You're a commie? don't you know stalin murdered 600 gorillion people??

I hate liberals so much. Not accepting literal lies and propaganda against the previous iterations of socialism means you're a Stalinist who wants a repressive police state, yet allowing their 'facts' to stand means they keep beating you over the head with muh 1000 quadrillion and how it's the most evil ideology ever.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0A6UWkK2U4s
necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

write their names on a list, deliver the list to the secret police post-revolution

Maybe next time try not doing Stalin apologia.

Except it's literally not true by any objective standard. Stalin did not kill 60 million people - that's simply a fact. Allowing them to use that as an argument against Communism and claim that it will therefore lead to a system of mass murder just as bad as the Nazis is absurd. Yet when you point out it's propaganda you're suddenly in favor of everything the USSR did.

I live in ex-Yugoslavia, you couldn't believe the amount of absolute bullshit that gets peddled daily by politicians here. They never talk about anything substantial like economic systems and average welfare benefits, it's always >muh totalitarian dictatorship, if you're not a nationalist Tuđman worshipper you like Stalin.
Of course, all of these anti-communists always talk ambiguously abour our fascist ww2 period and ignore how socialists fought against it.

It's a bunch of pointless rhetoric and following it is depressing. My advice is, stay away from realpolitik and read books about economics and political theory.

try to tell them that stalin was indeed psychopath. Which sane country would make possible mass surveillance of their citizens in order to prevent terrorism enemies propaganda? USSR was clearly shit.

Dude, it is literally easier to say that the USSR wasn't communist. The best part is it doesn't make you look like a holocaust denier, AND you will be telling the truth anyway.

This.

No, the Nazis supported genocide, we don't.

If we didn't stop the Nazis's many more millions would have died.

just stop

So you think we shouldn't say that people who weren't communists weren't indeed communists? You would rather we accept anyone that calls themself a communist, even if they have nothing to do with it? That seems like an excelent tactic, my heterodox friend!

what part of Union [of] Soviet Socialist Republics do you don't get?

How about both of ya stop thinking black and white and explain the nuances of the attempts at socialism from your own point of view, instead of just outright rejecting anything that has flaws and accepting any propaganda from the capitalists about it.

They were communists. That doesn't mean the USSR reached communism. The "not ackshully socialism" tactic comes across as disingenuous to most people. It's better to be critical of past attempts but also dispel literal capitalist propaganda.


what part of Communist Party of the Soviet Union do you not get?

ML/Stalinism was founded entirely on Marxist theory, in excruciating detail. The leaders of the Soviet Union, during the Stalin years were all without exception convinced Marxists. Even if it wasn't a communist state but only an attempt to achieve communism (props to
for reminding us all of the self-awareness they had of this), you have to face up to this: the Soviet Union was a sincere and determined attempt to establish communism. They were communists. Just saying "acshualy, the USSR wasn't TRUE communism," is too facile.

Right… Might as well also accept fascism as a form of anarchism, since it can trace its ideological origins back to anarcho-syndicalism.


Sorry, but between having to lie and say that the USSR was socialist, AND having to defend senseless mass murder, or having to prove that the USSR wasn't socialist, I think that the latter is not only easier but also more truthful, and achieves better results, and is more moral as well.

This is why this line of argument gets so ridiculous. Look I am very anti-USSR and think they set socialism's public image back hugely, but to claim they weren't communists is ridiculous. The USSR was founded by dedicated people with a deep understanding of Marxist theory, it wasn't all just some trick to win over the population. Admit they made mistakes (the undemocratic vanguard party) that led to dictatorship and explain that the material conditions in Russia weren't ready. Saying its not actually socialism comes off as disingenuous and is less effective then explaining the nuances of what happened.

Who the fuck cares? It doesn't matter if you found your shir in marxist theory. If you make and maintain state capitalism, you are not a communist.

They do not count as mistakes if they are intentional, and I am certain that they were intentional.

why do you feel the need to defend them. Also you've moved the goal posts you were initially claiming they weren't communists.

jesus christ

noun
1.
an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong.

Do you know what the word mistake means?

Seeing as how you have not established communism, you aren't a communist. You have not abolished the state either, so you are not an anarchist.

You don't have to do that either. It was an attempt by commited communists to create socialism/communism. That's it. Dispelling porky propaganda doesn't require you to lie. It requires you tell the truth.

Dude, I wasn't the one arguing for that.

Nice dictionary, faggot. Want to throw in the definition of socialism they have as well? It might help your case, given how much porky insists that the USSR was actual communism.

So you mean to say that the leaders of the USSR were totally intent on reaching communism and were doing everything they could to get there? Sorry, but I don't buy it. It seems like utter bullshit, the likes of which rulling classes usually make up to appease the workers.

Nobody is saying there wasn't an attempt. What I am saying is that it didn't reach socialism at all.

Yes. The Soviet Archives show that through the letters, communications, and memos between party leaders and government personnel.

Neither did any anarchist attempt. So I guess you don't dispel any misinformation about them?

You implied that because i admit the USSR was an attempt at establish socialism I would have to defend all their actions.

Yes. Read. A. Fucking. Book (pic related). You lazy anarchist trash (but I repeat myself thrice).

Sure. Precisely the same way in which the leaders of the catholic church were intent on helping the poor and acting in a non-sinful manner. I don't fucking buy it,

I am happy to recognise that they weren't actual socialism, because that is the truth.
I also despise how people say that Rojava is totally libertarian socialism today.

You missinterpreted. I meant to say that if you consider the regime of the USSR as actual socialism, as in THE SOCIETY YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE, it is logical that you ought to defend it.

Like how the leaders of the United States constantly talk about freedom and democracy? Seems totally legit.

Why do people laugh at the deaths under communist regimes?

Why do people think if you criticise communist regimes you must be a warmongering capitalist imperialist fascist?

...

To me this is what happens when we let Liberals control the narrative. They can come up with any sort of bullshit they want. Though I know engaging with liberals is dumb, but you really can't change their minds.

They are too deep in idpol in order to save them. I just think it is best to not deal with these people as much as possible.

and it makes you look like a literal retard

This is true

They were communists (socialists, because it wasn't the last stage of socialism) according to everyone that is not a huge brainwashed autist

...

Except "muh not real communism" is literally the most widely ridiculed argument for socialism out there

IMHO, a stern defense of Stalin is required if we're going to defend communism. Provide criticisms of him, sure, but don't just spout bouregois propaganda about him.

This is easily the dumbest response to have when debating, period. WHY you would ever use the "X wasn't real X" is dumb as fuck. You'll only sound like a lolbert who says "we have crony capitalism not real capitalism11!!" …

It's much easier to say that the USSR were making a genuine effort to build socialism and there were many faults leading to their failure.

You really think the USSR wasn't composed of "real communists" ?

I mean, by your own judgement, who are "the real communists" then? ONLY anarchists? Come on dude.

nah, stalin can rot

"senseless mass murder"

Okay dude, take off the fucking anarcho flag, for real. Pick up a book and stop with the liberal platitudes about morality and shit.

You really think revolutions are made by people with "good morals" and in good health? By today's standards, most of these people were at least a little insane, if not totally out of their fucking minds due to the conditions they found themselves living in.

Enjoy your gulag

Good luck debating anyone and not failing horribly then. Pretty much every "communist" I've ever met that only has negative things to say about Stalin, and gives him credit for literally nothing – this is a sign that someone is naively appeasing the right wing, or liberals under some deluded notion that they'll "join your side eventually."

Meanwhile, you alienate everyone else that is already on your side. It's stupid and counterproductive, and you get nothing by appeasing conservatives and liberals with this bourgeois apologia.

B A R B A R O S S A
A
R
B
A
R
O
S
S
A

Which is exactly the point of anti-Stalinist propaganda. The ultimate slippery slope. Once you start claiming "USSR was not a real Socialism", you are no longer allowed to do anything that resembles Soviet Union in any way. Which ultimately castrates your political agenda and makes you useless. If you attempt to - you look like a fucking liar on top of being useless.

This is why Socialism is condensed into Soviet Union, Soviet Union is condensed into Stalin, and Stalin is condensed into 37/38 and HOLODOMOR.

What IRL is easier, is to stop playing coy. Did the copyright infringement disappear because queen of England declared that those that do it are called pirates? No. Similarly enough, I doubt Socialism will vanish if mass-media keeps on chanting "Stalinists-Stalinists-Stalinists" - provided Socialism has anything to offer. Base controls Superstructure. Just like pirate flag can't scare away visitors of Pirate Bay, so Stalin will not terrify public into Capitalism.

Only those who have nothing to offer care about perception.

Do you want Revolution or do you to look presentable? Because that's the real question here.

You don't get to look respectable if you intend to challenge the established order.

If other nations succeeded, could you consider actions of Bolsheviks a "failure"? I doubt it. "Failure" is a wrong word.

Bolsheviks had done everything they set out to do: make Russia a better place, industrialize it, abolish capitalism on the territory they controlled, and defend it from foreign Capitalist powers. They could not promise to win World Revolution alone, could they?

This. Socdems are literally "muh PR" as an ideology.

OK, so you're basically throwing away one of the USSR's greatest accomplishments, the defeat of Nazi Germany, because Stalin was in charge at the time.

Otherwise, you have to defend Stalin at least a little bit. Because he did lead the USSR as it vanquished fascism.

WWII was Stalin's worst moment tbh. He fucked up the officer corps and opening stages of the war, really didn't contribute anything during the war except to stop fucking up and let others handle things.

ah, thanks for reminding me why no one takes you seriously.

What.

No.

Not really.

Would you like to explain your reasoning?

He did though. There was not a conspiracy of 7211 trotskyite officers. That was just a lot of wasted talent.
Telling your army not to mobilize as you uncover proofs of an enemy invasion is not a smart move.

Fairly self explanatory. The war was fought by a machine he set up, but he didn't contribute to it. He just had his military and civilian technicians run the machine of state.

Technically, Stalin did engage in borderline genocidal policies — just nor for the same reasons as the Nazis.

This would be a positive thing, given that the USSR failed at achieving socialism.

Also, this is ignoring how much porky insists on saying that the USSR is communism and communism is the USSR.


Top fucking logic you've got there.

Its true tho, stalin was a red fascist

idk. People who actually want to reach communism and don't make efforts to crush people who are trying to reach communism. That seems like a reasonable requirement to me. You know, not being an actual counter-revolutionary who claims to be pro-revolution at the same time.

I literally couldn't care less. It is the truth.
Why do you think it gets ridiculed so much? Our oponents want us to defend Stalin, because they know he is indefensible.

You mean we should lie to people?

Mass killing for class or political reasons isn't genocide. If it was, it would be "genocide" to kill all slave owners, or to kill all royalty.

The USSR got closer than anyone else, other than Cuba, which is still socialist.

You should try getting out of that tank. You would get a much clearer picture of the world.

Cuba is socialist you fucking retard.

I'm not even asking how many of them were political officers and did not contribute to military endeavours, but can you say how many officers there were at the time in the Red Army?

How do you know people who replaced old officers weren't talented? IIRC they were better educated - higher share of people with high education.

Okay. I'm kinda lost here. What exactly are you talking about?

I must say I'm not aware of him going AWOL in the middle of WWII.

Stalin clearly reached the apex of his influence during WWII. While I do not consider him a dictator, during WWII he had a lot of executive powers he did not - and could not - simply delegate.

P.s. I'm assuming you are relying on Kotkin here.

I always say that regardless of the horrible things that happened under "communist" regimes (and yes, some did happen), everything bad that Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc. did pales in comparison to the shit the US did in the name of exceptionalism, imperialism, interventionism, and "democracy." They dropped the atomic bombs. They funded terrorist activities to sabotage third-world struggles for independence. They killed tons of their own people, had Black leaders assassinated, silenced opposition with red-scare tactics.

Stalin and Mao made their countries world powers in record time. Ho Chi Minh gave Vietnam its independence back, pushed back US forces, and was nowhere near as terrible as the puppet dictator Diem the US supported in the south. Castro made his country literate and defended time and time again against US imperialism, and made it a leader in the field of medicine. The US? We still don't have guaranteed education, housing, or healthcare.

When Castro died, my rich, liberal, bougie uncle said "great." Fuck these people. They don't know their history beyond propaganda. If a person is quick to point to atrocities committed by "commies," comparing them to the Nazis. Let's not forget that the US's own tactics in WWII, with en masse civilian terror bombing, internment, racialization of the enemy, etc. didn't make them any better; many times the US had been accused of being just as bad as the "evil" they oriented themselves against. To speak ill about any other country, and yet be blissfully ignorant about your own country's atrocities, is to be intellectually dishonest. It's not even worth it to argue against a person who thinks that way.

Not that guy, but wat? Pls explain.

Le "they did worse tho" argument.

tankie-tier bullshit.

Fuck, let's not forget hat we SUPPORTED Hitler and the Nazis initially as a force against communism, with tons of American businesses giving aid or outright manufacturing goods for the fucking Nazis. Americans have no fucking right to compare anyone to the Nazis when it's convenient for them when they're complicit in it all.

I got it from Soviet Storm, you can tell me it's rightist Russian Chauvinist propaganda if you like.
youtube.com/watch?v=0A6UWkK2U4s

The US DID do worse. The whole point is to acknowledge that it's a complicated issue that decades of propaganda has tried to reduce to "COMMIES BAD," "CAPITALIST/LIBERAL DEMOCRACY GOOD." I hear that bullshit all the time from my relatives who emigrated from Vietnam. It makes me sick that they suck US dick all day and apologize for the shit committed against their own people.

Oh look, now the anarchist is attacking the Vietnamese resistance as well. What a surprise.

Yeah, but that's not really a valid argument. It just means your regime was less bloodthirsty than the other regime. It doesn't make it good or desireable in an absolute sense. It only makes it better than the other one.
Personaly, if I have to find for something, I would rather it be something good, rather than something less bad.

I meant "fight for something"

The USSR was theoretically ruled by committee. After all, Stalin was merely the General Secretary of the Communist Party, not the "Supreme Leader, Eternal President of the USSR" or whatever. Delusional Stalinists believe that this legal fiction actually reflects reality, whereas everyone else recognizes that Stalin had elevated his relatively humble position to dictatorial power through clever politicking.

Let's all just be peaceful maaaan

...

As you can see actual marxists are all bootlicker cucks, drop that read from your flag and join actual anarchists

We don't have a definition of dictatorship that fits Stalin. It's mostly "well, USSR couldn't have been democracy, it must have been dictatorship; and the most popular guy must've been that dictator - HEY and Khrushchev in 1956 called him dictator too! That proves it!"

Where was his private army? What funds he could personally distribute? How did he enforce his rule? At no moment was Stalin actually the man in charge.

Okay. I don't agree with "no mobilization", but I'm not watching it.

But not everyone is ready to embrace AnCap.

Well you can point to plenty of good things that they've done as well. I've mentioned some of it in my initial post. It's not to say "oh they're perfect" because there is no perfect system like that. I think some of the shit they did was horrible (poor response to famine, executing political opposition, private police, etc.) but you can't just say it was all bad when good things also resulted and against the huge tide of American intervention/sabotage. All I'm trying to do is balance this lopsided discussion and undo some of the retarded propaganda against it.

From a certain view, some of these regimes were incredibly successful, i.e., China and Russia would be nowhere near where they are now without these instrumental figures and movements. It means we can learn from them, as the Black Panthers learned from Mao and Marxist-Leninism. Their efforts in socialist collectivism worked remarkably well for the short period they were allowed to, until they were wiped out by the government. It only tells us that something about socialism/communism works, better and beyond what capitalism and US nationalism can ever offer. Sometimes, it necessitates force. Do we need dictatorships? No. I think all the successes are driven and afforded by collective action; I essentially identify with anarchism. But even if I disagree with these "commie" leaders as a whole (cept maybe Castro), I refuse to participate in and perpetuate the propaganda. Give credit where it's due, acknowledge your own faults before you load them on others.

You should ease up that butthurt, bootlicker, all you are doing is proving you are fucking stupid, do you want to embarass yourself here like you did on the econ thread?

Now apologize for making me waste my time replying to you

If history has shown us anything, it's that nothing good can be taken for granted. It requires force and the cost of many lives. For civil rights, for independence and self-determinism as a nation, for industrialization/modernization, it all required blood. And it never comes swiftly and broadly. Workers rights took decades and decades, civil/human rights–the same deal. It's through fighting for something slightly better, time and time again, that we end up with something a lot better than what we had then.

Socialism is not only "slightly better." Even in practice, besieged by imperialists, Socialist Cuba is miles better than it was under Batista, and it puts the Haitian, Dominican, and Jamaican regimes to shame. When we have a truly successful, worldwide socialist revolution, it will alleviate the suffering of billions.


So what is your definition of dictatorship, and what ways does Stalin deviate from it?

Was that the part when you morons run out of arguments and suffered a meltdown?

Glorious.

My point is that it is common definition that Stalin doesn't fit. Unless he is specifically mentioned by name there, of course.

No, it was the part when you claimed that a quote from Marx was wrong

But what's the definition!?!? I don't know what you're talking about.

I said that your cargo-cultist interpretation of the quote was wrong.

Marx for several sentences clarifies what use-value he is talking about. And what do you do? You ignore it. You even attempt to drag German text into it - which makes the whole situation even more hilarious.

Embrace the wonders of search engines.

But all the dictators in history only had "absolute power" in theory. In reality, they had to be worried about assassination, rebellion, coups, and so on. And they listened to advisors and councils. Stalin was easily as powerful as any Roman dictator.

Loving every laugh

what's the quote

he was sperging about how using something doesnt mean that it has use value or something

> To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such [use-value as use-value], since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs in this [economic] sphere only when it is itself a determinate form. Use-value is the immediate physical entity in which a definite economic relationship – exchange-value – is expressed.

You can read the whole post (and ~100 post that preceded it) here:

And this all had begun from here:

...

kek

Then you don't understand the underlying assumption of their question. They do not care about some ideological purity, they care about whether, when put into action, your proposed system is going to resemble the Stalinist regime.

And there's no reason smashies should think themselves above this question. Sure, you consistently fail to achieve long-lasting power, but it's not as if there were no labor camps in revolutionary Spain. You instead just want to say "NOT REAL COMMUNISM," because you're not ideologically equipped to answer how these power structures arise.

Yeah, but they all deserved it.

It has a high standard of living (especially for being under US blockade!), is the only environmentally-sustainable high-HDI country in the world, and is making moves towards workers' cooperatives… and yet it's not socialist because it lacks social ownership of the means of production. It's a good example of what state ownership of the means of production can bring, but also shows the many limitations of such. It's definitely the country closest to socialism right now (excluding Rojava), but it isn't quite there by the common criteria.

Before you say "oh look, you didn't attack the state when he had a chance, therefore you're not a real anarchist!", anarchists don't hold that the state should be destroyed because it's evil. We hold that it should be destroyed because it cannot exist alongside freedom, equality, and prosperity.

Cuba has made real progress, but we can't just call it socialist because we like it. It does have very real limitations related to how it's not socialism.

nah, you're just being autistic. your insistence that cuba isn't technically socialist is no different from ancaps saying america isn't capitalist.

True. Liberals are anti-left and will never join an endeavor on others' terms, which makes them operationally useless at best.

We aren't here to pander to normies. Can you present a watertight, fully-sourced case arguing for why you and every other liberal shouldn't kill themselves?

See pic. Only tankies disagree with that definition.
Unfortunately, I do agree that Raul's going to destroy it. For the moment, however, it's closer than it was before.

He killed between 24-40 million people and Mao killed between 40-60 million. They are the biggest mass murderers in human history, lucky for the Left Pol Pot really was a Shadow Government plant and not at all a serious leftist.

and the means were socially owned in USSR and Cuba. democracy is a meme.

those numbers are literally made up, and not accepted by any serious historians anymore. even anti-communists like Timothy Snyder now say Stalin killed 6 million people at most, and that's including a few famines.

hahahahahahaha holy shit

...

Interesting how capitalists think that, by simply not counting deaths due to capitalist action or inaction, they never happened.

Madeleine Albright's half a million Iraqi kids start to add up to real money, at that rate.

what a honeypot

Even if those death tolls were true, how is that even an argument against said ideology?

Cuba *was* socialist you fucking retard.
Now there are private business, the US is backing off on the embargos, American companies are lining up to enter the Cuban market, and this all started to go into motion conveniently before and shortly following Castro's death, because Raúl is now running around and fucking up all of his brother's shit.
Screencap this. I guarantee you in 10 years, when the FreeMarket™ firmly plants it's cancerous feet in Cuba we will find out Raúl is/was/will be getting his pockets greased up for all the money that he will make from the bribes these companies are sending his way.

Now this is the kind of shit I like:

if your ideology requires mega-death/genocide to sustain itself, you will eventually be removed and your ideology destroyed OR you will run out of people to kill to sustain your death cult/machine ;)

Thank you NazBol, you're my favorites

Not an argument, faggot. All of the high estimates were allowed by history departments because there were no available records to prove it one way or another. After the USSR fell, the real archives were opened up, and they proved that the "muh 40 millions" claims were bullshit. Again, even right wing historians don't use those numbers any more.

got any more satanic stalin images?

for Stalin yeah, he killed between 20-40 million probably closer to 20 but that is the accepted range to this very day. the only people who dispute this are M-L.

Mao really did kill between 40-60 million people and there is recent evidence of this. You're a hoot, thank you for this. I get to listen to Nazis and idiot Leftists tell me how their DEAR LEADER's DINDU NUFFIN

Let's not beat around the bush here: it was state ownership. That's not to say that state ownership can't be a form of social ownership, but it is not explicitly the same thing.

Let's think of the US for a moment. Is the military a socially-owned organization? No; it's state owned and funded, but its control is managed by the generals (and to some extent the president/congress) and serves the interests of lawmakers who point them at what they're to shoot today? Are alphabet agencies socially-owned? No; once again state owned and funded, but they have no explicit goals towards serving public interest. Are the police socially-owned? No; state owned and funded, but were designed and continue to be trained for the purpose of defending private property against members of the working class who might disrupt it. You get the idea.

State ownership only becomes social ownership if the state in question operates fully on the policy of benefiting its members through the property it owns. Places like Cuba and the USSR certainly adhered to that motto more than their explicitly capitalist alternatives, but they were not immune to using said property to serving other interests. Therefore it would be more appropriate to say that they were, as it has been said in the past, state capitalist in nature, albeit a more benevolent imagining of it through the lens of once revolutionary proletarians.

Democracy may be merely a means to an end, but a workers democracy still stands as among the best way to ensure that the function of the collective production and society operate towards the interests of said workers. That's not even touching on the alleviation of alienation that workers direct involvement elicits, which is important towards ensuring the longevity of worker's support and participation for the post-revolutionary society and ideals.
Then allow the option for delegation. It's not rocket science.

Lurk moar you socdem pretending to be an anarchist

...

Almost good enough for a Holla Forums narrative.

"Stalin only killed 6 million people" is a shit argument even if its true though.

There is literally no proof of Stalin killing anywhere from 20 to 60 million people. Numbers thrown by anti-commmunist authors like Conquest are based on highly biased estimations. Their claims contradict archival evidence as well as census data of the Soviet Union. All the estimated death tolls started shrinking after 1992, a total coincidence that this happened right after the Cold War ended, I'm sure.

I mostly tell them the death count is actually from famine caused by weather conditions with exception of Holodomor (since I dont wannt to bother getting into it).

I have zero reason to believe those stats are any more credible, the authors and the dates they created those estimates are no more authoritative or recent than mine. At all. You're just using wishful thinking and staticians/researchers who agree with your position, which you intended to arrive at either by way of the propaganda that involved you with M-L or your curiosity about the death toll. The death toll was revised down to 20 million, that's it. Two different websites that make use of academic analysis of the available primary sources as well as secondary trustworthy sources have estimated 20 million. Here are the links (their cited sources are as recent, and as well controlled for as yours are):
necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm

hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

There is absolutely zero reason at all whatsoever to believe the absurd number of 6 million total deaths from a regime that made a point of utilizing mass indiscriminate murder to control its population. You are not only lying willfully but you are being misled by people who are pushing a political agenda. That's as bad as buying into pol's holocaust denial retardation. Its as bad as thinking that US corporations have never funded state/paramilitary terrorism abroad or not understanding the sheer scale of international banking complicity in Drug trafficking. Its a level of naivety, stupidity, ignorance and malicious disrespect for the truth that ONLY fascists or a tankie piece of shit would advocate.

6 million is the estimate given by anti-communist historians now, because it includes a few famines. But you're right, it's not an argument on its own.


No, 20 million is still bullshit you fucking porky. Kill yourself.


This whole analogy falls apart because the state in the USA represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. Whereas there was no bourgeoisie in the USSR, only proletariat. Therefore, the military and police and so on in the USSR actually were "socially owned," even though I question the idea that you can own an agency the same way you own the means.

I just watched the whole first episode of that documentary series you linked (I love a good documentary), and at no point did it say the Soviet Union had failed to mobilize its forces when Nazi Germany invaded. On the contrary, it said

The a bit later

The documentary also mentions numerous times that Stalin and other government officials knew that Germany was going to invade, but there were several complications in finding out when they would actually do it. Is it possible the USSR could have been more prepared? Maybe, but saying Stalin never told his armies to mobilize is absurd, and your own source does not back you up.

*>"It was an invitation from Stalin to Hitler to settle their differences through negotiations
Sorry I accidentally a few words

Those aren't estimates, they are statistics from the Central state archive of the October Revolution of the USSR. And your post is proving my point. The argument that no records of the Soviet Union would be reliable is the argument that people made for the opening of the Soviet archives. They believed that because the archives were classified, they would contain actual or closer to actual data since it doesn't significantly inflate or deflate numbers in records the public would never see. It was only after the archives were opened and didn't confirm their absurd figures that they backpedaled on this.

>necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
>hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

Again, you're linking me to blatant liars like Rummel, Solzhenitsyn and other authors there who have claimed Stalin killed 60 million -some up to 120- people even though this would have required 40% of the Soviet population to disappear and regions like Ukraine and Belarus going extinct. Why is it that Stalin's death toll was "revised" when anti-communist propaganda was no longer needed?


You're the one being misled and falling for numbers invented by people who were paid to defame the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It seems to me like it's you who wants to validate his own bias rather than finding out the truth.

Any Marxist who knows what they're talking about does. You could have cooperative capitalism under said definition which does not abolish commodity production or the value form. Go back to Reddit with your coop fetish.