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?

Let me ask it this way: what makes you think that this report is credible, factual and trustworthy?

I already answered above. It fits into the picture of historical accounts of Stalin and of how bias and interests work in regards to a nation state and it's geopolitical competitors.

You're convently ignoring the context in which this document exists and how its content relates to 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

Your try at abstracting something this complex fails. It's more akin having two libraries with two different accounts of history where some books are deliberately hidden (for various reasons, it exists and wasn't destroyed). This is a now a made-public book confirming the other libraries accunt history with their own source

Also:

The CIAs work is sloppy and they lie to themselves in their top secret documents. It was a soviet double agent collecting this

It sounds like you consider this document good evidence because it already aligns with what you believe in and not on the merits of how the information was gathered, how it was verified or any sort of other merits you'd usually evaluate such information when you want to use it as evidence.

And I don't think CIA was sloppy. But this again hasn't been even evalued by them, as it says on big bold letters right at the start. We have no idea what CIA actually thought of this document since we have basically no info on it. Sorry to say.

We're discussing the account of Stalin and collective leadership vs top down and not the validity of this document. Good try on moving the goal post.

Also It's not good evidence, but a valueable piece of a larger puzzle, where one understands the dynamics of political economy and has to piece it together through these. If you'd read any theory at all, you know history is always written by the dominant class and one has to read through the lines with documents like this.

Sounds like you take the western account of history for granted, and don't engage with different views. It sounds like youre taking Information by diametrically opposed forces at face value. I too would like topics like feminism explained by anti-feminists, anarchism by an anti-anarchist, Marxism by a lib etc. I definitely never engage with what the other side says

You used this document as evidence to support your argument. Of course the credibility and validity of the document is a subject for discussion.

Also It’s not good evidence, but a valueable piece of a larger puzzle, where one understands the dynamics of political economy and has to piece it together through these. If you’d read any theory at all, you know history is always written by the dominant class and one has to read through the lines with documents like this.

We have no idea who actually wrote this document. Just further pointing out how useless it really is. And believe me I'd be really interested to know the backstory of the document from a historical pov.

I used the document to highlight that even in the CIA there were people thinking Stalin is a captain of a team. I did however also point to Domenico Losurdos to underscore how its fits to existing historical accounts from a Marxist perspective

I’d be really interested to know the backstory of the document from a historical pov.

I agree, It's interesting to think about how a classified top secret document like this exists that basically could've been written by a leftie. To have this many points synthesized it required a bunch of fieldwork to come together like this, even if unevaluated.
Another interesting aspect to think about is how it relates to current dominant western narratives in regards to current geopolitical rivals

But it doesn't show that CIA thought that, as I've tried to explain. You're taking a random document we know barely anything about as some official or truly held position CIA had on the matter and that's just not what it shows.

I agree, It’s interesting to think about how a classified top secret document like this exists that basically could’ve been written by a leftie. To have this many points synthesized it required a bunch of fieldwork to come together like this, even if unevaluated. Another interesting aspect to think about is how it relates to current dominant western narratives in regards to current geopolitical rivals

I mean we don't know who wrote it, what they did to arrive to their conclusions, what was their goal, position, experience, anything really. For all we know they based it on random chatter someone heard from a friend of a friend's dog walker. That's what makes it worthless as any sort of evidence. We have a random quote or opinion, basically. To have any sort of weight, you'd need something at least, but now we have nothing.