• 🏴Akuji@leminal.space
    4·
    22 hours ago

    For Stalin, the CIA didn’t think him a dictator.

    I’m once again nitpicking on this because it prodigiously bothers me: the CIA collected and compiled comments from an informant. This is the nature of the document you have linked, not their opinion on the matter, not a statement from them, nothing of the sort.
    Please, you have a bunch of books from reputable historians to mention and take quotes from, stop using this “unevaluated” information report as a proof of the CIA thinking this or that.

    Edit:
    Here’s what they had to say about “stalinism” two years after the linked report in an analysis (Titoism and Soviet Communism):

    This term is used to denote the teachings of Marx, Engels and Lenin as dogmatically interpreted by Stalin, and as imposed by him on the International Communist Movement.
    The term denotes in particular the theory and practice connected with Stalin’s personal dictatorship – “one man rule” – over the CPSU, the Soviet State, and – under the guise of “the leading role” of the CPSU – over the International Communist Movement as a whole.

    As a matter of fact, the CIA did think him a dictator at the time.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      31·
      21 hours ago

      People don’t generally read books even if I link them unless they are already interested in what I have to say. I could link Losurdo’s Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend if I wanted to share an objective critique of the man that neither glorifies nor demonizes him, or I could link sources on how the USSR was run so the term “dictator” doesn’t make sense, but barely anyone would read them.

      The CIA’s later report seems to more be the “official line” rather than genuine analysis IMO.

      • 🏴Akuji@leminal.space
        1·
        3 hours ago

        Sorry to reply so late, the flu launched a surprise attack on me yesterday.

        I know that it’s difficult to make people read, and they’re not always to blame. At the end of a day struggling for bread, they’d rather have games, the machine works perfectly.
        But it’s not a valid reason to manipulate and misinform them. I’ve been reading your comments for some times now, and I’m inclined to believe that you seek to make comrades out of those you interact with (and also the bystanders); such a relationship must be based on factual informations and honesty. Otherwise, you take the risk of seeing those you’ve convinced cast into question your truthfulness about other topics should they take a look into the nature of that report; worse, it could push them away from socialism…
        History books might be less efficient than pointing at the enemy and saying “look, even they admit [thing]”, but it’s factual and difficult for an honest person to attack.

        The CIA’s later report seems to more be the “official line” rather than genuine analysis IMO.

        Be it toeing the party line or genuinely believing it, they weren’t able to poach someone from the politburo (in the fifties at least, as they admit; counter-intelligence in the USSR was impressive at the time), they had no first-hand information on which to base their opinion.

        I guess the grammar and coherence of this comment is subpar, but, erm, second language + flu = this 😞

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          2·
          2 hours ago

          Sorry about the flu.

          As for your comments, I disagree that the doc I linked is dishonest, manipulative, or misinformation. They didn’t need to poach from the politburo to look at the structure of the USSR, Americans like Pat Sloan already went to the USSR and reported on how it functioned (not to the CIA, but in general). Archival evidencen we have today backs up the claims made in the doc as well.