Someone give me sources on why Stalin did not kill gorrillions

you made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to give me sources on how stalin killed gorillions

Current nonsense estimates presuppose that all Soviet data is false, all American Cold War propaganda is true, and Stalin was omnipotent and omniscient dictator.

It is obviously impossible to argue anything, if every argument have to be based on all of those three assumptions.

Nobody here is doing that. All I hear is people saying Stalin wasn't responsible for 60 million. OK, I never thought that and I doubt most of leftypol thinks that, so was it 0 or is there another number?

We are on leftypol, and nobody is assuming any cold war data from the USA. If anything, people are more likely here to be open to soviet accounts.

If, however, you can only know the truth by being a complete stalin apologist, then it doesn't sound like it could be that truthful.

This is a joke, right?

There is no number, because there is no question.

If you want to know how many people Stalin killed you need to actually define the word.

...

It's been asked plenty of times, stop avoiding it. Do you have an estimate of how many people were killed from the aforementioned reasons under Stalin, or not?

If you post unsourced info graphs you are a fucking cunt moron.

But if you can show me a source for the bottom one id be glad to know about it

...

OP here again. I nearly forgot about this thread. From that irritating butthurt tankie here, I wish I had.

Stop avoiding the question and give me some stats. No, not you, tankie, someone else.

You are quoting something that does not even say the word "Stalin" anywhere. Apparently it's world-wide statistics for all time.

Not to mention every single entry in your list is impossible to define. How do you know it was "revenge execution", for example? Or that someone died due to "forced exile"?

What does it have to do with Stalin? Was it his revenge? How much Stalin actually knew or supported forced exile and how much was he complicit in bad conditions?

It's Zemskov's commission. The most reliable and through investigation of Soviet Archives (other minor sources support it within +/- 2%).

Seriously, how do you even consider yourself familiar with USSR and don't know it?

The image comes from this fully sourced investigation of Stalinist political killings: espressostalinist.com/category/the-5-heads/joseph-stalin/page/6/ (the image itself comes out of a published, source journal of which you can also find the sources in the annotations).

TBH while defending the USSR/Stalin from the ludicrous claims thrown at them is really fun and a nice exercise in basic research, I don't really care much for it. 20th century socialism is over; it's all I aspire not to see happen once again. Not because I care much for pointless deaths, but because I want a revolution to succeed. With the naturally corruptable, deep-seated vanguard rule in the USSR a failure of identical magnitude would only be another recipe for a failed revolution were we to repeat it.

I've never abandoned advocacy for the party form and state use as I still deem it optimal in the face of an international bourgeoisie that will only be just as ruthless or even more ruthless with a state than revolutionaries will be, but it [party form and the state] needs some fundamental changes be it in execution or a change in form itself.

You've had several answers given to you already you autist, you just choose to ignore them. And yet you are the same kind of person that will go and call "tankies" the denialists.

You are an absolute shit stain. Fuck you buddy. People can disagree with your politics, but they will absolutely loathe you for the purposefully annoying way you are going about things. How can you expect to convince anybody of anything if people trying to get honest opinions (just a fucking estimate!) are met with accusations, strawmen, and avoidance? Oh, they are asking about soviet history? They must be Holla Forums or just complete suckers for bourgeois liars. Get fucked.

Thank you.

I don't consider myself particularly familiar.

Would it kill the author of the meme to write that on the infograph? It would give it credibility.

I'm not denying it validity, I am happy to accept it, just saying you need to source information.

Also, could you tell me why he is the most reliable source, instead of just asserting it?

Do you think it could be avoided if the party entered revolution with a clear plan for its own disbandment after the revolution in order to facilitate the whithering away of the state we all want?

Bonus question, why do you think Lenin did not have such a plan? (Or did he, I have never heard of it?)

Can one of you comrades post that "stalin was a good Christian soul and dindu nuffin" oc? Had a red background iirc.

I know one of you guys has it saved.

Yes, but this is a simplification of the more central question which fast-forwards to incomplete conceptualization as well.

To elaborate:
If we follow Leninist rhetoric, this plan is already there. 'What Is To Be Done?' describes a machinic process whereby the state should wither away. Except it never does anything but reifiy itself and goes from self-admittedly adopting a capitalist mode of production as a strategic decision, to revising its own revision of what socialism even is (remember: Lenin first coined the difference between socialism and communism as one being a relation of production and the other a fully-fledged society with this relation and little more central to it).

We can but only take this plan and the actions of the USSR as done with honesty from the parties involved, because we see an active effort within the party form to legitimize its constant revision towards the public sphere of regular Soviet life. If this was truly done in bad faith (and this is the tragedy) we would not see this process of legitimization, but instead a non-transparent process of 'covering up' while trying to hide some development of a genuine class society wherein material interests of one class serve as the justification for it.

Is important to pick out, because the Marxist materialist take on what is post-revolution and what is not is very dependent on an actual success. Establishing a genuine socialism within one socialist republic does not amount to a successful revolution to Marxists, because they recognize the international conflict of a world consisting of one part production for private capital accumulation and one part production for primarily need. If worldwide revolution is not achieved and every trace of bourgeois influence not culled, we can not speak of a successful revolution, as it is only a matter of time before the more exploitative and thus more productive system mercilessly crushes and assimilates the less exploitative and thus less productive one. The world cannot be part communist, part capitalist.

This was important to point out why? Because the state, as such, ought to only start withering away once we achieve total worldwide revolution or at least majority revolution to the point where the spread of international micro-revolutions would suffice to guarantee the erasure of capitalism from history. Anything else, to the Marxist, is a pipe dream waiting to be annihilated by the international strongarm of capital and its efficient hierarchical organization with its various states. This is why we speak of material interest and not personal interest: the bourgeoisie utilizes the state as a tool, not as a means.

I don't have it, but here's something noice too.

Consider looking it up on lefty.booru.org.

But you don't list dead Germans as the victims of Roosevelt, do you? Nor those that died during Depression? And yet, when it comes to Stalin everything is fair.

If you can't admit you bias, it's not my problem.

But you cannot be convinced. You already take it as a fact that Stalin was running USSR as a dictator. You presuppose that every single executed was murdered by Stalin for his own personal reasons.

I can quote "political" crimes like "two murders and setting grain warehouse on fire" at you all day, but you will still assume that it is Soviet propaganda or that I'm distorting something and there are hundreds of millions of innocent victims secretly buried somewhere. Stop pretending that you are discussing here anything.

Yeah. It sucks.

And would it kill you to use the wiki?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Zemskov

It's useless as it just says 60+ million people didn't die since the population increases. It just denies a straw man.

That's oversimplification.

It can.

Withering away of the state is based not on social reasons, but on economic.

As long as you are running industrial economy you are bound by it's limitations. You can have only Socialism or Capitalism: democratically regulated state monopoly as a dominant economical force, or unregulated monopoly of capitalists.

You could say that Party was implementing plan of it's own disbandment by advancing progress (industrializing) USSR was moving to this post-industrial state where Party and state itself would've been no longer needed. But that's it.

Which dead Germans? Why how when? Dead German pows killed by Roosevelt after the war from forced labour or execution? Why wouldn't I count those? Stop trying to shift things to some other idea.

Fuck you again. I came into this thread asking for an estimate without denial of 60million, and you and several others were not able to provide that at all. All you can do is mention how bad the ridiculous cold war propaganda is and refuse to give anything because apparently nobody will listen. Now I'm not listening to you, as someone else has at least given some figures. You cannot discuss anything, but you pretend it's the fault of others to hide that fact.

He was worse than Hitler.

No, it isn't: unless we forcefully put capitalism in the dustbin of history, it will grow itself out like a tumor until all is corrupted by capital (once more). Such is the logic of a system that requires the ideology of a cancer cell and its machinic workings. Like cancer, capitalism must be removed entirely with surgical precision and continuity. We can't delude ourselves into thinking that merely giving it chemo and that taking some opiates ourselves will change this material reality.

In theory, for an easily determinable, finite term? Surely; 50 years of socialism in one country attests to this. Too bad all good (and I use this term very cynically) things come to an end though, don't they?

Estimate of what? The question is wrong. Answering it means that I agree to the idea of Stalin's dictatorship. I do not.

Once basis (economic system) no longer supports Capitalism, it doesn't matter anymore.

You are talking about Socialism and industrial society now. I agree, but you are misinterpreting Marx, if you think that it applies during all times and all places.

And you are missing the point again. Nothing has come to an end. It's like saying that Paris Commune's demise spelled the end of Communist ideas.

50 (wasn't it 70?) years of Socialism in one country spread Marxist ideas throughout the world. Made them so ingrained in people's consciousness, people don't even realize that. The world is filled with Socialists and borderline Communists now.

Sources:
If it were true, it would make Divine God Saviour Stalin totally secular leader Stalin look bad, which would challenge my faith obviously contradict reality.

So? All you have now is a temporary terrotorial socialism waiting to be culled by capitalism either directly as it imperializes you or until you are forced to liberalize your economy as to accompany capitalist dominion and the exploitative productivity it bases itself on.

No, more than that. I'm not misinterpreting Marx either because 1) Marx clearly pointed out that revolution must be global and 2) Marx laid out the blueprints for a revolution very well, but times have changed, real world application has complicated things and revisionism is a discipline we must naturally develop out of revolutionary self-theory should we ever hope to achieve anything again.

The material manifestation of the communist movement has come to an end. Ideas may live on, but they need praxis and real world application to tangibly challenge ruling ideology.

I won't bother with the rest of your post; it is drivel which, despite being accurate, is of no value at all if we cannot put existent desire into action and this time successfully.

You were asked how many people died of a certain criteria, and obviously we are talking while Stalin was leader. If you don't think Stalin was a dictator then that doesn't matter. Nobody asked how many people stalin personally murdered with his hands. I avoided asking how many stalin was 'responsible' for because i knew you would just go around in circles, (like you are doing anyway), and you tried to paint it as if someone had asked how many people had died in the USSR in total while stalin was leader. If someone asked how many POWs were killed under Roosevelt would you sperg out and deny a question had been asked, because Roosevelt wasn't a dictator? Or refuse to give an answer because they wouldn't like it?

You just spout shit, mate.