Was it malice or incompetence?

Make a super spicy omelette whose ingredients include:

> Defeating the USA in Korea
> Defeating the USA in Vietnam, this time not even using your own troops
> Modern ICBMs and nukes early on
> Defeating the USSR in border war
> Going from poor shithole to largest economy in the world in a generation

And all anyone remembers is that you broke some eggs...

But that doesn't me his direction was benefited by subservient yes-men who were too afraid to be culturally revolutionized if they didn't embellish the situation to Mao, leading him to a skewed picture of what was going on. All the shit he did, the famines, the flying burges, the melting pots, could have been easily averted by Mao if his underlings weren't smiling nervously, sweating and telling him everything is going ten times better then expected.

> Defeating the Flying bourgeois

What a spicy omelette indeed

It was 70% incompetence, 30% malice

>That percentage

[Pareto intensifies]

both

>tfw hes so shitty the retarded edgy teenagers that defend him argument is "but it was ONLY 15 million people!

what did the Flying bourgeois mean by this?

>China's life expectancy at birth increased significantly in the late 1960s after the disaster of the "Great Leap Forward".
>after the disaster of the "Great Leap Forward".
>"Great Leap Forward"

china-profile.com/data/fig_WPP2010_L0_Boths.htm

>disaster
>sky rockets the life expectancy by 15 years in just a decade
truly the chirping bourgeois deserved it

>15 million people died
>cleary a sign of progress man, at least they have nukes now.

DO IT AGAIN CHAIRMAN MAO

>15 million died
>everybody lives 15 years longer 10 years later
obviously not enough died

He was a low sloping forehead sociopath.

Less than the number of Africans killed in the slave trade or Indians killed in the New World.

>Implying all this would happen if they have did not stop their autistics policies.

Man, all this people not needed to die to obtain this.

So this is true?

>yeah his policies may have resulted in the deaths of 15 million people, but over the course of literally 200+ years, african people died in the millions as well!

Also, the total number of africans killed over the entire course of the slave trade is 10 million. Go back to your cuckshed dumbass

I'm pulling your leg nigga, of course the Great Leap Forward was plagued by catastrophes, in no small part thanks to what user wrote here But I still find it amusing how even at the very fucking worst, they still somehow managed to make an unprecedented (comparatively, at least) explosion of the standard of living.

Just slavery in the Congo Free State killed 10 million.

Then you have another 10 on the trans-Atlantic, but also consider that the surviors often faced a condition worse than death.

All that suffering to develop over 200 years. Mao killed less and did it in 40.

The true progress was because the resilience of chinese people against the obstacles not because Mao leaded the revolution with great efficiency or benevolence. Mao was a war leader not a great statist.

I don't know if all of those are true. Most Natives died from disease, but the genocides that came later still killed a large number of people.

It's undeniable that the two largest booms that lifted people out of poverty in the 20th century were in communist China and the USSR and they were not particularly more deadly than imperialism.

a tactical genius both in war and peace time

unfortunately he gradually lost touch with reality of the masses the longer he stayed in the forbidden city. led to some naivety + reliance on 2nd hand testimony from dishonest, careerist sycophants like deng xiaoping

understood the necessity of good relations with the US as a bulwark against the soviet imperialism, as well as the risk of tying themselves entirely to a socialist project destined to fail

unfortunately ignorant, sinophobic retards in DC held things back for decades

unleashing the red guards was a smart move, a grand experiment in direct democracy unparalleled in human history

but unfortunately it couldn't permanently dislodge the parasitic bureaucrats (the true guilty parties inc. mass murderer deng xiaoping

it's also unfortunate that chinese geriatric-worship means the old man image of mao is the official one - because younger mao was a dreamy revolutionary

conclusion: the ccp's evaluation is correct: 70% good, 30% bad

I agree that Mao was anything but a great statist or even a passable politician, hell, anything more then a monolithic figurative embodiment of the sytem, he was an icon rather then a functional leader. But >resilience of the Chinese People? Come the fuck on, how come they didn't build resilience when they were under British control? Where was that resilience during Japanese occupation? Why did they specifically build >resilience immediately after the Great Leap Forward to such a dramatic extent?

>It's undeniable that the two largest booms that lifted people out of poverty in the 20th century were in communist China and the USSR.

This was because a massive collectivization and forced industrialization (Oh like those evil capitalist countries). Look, communism in the end is just a authoritarian socdem with guns but I don't know why communists still consider themselves superior even when they use the same strategic and commit the same mistakes than capitalists.

>unleashing the red guards was a smart move, a grand experiment in direct democracy unparalleled in human history

10/10 Comrade here is your mango

>"Hey guys give your honest opinion on the government we want to improve"
>Arrests everyone with a negative opinion
Incompetence to be anything but malicious.

Why not both?

Vietnam was more of a Soviet client
Cambodia was China's.
when Vietnam invaded Cambodia jimmies were rustled

>shitting on Deng Xiaoping

Faggot

>Was it malice or incompetence?

Malice - Communists are always sicko materialists who love murder, rape and plunder.

youtube.com/watch?v=1CW3ttZ5_oQ

This, Deng saved China

L-MAO

People point to the massive loss of life that occurred during the collectivization of agriculture in communist countries as evidence of their malevolence and incompetence, but fail to put it in the proper context of how tremendous agrarian empires function.

China had four famines that killed at least 10 million people in the period of ~1846-1962. Saying such horrors are the result of any specific ideology is just poor understanding of history. If anything, the great leap forward is significant as being the last major famine to hit China.

the value of human life is easily quantifiable

>Why did they specifically build >resilience immediately after the Great Leap Forward to such a dramatic extent?
Because they found a cause to believe in?

After centuries of Manchu domination, there was a need for change.

Yeah but that wasn't so much due to the plan itself as China's economy and manufacturing being so shit that it had nowhere to go but up.

...

China had spent the previous forty years as a warzone, of course the first few years of peace would see an increase in productivity

>Come the fuck on, how come they didn't build resilience when they were under British control?

>France loses half the country.
>Surrenders.

>China loses half its country.
>Keeps meatgrindering the Japs, piling up horrible casualties doing so.

K.

...

Well, for starters, the Native Americans were almost entirely killed by disease (90%), and only 10-20% of slaves died while in the slave trade. Additionally, fascism is third-position, not capitalist, so fascist murders shouldn't count. That at least removes around 127,800,000 deaths from the casualty list. Additionally, many of the events listed could be easily justified, especially the cases where the communists attacked first. Plus, if we really get into semantics, many of the countries committing the atrocities were mercantilist not capitalist. For the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to ignore the last two points and not make any further deductions.

However, even still, only 96,855,929 people died from capitalism. That still means that communism killed more. Additionally, these casualties happened within a 500-year range, whereas communism killed 100,000,000 in a single century. Therefore, communism actually killed 5 times as many people proportionately. No matter, how you look at it, communism is infinitely more evil.

>100 million
>less than 10 million

Typical Maoist

Same irrational, nationalist socialism as pretty much every Communist movement in history. The PRC literally emerged from the Kuomintang, a nationalist party.

Whoever made this graph seems to lump all people killed by non-communist regimes in as deaths attributable to capitalism, which I find unconvincing. Capitalism doesn't require colonialism, authoritarianism, or mass murder. For example, modern European economies are capitalist without being colonialist or authoritarian or mass-murdering.

But socialism has never been tried, you filthy porky bootlicking kulak. L-mao'ing at you for not forseeing my circular reasoning.

It was love.

Did he say he wasn't going to arrest them?

t. Chinaman

>le cuck cuck cuck cuckity cucky cuck XDD!!

>communism killed 100 million people

Mao's ideas had peasants make pig iron in their backyards melting down the bear subsistence tools they had like iron woks.

>Red Guard
>college thugs who broke into your home, beat the shit out of you, raped your women and shamed you in public for owning a fucking iron wok
>good

Join your ideology and kill yourself slowly