Deaths in labor camps: 15-25M

IS THIS A FUCKING CHALLENGE??

Wow we should just create a virus that targets people with autism.

Comrade please no, this board already has so little traffic, we wouldn't want to kill off all the anarchists, they make up 30% of the users.

how many people have died of feudalism ?

comrade, plz. This is a chan.

ITT: communist dindus

...

Capitalism dindu nuffin

What do you mean? Of course the communist killed 100 million people. Who would disregard the fact that communism has claimed 200 million victims? We can't forget the 300 million who starved to death! And they ONLY make up 400 million out of 750 million. Not to mention the 800 million who died in the Gulags. Add that onto the subtotal 1.5 billion.

it's interesting that Holla Forums mirrors Holla Forumss "muh 6 gorillion" with their claims that stalin and mao didn't really kill that many people

dialectics are fun

god fuckind damn it i meant to italicize "that" and not "kill"

smh just smh

Wrong. We acknowledge many were killed. The black book uses inflated numbers.

Ignore the tankies.

plenty of these "capitalist" genocides were not capitalist, in fact capitalism started with adam smith in the xiii century.

check mate commiecuck

You might as well throw in the Stalinist and Maoist regimes as well since they were state capitalists.

M isn't even anywhere near T on keyboards

Did you even read the OP? 900T Tibetans. Dead. That's right.

more like a brazillion killed by commurnism

Nossa senhora!

The difference is that China before Mao, unlike Germany before Hitler, had always had a famine going on with millions of casualties. Hence why the life expectancy in China pre-Mao was less than 30, whereas in Germany pre-Hitler it was 60.

Mao really dindu nuffin wrong, and he was everything fascists want to pretend to be.

...

...

Except Mao's famine was mostly due to political factors, not environmental ones.

Some "Ancaps" are fucking brain dead.
Mao is a piece of shit all authoritarian commies are shit there is no doubt about it.
But not all commies are garbage, some are comrades that are worthy of cooperating and benefiting mutually.

This. The Great Leap Forward called for retard-tier farming technique that was mostly theories of the Soviet pseudo-science.

Mao is a disgrace to leftism, there's no modicum of a saving grace with him like there is with Stalin. Maoist like Unruhe are brain dead.

Enlai: the tragedy.
Mao: the farce.

Kek-shek: the nationalist that killed communists but was basically a "good friend".

Dunno man, I think his pep talks were nice. You know, all those paeans about the unyielding might of the workers and all that claptrap commies used to swindle people with.

Oh, also guerrilla warfare. He literally wrote the book on guerrilla warfare. But then again, the fact that the civil war dragged on for decades argues against his prowess.

You're right, but still, the fact that China has had only one famine in 67 years is a miracle.

Cuz communism has already spread across the entirety of Europe on the strengths of Leninist and Marxist doctrines.

No, wait, it hasn't.

See

Even assuming a famine was inevitable based on environmental conditions (i.e. lack of rainfall) the various agricultural policies and "innovations" (i.e. killing sparrows, deep ploughing, etc) pushed by Mao definitely acted as a multiplier

But we don't.

Because there was no trial a-la Nuremberg. And there could be no such trial. Because all numbers are based on a propaganda bullshit, that all states are in equal conditions and the only reason people are living worse is because they didn't adopt proper Liberalism.

This logic immediately falls apart once you actually look at it closely.

When we talk about Nazi victims - it's people Nazi actually murdered.
When we talk about Soviets victims - it's people Soviets couldn't save.

Why would any person in their right would claim that this is the same thing? Are you insane? Or just Nazi apologist?

See

The Chinese life expectancy doubled under Mao.
So, no, I don't buy your bullshit.
Even if Mao reduced harvests, his other policies resulted in such a lowering of mortality that a baby born in the 1960s can expect to see 2020, whereas otherwise they'd have been dead for 20 years by now.

I agree its intellectually dishonest to equate famine deaths to executions, but the Soviets and Mao had plenty of both. Do you seriously believe you can't acknowledge that 20th century communism was mostly a failure(the only country that did alright was Cuba and Fidel is pretty badsss) without being a Nazi apologist?

Typical "ends justify the means" tankie apologist.

These death tolls people like to roll around their favorite punchbags pose the following question?

Has anyone racked up a toll on the death and misery caused by capitalism's allocation of resources?
How much suffering/death comes from poverty or exploitation?
How much suffering/death comes from the (often bloody) pursuit of capitalist interests?The wars?Colonies?
How much suffering/death stems from law codes centered around the enforcement of private property?

There is the profound stink of revisionism when people present these tolls, as if they considered capitalism the natural state of humanity and thus it's faults are to be ignored.
While other systems, deviations from the standard, must be judged as barbaric for anything less than perfection.

Not to make an apology of the socialist(or at least purported socialist) experiences of the past , but these "death tolls" are extremely biased.Hell, they are often outright misinformed.

So was it the fault of the system or the fault of the people in charge? Where does the effects of the economic system end and the direct actions taken by the dictatorships begin?

Also, what happened with Pinochet?

But enough to warrant the stamp of "failure"?

If someone starves in a communist country, they were killed by communism. If someone starves in a capitalist country, they were probably just lazy.

The difference is that things listed in is actual genocide, while the ones under Stalin and Mao were self-inflicted famines by bourgeoisie (see kulaks hoarding food surplus for themselves). Also it's not as if they could control the weather and ensure that everyone was properly fed.

Holy shit, Lysenko's ghost is posting on Holla Forums

Can't have a revolution, people might get hurt. :(

Stalin was different.
The USSR's primary export was grain, and grain exports remained steady throughout the famine. The problem was an capitalism, the expropriation of surplus labor for the profit of land owners (aka the stare).

Zizek has talked about, but he actually was in a good moment when he did. The idea is that bourgeois morality can easily see subjective violence i.e. violence perpetrated by a clear actor, but utterly ignores objective violence, which I guess could be called systemic violence. So if tens of millions starve to death in Ukraine and China, it's clearly communism's/ Mao's and Stalin's fault, but if tens of millions starve to death in the British Raj it's just a fact of life, nobody's fault, eh chaps wot wot?

Nothing to do with what I said. China and Russia would've been better off going capitalist considering what a mess Mao and post-Stalin era were.

It's always both the system and the leadership, isn't it? I don't think you can really dissociate them.

Considering the absolute failure of many of the "innovations" introduced by Mao's Great Leap Forward, I don't even think it comes under the "ends justify the means."

Conflating the retarded shit done by Mao with Marxist theory is just that, retarded, I don't think Marx would've said to "kill sparrows because you'll grow more crops lmao" like Mao did.

Less food on the market pushes the sell price up. Non-elastic goods like food don't sell at a high enough price for food producers if you produce too much of it. Too much wheat production also causes private business to collapse as it invests too much capital and other resources into the growing of food without enough net profit. Kulaks were capitalists and operated according to the economic laws of capitalism. They withheld food on purpose to raise the price and make a bigger profit. In short, fuck them.

didn't some major natural disasters fuck up the chinese agriculture ?

...

Except "kulak hoarding" was just the excuse every Party official used to explain why predicted output > actual output.

PROTIP: If people are starving to death, chances are they're not just greedy porkies hoping that the price for grain on the black market rises just a bit more before they die

Mao's Famine is possibly the first time every region in China experienced famine, instead of some experiencing famine and surviving off the surplus of other regions

Incoming moralistic argument.

Except they literally were capitalists and called NEP men because the state capitalism in the USSR due to the NEP led to their increasing influence.

The rich kulaks had the food and weren't starving to death you tool. If you're a porky hoarding food while people starve you deserve to have your land collectivized. People operate according to economic laws, not "oh no poor starving people". You have to have self-interest to help others, and if you're a rich capitalist or a kulak your self interest is to inflate the price of food.

Yes. As a Chinese official said, "the famine was 30% environment and 70% policy". Mao was a horrible leader.

As far as the 1931-32 famine goes, even if it was mostly due to environment sending Kulaks to the gulag for eating an avocado is anti-worker as fuck. I get it, they burnt down crops and killed livestock but that was from the sole factor. If Stalin hadn't won WW2 he'd be just as shitty a socialist as Mao. The USSR was never socialist and they would've been way better off with Trotsky.

see what I wrote above.

Well yeah, that's Mao's fault. But other things could be blamed on communism, such as the lack of a profit motive possibly limiting output.

Lol no. The citizens could barely grow grain and would over-report on how much they were able to grow to please the bureaucrats, leaving with little to nothing to eat themselves.

I can tell you're probably an ancap or a socdem, but it takes a cursory glance of Marxist theory and of the causes for the 1931-1932 famine to see that they were almost entirely the result of environmental disaster coupled with poor policy. The procurement goals sett during the first 5 year plan weren't even hit till years later.

1931-32 famine and the Great Chinese famine*

Are you referring to the idea that the USSR would be better off being capitalist? It was a capitalist country and operated on capitalist economic laws under the NEP that Lenin instituted. Stalin moved to end the NEP policy and collectivized agriculture in 1928 and started the first Five Year Plan. He called that socialism.

What does any of that have to do with the Soviet's (and latter Mao's) boneheaded obsession with putting Lysenkoist theories into agricultural practice?

Wew lad.

It would've been better off with private capitalism. I'm sure it would've industrialized with less casualties, albeit quite a bit slow.

I don't get how people haven't been getting that means thousand and not trillion.

Because you use K to mark thousands, not T.

True.

What is private capitalism to you? Something like the United States or Europe?

In your fantasy scenario here how would the Soviet Union look like in 1941 when the Nazis invaded? They didn't have any time to slowly develop.

Essentially.

Lol
This assumed that the Nazi's would've invaded had they not perceived it as being controlled by "le judeo-bolsheviks" but I assume it would look similar. I acknowledge that no communist of the Bolsheviks could've got what Stalin got done except Stalin but that doesn't mean private industry wouldn't of flocked to Russia with the same result.

lol. Are you a Menshevik?

The Russian Socialist Republic was invaded by a group of imperialist nations even before the NEP or the Five Year Plans. Imperialist capitalist states know that Marxism is a threat to them and they would have invaded them anyway. If you've just been through a huge civil war and got invaded, maybe you'd assume that capitalist countries don't like you very much?

Keyword assume. The investment in heavy industry due to the First Five year Plan kept pushing their production possibilities curve outward, and without the collectivization of agriculture the population would still be starving. Hungry people are not good workers. The Soviet Union would have even been a dumpy shitty nation that couldn't produce enough weapons, tanks, and food to fight off anyone and they would have been exterminated and worked to death by the Nazis or any other capitalist country. I agree that it would be very much nicer if the German Revolution worked or if they could develop slowly but that isn't realistic and it wouldn't work.

Do you actually believe that globalism would benefit Russia?

Never contented this.

Short term? Maybe. Long term? No, but it would be nice if industrialization could've taken place before the communist rebelled and then we wouldn't have to explain to normies how "this isn't Marxist theory regarding X agricultural decision" or provide unconvincing apologies like "It was State Capitalism". 20th century communism tainted the movement forever, but I agree that Mao contributes to that to a much greater degree than Stalin.

No, but Martov was right about the senseless violence the Bolsheviks carried out.

*contested

Okay, so it's 1941 and the USSR is invaded. Without the industry to fight off invasions, what would you do? The real answer is you would get stomped.

Under the Tsar or the National Assembly that still participated in World War 1, the one that Lenin overthrew? I agree that it would be nice if the industrialization happened before hand, but that doesn't occur due to the nature of global capitalism.

The USSR established the Warsaw countries along with leading revolutions everywhere around the world. It was a wildly popular movement and still is, it's just demonized in the West.

I agree with you on Mao. I think the guy was a coo coo bird.

I do agree that some of the things that they did were brutal. In the historical context they operated in they did the best they could but they still had failings. Making homosexuality illegal is one obvious one as well as letting Lysenko get away with his nonsense. I'm not arguing that the society was some kind of utopia or something, just to be clear.

* In the historical context they operated the best way they could.
Derp.

I wouldn't say they did the best they could but it is certainly one of the best examples of economic growth in a short period of time. They didn't have to slaughter all the leftcoms and anarchist.

The West is where it matters most. We have seen that without western communism, communism can hardly exist at all.

If you wanted to blame the famines under communism on any one man, that would have to be Lyzenko.

Adam smiths entire body of work was based off the false premise that money came in place of barter. In fact it started out as a debt ledger.

His thinly veiled "God" "invisible hand" was really not based on any anthropological research, just musings.

Oh also that and he explicitly stated that a free market could only work given perfect equality.

I'm sure you've read the wealth of nations though right?…

Stalin actually argued this in his work "the Foundations of Leninism". Without the triumph of socialism in the core capitalist countries, the victory of world socialism isn't certain and the pendulum could swing back to capitalism, so to say. You can read it here (marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/)

and watch some explanations from TheFinnishBolsehvik.(youtube.com/watch?v=XPAg3txb7FI)

Stalin himself thought Lysenko was a hack (8ch.net/marx/res/2479.html#3094) ctrl+f Lysenko

The Mensheviks sold out to the capitalist National Assembly and wanted to continue World War 1. Supporting that is just insane.

That's why I admire Stalin and his achievements while criticizing some aspects of Marxism Leninism. Mao was a nut and so was Pol Pot, we have to be able to critique things without condemning it all as bad or all as good. I like the Michael Parenti quote where he says we have to analyze human political organizations on a sector basis, aka "some things are good and some things are not so good". Just having a red flag doesn't make a country good or bad. I would support anarchist Catalonia and Rojava despite them not being explicitly Marxist-Leninist.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZiSM8SkE4mo

site a non-jew source next time, shlomo o'rich

youtube.com/watch?v=BYVes44hcJg

Here's some Parenti stuff if you're interested.

busin.biz/library/history/Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti.pdf

I've seen TheFinnishBolsheviks videos. Mahkno despite all his failings would've 100% given more control to the workers that the Bolsheviks. There was no reason for Lenin to send an army to Ukraine.

Oh and if Stalin thought Lysenko was a hack, he should've Gulag'd him instead of people who said mean things about him.

You should read my sources instead of engaging in gulag adhom nonsense. That whole /marx/ threads basically debunks every myth about Stalin.

As for my economic arguments, I quoted this.

Criticizing the government got you sent to a labour camp.

I'll take a look at the PDF but I don't have time right now. I don't "hate" Stalin but I don't think he did everything the best he could.

No problem.

Your strawmanning needs more finesse.

We were talking about famine. Equating it with Nazi murders is what Nazi apologism is about.

And - yes. I do not consider USSR a failure. What kind of dumb shit is that? 35 years of Marxism were an astounding success. Even now (60 years of destalinization) Russia is still better than the nations it was similar to during 1917 (not to mention 1922 - it was mostly ruins at this point).

>The USSR's primary export was grain, and grain exports remained steady throughout the famine.
That's a lie.

A lot of the Warsaw countries have a higher HDI than Russia right now.

How did Mao even manage to kill 900 trillion ethnic minorities?

This fucking meme again

leave

Cultural marxism.

Well SocDems are definitely state capitalists.

Argentina's military didn't kill 30000 people. That's a leftist myth.

How surprising.

Stop posting in these shitty bait threads, you fucks.

What's wrong with it?

Mao killed 60 bazillion people. this is already known

pinochet dindu nuffin silly gommie helicopter rides lmao

Socdems are a meme. You're more of a threat to us than any capitalist.

I should have fucked off to Rojava, I really should.

the authors have admitted to purposefully inflating the numbers of dead based upon any sources they could find

...

communists were never democrats, FYI

aaaaaand the bait is spotted.
You got a thread going and picking up steam though, so there's that.

United Fruit Company.