How do you justify the amount of people he killed?

Just compare to contemporary causes.

Ask them: have you supported the Iraqi war or the training and funding of rebels in the Syrian war as just and necessary to overthrow Saddam/Assad? Then they've already admited support for political repression (which the rebels in both countries did) and mass deaths.

You forgot the part where the Whites started the civil war and killed more people than the Reds

Nazi education.

...

They're fucking moderates, not neocons.

certainly had a lot of deaths in them, lad.

a. If you genuinely think you are building a better world for all humanity, I can't fault you. I may still disagree, of course.
b. It's hard to say how many people he actually killed, and how many people would have been killed for similar reasons/circumstances if a different government had come to power. How many right wingers shed tears for every village in history slaughtered because they declared independence from the king?
c. WW1 had just happened. Millions of people died for absolutely nothing. Coming out of that, I can see why you could justify killing people who opposed your government (and innocents in the process as is always the case of governments using violence to maintain power in periods of turbulence) if you thought in the long-run it would liberate humanity from a system that perpetuates misery.

Yes, "invading" after the German army had overwhelmed Poland and effectively conquered it a week earlier.

>"It's okay to occupy a country against the wishes of its inhabitants, you just can't actually invade them"

The vast majority of people who went into gulag came out of gulag alive.

spam your blogspot sources harder antidep tankie

Bad strawman. Hitler is the only reason the Soviets ocuppied the Kresy.

The invasion of Poland under Lenin was completely justified though unless you really believe Poland dindu nuffin in Ukraine and Galicia

...

Poland also was part of the tsarist empire, of course communists would try pushing the revolution as far as possible to the outskirts of their sphere of influence.
It's also not much of an invasion if it's a joint venture of local communists being aided by their foreign comrades.

He literally isn't wrong tho:
cercec.fr/materiaux/doc_membres/Gabor RITTERSPORN/Victims of the Gulag.pdf

Honestly it's more like supporting Jabhat Al-Nushra in attacking a vastly superior direct democratic alternative, just because they're also fighting ISIS.

I don't really care about selling it to normies

No one should. The vast majority of people aren't actually going to be convinced of revolution until it's happening.

Well it has to be done

Revolutions are messy unfortunately.

he killed no more people than Wilson or FDR

but for a much better cause

I don't justify anything because it doesn't have anything to do with me

That is the nature of large scale political conflict. There's no getting around it.

he was a gud boi

We wouldn't have had to kill them if they cooperated. They could be workers and have the same rights like anyone else, be treated fairly, but they resisted, fought back, and even destroyed food supplies just to spite the workers, which only worsened the famine caused by the chaos of the revolution and world war.

Do you consider this fiction?

he only killed fascist and revisionist militants. he did what he had to do

Am I the only person who would kill just about everyone else on earth if it meant that my preferred ideology reined supreme in the end?

He didn't kill pricklycactus so he's ok with the mods

I would.
I'd also kill all men and turn all women into lesbians if I could.

sigh

It's propaganda, you moron.

Point out that the global economic system as it currently exists produces enough food to feed every mouth on the planet, but values making westerners obese more than letting people in the developing world keep from starving.

Challenge people to think about the realities of systems instead of talking about the leaders of communist regimes as supervillians with directly attributable kill counts.

what? no? go on Holla Forums they believe the exact same shit they would literally render the planet lifeless if it meant preserving their aryan race

I like to bring up the American Civil War and point out that if they killed all the slave owners, it would have amounted to over 300,000 people.

citation?

I dont doubt this but dont know much about burger history, and didnt get anythingthat you're referring to from a quick google seach

I think that user means in terms of war casualties, but I find that to seem false on the face of it, as Americans were no where near as involved in both wars as Russia/The USSR. They also didn't lose anywhere near the same amount of casualties so in that sense it's insulting to the USSR to even compare the two.

So… Lenin went to the provisional government and told them "I'ld like to go to socialism" and they say "ok, here" and then the white army and the rest of europa was like "oh well.. I guess they are red now. No need to sent expeditionary forces to Crimea".

Or, Castro went to Batista and he gave him the keys to the palace and then Kennedy was like "oh well. No need to put CIA to murder him, or sent troops to bay of pigs…".

Sasuga Holla Forums. You are a fucking disgrace.

I didnt take it as a 'I cant defend my opinion' as much as it was a 'how do I explain my opinion in a way that doesn't automatically turn people off'

still bad imo but not as bad as what you're implying

The US government has murdered way more people.

...

Really makes you think

tell them if they think that's bad, they haven't seen anything yet.