Matvei Bronstein: Theorical physicist. Pioneer of quantum gravity. Arrested, accused of fictional “terroristic” activity and shot in 1938

Lev Shubnikov: Experimental physicist. Accused on false charges. Executed

Adrian Piotrovsky: Russian dramaturge. Accused on false charges of treason. Executed.

Nikolai Bukharin: Leader of the Communist revolution. Member of the Politburo. Falsely accused of treason. Executed.

General Alexander Egorov: Marshal of the Soviet Union. Commander of the Red Army Southern Front. Member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Arrested, accused on false charges, executed.

General Mikhail Tukhachevsky Supreme Marshal of the Soviet Union. Nicknamed the Red Napoleon. Arrested, accused on fake charges. Executed.

Grigory Zinoviev: Chairman of the Communist International Movement. Member of the Soviet Politburo. Accused of treason and executed.

Even the secret police themselves were not safe:

Genrikh Yagoda : Right-hand of Joseph Stalin. Head of the NKD Secret Police. He spied on everyone in Russia and jailed thousands of innocents. Yagoda was arrested and executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genrikh_Yagoda

Nikolai Yezhov : Appointed head of the NKD Secret Police after the death of Yagoda. Arrested on fake charges, executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov

Everybody was absolutely terrified during this period. At least 600 000 people were killed and over 100 000 people were deported to Gulags in Siberia.

Today, Russian schools no longer teach what Joseph Stalin did. Many young russians actually believe that Stalin was a great patriot.

This is part of an effort by Vladimir Putin to rehabilitate him:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/10/vladimir-putin-russia-rehabilitating-stalin-soviet-past

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/05/21/stalin-is-making-a-comeback-in-russia-heres-why-a89155

  • telokic@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    193
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    And this, folks, is why I prefer to live in a democracy.

    Perhaps some dictators are competent. But if they go crazy, you are truly fucked.

    • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      197
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      i’d like to point out that communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one, they are not incompatible concepts….

      just because Stalin wasn’t a very communist regime but was brutally authoritarian and is widely criticized as “what communism is like”.

      • Dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Communism is very much a social system. Implying economics don’t have a huge impact on society would be the opposite of Marxism.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        13 hours ago

        communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one

        Communism is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, the pseudoscientifically postulated utopia of a stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. Communist ideology is like the Christianity of politics & economics that keeps promising the 2nd coming of Christ: they insist it’ll happen someday inevitably. No possible way Marx was wrong.

        Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state): a political system/government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society.

        Democracy is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state. Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.

        So, colloquially, communism refers to a political & economic system whereas democracy refers to a political system.

        As a political system, the communist state is totalitarian, the most extreme authoritarianism:

        Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.

        Whereas an authoritarian regime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature (they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested), totalitarianism aims for more. A totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as

        • Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren’t inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights. Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed. Dissent is punished. Unauthorized political activities aren’t tolerated.
        • State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
        • Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
        • Economic control.

        All of this is entirely compatible with Marxist-Leninism.

        Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism. It holds that governments exist for the people & authority is legitimate only when it protects inalienable/fundamental/inherent rights & liberties of individuals. The people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority, and when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          The “political” aspect of communism stems directly from the desire to radically alter the economic system. It is not tied, however, to the particular political order.

          Coming from the same very Wikipedia article you cite on communism:

          Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers’ self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach to establish a socialist state, which is expected to wither away.

          So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types. It can be authoritarian (and so can be capitalism - look at fascism to see an example), and it can be democratic (early Soviets) or even libertarian (anarcho-communism). You can build a totalitarian communist hellhole, and a totalitarian capitalist one; same in reverse.

          Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. As your ability to exercise rights is heavily tied to your wealth (think of regular worker suing a billionaire, or all the lobbying, or corruption scandals involving the wealthiest and the way they slip out of them like nothing ever happened), people can be and commonly are silenced. Moreover, if you have money, nothing stops you from financing the media to translate your message. This way, important political messages are drowned in favor of what the rich want to translate, and certain (rather corrupt) voices are heavily amplified over others.

          By extension, liberalism, even in the most ideal of its forms, is deeply flawed when it comes to a true democracy.

          Finally, most communists (including Marx, since you mention him) realize that the communist society is at least very far off from the current state of affairs. This is why socialism exists as a transitory state, an economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker’s rights, a social state, socially owned industry) while keeping the monetary incentives in the economy. The absolute majority of communists support this transition and welcome a socialist state.

        • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

          an argument easily disproven by pointing to the US for the last few decades.

        • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          State terrorism is a contradiction in terms. Legally, terrorism is violence carried out by a group that is not recognized as a state internationally. States cannot do terrorism, the term exists to protect their monopoly on legal violence. George Washington was a terrorist until the British empire recognized and began doing business with the constitutional United States. We see a similar change occurring with Taliban members and the present government of Afghanistan.

          More importantly, though. You claim liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism, yet if we dig into the present and recent past of the United States, we find policies that match the list you have provided.

          The Lavender Scare and Hoover’s FBI, the Red Scare and COINTELPRO, the police response to Kent State anti-war protests in 1970, the police response Columbia’s anti-genocide protests last year, the ongoing existence of privately run labor camps and prison farms.

      • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        92
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        Communism under a dictatorship is a paradox. The people own and control nothing. The leader and their chosen circle own and control everything. That is neither communism nor socialism and it is not possible for either to exist in any authoritarian context.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Well, the problem is that to get to the utopia called Communism were everybody is equal, a Society has to first go through the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat after the Workers Seize The Means Of Production and, curiously (or maybe not so curiously if one understands at least a bit of Human Nature, especially that of the kind of people who seek power) none of the nations which went into the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (i.e. all the ones which call or called themselves “Communist”) ever actually reached Communism and they all got stuck in Dictatorial regimes (and I believe in not a single one of those is the Proletariat actually in charge: for example in China Labour Unions are illegal),

          So whilst it is indeed not possible for Communism to exist in an authoritarian context, according to Marxism-Leninism to get to Communism one must first go through an authoritarian context and eventually from there reach Communism, hence why all those nations that tried to reach Communism never got past the authoritarian stage that precedes Communist.

          • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Ahh… please tell me more about this human nature which is incompatible with communism while microplastics flows in your veins.

            • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              32 minutes ago

              Re-read my post.

              I was not making any human nature claims about Communism, I was making them about what happens when a dictatorial system is created, no matter how good the original intentions stated as the reason to create it.

              The viability or not of actual Communism (as in, a classless system were everybody is equal) is a whole different subject. My point is entirely around the good old “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” effect and how that tends to turns supposedly transitional dictatorial stages into something permanent.

        • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I like the “moneyless” part of the definition, aka if you have a currency you’re not communist. Which, to be fair, they didn’t call themselves as a country.

      • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        But he wasn’t criticizing communism, or advocating for capitalism. He was criticizing a dictator and saying he prefers democracy.

        Unless you think communism can’t exist outside of a brutal dictatorship.

            • leftascenter@tarte.nuage-libre.fr
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              China is not communist. Communism entails a classless society. China has social classes. And by definition any dictatorship has a ruler class.

              • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                Per Marxism-Leninism the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat is a necessary step on the way to Communism, not the actual Communism.

                So whilst Communism cannot exist in a dictatorship, to get there one must go through a dictatorship and invariably nations that do so get stuck at the dictatorship stage and never reach Communism whilst calling themselves “Communist” as part of the propaganda that tries and maintain public support and misportray criticism of the regime as being “criticism of Communism” and “criticism of the Proletariat” (kinda like the Zionists, an even more evil regime, misportray criticism of their regime as criticism of those they claim to represent - the Jewish People) to keep the dictatorial structures going supposedly until Communism is reached, but as it’s never reached, in practice for as long as possible.

                In all this propaganda swamp around it, most people not knowing about those theories from anywhere but some political propaganda or other, think Communism is what China has or the Soviet Union had even though that very ideology says those countries are not and never were at the Communism stage and at best are on the path to Communism.

              • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                No. A communist society is stateless and classless. If there is a dictatorship, even a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is by definition not communist, and no educated Marxist would argue otherwise. However, we do have another term for the transition state between capitalism and communism where it is possible to have dictatorships - Socialism. (And Leninists would argue that a dictatorship of the proletariat is indeed the preferable state of affairs for any socialist state trying to survive in a global capitalist hegemony).

                Edit: I initially misread the comment I was replying to.

                • CatAssTrophy@safest.space
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  That’s literally what I was saying/implying, so I’m not sure “no” is a particularly valid response. I think you misread.

                  The comment chain went like this:

                  1. Communism can’t be a dictatorship.
                  2. China disagrees with 1.
                  3. Marx agreed with 1, i.e. Marx agreed communism can’t exist in a dictatorship.
          • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Then why bring communism into a critique of a dictator concerning his methods of control?

            • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              7 hours ago

              because it’s Stalin, former leader of the USSR…
              commonly used as an example of why communism is so bad.
              you’re really confused about that?

              • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                And yet, here this person is, not incorrectly using Stalin to say communism is bad. He is criticizing Stalin on his merits, or lack thereof, and not using one person to disparage communism.

                You are one tying Stalin’s crimes to communism.

                • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 hours ago

                  Stalin tied himself to communism as much as possible, all critics of communism tie Stalin to communism as much as possible.
                  think reeeeeLly hard about how that might be a relevant point to be had.
                  also lemmy is chock full of tankies tying stalin to communism but pretending like he was super good and all of the bad things he did were western propaganda

                  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 hours ago

                    That’s the same “logic” as claiming that all critics of the Nazis are really trying to speak ill of people of Germanic Ancestry or that all critics of Zionism are anti-semites.

                    Just because those evil regimes tied themselves to those groups or ideologies doesn’t mean that critics of the regime are actually trying to speak ill of the groups or ideologies those evil regimes linked themselves to.

                    In fact the strategy of misportraying criticism of the regime as being criticism of the group that regime claims to represent, is a common propaganda trick of the most evil of regimes.

                  • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 hours ago

                    Yes, those tankies are twisted, bring unable to support communism without making excuses for a brutal dictator.

                    So surely you must appreciate someone capable of criticizing that brutal dictator without smearing communism in the process, right?

                    Why would you see a conversation about a brutal dictator and jump in to talk about how he was a communist? Don’t you think it might be people like you that encourage tankies to reflexively disagree with any criticism of Stalin?

                    If you can’t have a conversation about Stalin’s crimes without someone erroneously bringing communism into it maybe that’s why frustrated communists often defend the indefensible.

        • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 hours ago

          It is the actually opposite of that. Socioeconomic factors are the main force of politics. Politics are not limited with the vote box. rather i,t affects all of the people who are the part of society. Within communism there would be no need for democracy. Indirect democracy also creates a ruling class. I would prefer individuals collective decision more than a bureaucrat’s decision that i voted.

            • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Talking with each other at the peoples local council not going to a ballot box to elect some stupid bastad to make decisions for them. I DO NOT CONSENT someone to have my all will. An example can enlight this. I vote for the opposite party as an lgbt+ individual but they are not mentioning my daily life problems instead they are making populism with the religion i do not believe.

              You may say it is also a democracy by its defination and you are not wrong but the classical democracy is tyrant of the mass. I want the mass to be knitted for the minority. Just because we are the less should not mean that our opinions matter less. But under the classical democracy it is. Under the classical democracy homophobes are the majority and lgbt+ people are the minority.

              • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 hours ago

                You’re describing Direct Democracy vs Representative Democracy. Direct Democracy is what we also saw in places like Athens or ancient Greece, where all of the individuals came together and voted collectively on making decisions.

                Representative Democracy is what we have in the US today with elected officials.

                Direct Democracy is a lot more difficult to implement unless countries become smaller imo, although in the digital age it could be made more possible. Plus there’s the matter of maintaining a militia, although maybe we just expand the current version of the UN’s military budget in that case.

                I feel that under Direct Democracy you would still have the issue of bigots outnumbering you in certain areas but not so in others.

                The issue with the US’ representative system is that we artificially capped the amount of seats for the House of Representatives and even the Senate so that land has more power than people. If the House was uncapped Federally, and the even the Senate, then people living in Blue/densely populated states would have more fair representation.

                • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  I know it is more like comparing direct democracy and representative democracy but i also do have some anarchist, individualist opinions/beliefs. So i am not very certain about calling anarchy as direct democracy. tho i believe democracy under anarchy which is without hierarchy can be used as tool to decide and argue about something.

                  I am not from usa i am from turkey. English is my second language.

                  • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    I’m not certain how you would classify that either. When I hear the word anarchy I think more ‘Wild West’ or ‘outlaw country’.

                    I’m pessimistic about good coming from anarchy in the long-run. To me it sounds like disorganized bands of communities. Without some sort of organizing or structure then I feel it makes it much more difficult to deal with natural disasters, famines, or antagonists.

                    I feel that in the case of Turkey I don’t know enough about the specifics of your country to comment on ways it could be improved politically to bring about good governance. I feel it’s still possible in my country, but from what I have heard Turkey leans more conservatively.

              • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 hours ago

                It sounds like you would reject a system where one unelected, unaccountable person or class of people ruling through force could decide on a whim to take away the rights of LGBT+ people, or any other minority, and instead prefer a system where all people have an equal voice and a method for that voice to be heard and counted.

                • amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 hours ago

                  i feel the same as the person you’re replying to. i think our issue is that the opinion of non-queer person holds as much weight as that of a queer person’s. we don’t want equality, we want equity and being treated as the experts on our own lives and needs. a cis person shouldn’t get to dictate my medical care just because 51% of the population voted to deprive me of it. this is why I don’t trust in democracy

                  • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 hours ago

                    No one is asking you to trust it, just to choose it.

                    Strip away all the labels and theory and you’re left with two basic choices. One where the method of change is persuasion, and one where the method of change is bloody revolution, over and over and over without end.

                    As much as it might rankle you, and me, to accept having to convince a majority to allow us to live our lives as we damn well please, if I was given the opportunity to appoint a dictator, or dictatorial class, that would remake society exactly as I wanted, I wouldn’t do it. Because who would succeed them, and once you have given that power to a class of people, deposing them is a lot harder, and bloodier, than persuading a few percent of your neighbors.

      • fonix232@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yep.

        Communism and socialism in itself isn’t that problematic an economic system. Unless of course you belong to the few select brands of freeloaders who’ve successfully managed to sell to the general population that without you, everything would collapse (looking at you, landlords and billionaires and stock market speculators).

        The problem is that the economic part can’t work without an evenly matched societal system - and for people to bypass their immediate greed reaction of the usual “why should the result of my work go to others who didn’t do that work” BS, as seeing far ahead to realise that pooling resources in such manner will benefit everyone, and when the community thrives, so does the individual. For that, one needs proper education, which is usually the antithesis of a capitalist system (a capitalist system will inherently only allow one to learn a limited set of facts, and will systematically ridicule those who dare step outside those limits).

        And herein lies the second problem. Socialism and communism could be great for the average people, but the average people have been misled and lied to and been brainwashed for so long, they need to be forcibly broken out of that bubble. And the only way to force that is through a revolution, and authoritarian enforcement of the socioeconomic system.

        Now the problem with that is… it’s incredibly easy for a malicious actor to then infiltrate the authoritarian system, and push its leaders to do counterproductive things. Add on top of that the constant CIA meddling, and you get your run of the mill authoritarian “communist” (in name only) paranoid leader who rules with an iron fist. The intention might’ve been good, but the execution was starkly against the very people the revolution was supposed to help. Repeat it a few times and now the whole world is afraid of the economic system, not authoritarianism.

        Then continue by throwing in some brainwashed tankies who literally suck up to the authoritarian regimes, spreading BS about how those are “true communism”, just so average people don’t even consider learning about it because the term becomes synonymous with authoritarians and their bootlickers.

        • zeca@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          but the average people have been misled and lied to and been brainwashed for so long, they need to be forcibly broken out of that bubble. And the only way to force that is through a revolution, and authoritarian enforcement of the socioeconomic system.

          That word “only” seems too pessimistic and unjustified, and your point relies too heavily on it.

        • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The problem is that the economic part can’t work without an evenly matched societal system

          well that’s absurd, and exactly why the tankies are shilling so hard

        • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          seeing far ahead to realize that pooling resources in such manner will benefit everyone,

          Pooling resources is how car insurance works.

          • Zorque@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            21 hours ago

            It’s part of how car insurance works. It also works by underwriters and adjusters being paid to do everything they can to keep from paying out claims.

          • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 day ago

            And the value it provides is enough to prop up the entire car insurance industry with incredibly inflated salaries at the top, and pay for a good portion of the damage caused by car accidents plus a fuckload of attorneys paid trying to avoid the rest of the damage.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        1 day ago

        Communism inherently couples both the economy and the government.

        In theory, capitalism can be decoupled since it mostly depends on laissez-faire governance. Communism inherently requires a planned economy and centralized control of such.

        There is theoretically nothing stopping said leaders of a communist regime from being elected through a democratic process. But much like democracies tend to favor capitalism and (lower case) libertarian ideals, communism tends to lend itself to dictatorships because… you have a centralized control of all aspects of society.

        • Sunforged@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          1 day ago

          I honestly have no issue there. My issue is the claim that such atrocities don’t happen in democratic institutions.

          • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 hours ago

            My issue is the claim that such atrocities don’t happen in democratic institutions.

            well, if ML users could read, you would know that OP made no such claims.

          • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I honestly have no issue there. My issue is the claim that such atrocities don’t happen in democratic institutions.

            I can’t recall any democratic countries, fragile or not, that can hold a candle to the atrocities committed by Joseph Stalin.

            Can you point out the equivalent that we should look at in this case of whataboutism? Since we’re talking about millions being killed by Joseph Stalin, what are the comparables?

            • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              24 hours ago

              Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher.[5][6][7] After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[8][9][10][11][12] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[13][14][15] some 390,000[16] deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[17] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[18] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were “purposive” while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[2] The deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million[19] persons in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 are sometimes included with the victims of the Stalin era.[2][20] - wikipedia

              So being generous we’ll go high and say 10 million

              According to the World Health Organization (WHO), around 9 million people die annually from hunger and malnutrition, mostly in regions where capitalist-driven global inequality has made basic necessities unaffordable or inaccessible.

              So less in a year due to capitalism (ignoring wars and whatnot) than the total of Stalin. But also dealing with huge differences in populations involved. Both seem pretty shitty if you ask me.

              • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                So being generous we’ll go high and say 10 million

                Before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the archival revelations, some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher.

                or maybe you can “be generous” and go with the figure you quoted.

              • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                22 hours ago

                An estimated 30 local NKVD agents, guards and drivers were pressed into service to escort prisoners to the basement, confirm identification, then remove the bodies and hose down the blood after each execution. Although some of the executions were carried out by Senior Lieutenant of State Security Andrei Rubanov, Blokhin was the primary executioner and, true to his reputation, liked to work continuously and rapidly without interruption.[14] In keeping with NKVD policy and the overall “wet” nature of the operation, the executions were conducted at night, starting at dark and continuing until just prior to dawn. The bodies were continuously loaded onto covered flat-bed trucks through a back door in the execution chamber and trucked, twice a night, to the nearby village of Mednoye. Blokhin had arranged for a bulldozer and two NKVD drivers to dispose of bodies at an unfenced site. Each night, 24–25 trenches were dug, measuring 8 to 10 metres (26 to 33 ft) in length, to hold that night’s corpses, and each trench was covered over before dawn.[17]

                Blokhin and his team worked without pause for 10 hours each night, with Blokhin himself executing an average of one prisoner every three minutes.[2] At the end of the night, he provided vodka to all his men.[18] On 27 April 1940, Blokhin secretly received the Order of the Red Banner and a modest monthly pay premium as a reward from Stalin for his “skill and organization in the effective carrying out of special tasks”.[19][20] His tally of 7,000 shot in 28 days remains the most organised and protracted mass murder by a single individual on record, and caused him being named the Guinness World Record holder for “Most Prolific Executioner” in 2010.[2][3]

                Ya, totally equivalent.

                Sit the fuck down.

                • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  21 hours ago

                  What the fuck are you on about? I guess it’s easy for a smooth brain moron to hype up gross mass murder as somehow way worse than prolonged systematic suffering and death. You’re a fucking lost cause.

                  • MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    20 hours ago

                    Prolonged systematic suffering and death, huh? If you hate that sort of thing, you’re really gonna hate that Joseph Stalin guy.

                    But here’s some more gruesome details about Stalin’s favorite executioner:

                    Blokhin initially decided on an ambitious quota of 300 executions per night, and engineered an efficient system in which the prisoners were individually led to a small antechamber — which had been painted red and was known as the “Leninist room” — for a brief and cursory positive identification, before being handcuffed and led into the execution room next door. The room was specially designed with padded walls for soundproofing, a sloping concrete floor with a drain and hose, and a log wall for the prisoners to stand against. Blokhin would stand waiting behind the door in his executioner garb: a leather butcher’s apron, leather hat, and shoulder-length leather gloves. Then, without a hearing, the reading of a sentence or any other formalities, each prisoner was brought in and restrained by guards while Blokhin shot him once in the base of the skull with a German Walther Model 2 .25 ACP pistol.[13][14][15] He had brought a briefcase full of his own Walther pistols, since he did not trust the reliability of the standard-issue Soviet TT-30 for the frequent, heavy use he intended. The use of a German pocket pistol, which was commonly carried by German police and intelligence agents, also provided plausible deniability of the executions if the bodies were discovered later.[16]

                    I bolded the part where Blokhin is literally dressed like Leatherface from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

                    Like I said, sit the fuck down.

              • brainwashed@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                How many global soviel block deaths of malnourishments did you tally up for old boy Stalin? Do we calculate relative or absolute numbers? Do the deaths of malnutrishion of nominally socialists states today also count as being capitalisms fault?

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            My issue is the claim that such atrocities don’t happen in democratic institutions.

            But that’s the point, they don’t. Atrocities can happen, but not as bad as such.
            Just give one example of a democracy where an atrocity remotely close to that happened.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              they don’t?

              lol. have you seen how child labor works? or banana republics? or coups? or prison labor? or slavery?

              come on now. stop being a thick moron.

            • Sunforged@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              1 day ago

              You sure?

              Really?

              How sure?

              Like, I could look at ICE raids and their obvious purpose of terrorizing the immigrant community, but I have a feeling you’re the type of bootlicker that thinks those actions are justified.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Compared to genocide by Stalin, ICE is peanuts.
                But no it’s not justified, that still doesn’t make it an equal atrocity to what Stalin did.
                Also USA is not a democracy, it is a deeply dysfunctional democracy. And In USA it can go 2 ways now, they either go full dictator, or if they go the other, these things will be softened.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

                official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953),[8][9][10][11][12] around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag,[13][14][15] some 390,000[16] deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[17] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.

                So kindly piss off with your false equivalences.

                • Sunforged@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  Dude the US is fully funding a genocide right now. Since October 7, 2023, the U.S. has provided Israel with billions in military aid, including at least $21.7 billion in approved funding, along with tens of billions more in future arms sale commitments.

                  Your entire premise is so inherently flawed.

                  Also rofl at you sounding like a tankie:

                  Also USA is not a democracy, it is a deeply dysfunctional democracy.

                  “It wasn’t real communism bro.”

                  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    6
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    Please read my edited post.
                    And no I’m not anything remotely like a tankie, I am one who favor ACTAUL democracy, where among the best models we have running currently is the Scandinavian model.
                    A 2 party system can never be accepted as a functional democracy, also the level of corruption in elections is undemocratic. preventing people from voting and gerrymandering.
                    All those things detract from USA as a democracy.

                    You are delusional and create strawmen and then you think you have a superior view based on your delusions and false equivalences that have no basis in reality.

                • flandish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  fine. compare stalin to something else that was closer to his time than he is to us:

                  American slave trade. do it. tell me stalin was worse than slavery?

                  the gfy.

                  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Again with USA as the example, no other democracy had slaves like USA did.
                    On the other hand comparable stories to Stalin can be found in multiple autocratic systems.
                    Where USA is the exception as in exceptionally bad among democracies, what Stain did is commonplace among autocracies.