I know there was one in the USSR in 1932 and one in the PRC in 1958. I know that they’re a major talking point of the “communism killed 100 million people” myth. I’d like to be able to understand them better and extract valid criticisms out of them so I don’t end up looking ignorant or sycophantic while trying to explain why I support communist countries.
If you go search the news comm we've got many pages discussing the '32 famine since the Holodomor narrative is so prevalent in the anglosphere.
The very short version is that due to a severe drought, kulak resistance to collectivization, and serious communications and logistics failure on the part of the Soviet Government several million people died of hunger across the USSR. There was never any intention to kill anyone or commit genocide. The government had the resources to mitigate the harm and failed to use those resources effectively and so bears culpability for failure to fulfill it's duties. Grounded historians describe it as being a state level act of manslaughter - not intentional, but it could have been mitigated with effective action.
How come it's never "manslaughter" when capitalism has one of its inevitable crises and the people have to starve until the economy stabilizes, if anything the capitalist version is closest to manslaughter since it's 100% intentional that the working class have to pay in order to cover the capitalist's ass
Assigning blame when the government does something and not when capitalists do something is a form of internalized liberalism
there's a whole law pervert thing i don't care enough to get into but typically manslaughter is unintentional so i think capitalist social murder isn't really an example of it.