• Kusimulkku
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It does make sense to limit at least when there’s socialist states if you want to compare capitalist states to socialist ones.

    • Hamartia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Only if you wanted to hide all the earlier famines that happened under capitalism under the tenuous argument that there’s some overarching uniformity of development, opportunity, meteorological events, natural disaster etc etc worldwide that allows for fair comparison within the same timeframe.

      • Kusimulkku
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It just doesn’t make sense to compate two completely different timeframes as-is.

        • Hamartia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          On the contrary. There is no cognizant reason to limit the timeframe other than to bury relevant facts unfavorable to anti-left rhetoric.

          • Kusimulkku
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I thought the point was to compare the two. Wouldn’t make sense to give one a much longer timespan in the comparison.

            • Hamartia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              That would only make sense if there was some tangible link between the occurance of famines and the passing of time. But there isn’t really. There is to things like war, drought, flooding, epidemics, vermin infestation, mis-management, a country’s degree of development etc etc. If you want to make some qualitative comparison between systems of government then use those not some superficial framing set to prejudice the outcome.

              • Kusimulkku
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                But when we’re comparing occurrences numerically, of course time matters into it. In comparable time and preferably situations, how many occurrences you’d have.

                Skewing the comparison by using two totally different time frames seems just weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result

                • Hamartia@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Skewing the comparison by using totally different countries with totally different situations seems weird ngl. What would be the point, unless you want some specific result.

                  Russia and China both had an unfortunate history of famines before any pesky revolutionairies popped their heads up. Examining a longer time period reveals this highly relevant fragility. Also the facts that both of these huge countries were badly underdeveloped at the time of their revolutions: And the period you wish to limit it to had both of the world wars and the extended periods of international instability associated with them: And both countries suffered invasions and other unusual external pressures over a long period of time. These are relevant factors.

                  Limiting the time frame for a comparison based solely on a summation of deaths is a leading, manipulation of the study of the phenomena of famines.

                  • Kusimulkku
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Preferably you actually would use the same countries and times, if you could. I’m not sure how you think comparisons usually work lol. You’d try to keep the comparison as similar as possible.

                    I’m sorry but I feel like you’re trying to arrive at a certain conclusion rather than doing an honest comparison.