Communism

The first thing is to understand that though a fact can be true or untrue, accurate or distorted, etc., no source is without narrative bias and on top of that, the west has a history of doing atrocity propaganda, i.e. making things up that make another country/people sound cartoonishly evil (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1tfkESPVY)

Second, wikipedia is far from neutral and also far from an internationally diligent reference for sensitive matters of history. It might be fine for facts about ducks, but when it comes to sensitive political history, you might as well go into the White House and ask for "the unbiased view of history".

Here is some alternative perspective to consider for reading:

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Another_view_of_Stalin

https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Library:Stalin:_History_and_Critique_of_a_Black_Legend

Let me know what you think.

I didn't expect this to gain so much traction tbh.

I suggest any non-communists to just turn a blind eye to this post and its comments, its just going to read like insane people talk and its not going to lead to anything productive imo.

That being said, I don't agree with the Stalin administration's deportation policies, and many of their policies as a matter of fact. But Kulaks were not a race or anything of that sort, they were a class of wealthier peasants and in class war there can be excessive violence of that sort. Additionally, most gulag deaths happened in the second world war, when supply chains broke causing many to starve.

There are numbers that are just straight up pulled out of a magicians hat too, like if you've ever heard of the 60 million deaths figure, that's just baseless. Even the 20 million deaths estimate counted German soldiers as well as soviet casualties as if Stalin was the one who killed them and not Hitler.

These horror stories of Stalin are an incredibly effective way of keeping people from the class struggle, because if it leads to a genocidal dystopia every time, may as well just accept the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, may as well let wage slavery continue knowing that the alternative is hell incarnate on earth.

The early Soviet Union - i.e. Stalin's tenure - was a period fraught with active insurgency, foreign aggression, and a complete lack of industry and infrastructure. In order to consolidate the gains of the Bolsheviks the Soviet government was tasked with the monumental mission of defeating the immediate threats to its authority, developing a modern economy from scratch, and making sure the needs of its people were all being met.

These are struggles that Revolutionary France and the Thirteen Colonies, by comparison, did not have to deal with.

Turning a feudal backwater into a modern, industrial powerhouse capable of sending men into space doesn't happen within the brief span of 30-40 years - especially when contending with famines, terrorists, sanctions, and invasions - without significant displacement or loss of human life. If it had been Lenin instead of Stalin he likely would've done things differently but a large amount of people would've still be displaced or died regardless. If Kerensky had been in charge maybe none of that would've happened, but also none of the development would've happened either and the Nazis would've burnt Moscow to the ground in a single momentous push and WWII would've lasted far longer and would've been far bloodier, with much of Eastern Europe being ethnically cleansed.

It's easy to look at these numbers and say "that's bad", and it certainly is and nobody will deny that. Stalin made mistakes and deserves to be criticized for them. This doesn't mean he was evil incarnate or that his regime's heavy-handedness wasn't necessary. Personally I'm not a fan of Stalin's leadership and I think Lenin would've performed better; but that's a moot point. Stalin was in power, he did what he believed was necessary to preserve the USSR in its infancy, the Party backed him all the way and ultimately history proved him right: the existential threat of the Nazis was defeated entirely because the Soviet Union was able to transform into a modern nation-state in less than 20 years and thereafter went on to become a pioneer in medicine & science while developing an increasing standard of living. It wasn't flawless, of course, but it only existed at all because Stalin was willing to do what he thought was necessary to keep it alive. The very fact he has a legacy to grapple with at all is a testament to his success.

He built a country out of nothing to the benefit of the majority of its people and he did it without colonialism, slavery, or genocide. The death toll was tragic, and much of it likely could have been avoided, but that is a conclusion based on hindsight and relies on information the decision makers at the time simply did not have. If we're going to critique them we should do so fairly within their own context. These weren't the Nazis planning world domination, global war, and international ethnic cleansing here. These were people trying to build the first socialist state in conditions that were very much not ideal and the fact that they succeeded at all is in and of itself impressive.

Based on these records, scholars have estimated that 1.8 million people were deported to remote regions of the countryduring Stalin’s dekulakisation campaign, in addition to 1 million peasants and ethnic minorities deported in the 1930s, and 3.5 million people (mainly ethnic minorities) deported in the 1940s and 1950s, for a total of 6.3 million.[72

Those are three different things. The deportet people during the dekulakization campaign were just resettled in other villages. The deported ethnic minorities during the 1930s were those who had others of the same ethnicity under reactionary rule - koreans and finns for example. Quite obviously this was a qucik and dirty move to prevent infiltration and fifth columns. Japan was actively shoring up anti-soviet national movements and Finnland attacked the USSR twice in the 20s.

The deported in the the 1940s and 50s had something in common, can you think the time period might be a giveaway? Those were groups that had large numbers of people throwing in their lot with the Axis powers during WW2, they were removed from vital areas. Again a quick and dirty solution. Far from ideal, but after just having lost 27 million(21 million of them civilians) people and a fourth of the country razed to the ground the USSR was kinda out of patience...

The Soviet archives also contain official records of 799,455 executions from 1921 to 1953,[722][723]

A period that includes both the shadow civil war that was the great purge aswell as WW2...

around 1.5 to 1.7 million deaths in Gulag camps (out of an estimated 18 million people who passed through),[724][725][726]

The lions share of those deaths were during WW2. Outside of it the mortality rates were similar to US prisons at the time. The estimate is just that. It's a blown up number.

ome 390,000[727]deaths during the dekulakisation forced resettlement, and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s,[728]

No idea about the first number, but you should noticing the date given - what was during the 1940s again? The most devastating part of WW2 with battles resulting in larger causalties on each side than the western allies had the whole war.

[728] with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories.[729] According to historian Stephen Wheatcroft, approximately 1 million of these deaths were “purposive” while the rest happened through neglect and irresponsibility.[730]

Yeah, mostly the result of those quick and dirty resettlements. It was bound to be bad considering how devastated the country was back then.

None of these claims say anywhere that Stalin was responsible for them