The most conspicuous feature of the post 1973 period is that of considerable instability...no firm and consistent upward trend (to say the least).

Lmao

For fucks sake.