That is the catch. It only determines how it is run if the people at the top are following the system. The system is supposed to determine that, but if everyone in positions of power decide to disregard what the system is supposed to be, then suddenly the system that a government used to have or advertises as having, no longer represents the actual state of affairs.

Responsibility means owning an outcome. If I take responsibility for the safety of your children and a meteorite literally falls out of the sky and kills them, I am still responsible. I'm not going to try to make excuses and make sure you know it wasn't my fault and there wasn't anything I could have done. I was responsible. Your kids are dead. The buck stops with me. That's what actual leaders do, they own the outcome.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

No, this is wrong. An economic system is a physical thing, it isn't a group of ideas everyone agrees to follow. People can break laws and whatnot, but fundamentally the system is a physical thing. Your analysis is Idealist, not Materialist.

The CPC does acknowledge problems with the Great Chinese Famine, but you trying to pin it entirely on the CPC is wrong, as well as the idea that the CPC didn't incarcerate as many people per capita is because of the famine. This is nonsense. Most countries do not imprison nearly as many people as the US does, and the PRC isn't different in that respect.

[–] p3n@lemmy.world -1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

the idea that the CPC didn't incarcerate as many people per capita is because of the famine. This is nonsense.

How is that nonsense? What was the per-capita incarceration rate of the population who died in the famine? What was the per-capita incarceration rate of the population that didn't die in the famine?

There is probably no data for that, so we can't know for sure, but I showed that in the U.S. a large famine would result in a lower incarceration rate because poor people would starve at a disproportionate rate, and poor people are also incarerated at a disproportnate rate, so that would reduce the overall rate per capita. This doesn't necessarily apply to the situation in China, but I don't think it is nonsense with no foundation in logic.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

You'd need the rate to multiply by five times to be equal. You have a hypothesis and no proof behind it, yet you treat it like it would multiply the incarceration rate by over five times had there been no famine. All this really amounts to is "PRC bad" for the sake of it.