Depends on the meaning they are using in the last line; it may not be contradictory. In the communist meaning, it’s not out of line to say a socialist state is a kind of dictatorship, as long as you are saying it’s one that is collectively exercised by the working class (e.g. “dictatorship of the proletariat”, meaning that the capitalist class is suppressed and not allowed to hold political power). It’s when people say communist efforts are a sole individual being dictator for their own benefit that they’re wrong and it makes sense that internally, the CIA would want to be clear on this distinction because their goal is to be effective, not lie to themselves about the nature of who they’re trying to seize power from. At this point in history, they may have eaten the onion more so, I don’t know, but in that time at least, they had to have had some clarity going on to be as effective as they were with all the coups and everything.
I think you’re being very charitable about the CIA’s claim. While the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, I’m pretty sure the CIA meant dictatorship in the way most people use the term.
Well… I don’t mean it in any charitable way toward the CIA as an organization. They are one of the most brutal organizations in recorded history, if we consider the consequences for millions. If I understand right, this is one of those documents that was originally internal and classified, and only released decades later. So I guess part of the question here comes down to, how afraid were they of acknowledging internally what communism is really like. What portion of them were people who more or less got it, but were elitists anyway because they shared the interests of the capitalist class, and what portion were people who bought the US narrative of being “for the people” and “defenders of democracy.”
Depends on the meaning they are using in the last line; it may not be contradictory. In the communist meaning, it’s not out of line to say a socialist state is a kind of dictatorship, as long as you are saying it’s one that is collectively exercised by the working class (e.g. “dictatorship of the proletariat”, meaning that the capitalist class is suppressed and not allowed to hold political power). It’s when people say communist efforts are a sole individual being dictator for their own benefit that they’re wrong and it makes sense that internally, the CIA would want to be clear on this distinction because their goal is to be effective, not lie to themselves about the nature of who they’re trying to seize power from. At this point in history, they may have eaten the onion more so, I don’t know, but in that time at least, they had to have had some clarity going on to be as effective as they were with all the coups and everything.
I think you’re being very charitable about the CIA’s claim. While the USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, I’m pretty sure the CIA meant dictatorship in the way most people use the term.
Well… I don’t mean it in any charitable way toward the CIA as an organization. They are one of the most brutal organizations in recorded history, if we consider the consequences for millions. If I understand right, this is one of those documents that was originally internal and classified, and only released decades later. So I guess part of the question here comes down to, how afraid were they of acknowledging internally what communism is really like. What portion of them were people who more or less got it, but were elitists anyway because they shared the interests of the capitalist class, and what portion were people who bought the US narrative of being “for the people” and “defenders of democracy.”