KimBongUn420

I used the document to highlight that even in the CIA there were people thinking Stalin is a captain of a team. I did however also point to Domenico Losurdos to underscore how its fits to existing historical accounts from a Marxist perspective

I’d be really interested to know the backstory of the document from a historical pov.

I agree, It's interesting to think about how a classified top secret document like this exists that basically could've been written by a leftie. To have this many points synthesized it required a bunch of fieldwork to come together like this, even if unevaluated. Another interesting aspect to think about is how it relates to current dominant western narratives in regards to current geopolitical rivals

We're discussing the account of Stalin and collective leadership vs top down and not the validity of this document. Good try on moving the goal post.

Also It's not good evidence, but a valueable piece of a larger puzzle, where one understands the dynamics of political economy and has to piece it together through these. If you'd read any theory at all, you know history is always written by the dominant class and one has to read through the lines with documents like this.

Sounds like you take the western account of history for granted, and don't engage with different views. It sounds like youre taking Information by diametrically opposed forces at face value. I too would like topics like feminism explained by anti-feminists, anarchism by an anti-anarchist, Marxism by a lib etc. I definitely never engage with what the other side says

Let me ask it this way: what makes you think that this report is credible, factual and trustworthy?

I already answered above. It fits into the picture of historical accounts of Stalin and of how bias and interests work in regards to a nation state and it's geopolitical competitors.

You're convently ignoring the context in which this document exists and how its content relates to it.

It’s almost like finding a book in a library and believing it to be credible because it’s a well known library that has that book

Your try at abstracting something this complex fails. It's more akin having two libraries with two different accounts of history where some books are deliberately hidden (for various reasons, it exists and wasn't destroyed). This is a now a made-public book confirming the other libraries accunt history with their own source

Also:

The CIAs work is sloppy and they lie to themselves in their top secret documents. It was a soviet double agent collecting this

Can you point to any of CIA’s metainfo about this file? Since I don’t think we have anything more than this is some CIA file, but no info about who compiled this info, what they base it on, how has it been evalued (other than at the time it was apparently unevalued) and so on. You don’t even know what the CIA thought of this document. We just know they have it.

Might as well ask Snowden or a top ranking official

Do we just take it as true because it’s from CIA, even though we have no other information about it or what?

Why do you think they host it?

I mean are you against being sceptical of some random ass CIA document with big ass text on top of it about it being “unevaluated information”? Say it ain’t so.

Do you even know what bias is?

It's a top secret report created by the informational gathering apparatus of a global super power/nation state, with all the interest to get an accurate picture of their geopolitical rival, but also with the interest to keep their population not in the know (not it's like the only time in US history). The fact that it fits with other historical accounts of Stalin by e.g Domenico Losurdo.

Funny how you libs always pull out skepticism when it's against the western narrative. Even if it's unvaluated, it's not going to be significantly off. The CIA is pretty good at what they do

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

Stalin was a captain of a team

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

Only those that did know that you can't vote away capitalism.

Agreed, the US prison system is legalized form of slavery

Your response is very telling.

Considering the uncertainty surrounding COVID at the time, China's approach while heavy handed, prioritized people's lives instead of continuing capitalist exploitation like they did in the west. The infection rates and death toll speak for themselves. Once it was clear that the worst waves were over, and the popular sentiment was to loosen up restrictions the Chinese government reacted. The largest protest numbers I saw a in the lower hundreds of thousands across multiple provinces, which also considering Chinas size (more than hundred cities are 1M+ population with a total of 1.4B people) is indeed minor.

Also nice free speech you got over here where vaccine "sceptics" got to spew their nonsense all over the place and you have disease's coming back that where considered to be eradicated. GTFO shitlib

This stuff applies always. It’s called critical thinking skills and it absolutely applies when someone is speaking “for the western narrative” too

A Chinese source claiming Chinese are happy with their gvmnt doesn't hold as much materiality as a western source claiming that Chinese are happy with their government. (And vice versa) Do you even know what bias is? So much for cirtical thinking on your part

Look I know it’s easy to think that there’s a singular big bad out there. That there’s just this one entity called “the west” and you’ll be able to fight and conquer it. It’s easier to believe things are black and white, that certain countries are innately good and others innately bad at all times. But that’s not reality.

And you talk about strawman GTFO shitlib

First, ethos is bullshit man, don’t idolize people or institutions to the point you think they’re infallible.

Funny how stuff like this only applies when it's against the western narrative

The researchers question the validity of their results because they are abnormally high a

The western brainpan cannot comprehend a genuinely popular government