Your point was that we don't use big scary names taken from the native language for other famines like the ones that happened under british indian rule thus "Holodomor" must clearly be a politicized name. Except you were flat wrong and we totally do the exact thing you said we didn't. Prior to that, your point was that Holodomor sounded like "Holocaust" so clearly it must be a politicized name. And then you were dead wrong, because despite it being obviously true that the two share a common lingusitic root, Holodomor was coined a good twenty years before "The Holocaust" happened, so it can't have been a reference.

Now your point is that it must be a politicized name because it's more talked about than a different famine, one which wasn't ever punishable with death to be discussed, which there is no active effort to deny it's severity or cause, which has no relevancy in the broad political climate, on a tiny website, and even using the world's most arbitrary and cherry-picked metric you got the number wrong (there's 11 results, including my comment above, but for some reason (possibly related to LW's search indexing being notoriously unreliable - which is true across pretty much all of lemmy) excluding your comment. So, we can chalk it up to 12 and also question the reliability of the methodology as a whole.

Here: Yes, the Holodomor is political - it was absolutely the result of political actions (you even agree) and is the subject of a great many conspiracy theories and weirdo apologist movements today. No, the name Holodomor was not made up just to be scarier by association with The Holocaust to discredit the Soviets who caused it like you're implying - the word existed twenty years before the coining of the term Holocaust as we know it today. You're just plain flat out wrong in the particulars you're claiming. How many more variations on this theme are we going to have to sit through, because I am getting -so- bored with you trying to justify this narrative by shifting it around.

Can you please move on?

Okay, next topic:

Cockshott's (great name) paper is just pretty awful in general (which is probably why it's in a self-described magazine and not a journal (yes, I know the name is a reference)) and his methodology for calculating excess deaths is, as he acknowledges in the text, extremely dubious (which is fine, he does that to illustrate a tangential concept). but it does make some good points towards the end and I agree with his overall thesis about planned economies being too easily dismissed (once I figured out that was his thesis, it's kinda unclear). Rosefielde's (great name) paper is excellent, and breaks down his calculations in an extremely easily digested manner. I might even use it as an example of decent demographic calculation at some point, it's just a really good overview of the process and details the factors effecting (hehe) the calculations.

However: Both of those papers show examples of addressing death rates, and make no attempt at the problem of calculating lives saved. Lives saved is the metric in question, not death rate. They're terrible examples for your point, because they make no attempt to address your point whatsoever.

If the claim "you can easily do these studies for the particular case of the transition to capitalism" has merit, which we can assume you consider it does, why did you choose to cite these papers instead of ones that, idk, actually support your argument?

^edit:^ ^clarity^