Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?

  • Rogue
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    No evidence? Aren’t there a ridiculous number of cases where the CIA openly destabilised communist regimes?

    • frazorth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      The CIA openly destabilises monarchies, republics and democracies as well.

      There is little evidence that the CIA specifically targets communist countries, more that they target anything thats not America.

      • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        13 hours ago

        You should check out Willam Blum’s “Killing Hope” (pdf link), and/or “America’s Deadliest Export”, by same (pdf link).

        “During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

        If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

        ― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

      • Aqarius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        … Dude, I don’t know if you’ve heard about this thing, but it was pretty big. They called it “the cold war”.

        • frazorth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          I didn’t say they didn’t overthrow Communist governments.

          You may have heard of this thing called Iran? They aren’t picky about who they hurt.

          • Aqarius@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 hours ago

            The argument for Iran was that Mossadegh was “turning towards communism”. Same for Allende, same for Arbenz. Hell, just the concept of “domino theory” was all about stopping the spread of communism. Pretending they were some sort of equal opportunity saboteurs is deeply disingenuous.