I heard a guy day Stalin killed 80,000,000 people. I did done research on gulags, holodomor, and purges I think it would be closer to 35,000,000. How many do you think he killed? Do you think his death count is over or under exaggerated?
Also, no Hitler or Mao body counts, unless it correlates with Stalin's.
>I heard Hitler systematically killed 12 million people
>I did some research and turns out I think he only killed like 3 million people
>t. David Ivring
The limiting of freedom by means if government control. Like laws, all laws are designed to take freedom from people. Since WWII more governments censor people, spy on citizens, oppress minorities, and control ideas. For example, Germans aren't allowed to be nazis, Polish people aren't allowed to be communist, Saudi Arabians can't be non-Muslim, and Swedes can't insult Muslims. The world since WWII has gotten worse by means of freedom.
>If anything the world is more of a facist shithole.
>doesn't know the definition of fascist
>thinks fascism is inherently bad
>Actually wants the government to control him.
>Probably sucking on /pol/'s reassuring tit
>Didn't even mention any of my claims in his argument
>The limiting of freedom by means if government control.
Authoritaritan is the word you are looking for.
Nothing about any of that is inherently fascist, and in fact some are at odds with fascism.
>implying the purpose of government should not be to defend the people from themselves
>implying being ruled by a soulless corporate meta is better than being ruled by an authoritarian government
> The limiting of freedom by means if government control.
>Polish people aren't allowed to be communist, Saudi Arabians can't be non-Muslim, and Swedes can't insult Muslims.
w e w
l a d
By that definition every movement are facistic to some degree and the word becomes useless. While non-muslims aren't allowed to have Said citizenships, it's retarded to think Polish people wouldn't be allowed to be communists and Sweden not insulting Muslims are just retarded.
>still can't type properly
>thinking I go on /pol/
>thinking the government would control my life
>implying fascism isn't based as fuck
If you think about it, Israel, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, North Korea, China, CAR, Iraq, and Zimbabwe are fascist. They oppress racial minorities, use excessive military force, and authoritarian rules the same way Germany, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria did in WWII.
Except none of them have any of the proper economic functions of fascism, nor do fascist goverments inherently "oppress racial minorities" or use """excessive""" force.
Germany wasn't fascist, it was National Socialism. It is related to fascism, but isn't it.
>They oppress racial minorities, use excessive military force, and authoritarian rules the same way Germany, Hungary, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria did in WWII.
So you don't know what fascism is
>being an anarcho-communist
Radical freedom is bunk and anarchism doesn't work.
But the mind of a person relies on a central force to moderate all of his behaviors. One's needs affects his priorities. One's priorities affects his morals. One's morals affects his ethics, and so on. Without the central need, there is no moderation, and his actions are random. A human society works in the same way.
Anarchism already begot what we currently have.
It is not a fairly-land where you can exist free from all rules and influences, you can only avoid those if you are strong enough to exert your agency against everything else that threatens or seeks to control you, and those who consolidate their power will always be stronger than those who do not.
How about the period of time prior to government, and the fact the the whole world wasn't under government control until around the seventeen or eighteen hundreds, in which thousands of people lived outside of governed states. If anything most people were forced into governments.
Why does it need central forces to tell it what it needs? We all know that eating and drinking are needs without the state reminding us. Also, that would suggest that freedom is something to be afraid of, as if all people were murderous and evil. Central powers aren't needed to suit psychological needs, if anything they damage people's psychs by telling them what to think. Theocracies and cult-leaders (like Kim Il Sung and Stalin) are examples of states influencing people's actions in damaging ways. All the state really wants is control over human action and thought.
Russia used to own Armenia, are you saying that Armenia therefore doesn't deserve existence, or that Armenians are lesser people or being weak enough to submit to Russia? All you're proving here is that states exploit people's weaknesses to propagate their superiority.
Central powers don't tell you what to think, they dictate the basis of a chain of necessary moderations. The state requires stability. Stability requires status quo. Status quo requires protection. Protection requires inaction. Inaction requires law. Without any of these, there would be no law, and therefore nothing to preserve your protection.
>Saudis can't be non-muslim
What about all those Christian Najranis, or Those Shia in the eastern provinces?
>You can't be my stupid kind of mentally retarded Christian
Attempting to convert someone to another religion is banned in most of the Middle East. Even Cyprus bans it.
You're mixing up the ends and the means
That's the end, whatever it is. Armenia deserves it's independence. Does it have the means to?
>Anarchy should be the way
It ended and was taken over. It didn't have the means.
However this anon
Is also wrong, since they assume that the context when "anarchy lost" will always hold. The future can be different from the past
>Is also wrong, since they assume that the context when "anarchy lost" will always hold. The future can be different from the past
Those who don't consolidate will always be weaker than those who do. It has nothing to do with the present state.
Sweden's Freedom of the press act, dating back to 1776, allows you to publish books, journals and newspapers as you wish. The public authorities have no right to examine or censor what you have written in advance.
I think this has more to do with their fear of communsim.
2-2.5 million political deaths ie those killed during the Great purges and the Red Terror albiet its not enterily correct to attribute them all to Stalin given his position at the time.
2.50 million in the Ukraine famine
When it comes to his kill count people tend to get rather shifty with figures hence they will use terms like "X million victims of the Great Purge", now naturally when they say victim people tend to assume execution, when in fact they include everything from imprisonment, dention for questioning or simply being sacked from a job which inflates the number deceptively.
The other fun thing that the people with the 80 million figure go for is to include people who would have been born hence for every one person killed they add a couple of potential children in as victims.
The other method is count the deaths caused by World War II as victims of Stalins communism.
Stalin is a horrid man, its beggars belief people have to actually falsify information about him and his regime to justify this.
>Stalin is a horrid man, its beggars belief people have to actually falsify information about him and his regime to justify this.
Distracting from the actualities of nomenklatura rule means that you get to tar any movement with red on their flag with the same brush.
> 2-2.5 million political deaths ie those killed during the Great purges and the Red Terror
Official numbers are 2,369,220 imprisoned and 642,980 executed for "political" crimes (organized crime was also "political", for example) in 1923-1953.
>unironically believe that anything beyond their specific definition is automatically fascist, no matter how actually authoritarian it is
>this can even include any other form of 'anarchism' that doesn't meet said narrow criteria, meaning a good chunk of anarchism itself arbitrarily 'fascist' now
>other anarchists see you the same way, turning the argument into an endless circlejerk over who is the bigger 'authoritarian' meanie
>fail to realize pure anarchism cannot be implemented without either compromising elements of itself, or at least only being relegated to periphery communities, never functional on a regional, national, or global scale, or without external help by said evil authoritarian bogeymen
>these are basically the same rationalizations behind communism... same ideological circle-jerking too
>sincerely believe they are not responsible for any experiments failing hard and turning into ironic, totalitarian nightmares
In other words, its the socio-political equivalent of being a perennial child.
Even if your stupid definition of Fascism was correct, the idea that "Since WWII more governments censor people, spy on citizens, oppress minorities, and control ideas" is completely retarded. Do you honestly think that the British Government oppresses minorities more today than it did in the 1930s when they still had a colonial empire? Or that the US government oppresses minorities more today than before the civil rights movement?
The point about governments suppressing communists or religious minorities had been the norm for almost all of human history, it's not like the pre-WW1 governments were just open to letting communism spread. Saudi Arabia doesn't even ban non-muslims, nor does any other major Muslim state. They all allow Christians and usually Jews as well, sometimes begrudgingly Hindus too because Indians are a source of cheap labour in the middle east.
> Red Terror
Do you mean everyone executed by Bolsheviks during Civil War?
I don't think you can get 1.5-2 mil there. Unless you believe Denikin's commission (which was basically propaganda machine), there are only Volkov's numbers. But they include practically everything: deaths from starvation, lack of medical help and so on.
Death numbers are stupid, it just ignores why people died and turns ideologies into "death count contests".
The fact huge amounts of people died on all sides of politics is what is important and what led to these events.
What events led up to the Holodomor or Great Purge that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people? What events led up to the Holocaust that resulted in the deaths of millions or the Indian famines under the British that led to the deaths of millions.
That is all that matters, I fucking hate death count contests especially when the statistics are largely bullshit (projecting birth rates from peak periods onto the famine period, looking at that gap and counting it as deaths even though those people never even existed for example)
Yeah, they sure oppressed those minorities bro. How dare they build them railroads and schools and develop their economy through mutually beneficial trade and investment, fuck em'.
Why can't communists name one successful implementation of their ideology in the real world?
>people can't like fascist ideologies
>everyone who disagrees with me is /pol/
>Since WWII more governments censor people, spy on citizens, oppress minorities, and control ideas.
The amendments to the US constitution that protect citizens rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, universal suffrage, etc. This legislation is exclusively designed to protect the rights of the population except the right to take rights from others.
>has never even read a single book by him, much less knew who he is
Probably one of the most educated black men of recent times.
He is saying "the left"'s ideas festers in colleges, mainly because that's the only place they can survive.
E.g. they do not work in the real world.
Tankie please go.
What about MUH ETERNAL ANGLO?
Now that would be a good thread.
Can we count the death toll from the British and American empires along with Stalin and Hitler?
Let's see who the real winner in modern times is!
>expansion of suffrage to the common man
t. Andrew Jackson
t. Abraham Lincoln - Republican
Started by racist Woodrow Wilson
>implying the parties of the past are those of today
As I said, drivel.
If you use a broad term like "the left", it implies the entire left. He could've said socialists but he didn't.
>republican = conservative always and forever
You're either not from america or are really an idiot.
>Wilson started progressivism
The first progressive president was Roosevelt from 12 years earlier. Try again once you learn basic us history
>If you use a broad term like "the left", it implies the entire left. He could've said socialists but he didn't.
Sure, the entire CONTEMPORARY left, or at least its most vocal facets. Not all progressives are socialists, social democrats maybe.
No. It is speaking within the time period, he is speaking about the current infestation with the higher education system. If you could think for a few more seconds, you might have gotten the point.
It's not just socialists.
You missed the entire point I was making, is that people and parties change. Republicans started as the bridge for socially liberal and economically conservative. It only became conservative conservative from about Regan, at least a hard line.
>Teddy was a progressive
Ah yes, imperialism, so progressive.
Shut the fuck up you faggot. You know jack shit about political history.
No. Edgy ultra nationalism is edgy ultra nationalism.
Fascism has a very loose meaning bound around the people that inherent it. It basically means "for the health and well being of the people", and being reliant upon ones self. It treats the country as a greater organism, one that must be self sustaining and United.
That was just my edgy Evola pictures that I like to meme with.
>imperialism is progressive
>nature preserves so people can hunt animals is progressive
>regional imposition is progressive
Get the fuck out of here you fucking retard.
Wilson is established as the first "progressive" despite being a racist shitbag.
Everyone hates him.
Someone sounds angry that his retarded worldview fell apart. Pic related
Good workers, never 5get the trillion billion victims of communism
The reason he is considered "progressive" is because of the "trust buster" meme. He didn't even break that many and Taft superceded him.
he was hardly a progressive, and it's infantile to use Google+wikipedia to argue.
Wilson was the first progressive president.
>attempting communism in a scarce society
THE ABSOLUTE MAD MAN
It's not a no true scotsman.
I am explicitly saying he isn't a progressive, not that he didn't do a few things that progressives are trying to inhert.
He was an imperialist, a man who created reserves for hunting, and imposed regional force upon other countries that were unwilling.
All very non-progressive things.
He never claimed himself to be a progressive, it was imposed upon him.
Read a book.
There have only been 2 succesful conservative revolutions. In near modern times.
I said it was a meme image, but a reactionary revolution has happened quite a few times.
There is also Regan in the 1980s, a few reactionaries in the dreaded republic. And so on. *sniff*.
Teddy was far from a progressive.
Progressives are pretty shit in general, but that's my personal opinion.
Unless imperialism, regional imposition, and establishing reserves for hunting is progressive, then he isn't progressive.
Those are the big things he did.
No true scotsman doesn't apply, and you're using a fallacy fallacy.
>implementing federal hunting lands
Increased centralization of government authority is generally a progressive ideal, even if some disagree with the hunting. And you leave out the trust busting, which while definitely exaggerated still happened and is certainly progressive.
At least personally he rubs me as a money grabber. He literally wrote an article about how sucking circumcized dick is better than uncut on briebart
I've read conservative estimates as low as 11 to 14 million. Some even push the under 10 benchmark but they aren't taken seriously. From my understanding, the accepted academic range has a lower limit of 18 - 21 and an upper limit of 27 - 30 million. Although I bet Mao purged more with the Great Leap Forward because they had almost four times the population of the Soviets.
The problem is he didn't even do that much trust busting. Taft did much more trust busting than him, and it wasn't because of public pressure.
He didn't even centralize the government that much, states were pretty much left their retained powers; he just expanded diplomacy.
He was pretty far from being a progressive.
He makes me lol. But I don't read kikebart.
>does one progressive thing
>OH MAH GOD SO PROGRESSIVE CLAPPU CLAPPU FIRST PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT
The dude was some kind of anarcho-communist.
Of course he is retarded.
>>Increased centralization of government authority is generally a progressive ideal
>Far too blanket. Only true if that authority is used to promote social progress.
Ah, and now we enter the singularity and irony of the entire idea of "Progressivism"
IT'S 2016 PEOPLE.
>what defines a better life
To a progressive, less economic inequality, better working conditions, and more direct democracy.
>reality is harsher than reputation
I never said it wasn't
>Taft was a better president than teddy
Don't disagree there either. But you can't deny that a significant portion of teddy's voters were attracted to his 'trustbuster' image, even if it wasn't true.
Guys in positions of authority that I also don't like and are unlikely to be removed through any peaceful means.
They usually have moustaches but that isn't a requirement. I only add this because I don't like moustaches.
>To a progressive, less economic inequality, better working conditions, and more direct democracy.
None of these things insure a better life, nor do any of these things are defined as "progress". Easily can be considered whole regression.
Reactionaries certainly don't see as any of this as progress, especially your wretched "democracy".
>Don't disagree there either. But you can't deny that a significant portion of teddy's voters were attracted to his 'trustbuster' image, even if it wasn't true.
They were attracted to a strong, charismatic leader. Like we all are.
>None of these things insure a better life, nor do any of these things are defined as "progress". Easily can be considered whole regression.
Reactionaries certainly don't see as any of this as progress, especially your wretched "democracy".
And your point is? Anything can be considered anything. It's just semantics
Oh good fucking lord
Existence is the source of suffering, there is no preventing it. There is inherent hypocrisy, for all the actions you take to prevent suffering only cause more.
The best preventable action for suffering is suicide.
Go do it, faggot. Off yourself, prevent your suffering.
Semantics are important, that's how we know what we are talking about.
Progressivism is circular reasoning.
You can do that with any political philosophy. You're just being massively autistic at this point
>I'm a conservative
>what do you try to conserve
>the king's divine right to rule above all
>well that's not conservative to the aristocrats who are trying to conserve their noble rights
>but it's still conservative
>even though the Baltic countries have rebuilt themselves!
Baltics did not rebuilt themselves.
I'm not sure if any post-Soviet republic actually returned to the level of 1990 (Belarus and Kazakhstan look somewhat promising, but I'm not sure if I can trust all the figures).
That said USSR has nothing to do with the Gorbachev and post-Soviet fuck ups.
>only 35 million
Gash, poor fella was wrongly accused! I guess he wasn't so bad after all.
Well I'd say your run of the mill uninterested person is going to think its higher than actual. But in academia people are probably at a more close to truth figure.
But again it doesn't really matter, he killed a shit-ton of people. More interesting and usable is why.
But because 4chan I must ask. You say 35 million, how did you count that? Its more than twice as high as Stalins deathtoll given in the Black Book of Communism and even that is taken with a huge grain of salt
Also haven't really read the entire thread, feel free to point me to an earlier post.
> But again it doesn't really matter, he killed a shit-ton of people. More interesting and usable is why.
The first question is "how". Especially since we still haven't found the bodies.
Well the terror-famine of the early 1930s is one that is very well documented and currently well researched. Even though there is debate about the objectives, either vs a percived reactionary peasantry or a specific nation.
However most people I know who looked at it would probably go with the former.
Quite a few people where executed in different campaigns, again provable in more ways than simply pointing at 80 year old graves. (Orders, journals etc)
Estimations of people dying in different forced relocation policies and the numbers of people dying in the ITL and other similar systems is quite well researched by now. Even though it has yet to pierce the "masses" as it were.
(And yes differentiating "anti-soviet crimes" from other crimes in the ITL figures is a masters thesis all in its own)
Well I mean there is plenty of documentation showing us that Stalin knew about it but he blamed it on the peasants destroying crops and cattle and, paraphrasing now, "if they wanted to use famine as a weapons against us we will turn their weapons upon themselves"
There are more stuff documented but overall we see the following: the Soviet regime knew about the famine and did nothing to stop it or enacted policies that worsened them. And they wanted to subdue the peasantry.
Its really not that hard. Terror is what the soviets under Stalin did. Remember in the nurture vs nature the Soviets was fiercly nurture people. By coercion (terror being one way) and by removing what made people a certain way (cultures, intellectuals, tribal groupings, ethnicity, socio-economic states) they would bring forth a the new "Soviet man" or "Homo Sovieticus" if you want.
The original cause of the famine might not have been by the Soviet regime but they sure as hell made sure it was prolonged and that it got as bad as it did.
>Well I mean there is plenty of documentation showing us that Stalin knew about it
Yes. Like the Politbureau minute where they order adequate food relief be supplied.
>the Soviet regime knew about the famine and did nothing to stop it or enacted policies that worsened them.
Read post archival work in the journals you cretin.
>expecting people on 4Chan to use facts or even accept Stalin was a competent leader
>expecting them to accept the USSR was a collective leadership and the Politburo wasnt even homogeneous and Stalin wasn't le meme in charge here dictator
>expecting them.to not accept the false muh 10 gorillion anti Ukrainian starvation murders
You're either new here or just grew very thick skin posting on /leftypol/
Either way I actually salute you this battle won't be won any time soon no matter how much the weight of history (including muh evil Soviet archives that actually show the USSR was much more benevolent than the Robert Service "history" school espouses) is on Lenin's and Stalin's side.
>for their enslavement
It's ok my friend
Read enough history and you'll eventually be converted from the anarchobabby/Trotskyite lies
It starts with realizing the muh body count arguments are dumb, and ends with understanding they were great leaders with poor situations who did as best as they could
Kruschev truly and always a shit
>Read enough history and you'll eventually be converted from the anarchobabby/Trotskyite lies
There were old bolsheviks are Kronstadt friend: it was an all party workers soviet.
>they were great leaders with poor situations who did as best as they could
I didn't dispute that my probably Maoist friend. But they were not of my class, nor did they support my class, and whenever they could they restored or produced alienated wage labour.
They always been shit on by the Soviets, even when they were part of the Union and was the only state that made tanks before the Third Plan.
And you were surprised when they welcomed the Germans.
I'm pretty sure that some of the Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance were simple "thieves," Jewish nationalists, anti-Bolshevik revolutionaries.
But yeah, the majority were fascists.
>everything I don't like is fascist
>even liberal globalist capitalism is fascist
> there is plenty of documentation showing us that Stalin knew about it
Which documentation would that be? All the stuff i've seen has been about how the Stalin (and Party as a whole) had been completely blindsided by the events and made everything they've could to prevent it or reduce the severity, at the very least.
Is this yet another revelation of the Cold War historiography, or even Goebbels research?
> There are more stuff documented
> sure as hell made sure it was prolonged and that it got as bad as it did.
By stopping grain exports, by spending all the emergency funds on buying Persian grain, by rationing the regions not hit by the famine to send food to the famine-stricken regions?
The horrors of communism.
>The Civil Rights bill was written by Republicans
>Republicans had their first black leader in 1886, Democrats had theirs in 1960.
>People still think Democrats had anything to do with the civil rights movement despite Democrats not allowing blacks into the Democratic Party conventions until 1958
This is a made-up number.
This is correct.
I always get surprised that people need to invent an even bigger death toll for stalin. I mean, I get surprised that they invent shit in the first place instead of sticking to the facts. Then I get surpised how killing 650,000 people for political power is not considered "enough".
People have a weird perception of death tolls. Those are not "number", but individual fate that have been snuffed out. I hope you people learn some humanity some day.
>TheHolodomor(Ukrainian:Гoлoдoмóp, "Extermination by hunger" or "Hunger-extermination";derived from мopити гoлoдoм, "to kill by starvation")was a man-madefaminein theUkrainian Soviet Socialist Republicin 1932 and 1933 that killed an estimated 2.5–7.5 million Ukrainians.