I'm tired of the those who inflate the dead under Communism to the arbitrarily high counts...

7 million and 2 million

Many of those are droughts, notice how I included the caveat of indirect consequences? We cannot assign all moral guilt to the USSR because they also had droughts, too. But when it comes to forceful seizure of things that lead to unfortunate famines, that is a different story. The droughts (by extension, famines) do occur, but can they be attributed to the forceful seizure of things to accelerate the famine? That's the point of discussion, not trying to monkey down the guilt by comparing to others. It is useful for reference, but not for equivalence unless you provide context to make your claim.

I've heard so many 'debunkings' of the holocaust and commiecausts that I have no idea how many people died in either. It could be 1 million to 12 million for the holocaust, it could be 20 to 50 million for the USSR.

I don't care, fuck nazis and ML.

>"communism" kills by literally killing, creates a world superpower in 20 years otherwise in which full literacy and being well-fed and employed dominates society so much that the majority of post-east bloc breakout citizens want it back (not kidding: pewresearch.org/daily-number/hungary-better-off-under-communism/, spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-dictatorship-majority-of-eastern-germans-feel-life-better-under-communism-a-634122.html, huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/soviet-empire-poll_n_5288261.html)
And even then it shows complete ignorance to say that famine and death occuring under formally capitalist paradigms only occured indirectly.

Anyone could have done that. The Tsars could have done that, guess what, industrialization is efficient. Russia is extremely large and has untapped potential. It's true that it was amazing, but it's not true that's it's a case for an ideology.

How many deaths can we attribute to Americas role in climate change?

Saying "communism" did good things, everyone could have done good things is a surefire way of moving the goalposts entirely and trying to remove credit formally attribute to the communist movement and then in hindisght saying "yeah, but…". Either communism did as good as anyone else here, or you have to at the same time discard tragedy because the same communist tragedies could have been attributed to monarchists, liberals, fascists, etc.

man made climate change isn't even real

This isn't a conversation about capitalism versus communism, it was about those directly/indirectly killed by the two big players of Communism.
We aren't talking about Hungary, unless you want to discuss the history of Hungary and their economics. You are welcome to start your own thread on that, as this is not the thread for it.
I said that the droughts can be attributed to the famines, just as we cannot say that the entire burden of guilt is on the shoulders of ANY government, but there is not an equivalence between droughts or not trading with people you choose not to trade with and forcefully seizing things that lead to deaths.

Once again, this is assuming that we can totally ignore formally reactionary takeovers that DID seize forcefully, like the Pinkerton gangs, the Shah of Iran, the Latin American generals overthrowing democratically elected Marxists all over the continent, etc.

Thanks that is all I needed to know.

Also that is merely the tip of the iceberg of disasters and shocks caused by capitalism. It's gorillions are just never talked about or enumerated.

Moving the goalposts from what? Implicitly, my goalpost was establishing why such a thing happened. And I don't think it was because of political ideology, I think it was because of a massive tract of underutilized land, industrial machinery, and a massive population of willing and unwilling workers. That isn't an argument for communism, or ML, or anything which leads to your second point. Why I don't idolize nazis for rebuilding the german economy or rugged liberalism for US innovation.

It was part of the question because you said "allegedly" as if there was any doubt they'd done this.

Not power, I'm talking about crops resulting in famines. This isn't a thread about every group/set of beliefs using force to take power, that is a different topic.

We aren't talking about capitalism, it is a simple topic that I'm not sure why you can't seek to wrap your head around. You can use them as references, but not for equivalence unless you provide context to make your claim and drive it back to the original topic at-hand, which is the direct killings in the USSR and Mao's China by the Red Army of the NKVD (or anything else, that's what I'm here to know) and avoidable famines (not environmental, but government taking crops and starving people, like in the Ukraine).

I said allegedly because I don't want to make judgement on any party without hearing the opinions of those that I asked.

im sure the number is real in your mind LMAO

gommunism was so great they had to build a wall to keep people from trying to sneak in

Please stop baiting for replies, both sides. I just wanted a simple answer. Stay on topic and stop derailing. Make your own thread about whatever you want, mine had a clear path it was supposed to go on.

100 times this.

Muh special snowflake ideology is literally perfect because it has no way to take power.

t. anarkiddies, leftcoms and trotskyites alike

It's a billion gorillion :DDDDD
eat my benis you gommie :DDDDDDD

Except I replied to a specific person and not about the threads "topic at hand." Not every reply you get in a thread relates to the core subject directly user-san, don't get butt flustered over this.

It's hard to know the real number killed in China because even Chinese figures are inflated and come from sources that weren't tabulations from the time people really want to know like Mao's rule or the Great Leap Forward. 16 million died according to Deng's era government but western sources rounded that up by 14 million. So according to them 30 million were killed. The problem with those numbers though is we don't even know if the original 16 million was right because no one knows where that number came from but it became a useful fiction in China because the new party bosses could make it look they were progressing away from Mao's era and it made them look good to use them. Westerners like the large sized gorrillion numbers for obvious reasons discussed here ad nausea.

88 million is a ridiculous figure I mean, really… That is almost a third of the US population and I have never seen any documentation to the effect of that.

Part of the problem with both Russia and China's numbers is people often add in the death tolls of World 1 and 2. In China's case especially this is particularly unfair because their war with Japan lasted a lot longer than the wars every other side had with each other.

Also both countries were prone to famines, a lack of infrastructure, outdated technology, cultural division, bandits of various types controlling large portions of the country and all sorts of other shit other countries don't have to deal with but China and Russia uniquely had to in the last century.

Not an argument.

I don't think Maos China, the USSR or East Germany were "good." I just think the gorillions get ridiculous and the arguments often obscure facts about capitalism whose "externalities" are more severe than ideology ever allows people to really see while over exaggerating "the other sides" problems.

Well, if you want to deviate, just start your own thread. Why must mine be at the altar of derailment?
Thanks for the honesty.
Yeah, that's the kind of number manipulation I'm trying to avoid, on both sides.
Which is why I explicitly stated that we cannot assign all moral guilt on the shoulders of the government. But things like direct executions of dissidents, well, it's not like the environment can control whether or not more or less people are executed, that's at the hands of the executioners.

That's how responses work user a topic grows. Things happen the movie. The rest is a non issue I guess. Bless this post.

Well, if you look at the replies near the end, you saw how it started to get into how global warming kills and the Berlin wall. That's fine, we can make examples and references, but don't let them dominate the discussion and oust the original topic.

Exactly, this is why the Holocaust is still worse because it was pretty much a top-down project which was intended to exterminate a certain group of people (no matter if the numbers are inflated).

Yes, sure, dissidents were shot at some point, and it may not have been just all the time, but how many do you think were actually intentionally killed by government agents? Maybe not more than 5k. Every other number would be ridiculous. Remember that most of the Gulag prisoners were released later. There were no death camps.

Plus you need to account the constant struggle for self-preservation the Bolsheviks were in, fighting off threats from within and outside without pause. That doesn't mean it's cool to be paranoid and kill people when serious doubts about their allegiance remain, but looking at how it all went down it is understandable.

Forgot 2nd pic

Establishing the conclusion without analyzing the facts, then assuming that the absence of evidence is presence of evidence and any other claims, factual or otherwise, are "ridiculous. Only five thousand people were killed by execution by the government? Throughout the history of the USSR? Again, I'm here asking for proof, if you can show that to me, I would be glad. Right now, it's an empty claim. Taking half of the dead at any of the years on the chart you provided would yield more than 5k.
Again, this isn't talking about the Holocaust. You reference it, but I'm not sure how you draw it back. You keep flip-flopping between assigning moral guilt to the government for their crimes, but then taking it away and saying that it was only five thousand, then wrapping back around and saying "That doesn't mean it's cool to be paranoid and kill people when serious doubts about their allegiance remain, but looking at how it all went down it is understandable.".
It isn't understandable or justifiable, that isn't the question (if it was okay or not). I was asking how many died, not if it was okay or if other events were okay or not. You can talk about the guilt in another thread, I'm interested in the source material. Just going off of the Red Terror: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Repressions
It sounds like more than 5k died. Even if we take the lowest estimate, being 10k, that's still twice of what you claimed is the absolute minimum (without evidence).

Have you seen when the death toll in Gulags was the highest? Guess what, in '42 and '43 when the infrastructure almost completely collapsed because of the German invasion. It's natural that supplying prison camps would have been one of the lowest priority at this point. Are you seriously gonna compare that to an NKVD agent liquidating somebody? In 1953, when Stalinist "repression" was huge according to this graph, almost nobody died as infrastructure and supply lines became consistently better.

You originally asked a moral question, you seem to be unaware of that. You can't complain about moral attributions. An ideology can't kill people, people kill people. If you want to find out how many people died under Marxism-Leninism you obviously don't wanna count the ones who died of natural causes and old age - once you established that, you are already knee-deep in moral flip-flopping about who's ultimately responsible. You are better off asking your question at /marx/ if you only want numbers.

You complained about people countering the narrative with the deaths amongst capitalism - you completely discarded that as well as not relevant while it in fact absolutely is. You are flakey in your dogmatic. If you discard the deaths under capitalism as having more reasons then just capitalism, you must be consistent and do the same for the deaths under communism except for those who were actively killed by a NVKD agent with a bullet in the head - and this number probably doesn't exceed 5k throughout the Stalinist years as you can read at length at Grove Furr.

That's straight up propaganda, user pls

No, I specifically said to take literally any year, half that number, and it would still be more than 5k. I don't care if the infrastructure was garbage or anything, that isn't the point of contention (what the root cause was, who is justified, etc.). The question is how many died. Of course a war was going on, casualties get racked up. The question is: how many died. I already included the indirect caveat, not sure why you're so upset.
No, you were the one who mentioned the camps first.
Source?
Thank you for telling me what I asked. A moral question would be surrounded by if it was justified, or if it is morally bankrupt, or whatever else aligned with a specific moral framework. Asking for validating a certain amount that is based in facts and reason is not a moral question; I didn't ask if it was good/bad, I asked how many died and in what fashion. The only reason I included caveats like direct/indirect fatalities is because I knew tu quoque non-arguments would derail the thread.
Yes. Again, this isn't the point of contention. Just answer the question.
Which is why I cut the fat from those non-arguments at the top and asked for the straight-up famine-related deaths, or the actual executions during the revolution/its aftermath, or the seizure of goods during the collectivization processes.
You typed out: If you want to find out how many people died under Marxism-Leninism
Not who killed them and if it's okay, but how many. Quantifiable, not morally justifiable. What are you on about with this, start your own thread if you want to talk about who is morally at-fault.
I will do that, it seems that you are incapable of maintaining the actual discussion's theme.
Yes, a tu quoque when they make equivalences and deviate from the references.
That is fine and dandy: that isn't the topic at-hand. "What about" isn't telling me anything about what was actually done by the thing in question.
Okay.
See:
If you bother to read the thread and stay on the discussion, you would have seen my caveats listed specifically for the tu quoque talking points.
That's what I'm looking for.
Source?
Yet I am to accept your "probably 5k". Even if one-third of the deaths in the gulags, at any year you pick, were deaths from the NKVD execution, it would exceed the 5k amount you put forward, unsourced. I noted that it was unsourced in the post above, you just glossed right over that. I'll give you one more chance to source it, otherwise I'll take it as some number you just made up.

To clarify on the first source, I'm asking for a source on the repression/camp infrastructure claims, not the death tolls.

It's like a commie david irving.

was typhus the true terror under USSR? I bet it killed over 5 million

It's hilarious when americans talk about gulags. The american prison complex is worse.