What’s to refute when you said nothing?

The down votes are because you didn’t engage with the content and posted a reddit tier bot comment

Imagine being so propagandized to leave a comment like that

Ah so you’re fine with armored police vehicles as long as they’re not called tanks… alright

Every single state on this planet has a (police) force that is used on its own people.

Can you link some?

Just go on Reddit or yt or anywhere you see the Winnie meme posted.

this gives me “critiquing Israel is antisemitism” vibes.

When youd “critique Israel” using an octopus or a cartoon character with a large nose, etc. it would be antisemitic tho

I think it’s important to question all power and all states and I would never be offended when someone mocks my head of state

Sure and I agree, but using a racist dog whistle is not mocking. Regardless of head of state. And in this specific instance it’s mostly western liberals doing so, being also running dogs for the western imperial project

Racist dog whistles tend to sound like they are far fetched. They also have plausible deniability built into them e.g. the OK sign, pepe the frog memes, etc

Fact is: whenever you see some “anti-authoritrian” post the Winnie meme only to “criticize the CCP [sic]” you get a fuck ton of sinophobic comments from western libs below it and the OP never distancing themselves from it and often times doing it themselves too

When I think Winnie the Pooh I think round face much more than yellow.

It doesn’t matter what you think. It what it’s received as. Also check out the first instance of the meme which has 💯 racist connotations. The one with xi and Obama compared to Winnie and… ? To which racial slur does the other character sound similar to?

Please read book. You’re an idealist that has no clue about the subject at hand

Source: The black book of gommunism

Checkmate

When you lift out millions out of poverty and increase life expectancy significantly it’s the communist leaders not caring. The more you know

When bourgeois kulaks burn crops to resist collectivization, it’s the the communists government that’s ignoring science. The more you know

If you are being honest to youtself, if this didn’t agree with whatever you already believed, you wouldn’t give it the time of day for the exact reasons I’ve mentioned.

You’re making the mistake that the CIA is one homogeneous blop where everyone thinks the same. Where once something gets evaluated and approved it’s their party line. The document fits into the historical account of Stalin seamlessly. Even if it’s chatted someone heard from s friend of a friend (and I don’t think the CIA works this sloppily), it contains enough valuable information for the CIA to compile this document and to keep it.

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