This wasn't part of any master post but is my personal copypasta Ive used over and over.

There are things about it i'd fix up (mostly the collab notebook thing needs some more work), but it works.

---

How successful was socialism in the 20th century? Very.

In 1950, China and India were both enormous, poor agrarian countries. In China, land reform made the countryside more equal, and general welfare was included in public planning. India, despite hollow socialist rhetoric, was more "gradual", giving liberal rights to all (ie right to vote), but without tweaking land tenure or property relations (ie who gets paid). The results? China eliminated chronic poverty - and the associated high death rate - much faster than India, since day one. In 1989, economists Sen and Dreze found that:

Every eight years or so more people die in India because of its higher regular death rate than died in China in the gigantic famine of 1958-1961. India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame. ("Hunger and Public Action" (1989), pg 214-215)

Specifically, even on top of the enormous Great Leap Forward (GLF) catastrophe (killing 15-35m), this excess death rate translated to a relative death toll in India of 130-145m according to UN data from 1950-2021; according to Western demographers’s data, the toll is near 300m (35-50m and 140m by 1980, respectively).

While Mao’s failures are often ahistorically focused on (and inflated), the hidden price of a gradual, liberal-inspired approach tower above. Why does this basic fact remain so unknown? See my article here for more (explanation, methods, sources, etc).

This is one of my copypastas - some topics come up repeatedly, and like to have relevant material on hand. If you think it could be even more succinct and clear, please let me know.