Lib: but communism killed so many people!

Kulaks deserved it.

with crimes like these it's a wonder they weren't purged earlier

Stalin didn't purge enough




It worked on you.

I discovered communism myself by noticing how little democrat liberals actually care for making change and how much they support bootlicking/classcucking.

How is this any different from the holocaust

Communists kill people on factors they are in control of such as how much wealth they accumulate.

Nazis do it based on uncontrollable factors such as race, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.

If you don't want to die under communism, don't hoard wealth.

Yes, but if you don't want to die under the system they had before, you HAD to horde wealth. And by 'horde' you mean have an incredibly small advantage over your regular peasant. It was cold-blooded mass-murder over chump-change, and the sign of incompetent governance because it could've been solved peacefully but there was too much fear over 'counter-revolutionary' elements.

but they were just hungry user

Maybe if I think people saying gulags were alright are just kidding I'll sleep peacefully tonight.

40% of Kulaks sent to the gulags were children. Also, not doing fuck all about the famine till 1933 isn't embracing historical necessity to reach communism. It's dismissing the problem till it had snowballed into something so gigantic the SU was facing economic collapse.

Tankies are truly the cancer killing the left.

No one who cites those statistics ever cares about context, they just want to red scare. There are countless examples of world leaders in history who killed tons of people, but they usually did it in the pursuit of some other goal and actually accomplishing something for their society

Fears were well justified

We're good larpers. We will ensure period accuracy by guaranteeing an age-representative labor army.

No such thing.

When I first came to Holla Forums i didn't know what a kulak was.
Now I unironically tell people kulaks fucking deserved it when people use muh collectivization

This. Famines were common in that part of the world. The soviets were trying to do what they could to help people, but selfish fucks would rather hoard grain and see people starve to death than give up anything they didn't need.
And don't tell me it was self interest or some other liberal bullshit, kulaks were known to burn their hoards before letting the government take it.

Sorry i forgot i had my shitposting flag on. Even though i was still shitposting but anyway.

I'd love to see how long you'd last if you didn't take it as seriously as they did.

IMO you should go "yeah it's kind of embarrassing how it can't compete with capitalism numbers but famine in India is fucking cheating."

This isn't true at all. I'm quoting this post from rev left:

The 1931 harvest had been bad and regional party satraps had clashed with the centre on the targets set. That is, even before the 1932 sowing season many of the key factors behind the later famine were clear - eg disarray caused by collectivisation, decline in draught power and failure of the collective farms to meet expectations. During the 1932 sowing it was abundantly clear, and was reported as such, that the campaign was in difficulty - progress was behind plan, the quality was poor and there were shortages of seeds. Stalin was personally informed by Voroshilov as to the poor state of the crop in July 1932.

We know much of this because, contrary to your suggestions above, the state was well informed as to progress. Local grain bodies filed weekly reports as to progress against the harvest plan. By August Politburo members were being informed directly by party personnel that the harvest was in great difficulty; the metrics showed that progress lagged well behind that of the 1931 campaign. The Politburo's response? To insist that the harvest was 'satisfactory' and publish the most optimistic set of figures available. Calculations as to the harvest yield by statisticians were disregarded as politically unacceptable when they proved too similar to the grim picture provided by local bodies.

So by mid-1932, at the latest, it was abundantly clear that the harvest was in trouble. Yet the collection plan adopted in May 1932 was some 15% higher than the (unrealised) 1931 plan. When the regions resisted the centre typically rode roughshod over their 'demobiliser' concerns. This dynamic persisted for the rest of the year. For example, when the Ukrainian SSR decided, in Nov 1932, to ease the burden on collective farms (by ruling that their seed funds should not be requisitioned) it was overruled by Moscow, which continued to insist that kulaks withholding grain were responsible for the troubles.

Despite plenty of information the leadership refused to acknowledge the poor state of the 1931 collections and it refused to acknowledge the looming 1932 crisis. Instead it deployed repression against imagined enemies… unsurprisingly no number of arrests and draconian laws could summon forth grain that was not there. As late as Dec 1932 the Politburo was decreeing that:

This is carelessness. Plain and simple. A total disregard for life. This doesn't mean communism is ebil, it means we should stop exalting these failed States.

People starve under capitalism too.

Crock of shit. Even if you count Mao's famine more people still died during WWI and WWII

Why wouldn't you? The goal is not to go "communism didn't kill 8 billon people only 30 million!". It's an argument that you inherit the sins of your forefathers that can be dismissed on its own merits.

take off the marx flag, liberal

More people should be like us. Let's take over the internet.