Clearly you think that dictators are whoever the US says is a dictator. Chavez, Maduro, Xi, Putin, Kahmeini, Stalin, Kruschev, and on and on. Never mind that all of these people entered office through competitive politics with multiple possible contenders. Never mind that they all failed to obtain some offices they strove for. Never mind that they operated within full blown bureaucracies with rules of law, regulation, standard procedures, and distributed control over massive swathes of the government. Never mind that these governments have various factions, some have various parties, all with electoral mechanisms both popular and ministerial much like European democracies have.
Fidel Castro immediately after the revolution was a dictator - his dictates were law. Lenin immediately after the revolution was a dictator - his dictates were law. Mao immediately after the revolution was a dictator - his dictates were law. But after the revolution? Outside the periods of martial law, normalcy returned to every single one of these countries with peaceful transitions of power through constitutionally defined mechanisms.
And is that definition one where absolute power is concentrated in a single individual or a small group of between 3 and 10.
Post martial law, none of these countries were dictatorship by that definition. Not a single one of the people the West calls a dictator had absolute power outside of either the revolutionary war period or the crisis of WW2.
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 a lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist’s power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely captain of a team
When it comes to the governments they’re spying on, I’d say yeah it’s a decent source. Whether ALL agents who were spying on the USSR were saying this is a different matter.
Yeah, no the cia isn’t a great source. Its like saying the kgb is a great source, sure there could be some validity, but overall it’s a propaganda machine
Lol intelligence agencies internal documents aren’t part of the propaganda machine why would the CIA produce pro Stalin propaganda? OK maybe there was a double agent in the CIA that could be possible, but to say that they produce propaganda internally to show each other is a very weird thing to say. What’s the point of having an intelligence agency that classifies its documents if they’re just going to publish lies internally? You have the press to publish propaganda. I’m sorry your argument is just really bad. If you wanted to make a good argument you would go into the files and check what other agents were saying and cross reference them with this report, not just dismiss it because it came from the CIA. Most historians would give both their hands to have access to classified documents there is a reason why documents like this stay classified. I assume all this stuff was declassified after the Cold War
There is a cool video about Marx guess what it draws from classified documents that various police agencies in Europe had on Marx (some of them are still classified BTW) why the fuck would spies waste their time producing propaganda for other spies on their own side?
You do realise these are internal documents right? I’d say an intelligence agencies declassified documents are an amazing source. There is a good reason why the KGBs archives were closed again, or why the stasi tried to get rid of as many documents as they could after the wall fell.
Are you saying the MKULTRA files were from a bad source?
They didn’t say communism, though. They said tankie dictators.
nowadays liberals call every genuine attempt of socialism in history as tankie dictator
Tankie is a pejorative for communists, the US calls everyone who doesn’t do what they say a dictator
No, and drop the pipe, I know what a dictator is on my own.
You clearly don’t
Please, tell me more about what I know. What do I think a dictator is?
Clearly you think that dictators are whoever the US says is a dictator. Chavez, Maduro, Xi, Putin, Kahmeini, Stalin, Kruschev, and on and on. Never mind that all of these people entered office through competitive politics with multiple possible contenders. Never mind that they all failed to obtain some offices they strove for. Never mind that they operated within full blown bureaucracies with rules of law, regulation, standard procedures, and distributed control over massive swathes of the government. Never mind that these governments have various factions, some have various parties, all with electoral mechanisms both popular and ministerial much like European democracies have.
Fidel Castro immediately after the revolution was a dictator - his dictates were law. Lenin immediately after the revolution was a dictator - his dictates were law. Mao immediately after the revolution was a dictator - his dictates were law. But after the revolution? Outside the periods of martial law, normalcy returned to every single one of these countries with peaceful transitions of power through constitutionally defined mechanisms.
I mean, dictatorship has a pretty clear definition that I learned from books and I’m not American.
Not being american doesn’t mean shit, your media is owned by the same billionaires as the rest of the western world
And is that definition one where absolute power is concentrated in a single individual or a small group of between 3 and 10.
Post martial law, none of these countries were dictatorship by that definition. Not a single one of the people the West calls a dictator had absolute power outside of either the revolutionary war period or the crisis of WW2.
This is you
We all know what that means to them, with Stalin topping the list.
I mean, Stalin was a dictator
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Source: The C.I.A.
Oh, is the cia a trust worthy source? I keep getting mixed messages from ml
When it comes to the governments they’re spying on, I’d say yeah it’s a decent source. Whether ALL agents who were spying on the USSR were saying this is a different matter.
Yeah, no the cia isn’t a great source. Its like saying the kgb is a great source, sure there could be some validity, but overall it’s a propaganda machine
Lol intelligence agencies internal documents aren’t part of the propaganda machine why would the CIA produce pro Stalin propaganda? OK maybe there was a double agent in the CIA that could be possible, but to say that they produce propaganda internally to show each other is a very weird thing to say. What’s the point of having an intelligence agency that classifies its documents if they’re just going to publish lies internally? You have the press to publish propaganda. I’m sorry your argument is just really bad. If you wanted to make a good argument you would go into the files and check what other agents were saying and cross reference them with this report, not just dismiss it because it came from the CIA. Most historians would give both their hands to have access to classified documents there is a reason why documents like this stay classified. I assume all this stuff was declassified after the Cold War
https://youtu.be/n7FndCC9efg
There is a cool video about Marx guess what it draws from classified documents that various police agencies in Europe had on Marx (some of them are still classified BTW) why the fuck would spies waste their time producing propaganda for other spies on their own side?
Great. Did you read about how I said “some validity”? Doubtful
You do realise these are internal documents right? I’d say an intelligence agencies declassified documents are an amazing source. There is a good reason why the KGBs archives were closed again, or why the stasi tried to get rid of as many documents as they could after the wall fell. Are you saying the MKULTRA files were from a bad source?
Yes, if you ignore what I said about some validity
Yeah equating tankies and communism is a psyop. Red Scare 2.0, poisoning the well so communism looks horrible