Candelestine

You quoted part of a sentence. That was part of a question. Questions and claims are not the same things.

But sure, this should explain how Stalin rose to lead the USSR:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin%27s_rise_to_power

I fully agree. I was more interested in a conversation on communism and history, so my comment took the conversation in that direction. Personally I support social democratic systems like you find in the Nordic countries.

Russia has more arable land than any other polity on our planet. I find it awfully suspicious that famines were somewhat frequent, and so conveniently not his doing. China had a long history of famines, but they're often weather-related. A famine requires a good excuse, you can't just be like "oops". Otherwise you should be fixing it before the humans all starve, which takes weeks at a minimum, usually much longer since there are some things to eat.

Thank you for your reasonable response btw. I'm enjoying this conversation with the people that are willing to actually have a serious one. I know I probably look like a troll, but I'm really not trolling.

Genocide is a very, very specific word. Your examples do not qualify.

Middle Eastern countries had their borders carved out by the west, yes. For how long do we stay responsible for their actions? When do they get their free will back?

Vietnam was a loss, a disaster and a bad joke, all at American expense. One of the largest failures we've ever engaged in. It was not a genocide, we did not attempt to erase Vietnamese culture.

Your migrants case is your best example due to the amount of hate flying around these days, but you do understand that genocide takes more than not helping people, right? We are not feeding the starving people of the world, is that genocide because we do not give them all food?

Yeah, true. A step in that direction perhaps, but not the actual result yet. Alright, fair point.

Fair. Thank you for the reasonable response. My point is that strides were being made, before Stalin was in charge. Then serious attempts largely stopped. Would you describe that as inaccurate?

I would argue that the attempt to abolish money and replace it with a measure of value that was neither arbitrary nor pegged to a commodity like gold was very much a move to liberate the proletariat.

I picked it because the abolition of money has a great deal of symbolic value, that's all. We could use them getting rid of factory owners and seizing industry instead if you wish.

I agree, there are many forms of oppression. However, without the rule of law, the oppression would become rather Mad Max, instead of just disappearing.

We had oppression before we had states. So long as one man can hurt another with physical damage, oppression will be possible

North Korea has even fewer friends and allies than the USSR did, with their Warsaw Pact. Kim is doing just fine, even got Putin to lick his boots recently.

I think they shouldn't need us to play nice with them in order to survive.

Every source is potentially fabricated, this is inescapable. All sources should be approached with some doubt at all times, or you are not performing your due diligence. This is simply necessary, due to the fundamental issues involved with the study of history, where we only have records made by humans, who are imperfect.

I did read it after I posted, I agree my reply was premature. I had assumed you highlighted the parts you did because that was all I would need, but that was just an inappropriate assumption of mine and I apologize.

In this case, even assuming the source is 100% accurate, this could still be very complicated, instead of being as simple as it sounds. Did he bribe any of them? We must consider it, since it is possible.