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 4 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 4 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

And that's different from Amerikkka how?

Pot calling the kettle black. 🤷

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 4 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 4 months ago

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