Bitcoin Forum

...but capitalism isn’t working as well without it.
(OP: are you the author of the article?)

The USA does not have "capitalism" (not now or during the Cold War), and people who say it does are either poorly educated or intentionally deceptive.
Don't feel too bad about being "poorly educated", it happened to many Americans.
Sorry to "attack you", but you are so wrong about "capitalism" in the USSA.

Fuck Jew Lunatic Communist Regime of USSR!

Interesting that you posted that article. I read similar arguments in the Russian press a few years back, where it was outlined how, despite human rights being downtrodden in USSR, the idolised vision of USSR among the Western worker class created a strong movement, which eventually lead to advances in human rights awareness in the West.

Well to be honest Communism is a more equitable system when USED PROPERLY
Although the reason we are seeing a Red Tide in Latin America is because they tried American Capitalism and it didn't work well there after all a small country needs to manage policies differently than a big one etc.
Not one size fits all in political systems and economic ones

Too bad we have yet to see communism being used properly...

We have yet to see (real) Capitalism being used properly either.

We have yet to see (real) Capitalism being used properly either.

That is the real problem. The real capitalism is not used anywhere. For example, in the US, it is Socialism being dished out after re branded as Capitalism.

That is the real problem. The real capitalism is not used anywhere. For example, in the US, it is Socialism being dished out after re branded as Capitalism.

That's the problem with all : socialism , communism , capitalism etc...In theory all sound ok. In real life , humans find a way to f*** it so good you need to invent a new concept.

Say no to "-ism"s!  ;D

Say no to "-ism"s!  ;D

Say no to "-ism"s!  ;D

OK... then we can go back to the monarchy. It was much better than any of the isms.

Monarchy it's "-ism" too. "Monarchism", "Absolutism", etc.

Technically Liberal is Liberal and not Liberalism which is a bastardization of the word

"Liberalism" is the name of political ideology, which is based on liberty and equality. Do not confuse the name of ideology with the designation of its institutions and followers... Liberal/liberalism, communist/communism, socialist/socialism, etc.

Anyway, it doesn't matter... Liberalism concept won't work ever, because a liberal society is unsustainable. It quickly degenerates into an oligarchy in the process of wealth distribution.

Now really , English is the fourth foreign language I learned but...is there any -ism word that describes something nice ? I can't think of any right now.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965).

That's the problem with all : socialism , communism , capitalism etc...In theory all sound ok. In real life , humans find a way to f*** it so good you need to invent a new concept.

...
As for capitalism, for me the biggest problem is that once you get big, you become "too big to fail" which is a blatant contradiction of the entire concept. Failing systems should be allowed to fail, but we are supporting them. The people that get to the top of the capitalist ladder tend to stay there (if not indefinitely, at least for much longer than they should) and amass ridiculous amounts of power to control the entire system.

That's the problem with all : socialism , communism , capitalism etc...In theory all sound ok. In real life , humans find a way to f*** it so good you need to invent a new concept.

For example, REAL communism never happened. What happened in Russia, China, etc, was NOT communism. Communism in its supposed form is actually pretty damn amazing - think about, nobody wants for anything, everyone has the same quality of life. There's no need for conflict when we're all equal in terms of food, material goods, etc. But as a society right now, we are not ready for this kind of equality - not all of us want it, and there will always be people who want to abuse their power to live better than anyone else (which is exactly what the people in power in semi-communist states like USSR did). So even though communism is not that bad of an idea, human nature prevents real communism from ever taking place.

Libertarianism is "nice" some of the time.  :)

Now really , English is the fourth foreign language I learned but...is there any -ism word that describes something nice ? I can't think of any right now.

My friend's grandmothher will be happy to hear that someone still misses the Soviet Union.

Here is a comparison of the USSR and the Russian Fed (RF)

USSR:

1. No immigration from parasite states to Moscow and other cities
2. Free healthcare, but long queues.
3. No corruption among cops, and other public servants. But lot of corruption among the top Communist officials.

RF:

1. Moscow and other cities are now coping with millions of non-white immigrants
2. Expensive healthcare
3. Cops, doctors, nurses.... everyone is corrupt.

Here is a comparison of the USSR and the Russian Fed (RF)

USSR:

1. No immigration from parasite states to Moscow and other cities
2. Free healthcare, but long queues.
3. No corruption among cops, and other public servants. But lot of corruption among the top Communist officials.

RF:

1. Moscow and other cities are now coping with millions of non-white immigrants
2. Expensive healthcare
3. Cops, doctors, nurses.... everyone is corrupt.

So people DO miss the Soviet Union...

there will always be people who miss it, mostly ethnic Russians and Serbians but others who were in the USSR and Yugoslavia despise it

there are people who like it but are mostly mixed between nations in that country and they still consider themselvs USSRs citzens or Yugoslavs

good thing, they're a minority :)

While that is true, the corruption was not so "in your face", not so obvious. You would give a box of chocolates to a teacher from time to time, but you weren't expected to do so and definitely not giving money. Nowadays you can barely expect to get medical service unless you pay double of what is in the price list.
(And yes, I lived there. Didn't see much of the corruption unless you really needed to have something done high up in the food chain.)

There is like no logic in this statement.

Read some history books (published by neutral authors), you wont miss Soviet Union any more.

Until somebody tries it in real life at a large scale and we can all guess how it will end.

"undoubtedly more dangerous than Denikin, Yudenich, and Kolchak combined."

Immediate new elections to the Soviets; the present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda for all workers and peasants before the elections.
Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant associations.
The organisation, at the latest on 10 March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces; no political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In place of the political section, various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups; the abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
We demand that handicraft production be authorised, provided it does not utilise wage labour.[8]

I miss the Soviet Union. I never visited the country during its 72 years of existence, and I didn’t much like what I read about it in late-Cold War newspapers and library copies of Soviet Life: the long queues for bread, the military parades presided over by impassive bemedaled field marshals, the kitschy tributes to dictators, the Olympians inflated by performance-enhancing drugs. Communism, with its denial of both God and the individual, never appealed to me as a way of life, and I doubt it was much good for the Russian worker, the Polish worker, the East German worker, or the Yugoslavian worker.

Communism was, however, fantastic for the American worker. It’s no coincidence that the golden age of American equality, that period from the 1940s to the 1970s when the gap between CEOs and employees hit its all-time low, was almost exactly coterminous with the Cold War. As any capitalist will tell you, competition is good for the marketplace. It forces businesses to create better products and more efficient services for consumers. The same is true for capitalism itself: as a means of raising the living standards of an entire society, it never functioned better than when it was forced to compete with a rival economic system. [...]

An economy without a marketplace will produce only the bare minimum necessary for survival. But capitalism, in its rawest form, leads to the same result. Unless tempered by unionization or a social welfare state, the iron law of wages reduces the majority of workers to a subsistence level, while creating vast wealth for a tiny ownership class. Ronald Reagan advanced a false dichotomy between Communism and capitalism that is still with us, 25 years after his presidency ended. It’s true, as Louise Bryant said in “Reds,” that Communism would never have worked in the United States — but capitalism isn’t working as well without it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/

Be careful what you wish for.  The US is heading in this direction.

This time it will the US turn to have millions die of starvation, isolate themselves from the rest of the world, build (Berlin like) walls etc.

Majority of young people in the US are ready for communism and would embrace this system with open arms, the ones who will be against it will be killed or marginalized, IMHO.  

These changes can happen within a generation or two, so be careful what you wish for.

Communism is evil, no matter where in the world it exists.

Everyone who is loving freedom and crypto cant miss the communists. Communism was a slavery for all freedom loving people.

exactly my observation, future soviet union is the us banking cartel,

the equity billionaires, and property billionaires, and the dependend urban population will try to save themselves from decentralisation by creating a socialist union of amerika

Well most of us at the Democratic era it impossible to speak any thing good about any other system of government, since the Soviet Union practices the socialist system of government the leader have to be imposing to bring to light it policy and governance.

Imagine a system that took a backwards land of peasants literally to the peak of human existence in just 40 years and oh by the way defeated the greatest evil in human history in the middle of all that.  

I miss the Soviet Union. I never visited the country during its 72 years of existence, and I didn’t much like what I read about it in late-Cold War newspapers and library copies of Soviet Life: the long queues for bread, the military parades presided over by impassive bemedaled field marshals, the kitschy tributes to dictators, the Olympians inflated by performance-enhancing drugs. Communism, with its denial of both God and the individual, never appealed to me as a way of life, and I doubt it was much good for the Russian worker, the Polish worker, the East German worker, or the Yugoslavian worker.

Communism was, however, fantastic for the American worker. It’s no coincidence that the golden age of American equality, that period from the 1940s to the 1970s when the gap between CEOs and employees hit its all-time low, was almost exactly coterminous with the Cold War. As any capitalist will tell you, competition is good for the marketplace. It forces businesses to create better products and more efficient services for consumers. The same is true for capitalism itself: as a means of raising the living standards of an entire society, it never functioned better than when it was forced to compete with a rival economic system. [...]

An economy without a marketplace will produce only the bare minimum necessary for survival. But capitalism, in its rawest form, leads to the same result. Unless tempered by unionization or a social welfare state, the iron law of wages reduces the majority of workers to a subsistence level, while creating vast wealth for a tiny ownership class. Ronald Reagan advanced a false dichotomy between Communism and capitalism that is still with us, 25 years after his presidency ended. It’s true, as Louise Bryant said in “Reds,” that Communism would never have worked in the United States — but capitalism isn’t working as well without it.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/communism_saved_the_american_worker_how_soviet_competition_raised_our_living_standards/

You miss Soviet Union because you obviously never lived under under totalitarian regime.If you want to check it out, go try live in Venezuela,Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding american workers and period of prosperity,it has nothing to do with Soviet Union.Decline for US workers started with development of China.

You miss Soviet Union because you obviously never lived under under totalitarian regime.If you want to check it out, go try live in Venezuela,Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding american workers and period of prosperity,it has nothing to do with Soviet Union.Decline for US workers started with development of China.

And did it by killing off millions, and taking away the freedom of millions of others, and still couldn't do as good a job as America has done with freedom. Are you sure it isn't "coins4commics?"

8)

No one is saying they were saints but their advancements to human civilization as well as the general state of society in Russia from 1921-1961 were undeniably great. 

...

Life is pretty good in Cuba.  

...

Which part?  And more importantly for whom?

Have you been to Cuba?

No tienes ninguna idea.

You are fucking out of your mind. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)

Well I'd like to start by saying its better for hurricane victims.  In 2017, hurricane Irma was a direct hit on Cuba as a cat5.  It killed 10 people there and weakened before hitting Florida where it killed 84 people.  By contrast, Hurricane Maria was a hurricane of similar strength and killed over 3000 people.  Its not even close.  Disaster preparedness in the US is a disaster itself and despite aggressive embargo and significantly lower national resources, Cuba does so much more with less.  Its not just disaster preparedness, Cuba also leads the way in Latin America when it comes to healthcare, education, and sustainability.  

https://i.imgur.com/aYdPLnm.jpg

Yeah, even though I said they weren't saints (what superpower was?), just throw everything else out of the window in favor of the simplistic "Stalin man bad!" analysis.  Every imperial power has done bad things because being imperial is already evil in the first place.  Level headed humans can appreciate the fact that humanity has been to and made use of space without simultaneously condoning mass murder. 

"not a saint" wow, what a harsh criticism of one of the greatest mass murderers alive. You mean like how you throw out even acknowledging the existence of these horrible situations by just ignoring they happened and calling the time under this system as "undeniably great". What a master debater.

These are slogans, they mean nothing to an average Cuban.

I suggest you go and live in Cuba for a few months, just make sure you don't take more than $20/month with you.  You'll very quickly learn what it is like to live in Cuba.  You will change your mind in a New York minute.

I'm not throwing it out, I'm just not talking about that.  I'm against colonialism, imperialism, and authoritarianism but that doesn't create a bias in my mind that blinds me from the great accomplishments of a system that involved all three.  Was it ideal? no. Was it a utopia? no.  Were the accomplishments relatively greater than every other empire of the 20th century?  Of course!

For most Westerners and anti-communist Russians, he is viewed overwhelmingly negatively as a mass murderer;[853] for significant numbers of Russians and Georgians, he is regarded as a great statesman and state-builder.[853]

In under three decades, Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a major industrial world power,[855] one which could "claim impressive achievements" in terms of urbanisation, military strength, education, and Soviet pride.[856] Under his rule, the average Soviet life expectancy grew due to improved living conditions, nutrition, and medical care;[857] mortality rates declined.[858] Although millions of Soviet citizens despised him, support for Stalin was nevertheless widespread throughout Soviet society.[856

They are actual facts not slogans.   Those generalized facts literally apply to the average cuban.   Why don't you go live in the next hurricane Maria or Katrina?  I wonder what life is like living in America as a dead baby.  

You should learn about all of the major atrocities in history instead of just microfocusing on famine or gulag.  Far more was done than Stalin's policies which may or may not have been genocidal (its literally debated amongst historians).   Its telling that you never talk about anything but communist famines which may or may not have been targeted.  Its believable that you never learned about anything else besides that and the holocaust but its also believable that you have a subconscious excuse that dismisses most mass murder as part of the "good fight". 

Not my words- Via wikipedia
Wow its almost as if there are multiple perspectives to consider and a complex historical analysis is necessary.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051
Imagine if these events were mentioned everytime anyone said anything about the US or UK.


I can acknowledge great accomplishments of empires even though I clearly despise them.  I love the fact that so much of the world speaks English and can acknowledge that without condoning the Bengal famine.  I can talk about great things the US has accomplished without brining up all of its atrocities.  I acknowledge that despite not having the best quality of life or ethics, no nation has accomplished more than the US in the latter part of the 20th century.  That doesn't automatically make me culpable for the very things I spend so much time ridiculing.

Everything is so simple to you.  You have only projected that you deal in absolutes and have no ability to perceive nuance.  You claim to know so much history but learning history without multiple perspectives and contexts is pointless.  Can you give a list of good things about the Soviet Union to prove you aren't a complete bot?  Its a captcha. 

So what you are saying is that the threat of communism was what made capitalism great? I can see that.
What the US has right now looks nothing like a free market economy. No matter what its branded as. :(

Stalin may or may not have been genocidal huh? No, really, its not a debate anyone taken seriously is having. Holodomor was mostly the direct result of directed famine, it is telling that you did not know this, then proceed to claim it is telling I do not bring up famine. Also, it was very clearly well documented the famine was caused purposefully.

You know, it is amazing the level of projection you are capable of. I mean at this point either you have to be literally one of the most brainwashed and naive, and or mentally ill individuals I have ever encountered, or you are here doing a job. You are the one glossing over a genocidal maniac saying what he did was great, not me. If a subconscious desire to justify the mass murders exists in anyone here, it is you. I have made it quite clear I don't think it is justified, you however keep defending those actions, ideologies and the people responsible for them.

So which is it? Are you mentally ill and dumb or are you on the job here? Can you give a good list of things to prove you aren't a retard?

Historians continue to debate whether or not the 1932–33 Ukrainian famine—known in Ukraine as the Holodomor—should be called a genocide.[893] Twenty-six countries officially recognize it under the legal definition of genocide. In 2006, the Ukrainian Parliament declared it to be such,[894] and in 2010 a Ukrainian court posthumously convicted Stalin, Lazar Kaganovich, Stanislav Kosior, and other Soviet leaders of genocide.[895][896] Popular among some Ukrainian nationalists is the idea that Stalin consciously organised the famine to suppress national desires among the Ukrainian people. This interpretation has been rejected by more recent historical studies.[897] These have articulated the view that—while Stalin's policies contributed significantly to the high mortality rate—there is no evidence that Stalin or the Soviet government consciously engineered the famine.[898][899] The idea that this was a targeted attack on the Ukrainians is complicated by the widespread suffering that also affected other Soviet peoples in the famine, including the Russians, and the fact that more died in Kazakhstan than Ukraine itself.[900] Within Ukraine, ethnic Poles and Bulgarians died in similar proportions to ethnic Ukrainians.[901] Despite any lack of clear intent on Stalin's part, the historian Norman Naimark noted that although there may not be sufficient "evidence to convict him in an international court of justice as a genocidaire[...] that does not mean that the event itself cannot be judged as genocide".[902]

Michael Ellman argues that mass deaths from famines are not a "uniquely Stalinist evil", and compares the behavior of the Stalinist regime vis-à-vis the Holodomor to that of the British empire (towards Ireland and India) and even the G8 in contemporary times, saying that he is sympathetic to the idea that the latter "are guilty of mass manslaughter or mass deaths from criminal negligence because of their not taking obvious measures to reduce mass deaths." He argues that a possible defense of Stalin and his associates is that "their behaviour was no worse than that of many rulers in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

I know of that claim but do not know the truth.  Thats why I said may OR may not.  Only you could claim to know the intent of someone who lived nearly a century ago. 

but even if I concede that point, my other point is that I won't just ignore so many achievements in human history because they could somehow be indirectly connected to a brutal regime.  My main argument is one on behalf of nuance and perspective.  The soviets did bad things but nothing out of the ordinary for every empire.  On the contrary, the soviets had many great accomplishments in the same time.  Great work or accomplishments doesn't mean someone is a great person nor does it excuse subsequent evil acts. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I love the idea that the world is connected and advanced even though I hate a lot of the things that also happened while it was becoming that way. 

I'm talking about other famines.  When have you mentioned a famine that you didn't think was connected to Marxism?  I'll apologize if you show me I was wrong in that accusation.  You never referenced other famines such as the Bengal famine caused by the British because that wouldn't allow you to pretend economic ideology creates famine.  Again, my point was that every other empire has done awful things.  ALL empires are evil but not all of the accomplishments that come out of them are.  That is what I mean by asking you to process nuance.  In a nutshell, awful people can do great things and great people can do awful things.

We know people died in the famine but you seem to not understand the definition of genocide.  Genocide requires intent to kill a specific group of people.  There is no evidence of intent in this case so its unknown whether or not genocide took place.  Its a very strong term.  You can't just say a bunch of people dying is genocide.  

There is not gymnastics.  People dying in a famine is awful and clearly not among the list of positive accomplishments I'm referring to.  I made it clear I don't think they were saints.  No every nation did not achieve the same.  No other nation came close because Soviet competitors were already hyperdeveloped by the 20s.  I'm talking about tangible accomplishments too.   For example, No other nation put the first man in space.  This was evidence of their complete superiority in science and technology.   Imagine if Yemen became the leading global superpower by 2060.  That would be impressive regardless of how they got there.  Thats the type of development we are talking about.

No other nation had nearly the amount of technological or medical advances in the same time period and the nations that had similar progress, did so through huge government projects and not through privately owned capitalist ventures.
And thats where we connect back to OP.  The Soviets had so many great innovations that influenced the US and other nations  to improve worker conditions and expand government programs in order to keep up.  The US actually "won" in many ways because Russia putting a man in space inspired everyone to want to collectively invest in technology.  The NASA budget was increased by 500% that year in order to catch up with the Soviets.  It would have taken capitalism several more decades to find investors to finance such massive endeavors privately.  Many of the technological advancements we enjoy today are only here because of subsequent, publicly funded NASA research.

I'm talking about other famines.  When have you mentioned a famine that you didn't think was connected to Marxism?  I'll apologize if you show me I was wrong in that accusation.  You never referenced other famines such as the Bengal famine caused by the British because that wouldn't allow you to pretend economic ideology creates famine.  Again, my point was that every other empire has done awful things.  ALL empires are evil but not all of the accomplishments that come out of them are.  That is what I mean by asking you to process nuance.  In a nutshell, awful people can do great things and great people can do awful things.

We know people died in the famine but you seem to not understand the definition of genocide.  Genocide requires intent to kill a specific group of people.  There is no evidence of intent in this case so its unknown whether or not genocide took place.  Its a very strong term.  You can't just say a bunch of people dying is genocide.  

There is not gymnastics.  People dying in a famine is awful and clearly not among the list of positive accomplishments I'm referring to.  I made it clear I don't think they were saints.  No every nation did not achieve the same.  No other nation came close because Soviet competitors were already hyperdeveloped by the 20s.  I'm talking about tangible accomplishments too.   For example, No other nation put the first man in space.  This was evidence of their complete superiority in science and technology.   Imagine if Yemen became the leading global superpower by 2060.  That would be impressive regardless of how they got there.  Thats the type of development we are talking about.

No other nation had nearly the amount of technological or medical advances in the same time period and the nations that had similar progress, did so through huge government projects and not through privately owned capitalist ventures.
And thats where we connect back to OP.  The Soviets had so many great innovations that influenced the US and other nations  to improve worker conditions and expand government programs in order to keep up.  The US actually "won" in many ways because Russia putting a man in space inspired everyone to want to collectively invest in technology.  The NASA budget was increased by 500% that year in order to catch up with the Soviets.  It would have taken capitalism several more decades to find investors to finance such massive endeavors privately.  Many of the technological advancements we enjoy today are only here because of subsequent, publicly funded NASA research.

Yes yes, it is always something other than what you just said you meant. Right and wrong are completely subjective, just perpetually keep moving those goal posts until everything is complete nonsense and you know one is going to bother to try to keep up. Then you follow up with more whataboutisms and non sequiturs.

The whole world had similar rises in quality of life and life expectancy, reduction in infant mortality as a direct result of the industrial revolution, which was a direct result of capitalist policies. This is yet another example in an endless stream of examples of Socialists and Communists attempting to constantly claim credit for everything positive capitalism does, and blame it for everything negative Socialism and Communism causes from being implemented. You don't care about reality. You care about selling your wares of collectivized narcissism. Russia went to space as a result of capturing Nazi scientists, as did the US, but this is just YET ANOTHER red herring to distract from your shifting goal posts when I call you on your horse shit.

Strange how obtaining some jewish scientists was all it took for a dirt poor country to become the most technologically advanced in the world. Its almost as if some sort of system and organization was in place that allowed them to take advantage of that expertise and mobilze production in order to quickly advance.  

What in the fuck are you rambling about now? Is this yet another extended distraction from the genocide of hundreds of millions Communism is responsible for? Of course it is!

This is absolute horseshit numbers on top of lying about genocide.  Around 3 million at holdomor suddenly turned to "hundreds of millions". Of course there is distraction from people dying in a thread tittled "i miss the soviet union".  Clearly, you should be able to understand that no one misses the deaths.  You are the only one who is obsessed with these awful events to the point where its the entirety of your history knowledge being used. 

When the USA is long gone and someone says "i miss the usa", iits safe to assume they won't be talking about the genocide, slavery, or use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

This is absolute horseshit numbers on top of lying about genocide.  Around 3 million at holdomor suddenly turned to "hundreds of millions". Of course there is distraction from people dying in a thread tittled "i miss the soviet union".  Clearly, you should be able to understand that no one misses the deaths.  You are the only one who is obsessed with these awful events to the point where its the entirety of your history knowledge being used. 

When the USA is long gone and someone says "i miss the usa", iits safe to assume they won't be talking about the genocide, slavery, or use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians.

go fuck yourself with your Communist horse shit.

First of all, it should be noted that the phrase ‘crimes
of  communism’  can  be  misleading  and  has  been  
replaced   in   this   research   review   with   the   phrase  
‘crimes of communist regimes’. Ideologies are systems
of ideas, which cannot commit crimes independently.
However,  individuals,  collectives  and  states  that  have  
defined  themselves  as  communist  have  committed  
crimes   in   the   name   of   communist   ideology,   or  
without  naming  communism  as  the  direct  source  of  
motivation  for  their  crimes.  Thus,  the  communist  
ideology  is  not  an  actor  that  can  perpetrate  crimes  
against humanity.

According to Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussion of the number of victims of Communist regimes has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased".[29] Although any attempt to estimate a total number of victims of Communism depends greatly on definitions,[30] several attempts to compile previously published data have been made:

The American historian Timothy D. Snyder summarizes modern data, made after the opening of the Soviet archives in the 1990s, and concludes that Stalin was directly responsible for 6 million deaths along with three million indirect deaths. He notes that the estimate is far lower than the estimates of 20 million or above which were made before access to the archives. He also compares this number to the estimate of 11–12 million non-combatants killed by the Nazi regime, thereby negating claims that Stalin killed more than Hitler.

The 1932–33 famines killed about 4 million people according to archival data provided by Steven G. Wheatcroft, allowing for some margin of error. Furthermore, I would like to point out the research of Mark B. Tauger, professor of agricultural history and russian/soviet history at West Virginia University, who points out that there were significant natural factors that led to the famine. The exact responsibility for the famine is debated between historians is debated as being either predominantly natural factors, or the exacerbation of natural factors by soviet policy. Either way, it can’t be considered an intentional or genocidal act. Secondly, the gulags. According to the landmark 1993 paper Victims of the Soviet Penal System By Getty, Rittersporn and Zemskov, there were a total of 1.053 million deaths in the soviet prison system (gulags, settlements, etc.) during the Stalin era, with approximately half being during the second world war. It is also worth noting that the vast majority of those imprisoned in the soviet union were at any given time non-political inmates, and even the so-called “political” category of inmates was extremely broad. Vandalism and Arson could be considered political offenses, for example. The highest proportion was 33.9% in 1938 at the height of the great purge, and this number declined significantly as thousands of people falsely accused were released after the purge wounded down. It is also worth noting that the gulags were highly unexceptional for their time, and as conditions in the USSR improved as a result of industrialisation and economic, social and cultural development, the gulag mortality fell significantly. In fact, post-war gulag mortality averaged at 0.725%, compared to the 0.56% in modern russian prisons. Now, thats not to deny the gulags or downplay them, but If we used the same logic to mention american prisons, we would consider the US government responsible for the approximately 100,000 deaths in the penal system over the last 25 years. Just a quick side-note here, there are more people, both proportionally and in absolute numbers in the american penal system today then there were in the soviet penal system at its height Finally executions

The same paper we used earlier can be applied to this section quite well, as it documents the soviet judicial system in its entirety. Getty records a total of 799,455 execution sentences during the entire 1921–53 period (including executions of criminals). Now, the distinction between execution sentences and executions seems small, but its of the utmost importance to note, especially considering vast numbers of people were released on amnesty after the purge, during the war and in many other cases. Furthermore, according to Sarah Davies’s 1997 “Popular opinion in Stalins' Russia”, slightly fewer then 300,000 arrests for anti-soviet activities during the 1937-38 period, when according to Getty, 85% of executions took place. I could also go into the specified execution ratios and many, many other data points implying a significantly lower number, but for the sake of argument lets continue and assume the 800,000 figure is correct

I could go into much, much more detail about various ways these estimates could be reduced significantly, but just for the sake of argument, lets take the absolute highest estimates for every issue and assume the soviets bear full responsibility for every catastrophe, and the absolute highest reasonable estimates are correct, we get approximately the following 800,000 executions

1.053 million penal deaths

4 million famine deaths (this one in particular should NOT be included for the reasons discussed above)

and we get a total of 5.85 million, much less then 20, 60 or 100 million

Using other estimates and assigning proper responsibility, we can assume approximately 250,000 people, if we exclude prison deaths as unavoidable, along with the famine, and use more reasonable estimates for the number of executions. Now, thats not to discard the former estimates, but it is worth pointing out that lower estimates exist

In regards to totalitarianism, I would highly suggest reading “Life and Terror in Stalin’s Russia” by Robert Thurston, a professor at Miami University which sheds more light on the topic

Nothing i'm saying here is controversial, this all comes from highly-respected historians and researchers, but just as a matter of historical record, please be honest with your numbers! Bibliography:

Wheatcroft:

http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu/....

Tauger:

http://carlbeckpapers.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/cbp/article/view/89/90

Getty:

http://www.cercec.fr/materiaux/doc_membres/Gabor%20RITTERSPORN/Victims%20of%20the%20Gulag.pdf

Prison Mortality In the USSR (the source is in russian)

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2007/0313/tema06.php

Prison Mortality in Modern Russia

https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2013/02/28/russian-prisons-getting-more-lethal/

Prison Mortality in the USA

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/msp0114st.pdf

Any other sources are internally cited

That source was for the "communism cannot commit crimes" clarification.  Ideologies don't kill people, people kill people.

The criticisms of some of the estimates were mostly focused on three aspects: (i) the estimates were based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable;[34][35][16] (ii) some critics said the figures were skewed to higher possible values;[36][w][34] and (iii) some critics argued that victims of Holodomor and other man-made famines created by Communist governments should not be counted.[37][34][38]

Even then, all of this talk of deaths is a very effective distraction away from the main discussion about the good attributes and major accomplishments of the soviet union.  Not one person ever said the soviet union was even mostly good but I let you derail the entire conversation to be about the bad things.  

Imagine a discussion about anything that has ever happened in the USA devolving into how many people have been wrecked by agent orange.