353
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
353 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43977 readers
506 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
China's great leap and the soviet famine alone take you more than half way there using the higher estimates (now add gulags, red terror, etc...) might not get exactly to 100, but it's not so far off to qualify meaningfully as a lie (unless you're speaking to a braindead tankie).
The problem with these counts is there is no way of making them look good, like lives saved due to "x". How many people lived because the Soviets managed to eliminate all famines in their territory after that? A huge feat given their relative frequency beforehand.
And then you can blame countless deaths on capitalism, feudalism, slavery, but then do you normalize those numbers based on total world population?
What about blaming AK-47s? The police?
My point is that it's a pointless metric that is only used to drum up support against some group of people, not a useful one for objectively understanding anything. It does away with all context, and replaces it with some inane number.
You do realise that saying "Pfft 100 million is ridiculous propaganda, it was most likely just 50 million" kinda sounds retarded, right?
No, braindead tankies are never that direct. They prefer to dance around semantics and obfuscate their retarded points.
Feel free to clarify your point
The point is just "100 is an exaggeration"? That's all? Thanks for the contribution cOmRaDe
I think the point is that it's difficult to attribute that to communism in any meaningful way where you're comparing it to non-communism. Like if those 100 million people would have died anyway, how to do you say 'it was communism that did it' since maybe more would have died under the next most likely form of government that would have been in it's place. How many people have died for Democracy, assuming that both world wars and countless other ones were fought to defend it.
Ehhhh, because you can tie it directly to communist policies like collectivisation?
I specifically named collectivisation you donkey.