El antihilo de política (para eso que no sabes en qué hilo poner)

Puddles

No creo que le interese a nadie porque lo de China matando de hambre 55M (intencionadamente según algunos autores occidentales, como también dicen del "Golodomor" ) de sus ciudadanos está ya muy interiorizado, pero puede que para alguna mente más inquisitiva y libre de la propaganda occidental este artículo le sea de interés:

https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward

The approach of modern writers to the Great Leap Forward is absurdly one-sided. They are unable to grasp the relationship between its failures and successes. They can only grasp that serious problems occurred during the years 1959-1961. They cannot grasp that the work that was done in these years also laid the groundwork for the continuing overall success of Chinese socialism in improving the lives of its people. They fail to seriously consider evidence that indicates that most of the deaths that occurred in the Great Leap Forward were due to natural disasters not policy errors. Besides, the deaths that occurred in the Great Leap Forward have to be set against the Chinese people’s success in preventing many other deaths throughout the Maoist period. Improvements in life expectancy saved the lives of many millions.

We must also consider what would have happened if there had been no Leap and no adoption of the policies of self-reliance once the breach with the Soviet Union occurred. China was too poor to allow its agricultural and industrial development to stagnate simply because the Soviets were refusing to help. This is not an argument that things might not have been done better. Perhaps with better planning, less over-optimism and more care some deaths might have been avoided. This is a difficult question. It is hard to pass judgement what others did in difficult circumstances many years ago.

Of course it is also important that we do learn from the mistakes of the past to avoid them in the future. We should note that Mao to criticized himself for errors made during this period. But this self-criticism should in no way be allowed to give ammunition to those who insist on the truth of ridiculous figures for the numbers that died in this time. Hopefully, there will come a time when a sensible debate about the issues will take place.

If India’s rate of improvement in life expectancy had been as great as China’s after 1949, then millions of deaths could have been prevented. Even Mao’s critics acknowledge this. Perhaps this means that we should accuse Nehru and those who came after him of being “worse than Hitler” for adopting non-Maoist policies that “led to the deaths of millions.” Or perhaps this would be a childish and fatuous way of assessing India’s post-independence history. As foolish as the charges that have been leveled against Mao for the last 25 years, maybe.

Príamo

Si no me equivoco, el negacionismo sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad es delito en España, esto incluirá el genocidio ucraniano y, posiblemente, la gran Hambruna China. Hay que cuidar un poco las burradas que se pueden decir, aunque sea en un foro de Internet.

Puddles

Pero qué tonterías dices.

[Usuario Eliminado]

Puddles escribió : »

No creo que le interese a nadie porque lo de China matando de hambre 55M (intencionadamente según algunos autores occidentales, como también dicen del "Golodomor" ) de sus ciudadanos está ya muy interiorizado, pero puede que para alguna mente más inquisitiva y libre de la propaganda occidental este artículo le sea de interés:

https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward

The approach of modern writers to the Great Leap Forward is absurdly one-sided. They are unable to grasp the relationship between its failures and successes. They can only grasp that serious problems occurred during the years 1959-1961. They cannot grasp that the work that was done in these years also laid the groundwork for the continuing overall success of Chinese socialism in improving the lives of its people. They fail to seriously consider evidence that indicates that most of the deaths that occurred in the Great Leap Forward were due to natural disasters not policy errors. Besides, the deaths that occurred in the Great Leap Forward have to be set against the Chinese people’s success in preventing many other deaths throughout the Maoist period. Improvements in life expectancy saved the lives of many millions.

We must also consider what would have happened if there had been no Leap and no adoption of the policies of self-reliance once the breach with the Soviet Union occurred. China was too poor to allow its agricultural and industrial development to stagnate simply because the Soviets were refusing to help. This is not an argument that things might not have been done better. Perhaps with better planning, less over-optimism and more care some deaths might have been avoided. This is a difficult question. It is hard to pass judgement what others did in difficult circumstances many years ago.

Of course it is also important that we do learn from the mistakes of the past to avoid them in the future. We should note that Mao to criticized himself for errors made during this period. But this self-criticism should in no way be allowed to give ammunition to those who insist on the truth of ridiculous figures for the numbers that died in this time. Hopefully, there will come a time when a sensible debate about the issues will take place.

If India’s rate of improvement in life expectancy had been as great as China’s after 1949, then millions of deaths could have been prevented. Even Mao’s critics acknowledge this. Perhaps this means that we should accuse Nehru and those who came after him of being “worse than Hitler” for adopting non-Maoist policies that “led to the deaths of millions.” Or perhaps this would be a childish and fatuous way of assessing India’s post-independence history. As foolish as the charges that have been leveled against Mao for the last 25 years, maybe.

Yo no creo hubiese nadie pensando literalmente "vamos a matar de hambre unos cuantos millones", pero digo yo que mantener las exportaciones agrarias en un periodo de hambruna de 3 o 4 años y rechazar ayuda internacional alguna consecuencia tendria:

https://econ.hkbu.edu.hk/eng/Doc/20180426_KASAHARA.pdf

8 Conclusion
The Chinese Great Famine was the worst famine in human history, resulting in 16.5-30 million excess deaths between 1959 and 1961. In the midst of this famine, the Chinese government exported 9.6 million tons of grain, equivalent to the caloric needs of 16.7-38.9 million people, and almost no grain was imported into China before 1961. Although previous studies have recognized grain exports as a potentially important cause of the famine, no existing study provides quantitative evidence for the importance of grain exports relative to other factors. Using newly collected county-level data, this study quantitatively assesses the effect of grain exports on death rates.

We find that increases in grain exports were responsible for 12-14% of the excess deaths between 1958 and 1960, and that 59% and 46% of the excess deaths can be attributed to the surge in the procurement rate and the fall in agricultural production, respectively. Therefore, one fifth of the effect of the increase in procurement on excess deaths is attributable to an increase in grain exports. Furthermore, the impact of grain exports on death rates is larger for counties with lower current output, higher two-period lagged output, greater distances to railways, and a smaller percentage of local CCP members, suggesting that the effect of grain exports systematically depends on remoteness and political factors.

It is important to emphasize that we quantify the effect of grain exports in our counterfactual experiments under a ceteris paribus assumption. Most importantly, we hold the inflexible procurement policy–the key institutional feature identified by Meng et al. (2015)–as constant.

If the procurement policy had been flexible and the government had been able to collect information and respond to food shortages quickly, then the effect of grain exports would have been smaller. In fact, we find that the effect of exports on death rates is smaller for counties located closer to railways and counties with many CCP members, where verification of food shortages was presumably easier, suggesting that the degree of inflexibility moderates the effect of grain exports on famine. Our counterfactual experiment of redistributing export-driven procurement across counties also indicates that the impact of grain exports on mortality would have been much smaller even when the aggregate export had been kept constant if grains had been flexibly procured from counties with food abundance. In this sense, the inflexibility of the procurement policy was a necessary condition for grain exports to have had such a large impact on mortality.

Exporting grains during a famine is not a feature unique to China’s Great Famine. There have been several “export-driven famines,” including the Irish great famine between 1845 and 1852, various famines in India between 1860 and 1910, the Bengal famine of 1943, and the Soviet-Ukraine famine of 1932-33 (Woodham-Smith, 1964; Sen, 1981; Ghose, 1982; Ravallion, 1987; Davies and Wheatcroft, 2004; Wemheuer, 2015). In particular, during the Soviet-Ukraine famine of 1932-1933, the government compulsorily procured grains from rural areas, exporting 1.6 million tons of grains to cope with foreign debts, under a centrally planned economy with agricultural collectivization (Davies and Wheatcroft, 2004). These grain exports could have fed all of the victims of the famine (Wemheuer, 2015). The good harvest of 1930 was partly responsible for the decision to export substantial amounts of grain in 1931 and 1932 (Davies and Wheatcroft, 2004). Given the striking similarity between the Soviet-Ukraine famine and China’s Great Famine, this study is useful for better understanding the causes of the SovietUkraine famine.

More broadly, this study provides insight into the importance of institutional quality and political factors in determining the consequences of international trade. Under a centrally planned economy in which information about demand and supply is not quickly aggregated and transmitted upwards and in which bureaucrats and farmers do not have proper incentives to correctly report production, international trade may have severe consequences. China’s Great Famine is an extreme example of how the gains of international trade can be negative when the pattern of trade and allocation of resources are determined by political factors under an inflexible institution.

Por otro lado, ¿tienen alguna responsabilidad los sucesivos gobiernos de España en el desarrollo y consecuancias de digamos la burbuja inmobiliaria? ¿Por que no debería tenerla entonces el partido comunista chino de la desastrosa gestión durante la hambruna?

Puddles

Precisamente, por las malas cosechas las exportaciones se redujeron considerablemente, además las zonas afectadas por la hambruna abarcaban varias comunidades, p.e. en la URSS las RSS de Ucrania, Khazasktán, el Cáucaso Norte, la región del río Volga, el sur de los Urales y Siberia Occidental. Esto significa que las acusaciones de un genocidio dirigido hacia los ucranianos (en gran parte rusos de hecho) no guarda lógica alguna. Hubo instrucciones confirmadas para paliar la hambruna, por lo que no tiene sentido alguno que se hable de "genocidio" intencionado. Por otra parte, las cifras de muertos se ha manipulado considerablemente oscilando entre 200.000 y 7M de muertos en el caso de Ucrania y ya en China se asevera por parte de autores occidentales anticomunistas la enormidad de los 55M muertos por hambruna de una población total de 650M de habitantes en 1959. Y bueno, el PDF que se enlaza da por bueno esas cifras de muertos por hambrunas (30M) y no entra en la casuística sino en los efectos de las exportaciones de grano.

[Usuario Eliminado]

Puddles escribió : »

Precisamente, por las malas cosechas las exportaciones se redujeron considerablemente, además las zonas afectadas por la hambruna abarcaban varias comunidades, p.e. en la URSS las RSS de Ucrania, Khazasktán, el Cáucaso Norte, la región del río Volga, el sur de los Urales y Siberia Occidental. Esto significa que las acusaciones de un genocidio dirigido hacia los ucranianos (en gran parte rusos de hecho) no guarda lógica alguna. Hubo instrucciones confirmadas para paliar la hambruna, por lo que no tiene sentido alguno que se hable de "genocidio" intencionado. Por otra parte, las cifras de muertos se ha manipulado considerablemente oscilando entre 200.000 y 7M de muertos en el caso de Ucrania y ya en China se asevera por parte de autores occidentales anticomunistas la enormidad de los 55M muertos por hambruna de una población total de 650M de habitantes en 1959. Y bueno, el PDF que se enlaza da por bueno esas cifras de muertos por hambrunas (30M) y no entra en la casuística sino en los efectos de las exportaciones de grano.

Exportaciones chinas durante la hambruna:



No es hasta 1961 que caen, 2 o 3 años después del inicio de ésta.

El pdf da un rango de 16 a 30 millones, que no es ninguna cifra descabellada.

Aunque la hambruna tenga su origen en desastres naturales, la gestión de ésta es lo que se analiza en el estudio y eso es responsabilidad del partido comunista chino. Las cuotas fijas por ejemplo. No es tan difícil de entender y está todo explicado en el enlace y en el texto que he pegado.

Tú pedías datos sobre los números de la hambruna, en el pdf estan todas las citas. Si no te parecen buenos, pues pon los tuyos, pero no creo que haya nada que discutir.

Peart

Da igual, el sesgo de de confirmación pesa demasiado. Todo es propaganda anti comunista, en cambio, allí donde todo está controlado por el partido gobernante durante décadas la propaganda no existe.

expitu

Se avecina una nueva pareja al frente de Podemos. Que casualidad.

Stern von Afrika

"Es probable que media China tenga que morir"

Mao Zedong, 21 de noviembre de 1958


A partir de aquel momento y hasta 1961, decenas de millones de personas murieron de hambre y explotación laboral en lo que fue la versión china de la política estalinista de colectivizar (es decir, requisar la comida a los campesinos) e industrializar a marchas forzadas. El Gran Salto Adelante es la mayor hambruna de la que se tiene constancia en la historia, y no fue por tanto simplemente una serie de catastróficas desdichas en forma de desastres naturales que se gestionó mal, puesto que las colectivizaciones y la explotación extrema de la mano de obra ("la producción lo primero, la vida lo segundo", decía también Mao) no tienen nada de natural. Achacar lo ocurrido a una gestión desafortunada de una mala cosecha no es más que propaganda comunista que ya quedó desacreditada hace mucho tiempo, por fortuna.

En cuanto al Holodomor, para quien a estas alturas aún tenga dudas acerca de las criminales intenciones de Stalin sobre los kulaks y el nacionalismo ucraniano, recomiendo la lectura de "Hambruna roja", de Anne Applebaum.

A pesar de las veces que han ocurrido estas cosas, parece que no terminamos de entender que el comunismo no ha sido más que una auténtica religión cuyos preceptos debían cumplirse a toda costa para salvar el planeta y la revolución mundial, de manera que unos cuantos millones de muertos eran un coste asumible. Cuando los iluminados líderes de semejante secta se hacían con el poder (y encima en algunos de los países más grandes del mundo), los resultados eran un auténtico infierno.

Stern von Afrika

Príamo escribió : »

Si no me equivoco, el negacionismo sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad es delito en España, esto incluirá el genocidio ucraniano y, posiblemente, la gran Hambruna China. Hay que cuidar un poco las burradas que se pueden decir, aunque sea en un foro de Internet.

No sé si será delito, pero me parecería fatal que fuera así. Si alguien quiere negar la evidencia está en su derecho de quedar como un tarado.

Stern von Afrika

cptn_pescanova escribió : »

¿También vamos a negar el "Gran Salto Adelante"?

Creo que estoy anticuado, hoy día hay que ser negacionista de algo .... a ver ... la llegada del hombre a La Luna, el cambio climático, el Holocausto. el Holomodor, el Gran Salto Adelante, las vacunas, la esfericidad de La Tierra, la Teoría de la Evolución, el genocidio turco a los armenios, el genocidio mongol a todos los demás .... joder, si que todas las cosas guapas ya están negadas.

Ah, ya se ¡Los preservativos no funcionan para prevenir embarazos y además producen cáncer de glande! Ahora solo me falta publicarlo en web y que lo lean un montón de gilipollas.

Creo que aquí nadie ha negado que Gengis Kan matara a millones de personas, lo que hablamos hace tiempo en aquella discusión que te dejó esa espinita tan clavada fue si tiene sentido juzgar con nuestra moral del siglo XXI cosas ocurridas en el siglo XIII. Para ti lo tiene, para mí y diría que para la gran mayoría de historiadores tal cosa es presentismo y resulta absurdo.

Puddles

Smoker escribió : »

Puddles escribió : »

Precisamente, por las malas cosechas las exportaciones se redujeron considerablemente, además las zonas afectadas por la hambruna abarcaban varias comunidades, p.e. en la URSS las RSS de Ucrania, Khazasktán, el Cáucaso Norte, la región del río Volga, el sur de los Urales y Siberia Occidental. Esto significa que las acusaciones de un genocidio dirigido hacia los ucranianos (en gran parte rusos de hecho) no guarda lógica alguna. Hubo instrucciones confirmadas para paliar la hambruna, por lo que no tiene sentido alguno que se hable de "genocidio" intencionado. Por otra parte, las cifras de muertos se ha manipulado considerablemente oscilando entre 200.000 y 7M de muertos en el caso de Ucrania y ya en China se asevera por parte de autores occidentales anticomunistas la enormidad de los 55M muertos por hambruna de una población total de 650M de habitantes en 1959. Y bueno, el PDF que se enlaza da por bueno esas cifras de muertos por hambrunas (30M) y no entra en la casuística sino en los efectos de las exportaciones de grano.

Exportaciones chinas durante la hambruna:



No es hasta 1961 que caen, 2 o 3 años después del inicio de ésta.

El pdf da un rango de 16 a 30 millones, que no es ninguna cifra descabellada.

Aunque la hambruna tenga su origen en desastres naturales, la gestión de ésta es lo que se analiza en el estudio y eso es responsabilidad del partido comunista chino. Las cuotas fijas por ejemplo. No es tan difícil de entender y está todo explicado en el enlace y en el texto que he pegado.

Tú pedías datos sobre los números de la hambruna, en el pdf estan todas las citas. Si no te parecen buenos, pues pon los tuyos, pero no creo que haya nada que discutir.

Como bien sabes (si has trabajado con datos de producción agrícola, exportaciones) los datos de exportaciones de productos agrícolas secos (dry foodstuffs) están desfasados de 1 año como mínimo respecto a las fechas de producción, por eso ves el bajón de producción más tarde, la realidad es que se redujeron.

Por otra parte, yo no pongo en cuestión los datos de exportaciones, lo que pongo en duda son los rangos de muertes debido a la hambruna. En China van de 16M a 30M, lo que me parece poco serio como horquilla y ya los 50-55M que proponen autores claramente anticomunistas no tiene sentido alguno. Lo mismo con la hambruna de 1932-33 en Ucrania. El PDF enlazado no dice nada de las fuentes o sobre los cálculos de los datos de muertes por las hambrunas.

Vuelvo a hacer la pregunta: ¿Existen datos fiables en cuanto a las muertes por las hambrunas? - yo por lo menos no los conozco.

Puddles

Peart escribió : »

Da igual, el sesgo de de confirmación pesa demasiado. Todo es propaganda anti comunista, en cambio, allí donde todo está controlado por el partido gobernante durante décadas la propaganda no existe.

Propaganda la hay por todas partes, lo que pasa es que la propaganda hay que producirla con un mínimo de rigor, eso si quiere ser creíble para los que usamos el pensamiento crítico un poquito. Al resto le va a dar igual: comunismo malo, muy malo.

Puddles

Stern von Afrika escribió : »

"Es probable que media China tenga que morir"

Mao Zedong, 21 de noviembre de 1958


A partir de aquel momento y hasta 1961, decenas de millones de personas murieron de hambre y explotación laboral en lo que fue la versión china de la política estalinista de colectivizar (es decir, requisar la comida a los campesinos) e industrializar a marchas forzadas. El Gran Salto Adelante es la mayor hambruna de la que se tiene constancia en la historia, y no fue por tanto simplemente una serie de catastróficas desdichas en forma de desastres naturales que se gestionó mal, puesto que las colectivizaciones y la explotación extrema de la mano de obra ("la producción lo primero, la vida lo segundo", decía también Mao) no tienen nada de natural. Achacar lo ocurrido a una gestión desafortunada de una mala cosecha no es más que propaganda comunista que ya quedó desacreditada hace mucho tiempo, por fortuna.

En cuanto al Holodomor, para quien a estas alturas aún tenga dudas acerca de las criminales intenciones de Stalin sobre los kulaks y el nacionalismo ucraniano, recomiendo la lectura de "Hambruna roja", de Anne Applebaum.

A pesar de las veces que han ocurrido estas cosas, parece que no terminamos de entender que el comunismo no ha sido más que una auténtica religión cuyos preceptos debían cumplirse a toda costa para salvar el planeta y la revolución mundial, de manera que unos cuantos millones de muertos eran un coste asumible. Cuando los iluminados líderes de semejante secta se hacían con el poder (y encima en algunos de los países más grandes del mundo), los resultados eran un auténtico infierno.

Mirad, este es el clásico ejemplo de la manipulación anticomunista, aquí reproducida por el criptofacha. La realidad es otra:

A second, seriously misleading, quotation comes at the end of the chapter on the Great Leap Forward. First Chang and Halliday write “We can now say with assurance how many people Mao was ready to dispense with.” The paragraph then gives some examples of alleged quotes by Mao on how many Chinese deaths would be acceptable in time of war. The next paragraph begins “Nor was Mao just thinking about a war situation.” They then quote Mao at the Wuchang Conference as saying “Working like this, with all these projects, half of China may well have to die.” This quotation appears in the heading of Chang and Halliday’s chapter on the Great Leap Forward. The way the authors present this quotation it looks as if Mao was saying that it might indeed be necessary for half of China to die to realize his plans to increase industrial production. But it is obvious from the actual text of the speech that what Mao is doing is warning of the dangers of overwork and over-enthusiasm in the Great Leap Forward, while using a fair bit of hyperbole. Mao is making it clear that he does not want anyone to die as a result of his industrialization drive. In this part of the discussion, Mao talks about the idea of developing all the major industries and agriculture in one fell swoop. The full text of the passage that the authors selectively quote from is as follows.

In this kind of situation, I think if we do [all these things simultaneously] half of China’s population unquestionably will die; and if it’s not a half, it’ll be a third or ten percent, a death toll of 50 million. When people died in Guangxi [in 1955-Joseph Ball], wasn’t Chen Manyuan dismissed? If with a death toll of 50 million, you didn’t lose your jobs, I at least should lose mine; [whether I would lose my] head would be open to question. Anhui wants to do so many things, it’s quite all right to do a lot, but make it a principle to have no deaths.22

Then in a few sentences later Mao says: “As to 30 million tons of steel, do we really need that much? Are we able to produce [that much]? How many people do we mobilize? Could it lead to deaths?”

Una muy burda manipulación de sacar una frase fuera de contexto. Pero claro, para los que no se hayan preocupado de cuestionar esta mierda se la tragan gustosamente, como la de Applebaum, otra denostada anticomunista a sueldo de la CIA (confirmado).

...Eight months later, when Sikorski filed his parliamentary disclosure for the same period, he reported that Applebaum held shares in the Washington Post Company, which he estimated to be worth $8,000. He didn’t mention Applebaum’s income or other earnings.

On March 2012, Sikorski signed a new ministerial declaration covering the year 2011. Applebaum’s Post shares had gone up in value to $10,000, he said, and Applebaum’s income was revealed for the first time. The last line of Section VII, on the final page, reveals that Applebaum had two income streams: one from the US produced $20,000 for the year, and a second from the UK produced £150,000. Sikorski doesn’t say what activities Applebaum was paid for.

The first is likely to reflect the modest pay rates for Washington Post and Slate opinion pieces. The new British payment appears to be Applebaum’s salary following her appointment as director of political studies at the Legatum Institute. The Institute spokesman Cristina Odone refuses to say when Applebaum commenced. A press release from Legatum indicates that this was in May of 2011; the archive link remains but the original text of the press release has disappeared. If Applebaum’s £150,000 was Legatum pay for eight months, the annual equivalent sums to £225,000.

Sikorski appears not to have considered the possibility or the perception of conflict of interest — that someone wishing to influence him in the conduct of his foreign minister’s duties might give money to his wife. There’s no evidence someone did. Sikorski reports what his wife received, but he doesn’t identify the source or the gainful purpose.

During 2012 Sikorski’s official report claims Applebaum earned £215,000. Just above the motorcycle disclosure, this can be found on page 4, Section IX, last line. This report also reveals that Applebaum’s US income had jumped tenfold to $200,000.

http://johnhelmer.net/anne-applebaum-is-not-a-war-profiteer-but-her-husband-reveals-that-she-was-paid-more-than-800000-in-2013-and-that-was-before-the-shooting-started-in-ukraine/

PS, Applebaum es la que dijo la majadería siguiente:

... Y la combinación de pobreza con acceso a los alimentos hace aún más eficaz la capacidad de control. “Cuando la gente es muy pobre, no tiene tiempo para la política. Se sabe que muchas de las revoluciones importantes ocurren cuando la economía está mejorando, como la Revolución Francesa, o la Rusa, que vino luego de un período de crecimiento. Si eres pobre y dependes del Estado, es menos probable que protestes”. https://prodavinci.com/una-conversacion-con-anne-applebaum-en-caracas/

Ahí sí que no había penurias, pobreza y hambre, en el contesto de la PGM en 1917 y la guerra anglo-francesa de 1783, las malas cosechas, alta inflación junto a la deuda, respectivamente.

Príamo

Stern von Afrika escribió : »

Príamo escribió : »

Si no me equivoco, el negacionismo sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad es delito en España, esto incluirá el genocidio ucraniano y, posiblemente, la gran Hambruna China. Hay que cuidar un poco las burradas que se pueden decir, aunque sea en un foro de Internet.

No sé si será delito, pero me parecería fatal que fuera así. Si alguien quiere negar la evidencia está en su derecho de quedar como un tarado.

He buscado un poco por si metía la pata y al parecer es así. Lo que no sé es si habrán condenas por el tema.
https://elpais.com/diario/2006/02/19/internacional/1140303604_850215.html

No estoy a favor de que sea delito. Que se persigan amenazas directas y poco más.

Puddles

Con una horquilla de entre 16M de muertos y 55M de muertos por el supuesto "genocidio" en una población de 650M ya te digo que habrá condenas penales. La de los que proponen tales barbaridades.

[Usuario Eliminado]

Puddles escribió : »

Por otra parte, yo no pongo en cuestión los datos de exportaciones, lo que pongo en duda son los rangos de muertes debido a la hambruna. En China van de 16M a 30M, lo que me parece poco serio como horquilla y ya los 50-55M que proponen autores claramente anticomunistas no tiene sentido alguno. Lo mismo con la hambruna de 1932-33 en Ucrania. El PDF enlazado no dice nada de las fuentes o sobre los cálculos de los datos de muertes por las hambrunas.

Vuelvo a hacer la pregunta: ¿Existen datos fiables en cuanto a las muertes por las hambrunas? - yo por lo menos no los conozco.

3.1 Demographic
Data We collected county-level data on population, number of births and number of deaths for 23 provinces in China, which comprised around 95.4% of China’s population in 1953. The death rate is constructed as the ratio of the number of deaths to the total population and converted to per mil value (i.e., deaths per thousand). The birth rate is constructed in a similar way. There were 28 province-level divisions in China in the 1950s and 1960s. (The present day provinces Hainan and Chongqing used to belong to Guangdong and Sichuan, respectively. The present day province-level municipality Tianjin belonged to the province Hebei.) We exclude two province-level municipalities, Beijing and Shanghai, where there were few rural counties, and three autonomous regions, Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang, where people faced different economic policies for historical and political reasons.

The data are mainly collected from the population statistical books published by the provincial Statistics Bureaus in the 1980s. The sample is restricted to rural counties. For most 6The provinces in both our sample and the sample in Meng et al. (2015) are Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Heibei, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Jilin, Liaoning, Shandong, Shanxi, Shannxi, and Zhejiang. 10 provinces, the sample period is from 1955 to 1965. (To assess total population, we collect data back to 1953.) The number of rural counties varies from 16 in Ningxia (the smallest province in terms of both population and area) to 185 in Sichuan (the largest province in terms of both population and area). In total, there are 1,803 rural counties in our sample. More details about the data sources are given in Table A.1.

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to compile and use county-level data on mortality and fertility to study China’s Great Famine. In Appendix A.1.1, we show that when aggregated up to the provincial level, our mortality rates are consistent with the province-level data used by previous studies. As reported in Table 1, the cross-county average death rate is 20.59 (per thousand) in the famine years, which is 8.8 higher than the rate in the non-famine years. Similarly, the average birth rate drops to 20.19 (per thousand) in the famine years, from 35.74 in the non-famine years. Taking the 1957 death and birth rates as the counterfactual mortality and fertility levels, we find that the Great Famine resulted in 15.74 million excess deaths and 18.59 million lost/postponed births in our sample counties during the 1959 to 1961 period. In addition, as shown in Appendix A.1.2, mortality during the famine was highly concentrated: the top 10th percentile of counties account for 52% of the total excess deaths.

Repito, está en el pdf. El estudio no parece tener ningún sesgo. Otra cosa es que no te gusten las conclusiones.

Puddles

Massive Deaths? The Demographic Evidence.
The relative sympathy of the peasants for Mao when recalling the Great Leap Forward must call into question the demographic evidence that indicates that tens of millions of them starved to death at this time. Western academics seem united on the validity of this evidence. Even those who query it, like Carl Riskin, always end up insisting that all the “available evidence” indicates that a famine of huge proportions occurred in this period.

In fact, there is certainly evidence from a number of sources that a famine occurred in this period but the key question is was it a famine that killed 30 million people? This really would have been unprecedented. Although we are used to reading newspaper headlines like “tens of millions face starvation in African famine” it is unheard of for tens of millions to actually die in a famine. For example, the Bangladesh famine of 1974-75 is remembered as a deeply tragic event in that nation’s history. However, the official death toll for the Bangladesh famine was 30,000 (out of a single-year population of 76 million), although unofficial sources put the death toll at 100,000.33 Compare this to an alleged death toll of 30 million out of a single-year population calculated at around 660-670 million for the Great Leap Forward period. Proportionally speaking, the death toll in the Great Leap Forward is meant to be approximately 35 times higher than the higher estimated death toll for the Bangladesh famine!

It is rather misleading to say that all “available evidence” demonstrates the validity of the massive deaths thesis. The real truth is that all estimates of tens of millions of Great Leap Forward deaths rely on figures for death rates for the late 1950s and early 1960s. There is only very uncertain corroboration for these figures from other statistics for the period.

The problem is that death rate figures for the period 1940-82, like most Chinese demographic information, were regarded as a state secret by China’s government until the early 1980s. As we shall see, uncertainty about how these were gathered seriously undermines their status as concrete evidence. It was only in 1982 that death rate figures for the 1950s and 1960s were released (see Table 1).

They purportedly showed that the death rate rose from 10.8 per thousand in 1957 to 25.4 per thousand in 1960, dropping to 14.2 per thousand in 1961 and 10 per thousand in 1962. These figures appear to show approximately 15 million excess deaths due to famine from 1958-1961.34

Table 1. Official Death Rates for China 1955-1962
Year Death Rate(per thousand)
1955 12.3
1956 11.4
1957 10.8
1958 12.0
1959 14.6
1960 25.4
1961 14.2
1962 10.0
1963 10.0
1964 11.5
U.S. Demographers and the Chinese Statistics
Chinese data on famine deaths was used by a group of U.S. demographers in their own work on the subject. These demographers were Ansley Coale, John Aird and Judith Banister. They can be said to be the three people that first popularized the “massive death toll” hypothesis in the West. Ansley Coale was a very influential figure in American demography. He was employed by the Office of Population Research which was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in the 1980s when he was publishing his work on China. John Aird was a research specialist on China at the U.S. Bureau Of The Census. In 1990, he wrote a book published by the American Enterprise Institute, which is a body that promotes neo-liberal policies. This book was called Slaughter of the Innocents and was a critique of China’s one-child birth control policy. Judith Banister was another worker at the U.S. Bureau of the Census. She was given time off from her employment there to write a book that included a discussion of the Great Leap Forward deaths.35 John Aird read her book pre-publication and gave her advice.

Judith Banister produced figures that appear to show 30 million excess deaths in the Great Leap Forward. This is nearly twice the figure indicated by official Chinese statistics. She believes the official statistics under-estimate the total mortality because of under-reporting of deaths by the Chinese population during the period in question.

Banister calculates the total number of under-reported deaths in this period by first calculating the total number of births between the two censuses of 1953 and 1964. She does this using data derived from the census and data from a retrospective fertility survey carried out in 1982. (Participants in the survey were asked to describe the number of babies they had given birth to between 1940 and 1981). Once the population of 1953 and 1964 is known, and the total number of births between these two years is known, it is possible to calculate the number of deaths that would have occurred during this period. She uses this information to calculate a total number of deaths for the eleven year period that is much higher than official death rates show.

To estimate how many of these deaths occurred in the Great Leap Forward, Banister returns to the official Chinese death rate statistics. She assumes that these figures indicate the actual trend of deaths in China in this period, even though they were too low in absolute terms. For example, she assumes that the official death rate of 25 per thousand in 1960 does indeed indicate that a huge increase in the death rate occurred in 1960. However, she combines this with her estimates of under-reporting of deaths in the period 1953-1964 to come up with a figure of 45 deaths per thousand in 1960. In years in which no famine is alleged the death toll also increases using this method. In 1957, for example, she increases the death rate from the official figure of 10.8 per thousand to 18 per thousand. Banister then compares the revised death rates in good years with the revised death rates in alleged famine years. Banister is then able to come up with her estimate of 30 million deaths excess deaths during the Great Leap Forward.36

Puddles

Questions Over the Chinese Statistics
A variety of Chinese figures are quoted to back up this thesis that a massive famine occurred. Statistics that purport to show that Mao was to blame for it are also quoted. They include figures supposedly giving a provincial break-down of the increased death rates in the Great Leap Forward,37 figures showing a massive decrease in grain production during the Great Leap Forward38 and also figures that apparently showed that bad weather was not to blame for the famine.39 These figures were all released in the early 1980s at the time of Deng’s “reforms.”

But how trustworthy are any of these figures? As we have seen they were released during the early 1980s at a time of acute criticism of the Great Leap Forward and the People’s Communes. China under Deng was a dictatorship that tried to rigorously control the flow of information to its people. It would be reasonable to assume that a government that continually interfered in the reporting of public affairs by the media would also interfere in the production of statistics when it suited them. John Aird writing in 1982 stated that

The main reason so few national population data appear in Chinese sources, however, is central censorship. No national population figures can be made public without prior authorization by the State Council. Even officials of the SSB [State Statistical Bureau] cannot use such figures until they have been cleared.40

Of particular interest is the question of the circumstances under which the death rate figures were arrived at by the State Statistical Bureau. The figures given for total deaths during the Great Leap Forward by U.S. and Chinese academics all depend on the key death rate statistic for the years in question.

Of course, if we knew in detail how information about death rates was gathered during the Great Leap Forward we might be able to be more certain that it is accurate. The problem is that this information is not available. We have to just take the Chinese governments word for it that their figures are true. Moreover, statements provided by Aird and Banister indicates that they believe that death rate figures were estimates and not based on an actual count of reported deaths.

Aird states that “the official vital rates [birth and death rates] of the crisis years [of the Great Leap Forward] must be estimates, but their basis is not known.”41

Banister writes that China did try to start vital registration in 1954 but it was very incomplete. She writes, “If the system of death registration was used as a basis for any of the estimated death rates for 1955 through 1957, the rates were derived from only those localities that had set up the system, which would tend to be more advanced or more urbanized locations.”42

Banister suggests that the situation did not improve very much during or after the Great Leap Forward. She writes:

In the late 1960s and most prior years, the permanent population registration and reporting system may have been so incomplete and uneven that national or provincial statistical personnel had to estimate all or part of their totals. In particular, in the 1950s the permanent population registration and reporting system was only beginning to be set up, and at first it did not cover the entire population. All the national population totals for the 1950s except the census total, were probably based on incomplete local reports supplemented by estimates.43

She also writes that “In all years prior to 1973-75 the PRC’s data on crude death rates, infant mortality rates, expectation of life at birth, and causes of death were nonexistent, useless, or, at best, underestimates of actual mortality.”44

The reader searches the work of Aird, Coale and Banister in vain for some indication as to why they can so confidently assert figures for tens of millions of deaths in the Great Leap Forward based on official death rate figures. These authors do not know how these figures were gathered and especially in Banister’s case, they appear to have little faith in them.


https://monthlyreview.org/commentary/did-mao-really-kill-millions-in-the-great-leap-forward

De todas las maneras, explicar su metodología, que no son más que meras proyecciones sin datos estadísticos sólidos y concluir que existe una horquilla de muertos por las hambrunas entre 16M y 30M no es muy científico, que digamos...

[Usuario Eliminado]

¿Entonces en realidad es propaganda de Deng Xiao Ping? ¿No te parece absurdo?

Diony

El malabarismo demagógico para no decir abiertamente que vale una mierda cuantos se mueran siempre que triunfe y prevalezca la secta de la cual soy devota, es de antología.

Puddles

Smoker escribió : »

¿Entonces en realidad es propaganda de Deng Xiao Ping? ¿No te parece absurdo?

No, en absoluto, lo mismo pasa y pasó con la URSS y Yeltsin, Putin/Medvedev.

Y a ti, ¿qué te parece esa horquilla de entre 16M y 30M de muertos por la hambruna? ¿No es un poco amplia?

[Usuario Eliminado]

Pues no, porque una cosa es tener cierta indeterminación por tener datos incompletos y hacer extrapolaciones con modelos matemáticos y otra cosa es decir que los datos demográficos publicados por el gobierno Chino son falsos, porpaganda del entonces líder del partido.

¿No era propaganda americana?

Puddles

Los datos de fallecimientos por hambrunas no se recogían, y las tasas de mortalidad no se publicaron hasta los 1980s. Además son estimaciones, como bien se ha explicado y como han confirmado los "investigadores" americanos. También se explica que Deng, como buen reformista, al igual que hicieron Yeltsin, Putin e incluso Khrushev, manipularon los hechos del régimen anterior rival. ¿No lo hace la oposición en nuestro caso?
Yo no discuto que hubiera hambrunas en la URSS en 1932-33 y en China en 1958-60 debido a la colectivización de la tierra, aunque en China, hambrunas las había todos los años de un modo u otro, lo que cuestiono es el número de muertos por las hambrunas y la afirmación que fueron intencionadas para exterminar una parte de la población, es decir, un genocidio.

La horquilla de 16M - 30M (y 55M según algunos anticomunistas de los 650M de población en China en 1958) no me parece muy científico y sostenible.

Si a ti te parece correcto, pues no hay más que discutir.

Príamo

https://twitter.com/DragonLadyU2/status/1401839432102203393

expitu

Desde luego la puta mierda que tienen en Peru tiene tela.

Puddles

Hasta que haya un gobierno que reconozca los derechos de LGTBI o reniegue de los tentáculos de la iglesia, podemos esperar sentados.

¿Cuba?

Peart

Porque dejar que el pueblo elija mediante el voto, de eso ni hablamos, claro.

Puddles

https://twitter.com/isaserras/status/1401882757492584456

Isa Serra se descuelga.

¡Buen trabajo de los jueces!

expitu

Se descuelga para ir a liderar Podemos con Ione Belarra. Podemos Madrid ha muerto a manos de Mas Madrid y solo le queda de alternativa para chupar sillon quedarse en la cupula nacional.