The Deprogram Podcast

1525 readers

57 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

airbusairnet@lemmygrad.ml

Ancient_Egg_57@lemmygrad.ml

How Stalin really was really like. (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml to c/thedeprogram@lemmygrad.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Western and the liberal consensus on Joseph Stalin:

Stalin was an evil autocrat who seized all power from his people to establish a brutal and murderous authoritarian regime.

Stalin in reality

Stalin: Please, let me resign in peace. This is the fourth time I am submitting my application.

The central comittee: Dear Comrade Stalin, we have rejected your request for the fourth time. See you at work tomorrow.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DonLongSchlong@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

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.

And what do you mean "subjective view"? Stalin was more a captain of a team, that is accurate about how socialist states function.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

[–] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 21 hours ago

…that is because i am arguing the side of the anti-communists. Know your enemy and all that.

That's not how "knowing your enemy" works. 🤦‍♂️ "Hey, lemme go argue the side of nazis, gotta know your enemy and all that." The world is not changed in the land of debate bros. If you haven't even encountered someone who actually made this argument to you, it's baseless. Theory has a place, but it still needs to be grounded in actual practice.

There is a difference between considering how something can unfold in order to better anticipate how to deal with it vs. putting forth a tunnel vision claim that it will unfold a single way without evidence. The realities of dealing with people are messy and you're missing the forest for the trees here. If it was the case that this document was straight up not written by anyone in the CIA, I would agree with you that no one should be referencing it as representative of the CIA. That is not what you're saying though. You're getting into the weeds of what qualifies something as representative of the CIA, which is a level of analysis most people aren't going to be thinking about in the first place. I can speak for myself as an example when I was very liberal, it wasn't even on my mind what the hierarchy of the CIA is or who all each piece of information linked to it comes from. I just know at a certain point I had a kind of institutional trust and I gradually moved away from that.