edit: GUYS fuck stalin and fuck tankies, period. i understand that this community is more sensitive than most to pro-stalinist vibes, and i apologize for unintentionally twinging that nerve, but you need stop calling each other (and me) slurs
good heavens, happy new year, fuck incarceration and murder in all forms
(mods pls also do your job and help with the slurs thing)
edit2: big thank u 2 da mods for helping with the slurs thing u guys rock π π
An important part of critical thinking is the ability to see flaws in comparisons and arguments even when they point towards conclusions you agree with. Itβs telling that you interpreted their comment the way you did.
It's telling, the way you're talking about this. Unless OP is defending Stalin, something I've not seen evidence of. It's pointing out how hypocritical most criticisms of Stalin are. The whole point of it, whether it's 100% accurate. Is to bait hypocrites out into "but Stalin" bullshit. If their gulags are wrong. Maybe we should reevaluate our own similarly troubling practices.
Don't get me wrong, despite being libertarian Marxist. I'm wildly against Lenin, Stalin, Mao, hell Engles for that matter etc. But Americans general hypocrisy make our criticism pointless and largely mute. Making you and the other person ironically, the ones likely failing at critical thinking
my response was sarcasm and an intentional fallacy in the form of an appeal to incredulity for the sake of rhetoric
My bullshit-english translator is a bit rusty, but all I'm getting out of this is "I intentionally wrote a wildly incorrect comment just for funsies" in which case fuck off
Hey, hey. Come on, now. The United States doesn't just lock up brown people. We execute many on the spot, without provocation or probable cause. Credit where credit is due.
The US has killed dozens of times that through social murder.
I'm not saying that Stalin wasn't an autocratic dickhead, but if you're gonna compare him unfavorably to present day US, number of own citizens killed is a bad choice of metric π€·
To be even more fair, though, extreme poverty and shortages of (nutritious) food are as severe if not worse in present day US and the richest 1% are hoarding much more than the party fat cats were too.
Multiply how many people die of starvation or malnutrition a year by 29 (the length of Stalin's reign) and you'll see that I'm right.
Just because the two Soviet famines were faster and got more press doesn't mean they killed more people over a 29 year period than the US "food is for profits and poor people are for exploiting" politics.
I find it very, very hard to believe that there could be two catastrophic famines in the SSSR, and yet that there were no deaths or food issues outside of those two periods (there absolutely were). I only used them as examples, not as a list of all food issues in the Union, while you're implying the latter.
Multiply how many people die of starvation or malnutrition a year by 29 (the length of Stalinβs reign) and youβll see that Iβm right.
The same trend occurred nationwide, with malnutrition deaths more than doubling, from about 9,300 deaths in 2018 to roughly 20,500 in 2022, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Let's take the second, significantly bigger number, for the sake of the argument. If the number of malnutrition deaths is multiplied by Stalin's reign, it gets us 595k deaths. At the time, SSSR had (very roughly) half the population of current USA, so to keep the numbers proportional and meaningful to compare, we should halve the US deaths: 300k. Stalin did not actually rule during the first famine I linked, only the second one. The second famine killed at least 5.7 million people (again, taking the lower number, in favour of your position).
300k is clearly a smaller number than 5.7 mil. Since the numbers are only relative, we should judge by the ratio: the 1930-1933 famine was 19 times worse death-wise than the current food issues in the USA.
If you have some different, better numbers (though I tried to pick those that are in favour in your claim), or if I miscalculated something, let me know.
Forgive me for the rather mechanical, utilitarianist formulation, but do you honestly think killing 19 people is merely "slightly worse" than killing 1 person?