Who was better for China?

>>2974238
Mao was the more effective and capable leader by far.

>>2974238
Mao because he killed more Chinese

>>2974238
The one who didn't lose

At least Mao was largely independent, Chiang was just a Pinochet-tier U.S. puppet.

>>2974304
>Chiang was just a Pinochet-tier U.S. puppet.
[citation needed]

>>2974304
But Pinochet was great for Chile
Having US puppets in charge of your country factually guarantees its success

>>2974304
I don't think he was, even Stalin supported him.
>>2974475
>unironically being this cucked

>>2974304
>hated the ever-loving shit out of imperialism, especially the western variant
>literally the only kind of US support he got while on the mainland was arms
>got into power without any international help
>"l-literally pinochet guise"

k

>>2974238
Chiang unified and partially modernised China, and dragged it through the hell of the Sino-Japanese war.

Mao launched laughably stupid agricultural and industrial projects and killed millions more than Tojo or Chiang could even dream of.

If Chiang had won China would nowadays probably be a democracy.

>>2974520
>literally the only kind of US support he got while on the mainland was arms
the US attempted many times to broker a peaceful end to the 1945-1949 civil war which would have allowed him to remain in power

File: Hirohito.jpg (602KB, 1088x1516px) Image search: [Google]

602KB, 1088x1516px

>>2974238

This guy

>>2974652
It would've allowed Mao to stay in power too, a la North and South Korea. Considering everyone thought the Nationalists were going to win the civil war, those peace attempts were more favourable for Mao.

>>2974238
Hong Xiuquan

>>2974304
The Great Famine was caused by Mao exporting China's crops to communist countries

>>2974720
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
no

>>2974796
this

File: Deng_Xiaoping.jpg (161KB, 1024x1196px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1024x1196px

>>2974238

>>2974475
>But Pinochet was great for Chile
>Having US puppets in charge of your country factually guarantees its success

/his/, ladies & gentlemen.

File: zhou.png (97KB, 335x441px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 335x441px

>tried to stop the red gaurds

>>2974475
*tips fedora*

File: 763830.jpg (30KB, 367x550px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 367x550px

>>2976017
and save the forbidden city

>>2974543
>unified China

Don't make me fucking laugh. It was effectively ruled by hundreds of different warlords who would actively undermine Chiang and contradict his orders. ROC was a mess and when the War with Japan came, and later the Communists, Chiang found that most of his army woulf listen to the warlords instead who refused to fight most battles.

>>2976552
>refused to fight most battles

warlords were definitely a problem militarily, but they would almost always definitely fight when ordered to. How effective they would be in that regard is another matter entirely.

>>2974475
>What is Republic of Vietnam?
>What is Republic of China?

File: 1494295208999.jpg (196KB, 814x942px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 814x942px

>>2974475
Here we go

>>2976867
I guarantee you every one of those bullshit stats were even worse before he came in, bub. Worse and heading toward Chavez levels.

And yet, you don't see Pinochet on T-shirts. Strange, how these ubiquitous, classless right wingers are so silent.

>>2974238
Not the one who killed 45 million Chinese.

>>2976015
>no refutation, just butthurt
I still believe him, anon.
>>2976736
>two countries that went down the shitter when their puppets left and didn't recover until they started accepting a little american capitalism again
Woah, feels like learning!

>>2974506
>cucked

He's probably American. That would be the opposite of cucked.

>>2976897
Pinochet was bad for Chile and controlling your own government is far superior to being the slave of another, you dumbass.

>>2976904
>Pinochet was bad for Chile
No he wasn't, he was bad for socialists :^)

>controlling your own government
Is indeed a lovely scenario, but not one that commies are very good at. Let's talk about how much "control of their own government" the chinese had under mao, for example.
You want to talk about "slavery", well we have two flavors of it here - one that accompanies miracles, and ends with the dictator puppet ceding his government back to the people, voluntarily in his own lifetime. That's the Chilean flavor.
Then there's the chinese flavor. Which tastes like famine, death, and a perpetual stupidity that's gone on far past its time.

>>2977056
Allende wasn't a socialist and he certainly wasn't like Mao at all. Stop getting all your info from incorrect /pol/ infographs.

>>2974520
>got into power without any international help
Yeah, the Soviet Union granting a fuckload of assistance to KMT military training which enabled the Northern Expedition to happen was nothing.

>>2976904
>Pinochet was bad for Chile
leftypol pls leave

>>2974238
Mao because he was cooler.

>>2977059
>Allende wasn't a socialist
Lol what? Why are tankies so historically illiterate?

>>2974543
>unified china
Source?

>>2977173
Allende never put the means of production into the worker's hands. He was a capitalist.

>>2976889
Mmmmm nope

As I understand it one perverted Chinese culture with a foreign socio-political organization that cast out everything that came before it, and the other was a natural evolution that preserved its soul

>>2977208
But he wanted to. Which is why his government started a whole series of nationalizations and land grabs, which caused the economy to tank.

He was 100% a socialist.

File: Chile-the-real-wage-1967-1977_with_lines.png (31KB, 400x283px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x283px

>socialism works lmao

File: chilean-inflation-allende.png (11KB, 710x325px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 710x325px

>>2977264
>it didn't work because they didn't try hard enough!

File: sectoral-chile.jpg (29KB, 638x223px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 638x223px

>>2977268
>it was not real socialism! If it had been real socialism it would have worked, obviously!

>>2977238
>and the other was a natural evolution that preserved its soul
Communists really need to stop talking about their inevitable natural evolution theories.

File: 192719_5_.png (64KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x391px

>>2977273
>Pinochet was a monster who ruined Chile's economy ;(

>>2977281

do you even read posts before you reply to them?

>>2977063
I was mostly referring to Chiang not becoming ruler through any sort of CIA-backed coup.

>>2977291
Did you know that there was no Chinese concept or word for "democracy" and "nationalism" until they adopted a loanword from Japanese?

KMT Nationalist "Democracy" was just as much a foreign sociopolitical force as Retarded Communism.

File: IMG_1074.png (181KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1136x640px

>>2977287
>still lower GDP per capita in 1989 than in 1971

Lmao great job Pinochet. Being marginally better than a commie is such an achievement.

>>2977182
literally wikipedia my man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Expedition

>>2977311

that only stands to reason that there would not be a word for democracy, or an identity for the people, they were a mess of peasants ruled by dynasties for ages

however, nationalism is a logical movement for a people, and communism is some foreign globalist concept of class warfare that doesn't even have a basis for comparison in the east.

>>2977321
That's because Chile's economy was so thoroughly destroyed that rebuilding it took time
>this economically illiterate retard probably thinks you can fix an economy overnight

>>2974796
I'll see your guy and raise you this guy: Zhang Xianzhong

>>2977321
>that dip in '84

>>2977366
Wrong. It was because Pinochet's extreme neoliberalism came crashing down during the 1982 crisis. His economists had to moderate his policies after that, he wasn't nearly as competent as his followers pretend he was. His experiment from the 70s is widely considered a failure by contemporary economists, and Chile grew far more, in a far more sustainable way during the 20 years of centre-left Concertacion governments than during his 17 year dictatorship.

>>2974796
Would Christian China be any different?

>>2977630
Worse

>>2977625
>His experiment from the 70s is widely considered a failure by contemporary economists,
Lmao

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

File: Felice_Beato_(British),_born_Italy_-_Prince_Kung_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (100KB, 800x961px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 800x961px

>>2974238

The real answer is Prince Gong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Gong

>>2977920
>he's too much of an illiterate to read his own links

Some economists(such as Nobel laureateAmartya Sen) have argued that the experience of Chile in this period indicates afailureof the economic liberalism posited by thinkers such as Friedman, claiming that there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called “pureMonetaristexperiment”). After the catastrophicbanking crisis of 1982the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous socialist regime, and sustained economic growth only came after the later reforms that privatized the economy, while social indicators remained poor.Pinochet’s dictatorship made the unpopular economic reorientation possible by repressing opposition to it. Rather than a triumph of the free market, theOECDeconomistJavier Santisodescribed this reorientation as “combining neo-liberal sutures and interventionist cures”. By the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had “cooled itsneo-liberalideological fever” and “controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands”.

Amartya Sen, in his bookHunger and Public Action, examines the performance of Chile in various economic and social indicators. He finds, from a survey of the literature on the field:

The so-called "monetarist experiment" which lasted until 1982 in its pure form, has been the object of much controversy, but few have claimed it to be a success...The most conspicuous feature of the post 1973 period is that of considerable instability...no firm and consistent upward trend (to say the least).

Lmao

>>2974475

For fucks sake.