Why was socialism and communism allowed to thrive even after they murdered over 100 million innocent people in the 20th...

Why was socialism and communism allowed to thrive even after they murdered over 100 million innocent people in the 20th century?

Attached: 8C881240-381D-4D71-828A-1E1BD1C49671.jpg (1200x911, 158K)

Other urls found in this thread:


I keep hearing this "100 million murdered by socialism/communism". How exactly is that figure calculated? So far I've never gotten a straight answer.


Nice paywall bro.

Social prog6fed by a capitalist system. Not socialism. Not communism

Social programs fed by a capitalist system

Between Stalin and Mao, you're looking at 40 to 50million at the upper limit. Not exactly 100 million but two guys managed to kill half of that number.

The Nazis were nationalist socialists

for the same reason that you can't punch a nazi.

Attached to that idea is a person. You can't kill an idea, even though some of them don't deserve life.


Much in the same way that North Korea is a "Democratic Republic"

completely missing the point but ok

the nazi is the example, not the argument.

That was propaganda. They killed all the actual socialists in their movement.

The alt-Reich can't meme.
Thanks to spending their lives macerating in fallacies, though, they can illustrate terminal stupidity very well.

Attached: DB2A1A71-538B-47B0-8BC5-947273484358.png (503x501, 512K)

Are you including those killed in famines or other natural disasters? I wouldn't call them murder victims.

Which has nothing to do with the election

No, I disagree. The Nazis set up a system to where the people were completely dependent on the government and in that way it fulfilled the Communist ideal society even better than the Red Bolsheviks did, but that the same time they held German nationalism. I think what a lot of libs like to do is separate the two and say that Nazism is not socialism (or communism) but in fact they accomplished much more through that same ideological method than the “real” socialists

You're an idiot that doesn't know what he is talking about...please check the system of most EU countries, etc,....noob

You could argue that both Stalin's five year plan and Maos great leap forward intentionally killed a lot of people through malicious negligence and indifference. Plus they both did party purges on a weekly basis

You could, but it's difficult to prove intention, especially when their stated goals were rapid industrialization and economic growth.

I get what you mean by Hitler creating a system wherein all citizens were functionally dependent on the government but what you're descibing is a war economy. If the citizenry pretty much has to rely on the government, the US and it's unprecedented ramp up to WW2 manufacturing would be pretty close to the same thing.

>The Nazis set up a system to where the people were completely dependent on the government

What are you referring to? Everything I can find indicates that they privatized industry and dismantled the social programs of the Weimar republic.

It's not like capitalism is all that great. Our system is killing plenty of people by making food, shelter, and basic health care too expensive for them to afford.

It was privatized and them party loyalists were installed to oversee these new industries. While it wasn't directly under the conteol of the Reich, it was indirectly due to said party loyalty.

What did capitalism do this time?

>Are you including those killed in famines or other natural disasters? I wouldn't call them murder victims.


That's like saying people who died in concentration camps from starvation weren't murdered

Attached: v_firer_arms.jpg (662x828, 61K)

>It's not like capitalism is all that great.
The only people who think this are the lazy and the weak.

Attached: 75413.jpg (549x607, 36K)

No, not really. The people killed in the Nazi concentration camps died as a result of an intentional campaign of starvation and overwork. The issue of intention is the reason why there is still debate over whether the Holodomor can be considered an act of genocide, while no such debate exists for the Holocaust.

Nice trips. Capitalism as a system rewards the smart, resourceful and hard working. The problem is that each new generation doesn't start off on the same playing field. Think about how many trust fund kids tried to start a business with their college bros that failed catastrophically but it didn't matter because their parents bankrolled the whole thing. You do have to recognize that circumstance is probably the single biggest factor in one's success. Self made millionaires are a drop in the bucket compared to inhereted, old society money millionaires.

>Our system is killing plenty of people by making food, shelter, and basic health care too expensive for them to afford.

I'll agree with the last point, not sure I agree with the first two that much. Certainly a percent of the population will always not be taken care of in any real-world scenario; the question always comes back to "what percent is not okay?"

Everyone wants to say "any percent is not okay!" and sing kumbaya and drop acid (nothing against psychedelics, I do acid/shrooms quarterly). But if we are being realistic, and compare the current system to....well, any other system, we do pretty well.

The problem has always been implementation. How do you cause a big enough upheaval in society without allowing dictators to sneak in and take over? Historically, you can't. And if the current voterbase can't even vote in a candidate that's better than Trump, then I don't expect that same voterbase to do anything close to a political upheaval. After all, 20% of 18-29 year old voted in 2014. Only 37% voted in 2016, and we *celebrate a fucking 37% turnout*. There is nothing you can do with those numbers, debating political ideology online is a waste of masturbatory time.

As soon as genocide became a legal object, it became easy to quantify and downplay.

Willful ignorance that leads to millions of deaths is still genocide. You just wont see a legal document about it.

It's the waterboarding argument all over again: Because detainees were not at a specific angle when they were waterboarded, of course it wasn't waterboarding by any legal definition.

Or at least, that's how the argument was playing out at the time.

But it was still waterboarding.


Attached: shart in mart.jpg (673x789, 140K)

The Nazis were socialist in that they wanted the people to be reliant on the state and for the party to have a large influence in the lives of the people. They commissioned large public works projects such as expansion of the Autobahn.
They're a weird mix of socialist-plutocracy where they claimed they were removing the corrupt elite (often associated with Jews) and replacing them with party members or making business nationalized. An example of this would be Junkers aircraft; where Hugo Junkers, the founder and boss, was driven out by the Nazis who then used the company to produce war planes and engines directly under government control (Goering's Air Ministry.)
But other companies were allowed to exist without that interference such as Ford having a production plant in Germany even during the War.

To keep it brief: the Nazis were socialist only when it suited them. Overall they are one of the worst governments I can think of in terms of having an actual platform. Nearly everything they did was a "Give me more power and money" scheme by its leaders.

and yet I'm still gonna vote for Bernie

Attached: ERopA3KXkAInwx5.jfif.jpg (828x641, 59K)

fduck off sashole

Enjoy voting for him in the primaries because that shit isn't happening again with Bloomberg bribing superdelegates.

if Bloomberg ends up bribing people then I'll just stay home on election day

Attached: x34269182mi41.png (1080x1080, 1.65M)

It's a situation that's easy to see how it will play out: If the superdelegates take the bribe, they commit political suicide and let donald trump win.

Democrats are hugely idealistic to a fault: It's why they don't have a real central leader; as soon as one pops up, they dig up dirt and tear them to pieces of small injunctions in their life so that they may feel superior to their fellow person.

Blatantly buying-the-vote will immediately make enough democrats give up and either
1) not vote, or

2) vote for Trump. Which is what I would do. Because if we are so lost as a country as to spit in the face of the democratic vote process, we deserve Trump. Then let the fucker burn, let the party implode, and hopefully something better rises out of the ashes.

I dunno...
Probably the same reason the world let America commit illegal murder across the entire planet to prove capitalism is the least violent system and everyone should use it.

Attached: uznmqv5228q21.jpg (540x667, 101K)

Now if one wants to look at actual German socialism then there is an entire state after WW2 dedicated to it.
One with a single party which endorsed political candidates, used a centrally-planned economy, and tried to keep foreign products away so the people had to use things they domestically produced (or which came from the communist bloc and thus supported their ally states).
East Germany was a failure on many levels. It required walling in its citizens and a strong border force to stop people from fleeing. It was in a lot of debt for multiple reasons (war reparations, trying to build industry, buying supplies from others to fill shortages.) There was scarcity in products and it took a lot of time to deliver what little was produced. Unemployment was solved by giving people meaningless jobs just to say they were doing work.

Any pros of the nation relate purely to the identity it created among its citizens (which it too is a party-fed belief of "We are the real Germans, not those Americanized to the West of us."). A type of kinship which was necessary because there was no other alternatives.

Attached: 1000px-Flag_of_East_Germany.svg.png (1000x600, 93K)

>Democrats are hugely idealistic to a fault
You're describing demo voters. Democrats in the party are the exact same lobbyist loving party line toeing as the Repubs just in a blue paintjob. They would absolutely sell out their constituents for a payday. Even if Trump gets reelected they can still cash the check.

In Mao's case, if you are going to argue for malicious intent then all you can really say maybe is it was a fuck up when it came to numbers. If everyone under you is exaggerating this huge number, then you are going to make decisions and judgements based on falsity.

Really we should be discussing the "shoot the messenger" political culture that existed and continues in the PRC.

Attached: there-are-only-two-genders-male-and-abortion-mao-zedong-46951323.png (500x381, 96K)

That's not socialism, it's crony capitalism.

Its insane to think if he hadn't ordered the mass slaughter of birds, his plan would absolutely have worked.

better than liberalism/conservatism

Why does everyone argue over what wasn't an example of socialism and instead, why doesn't someone tell me what a real example of a socialist society that they support would look like

I ask, because everyone time I try to make a claim by copying and pasting from the socialism wikipedia page I immediately get "lol that's not socialism that's poly-fascistic oligo-temp buddhism with maoist tendencies"

So tell me, what IS socialism? Or rather, instead of a general answer, what would a socialistic government you would want to see look like?

Literally want to know so I can participate in conversations, instead of still trying to figure out what people want when they say they want a socialist government 2 years later.

Replace socialism with communism or whateverthefuck government you're arguing for

Democrats in context is obvious: I mean voters here specifically, but yeah I'll clarify that

Socialism, at its most basic, is a transitionary period between two other systems. Usually between the regulating and populus control of a capitalist government which gradually transitions to a communist government. that's socialism at it's core and most basic.Thing is, we exist in a world that's much more nuanced. Asking a billionaire who exploits slave labor over seas to pay more in taxes so people can have access to universal healthcare is a microcosm. it's the marriage of two usually independent economic models in the attempt to avoid the eventual outcome of pure socialism. Which is to say, a communist state.

Attached: 5be36e739ac9f19b8229a178086c6913.jpg (1080x1295, 92K)

You're not going to get pure socialism just like you're not going to get pure capitalism. Anyone who advocates for either is lying: socialists don't want to deal with the scarcity their system creates (because good luck planning for every needed product in advance) and capitalist don't want to be without the security that government intervention has created (prevention against market crashes, anti-trust laws, legal requirements to sell people what was advertised)

Nothing’s free commie. Not even a Cred Forums education!

If you are being exploited as a consumer in a capitalist exonomy during the information era it is 100% your own fault.

>Term limits on congress seats
>Overturn Citizens United
>in fact, dispose of lobbying in politics
>reinstate glass-steagall legislations
>sensible progressive tax without loopholes

I mean, I feel like a lot of this would help slow the rotting-shell of America from expiring too fast.

The answer is that the left controls the information channels and simply ignores leftist enormities. I didn't even hear of the Ukraine genocide till years after school.

So they were socialists after all.

The allure of not working cannot be understated.

>I didn't even hear of the Ukraine genocide till years after school.

That wasn't an intentional conspiracy by the US government to keep the genocide out of public knowledge,
your teacher is just a dumb-shit who barely graduated highschool and couldn't be anything else in life and so became a teacher, which in America is a shitty job because our school systems suck

Hey faggots

Attached: capitalkills.jpg (851x768, 111K)


Original post lumps all socialists in with communists and then accuses them of murder. But all those murders were actually committed by hard-core communists. When did Sweden murder anybody? Norway? Canada?

Because that's how socialist Bernie and AOC are proposing.

>illegal murder
are you a stupid retard?

Most people regeret the collapse.
Jesus why did I go through 5 Captchas just to give you this (you)

Attached: qwe_download.jpg (960x684, 136K)


>hard-core communists
actually it should be more of marx-leninists, communism is a wider idea.

Attached: success.png (1440x1908, 301K)

>Fucking pax britannica is included in this figure

>whatever "children killed from hunger" means

>cigarettes caused death

>US civil war


The idea of socialism is that everyone is working. It's not free handouts for the sake of being a free handout, it's everyone contributes to society through their labor and thus they they have access to its services. "Free" means nothing because the money you individually would have earned from working instead goes to collectively providing those services for yourself and others.

how the fuck is people who died from hurricane Katrina a "capitalism death"?

I would like to clarify that communism is not a government but the theoretical stateless post-scarsity society which will theoretically be achieved through socialism.

Just so you're aware, most of this is people intentionally misunderstanding terms. That's how you get the whole "it's socialism when the government does anything at all" meme. But okay, I'll bite. This is based on a flavor of socialism called "anarcho syndicalism". It's still socialism because the workers control the means of production, and that's all socialism means.

Under anarcho syndicalism, businesses would be owned privately just like they are now, except instead of shares going to whoever buys them, they go to the people who work there. Investors would be required to sell back their interest in a company at a prescribed but profitable interest rate, and do not get a say in the way the company is run. Only the people working at that company do. Businesses would elect their ceo and other upper management, and that CEO would answer to the workers (who would also be the share holders by definition).

This way, every employee feels invested in the success of the business. Every manager is beholden to the workers instead of the bosses. Investors still make money, only now they have to turn around and invest it again rather than sitting their amassing huge fortunes. You wouldn't have a million cashiers making starvation wages so a billionaire could buy a second yacht, the profits of the business would be split relatively evenly. There would still be higher paid positions based on difficulty or qualifications, but the difference would be dictated by what the workers will tolerate rather than what the market will tolerate (the market doesn't give a shit). Most importantly, the CEO will only command that salary based on results rather than bankrupting the company and getting a bonus anyway.

This is still a free market system, so all the advantages of competition will still apply.

Leaving aside the fact that nothing in any western nation even begins to resemble socialism/communism (which are not the same), it's a bit difficult to say "no socialist government has ever worked!" when the US has done everything in its power to dismantle any government in the western hemisphere that even looks at the left.

>i got free education
>its not free handouts

It absolutely is. Someone else paid for it through their labour and we hope that you will in turn provide yours to then pay for services to others. All without incentive.

This is why socialism is degenerative and always falls apart.

but obviously if workers have any amount of control over their workplace i'm going to end up in a gulag

The current generation gets tuition-free education (while still having to work for their degree, mind you) and then pays for the next generation's education with taxes throughout the rest of their life. Payment still exists, it's just 1) delayed until they actually have a job and 2) taxed progressively

>Why does everyone argue over what wasn't an example of socialism

Self-proclaimed socialist societies (who dutifully followed the specifics of socialism) have literally always collapsed and led to horrific levels of human suffering. Those arguing against those self-proclaimed socialist societies being proper examples of socialism are those arguing in favour of it in the face of historical truths that decimate their arguments.

>then pays for the next generation's education with taxes throughout the rest of their life

If they choose to work at a level that will pay for others. And if not, it was a free ride. This system destroys itself literally every time.

The idea of socialism is beautiful, it simply does not function as history has proven time and again.

Literally no one is even calling for real socialism.

No one wants actual socialism, they just prefer not to have a retarded medical insurance industry that fucks over everyone but the top 20%
If you seriously think the medical system in the U.S. is perfectly fine as it is, then you are either underage, a child of wealthy parents or legit retarded.

>Why was socialism and communism allowed to thrive even after they murdered over 100 million innocent people in the 20th century?

Why was Turkey allowed to continue as a sovereign nation after the Armenian Genocide in 1915? Why didn't we forcibly turn Turkey over to the Armenians?

Why is Iran allowed to operate as a legitimate country? North Korea? Somalia? Yemen? Saudi Arabia?

The only time since 1900 when we actually followed through with real logical justice was how we occupied Germany & Japan for half a century and wrote their new constitutions for them. They were exceptions. Normally, evil countries are allowed to continue ad infinitum.

So, people will voluntarily choose to make below the poverty level so that they don't have to pay taxes because they went to college for free? People won't try and succeed in life for the sake of being able to provide nice things for themselves, their family, etc.? To improve their own quality of life? Who the fuck wastes 4 years of their life in college just to say "i got mine, losers, now time to sit around and make no money for the rest of my life"

The person you're saying will bring down the end of "socialist systems" doesn't exist, especially not at any meaningful level.

Bottom line is, if you want to prop up the next generation so that the country can continue to be successful or move up on the world stage you need to provide them the resources to do so. That means education that doesn't put people in debt so they can get good jobs and start families without worrying about massive debt at 22.

You can argue for free education from the perspective of nationalism, social justice, whatever. It's just the way it ought to be done, at this point.

capitalism has killed way more people lol

You could be in my administration if I ever become President.

I would add...
>end foreign aid
>build the kind of a wall Trump talked about in 2015
>institute a merit-based legal immigration system
>have a cap of 100,000 new immigrants per year

I don't have anything against assimilating immigrants, but they have ceased assimilating the last 20 years or so. So, we need to be picky about who we let in.

you can think that you really understand how capitalism works, but probably you don't.

that being said, socialism is a bad name to any ideas that deviate from what mainstream capitalism preaches.

but if we don't try to improve it, we will never know.

also there is this idea about optimization: you never know if you are stuck in a local maximum, so sometimes radical changes are necessary or you will never improve passed a certain point.

Turns out immigrants don't assimilate when you demonize them. Go figure. All experiences with other first-world countries have demonstrated that providing good social programs to new immigrants and reducing prejudice against them helps them assimilate.

and the obama international embargo has nothing to do with this, right?

have you ever really talked to people that lived in soviet countries? I have.

they say that the system had its limitations, but overall people lived better. living conditions is not about all the stuff you own or cool shit you can buy.

they remember they felt safe about themselves always having a job and a place to live and that made a huge difference.

Hell yeah! Hegel predicted this type of thing. People portrayed Communism as the end of history, but it was just a part of the pattern. Just like mutations are needed for life to continue, a society has to be flexible or it will shatter.

If the goal is to have a thriving civilization in the stars we obviously have to think longer term than just next quarter's profits, which is about as far as most capitalists tend to see.

How's it working out in the UK?

These countries rolled out the red carpet for Muslim immigrants only to end up with no-go zones in Muslim sections of cities, and a huge, historic spike in rapes.


>Capitalism as a system rewards the smart, resourceful and hard working

lol. you are removing all of the chaotic nature of capitalism from the equation, you simpleton.

this topic is subject to intense study and they found that your relations and credentials, basically who you know and what people think about you, is a much better predictor of financial success than IQ or diligence.

what you feel, if you are rich, is a sense of entitlement. that is a psychological shield that protects you from feeling bad about having stuff when other don't have it. if you really felt the truth, you would puke. The real truth is that you probably don't deserve all the cool shit that you have, that there are tons of guys in india that is both more clever and more hard working than you living in shitty conditions and that will die living in shitty conditions

Free public education is hardly socialism.

The GI bill post WW2 paid for tens of thousands of the greatest generation to get free education. Those men went on to become the engineers and doctors that created the power grids and other various infrastructures that make the U.S. what it currently is.

If anything history almost without exception proves that giving the public free education is far and away the best investment a government can make with its money.

>Turns out immigrants don't assimilate when you demonize them.
Spoken like a retard who knows nothing about American immigration. the Irish and Chinese were crucified and exploited yet they managed to live and build vibrant communities and cultures in the US.

The no-go zone talking point was just right-wing anti-immigrant fearmongering. Doesn't exist in those countries. The Swedish government itself investigated the increase in rapes and found it has mostly been due to the legal definition of rape in that country being expanded in 2005. You would actually have to believe that immgirants are 83 times more likely to commit rape than natural born citizens (immigrants that know if they get caught they'll be deported). It doesn't add up, my guy. Get your 'facts' from somewhere other than pol or breitbart

yeah immigrants should live their lives exactly how we tell them to. fuck the pursuit of happiness and the "cuckstitution"

maybe just a very pleonastic person

Attached: ackzuallyyyyhh staliiiin.jpg (750x517, 29K)


>no go zones
imagine falling for shit like this lmao

also, in other words: the chinese have not assimilated, they created their own self-segregated communities

it says right next to the text: deliberately faulty construction.

they cut corners to make more money.

They arent segregated. they exist within other communities around them. If the chinese were actually segregated every time you walked into a chink restaurant to order kung pow theyd tell you to fuck off because you're not chinese. That's what assimilation is. Its the marrying of the old and new countries.

I blame cnn

Attached: ownyourcar.jpg (1125x740, 76K)

Attached: qsed80tngyi41.jpg (828x835, 68K)

Attached: gulagmort.jpg (720x854, 57K)

Because it had been dictators who used a theory to excuse but actually ignored everything of the theory itself.

Attached: 2a0mepsgv6h41.jpg (828x667, 60K)

Attached: 7jjvwv4173j41.jpg (1536x2048, 194K)

You can thank Clinton for the dem shift to centrism. he exploited the death penalty to get reelected and the right dug even deeper into the far right as a way of countering him. Bernie Sanders being left of center and being such a thorn in the DNCs paw is even more proof. "Liberalism" in the US would be a moderate platform in any other county.

you are as stupid as the "gozillion" type, both extremes are so retarded

Attached: 3Wp4EMZ.png (655x398, 23K)

Socialism is probably the single biggest umbrella term out there, almost as big as "politics".

Nobody is trying to do anything remotely like any of the failed totalitarian centrally planned pseudo-socialist actually-dictatorship regimes.

Raising minimum wage literally does not in any way translate to socialism.

Why is capitalism allowed to thrive even after centuries of oppressing the workers, destabilising and corrupting governments, starting conflicts, lying, scamming, etc.?

Attached: 1551784536003.jpg (1024x722, 129K)

Attached: 1416a9241a284d37a01d82087c4df993.jpg (720x960, 169K)

The revolution (subsequently Stalin) kills off the farmers. All farms are now state property. Food is now rationed. Apparently the farms don't produce enough food now. People starve. People (including children) are executed for going to the farms to try and grab a few strands of corn because it's theft of state property. A lot of people die from hunger. Hmm yeah... Those that weren't directly tortured or killed by the communist regime certainly died from hunger by their leadership.

Attached: 1568673087821.png (500x440, 118K)

*cough* what about the labour camps? *cough* what about the arrest quotas? *cough*

I hate poor people. Fuck them.

You seem to put an equal sign between "socialism" (i.e. anything that's not turbo-capitalist) and totalitarian autocracies like Soviet Union under Stalin or Cambodia under Pol-Pot. They're not connected by any means. Those regimes came to being due to the chaos after revolutions, nobody has ever intended them to arise.

You also miss the number of people killed by capitalism, those who died because they couldn't afford food or medicines, those who died due to safety rules being relaxed because they slowed down production and so on.

What's more is that socialism actually does work - look at the countries with highest GDP per capita and you will ony see countries with some (usually high) level of socialized services and the USA. On the other hand, compare the poorest countries and you won't see much of socialism.

>>those who died due to safety rules being relaxed because they slowed down production
Err, uh hmm...
White Sea–Baltic Canal

hey fagg, nobody said capitalism was a perfect regime, but still, it is far better than communism which is proclaimed to be perfect, but can not be reached, that's because perfect equality doesn't exist, communism can not exist, capitalism is the realisation of that fact, all communist regimes were capitalistic in essence and just delivered false promises, in fact capitalist systems account for all systems, there is nothing but capitalism bc it is the natural state of nature and of society, capitalism is inperfection and change while communism is perfection and not changing, but it is not something possible

tl;dr:everything is capitalism
nothing is communism

also i'm a bit drunk so there is probably language mistakes and typos

they are all market or command economies
social programs =/= socialism

Society finds millennials to be pretty reckless with their money compared to previous generations: They take on more debt, have a "treat themselves" mentality, and are killing industries left and right because of their lack of financial stability.
But are these financial habits the result of economic circumstances handed to them or financial irresponsibility? It's hard to say when millennials have been labeled both "the brokest generation"

Attached: 1572034439627.png (712x613, 355K)

so the most productives give and their benefits ?
far less than in a capitalist society
and the less productives give next to nothing and still gain benefits ?

so why would the most productives be productif ?

have you ever heard of the "Tragedy of the commons", it is the fact that if people gain access to a shared ressource they will be taking the most amount of ressources for themselves out of self interest and will not care about giving back or sharing
now think what happens when people share basically their pay, they work the bare minimum, they try to get the most out of others while not doing anything for themselves bc it will go to their common "pay"

in short socialism is not sustainable because people are selfish

Most of the Muslims I know are software engineers or chip designers, The live in suburban communities and attend their local religious services every Friday night. Nice people, and aside from praying five times a day, you would have no idea they are Muslim. My closest coworker's wife is a pediatrician.

Wouldn't bother any of them if you ordered pork or had a beer when we went to dinner. I think they assimilate about as well as Mormons. In fact, their whole religion and culture is a lot like Mormons.

4000$ here is like next car every year

>I attended Prager U.
Trying to revive the slippery slope theory in the age of globalist anarcho-capitalism is retarded bait even if it's not bait.

Just so you all understand, hating the far left doesn't make one far right.

Normal people hate the far left and far right equally.

Does every death under capitalism count as a death by capitalism? No, that's retarded? Well, there you go you fuckin loons. Think for once.

Everything in moderation dumbass too much socialism is dangerous but a little helps stop us from being sheep

Attached: 9970B163-19B1-41B8-8253-B203B783D191.jpg (720x720, 119K)

>What are the easily breakable wooden doors on "my gas chambers for 500 Alex

Yep no such debate exists. Ignorance must be bliss

>> russians
nice try

> russians
nice try

The number of deaths from communism is highly inflated, or at least misleading.
Stalin and Mao really fucked up their planning which resulted in a lot of people dying, mostly to starvation. But the intent wasn't to kill these people like nazi death camps, it just sort of happened that way.

Can these deaths be blamed on communism? Up to you to decide.
Can deaths from homelessness, poverty, preventable work injuries, and lack of medical care be blamed on Capitalism?

Neither system is perfect, you just pick what you think is best.

What is prager u?

please fuck off and die

>your exreme and retarded for asking for the numbers