In terms of number of deaths, the CCP killed 15-55m in the Great Leap Forward. In terms of mass murders of history, they killed a lot more than many actual genocides.
The deaths in the Great Leap Forward were largely due to famines resulting from administrative failures, it wasn't "mass murder" although it was definitely an avoidable mass death.
A genocide is not defined by literal death of individuals but for killings to be part of a genocide they have to intentionally target a specific group and its culture.
The Nazi's Eastern front was explicitly a war to create "Lebensraum" (living space) which went with depopulating large areas. They also deliberately initially displaced and then systematically exterminated Jewish populations. They also targeted Sinti and Roma people. For Jews they also went to the lengths of deliberately destroying their cultural artefacts as well as works they claimed to be influenced by Jewish culture.
If you desperately want to pin a mass murder on historical communists, you probably want the Holodomor. But even the Holodomor seems to have at least in part been a case of administrative failure and apparatchiks not taking complaints seriously. But at least there are indicators of some level of malintent even if it may not have been intentionally genocidal.
Unlike the above, the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims does qualify as genocide under most definitions as it actively seeks out to erase culture and traditions even if the settling of Han Chinese people in Uyghur territory may not. But while it involves imprisonment, so-called reeducation and arbitrary arrests, it doesn't involve mass murder.
Note that what the Nazis did to Jews, Roma, Sinti and (to a lesser extent) Slavs wasn't unique in European history either (except for the technology available to them), but Europeans previously only had done this to populations in Africa or the Americas. From the victim's perspective the distinction between fascism and colonialism is at most times completely arbitrary.
But "classicide" is not genocide. I'm not interested in defending authoritarian governments or state capitalist empires. I'm pointing out that it is extremely ill-informed to compare modern China (or even Maoist China) to the Nazis.
> Seven former detainees told the AP that they were force-fed birth control pills or injected with fluids, often with no explanation. Many felt dizzy, tired or ill, and women stopped getting their periods. After being released and leaving China, some went to get medical check-ups and found they were sterile
To elaborate on Soviet and Maoist "administrative failures": both governments heavily relied on central planning and thus transferred authority from individual farmers to the bureaucracy. This often meant bureaucrats would set export quotas based on calculations rather than merely exporting excess product and making decisions based on spreadsheets rather than relevant expertise.
From what I can gather, the unofficial story behind the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward seems to be that Chinese bureaucrats fell for exaggerated claims about farming techniques used in the Soviet Union and pivoted the farmers to using those techniques and set quotas based on the expected returns. When the results didn't match the calculations, nobody wanted to (likely, literally) bite the bullet so they tried to make good on the overpromised exports, starving the local populations.
Much like the Chernobyl incident, this was more of a case of bad judgement followed by a rigid chain of command playing chicken with a catastrophe to avoid taking responsibility for a comparably minor gaffe.
Of course the CCP didn't want its bureaucracy to appear incompetent and for the US it was more useful as anti-communist propaganda to frame it as mass murder than administrative failure, so neither side has been particularly honest about it in most "official" material until the end of the (first?) Cold War.
If you want to point out deliberate mass murders by China or the Soviet Union there were plenty of those (e.g. Mao killing the landlords) but in terms of scale they don't really compare.
EDIT: Also if you seriously want to count famines as mass murder, you won't like hearing about what the British did in India.
> This often meant bureaucrats would set export quotas based on calculations rather than merely exporting excess product and making decisions based on spreadsheets rather than relevant expertise.
The official story is false. They knew what was happening -- they had agents in every village, who amazingly were always well fed. There were regular visits and inspections. Look, both the USSR and China had mass famines in the countryside, and it was for the same reason:
They wanted to rapidly industrialize which meant the creation of a large factory worker class in rapidly growing urban areas. This required a smaller and more productive agrarian class with surplus food being shipped to cities.
But rather than wait and let normal urbanization take its course, they simply transferred populations to the city and confiscated all the food that was needed to feed this class, letting a fraction - about 10% of the rural population - starve to death. The remaining farmers were forced to work harder to make up for their dead colleagues and this was accomplished via intimidation and near-slavery conditions. That is, at the end of the day, what forced agricultural collectivization was all about. It was to make up for the fact that a lot of the farmers would not be given food. And everyone understood what this was about.
It was intentional democide to free up mouths to eat in the cities, in order to achieve rapid industrialization.
I find it weird that you trust the inspections to have been genuine when the bureaucracy was so infamous for corruption, shifting the blame and being guided by a culture of fear. It's also unsurprising that the bureaucrats in charge were better fed while the populace was starving: both the USSR and China only managed to replace the ruling class rather than abolish the class divide altogether, regardless of the at times drastic measures they attempted. The Soviet Union literally put former oligarchs back in charge because they "needed the expertise".
The Great Leap Forward was remarkably incompetent in many parts exactly due to the same circumstances I described: forcing ordinary citizens to produce shoddy steel in their backyards to meet quotas for example. You seem to give Mao and the mid-century CCP a lot more credit than they deserved.
Well, that's something for you to work out. China was great at monitoring the population. If there was a Christian missionary somewhere in those villages they would have been swiftly found (and they were). But you think 50 million people dying and Mao didn't know? Entire villages wiped off the map and no one noticed? Emaciated bodies walking around, children with distended bellies everywhere and it was a secret? Remember for every one that died, there are 100 more walking skeletons that didn't. No serious historian believes this:
Even so, work by Yang and others has proved that senior leaders in Beijing knew of the famine as early as 1958. "To distribute resources evenly will only ruin the Great Leap Forward," Mao warned colleagues a year later. "When there is not enough to eat, people starve to death. It is better to let half the people die so that others can eat their fill."
And it was the exact same thing that happened in the USSR when they did the same rapid industrialization program and the same forced collectivization scheme, done for the same reason, in the 30s. Even up to similar proportions of the agricultural population dying. No one is claiming that the Soviets didn't know they were starving the countryside to enable rapid urbanization - they rode up with trucks and took all of the food from the farms, across the entire countryside. So, I don't understanding the apology for Mao here, we have logic, we have precedent, we have a documentary record, and we have his own speeches.
As a routine practice, yes. If my phone was subpoenaed (or likely to be in the future), wiping my phone would be against the law. I would only do so if the risk was worth it.
I joined facebook as my first job out of college. I didn't really have a plan and they offered the most money.
The good:
There is a huge breadth of stuff to work on and good internal mobility. Whatever WLB, "impact," etc that you want, you can probably find it at fb. Getting tired of working on groups? You can work on some VR project. The tooling is really good so you can spin up whatever you want without having to think about infrastructure too much. They treat engineers well.
The bad:
Morality for sure. Nobody's perfect, but facebook felt especially evil sometimes. Lying to regulators etc is seen as strategic. Not wanting to be outed as an fb employee is definitely true.
Might not be a bad move, think about where the equity will go in the next few years, etc. If you want to start a family and high compensation, it's certainly not a bad move. If you think about the larger picture of what you're doing, I'd think it over very carefully.
