Your argument is quite circular. "Life expectancy went down during its collapse. Proof Communism works!" Lets just ignore the hundreds of millions killed introducing Communism during the Bolshevik revolution, as well as the new all time highs of life expectancy after it. Good job trying to turn a fail into a win though, very optimistic.
"oh man we overthrew the government so we could control the means of production ourselves...... wait people died? I thought this was a revolution and that never happens?"
remember when the United States did the same thing (but with less rights).
"oh man even though it took them 20 years, life expectancy now is higher than it was during the SU, better technology? That has nothing to do with it."
I see, so nothing in the 4 pages above huh? Interesting. Also conveniently refractory. Are we talking about anarchy or Communism? Seems like you are shifting goal posts here.
I take it the life expectancy for china that drops off is where there is no available data. Those life expectancies as you go back in time are interesting.
I'd conclude from these charts that you can't really tie Communism to an improvement in life expectancy. It seems overall world wide it has been increasing regardless. The capitalist (or pretend capitalist) nations are the highest and all of their dips correspond to wars and major changes. That big dip for China right before 1960 is interesting... it is also interesting that those up down periods are times when Communism was more actively practiced in China... the later times seem to correspond with when they created capitalist FREE TRADE zones (aka not communist) such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Though I'd say you can't really draw conclusions one way or the other from this chart as it seems the trend for up slope was about the same regardless of whether it was communist or capitalist.
First of all. Look at how fast they went up, that is tied to how quickly they industrialized. Before Russia became communist they were just a bunch of farmers.
Just because the trend it up doesn't mean the acceleration doesn't mean anything.
look at this graph, mainly Africa. Remember that before the revolution Russia was basically a third world country.
Yes, I am sure that had nothing to do with the industrial revolution. Of course when you point out a rise in life expectancy it is Communism, but when I point it out it is just technological development.
Yes... yet the world was also communicating AND traveling rapidly. Correlation does not equal causation.
Whether you are capitalist or communist none of these places were isolationists. They still traded, they still operated humanitarian goals, etc. They ALL are going up. The rapid rise to me looks to be more likely due to global equalization and sharing of health related technologies, inventions, and food.
I still say there is no evidence that capitalism or communism were the source of these things. I think it is far more likely due to be related to long distance communication and mass transit.
SO MANY things were going on during this period including global communication, mass transit, and many revolutions in health care and food.
The countries that have a lower life expectancy I don't really see capitalism/communism as likely causation.
I'd see it more as access to new healthcare and other tech that is more likely in my mind to be why these life expectancies have risen.
The only way to know for certain would be to isolate from all influence two countries and let them just run.
Then you would need controls as well.
Not likely to happen, and also a bit too late, so picking a favorite TOPIC to advocate for and saying "SEE look at this" when there were so many other factors going on during those time that seem more likely. At least they do to me. In this case it doesn't appear to be at all related to capitalism or communism.
Humanitarian movements, as well as global communication, and mass transit spreading new healthcare, tech, and food around seems more likely to explain what we are seeing than other cases. It also helps explain this graph with Africa and such as even today it is access to these things which tends to be why they have to struggle even today.
I said "You've got tunnel vision", but I didn't mean it as an attack and more as a "Think what you just said".
ALL countries went up. Whether socialism or no socialism. So that kind of blows a hole right through your statement.
In fact I could say they wouldn't have gone up without capitalism. Same thing. There is no proof of your statement, or that one I just made. They are pure speculation based upon trying to give credit to something you are an advocate for when there is no evidence that can make that true. As I said there are FAR too many factors.
Socialism and Capitalism were at different levels across the board on those charts. Capitalism rather than socialism could easily be argued as well...
Sweden is often looked at as the bastion of Socialism and why it did so well. When their history shows that they did best once the government and socialism got out of the way of their markets. They had an almost TRUCE of sorts.
This is also true of what happened in China, yet not the same. Hong Kong, and Singapore most definitely were not Socialist OR Communist, yet they were outposts of the Communist China.
Yet I don't believe capitalism can be given credit for those charts or socialism. As these are not new concepts.
What was new during those times was technological advances which were virtually all driven by capitalism of the time. Then this lead to global communication, and mass transit. There are no barriers isolating the countries from each other so whether communism, socialism, capitalism, or dictatorship these technologies crossed borders and changed the world.
I believe it is a combination of many things but that is the only one that I can think of that is universal across them all regardless of ideaology.
"ALL countries went up. Whether socialism or no socialism. So that kind of blows a hole right through your statement."
some went up faster than others? That's a thing?
If you really want to think like that, the SU lifespan went up after the collapse of the first government, but down after the collapse of the SU.
"Sweden is often looked at as the bastion of Socialism "
only to people who can't define it.
Marinaleda is a closer example of it today.
One of the greatest factors of life expectancy increase through the 20th century was the reduction of open air wood burning in the home for cooking. This chart reflects that. Minus the missing China data where people were being slaughtered through democide faster than they could be recorded. That period would obviously not reflect this.
Yes it would because it would explain the rise in life expectancy for all countries... It wouldn't be the socialist or centralized structure of the governed area increasing the life expectancies.
Your argument is quite circular. "Life expectancy went down during its collapse. Proof Communism works!" Lets just ignore the hundreds of millions killed introducing Communism during the Bolshevik revolution, as well as the new all time highs of life expectancy after it. Good job trying to turn a fail into a win though, very optimistic.
"oh man we overthrew the government so we could control the means of production ourselves...... wait people died? I thought this was a revolution and that never happens?"
remember when the United States did the same thing (but with less rights).
"oh man even though it took them 20 years, life expectancy now is higher than it was during the SU, better technology? That has nothing to do with it."
Still not seeing a valid argument for Communism here...
I haven't seen a valid argument against it either
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works
I mean its worked tons of times throughout history? Its not hard to look it up?
I see, so nothing in the 4 pages above huh? Interesting. Also conveniently refractory. Are we talking about anarchy or Communism? Seems like you are shifting goal posts here.
you are wasting your time arguing with someone that looks at 100 millions corpses littering socialism's trail and sees no problem
Some times it is about everyone else reading, not convincing people who will never be convinced ;)
true
Chart says 1946 - 2016. What does it look back if you go a decade or two back on that?
Communism clearly did wonders for China...
I take it the life expectancy for china that drops off is where there is no available data. Those life expectancies as you go back in time are interesting.
I'd conclude from these charts that you can't really tie Communism to an improvement in life expectancy. It seems overall world wide it has been increasing regardless. The capitalist (or pretend capitalist) nations are the highest and all of their dips correspond to wars and major changes. That big dip for China right before 1960 is interesting... it is also interesting that those up down periods are times when Communism was more actively practiced in China... the later times seem to correspond with when they created capitalist FREE TRADE zones (aka not communist) such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Though I'd say you can't really draw conclusions one way or the other from this chart as it seems the trend for up slope was about the same regardless of whether it was communist or capitalist.
First of all. Look at how fast they went up, that is tied to how quickly they industrialized. Before Russia became communist they were just a bunch of farmers.
Just because the trend it up doesn't mean the acceleration doesn't mean anything.
look at this graph, mainly Africa. Remember that before the revolution Russia was basically a third world country.
Yes, I am sure that had nothing to do with the industrial revolution. Of course when you point out a rise in life expectancy it is Communism, but when I point it out it is just technological development.
Bonus points for not giving yourself $0.35 every time you string together a handful of words.
Yes... yet the world was also communicating AND traveling rapidly. Correlation does not equal causation.
Whether you are capitalist or communist none of these places were isolationists. They still traded, they still operated humanitarian goals, etc. They ALL are going up. The rapid rise to me looks to be more likely due to global equalization and sharing of health related technologies, inventions, and food.
I still say there is no evidence that capitalism or communism were the source of these things. I think it is far more likely due to be related to long distance communication and mass transit.
Basically to add to my other reply...
SO MANY things were going on during this period including global communication, mass transit, and many revolutions in health care and food.
The countries that have a lower life expectancy I don't really see capitalism/communism as likely causation.
I'd see it more as access to new healthcare and other tech that is more likely in my mind to be why these life expectancies have risen.
The only way to know for certain would be to isolate from all influence two countries and let them just run.
Then you would need controls as well.
Not likely to happen, and also a bit too late, so picking a favorite TOPIC to advocate for and saying "SEE look at this" when there were so many other factors going on during those time that seem more likely. At least they do to me. In this case it doesn't appear to be at all related to capitalism or communism.
Humanitarian movements, as well as global communication, and mass transit spreading new healthcare, tech, and food around seems more likely to explain what we are seeing than other cases. It also helps explain this graph with Africa and such as even today it is access to these things which tends to be why they have to struggle even today.
"I'd see it more as access to new healthcare and other tech that is more likely in my mind to be why these life expectancies have risen."
they wouldn't have gotten that without socialism tho. They wouldn't have the resources to pay for it
Wow... that comment exploded in the editor.
I said "You've got tunnel vision", but I didn't mean it as an attack and more as a "Think what you just said".
ALL countries went up. Whether socialism or no socialism. So that kind of blows a hole right through your statement.
In fact I could say they wouldn't have gone up without capitalism. Same thing. There is no proof of your statement, or that one I just made. They are pure speculation based upon trying to give credit to something you are an advocate for when there is no evidence that can make that true. As I said there are FAR too many factors.
Socialism and Capitalism were at different levels across the board on those charts. Capitalism rather than socialism could easily be argued as well...
Similar in fact to this... (though I believe crediting it to capitalism is pure speculation as well)
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich
Sweden is often looked at as the bastion of Socialism and why it did so well. When their history shows that they did best once the government and socialism got out of the way of their markets. They had an almost TRUCE of sorts.
This is also true of what happened in China, yet not the same. Hong Kong, and Singapore most definitely were not Socialist OR Communist, yet they were outposts of the Communist China.
Yet I don't believe capitalism can be given credit for those charts or socialism. As these are not new concepts.
What was new during those times was technological advances which were virtually all driven by capitalism of the time. Then this lead to global communication, and mass transit. There are no barriers isolating the countries from each other so whether communism, socialism, capitalism, or dictatorship these technologies crossed borders and changed the world.
I believe it is a combination of many things but that is the only one that I can think of that is universal across them all regardless of ideaology.
"ALL countries went up. Whether socialism or no socialism. So that kind of blows a hole right through your statement."
some went up faster than others? That's a thing?
If you really want to think like that, the SU lifespan went up after the collapse of the first government, but down after the collapse of the SU.
"Sweden is often looked at as the bastion of Socialism "
only to people who can't define it.
Marinaleda is a closer example of it today.
"What was new during those times was technological advances which were virtually all driven by capitalism of the time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_inventions
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/13/capitalists-eat-young-culture-greed-killing-innovation-guardian/
Yeah, sorry I should have used sarcasm tags xD Your analysis is on point.
One of the greatest factors of life expectancy increase through the 20th century was the reduction of open air wood burning in the home for cooking. This chart reflects that. Minus the missing China data where people were being slaughtered through democide faster than they could be recorded. That period would obviously not reflect this.
that has no effect if that changed for every country.
Yes it would because it would explain the rise in life expectancy for all countries... It wouldn't be the socialist or centralized structure of the governed area increasing the life expectancies.
it would not explain why some rise faster than others