Good question. No. It was not. Please read about it. There is plenty of writing about the political structure of the USSR, its constitutional documents, its legal and court systems, etc. It is imminently possible for you to learn about it if you’re curious
And at what point is it no longer a “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Do you really think, say, the Soviet leaders were looking out “for the proletariat”? Is Kim Jong-Un doing so because the country’s official name contains the word “people”?
The working class saw a doubling of life expectancy, reduced working hours, tripled literacy rates, cheap or free housing, free, high quality healthcare and education, and the gap between the top and bottom of society was around ten times, as opposed to thousands to millions. The structure of society in socialist countries is fashioned so that the working class is the prime beneficiary. Having “people” in the name of the country makes no difference on structure, be it the PRC, DPRK, or otherwise, what matters is the structure of society.
What are you talking about about? Go read a goddamned book about the political structure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, its many voting structures, its multiple state entities, its levels of power of distribution, and THEN try to argue that 1 person had full power.
It’s ridiculous to think that your level of ignorance counts as a political perspective on history.
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
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.
Do we just take it as true because it’s from CIA, even though we have no other information about it or what?
Funny how you libs always pull out skepticism when it’s against the western narrative
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.
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.
It doesn’t sound like you have any of the info that would make this a credible document. CIA hosts a shitload of documents and a lot of them are absolute bunk and directly contradictory. They’ve collected a lot of reports over all the decades they’ve been around, that’s sorta their job and then they evaluate that information and based on that try to sus out the true information. Unfortunately we have no idea what the CIA itself thought of this info, at the time of release they haven’t evalued 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.
Let me ask it this way: what makes you think that this report is credible, factual and trustworthy?
You don’t, though, this is ahistorical. Not only was the politburo a team, but the politburo wasn’t all-powerful, merely the central organ. There was a huge deal of local autonomy.
There was no dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky prevented labor unions from going on strike. War communism was forcing workers to labor as slaves. The new economic policy sent managers bourgeois back to run the factories.
It was a top down dictatorship. Not a bottom up dictatorship of the proletariat. It was supposed to be all the power to the soviets. The soviets ended up being a tool for the politburo.
This is remarkably liberal. In times of existential war, strict control and competent planning was necessary. The NEP was strictly necessary going from barely out of feudalism to a somewhat developed industrial base upon which economic planning can actually function properly. The system of soviet democracy waa far better at letting workers run society, and the wealthiest in the USSR were only about ten times as wealthy as the poorest (as compared to the thousands to millions under Tsarism and now capitalism).
The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, through and through. There is no fantasy version of socialism that can ever exist without needing to deal with existing conditions, obstacles, and barriers.
This idea would seem to rest on the logic that any given poor person would be less likely to be corrupted by power than a given rich person (presumably due to their experiences being poor). In my experience when you give someone who is used to destitution access to power and resources their instincts are incredibly self serving. Being part of the proletariat does not automatically indicate any amount of empathy, humility, self control, forward thinking, or any other characteristic of a good, fair leader.
And how does a dictatorship by a particular class meaningfully differentiate itself from a dictatorship by an individual? On a practical level, would the dictatorial class elect their own leaders democratically, have internal struggles to chose the dominant leader based on perceived merits and authority, or expect the collective of the class rule autonomously?
I can intuit this system working with democratic internal elections, but i would struggle to refer to such a system as a “doctatorship”. The proletariet don’t represent a homogeneous group with uniform needs and so would need robust democratic structures for the system to not break down into authoritarianism the first less than perfectly cool leader shows up.
Also, how do you keep the bourgeoisie from just claiming to be proletariat and gaining access to the leadership class over the immediate time frame without inducing cruelty that will earn retaliation? And then again how do you prevent infiltration over the course of generations without committing genocide? I can see maybe just wanting to strip all of the bourgeoisie of their wealth and attempting to integrate into the proletariat, but without strong democratic structures the formerly powerful would trivially coopt the whole system for their gain, or even sabatoge it to prevent others from “getting ahead” or even to exact revenge?
This comment is filled with baked-in assumptions on your part without any evidence of you trying to understand the systems beforehand. Marx used the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” to contrast liberal democracy as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Proletarian democracy depends on the large firms and key industries at minimum being publicly owned, so that the working class controls the economy and what everything else relies on.
You can’t “hide” being bourgeoisie, and there’s no reason “genocide” is necessary. These are ridiculous notions. Infiltration by opportunists is something that exists, and is why you can get kicked out of any competent party for wrecker behavior or opportinism.
No, the soviet union was democtatic. It was even dissolved through a vote. The soviet union had a more comprehensive and complex system of democracy than liberal democracy.
Isn’t that what USSR was, dictatorship?
Good question. No. It was not. Please read about it. There is plenty of writing about the political structure of the USSR, its constitutional documents, its legal and court systems, etc. It is imminently possible for you to learn about it if you’re curious
Dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the people
And at what point is it no longer a “dictatorship of the proletariat”? Do you really think, say, the Soviet leaders were looking out “for the proletariat”? Is Kim Jong-Un doing so because the country’s official name contains the word “people”?
The working class saw a doubling of life expectancy, reduced working hours, tripled literacy rates, cheap or free housing, free, high quality healthcare and education, and the gap between the top and bottom of society was around ten times, as opposed to thousands to millions. The structure of society in socialist countries is fashioned so that the working class is the prime beneficiary. Having “people” in the name of the country makes no difference on structure, be it the PRC, DPRK, or otherwise, what matters is the structure of society.
How? You still have 1 person having full power instead of being first among equals?
What are you talking about about? Go read a goddamned book about the political structure of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, its many voting structures, its multiple state entities, its levels of power of distribution, and THEN try to argue that 1 person had full power.
It’s ridiculous to think that your level of ignorance counts as a political perspective on history.
Stalin was a captain of a team
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Counterpoint:
What’s the background for this report, who compiled it, what the sources were and so on?
It sounds pretty dubious since it has big ass text at the start saying
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
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.
Do we just take it as true because it’s from CIA, even though we have no other information about it or what?
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.
I believe this is the page you’re looking for. It’s very minimal. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80-00810a006000360009-0
Might as well ask Snowden or a top ranking official
Why do you think they host it?
Do you even know what bias is?
It doesn’t sound like you have any of the info that would make this a credible document. CIA hosts a shitload of documents and a lot of them are absolute bunk and directly contradictory. They’ve collected a lot of reports over all the decades they’ve been around, that’s sorta their job and then they evaluate that information and based on that try to sus out the true information. Unfortunately we have no idea what the CIA itself thought of this info, at the time of release they haven’t evalued 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.
Let me ask it this way: what makes you think that this report is credible, factual and trustworthy?
You don’t, though, this is ahistorical. Not only was the politburo a team, but the politburo wasn’t all-powerful, merely the central organ. There was a huge deal of local autonomy.
There was no dictatorship of the proletariat. Trotsky prevented labor unions from going on strike. War communism was forcing workers to labor as slaves. The new economic policy sent managers bourgeois back to run the factories.
It was a top down dictatorship. Not a bottom up dictatorship of the proletariat. It was supposed to be all the power to the soviets. The soviets ended up being a tool for the politburo.
This is remarkably liberal. In times of existential war, strict control and competent planning was necessary. The NEP was strictly necessary going from barely out of feudalism to a somewhat developed industrial base upon which economic planning can actually function properly. The system of soviet democracy waa far better at letting workers run society, and the wealthiest in the USSR were only about ten times as wealthy as the poorest (as compared to the thousands to millions under Tsarism and now capitalism).
The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, through and through. There is no fantasy version of socialism that can ever exist without needing to deal with existing conditions, obstacles, and barriers.
deleted by creator
This idea would seem to rest on the logic that any given poor person would be less likely to be corrupted by power than a given rich person (presumably due to their experiences being poor). In my experience when you give someone who is used to destitution access to power and resources their instincts are incredibly self serving. Being part of the proletariat does not automatically indicate any amount of empathy, humility, self control, forward thinking, or any other characteristic of a good, fair leader.
Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean “a random worker becomes dictator”, it means the workers dictate the rules.
And how does a dictatorship by a particular class meaningfully differentiate itself from a dictatorship by an individual? On a practical level, would the dictatorial class elect their own leaders democratically, have internal struggles to chose the dominant leader based on perceived merits and authority, or expect the collective of the class rule autonomously?
I can intuit this system working with democratic internal elections, but i would struggle to refer to such a system as a “doctatorship”. The proletariet don’t represent a homogeneous group with uniform needs and so would need robust democratic structures for the system to not break down into authoritarianism the first less than perfectly cool leader shows up.
Also, how do you keep the bourgeoisie from just claiming to be proletariat and gaining access to the leadership class over the immediate time frame without inducing cruelty that will earn retaliation? And then again how do you prevent infiltration over the course of generations without committing genocide? I can see maybe just wanting to strip all of the bourgeoisie of their wealth and attempting to integrate into the proletariat, but without strong democratic structures the formerly powerful would trivially coopt the whole system for their gain, or even sabatoge it to prevent others from “getting ahead” or even to exact revenge?
This comment is filled with baked-in assumptions on your part without any evidence of you trying to understand the systems beforehand. Marx used the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” to contrast liberal democracy as the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Proletarian democracy depends on the large firms and key industries at minimum being publicly owned, so that the working class controls the economy and what everything else relies on.
You can’t “hide” being bourgeoisie, and there’s no reason “genocide” is necessary. These are ridiculous notions. Infiltration by opportunists is something that exists, and is why you can get kicked out of any competent party for wrecker behavior or opportinism.
No, the soviet union was democtatic. It was even dissolved through a vote. The soviet union had a more comprehensive and complex system of democracy than liberal democracy.