Collective leadership is rule of the Politbureau - a group of ~10 party officials, of the Council of Ministers - a group of 7 bureaucrats, and of the Central Committee - a group of several dozen party officials, picked by the leadership from the GenSec's loyalists. Stalin held presiding positions in all three.

Party oligarchy is different from a one-man dictatorship, and CIA agrees on that.

I don't know how that helps your point though.

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Okay mister Bolshevik. What you write is contrary to everything that I've read about soviet governance, but I guess I'll just have to take your word for it.

The collective west is currently taking part in an active genocide, out in the open for all to see. But gommunism bad holodomor vuvuzela no iPhone. We can't upset the genocidal ruling class now, can we?

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Okay mister Bolshevik. What you write is contrary to everything that I’ve read about soviet governance, but I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

I am neither a mister nor a Bolshevik. If you don't know the meaning of "collective leadership", then it's on you.

The collective west is currently taking part in an active genocide, out in the open for all to see. But gommunism bad holodomor vuvuzela no iPhone. We can’t upset the genocidal ruling class now, can we?

Are you having a stroke?

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago

I am neither a mister nor a Bolshevik.

I'll take the L on this one. I shouldn't have assumed your gender. I'm sorry.

The Bolshevik thing was sarcasm.

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Regarding what CIA means by "collective leadership":

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-01446R000100020012-2.pdf

It is entirely possible that the Soviet leaders are about to develop a new form of "dictatorship by committee", giving them the advantage of appearing to be quasi-democratic.

When we speak of collective leadership, we mean a committee of a very few men, probably not more than five or six. The larger the membership, the greater the likelihood that fractionalization may occur, dividing the committee into antagonistic groups.

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So the CIA calls him a dictator in one memo and not in another. I suppose that proves nothing in the end. Except that the CIA clearly doesn't understand Soviet governance based on the other details in the memo that you linked.

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They call Soviet leadership a party oligarchy in both cases. They do not "agree" with you in any way shape or form.

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

And that's different from Amerikkka how?

Pot calling the kettle black. 🤷

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Wait so you do agree USSR was a party oligarchy?

Both the pot and the kettle are black cause they are covered in soot.

[–] o_d@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago

I do not. You say that the CIA does however, so the analogy still works.