Zuzak

I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders.

That's kind of a fair point I think but I don't think the Donbas would ever be able to join Russia in this timeline. Without Russian intervention, the separatists likely lose and the years that follow establish precedent for Russia control of Crimea but also for Ukrainian control over Donbas. I think it's a valid, if cynical, argument to say that Russia should've cashed out with Crimea instead of going all in to try to take Donbas, but it means leaving the separatist out to dry. I do kind of agree with it though, I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.

I can't speak for every user on my instance (nor can you for yours), but I can say that many of us also respond in kind to what we get. When you tried to dunk on me, you got PPB'd. You'll get the same if you lob baseless accusations (like calling us "the QAnon of the left") or confidently assert bad, uninformed takes.

I think your problem is that you jump to conclusions too quickly. I think you'll have better luck with Hexbears if you slow down and make sure you actually understand what our point is instead of just trying to win before you have a clear picture of what the other person's position is.

Just because it doesn't paint the full picture doesn't mean it isn't important. The data in this case shows some very clear conclusions.

Sometimes I try to post more in depth theory, the last time I tried that, everyone complained that it was TLDR.

Life expectancy doesn't always give the whole picture. For example, in my graph, there are times where China's life expectancy is rising very rapidly, but it was still considerably lower than that of other countries. It's necessary to analyze what policies lead to what results and what the reasons are for the success or failure of a given political project or policy.

I haven't studied South Korea's policies and material conditions closely enough to offer much of an informed analysis, as the world is a very big place. You could always make a thread about it on c/askchapo or something.

The entire point

That's all you fam, I never said anything like that. All I did was point to graph and say I liked it when people do things (and political projects) that make life expectancy skyrocket. You seem to have read a bunch of stuff into that.

I have no idea what thought process led you to post that but ok.

There were a lot of really simple, basic improvements that the peasants in China desperately needed. Anybody could've done what was needed, but nobody else was willing to, because nobody else cared. There was no special technical economic policy that uplifted them, it was just a willingness to address their needs that no other faction possessed.

Of course I know that, did you not read what I said?

"China's conditions were much worse off than places like the US, so obviously it's possible to improve conditions to be better than per-revolutionary China (which is not saying much) without communism."

It's not hard to double your life expectancy when you're starting out with the same life expectancy that existed in the Roman Empire almost 2,000 years prior. Thanks, Mao!

It really is wild that no other faction was willing to do anything that would increase Chinese life expectancy above that of the Roman Empire, yes. I agree, thanks, Mao!

It's pretty funny that you criticize Deng for implenting economic reforms that led to further industrialization, while also crediting the rise in life expectancy to that very same industrialization.

What even is your ideology? And can you answer my question about who should've come to power instead of the communists?

Over 60, actually. I think that doubling live expectancy over a single generation is, in fact, pretty impressive.

So I take it you're not a Maoist or a Dengist. Can you tell me who you think should've been in power in China instead? The KMT? You can see how much they did on the graph, if you don't find the CPC's numbers impressive then I'm sure you'd hate them even more. The invading Japanese perhaps? The European colonizers? Or maybe you think the Qing dynasty should never have been overthrown.

Deng was alive and well when two of those stock exchanges were opened

That's... what I said? Obviously, Deng was the one who implemented economic reforms, such as opening stock exchanges and allowing foreign investment. Some Maoists consider this to be right-deviationist and counter-revolutionary, and that he should've continued more in line with Mao's policies. That's why I asked if you're a Maoist, since you consider his reforms incompatible with socialism.

I'm not sure who's whole argument was "look at the improvements only possible under Communism." China's conditions were much worse off than places like the US, so obviously it's possible to improve conditions to be better than per-revolutionary China (which is not saying much) without communism. It's just that in China's case, it was the communists that did it.

That's what the rumor said, but googling seems to indicate it was a hoax. Though like I said the original is basically the same thing.

Oh, so you consider Deng's reforms to be right-deviationist? Are you a Maoist, then?

Whether you consider the CPC to be communist or not, the fact still remains that they've made a lot of improvements in the lives of the average Chinese person.