Mao Zedong proves communism is politically superior to capitalism

What frustrates me is that Con does not realise that there are sources that confirm that landlords were not slaughtered en masse, but actually trialled by People's Tribunals so they can be testified as to how poor or high standard they were as a landlord. To quote Tom Ryan, leading historian in the Chinese Revolution, "Fanshen (the policy of land reform) was based on a moderate approach to dealing with the larger and wealthy landowners, and aimed to protect the more productive farms to ensure that food supplies were not disrupted..." [1] "The Speak Bitterness meetings were emotionally charged - those making accusations openly wept or screamed out in anger, as did the spectators. After the peasants had 'spoken bitter', a People's Tribunal decided on the fate of the accused... The Agararian Reform Law allowed landlords to not only keep their land cultivated by their immediate family but also rented land and fields farmed by hired hands." [1] This is not your everyday man sitting at home. This is a historian who is openly revisionist and slightly Western leaning, who has even been to China to physically investigate the effects of the Revolution for himself, and through his research even he concluded that landlords were not put through a system of execution such as that of Frenchmen in Robespierre's Reign of Terror, as Con suggests. This is directly sourced from a textbook used to set the Australian curriculum for History Revolutions. Con also misinterprets the points I make in Round 2, I was not talking about when the CCP had established control of China, but merely the province of Yenan, in the north. And once again, Con has made an attempt to slather communism by saying that, "this is nothing that a capitalist country could not do (and probably do it better without massive starvation) " I can guarantee you now no peasants were starving under Mao during his time in Yenan from 1936-1949. In fact, many historians have stated that Yenan was a golden period for Communism in China, so Con's point that peasants were starving is irrelevant in this context. Not to mention, not ALL capitalist countries could do it, as I openly pointed out, Jiang Jieshi's Nationalist government was corrupt and had skyrocketing inflation for basic goods, such as 237% from 1942-1944 and 251% from January to August 1945 [2] Con also arrogantly points out that all nations are expected to have self sufficiency and an outstandingly moral army, therefore downplaying how brilliantly the Communists ran the nation. If you look at the context, Con will actually realise China was a third country, Agrarian, uneducated backwater that had undergone two corrupt regimes (the Qing Dynasty and Guomindang) and had an economy shattered from Jiang Jieshi's mismanagement and two wars, the Chinese Civil and Second World Wars. Such is Con's blatant ignorance to downplay just how hard it was to transform what China was in 1949, and in just 27 years completely revamp its industry, economy, agriculture and education standards to lay the foundation of what it is today. Just look at what the CCP did after taking control of the nation. They reformed taxes and made them more equitable, leading to their government revenue doubling from 6.5 billion yuan in 1950 to 13.3 billion yuan in 1951. [3] The massive inflation under Jiang Jieshi, of 85000% when Mao took power in 1949, was a mere 15% in 1951 when Mao wanted to reform wages to equal that of five basic goods: flour, coal, cotton cloth, rice and oil. [4] Con also lies in saying that the Soviets majorly assisted the growth of China; "Repayments were so steep that by 1955 China was repaying more than it was receiving in aid." [5] In response to Con's argument about the Red Army being disciplined making it unexemplary is utter downplay. In 1931, when the Red Army was established, look at the context around you. You had Jiang Jieshi's Nationalist Government raping, pillaging and looting villages, and conscripting peasants by roping them together against their will and beating them whilst they remained in service. You had warlords who set ridiculously high grain taxes on peasants and mistreated them to the point of death or chronic injury, and you had an Imperial Japanese Army who was raping their way through China such as in Nanking. Perhaps today Con feels that a moral Army is unspectacular, but if he looks at the context he will realise that the Red Army was an extremely disciplined force that punished anyone in service who didn't follow those rules. Rules set by Mao. I don't know what I have to do to convince Con that 'they (I assume the CCP) had to sacrifice worker rights and their starvation." The Iron Rice Bowl policy literally guaranteed their employment, payment in wages and food. That is utter propaganda what Con has said. Once again, his statement that communism is nothing special as growth is expected is rubbish; capitalism had been tried for 37 years following the abdication of Emperor Pu-Yi in 1911, and utterly failed to fix China's economic problems. Thus, the task of fixing China was actually extremely difficult, yet the Communists did it with ease. Famines don't occur in modern capitalist countries? That is hardly true, as capitalist countries in Africa have been crippled by massive inflation and starvation. Not to mention, around the same time as the CCP, Winston Churchill let 10 million Indians starve in the Bengal Famine. But you overlook that don't you, because Churchill was that deity that rescued the world from Hitler? Once again, the biased media has been shown to brainwash us that only communism produces famines. Con's entire debate revolves around his obsession with the Chinese Famine, so much so that he overlooks many positives that Mao did, that I had pointed out. It is frustrating to argue with someone so unable to accept the good that Mao did for China. You say that Mao killed millions of peasants in the famine, which I will not deny, yet you overlook statistics made out by Chinese peasants living under Mao like Mobo Gao, who stated himself that, "China's population went from 36 in 1949 to 63 by 1976." Mao is that strange figure that killed millions under his reign, yet miraculously doubled his country's population from 500 to 900 million people, and doubled the age expectancy. Compare India and China leading out from the Second World War; both have similar populations, similar conditions after WW2, and yet communism took over in China and capitalism in India. Who won out? China's age expectancy rose exponentially quicker, as did its population (to the point not being seen before under capitalism). Yet India stagnates and to this day still some live in abject poverty. I have provided statistical evidence backed up by quotes that Mao has done good, from objective sources such as historians of Western Liberal political viewpoints, as well as people living under Mao's reign, yet all Con has done is recite like a parrot that Mao had a Great Famine and must therefore be bad, so much so his arguments turn into an ad hominem attack on Mao by stating that, apparently, famines occur in every facet of his society, throughout his entire years leading China. [1] Jack Grey, Rebellions and Revolutions: China from the 1800's to 2000 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) pg 189. [2] Jonathan Fenby, 'The Man who lost China' BBC History Magazine (November 2003) pg 6 [3] John King Fairbank, 'The Great Chinese Revolution 1800-1985 (London: Picador 1988) pg 285 [4] Tom Ryan, China Rising HTAV textbook 2nd Edition, pg 123, 152. [5] Tom Ryan, China Rising HTAV textbook 2nd Edition, pg 169-170