Гур
Auto-translated
Alexey, let's go through this point by point:
1) There is no official, i.e., published by the Soviet authorities, statistics on this matter. This does not go beyond the principles of assessment adopted by the Soviet leadership, when "crime is steadily declining," and the figures are replaced by this phrase. However, according to the most modest estimates, more than 16 million people died in the camps (and some camps still existed under Gorbachev). In Ukraine in 1932-33, approximately 5 million peasants were deliberately starved to death by the grain distribution system introduced by Soviet bureaucrats and Stalin. People were deliberately killed as part of state planning. Of course, people died not only in Ukraine.
2) I did not say that world domination and world revolution are the same thing. I meant that the communists, through world revolution, tried to achieve world domination.
“The United States also seeks world domination, but at the same time, it does not build communism in other countries at its own expense, but, on the contrary, pumps out all the resources from them.”
Reading this phrase, I don't even know where to start. One might think that building communism at one's own expense is a good thing. The United States extracts resources from other countries at the expense of its own taxpayers, i.e., not entirely for free, if you look at it at the level of countries (otherwise, budget expenditures on war are involved). But the point is not this; it is better to consider the chains:
A) Taxpayers' money – war – resources
B) Plundering of one's own people and the murder of dissenters in order to accumulate capital for the construction of communism – "building communism at one's own expense" - any resources (in case of successful construction)
Both are bad, but which is worse?
And what does America have to do with it.
3) The fact that there are no points in the programs of the RCP(b) and the CPSU about inhumanity does not mean that this inhumanity was not implied (facts – the Gulag, collectivization – say the opposite). And, in general, I know only one state – Nazi Germany – where inhumanity (genocide against the Jewish people) was enshrined in law (correct me if I am wrong).
Communism, however, is inhuman in its essence: it strives for world revolution (which will not be done peacefully, because no sane person will give up the right to make economic decisions and give up their family (if they already have one) and voluntarily give their wife for public use); bureaucracy, which is an integral part of this system, because someone must make decisions, for example, about whether to sow wheat or oats, destroys the illusory ideas about communism as a paradise on Earth and shows that communism is not equality, but an economic pyramid that can only exist within the framework of the whole world.
4) I didn't understand the question. It should be read: was there an alternative to millions of deaths? If so, then there was.
1) There is no official, i.e., published by the Soviet authorities, statistics on this matter. This does not go beyond the principles of assessment adopted by the Soviet leadership, when "crime is steadily declining," and the figures are replaced by this phrase. However, according to the most modest estimates, more than 16 million people died in the camps (and some camps still existed under Gorbachev). In Ukraine in 1932-33, approximately 5 million peasants were deliberately starved to death by the grain distribution system introduced by Soviet bureaucrats and Stalin. People were deliberately killed as part of state planning. Of course, people died not only in Ukraine.
2) I did not say that world domination and world revolution are the same thing. I meant that the communists, through world revolution, tried to achieve world domination.
“The United States also seeks world domination, but at the same time, it does not build communism in other countries at its own expense, but, on the contrary, pumps out all the resources from them.”
Reading this phrase, I don't even know where to start. One might think that building communism at one's own expense is a good thing. The United States extracts resources from other countries at the expense of its own taxpayers, i.e., not entirely for free, if you look at it at the level of countries (otherwise, budget expenditures on war are involved). But the point is not this; it is better to consider the chains:
A) Taxpayers' money – war – resources
B) Plundering of one's own people and the murder of dissenters in order to accumulate capital for the construction of communism – "building communism at one's own expense" - any resources (in case of successful construction)
Both are bad, but which is worse?
And what does America have to do with it.
3) The fact that there are no points in the programs of the RCP(b) and the CPSU about inhumanity does not mean that this inhumanity was not implied (facts – the Gulag, collectivization – say the opposite). And, in general, I know only one state – Nazi Germany – where inhumanity (genocide against the Jewish people) was enshrined in law (correct me if I am wrong).
Communism, however, is inhuman in its essence: it strives for world revolution (which will not be done peacefully, because no sane person will give up the right to make economic decisions and give up their family (if they already have one) and voluntarily give their wife for public use); bureaucracy, which is an integral part of this system, because someone must make decisions, for example, about whether to sow wheat or oats, destroys the illusory ideas about communism as a paradise on Earth and shows that communism is not equality, but an economic pyramid that can only exist within the framework of the whole world.
4) I didn't understand the question. It should be read: was there an alternative to millions of deaths? If so, then there was.