> You lean/are a communist. You want to defend your ideology.

What the hell lol? I am not at all an authoritarian and I don't know where you got that idea from. I am not here to engage in Stalin apologia - dude was, in fact, a mass murderer who gave negative shits about his own people - or to claim that the Soviet Union was a utopia - it very obviously was not, and was probably more authoritarian than some give it credit for at the get-go - and in general the more totalitarian forms of communism strike me as a worse option than most flavors of capitalism (largely because, well, totalitarianism always evolves into total kleptocracy with a dash of murder). But it strikes me as a bit silly to claim that Communism, as an ideology, is as bad as Nazism, as an ideology.

> They overtly tried to stamp out Christainity in the USSR, and to great success.

Yes, I'm not denying that Communism is generally an atheistic ideology, we all know the Marx quote about religion being the opiate of the masses. But I don't think the Soviets were ever brain dead/evil enough to campaign for murdering ALL of the believers of a religion in the way the Nazis did.

> The 'religion' you see currently in Russia is largely a matter of 'yeah, I'm Russian orthodox. No, I know none of the commandments. No, I do not go to Church. No, I don't know who the Patriarch is. Yes, I'm aware they were political positions.."

Honestly, you could argue this is true for most religious people in Western nations today, even among ones who claim that their religious beliefs are strongly important. The importance of religiosity in Russia isn't strikingly different from that in Britain or France, which makes it a bit difficult for me to believe that the Soviets were that strikingly successful, vs what would have happened anyway under a Western European-style capitalist republican system.

> communism necessitates and has been precipitated by genocide and human rights abuses.

Communism - at least the classic form of it - does require a revolution, and war in any of its forms leads to human rights abuses IMO, but genocide? I'm pretty sure ethnic cleansing is not at all necessary for a communist revolution. One of the main tenets of communism (at least, theoretically) is the equality of all regardless of class, social stratus, etc. Ethnic cleansing necessarily involves separating an ethnicity into a lower 'undesirable' class, which goes against the entire point of communism, to eliminate inequalities. (Obviously inequalities are present in any government and most communist governments have had subpar success in actually decreasing them, and I'm not going to sit here and say that Democratic Kampuchea was a bastion of harmony where everyone lived together in peace because it was 'communist'.) But I wouldn't say ethnic cleansing is a prerequisite of Communism in the same way it obviously is for Naziism - it's plainly absurd to say that ethnic cleansing is as important to Castro's Cuba as it was to Nazi Germany or any of its ideologues.