Hoxhaism and Titoism

[Qayin]

I know Hoxhaism is a concept applied to Enver Hoxha's running of Albania,but theoretically what is it compared to Leninism and Stalinism?Is it an extention to Marxism-Lenninism-Stalinism-Maoism? What new theories and ways of scientific socailism does it bring to the table?

I hear a lot about A hoxha union what exactly is that?

And also could someone explain Titoism to me?

[Qayin]

shameless bump

[fatboy]

The Stalin-Tito split was when Stalin was being a social imperialist. He tried to completely control Yugoslavia but Tito did not completely submit to his will. (

[Gustav HK]

Hoxhaism is an extension to marxism-leninism-stalinism, they are not maoists.
One of the ideas of maoism, that Hoxha criticized was the three-worlds theory, where the struggle between classes is made into a struggle between third world countries and first world countries, and that nearly everyone in the first world countries is bourgeois.

Hoxhaism supports a strong party, and sometimes they open pronounce support of the one-party state by saying that in a workers state only the workers party must exist.

I think that the Hoxhaist Union is a hoxhaist organisation.

Titoism is a form of socialist market economy, where there are many worker-controlled corporations, which are competing against each other.

[Qayin]

Would you say Titoism is revisionist?

[Angry Young Man]

I didn't know Titoism was a market-socialist theory.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Would you say Titoism is revisionist?
Yes, it allowed private property into existence and not emphasizing more on the workers' control. Tito also have normal relationships with the imperialist west and do not seek revolution beyond the border.

[Absolut]

Yes, it allowed private property into existence and not emphasizing more on the workers' control. Tito also have normal relationships with the imperialist west and do not seek revolution beyond the border.

From what Ive read, he concentrated a lot on workers control. It was certainly a more market economy-influenced economy, where, as someone earlier pointed out, the companies competed against each other, but they were no doubt controlled by workers, at least in a much larger extent than many other socialist countries. Youll also have to take into account that Tito and Yugoslavia was excluded by the Warsaw Pact countries, thus leaving them at the hands of the US and the other imperialist powers. Yugoslavia could be no means become self-sufficient and it needed raw materials for its new factories, and with the Soviet Union and its puppets giving them the cold hand, the only other choice was the West. Its understandable that Titoism took on a more market liberal stance than the rest of the socialist world, wether or not it is excusable is another question. When stating things like "he allowed private property" you have to take into account the demographics and the state the country was in after WWII. No other socialist country had such demographics, with several large minorities, all wanting whats best for themselves. Then take into account that virtually everything was in ruins after they had beaten the Germans and that they had to start from scratch.

To my knowledge, Tito supported the Greek communist partisans (while the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries didnt, if Im not mistaken) fighting the newly instated West-friendly regime in Greece with arms and materials until the Greek communists decided to side with Stalin in the Stalin-Tito split. Taking into account that Greece actually isnt within the Yugoslav territory, Id have to say youre wrong when youre saying that Tito didnt seek revolution outside of the Yugoslavian borders.

We havent even touched the political freedoms that actually existed in the country either, which alone makes it different from every other socialist country (with a few exceptions, I guess). What Im trying to get at is that you cant use the same measures for every country, to see how far theyve gotten towards communism. The conditions are different everywhere, and the measures taken on, for example, Cuba, may not have worked in Yugoslavia or any other country. Socialism is an ongoing experiment, and personally, I think Tito did the best he could with what he had, unlike the rest of the world.

[Red October]

I think that the Hoxhaist Union is a hoxhaist organisation.

I heard they were actually crypto-trotskyite revisionists...

Hoxhaism is pretty much just "orthodox Stalinism" if you want to use those terms. They're very much against the reforms of the USSR after Stalin and uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha as the "Five Classics", which is where they get pretty much all their theory from. No one seems to be super clear on exactly what groundbreaking new ideas Hoxha contributed to Marxism though.

[Random Precision]

Tito also have normal relationships with the imperialist west and do not seek revolution beyond the border.

One could say the same of Stalin.

[Bright Banana Beard]

One could say the same of Stalin.
QFT, but I never like Stalin nor care about him, he is crap to me, what is your point?

[Random Precision]

QFT, but I never like Stalin nor care about him, he is crap to me, what is your point?

My apologies, I thought you were an anti-revisionist.