Are you really citing the Black Book?
The book that literally used both Nazi soldiers who died in the process of invading the USSR and murdering civilians, and all the civilians those Nazis murdered, as ways to pad out the numbers of 'victims of communism'?
One way to ask is "which sources are you using?". Another way to assume that someelse is using a given source and then berate them for that. The latter is what most people call the strawman argument.
I have given references to around 8 historians (which btw I define as people employed by recognized universities in a capacity related to the study of history).
One (1) of my references are among the many authors of the Black Book of Communism, which btw include: Karel Bartošek, Sylvain Boulougue,
Stéphane Courtois, Pascal Fontaine, Rémi Kauffer,
Martin Malia, Jean-Louis Margolin,
Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Panné, Pierre Rigoulet, Yves Santamaria, Nicolas Werth. If you are able, you are very welcome to launch a similar critique of the other some 30 works by the above authors, which argue similarly.
The main critique of the book by e.g. Chomsky is that its methodology seems to be "people who died by hunger is hunger are deaths by communism whereas people who died by capitalism aren't counted as deaths by capitalism", which sort fails to acknowledge that only two choices aren't communism and capitalism, and also that whereas many states (historically) have deliberately called themselves communistic states, then no states have called themselves capitalistic. Also, it should be noted, especially in a forum post of "username this" says that and "username that" says this", then many historians such as Ronald Aronson,
Tony Judt,
Martin Malia,
Alan Ryan,
Vladimir Tismăneanu,
Jean-François Revel, David J. Galloway,
Robert Legvold,
Andrzej Paczkowski,
Jon Wiener,
Stanley Hoffmann have agreed in its worth.
lol, you're literally pulling from Black Book authors. The same people that blame the people killed by the Nazis on Communism, along with the people who "should have existed" had the dastardly communists not had things like abortion.
And then going "Oh this guy totally says that the Communists call for genocide as a fundamental part of the ideology. No I'm not showing you this. But this one dude did say this once, so it's true. Trust me."
Yes, o/c I quoted 8 different authors of which 1 (one) of those were among the 12 historians who authored the "black book", but sure, why not try the strawman-ish approach "the guy who said is bad, therefore it is wrong".
The argument that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are "these guys" in relation to communism is fanciful. Fair enough, let's assume they are just pre-internet bloggers who are fantasizing about killing people, but if you want to excuse communism, won't you want to call on say: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Jong-Sung as your witnesses on how "non-genocidal" communism is? Why don't you do that? Again, I raise my main point: if you believe in stuff like equality and stuff, why use labels such as communism or nazism? Why not just say equality?
Also, could you please point out to me where in the BboC, it explicitly argues that abortions under communistic regimes are similar to the Holocaust? I mean it's not like you are just quoting from a book without having read it, right?