🏴Akuji

I must have failed to convey what I meant. What bothers me is actually framing the report as what it isn’t, not how close to the truth it is. Honestly, if you said something like “the CIA was already collecting comments on what life under Stalin was in the fifties”, I wouldn’t take issue with it.

I’m genuinely too pooped to entertain you any longer, but beware, I’ll be there next time 🤓

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 😞

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.

Where do you live for beans and lentils to be that expensive?

Can’t say I’m surprised, but still disappointed.

If only dropping all semblance of civility could end up hurting the machine… 🤞

That’s… unfortunately true. But at least, it has the advantage of being difficult to attack for an intellectually honest person.

My country has been Gladioded, no need to convince me that they’re manipulative fucks 😜
My issue isn’t about which is closer to the truth, but about using these documents as a proof, as the CIA admitting this or that. I’ve seen many otherwise well informed MLs frame it that way, and it’s a bad look since it make them appear as willingly obtuse or disingenuous. Both the quoted documents are just collected intelligence, and certainly not from an internal source from the politburo which, by the CIA’s own admission, they weren’t able to infiltrate. And you said it yourself, there’s many historians that did their job well; quoting them instead of some unverified crap would be more convincing.

Edit:

By the way, while looking at my notes on the topic, I found something I saved from “Titoism and Soviet Communism”. Given the nature of this document, an analysis for “those who need to know”, it’s actually closer to a statement about what they thought of the USSR under Stalin at the time.

About “Stalinism” (their word, not mine):

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.

Edit 2: said document https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A073800530001-4.pdf

Declassified CIA report:

Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

Davel, you do know that this is not a statement by the CIA, but a comment collected from an undisclosed USSR informant?
If we take these unevaluated comment reports as what the CIA thought, they would have changed their mind some time later.

Comments on the Current Soviet Situation:

Stalin was a fanatic, an all-powerful dictator with a persecution complex and a mania for greatness. He wanted to see his goals accomplished during his life- time. If he were still alive, the Soviet Union would be either on the brink of or in the midst of a catastrophe. It is hoped that the present authorities will permit their pursuit of their aims to be tempered by reason, and a recognition of the realities of life. They are normal people, not sick, and see that resistance to change must be considered. As Bukharin and Rykov proposed, many of the changes made by the Soviets can be retained; the others can be abandoned gradually, It is important to make concessions to the peasantry, and the authorities appear to have chosen that road. Malenkov’s speech of 8 August 1953 is regarded as a change from an unreasonable to a reasonable policy, Freedom, of course, is the most important thing and the regime can scarcely grant that and retain power. The disappointment to those who regard Malenkov’s speech as the beginning of a new era will be terrifying and may have consequences.

One right-wing party on its way towards Benito’s corporatism, two center-right wet noodles that’ll happily follow the others as long as they fuck the common folk politely, and a center-“left” party. Very diverse as you can tell.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

And as my good pal Ira said, Luigi only needs to be lucky once.

Come on, stop with that. It’s not because he’s made an “”““odd gesture””“”, repeatedly supported political figures from nazi-founded far-right parties, supported open neo-nazis just as much, xat nazi dogwhistles and other great replacement theories wherever he could that he’s a nazi.
You have no proof of that.

Does my impersonation of a muskolini apologist sound brain dead genuine enough?

I’m doing my part manually 😛