I will bring out the CIA admits Stalin was not a dictator link in case anyone has not seen it yet. https://web.archive.org/web/20251003005751/https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2025
76 points (98.7% liked)
The Deprogram Podcast
1521 readers
98 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
https://hexbear.net/post/6309545
I don't think this document proofs anything. There are more detailed and "credible" CIA documents that falsely claim him to be a dictator.
I also think this is playing into the narrative of the CIA being some kind of omniscient org that has their eyes everywhere and you can't hide from it. AFAIK the CIA had a hard time piercing the veil and gather intelligence of the USSR and its inner workings.
In fact, i think they fell for their own propaganda like the old joke about a KGB and a CIA agent meeting.
"I have to admit, I'm always so impressed by Soviet propaganda. You really know how to get people worked up," the CIA agent says.
"Thank you," the KGB says. "We do our best but truly, it's nothing compared to American propaganda. Your people believe everything your state media tells them."
The CIA agent drops his drink in shock and disgust. "Thank you friend, but you must be confused... There's no propaganda in America."
I never understood the takeaway of that document to be that the CIA is omniscient. The value of it is in the fact that many people in the US will knee-jerk defend and/or believe the CIA as credible, but if the CIA itself is saying that the people they thought the CIA said were enemies are not as bad as they thought they were, something must be off.
Because something is off. There is the layer of "intelligence" that is what gets told to the public and then there is the layer that gets acted upon, and these aren't always the same thing. The one that gets acted upon has to be a somewhat sober analysis for it to be effectual at all. The one that gets told to the public can be total fabrication. Though it might be argued that nowadays, the two are blurring more so and this is some of the cause of more chaotic / mask off behavior in the empire; the argument being that some of the current crop of power brokers ate the onion on the propaganda of the previous crop and so they don't actually understand the dynamic of the world as it is, but more so understand it through the cartoonish lens that was put together to confuse and distract the public in the past.
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 document on nutritional differences between America and the Soviet Union is actually pretty well written, but I agree with you. The C.I.A post 80s is a lot scarier than the "exploding pen" shenanigans of the post 50s
I agree.
Soviet forced labor at its finest, smh. This is why communism bad
If anyone is interested in reading about Stalin in the words of contemporaries and their first hand accounts:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/strong-anna-louise/1941/x01/stalin.htm
And here is a book recommendation for further reading: "The Stalin Era"
Lol, I mean I know malekov is like a trillion times better than kruschev and beria but still, kinda a bit of a L considering if Stalin was allowed to resign then it's unlikely a power struggle would of happened that would allow for the cuckold reformists to take power (yes, I am saying Stalin being prevented from resigning in 1953 did indeed kickstart the series of events which lead to the fall of the USSR)
I agree
Where is the source for this? I've seen it around a few times, not that I don't believe it just want to keep it tucked away for lib purposes.
Sourced from Awoo and Alaskaball on Hexbear
October 16, 1952 (http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/):
This article was taken from the Russian newspaper Glasnost devoted to the 120th Anniversary of Stalin’s birth, was the last speech at the CC [Central Committee] CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] before Stalin died. The text was being published for the very first time in the Soviet Union...
...MOLOTOV – [Glasnost -] coming to the speaker’s tribune completely admits his mistakes before the CC, but he stated that he is and will always be a faithful disciple of Stalin.
STALIN – (interrupting Molotov) This is nonsense. I have no students at all. We are all students of the great Lenin.
[Glasnost -] Stalin suggested that they continue the agenda point by point and elect comrades into different committees of state.
With no Politburo, there is now elected a Presidium of the CC CPSU in the enlarged CC and in the Secretariat of the CC CPSU altogether 36 members.
In the new list of those elected are all members of the old Politbiuro – except that of comrade A. A. Andreev who, as everyone knows now is unfortunately completely deaf and thus can not function.
VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.
STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!
MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.
Same attempt (A. I. Mgeladze, Stalin. Kakim ia ego znal. Strannitsy nedavnogo poshlogo. p. 118):
At the first Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] called after the XIX Congress of the Party (I had been elected member of the CC and took part in the work of this Plenum), Stalin really did present the question of General Secretary of the CC CPSU, or of the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. He referred to his age, overwork, said that other cadres had cropped up and there were people to replace him, for example, N.I. Bulganin could be appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, but the CC members did not grant his request, all insisted that comrade Stalin remain at both positions.
Awesome!! Thank you, saved.
pretty much Western chauvinism for ya. Out of curiosity, why'd they kept rejecting his resignation requests? Couldn't find this info by searching..
By theory, having one leader over a long period ensure more stability and completion of long-term projects. It should have similar reason as the reason why the United Kingdoms and United States suspend election during the second war between the European empires.
The same reason the Cubans kept electing Fidel Castro.
Probably because he was doing such a good job.
Pretty much this, after the whole (industrialising the entire country to the point that we can outproduce most of the Axis combined, even after loosing a shit load of territory during WW2) Stalin was effectively trapped in his position for his remaining days, plus I think it should be noted Stalin died really young (like 53) so most members of the Politburo and Supreme soviet didn't really think Stalin had any real reason to resign, if Stalin didn't die from his heart (or more likely , poisoning from Beria.) then it's likely Stalin would of been leading the USSR well into the 1970s considering the average life expectancy of the USSR at the time.
Stalin was already in his mid 70's by the time he died, so I wouldn't really call him young. Still, maybe the USSR would still exist today if he managed to live into his 90's, 
style.
if Stalin didn’t die from his heart (or more likely , poisoning from Beria.) then it’s likely Stalin would of been leading the USSR well into the 1970s considering the average life expectancy of the USSR at the time.
I mean yeah, though to be honest I think after WW2 Stalin was dealing with a shit load of stress (well, even before then, during the begining of operation Barbarossa the guy has a massive mental breakdown for like more than a week, probably due to the sheer speed of the German advance and how it looked to be almost unstoppable at the time.) so I think Stalin trying to resign in 1952 was likely due to stress related reasons, not to mention if Stalin simply resigned and well, didn't die of either stress or poisoning (not that it really matters since the guy who may have did the poisoning was killed like 5 nanoseconds after Stalins death.) then it's likely that a seemly succession process could of been held which would keep out cringelords like Kruschev or Beria.
Basically the moral of the story for future or current AES states, if your amazing leader wants to retire, then let him/her, sure you'll lose their guidance but there's probably a reason why they want to retire yknow?
massive mental breakdown for like more than a week
Iirc this is Khrushchev revisionism. Or at least the secretary notes and hours (or whatever they're called, showing the comings and going of people out of Stalin's office by the hour) show Stalin meeting with leaders and working tirelessly for like 40 hours straight prior to and after the invasion. Then he goes home and presumably tries to sleep, but returns like 4 hours later to work another 24 hours
/\ this is off the top of my head and definitely not 100% accurate. I have my notes and possibly the source somewhere, I'll see if I can dig them up.
Fair... I guess a better question is: Why did he want to resign in the first place? Try as I might from avoiding Nazilib misinformation from search results, I found this in the ProleWiki:
https://socialistmlmusings.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/stalins-four-attempts-at-resignation/
but nothing seems cut-clear about his motivation to quit... There's this baller quote though:
What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.
Positions of power & leadership are stressful. He was probably just tired of it all. Especially considering he was in office for some of the most stressful periods of Soviet history.
this is why he was so hungry for all that ukrainian grain, poor guy had such a low blood sugar