this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
78 points (98.8% liked)
The Deprogram Podcast
1521 readers
105 users here now
"As revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say that we're tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We also know that when the people understand, they cannot but follow us. In any case, we, the people, have no enemies when it comes to peoples. Our only enemies are the imperialist regimes and organizations." Thomas Sankara, 1985
International Anti-Capitalist podcast run by an American, a Slav and an Arab.
Rules:
- No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- Be respectful. This is a safe space where all comrades should feel welcome; this includes a warning against uncritical sectarianism.
- No porn or sexually explicit content (even if marked NSFW).
- No right-deviationists (patsocs, nazbols, Strasserists, Duginists, etc).
Resources:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I am of the opinion that we shouldn't use bad arguments just because they might be effective.
It opens one self up to being corrected that the document is just a random goon that is reporting his own subjective view and then the opponent will link to a bunch of more "credible" CIA documents where they call stalin a dictator and suddenly the person you were trying to convert/argue against in order to convert onlookers is more entrenched because the idiot commie can't even source correctly.
This document does not show the CIA's thoughts at all. It is merely some lower level dude who is stating his findings which are at odds with others findings.
There are better CIA documents that show that even the liberal intelligence bastion has to admit that, for example, the nutrition and calorie levels of the USSR where on par or better than that of the US at the time.
How is it a "bad argument"? Are we supposed to ignore what John Stockwell whistleblowed about the CIA because "he was just a CIA officer" and wasn't the head of the CIA or something? And what do you mean "subjective view"? Stalin was more a captain of a team, that is accurate about how socialist states function.
Some things are narrative and some things are just correct or incorrect, no matter who is doing the telling. If someone goes to lengths to show you documents that contradict this document when you put it forth to people who take everything the CIA says at face value, that doesn't make you look like an "idiot commie", it further illustrates the contradictions in CIA messaging and the fallibility of the organization.
Arguing that it's somehow not a contradiction and doesn't represent them because "it's a lower level dude" is itself a bad argument that reads more like arguing the side of anti-communists for them.
This isn't about using things that are "wrong" in a vain attempt to be effectual. It's about engaging with the mental gymnastics and cognitive dissonance that a lot of people are enmeshed in.
The argument is "Even the CIA admits stalin is not a dictator" which is plain wrong because it is just some rando informant from the CIA saying it and not an official statement from them.
Because there are other informants that had the opposite subjective view...literally every view is subjective, that's how "viewing" something works. I have made it quite clear that i don't believe him to be a dictator.
Internal documents are not "messaging". They are internal and not messages to the public. Otherwise i agree, but you are missing the point because the "idiot commie" comes from believing this one document instead of all the other "better and more detailed" documents that do describe him as a dictator. From the view of your opponent and the onlookers you are just clinging on one shitty informant while ignoring all the counter "evidence" that the other informants provided. It is too easily defeated and this basically makes you lose instanly in the eyes of the public.
...that is because i am arguing the side of the anti-communists. Know your enemy and all that.
I am simply providing you the most basic of arguments that they would make and how this CIA document will immediately shatter upon it.
By doing our own mental gymnastics and saying that this document proves that even the CIA believed stalin to not be a dictator? Because that is the only way this document has ever been used as.
This document is such a weak piece of evidence that it can only be used for bad faith arguments and nothing more.