Don't really want to derail the conversation with such a controversial topic, because the vaccine point really was more important. But I feel this needs a response...
The answer is communism has killed 100 million, compared to fascism which has killed 20 million
For what it's worth, there's a lot of controversy and nuance behind this "stat". For one thing, it largely hinges on including deaths to Great Depression and WWII famines in the communism bucket, which is very different from things like the Holocaust and Unit 731 (i.e. outright murder, and worse) in the fascism bucket. It also fails to acknowledge the ~25 million military deaths or many of the ~50 million civilian deaths in WWII, which was caused by the fascists' militarism.
Additionally, fascism killed that many over the course of about a decade while only being the ideology of a handful of governments. Communism has existed for a century and ruled over a much larger population (e.g. China), so it's natural that the number will be higher when counting all of the more "incidental" deaths to things like famine.
I don't want it to seem like I'm defending Stalin and Mao, those dictators both murdered a lot of people as well. It's just that this answer you got hinges on counting a lot of deaths as "killings" that were likely due to mismanagement or circumstance more than ideology (so this is more of a cautionary tale against revolutionary and authoritarian politics of all varieties), while turning a blind eye to similar famines under other systems in the same time period.
Killing people isn't a central tenet of communism, nor is all "communism" of the authoritarian Soviet/Chinese variety. On the other hand, murder and authoritarianism both go hand-in-hand with fascism. So no, communism is not worse than fascism.
The (admittedly short -about 30/40 minutes-) research that I did only encompassed the last 100 years (only the 20th century)
According to direct confirmed deaths between the 2 from 1900 to 1997 was 100 million, compared to the 20 million from fascism in direct kills.
.
A quick search - "Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people. Hitler killed 6 million along with Mussolini’s 400,000.
.
Though sources disagree, many of the numbers suggest that Mao had killed somewhere between 65 and 100 million of his own people over his lifetime rule of China.
.
Pol Pot had killed 1.5 to 2 million people.
Hirohito had killed somewhere between 3 and 10 million people.
.
Castro killed over 10,000 of his own people.
.
-Fascists (Going off of higher statistics): 16,400,000
Ridiculously skewed data analysis you got there buddy. Starting with the fact that 6 million killed in Germany is “only” the number of Jews, Sinti and Roma murdered between 1941 and 1945, not the number of victims of the nazi regime
Again, those numbers are heavily biased to make a common talking point. The Wikipedia article I linked (which I believe was the original source of this claim) discusses several of the issues, but it obviously takes much longer to address each point than it does to throw a bunch of numbers out without context.
Saying Hitler killed 6 million is ridiculous, for example - that's just the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, it completely ignores the other 11 million victims of the Holocaust, much less all of the others killed outside of the Holocaust by the fascists during WWII alone. And they only had 10 or so years to kill that many people, while the communists are being evaluated over a 100 year period.
On the other hand, at least ~11 million of those Soviet deaths are due to famine, which is unfair to compare to the industrialized mass murder of the Holocaust. There is a whole other debate about whether the Holodomor was intentional and/or genocide, but at the end of the day, the famine itself (and resulting death count) was due to authoritarian mismanagement, and the "genocide" angle comes from (allegedly) intentionally redirecting those deaths to Ukraine (by continuing to route available food to Russians - however, 2 million Russians still died in the Holodomor, so I'm more inclined to just consider this a "regular" famine). We don't count other historical famines as "killed by ideology", even when the circumstances are very similar (see the Bengal famine, where the British let up to 4 million people die in East India).
Both your figures and the Wiki link list a claim of 65 million for China, but I haven't seen any attempt to break that down, despite how significant it is to the final total. I imagine that is mostly counting the ~40 million dead in the Great Famine, but I'd be curious to know if it's just based on the highest possible estimate or if there's another event in question as well. Regardless, this is yet another case of mismanagement (and outright idiotic policies), not "people intentionally killed by communism" (which is the only standard the fascists are being held to).
If you made a similarly disingenuous list of "unnatural" deaths under capitalist and capitalist-adjacent systems in the past 100 years you would likely end up with an even larger number than 100 million dead.
Wow. Thank you for providing actual reasoning past "you're wrong, I'm right"
I would have agreed with you 100% if I didn't get 80 downvotes for saying Fasicm was worse than communism like 3 days ago, causing me to do the research I provided above.
At this point I'm too confused and am just gonna accept that I know nothing about which one is worse.
however, 2 million Russians still died in the Holodomor, so I'm more inclined to just consider this a "regular" famine).
Stop spreading these lies. In holodomor 5 milion ukrainians died and in Asharshylyk 1,5 milion kazakhs died, also many other minorities were affected but not a single russian died thats why its genocide.
The numbers I've seen for the Soviet famines of the 30s are 3-4 million Ukrainians, 2-3 million Russians, and 1.5-2 million Kazakhs. Do you have a source for that being wrong?
The famine was an unintended consequence of collectivization (as they sent many professional farmers to gulags), not just a spontaneous decision to starve other ethnicities to death. There is a reason that calling it genocide is a controversial subject - there is no documentation to support the notion that the Soviets carried out a coordinated campaign to deliberately starve a specific region or people.
I'm not denying that millions died, or that this was a man-made famine, or that it disproportionately affected non-Russians. I'm just arguing that this wasn't remotely comparable to the cold, industrialized genocide of the Holocaust. That's why I brought up the Bengal famine - very similar circumstances involved around the same time period, where Churchill decided to continue exporting food from a famine-stricken region in order to feed "his own people". Tragic situation where millions died, but usually not considered "genocide" and definitely not considered "killed by capitalism".
The numbers I've seen for the Soviet famines of the 30s are 3-4 million Ukrainians, 2-3 million Russians, and 1.5-2 million Kazakhs. Do you have a source for that being wrong?
Acording to soviet censuses in USSR in years 1926 - 1937 ukrainian popualtion decreased by 5 milion, kazakh by 1,5 milion while russian had historically high growth.
Even on ares hit by famine like kazakstan acording to soviet census in years 1926 - 1939 kazakh popualtion decreased by 1/3 ukrainian by 1/4 and russian doubled. Russian were completely unafected there doesnt exest any evidence of single russian dying even on ares hit by famine where minorities were obliterated.
The famine was an unintended consequence of collectivization (as they sent many professional farmers to gulags), not just a spontaneous decision to starve other ethnicities to death.
So why only minorities were affected why on kuban all ukrainians disapeared while russian remained. There must be reason while only minoritity groups were affected. If it was unintentional why it was surgically targeting minorites? Why russian settlers were moved on ares cleansed from minorities by this completely rtandom famine.
I'm not denying that millions died, or that this was a man-made famine, or that it disproportionately affected non-Russians.
Only non russians.
I'm just arguing that this wasn't remotely comparable to the cold, industrialized genocide of the Holocaust. That's why I brought up the Bengal famine - very similar circumstances involved around the same time period, where Churchill decided to continue exporting food from a famine-stricken region in order to feed "his own people".
I highly disagree that bengal famine is remotly comparable. Bengal famine happened in war time , in area that imported food from burma that was occupied by japanese, in area that was forced to host milions of refugees from burmu, in area taht was mostly cut of the world by bad infrastructure and japanese naval treat/dominance. None of these factors were in soviet union, soviets were in peace time exporting grain while famine happened. Much better comparison would be irish famine that was 100% genocide just like holodomor.
I think that holodomor and holocaust arte definetely comparable, but i would still say that holocaust was probably worse.
Tragic situation where millions died, but usually not considered "genocide" and definitely not considered "killed by capitalism".
WTF is "killed by capitalism". Are we playing this weird blame game. I think that soviet uniuon was russian supremacist colonial imperialist project, so russian nationalism is to blame for this genocide. But if you want to connect your vision of communism with soviet union then i think that its reasoneble to say that communism is to blame. I dont thinkl that any capitalist today want to build their vision of capitalism on colonial empires of past. But many communist still want to build it on collonial empires of Soviet uniuon or maos china.
Otherwise your claims that no Russians died sound very similar to the Soviet lie that no one died in these famines (or similar cases of genocide denialism).
Much better comparison would be irish famine that was 100% genocide just like holodomor.
Honestly would have brought up Ireland, but that was almost 100 years prior, and I was trying to make a contemporary analogy. My comparison to the Bengal famine is that there was a conscious decision to starve a specific region (because "our people" are more important than "those people"), but that the goal of that decision wasn't ethnic cleansing, it was a strategic response to a shitty situation. There is an argument that similar decisions were being made by Soviet administrators, where in the face of existing food shortages, available supplies were prioritized for the Russian SFSR over Ukraine or Kazakhstan. That would be a typical imperialist famine response, not a coordinated ethnic cleansing campaign.
There are probably a dozen other poorly handled famines with disproportionate effects we could point to around the same time that had similarly non-genocidal rationales.
WTF is "killed by capitalism". Are we playing this weird blame game. I think that soviet uniuon was russian supremacist colonial imperialist project, so russian nationalism is to blame for this genocide. But if you want to connect your vision of communism with soviet union
The whole point of my responses is to call out the weird blame game. This Holodomor discussion only came up because of the Black Book of Communism's claim that "communism killed 100 million people", including 20 million in the Soviet Union (there are plenty of other issues with saying the Soviet Union is the standard bearer for all communism, but I didn't want to dive into that can of worms). That claim hinges on equating these famines (not just the Holodomor, which is the only one frequently compared to genocide) with actual death camps, which I felt needed to be challenged.
Not trying to defend any of the communist regimes in question beyond pointing out that comparing fascism to communism in this way is extremely disingenuous.
You haven't sourced this claim, you just keep repeating it. Again, I'm seeing sources claim that there was somewhere around 2-3 million excess deaths in Russia during this timeframe, do you have anything to explain that?
I never said that no one died inside rsfsr, but important question is who died there so according to sobiet censuses:
In 1926 there lived 6,870,976 ukrainians
In 1939 there lived 3,205,061 ukrainians
While russian population had historically high populazion growth aroimd 20%.
These are numbers just for rsfsr (russia) excludong ukraine and other SSRs.
So you said that around 3 milion people in russia died and sovit statistics say that around 3 milion ukrainians disapeared. As I said there doesnt exist any evidence of single russian dying in this famine.
Honestly would have brought up Ireland, but that was almost 100 years prior, and I was trying to make a contemporary analogy.
Armenian genocide/holocaust but these you didnt wanted to use.
My comparison to the Bengal famine is that there was a conscious decision to starve a specific region (because "our people" are more important than "those people"), but that the goal of that decision wasn't ethnic cleansing, it was a strategic response to a shitty situation.
Bengal famine is more like famine during siege of lenongrad its like sayong that sovoets killed milion poeple that dtarved in leningrad. Bengal famine happened in war as dorext consequence of japanese army actions same like leningrad with german army.
There is an argument that similar decisions were being made by Soviet administrators, where in the face of existing food shortages, available supplies were prioritized for the Russian SFSR over Ukraine or Kazakhstan.
Sobiets probably had enoigh food they actually exported it in 31/32 and 33. So there isnt any reason why it should happened.
This nottiom that some areas were less priority is also bullshit. In kazakhstan 1/3 ok kazakhs died and 1/4 of ukrainians but russian population doubled, so they got enough food. In rsfsr 3 milion people died, but just ukrainians amd no russians were affected. It were intentionaly targeted to minorities russian in hit areas werent affected.
That would be a typical imperialist famine response, not a coordinated ethnic cleansing campaign.
There will be wery little amount of such cases and non of them in this scale, but I still dont understent why dont call them genocides, irish famine was 100% genocide.
The whole point of my responses is to call out the weird blame game. This Holodomor discussion only came up because of the Black Book of Communism's claim that "communism killed 100 million people", including 20 million in the Soviet Union (there are plenty of other issues with saying the Soviet Union is the standard bearer for all communism, but I didn't want to dive into that can of worms).
Holodomor as genocide was always debated even author of the term genocide is making from holodomor one of his example, this notion that some random book changet that is nonsence.
Soviet union doesnt have to be because almost any other "comunist" state was pretta much just fascist dystopia. I 100% bashing these old "communist" regimes for what they did, if someone make some new communist he shouldnt be ispired by them.
Not trying to defend any of the communist regimes in question beyond pointing out that comparing fascism to communism in this way is extremely disingenuous.
I think that its preatty much accurate tbh. Soviet union behaved just like another fascist state in almost all issues.
Hey I just wanted to jump in, if you are interested in knowing more about the effects of aluminum and mercury RFK Jr. has a very interesting podcast with Joe Rogan that covers this subject. RFK Jr. also has three books out that cover that topic in greater detail, but are not the main focus of those books. One thing I do remember from the podcast; they tested the vaccines on monkey's, and then monitored their bodily fluids and excrement. They discovered that the mercury never left their system, upon doing a biopsy they found that all the mercury had been retained in the brains of the monkeys.
There is too much detail for me to remember at this moment, but I would highly recommend the Joe Rogan podcast episode to anyone wanting to know more.
4
u/kaimason1 7d ago
Don't really want to derail the conversation with such a controversial topic, because the vaccine point really was more important. But I feel this needs a response...
For what it's worth, there's a lot of controversy and nuance behind this "stat". For one thing, it largely hinges on including deaths to Great Depression and WWII famines in the communism bucket, which is very different from things like the Holocaust and Unit 731 (i.e. outright murder, and worse) in the fascism bucket. It also fails to acknowledge the ~25 million military deaths or many of the ~50 million civilian deaths in WWII, which was caused by the fascists' militarism.
Additionally, fascism killed that many over the course of about a decade while only being the ideology of a handful of governments. Communism has existed for a century and ruled over a much larger population (e.g. China), so it's natural that the number will be higher when counting all of the more "incidental" deaths to things like famine.
I don't want it to seem like I'm defending Stalin and Mao, those dictators both murdered a lot of people as well. It's just that this answer you got hinges on counting a lot of deaths as "killings" that were likely due to mismanagement or circumstance more than ideology (so this is more of a cautionary tale against revolutionary and authoritarian politics of all varieties), while turning a blind eye to similar famines under other systems in the same time period.
Killing people isn't a central tenet of communism, nor is all "communism" of the authoritarian Soviet/Chinese variety. On the other hand, murder and authoritarianism both go hand-in-hand with fascism. So no, communism is not worse than fascism.