The soviets did not have the technology to control the weather, nor did they ask the Kulaks to burn their crops and kill their livestock. Grain was exported because it was necessary to acquire agricultural machinery from the west, which ended up accelerating grain production and ending the famine. Moreover, the Ukrainian communists hid the true extent of the famine from the Central Committee, resulting in more grain being exported than was sustainable. Once the lies were uncovered, grain was redirected back to Ukraine and the surrounding areas.

The idea that the 1930s famine was caused by the soviets is false. Mismanagement definitely played a part, on the side of the Ukrainian communists deliberately hiding information from the CC. However, it is blatantly false that the export of grain was an intentional measure to create or extend famine.

Ukrainians and Irish are obviously too stupid to handle their own agriculture and desperately needed guidance from Moscow or London.

Pretty much every place in the world suffered from famines before modern farming techniques were introduced, and while under the rule of extractive nobles/landowners. It has nothing to do with being "too stupid" or "needing guidance."

Famines in Ireland and India continued frequently under British rule. The famine in Ukraine was in a large part caused by political upheaval from overthrowing the power of the landowners (who responded by burning their stores), which is why it only happened once.

Ukrainians and Irish are obviously too stupid to handle their own agriculture

There's a huge difference between the drought-induced famine in the wake of a horrible civil war and a systematic regime of mass starvation implemented by landlords against an ethnic underclass. The East European Plain Drought wasn't unique to Ukraine nor was it the product of Soviet policies. Countries as far removed as the UK were experiencing droughts and food shortages during the same years (1932 - 1935). These were the same years as the US Dust Bowl.

The Irish Potato Famine was most notable because the English were harvesting a bumper crop of grain at the time. Grain prices crashed while the Irish were starving and grain rotted by the ton in warehouses that the Irish were locked out of. The Irish Famine was fully manufactured by English economic policies.

It's not unlike the Bangladeshi famine following WW2, resulting from Churchill's explicit strategy of diverting the bumper crop from Australia away from a territory he wanted to punish for its independence movement. Curiously, the Bengal Famine of 1943 only ended when the US under FDR intervened with its own aid. In the 1950s, the USSR also began contributing enormous surplus food aid to the subcontinental region, cultivating a large and popular leftist community of Russia-friendly South Asia Communists as a result.

What we're seeing in the Middle East in the modern day - Israeli embargo of foodstuffs into the Palestinian Territories, US strategic bombing of Iranian agricultural transit and irrigation infrastructure - and in Latin America - the US energy embargo of Cuba, strategic strikes on major energy and water infrastructure in Venezuela - is similarly engineered to induce mass famine as a strategy of regime change.

Huh? The ukrainians weren't in control of their land or grain prior to the communists setting them up with their own socialist republic. Their food was extracted like it was during the man-made famines in ireland prior to the communists freeing them.

Leninist created a government with a extremwly powerful class, that owned all means of production. Please explain us how's that communism

To add to this I'm pretty sure the early capitalist thinkers like Locke didn't aim for the late stage capitalism society that America had become. If we are comparing ideology that's what we should compare with but if we are comparing actual real life scenarios communism is stuck with Soviet, China and Cuba.

the picture is essentially claiming “communism, a supposedly purely hypothetical system of governing/economics has never done anything bad” which ok so? By the same logic it’s never done anything good either, because it’s allegedly never really been implemented. It’s comparing real life to ideals/fiction.

You're ALMOST getting it.

The point isn't that communism is great. It's that the communist threat that capitalist demagogues love to bandy about is purely hypothetical, unlike the very real and present harms of capitalism.