There’s a larger issue of paltering within the previous statement in that it artificially limits the time span under scrutiny and to the headline famines (rather than sum totals) to railroad a specific political inference in service of an anti-collectivist meme.
I’m just trying to support cooperation with the idea of starting small with our friend who isn’t ready to think big about it yet. I think people need to experience immersive demonstrations to understand the amplification power of cooperation.
That’s certainly commendable but it ignores the power of easily repeated lies.
There is great value in earnest discussion. It, however, requires all sides to be ingenuous. If someone’s opening gambit is calculated artifice then all you are doing is giving them soapbox from which to bend pliable minds to their regressive agenda. By all means try to draw them into open discussion but only within a framework of honest representation.
I’m not agreeing with op but for this meme it does make sense to limit the timeframe. Production and worldwide logistics have only recently given us the ability to feed everyone on earth reliably and consistently.
Two hundred years ago a surplus in Argentina couldn’t easily be applied to a failed crop in Bangladesh. The world as a whole now produces more than enough food and we have the ability to transport it from anywhere to anywhere. We just don’t do it. In the past hunger sometimes couldn’t be avoided, now it could.
It’s true that the transport system is much faster and reliable now than the 1840’s but you didn’t need a Prime subscription to lift a famine. Transport back then was still fast enough.
The conditions that cause famines lasted multiple seasons/years and they didn’t drop in over night either. Famine struck areas slide into scarcity slowly as the price of the cheapest food available rises above what is affordable by the poorest in that society.
In some areas, such as the Irish potato famine in the 1840’s, there was still a surplus of food being exported to markets that could afford it. Aid, when it eventually arrived in Ireland came from Britain, USA, Indian Ocean, France, Canada, West Indies, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, south America, Russia, Latin America, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Portugal and other British Dependencies. The world was much more connected back then than you may be aware.
Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there’s some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.
That would only make sense if there was some tangible link between the occurance of famines and the passing of time. But there isn’t really. There is to things like war, drought, flooding, epidemics, vermin infestation, mis-management, a country’s degree of development etc etc. If you want to make some qualitative comparison between systems of government then use those not some superficial framing set to prejudice the outcome.
But when we’re comparing occurrences numerically, of course time matters into it. In comparable time and preferably situations, how many occurrences you’d have.
Skewing the comparison by using two totally different time frames seems just weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result
Skewing the comparison by using totally different countries with totally different situations seems weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result.
Russia and China both had an unfortunate history of famines before any pesky revolutionairies popped their heads up. Examining a longer time period reveals this highly relevant fragility. Also the facts that both of these huge countries were badly underdeveloped at the time of their revolutions: And the period you wish to limit it to had both of the world wars and the extended periods of international instability associated with them: And both countries suffered invasions and other unusual external pressures over a long period of time. These are relevant factors.
Limiting the time frame for a comparison based solely on a summation of deaths is a leading, manipulation of the study of the phenomena of famines.
There’s a larger issue of paltering within the previous statement in that it artificially limits the time span under scrutiny and to the headline famines (rather than sum totals) to railroad a specific political inference in service of an anti-collectivist meme.
I’m just trying to support cooperation with the idea of starting small with our friend who isn’t ready to think big about it yet. I think people need to experience immersive demonstrations to understand the amplification power of cooperation.
That’s certainly commendable but it ignores the power of easily repeated lies.
There is great value in earnest discussion. It, however, requires all sides to be ingenuous. If someone’s opening gambit is calculated artifice then all you are doing is giving them soapbox from which to bend pliable minds to their regressive agenda. By all means try to draw them into open discussion but only within a framework of honest representation.
I’m not agreeing with op but for this meme it does make sense to limit the timeframe. Production and worldwide logistics have only recently given us the ability to feed everyone on earth reliably and consistently.
Two hundred years ago a surplus in Argentina couldn’t easily be applied to a failed crop in Bangladesh. The world as a whole now produces more than enough food and we have the ability to transport it from anywhere to anywhere. We just don’t do it. In the past hunger sometimes couldn’t be avoided, now it could.
It’s true that the transport system is much faster and reliable now than the 1840’s but you didn’t need a Prime subscription to lift a famine. Transport back then was still fast enough.
The conditions that cause famines lasted multiple seasons/years and they didn’t drop in over night either. Famine struck areas slide into scarcity slowly as the price of the cheapest food available rises above what is affordable by the poorest in that society.
In some areas, such as the Irish potato famine in the 1840’s, there was still a surplus of food being exported to markets that could afford it. Aid, when it eventually arrived in Ireland came from Britain, USA, Indian Ocean, France, Canada, West Indies, Australia, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, south America, Russia, Latin America, the Ottoman Empire, Spain, Portugal and other British Dependencies. The world was much more connected back then than you may be aware.
Thank you for the links.
It does make sense to limit at least when there’s socialist states if you want to compare capitalist states to socialist ones.
Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there’s some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.
It just doesn’t make sense to compate two completely different timeframes as-is.
On the contrary. There is no cognizant reason to limit the timeframe other than to bury relevant facts unfavorable to anti-left rhetoric.
I thought the point was to compare the two. Wouldn’t make sense to give one a much longer timespan in the comparison.
That would only make sense if there was some tangible link between the occurance of famines and the passing of time. But there isn’t really. There is to things like war, drought, flooding, epidemics, vermin infestation, mis-management, a country’s degree of development etc etc. If you want to make some qualitative comparison between systems of government then use those not some superficial framing set to prejudice the outcome.
But when we’re comparing occurrences numerically, of course time matters into it. In comparable time and preferably situations, how many occurrences you’d have.
Skewing the comparison by using two totally different time frames seems just weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result
Skewing the comparison by using totally different countries with totally different situations seems weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result.
Russia and China both had an unfortunate history of famines before any pesky revolutionairies popped their heads up. Examining a longer time period reveals this highly relevant fragility. Also the facts that both of these huge countries were badly underdeveloped at the time of their revolutions: And the period you wish to limit it to had both of the world wars and the extended periods of international instability associated with them: And both countries suffered invasions and other unusual external pressures over a long period of time. These are relevant factors.
Limiting the time frame for a comparison based solely on a summation of deaths is a leading, manipulation of the study of the phenomena of famines.
deleted by creator