Why is it fallacious to link gommunism with famine?

This is the real heart of the issue. The USSR and PRC both had stupid massive famines, but they had nothing to do with communist ideology and everything to do with their leaders being inept fools. Any link that could ultimately be made would trace back to Lenin’s theories of democratic centralism and vanguardism, which influenced every communist state during the 20th century, making the ideology responsible Leninism rather than Marxism.

communists use hunger to tame the masses and eventually as a weapon

Yeah, because it would totally not happen under "real socialism"

What the fuck did I just read?

>you can’t find fault with highly specific theoretical positions, trace their influence through various regimes, and then argue that they were mistaken and caused problems that directly relate to them! That’s muh no true scotsman!
Why are people on this board so fucking stupid?

Basically it goes like this:
>country is going to shit
>shitholeness of country empowers communism
>rebellion
>communism aquires power from the masses and arms up while retaking land and aquiring weapons to arm the people
>remnants of the old government; dissenters and social democrats (9/10 times they betray the revolution; see: trotzkiyites) band up and form a front against communists
>both sides now need to aquire an army, weapons and food fast. In the same shithole they started from.
>this ussually equates to white and red terror
>this is true to china and ussr
>russia: whites v/s reds (reds legitimate gov; whites revolt and form enemy governments)
>china: KMT v/s CPC (kmt legitimate gov; chiang expelled amd murdered reds to excuse himself from foreigners murders after re-capturing a city)
>during war; foreign powers try to take advantage of the civil war to profit (entente invasion of russia during civil war; chechslovak legion/Japanese invasion of china; Pu-Yi as chinese puppet on manchuria etc.)
>communists win because of sheer autistic power of just not giving the fuck up and controlling dissent and rebellions from moderates who think they can "jump ship" early.
>war over; country still shit AND wartorn now.
>communists institute extreme measures to avoid starvation; while trying to fix the country with new projects and sustaining a national economy by exporting things
>ussually there isnt much to export so they export food
>that isnt liked by land owners on the case of russia; that isnt enough in the case of china
>starvation ensues for a variety of reasons (landowners burn their crops thinking they can sabotage the state; promply getting shot in the case of russia; peasants ran out of personal stocks of food and die on failed government "ideas" to fix the fuck up on the case of china)
>In any case the state and the people take the hint and fix their shit for the next year
>food security ensues on the following years.

Famines on the USSR didnt happen because of state meddling; they happened because of kulaks buring their crops and land because of le old "take that gommies :DDDDD"

>"muh not real socialism meme"
USSR is was state capitalist. In the few places where land was collectively owned there wasnt famine; instead there were problems like state planners meddling in communitarian decisions to aquire power.

>4 pests campaign

really it's the sort of thing you'd expect from an autocrat.

I mean like Zimbabwe's land seizures.

it's a bunch of populist rhetoric without the technocratic know-how that could actually back up what they're talking about.

Leninism is cancer.

>there is widespread homelessness and ghettos on western capitalistic societies
>there is blatant racism and retarded politickery/corruption on western capitalistic societies
>job security is nil on western capitalistic societies, inmigration causes massive chaos; unemployment; lower wages and more racism.
>welfare is retardedly implemented and causes shit like "welfare gap" on western capitalist societies
>luxury goods are plentiful; everything else (health; education; services; work) is shit on western capitalistic societies

>somehow not capitalism's fault

Yet another commie damage control lie.
>t-they only had one last famine and then everything was great after that!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921–22

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan_famine_of_1932–1933

Mao was a retard and everyone knows it. He went directly against marxist theory (NO FUCKING CULTS OF PERSONALITY -Marx) in several ways and turned a victorious country into a revisionist shithole; therefore the sino-soviet split.

>lol jokes on you only 7 million people starved to death. I bet you feel pretty dumb now for criticizing communism, huh?

>DUDE HAVE A CENTRALLY CONTROLLED STATE THAT DECIDES EVERYTHING
>this is somehow not going to result in a dictator
When are marxist going to realize how retarded Marxism is?

>1921
Literally right after the russian civil war
>Holodomor
Kulak: *burns crops and estate* "take that gommies :DDDDDD"
>Kazakhstan 1932
>arid deseric land with few places for proper agriculture
>soviet leadership recently purged
>Uncapable/inexperienced planners; government not giving a shit (Stalin) infrastrucrure and land-climatic factors influence food shortages
Also if i dont remember badly there were rebellious musim extremists in there at that time...

>implying numbers dont matter
>while "holohoax" faggots main argument is varying numbers. (Which isnt true, its just them being fucking retarded)

The thing that always amazes me about this threads is people for and against Communism have obviously never actually read any book regarding the subject.

>Kulak: *burns crops and estate* "take that gommies :DDDDDD"
you mean that thing that never happened in any real significant scale? Maybe if you actually studied history instead of rotting your brain on hormones, you wouldnt be so stupid

>chinese communist party
>leninist
>Fourth erradication campaign
>mao takes the lead after leninist leadership gets fucked by the USSR
>Mao begins a cult following in the shadows
>desperate times makes the party think they can let this happen; they'll fix it later right?
>Japanese war ends, civil war resumes; CPC wins
>mao has too much power
>fuck

>centrally control every aspect of the state
>this will somehow not lead to a dictatorship, even though this has happened every time communism is implemented
maybe user, its the ideology itself.

>literally mentioned by several reputable sources and historiography of the time

k

Nah.

Though i AM of the school of thought that wants a decentralized socialism so...

When the communist revolutionaries end up creating an inefficient beuachracy, yes.

[citation needed]
Find me some credible historians that say holodomor was nothing more than farmers burning all their crops and that Stalin dindu nuffin user. Also, good job ignoring the other two famines.

the famines happened because of resistance to collectivization, peasants rather than turning their animals over slaughterered them to prevent the collectivists from getting them, when the quotas weren't met, the collectists confiscated what they needed.

>tries to kill the states cows
>ends up killing own cow.

To satisfy the state's need for increased food supplies, the First Five-Year Plan called for the organization of the peasantry into collective units that the authorities could easily control. This collectivization program entailed compounding the peasants' lands and animals into collective farms (kolkhozy; sing., kolkhoz --see Glossary) and state farms (sovkhozy; sing., sovkhoz --see Glossary) and restricting the peasants' movement from these farms. The effect of this restructuring was to reintroduce a kind of serfdom into the countryside. Although the program was designed to affect all peasants, Stalin in particular sought to eliminate the wealthiest peasants, known as kulaks. Generally, kulaks were only marginally better off than other peasants, but the party claimed that the kulaks had ensnared the rest of the peasantry in capitalistic relationships. In any event, collectivization met widespread resistance not only from the kulaks but from poorer peasants as well, and a desperate struggle of the peasantry against the authorities ensued. Peasants slaughtered their cows and pigs rather than turn them over to the collective farms, with the result that livestock resources remained below the 1929 level for years afterward. The state in turn forcibly collectivized reluctant peasants and deported kulaks and active rebels to Siberia. Within the collective farms, the authorities in many instances exacted such high levels of procurement that starvation was widespread.

>decentralized socialism so...
So in other words, you do realize communism is retarded then...

Why would the peasants do that if the collectivists were just looking out for their best interests?

>this is what leftypol actually believes

>Library of Congress

countrystudies.us/russia/10.htm

it -> you

and thats what capitalists do

>Stalin in particular sought to eliminate the wealthiest peasants, known as kulaks.

>The state in turn forcibly collectivized reluctant peasants and deported kulaks and active rebels to Siberia. Within the collective farms, the authorities in many instances exacted such high levels of procurement that starvation was widespread.

Hey user, hows about you actually read your sources before posting them because this in now way suggest that farmers burning their crops was the sole cause for the holodomor and it actually says Stalin had a plan to eliminate them and talks about how he did so.

Are you saying that people wanting to keep their shit is a bad thing?

Well i think it made sense back then. War, international enemity, lack of support from neighbooring states...

The goal has always been a stateless society. Tho i agree stalinism was wrong; and maoism was fucked up.

>Tho i agree stalinism was wrong
no user, communism. Karl Marx called for centralized control within the state and also called for a central bank as well. If you are saying you dont think it should be centralized, then you are literally being a revisionist and admitting that Marx was wrong.

In detriment of others? When there is LITERALLY a pressing need? You think famine would have happened if food wasnt NEEDED?

Well maybe if the collectivist didn't create that pressing need, there wouldn't be an issue

>holodomoreducation.org/index.php/id/187

The only peasant tactic, which had a measure of success, was the astonishing "women's rebellions"; peasant women would prevent confiscation of their cows, and the authorities were often at a loss as to how to cope. The peasants' main reaction, however, was to slaughter the cattle. In a few months, over 40% of the country's cattle and 65% of the sheep had gone. Stalin's policy lay in ruins. Like Lenin, in March 1930, he made a tactical retreat. Peasants were now allowed to leave the collective farms. Sixteen million families had been collectivized. Within a few weeks, 9 million left.

it was no longer 'theirs' it was the states. instead of cooperating with the state, they decided to try and spite the state, but their plan backfired.

the kulaks were exploiting the other peasants, and were sent to labor camps where they could still contribute to the state.

A centralized state is marx "transition" to a classless society. Its not the end goal; its just him being deadpan centered and realist (also pessimist). He knew a free; decentralized state wouldnt hold against a totalitarian power and wouldnt be able to mobilize and prepare for war in the enviroment of the 1800s. He was right; the ussr won ww2 because of it. But the "strong centralized transitional state" is not needed anymore.

By the way, the same concept was preached by Sun-Yat Sen. The "nation building from the ground up" always features that transitional state.

What right does the state have to take someone elses shit? It all sounds like a load of bullshit to me user

>russian tsarist shitholeness and wartorn state being the soviets fault

Yeeeeaaaahhh suuuuuuurrrreeeeeee....

>wartorn state being the soviets fault

Well didn't they start a war to get their revolution?

they have the ability to enforce it.
stop paying your taxes, and see what happens.

quads of truth also

>The Party hated the kulak as the main obstacle to socialism. In reality, as is often admitted in party literature, the middle peasants and even the poor peasants almost always took the same line. But Party doctrine required a "class enemy". No actual definition of the kulak was ever made, or rather a number of contradicting definitions appeared.

>During the winter of 1929 - 1930, almost ten million kulaks -- men, women and children -- were deported to the arctic.

>The kulak category was later broadened to include "subkulaks", who were not kulaks by party definition, except that they shared kulak "attitudes."

>In the villages, teams headed by Communists from the cities, supported by GPU men (secret police), held violent denunciation sessions to meet their quota of kulaks, who were often defended by poor villagers, who themselves were then labeled "subkulaks."

>Some 100,000 kulaks were shot. The remainder (except for the very old, who were left to their own devices) were evicted from their homes and marched to the nearest railway. Huge lines of peasants converged on the trains which took two to three thousand people in cattle trucks, on journeys lasting a week or longer, to the arctic. In the unheated trucks, death, particularly of infants, was common. On changing trains, they might spend some time crammed starving into the confiscated churches of Archangel or Vologda, or go straight to their destinations--typically being marched for several days to a clearing in the forest and told to make their own homes. About three million died in the early stages, predominantly young children.
This is a fun little game where you post a source that not only fails to answer my question for proof that the kulaks were the sole reason for the famine, but that also in fact prove you wrong, since you clearly didnt even read it

>stop paying your taxes, and see what happens.

Are you condoning this sort of thing? What kind of a piece of shit are you? No wonder so many people shit on collectivist

So first you dont think centralization is a good idea, then you try to blame it on stalin, and now you are saying its a good idea because you failed to use the "not real marxism" line on me? Again, how is centralizing the state NOT going to lead to a dictator user?

thieves were shot, their families moved trail of tears style to a place where they would be less trouble.

and yes killing the states cattle is "stealing".

do you not believe in "taxes", yes this is an extreme form of taxation, but going from a backwards shithole to inventing spaceflight isn't easy.

>thieves were shot
lol this is hilarious. You have now stopped trying to shill your holocaust denial history and have instead moved onto "the kulaks deserved it!" Also, refusing to had your property over to the state isnt theift user, its the other way around. You still havent posted anything showing that this was the sole cause of holodomor and both of your sources have proved the opposite

Well done.

There's no link in the logic
For example:
>the famine was caused by drought and mismanagement by the government
>the Irish potato famine was caused by blight and the refusal of british landlords to let farmers keep their other crops to feed themselves

What you say is
>The famine was caused by Communism
Instead of something like
>Stalin caused the famine to kill Ukrainian independence

You assign no real blame or reason. Communism isn't an acting force or even really a way to run a state. It doesn't do stuff, even in the same way capitalism "does stuff."

honestly after reading through a lot of this hologram stuff, it really mirrors the native Americans in a lot of ways.

people who could never truly be integrated into the soviet society, and would resist every step of the way.

i don't think the 'kulaks deserved it' but i also know the soviets needed farmers who would cooperate. this was the only cog in the machine that refused to turn, and it was hurting all the cogs that were cooperating.