It’s obviously false, didn’t you know? Stalin killed 20 billion people!
EDIT: the figures given by the government during de-stalinization detail at least 300,000 people sent to the gulags, of which more than half returned. The population figures from ukraine show 2 million affected by starvation, after the kulaks burned all their stock following Stalin’s order to collectivize grain. An additional 200,000 from the purges. Quite a terrible outcome.
World War II, additionally, claimed the lives of 21 million soviets. If Stalin had killed around 30 million people, like the “Black Book of Communism” claimed, then we are talking about more than half of the Soviet Union’s population gone, which would have made it impossible for it to recover. Stalin’s government was terrible, but those figures are an exaggeration.
Still far away from neonazis claiming that “Stalin was worse than Hitler”, however.
I am not entirely sure, but I get the feeling the idea that Stalin killed 80 million people between 1924 and 1953 might be a complete fucking strawman.
Some ignorant people have claimed that, so while not exactly a strawman, it’s taken from low end brain-deads. Usually goes between 30 and 80 million. Raising it allows people to claim that communism is equal if not worse than nazism and Stalin was worse than Hitler.
Anyone who compares how bad ideologies are based simply on how many people they have killed is an idiot anyway.
I also find which is worse to be irrelevant anyway.
That doesn’t stop them from doing it, however.
how are you different from a holocaust denier
The Holocaust is historically accepted fact. Whereas Stalin killing 80 million people is nonsense on the internet which is easily disproven through simple logic.
Stalin killing millions of people is a historical fact.
Holodomor alone was 4 million people.
Him killing 80 million people is not.
There is quite a large difference between “killing millions of people” and “killing eighty million people.”
Well its more the case that right wingers of many flavours use the death tolls of totaliterian incompetence to demonise various leftist group (even if that group despises totaliterian practices). It even gets projected onto social democrats.
Stalin killing them implies intent, it wasn’t intentional.
The holocaust was the result of ideological praxis taken to its conclusion ie the “jewish problem/question”.
Stalin’s deaths were largely due to incompetence and disaster both human and naturally caused. For example, the kulaks hoarding huge amounts of food is often attributed to him despite kulaks being enemies of him, the actions of the kulaks resulted in the collectivisation of land/farms , the mal practices of such led to famines (@StrangeSignal double check ze accuracy of this incase im missing anything).
In the case of the Holodomor, I have heard some evidence that it was not intentional genocide but instead the result of incompetence. But Lenin’s Red Terror and Stalin’s Purges were very much intentional and part of their ideological belief that morality was a weapon of the class war.[quote=“Lenin_mog, post:8099, topic:104417”]
the kulaks hoarding huge amounts of food
Just lol if you really think that the people Stalin labeled “kulaks” were actually “kulaks” and not just peasants who either didn’t support collectivization or didn’t look like they were starving.
remember all those poles killed in forests through accidental gunfire at head
at this point you’re the literal equivalent of a liberal leftie saying “islam is peaceful! there are just SOME bad apples”
To be honest, I doubt most nationalists nowadays are nationalists and not just racists. You never hear a lot of them talk about their culture or history. Whenever it comes up it’s always a vague entity used to attack immigrants.
They were capitalist peasants that could sell for profit under Lenin’s New Economic Policy. It’s true that Stalin exagerated the problem and that even some people who disagreed with him were labeled “kulaks” just for political propaganda, but that these didn’t exist is nonsense. Lenin and Trotsky identified them as a class.
That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they existed separate from all the other peasants.
Considering that they already existed during the tsarist regime, being mostly considered wealthy land owners of agriculture production (until Stalin used it as a slur world for everyone agaisnt his government), yes, they did exist. Whereas “normal” peasants under traditional Russian agriculture concentrate more on subsistance and sold to the market what was left after consumption, the kulaks produced mostly specifically for profit with industrial agriculture using private property laws created precisely for this. That was the aim of the Stolypin reforms, which were made in the tsarist regime and continued in the early agriculture programs of the RSFSR and the USSR until Stalin’s purges.
Note that Marx himself identified more than one established way nations employ to achieve capitalist agriculture. At least three different ones he analyzed during his lifetime.
is that jose