What about Hoxha?

[ReggaeCat]

Since Im from Albania and it's my first thread xD what's your opinion about socialist comrade hoxha at about 1945 till 1985 .....It feels good to be from a socialist state although nowadays Albania is like....OMG.Fucking Berisha.....anyways...

[hugsandmarxism]

I like the guy. He was an effective partisan in WWII, and made some solid forward strides in the name of solcialist Albania (I especially like his work in ensuring equality for women). You're bound to get some trolling from the many liberals who abound on Revleft for bringing up such a "shameless Stalinist" in conversation. Nonetheless, there are some bright Hoxhaists on here who can offer a more enlightened perspective than I. Prarie Fire case and point.

[Ismail]

He was a good Marxist who generally did the best he could to construct socialism in the context of every other state wanting to overthrow him.

There's not much one could say besides this that hasn't been said many times before.

[Искра]

"Comrade Hoxha, is it true that you collect political jokes?" — "Yes" — "And how many have you collected so far?" — "Three and a half labor camps."

[Ismail]

As compared with Tito's Goli otok, which imprisoned various Marxist-Leninists and "troublesome" Albanians? And which had more prisoners than Albania's prisons ever did?

[Prairie Fire]

Welcome comrade ReggaeCat. Rrofte partia e punes e shqiperise! (I probably spelled that wrong, so forgive my poor grammar).

Unë jam i përfshirë me një parti amerikan që vijon idetë e Enver Hoxhës. Nëse dëshironi të dini më shumë, ose të bëhet aktive me organizimin e ndërkombëtare Dërgo Ismail tim shok një mesazh.

Again, the grammatical errors are probably huge on that. English is my first language, so the sentence structure might be a bit out of place.

There are several comrades around the world who supported the Albanian party of Labour, notably the CPC-ML in my country and now the APL in the United States. We have taken a lot of knowledge from the Albanian experience, and many of us internationally consider the Albanian experience as the most genuine attempt at the building of socialism to date.

Send a persynal message to myself, or Comrade Ismail.




Prarie Fire case and point.


You're making me blush.

[hugsandmarxism]

Anyhow, on a related note, anyone have any good ideas for reading on Hoxha's partisan activities? I've only found a vague summary or two.

[cb9's_unity]

I like the guy. He was an effective partisan in WWII, and made some solid forward strides in the name of solcialist Albania (I especially like his work in ensuring equality for women). You're bound to get some trolling from the many liberals who abound on Revleft for bringing up such a "shameless Stalinist" in conversation. Nonetheless, there are some bright Hoxhaists on here who can offer a more enlightened perspective than I. Prarie Fire case and point.

If there are liberals outside of the OI you should probably bring it up with the mods or admins. If by liberal you mean those on this site who aren't "Marxist-Leninists" or supporters of Hoxha then you should probably seriously consider getting off your sectarian high horse.

I have only been exposed to the man's idea for a short time so I'll refrain from giving my opinions on him. However I have seen many genuine socialists criticize him and thus don't appreciate attempts to slander them or belittle their socialistic qualities. Try to avoid being as ignorant as those who like to call Bush a nazi or Obama a socialist for purely biased political reasons.

[Искра]

As compared with Tito's Goli otok, which imprisoned various Marxist-Leninists and "troublesome" Albanians? And which had more prisoners than Albania's prisons ever did?
You don't have sense of humor.
Like do I care about justifying Tito... he's totalitarian prick.
And also, isn't quite stupid to say: And which had more prisoners than Albania's prisons ever did?
What are you trying to prove? Should we make competition which state capitalist dictatorship had more prisoners?? New high score has been set up by our glorious leader Mao tse Tung. Comrade Stalin is little bit depressed right now, but you know what they say: Practice makes perfect.

:rolleyes:

[Emre]

Anyhow, on a related note, anyone have any good ideas for reading on Hoxha's partisan activities? I've only found a vague summary or two.
Volume 1 of his Selected Works, The Anglo-American Threat to Albania and Laying the Foundations of the New Albania. Available from John Buckle Books in London, the RCPB-ML bookshop.

[Kayser_Soso]

You don't have sense of humor.
Like do I care about justifying Tito... he's totalitarian prick.
And also, isn't quite stupid to say: And which had more prisoners than Albania's prisons ever did?
What are you trying to prove? Should we make competition which state capitalist dictatorship had more prisoners?? New high score has been set up by our glorious leader Mao tse Tung. Comrade Stalin is little bit depressed right now, but you know what they say: Practice makes perfect.

:rolleyes:



Anarchists have no need for prisons- they just shoot anybody who disobeys their commands without a trial. Saves time I guess.

[ls]

This thread demonstrates why so many newbies simply cease posting on revleft pretty quick.

Instead of being sectarian (on any side), why not try to channel it into a constructive debate I don't know.. maybe? Just once? :rolleyes:

[Bright Banana Beard]

This thread demonstrates why so many newbies simply cease posting on revleft pretty quick.

Instead of being sectarian (on any side), why not try to channel it into a constructive debate I don't know.. maybe? Just once? :rolleyes:

Funny, you anarchists have to mention death (look at Jurko's post for labour camp) as this is something preventable and arguing why it is nessecary to abandon socialism for bourgeoise democracy while we evil leninists think we should improve it to prevent any more tragedies.

[Tjis]

Funny, you anarchists have to mention death (look at Jurko's post for labour camp) as this is something preventable and arguing why it is nessecary to abandon socialism for bourgeoise democracy

Stopped reading there.
Please explain how anarchists want to abandon socialism for bourgeois democracy, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't throw around slander like that if you can't back it up.

About Hoxha - The fact that this guy is such a big deal in the first place is what bothers me. Had the Albanian working class truely controlled the means of production, then Hoxha would have been powerless and therefore irrelevant. Instead, the guy apparently ran the country. How's that socialist? How's that working class control over the means of production?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Stopped reading there.
Please explain how anarchists want to abandon socialism for bourgeois democracy, or shut the fuck up about it. Don't throw around slander like that if you can't back it up.I seen many anarchists are emphasizing more on destroying the leftists parties such as socialist parties, communist parties, and republican parties and had been leeching off. (One time, FAI do not attack the front for 10 months despite calling for help by socialists, communists, and republicans.) If anything, it is justifying to attack anarchists for leeching off and doing nothing to help fighting but mainly, what they was doing was attacking socialists, communists, and republicans. One time, the FAI went to Madrid to steal the gold from Republican to fund their production.


About Hoxha - The fact that this guy is such a big deal in the first place is what bothers me. It is not a big deal, it is just a another evil trend of Leninism you don't even care.


Had the Albanian working class truely controlled the means of production, then Hoxha would have been powerless and therefore irrelevant.Instead, they lend their support to Hoxha(look below) and he is still popular.

From Library of Congress: Albania's general class structure at the time of the communist takeover in 1944 consisted of peasants and workers, who made up the lower class, and a small upper class. ... and abolished all ranks and privileges based on heredity (such as those enjoyed by tribal chiefs and the beys), position, wealth, or cultural standing. According to the constitution, all citizens were equal, regardless of nationality, race, or religion.

As we can see, the Albanian Party of Labor was largely made up of workers and peasants. They still exists to this day and contains many workers and peasants.


Instead, the guy apparently ran the country. How's that socialist? How's that working class control over the means of production?93% of Albanian voters voted for Democratic Front (previously the National Liberation Movement then the National Liberation Front) during the 1945 elections. They barely had any weapons and technology. The working class furiously destroyed landowners, capitalists, and chief of many tribes.

Then 1991 in Albania: They also demanded social security guarantees, reestablishment of electrical service in many towns, and deliveries of raw materials to idle factories. Management often backed the workers' demands to the government. The were strikes as well as mass protests in central Tiranë and elsewhere. In mid-1991, the Council of Ministers drafted a law on labor relations that eliminated the job security Albanian workers had enjoyed under the communist system, allowing firms to dismiss workers who violated disciplinary standards.

To you, however, this is good news that socialist Albania collapsed. :rolleyes:

source: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/altoc.html (This time, it is not a communist source despite it obvious anti-communism.)

[Pogue]

I seen many anarchists are emphasizing more on destroying the leftists parties such as socialist parties, communist parties, and republican parties and had been leeching off. (One time, FAI do not attack the front for 10 months despite calling for help by socialists, communists, and republicans.) If anything, it is justifying to attack anarchists for leeching off and doing nothing to help fighting but mainly, what they was doing was attacking socialists, communists, and republicans. One time, the FAI went to Madrid to steal the gold from Republican to fund their production.



Source your ridiculous claims.

Hoxha fllowed the basic model fo Marxist-Leninist states, i.e. he was the leader, the main personality, of an authoritarian state which managed the emans of production. realistically, Hoxha's Albania was an irrelevancy to the working class as it simply represented another form of class society, this one simply dominated by a state, as seen in all the other 'socialist states', but in contrast to say, Anarchist Catalonia, where life was fundamentally changed by a working class social revolution that put the working class in control of the society they lived in.

Albania was characterised by a repressive state, a lack of civil liberties and widespread social decay. It basically follwoed the general model of isolated state capitalist states, i.e. it enriched a few at the top at expense of the population, and any potential dissent was prevented by a secret police and the creation of a threat (there was of course a real threat, but not to the working class but to Albania's political elite). Look at the militarisation of the country through the training of armed combat widespread towards the end of the regime.

Ultimately, another capitalist regime, supproted by our eternal bullshitters the Marxist-Leninists, Hoxhaists or whatever one of their Fruedianesque idols they happen to be carrying a portrait of today. A blotch on history, and an isnult to the word socialism and the working class, Hoxha thankfully now is rotting down in his grave and his followers are such an insignificant force we can all mainly have some fun mocking their idiocy.

[communard resolution]

I like the guy (I especially like his work in ensuring equality for women).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he outlaw abortion and thus denied women control over their own bodies?

My knowledge of Hoxha is rudimentary, so if you want to convince me that he was a true champion of women's rights, give it your best shot.

[hugsandmarxism]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he outlaw abortion and thus denied women control over their own bodies?

My knowledge of Hoxha is rudimentary, so if you want to convince me that he was a true champion of women's rights, give it your best shot.

I hate to quote wikipedia, but this section seems well sourced enough:



Later rule

As Hoxha's leadership continued he took on an increasingly theoretical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical) stance. He would write criticisms based both on current events at the time and on theory; most notably his condemnations of Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism) post-1978. One major achievement under Hoxha was the advancement of women's rights. Albania had been one of the most, if not the most, patriarchal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchal) countries in Europe. The Code of Lekë (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Lek%C3%AB), which regulated the status of women, states that "A woman is known as a sack, made to endure as long as she lives in her husband's house."[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-22) Women were not allowed to inherit anything from their parents and discrimination was even made in the case of death.
...the dead woman to be opened up, in order to see whether the fetus is a boy or a girl, If it is a boy, the murderer must pay 3 purses [a set amount of local currency] for the woman's blood and 6 purses for the boy's blood; if it is a girl, aside from the three purses for the murdered woman, 3 purses must also be paid for the female child.
—Code of Lekë Dukagjini[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-23)
Women were absolutely forbidden from getting a divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce), and the parents were obliged to return the daughter to the husband or else suffer shame from the entire tribe which could even culminate into a generations-long blood feud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_feud). During World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), the Albanian Communists encouraged women to join the partisans[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-24) and following the war, women were encouraged to take up menial jobs due to education being out of most women's reach. In 1938, 4% worked in various sectors of the economy. In 1970 this was 38% and in 1982 46%.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-25) During the Cultural and Ideological Revolution (discussed below), women were encouraged to take up all jobs, including government posts, which resulted in 30% of the Central Committee being composed of women by 1985. In 1978, 15.1 times as many females attended 8 Year schools as in 1938 and 175.7 times as many females attended secondary schools as in 1938. 101.9 times as many women attended higher schools in 1978 as in 1957.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-26)
The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the sacred edict of the party on the defense of women's rights.
—Enver Hoxha, 1967[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-27)

Considering Albania's stance on women before, I think it's safe to say that advances were made. Now, I don't seek to defend any restriction on abortion that he may have made, though I think we need to understand such things in the context of their times. In the Soviet Union under Stalin, for instance, there were restrictions put on abortion, because there was a significant population decline. I don't support such a measure... but i can understand why it might have been taken. Nonetheless, I'm going to want more information before I dismiss him off hand as a chauvinist, just as you are going to want more information before considering him "a true champion of women's rights."

[communard resolution]

Considering Albania's stance on women before, I think it's safe to say that advances were made

No doubt.


I think we need to understand such things in the context of their times

I think many things can be 'understood' in the context of their times, culture, and social climate, including reactionary measures taken by capitalist governments or anti-abortion campaigns conducted by Christian fundamentalists in the Bible Belt of America - the question is whether we accept these things.

I often wonder why leftists such as Stalin, Hoxha and the revolutionary Cuban government pursued highly reactionary policies when it came to abortion or homosexuality. To point at similar policies in capitalist countries doesn't do anything to excuse the steps that were taken by the presumed liberators of the working class in the Eastern Bloc and elsewhere. Neither do claims that this was some kind of pre-enlightened, pre-PC era - after all, the Russian Bolsheviks had taken a progressive stance on homosexuality and women's liberation as early as in the 1910s and 1920s. The policies issued by Stalinite and post-Stalinite governments were a huge step back, a sign of social reaction.

Hoxha's decision to deprive women of the right to control their own bodies is enough to convince me that he was indeed a chauvinist - though I do acknowledge the gains you cited.



In the Soviet Union under Stalin, for instance, there were restrictions put on abortion, because there was a significant population decline. I don't support such a measure... but i can understand why it might have been taken.

Sure, it's quite straightforward and easy to understand; but without wanting to turn this into a discussion of Hoxha's democractic credentials: do you think such a measure is justified in any case? Even if a majority of the working class had decided against abortions in a democratic vote (which I presume didn't happen)?

[hugsandmarxism]

I think many things can be 'understood' in the context of their times, culture, and social climate, including reactionary measures taken by capitalist governments or anti-abortion campaigns conducted by Christian fundamentalists in the Bible Belt of America - the question is whether we accept these things.

Indeed.


I often wonder why leftists such as Stalin, Hoxha and the revolutionary Cuban government pursued highly reactionary policies when it came to abortion or homosexuality. To point at similar policies in capitalist countries doesn't do anything to excuse the steps that were taken by the presumed liberators of the working class in the Eastern Bloc and elsewhere. Neither do claims that this was some kind of pre-enlightened, pre-PC era - after all, the Russian Bolsheviks had taken a progressive stance on homosexuality and women's liberation as early as in the 1910s and 1920s. The policies issued by Stalinite and post-Stalinite governments were a huge step back, a sign of social reaction.

Well, consider the law of uneven economic and political development. Revolution, social transformation, and progress generally don't proceed on a cut-and-dry path. Indeed, it's easy to be dismissive of overall progress in the face of a few perceived regresses, but if one really wants a nuanced understanding of history that can serve a purpose for later revolutionary undertakings, this sort of knee-jerk denunciation isn't too helpful.


Hoxha's decision to deprive women of the right to control their own bodies is enough to convince me that he was indeed a chauvinist - though I do acknowledge the gains you cited.

Sure. No nuance, just straight-up oppressor of women. If he's not perfectly on one side he's absolutely on the other. Again, this isn't helpful to anyone's understanding.


Sure, it's quite straightforward and easy to understand; but without wanting to turn this into a discussion of Hoxha's democractic credentials: do you think such a measure is justified in any case? Even if a majority of the working class had decided against abortions in a democratic vote (which I presume didn't happen)?

I don't. I would find myself opposed to it, just as I'd find myself opposed to other practices that limit freedom of sexual expression and devalue the autonomy of women. That doesn't mean I'm going to put a red X on the achievements of a revolution because it wasn't perfect. Theory evolves, mistaken ideas are found out for what they are and are understood for being mistakes, and the next generation of communists tries to pursue a better line. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. If we don't want to end up counter-revolutionary cynics, sitting on the sidelines denouncing every past, present, and future revolutionary struggle for not being completely and utterly perfect in every way, we need to learn to appreciated nuance, and build our criticism in a manner that doesn't dismiss the positive.

[communard resolution]

Indeed, it's easy to be dismissive of overall progress in the face of a few perceived regresses

But I wasn't - I addressed only the regresses and wondered why the revolutionary governments took these reactionary steps (denial of bodily autonomy, repression of homosexuals), especially since the early Bolsheviks had been progressive on these matters. I cannot fit these measures into a framework of 'uneven development' as if they had been unavoidable. We're talking about presumedly progressive individuals who make a conscious decision to introduce anti-gay and anti-abortion laws - how could they?

Please help me out here.


Sure. No nuance, just straight-up oppressor of women.I've already stated that I acknowledge the advances for women that you cited - but these don't absolve Hoxha from the audacity of infantilising women by denying them the right to decide what to do with their bodies.

But I'm not too interested in fighting out whether Hoxha can be rightfully called a chauvinist or not. What I want to understand is: why did he and fellow Marxist-Leninists made their people subject to such reprehensible laws?

What were these progressives thinking when deciding upon such measures?

Especially since...



the next generation of communists tries to pursue a better line. ...as the next generation after Lenin and the Bolsheviks of the 1910s/20s, they pursued a much worse, reactionary line.

[ls]

Funny, you anarchists have to mention death (look at Jurko's post for labour camp) as this is something preventable and arguing why it is nessecary to abandon socialism for bourgeoise democracy while we evil leninists think we should improve it to prevent any more tragedies.

This doesn't really make much sense, in any case it just proves my point that you randomly attack me even though I simply pointed out the truth. :rolleyes: Did I attack Hoxhaists in this thread? No. Is it convenient to ignore that? Yes.


I seen many anarchists are emphasizing more on destroying the leftists parties such as socialist parties, communist parties, and republican parties and had been leeching off. (One time, FAI do not attack the front for 10 months despite calling for help by socialists, communists, and republicans.) If anything, it is justifying to attack anarchists for leeching off and doing nothing to help fighting but mainly, what they was doing was attacking socialists, communists, and republicans. One time, the FAI went to Madrid to steal the gold from Republican to fund their production.

You just nicked that off the APL thread didn't you, naughty boy. :cool: I didn't see it sourced on that APL thread either BY THE WAY!

Why don't you source it for us my friend?

[Kayser_Soso]

Yes, anti-abortion laws were sometimes based in hopes of increasing the population during labor shortages. What should have been increased was the spending for creches in the workplace and perhaps boarding school type facilities- but this is hindsight. At times at least, women in the USSR had far more ready access to abortion than their counterparts in America, even today.

As for homosexuals, the principle problem was that science up to that point hadn't advanced far enough. Remember it wasn't until the 1970's that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. In socialist countries, working with what they had, they had erroneously assumed based on the available historical research that homosexuality was a side effect of societies which were extremely repressive toward women. In scientific hindsight we now know this to be wrong, but to people back then it carried validity.

[hugsandmarxism]

What I want to understand is: why did he and fellow Marxist-Leninists made their people subject to such reprehensible laws?

I don't pretend to know the answer, though I'm sure some of the more well-read people here can offer a better explanation. The only point I was trying to make is that, on the whole, the experience of socialist Albania was more positive than negative concerning a variety of issues. If we want to analyize history with a revolutionary purpose in mind, we have to soberly address successes and failures alike.

The question you have stated is of a purely historical nature, and I'm sure a number of prevailing circumstances can be given as to why these reprehensible laws (and I agree that they were reprehensible) were enacted when they were.

But if we want to understand this for a purpose, as in, preventing future revolutions from taking stances that are backward, we need to ask ourselves how reactionary currents in society, undesirable material conditions, and various other factors, can hinder progressive forces from holding the most revolutionary line possible. A better understanding of this sort of thing can help us in the future.

[Kayser_Soso]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he outlaw abortion and thus denied women control over their own bodies?

My knowledge of Hoxha is rudimentary, so if you want to convince me that he was a true champion of women's rights, give it your best shot.


“The entire party and country should hurl into the fire and break the neck of anyone who dared trample underfoot the scared edict of the party on the defense of women's rights.”
- Enver Hoxha, 1967

Hoxha didn't fuck around. Women served throughout the military, scientific fields, and as much as a third of the Central Committee were female. I would say that made more progress on this front than the USSR.

[Radical]

Though I disagee with some of Hoxha's views. I believe he was one of the greatest Communist Leaders in history, that remained loyal to Marxism and Anti-Revisionism until the very end.

As Ismail said, he did the best he could given the conditions.

[BobKKKindle$]

as much as a third of the Central Committee were female.This doesn't prove anything - there are capitalist states where women serve as heads of government (for example, Merkel in Germany) and government ministers (for example, Jacqui Smith in Britain) but we wouldn't say that these countries are progressive when it comes to the condition of women just because the state contains a few women who are drawn from the ranks of the ruling class, especially when these same states are carrying out attacks on abortion rights, and are doing nothing to combat the domestic division of labour, which lies at the heart of sexist oppression under capitalism. The fact that the Albanian government was able to ban abortion and contraception and did nothing to develop creches and the other institutions that are needed to liberate women from the burden of domestic labour tell us that the women who were part of the government were either deprived of meaningful control over policy areas relating to the conditions of women, in which case their inclusion was entirely tokenistic, or that they were not representative of the mass of Albanian women, in which case it is hard to accept that Albania has ever had anything to do with socialism.

For the record, I don't believe there was ever a socialist revolution in Albania, but most people here know that already.


I would say that made more progress on this front than the USSR. Nonsense, the Soviet Russia gave women full access to abortions and contraception, and Lenin was careful to argue that this policy was not motivated by a desire to reduce the population or birth rate, as advocated by Malthusians, but, as with all of the other policies that the infant Soviet republic adopted in relation to women, such as being one of the first countries to give women the right to vote, establishing paid leave after childbirth, creating affordable dining halls and creches, enabling women to divorce their partners at will, and introducing the civil registration of marriages, was designed to achieve gender equality and guarantee women full control over their bodies. It was only once bureaucratic degeneration had taken hold that these gains were destroyed along with workers' control and all of the other gains that had been made possible by the events of 1917. Given that the Albanian government never protected the right to abortion and punished people who tried to gain access to contraceptives it is absurd to argue that Albania was more progressive than the USSR, or progressive in any way whatsoever.


As for homosexuals, the principle problem was that science up to that point hadn't advanced far enoughThis didn't stop Soviet Russia from legalizing homosexuality though, despite apparently not having access to the scientific evidence you believe needs to be in place for homosexuality to be acceptable. In fact there were plenty of sexologists at that time who were arguing in favour of homosexuality being legalized, including the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany, but you're obviously more interested in apologizing for viciously homophobic policies, including the ban that was imposed on male homosexuality under Stalinism in 1933, than approaching history in an honest and open way.


As Ismail said, he did the best he could given the conditions. What do you mean "he" - surely socialism is supposed to be about the collective dictatorship of the working class, and not the personal dictatorship of an individual?

[Kayser_Soso]

This doesn't prove anything - there are capitalist states where women serve as heads of government (for example, Merkel in Germany) and government ministers (for example, Jacqui Smith in Britain) but we wouldn't say that these countries are progressive when it comes to the condition of women just because the state contains a few women who are drawn from the ranks of the ruling class, especially when these same states are carrying out attacks on abortion rights, and are doing nothing to combat the domestic division of labour, which lies at the heart of sexist oppression under capitalism.

So you can't tell the difference between a few female ministers drawn from the ruling class and a third of the country's leadership drawn from female workers. Interesting.



The fact that the Albanian government was able to ban abortion and contraception and did nothing to develop creches and the other institutions that are needed to liberate women from the burden of domestic labour tell us that the women who were part of the government were either deprived of meaningful control over policy areas relating to the conditions of women, in which case their inclusion was entirely tokenistic, or that they were not representative of the mass of Albanian women, in which case it is hard to accept that Albania has ever had anything to do with socialism.

Did nothing to develop creches and other institutions? Where are you getting that from? Furthermore, did you ever consider that because of the massive leaps forward that Albanian women had gained from the revolution- for example, no longer being treated as property and occasionally pimped out by their husbands, perhaps they may have become a bit too complacent to support such measures? Again, you are judging another country through western liberal eyes.



For the record, I don't believe there was ever a socialist revolution in Albania, but most people here know that already.

Actually "most people" would say otherwise.



Nonsense, the Soviet Russia gave women full access to abortions and contraception, and Lenin was careful to argue that this policy was not motivated by a desire to reduce the population or birth rate, as advocated by Malthusians, but, as with all of the other policies that the infant Soviet republic adopted in relation to women, such as being one of the first countries to give women the right to vote, establishing paid leave after childbirth, creating affordable dining halls and creches, enabling women to divorce their partners at will, and introducing the civil registration of marriages, was designed to achieve gender equality and guarantee women full control over their bodies. It was only once bureaucratic degeneration had taken hold that these gains were destroyed along with workers' control and all of the other gains that had been made possible by the events of 1917. Given that the Albanian government never protected the right to abortion and punished people who tried to gain access to contraceptives it is absurd to argue that Albania was more progressive than the USSR, or progressive in any way whatsoever.

The ban on abortion in the USSR was temporary. Again, this is impossible for you to understand when looking back through modern liberal eyes, but the USSR had bigger priorities. I don't know if you heard, but the largest land invasion in history was launched against the USSR with the intent of eliminating everyone West of the Urals.



This didn't stop Soviet Russia from legalizing homosexuality though, despite apparently not having access to the scientific evidence you believe needs to be in place for homosexuality to be acceptable. In fact there were plenty of sexologists at that time who were arguing in favour of homosexuality being legalized, including the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany, but you're obviously more interested in apologizing for viciously homophobic policies, including the ban that was imposed on male homosexuality under Stalinism in 1933, than approaching history in an honest and open way.

Homosexuality was still a controversial subject back then.



What do you mean "he" - surely socialism is supposed to be about the collective dictatorship of the working class, and not the personal dictatorship of an individual?

Socialism does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a concrete time and place; subject to all the conditions of the era.

Do you actually think that defending the socialist Soviet Union means defending those genuine mistakes that people made? I have a laundry list of things I think the Soviets should have done or should not have done. Ditto Albania. But I also recognize the difference between my hindsight, and the reality of countries like Russia and Albania in those times. To ignore those conditions is wholly anti-materialist.

[BobKKKindle$]

So you can't tell the difference between a few female ministers drawn from the ruling class and a third of the country's leadership drawn from female workers.There are quite a few government ministers in the UK and other countries where social-democratic parties are in power who are drawn from the working class in terms of their family origin, but in a society where members of the government earn far more than working people, and are not deprived of control over their workplaces and continually faced with the threat of losing their jobs in the same way as workers, becoming part of the top echelons of the state makes someone ruling class, and this was especially true in state-capitalist societies such as Albania where being part of the state apparatus entailed control of the means of production.


Did nothing to develop creches and other institutions?Go on then, give me some evidence showing that Albania had a highly developed network of creches, collective canteens, laundries, and all the other institutions that the Bolsheviks sought to build during the early years of the Soviet republic - the fact that Albania was and is one of the most underdeveloped countries in the whole of Europe and, in the sphere of government policy, did not allow women to control their own bodies and have sex without having to worry about the risk of getting pregnant tells me that this was not a country that cared much about gender equality, so unless you have evidence to show that the Albanian government did seek to replace the patriarchal family, I suggest that you be honest and accept that this was not a pro-women government.


no longer being treated as propertyExcept, women evidently were treated like property, because the government's policy on abortion and contraception made women slaves to their biology - we have seen people in this thread justify these policies on the grounds that there was a need to increase Albania's population so that the country would be able to defend itself against invasion and develop its economy and yet this kind of justification, whilst it might be an accurate description of the government's rationale, treats women as a means to an end, whose autonomy can legitimately be disregarded in pursuit of other interests. This is treating women as property because the notion of ownership entails that the thing that is being owned can be used by the owner (in this case, the state) in whatever way they see fit.


Again, you are judging another country through western liberal eyes.My position in this thread and on the issue of womens liberation has nothing to do with liberalism because I do not believe that women having equality in the formal sense (i.e. men not having formal ownership of their wives and their possessions) or a few women being part of the government does anything to further womens equality; rather I acknowledge that womens oppression derives from the domestic division of labour, which is an integral part of the family, and so this oppression can only be overcome through the socialization of the tasks that are currently carried out within the confines of individual family units, i.e. through the abolition of the nuclear family and its replacement with the kind of institutions I've already mentioned in this thread, such as creches and so on. I also acknowledge that womens oppression is supported by them not having control over their bodies, and not being able to plan their lives, and, for that reason, unlike you, I do not attempt to justify the banning of abortion and contraceptives.


Actually "most people" would say otherwise.Er, I was referring to the fact that most people on this forum know what my politics are.


The ban on abortion in the USSR was temporary.I don't see how this is relevant. Internment was also temporary in northern Ireland, that doesn't change the fact that it was an oppressive policy that resulted in large numbers of people being deprived of their basic rights for some period of time, and something that any socialist worth their salt would condemn without reservation. I was simply noting that women came under attack during the 1930s, as the gains that were obtained during the previous decade were removed by the ruling bureaucracy.


but the USSR had bigger priorities. I don't know if you heard, but the largest land invasion in historyAs I noted, abortion was banned in 1933, so I don't see how you can justify this on the grounds that it helped the USSR win an inter-imperialist war, and even if the ban had taken place once war had been declared, or when Stalin was allying with Nazi Germany, I still don't see how this can be justified, given that allowing women to have abortions or allowing men to have sex with each other for that matter did not represent a drain on resources, and did not undermine the war effort - although I of course would have preferred it if the war effort had been undermined, preferably by Soviet workers recognizing that the war was imperialist in nature, with nothing to do with their class interests, and refusing to fight against their German class brothers.


Homosexuality was still a controversial subject back then.It still is, so is abortion, but Lenin and his comrades took radically progressive stances on both those issues, and today it is not the job of socialists to adjust our ideas so that they're more pleasing to people who aren't revolutionaries - rather we have to be "tribunes of the oppressed", combating oppression and prejudice at every opportunity, even if we find that lots of people don't agree with what we have to say, and what we advocate.


I have a laundry list of things I think the Soviets should have done or should not have done.When does a government making mistakes cease just being mistakes and become an indication that the government might not be a socialist government at all? How many women have to die, how anti-woman do the government's policies have to be?

[Kayser_Soso]

There are quite a few government ministers in the UK and other countries where social-democratic parties are in power who are drawn from the working class in terms of their family origin, but in a society where members of the government earn far more than working people, and are not deprived of control over their workplaces and continually faced with the threat of losing their jobs in the same way as workers, becoming part of the top echelons of the state makes someone ruling class, and this was especially true in state-capitalist societies such as Albania where being part of the state apparatus entailed control of the means of production.

Again, we're talking about as much as a third of the highest leadership, drawn from the workers, and had you checked, you would have found that Albania had the lowest differentials in pay than any other socialist nation. In addition to that, socialist Albania required party members to do productive labor.



Go on then, give me some evidence showing that Albania had a highly developed network of creches, collective canteens, laundries, and all the other institutions that the Bolsheviks sought to build during the early years of the Soviet republic - the fact that Albania was and is one of the most underdeveloped countries in the whole of Europe and, in the sphere of government policy, did not allow women to control their own bodies and have sex without having to worry about the risk of getting pregnant tells me that this was not a country that cared much about gender equality, so unless you have evidence to show that the Albanian government did seek to replace the patriarchal family, I suggest that you be honest and accept that this was not a pro-women government.

Why the hell would you expect socialist Albania to have such a system developed to rival that of the Soviet Union? The country didn't even have a university before the war.



Except, women evidently were treated like property, because the government's policy on abortion and contraception made women slaves to their biology - we have seen people in this thread justify these policies on the grounds that there was a need to increase Albania's population so that the country would be able to defend itself against invasion and develop its economy and yet this kind of justification, whilst it might be an accurate description of the government's rationale, treats women as a means to an end, whose autonomy can legitimately be disregarded in pursuit of other interests. This is treating women as property because the notion of ownership entails that the thing that is being owned can be used by the owner in whatever way they see fit.

Sorry but this is a ridiculously ultra-radical position. While I would say that women are exploited throughout the capitalist world, and in most places to an extreme degree, no rational person would suggest that limited access to abortion or even no access to legal abortion is equivalent to women being treated as property.



My position in this thread and on the issue of womens liberation has nothing to do with liberalism because I do not believe that women having equality in the formal sense (i.e. men not having formal ownership of their wives and their possessions) or a few women being part of the goverment does anything to further womens equality; rather I acknowledge that womens oppression derives from the domestic division of labour, which is an integral part of the family, and so this oppression can only be overcome through the socialization of the tasks that are currently carried out within the confines of individual family units, i.e. through the abolition of the nuclear family and its replacement with the kind of institutions I've already mentioned in this thread, such as creches and so on. I also acknowledge that womens oppression is supported by them not having control over their bodies, and not being able to plan their lives, for that reason, unlike you, I do not attempt to justify the banning of abortion and contraceptives.

That's all very lovely. The problem is, old habits die hard, and states and new governments have a whole host of priorities that sometimes take precedence. What do you think might have been the main priority for Albania:

1. Completely destroying the cultural traditions which were anti-female.

2. Doing something about the armed guerrilla bands which were dropped into the country for over a decade, among other attempts at subjugation and economic siege.

Again, we can condemn the failures of socialists in these issues- but only from HINDSIGHT.



I don't see how this is relevant. Internment was also temporary in northern Ireland, that doesn't change the fact that it was an oppressive policy that resulted in large numbers of people being deprived of their basic rights for some period of time, and something that any socialist worth their salt would condemn without reservation. I was simply noting that women came under attack during the 1930s, as the gains that were obtained during the previous decade were removed by the ruling bureaucracy.

Yes, I'm sure that had a lot to do with the ruling "bureaucracy", and nothing to do with the fact that the state was interested in growing the population. The massive shift of people from the countryside to cities led to a decline in the birthrate. Given the options available to the Soviet state the time, limitation on abortion and contraceptives was most likely the only viable option.



As I noted, abortion was banned in 1933, so I don't see how you can justify this on the grounds that it helped the USSR win an inter-imperialist war, and even if the ban had taken place once war had been declared, or when Stalin was allying with Nazi Germany, I still don't see how this can be justified, given that allowing women to have abortions or allowing men to have sex with each other for that matter did not represent a drain on resources, and did not undermine the war effort.

Actually I believe that was 1936, Stalin had predicted that a major attack would occur in 1931, capitalist encirclement had been a major problem since 1927(not to mention the previous invasions and loss of Soviet territory), and Lenin had also predicted that another major war would break out involving Germany.

And you're saying you don't see how a lack of population can't be a drain on the economy? Have you heard the term labor shortage before? Stalin may have predicted the war, but he was right mainly by chance. He was interested in putting that war off as long as possible to build up the country's defense.



It still is, so is abortion, but Lenin and his comrades took radically progressive stances on both those issues, and today it is not the job of socialists to adjust our ideas so that they're more pleasing to people who aren't revolutionaries - rather we have to be "tribunes of the oppressed", combating oppression and prejudice at every opportunity, even if we find that lots of people don't agree with what we have to say, and what we advocate.

Wow that's quite an impassioned speech, but it seems like you have things backwards. Yes, we take these radical positions today, but in those days, things weren't so easy. And in the future we will inevitably have to prioritize what aspects of the culture we take on. For example, it would be a mistake to open an all out offensive against religion(another policy that Hoxha and the USSR engaged in at one time), as this would alienate many workers. We have to first deal with those cultural matters that are most pressing.

Now, that being said, and again, with the benefit of HINDSIGHT, I personally believe that cultural revolution and socialist revolution must be waged virtually simultaneously, the reason being the modern-day prevalence of pop-culture and the role of ideology in today's society. But to Soviet Russia, priority was industrialization. Do not forget that Lenin himself said that Communism in Russia would mean Soviet power plus electrification- which could be construed as a gross oversimplification, in HINDSIGHT.



When does a government making mistakes cease just being mistakes and become an indication that the government might not be a socialist government at all? How many women have to die, how anti-woman do the government's policies have to be?

Again, you are looking back with modern eyes, and apparently with an overly-radical perspective.

[Kayser_Soso]

An Outline of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, 1978

Today, the Albanian women play an important role in the whole life of the country. Let us refer to some figures: at present 47 per cent of the working people employed in our Republic are women and girls. In certain sectors, like the light and food-processing industry, education, the health service and trade, this figure rises from 55 to 80 per cent. Women make up 33.3 .per cent of the representatives in the Supreme State organ, the People's Assembly, 25 per cent of the members of the Party of Labour of Albania, 26 per cent of the members of the Supreme Court, 41.2 per cent of the leaders of the organizations of the masses.

The People's State Power abolished capitalist exploitation, established a new legislative code, and opened the way to the operation of the objective laws of socialist society. Under the People's State Power, the new man has been educated, armed with Marxist-Leninist ideology, with new co.concepts about work, property, the family, the woman, and so on. The creation of these conditions brought about a situation in which a girl is no longer treated as a slave, in which love must be the basis of every marriage. All roads have been opened to the youth to guide themselves by lofty socialist motives in the creation of the family and not by material interests, careerism and other motives which humiliate the woman.

At the present stage, the problem of the Albanian woman is more of a class struggle in the ideological field. Even under these circumstances, when all these objective conditions have been created, the processes which go on within the family, must not be left to spontaneity. Therefore a direct, but tactful struggle is waged to establish socialist relations and standards in the family, such as relations of equality, love, mutual respect and aid. In order to ensure equality between the wife and the other members of the family, the struggle is now being waged in two directions; first, to make family affairs, day to day life, children and so on, as widely as possible the concern of the whole society; second, to have every member of the family understand that these things are jobs for which they are all responsible.

Under the conditions of Albania, the participation of women in the entire life of the country has become an objective necessity. The efforts, the physical and mental energies of the women, too, are necessary to promote the unceasing revolution, to strengthen the People's State Power and further democratize it through the line of the masses. The efforts of the women are necessary, too. for the strengthening and defence of the homeland against any enemy through the training of the whole people.

[Lolshevik]

A bit off the subject of women in Albania, but still on the topic of Hoxha's rule generally, something I tend to wonder is: if Hoxha was at the helm of such a successful socialist society, then why was it so easy for what Hoxhaists call "revisionists" to take power after his death? And if the masses were truly active in the participation of government, which is absolutely essential in socialism, why didn't they resist?

I'd like to see a Hoxhaist answer this question instead of just dismissing it as Trotskyite slander. Because it seems to me that there was no healthy socialism in Albania, just a ruling clique that took power from another ruling clique while the people were all in the dark about it.

[Kayser_Soso]

A bit off the subject of women in Albania, but still on the topic of Hoxha's rule generally, something I tend to wonder is: if Hoxha was at the helm of such a successful socialist society, then why was it so easy for what Hoxhaists call "revisionists" to take power after his death? And if the masses were truly active in the participation of government, which is absolutely essential in socialism, why didn't they resist?

I'd like to see a Hoxhaist answer this question instead of just dismissing it as Trotskyite slander. Because it seems to me that there was no healthy socialism in Albania, just a ruling clique that took power from another ruling clique while the people were all in the dark about it.


Ok, look at a map from that era. Notice how small Albania is? Notice how after 1989, not only were there no friends of Albania left, but now there was not even a socialist camp in Europe left as well? This is what caused revisionism to flourish- they succumbed to massive pressure from without, not within.

[Lolshevik]

Fair enough. You won't have any argument from me that anti-Marxist forces will be present in any revolutionary party and that external factors can cause them to gain the upper hand inside the party. But why then did the Albanian proletariat not actively resist the transition to revisionism, or (more crucially) the transition to capitalism?

This flows into the issue of whether or not what Hoxha led could be called socialism. Were the Albanian masses involved in the every day running and decision making of the state, or was it just Hoxha and a small clique issuing decrees from above? Not that there's anything wrong with a leader or a group of leaders having significant moral & political authority stemming from their own merits; like Lenin after the October Revolution. But I do want to know more about the level of proletarian democracy during the Hoxha years.

[Kayser_Soso]

Fair enough. You won't have any argument from me that anti-Marxist forces will be present in any revolutionary party and that external factors can cause them to gain the upper hand inside the party. But why then did the Albanian proletariat not actively resist the transition to revisionism, or (more crucially) the transition to capitalism?

This flows into the issue of whether or not what Hoxha led could be called socialism. Were the Albanian masses involved in the every day running and decision making of the state, or was it just Hoxha and a small clique issuing decrees from above? Not that there's anything wrong with a leader or a group of leaders having significant moral & political authority stemming from their own merits; like Lenin after the October Revolution. But I do want to know more about the level of proletarian democracy during the Hoxha years.


The problem is that in those conditions, and in general, people don't often do what is in their best long term interests. This is what happened with the Soviet people. The Muscovites and a lot of those living in the more developed areas had a better standard of living than most of the country, and despite shortages, they really had it easy. Imagine not having to worry about expenses like transport, rent, etc. In those days they also worked less as well. But the capitalist propaganda had reached epic proportions by the 80s and Russian youth were buying the idea that if they let capitalism in, they would have all the remaining benefits of socialism(which at least for them were still pretty good), but then the store shelves would all be stocked with high quality western goods for low prices. Yes- they actually believed that. And look what happened.

The fact is though, the people did indeed support socialism, as is evident from the votes in the election of 1992(or 91) in Albania. Initially, the Communist party won in a landslide. As in a number of other Eastern Bloc countries around that time, the West declared these elections null and used operatives from the National Endowment for Democracy(look these guys up if you're not familiar with them) to basically engineer a new election where the "democrats" won. A similar action happened in 1996, when Boris Yeltsin was miracluously reelected despite being far behind the Communists in the polls.

The issue wasn't necessarily won of pre-existing proletarian democracy, but rather the lack of any leadership educated in Marxism-Leninism that could set these states back on course. Many of those who stepped up to defend socialism had no real theory to back them; they were generally just reacting to the negative effects of full capitalist restoration- such as some of the "martyrs" who died in the Moscow battle of October 1993. I seriously doubt any of the people inside the doomed House of Soviets that year could have truly helped Russia.

As to why political education deteriorated in the USSR, I blame the war- but that is an even more complicated story.

[HEAD ICE]

On the subject on homosexuality:

"It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals and is so crassly indifferent to the various gradations and variations of gender and their great significance in life."
- Emma Goldman (who died before Hoxha became leader of Albania)

Whether or not it was considered by many to be a "defect" or "unnatural", anyone who took two seconds to think about it would reach the correct conclusion on what to do with homosexuals: treat them as complete and total equals. Now, what someone personally believes shouldn't be used to discredit their ideas, it is much different when they put disgusting principles into action, especially in state policy.

[Kayser_Soso]

On the subject on homosexuality:

"It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals and is so crassly indifferent to the various gradations and variations of gender and their great significance in life."
- Emma Goldman (who died before Hoxha became leader of Albania)

Whether or not it was considered by many to be a "defect" or "unnatural", anyone who took two seconds to think about it would reach the correct conclusion on what to do with homosexuals: treat them as complete and total equals. Now, what someone personally believes shouldn't be used to discredit their ideas, it is much different when they put disgusting principles into action, especially in state policy.

Look how long it took man to even consider that treating women, or people of different races, ethnicities, or nationalities as equals might be a good idea. What we have learned in the last few decades about gender and sexuality constitutes a major leap forward. It is interesting that Emma Goldman was very perceptive for her time but that's just it- she apparently had foresight that most of the world didn't.

[HEAD ICE]

Look how long it took man to even consider that treating women, or people of different races, ethnicities, or nationalities as equals might be a good idea. What we have learned in the last few decades about gender and sexuality constitutes a major leap forward. It is interesting that Emma Goldman was very perceptive for her time but that's just it- she apparently had foresight that most of the world didn't.

I agree with you. We can spend all day listing the terrible things our favorite people did (I was crushed when I learned Bruce Lee did steroids) but the criticism is legitimate, especially as was already pointed out the acceptance of homosexuals by the USSR. What Hoxha may have personally thought shouldn't be a factor in deciding the legitimacy of his ideas that don't relate, but he did enforce homophobic policies and I think it is wrong to try to defend it.

[Kayser_Soso]

I agree with you. We can spend all day listing the terrible things our favorite people did (I was crushed when I learned Bruce Lee did steroids) but the criticism is legitimate, especially as was already pointed out the acceptance of homosexuals by the USSR. What Hoxha may have personally thought shouldn't be a factor in deciding the legitimacy of his ideas that don't relate, but he did enforce homophobic policies and I think it is wrong to try to defend it.

It was not what he personally thought. It was based on what several flawed studies of the history of homosexuality from within and without the country said that influenced this decision.

[Ismail]

It should be noted that lesbians did not suffer repression. According to Hoxha, homosexuality was male chauvinism, ergo lesbians reinforced gender equality and fought male chauvinism, so they were in a sense encouraged, and Hoxha and Co. called it "positive discrimination to combat social ills." Before the Communists took over, homosexuality basically went unpunished among tribal chieftains and lesbianism was... not encouraged.

So yeah, it's pretty obvious the Albanian view of homosexuality was quite different from Western views. Banning homosexuality was seen as an epic struggle for gender equality.

[scarletghoul]

Why do so many discussions on revleft end up about homosexuality and homophobia? Its stupid because there are so many more important things.

[Jethro Tull]

Yes, anti-abortion laws were sometimes based in hopes of increasing the population during labor shortages.

Correct. This is why anti-abortion laws were introduced in the first place, during the primitive accumulation of capitalism. Anti-abortion laws have always been a tool of capitalist valorization. With that in mind, your statement gives a fairly telling insight into the motivations of Hoxhaite Albania's leadership.


As for homosexuals, the principle problem was that science up to that point hadn't advanced far enough. Remember it wasn't until the 1970's that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder.

This is bullshit. There have been cultural traditions that have existed for thousands of years that recognize homosexuality as positive and healthy. Saying it's OK for the Albanian government to be homophobic just because the notoriously corrupt and oppressive APA was also homophobic is a clever variation on the "А у вас негров линчуют" argument, though...


In socialist countries, working with what they had, they had erroneously assumed based on the available historical research that homosexuality was a side effect of societies which were extremely repressive toward women. In scientific hindsight we now know this to be wrong, but to people back then it carried validity.

In order for this argument to be even remotely valid you would have to discount the experiences of individuals who have always argued to the contrary...

[Ismail]

This is bullshit. There have been cultural traditions that have existed for thousands of years that recognize homosexuality as positive and healthy.Care to point to examples of this in Albania besides tribal chieftains who tolerated it among themselves? (Because as noted, the anti-homosexuality laws were seen as "extending the class struggle" and to liberate women from feudalism) The vast majority of Albanians were tribal, and Hoxha's family belonged to the fairly devout Bektashi tradition.

Can you even list liberal Albanian movements that supported legalizing homosexuality? (Since it wasn't like it was fine before Hoxha, the Albanian government just put it on the law books under him as part of modernizing the legal system) The most progressive Albanian leader before Hoxha was an Orthodox priest named Fan S. Noli.

[Jethro Tull]

Care to point to examples of this in Albania

That's not the point.

[Ismail]

That's not the point.So what is your point? That Communists can/should be able to see into the future? That Communism explicitly talks about legalizing homosexuality?

Homosexuality was tolerated briefly in early Soviet Russia because there were small groups of revolutionaries in the cities who had much education in Western Europe and experience in the relatively liberal atmospheres of those countries. The actual workers movements, however, were generally hostile to homosexuality and viewed it as bourgeoisie, and the Communist Parties shared this view. No one paid attention to homosexuality, abortion, etc. otherwise because they had to worry about civil war and crushing poverty.

The vast majority of the USSR, however, was hostile to homosexuality, and it was made illegal soon after because most of the revolutionaries considered it bourgeois "degeneracy" and that socialism would take care of it. It wasn't viewed as being innate within a person, it was viewed as a social illness in the USSR and a force of feudal reaction in Albania.

[Jethro Tull]

So what is your point? That Communists can/should be able to see into the future?

No. My point is that someone living in 1940 did not have to "see into the future" to criticize the persecution of homosexuality. (I guess Oscar Wilde, Emma Goldman, etc. were time-travelers)

My point is that there were whole societies in the past, before Hoxha's birth, before capitalism, that allowed homosexuality as a practice to flourish.

My point is that human consciousness does not become somehow magically more permissive towards homosexuality as the flow of time lurches into the future.

My point is that it is anti-Marxian to suggest human beings are prisoners of their "historical context".

My point is that the APA did not discover new evidence in 1971 that homosexuality isn't a mental illness. They declared that it was a mental illness, despite evidence to the contrary, and then they changed their minds. And pointing out that the Hoxhaites were less homophobic than the APA is a classic tu quoque fallacy.


That Communism explicitly talks about legalizing homosexuality?

Regardless, the liberation of homosexuals is implicit to genuine communism. And not by "legalization", but by the abolition of bourgeois dictatorship, which was not achieved in Albania.


Homosexuality was tolerated briefly in early Soviet Russia because there were small groups of revolutionaries in the cities who had much education in Western Europe and experience in the relatively liberal atmospheres of those countries.

So fucking what? Are you saying that Western European and liberal means more freedom for homosexuals? What about when beautiful, western liberal civilization colonized North America, forcing far more socially permissive societies to adopt oppressive Western values such as homophobia?


The actual workers movements, however, were generally hostile to homosexuality and viewed it as bourgeoisie, and the Communist Parties shared this view.

So? They were wrong and I would challenge their attitudes, were I a contemporary. (But then again I'd just be one of those deviant communists contaminated by western liberalism:D)


No one paid attention to homosexuality, abortion, etc. otherwise because they had to worry about civil war and crushing poverty.

:rolleyes:

Civil war and crushing poverty are universal under capitalism. Yet we still pay attention to homosexuality and abortion. I guess if I'm poor, and getting shot at, I'm going to forget that I'm pregnant and not allowed to have sex with my girlfriend. :laugh:

What you mean to say is that the straight male workers didn't care or think about homosexuality or abortion.

(And which is it? Were the workers hostile towards homosexuality, or unattentive?)


The vast majority of the USSR, however, was hostile to homosexuality, and it was made illegal soon after because most of the revolutionaries considered it bourgeois "degeneracy" and that socialism would take care of it. It wasn't viewed as being innate within a person, it was viewed as a social illness in the USSR and a force of feudal reaction in Albania.

Yes, and the USSR and socialist Albania were shitty societies that failed to communize production. Maybe a lack of change in deeply rooted patriarchal cultural values has something to do with this, hmm....

[Ismail]

No. My point is that someone living in 1940 did not have to "see into the future" to criticize the persecution of homosexuality. (I guess Oscar Wilde, Emma Goldman, etc. were time-travelers)Why would an Albanian care about Oscar Wilde or Emma Goldman? After all, we're talking about Albanian culture and the Albanian Communists, whose outlook, as noted, was that homosexuality was a relic of feudalism and adopted by capitalism to enslave women.


My point is that there were whole societies in the past, before Hoxha's birth, before capitalism, that allowed homosexuality as a practice to flourish.These were also ancient, feudal, and capitalist states. Not socialist states. It isn't like "Oh hey, those guys allowed homosexuality" meant that Communists (or anyone) associated those states as representing good things either. Engels said "The latter [the Greek men], who would have been ashamed to evince any love for their own wives, amused themselves with hetaerae in all kinds of amours. But the degradation of the women recoiled on the men themselves and degraded them too, until they sank into the loathsomeness of boy-love, degrading both themselves and their gods by the myth of Ganymede."


Regardless, the liberation of homosexuals is implicit to genuine communism. And not by "legalization", but by the abolition of bourgeois dictatorship, which was not achieved in Albania.So the legalization of homosexuality in bourgeois states means...


So fucking what? Are you saying that Western European and liberal means more freedom for homosexuals? What about when beautiful, western liberal civilization colonized North America, forcing far more socially permissive societies to adopt oppressive Western values such as homophobia?I'm saying that Russians did not care about homosexuality and regarded it as an aberration. Same with Albanians and basically all religious and/or industrialized societies at that time.

You're saying that because Albania and the USSR did not tolerate homosexuality, this is proof that they were not socialist states. It's one thing to say that they were wrong about homosexuality (in which case, duh), it's another to use it as a way to damn Hoxha and/or Hoxhaism forever.

[Il Medico]

Not to nit pick, but these two specific matters bothered me.



The ban on abortion in the USSR was temporary.
As was it's legalization. (1920 when the early revolutionary government gave free and on demand abortions until 1936 when Stalin decided that women should not have the right to get abortions [And criminalized it]. Prosecution of women who had abortions stopped shortly after Stalin's death in 1954 and the USSR lifted the ban in 1955)


Again, this is impossible for you to understand when looking back through modern liberal eyes, Attacking people who disagree with you with unfounded slurs is not going to get you anywhere comrade.


but the USSR had bigger priorities.Like reversing many of the progressive reforms made by the early Bolshevik government?


I don't know if you heard,I've heard.

but the largest land invasion in history was launched against the USSR with the intent of eliminating everyone West of the Urals. Yeah, a good 20 years after Stalin came to power. And four and seven years after the ban on abortion and homosexuality respectively.(Homosexuality between men was criminalized in 1933 by Stalin and the Sentence was up to five years hard labor in prison)



Homosexuality was still a controversial subject back then.
Didn't stop the early early government from legalizing it. And when since do leftist care if something is controversial?

[Kayser_Soso]

As was it's legalization. (1920 when the early revolutionary government gave free and on demand abortions until 1936 when Stalin decided that women should not have the right to get abortions [And criminalized it]. Prosecution of women who had abortions stopped shortly after Stalin's death in 1954 and the USSR lifted the ban in 1955)

And as far as I know the ban stayed lifted till the end.



Attacking people who disagree with you with unfounded slurs is not going to get you anywhere comrade.


The argument stands; these people are looking back at past societies and declaring them not to be socialist simply because they weren't ideal from our modern perspective today.



Like reversing many of the progressive reforms made by the early Bolshevik government?

No, like securing their existence against the various empires that had already invaded it and caused massive destruction previously. It's a little hard to initiate progressive reforms when you're dead.




I've heard. Yeah, a good 20 years after Stalin came to power. And four and seven years after the ban on abortion and homosexuality respectively.(Homosexuality between men was criminalized in 1933 by Stalin and the Sentence was up to five years hard labor in prison)

Again, this mode of thinking was popular all over back then. Personally I blame the relaxation on the Orthodox Church for this; but again, it's HINDSIGHT. Look that word up some time since nobody here seems to know it.

Also, as for that "up to five years hard labor", you're going to have to provide a source on that.



Didn't stop the early early government from legalizing it. And when since do leftist care if something is controversial?

The early government also authorized the NEP, which was a disaster- what is your point? The Russian Empire was an extremely religious nation, and the Bolsheviks found that people were clinging to their religion more tightly than they expected. This had to have influenced such decisions greatly.

[Искра]

Why do so many discussions on revleft end up about homosexuality and homophobia? Its stupid because there are so many more important things.
Because socialist society is free society and no one is free until all of us are not free. Homosexuals were never free, therefore there was never a socialist society.

[Kayser_Soso]

Because socialist society is free society and no one is free until all of us are not free. Homosexuals were never free, therefore there was never a socialist society.


Yup, there's that good old anarchist fantasizing and assuming. FREE FREE FREE! George W. Bush preached about liberty and freedom, just like every other snake oil salesmen out there.

Freedom for whom, to do what?

[red cat]

Because socialist society is free society and no one is free until all of us are not free. Homosexuals were never free, therefore there was never a socialist society.

Socialism can be defined as an interphase between capitalism or new-democracy and communism, where the working class and the working class alone is in control of the state machinery. This means that the proletariat has the upper-hand as far as the primary social contradiction is concerned. Based on this, the secondary contradictions like oppression of women, homosexuals etc. may need more time to be solved.

[Kayser_Soso]

Socialism can be defined as an interphase between capitalism or new-democracy and communism, where the working class and the working class alone is in control of the state machinery. This means that the proletariat has the upper-hand as far as the primary social contradiction is concerned. Based on this, the secondary contradictions like oppression of women, homosexuals etc. may need more time to be solved.

Exactly. If freedom is the be-all end all goal, then we must admit that even the anarchist view of socialism would be most "un-free" for certain people, namely the capitalists or their lackeys. By Marxist-Leninist standards, we don't apologize for this, and since the very ambiguous word "freedom" is not elevated to the status of holy dogma, there isn't much of a contradiction there.

[Il Medico]

And as far as I know the ban stayed lifted till the end.
Yes, but not until after the so-call revisionist came to power. In the Marxist-Leninist system it remained illegal. People like Hoxha were adherents to Marxist-Leninism (also know as Anti-revisionism) and if my memory serves me it (homosexuality) was illegal in Albania as well. (I may be wrong my knowledge of Albania is not all that great)





The argument stands; these people are looking back at past societies and declaring them not to be socialist simply because they weren't ideal from our modern perspective today. No. They look back at these countries and say they weren't socialist because they were by no means socialist.



No, like securing their existence against the various empires that had already invaded it and caused massive destruction previously. It's a little hard to initiate progressive reforms when you're dead.I am assuming your referring to the foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War in favor of the Whites. The civil war lasted from 1917-1923, a six year period, during half of which homosexuality and abortion were legal. After the Civil War there wasn't a significant foreign threat to the USSR until WWII. (Most of the time was spent modernizing and securing Stalin's power.)





Again, this mode of thinking was popular all over back then. Personally I blame the relaxation on the Orthodox Church for this; but again, it's HINDSIGHT. Look that word up some time since nobody here seems to know it.While influence of the Orthodox Church may have had some effect, Stalin personally being homophobic is much more likely. And it's not like the early Bolsheviks didn't understand the importance of religion to workers, I quote Lenin:
"We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offense to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme, and not in order to permit an active struggle against it.".
This, however, didn't not mean they were going to sacrifice the rights of other workers to do so.


Also, as for that "up to five years hard labor", you're going to have to provide a source on that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Russia

[Kayser_Soso]

Yes, but not until after the so-call revisionist came to power. In the Marxist-Leninist system it remained illegal. People like Hoxha were adherents to Marxist-Leninism (also know as Anti-revisionism) and if my memory serves me it (homosexuality) was illegal in Albania as well. (I may be wrong my knowledge of Albania is not all that great)

Not every policy carried out under a Marxist-Leninist government is inherently Marxist-Leninist. The post offices, for example, were not necessarily run by a Marxist-Leninist method of running post offices.




No. They look back at these countries and say they weren't socialist because they were by no means socialist.

Who gave them the right to determine that? The problem is that their view of socialism is a utopia. Moreover, they criticize real advances in the field of socialism, asserting the superiority of systems that have never been tried or tested, or failed so miserably we cannot say how they would have fared in the long run.



I am assuming your referring to the foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War in favor of the Whites. The civil war lasted from 1917-1923, a six year period, during half of which homosexuality and abortion were legal. After the Civil War there wasn't a significant foreign threat to the USSR until WWII. (Most of the time was spent modernizing and securing Stalin's power.)

Actually after the Civil War there was still threats within the USSR, in the form of ongoing Basmachi rebellions, sabotage,etc. Japan started to become openly militaristic in 1931 as well. Plus, Lenin had already predicted that a new war was on the horizon, not to mention there was the Cordon sanitare beginning in 1927 IIRC.

But I think that really isn't the relevant issue- the issue is how people reacted to the policy of the Bolshevik party on this issue.




While influence of the Orthodox Church may have had some effect, Stalin personally being homophobic is much more likely.

Oh really? Good luck proving that.

[Ismail]

I wouldn't be surprised if Stalin was homophobic. Or Lenin, or Marx and Engels for that matter. Or Hoxha. Or Mao. Or Trotsky.

I really don't see why we should be condemning them over this. They lived in cultures and times where there was hostility to homosexuality and they did not link it to Marxism or whatever, they linked it to that view that was generally popular in Russia at the time; that it was a "social illness" and, with the advent of the Bolsheviks, it took on class tones. If our analysis of Lenin, Stalin, or Trotsky (or anyone born over a hundred years ago) is going to be "X was socialist, but they hated the gays, so they're really just reactionary ultraconservatives" then we've failed at being either rational or materialist.

For what it's worth (and it should be worth nothing), the CNT-FAI also had many members who condemned homosexuality (calling them "invalids"), but then again it was 1930's Spain, so that can be expected. Just like 1910's Russia, or 1940's Albania where people were killing each other over medieval tribal codes.

If some people at this time were saying that homosexuality was a-okay, then fine, but I don't see why the Communists of Russia and Albania, who viewed the views of Anarchists and such as petty-bourgeoisie (not to mention viewing Wilde, etc. as petty-bourgeoisie), would place much faith in their writings. A similar distrusting was made of Western psychology and such for obvious reasons. ("HUMAN NATURE SAYS COMMUNISM IS A FAILURE!") As far as the leaders of these states were concerned, their Soviet and Albanian psychological researchers were saying that homosexuality was a mental illness, and there was thus no argument because "glorious scientific manly-man socialism > degenerate idealist capitalism" in their view.

As a note:

While influence of the Orthodox Church may have had some effect, Stalin personally being homophobic is much more likely.Yeah, the Orthodox Church totally didn't incite homophobia.

[ls]

Didn't Lenin work to decriminalise homosexuality? I don't think it's fair lumping Lenin in with those others at all.

[Ismail]

Didn't Lenin work to decriminalise homosexuality? I don't think it's fair lumping Lenin in with those others at all.The Soviet state removed laws relating to homosexuality as pat of eliminating the Tsarist legal system. Lenin himself, however, was critical of the "free love" movement and others which he viewed as elevating social issues over the economic liberation of the proletariat. Also most "free love" types were anti-Bolshevik by 1924. I'm pretty sure he had no input on homosexuality.

[ls]

The Soviet state removed laws relating to homosexuality as pat of eliminating the Tsarist legal system. Lenin himself, however, was critical of the "free love" movement and others which he viewed as elevating social issues over the economic liberation of the proletariat. Also most "free love" types were anti-Bolshevik by 1924.

That's not a completely terrible thing being critical of it (a link to some texts on it could prove interesting, this is not a bashing of Lenin btw), but nonetheless it clearly points to the fact he was much more advanced on social issues than other prominent figures that are noted here as being pretty prejudiced.

[Kayser_Soso]

That's not a completely terrible thing being critical of it (a link to some texts on it could prove interesting, this is not a bashing of Lenin btw), but nonetheless it clearly points to the fact he was much more advanced on social issues than other prominent figures that are noted here as being pretty prejudiced.


If one were to look at some of the more obscure writings of Marx, he too could be painted as very reactionary in some respects, compared to progressive folks today. On the Jewish Question is often trotted out as an example of Marx's alleged anti-semitism, for example.

[Ismail]

"Writing-Reading the Sexual Revolution in the Early Soviet Union," by Greg Carleton, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 8, 1997. pp. 235-6.

In his celebrated interview with the German marxist Clara Zetkin, Lenin allegedly slammed his hands on the table when confronted with Zhenya-like thought: "The Revolution demands concentration. It cannot tolerate orgiastic conditions." 9 Time could not be wasted on such frivolous questions when the survival of the Soviet Union and the success of world revolution were at stake. Youth needed to discipline their bodies and minds through intellectual and physical (but not that one!) activity. For Lenin, attention to sex was counterrevolutionary. Women "who confuse their personal romances with politics" ( R, p. 49) or men "who run after every petticoat" could not be trusted to carry out the struggle. With Zetkin sitting in awe, wishing that "hundreds, thousands were present to hear his words," the party leader directly launched into Kollontai and the ill-fated "glass of water" theory that had become permanently attached to her name. To equate satisfying a sexual urge with reaching for a glass of water to quench one's thirst was simply "unmarxist." Worse, the theory's popularity had only "made our young people mad, quite mad.""Of course thirst must be satisfied," he countered, "but will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips?"

Published shortly after his death, Lenin's ex cathedra warning was heard by thousands as it circulated through myriad articles and decrees. But Kollontai's story was read by an equal number as well. And many officials were perplexed by youths' attachment to Zhenya's character and the possibility that they might see her as an example to follow. With Lenin's interview acknowledged as the final word, doctors, critics, and party elites launched a concerted assault against free-love promiscuity on three fronts. First, they declared that unbridled sexuality would only lead to a rise in sexually transmitted diseases and prostitution. Second, it would deprive women of the very independence and freedom that the revolution had ostensibly brought them. Once again, it was argued, women would find themselves victimized by "Don Juans" (since men would feel no responsibility for their behavior) and burdened by unwanted pregnancies. (Legalized abortion was not framed as a freedom of choice issue but as a dangerous, necessary evil that would disappear with the triumph of socialism.) Third, with the focus aimed at men, sexually active youth would be putting their maturing bodies in grave danger. Since bodily energy was believed finite, any expenditure needed to be carefully monitored and justified; otherwise, one's mental and physical faculties could be severely and permanently damaged. Using a metaphor that reappeared, notably, in Gumilevsky Dog Alley, A. B. Zalkind, one of the more prominent voices in this campaign and a self-styled "communist psychoneurologist," cautioned that sex was a "spider, greedily and mercilessly sucking out an enormous amount of the body's energy." 10

Supporting the chorus of arachnophobes, Emelian Yaroslavsky, a member of the Bolshevik old guard, explained that this was why a promiscuous twenty-five year old can look "ready for the rest home." 11 A doctor, writing in Red Students, was more specific: early sexual activity robbed the male body of vital hormones, resulting by age thirty in atrophied testicles, loss of beard and moustache, a pale, weakened body, and, finally, impotence. 12 The scare tactics of "do it now, pay later" predictably reached their peak with masturbation. It was of particular concern, for example, for the commissar of health, Nikolai Semashko, who on numerous occasions inveighed against this supreme evil, which was doubly marked because not only did it waste energy, but it was narcissistic and therefore anticollective.

9 Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin (New York, 1934 ), p. 50. The conversation allegedly took place in 1920, while Zetkin's account was first published shortly after Lenin's death; hereafter cited in text as R.
10 A. B. Zalkind, Polovoi vopros v usloviiakh sovetskoi obshchestvennosti: (The problem of sexuality in relation to the soviet community: A collection of articles) Sbornik statei (Leningrad, 1926 ), p. 23.
11 Emelian Yaroslavsky, "Moral' i byt proletariata v perekhodnyi period" (Morality and daily life in a transitional period), Komsomol'skii byt, comp. I. Razin (Moscow, 1927 ), p. 49.The article originally appeared in the journal Molodaia gvardiia ( May 1926 ).
12 Dr. Demidovich, Polovaia zhizn' i zdorov'e studenchestva" (Sexual behavior and students' health), Krasnoe studenchestvo 8 ( 1927-28 ): 42.

P. 237:

None of the above assertions are outlandish or unique if we remember the political, national, and medical traditions from which the party leaders emerged. In their rhetoric we see the full play of fears and prejudices that marked the beliefs of progressives of the nineteenth century, the church, and most doctors. Though for different reasons, the Right and the Left, the secular and the religious, all advocated control and moderation. Soviets differed from their predecessors by reformulating how this common goal was to be understood and commented on. The devil and sin were upstaged and replaced by a single concept: regardless of one's preferences or habits, whether frigid, heterosexual, homosexual, a masturbator, or a Don Juan, sexual behavior was exclusively a function of class.

Grey, Ian. Stalin: Man of History. 1st ed. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1979., p. 157.

During 1921 Lenin's health began to fail. Cerebral arteriosclerosis was already obstructing the blood circulation and taking its toll. The small thick-set man whose driving energy had been inexhaustible was tiring easily. He became irascible, sensing perhaps that soon he would be unable to carry on... The Eleventh Party Congress was to meet towards the end of March 1922, and he prepared carefully. The sessions threatened to be stormy. Many members were critical of the dictatorship of the hierarchy and the suppression of party democracy. Indeed, in February 1922 a group of twenty-two members of the former Workers' Opposition, led by Shlyapnikov and Aleksandra Kollontai, went as far as to appeal to the Third Communist International. There was never any possibility that the International would censure the Russian party. But the action of the twenty-two members caused embarrassment to Lenin and his colleagues. In fact, they failed to appreciate that the mass of members were in sympathy with Shlyapnikov's group.

[Philanthropist]

I was in Albania over the summer. I know little to nothing about the man or his politics. All I will say is that people from surrounding countries such as Montenegro and some people within Albania itself have a very low opinion of Enver. The part of the country we were in was reminiscent of the middle ages except for certain parts of the "town" centre where there were signs of progression.

I must read up on the man himself and see where did he get it all so wrong.

[Il Medico]

As a note:
Yeah, the Orthodox Church totally didn't incite homophobia.
I think you misunderstood me, I meant on the party's (Stalin's) decision to re criminalize Homosexuality. The Orthodox church was homophobic in 1920 and 1933, that didn't change. What did was who was running the government. Why would Stalin, an atheist, cater to holy men? He certainly didn't do it out of fear of opposition, as he was willing to use far more brutal methods to squash opposition.(Ask Trotsky) And even if he did do to appease the Church; when since do revolutionaries cater to men of the cloth? The fact is whether or not it was Stalin's own homophobia or him appeasing the Church it was a horribly reactionary decision, especially that he wasn't just upholding reactionary practices, but reinstating them.

Oh, and:

A similar distrusting was made of Western psychology and such for obvious reasons
Because Western psychological organizations such as the APA didn't keep homosexuality on their list of mental disorder and and try to "cure" homosexuals until the 1970s. :rolleyes:

[Искра]

Yup, there's that good old anarchist fantasizing and assuming. FREE FREE FREE! George W. Bush preached about liberty and freedom, just like every other snake oil salesmen out there.

Freedom for whom, to do what?
Freedom for working class to purge Stalinists.

[Ismail]

I think you misunderstood me,I did.


Because Western psychological organizations such as the APA didn't keep homosexuality on their list of mental disorder and and try to "cure" homosexuals until the 1970s. :rolleyes:Fact is, leaders tended to look towards the scientific and psychological institutions of their own or associated countries. This was especially true in fields like psychology.

[Il Medico]

I did.

Fact is, leaders tended to look towards the scientific and psychological institutions of their own or associated countries. This was especially true in fields like psychology.
My point was that you can't blame it on western psychology, because both considered it a mental disorder.

[The Author]

If one were to look at some of the more obscure writings of Marx, he too could be painted as very reactionary in some respects, compared to progressive folks today. On the Jewish Question is often trotted out as an example of Marx's alleged anti-semitism, for example.

To add to this, a lot of Marx's personal letters with Engels have remarks such as "the Jew..." and "Moses..." whenever he referred to the people he owed money when he was having trouble with his expenses throughout his years in London. There was even one remark Marx made in regards to what happened with the American Civil War in which he stated that in the South, all the work is done by "the niggers." See The Letters of Karl Marx edited by Saul Padover (as a sidenote, however, Padover was a liberal anti-communist who viewed the USSR as a "serious threat." So his stance and editorial abilities should be taken with serious criticism of course).

Does that make me think much less of Marx because of his statements? No, it does not. Kayser_Soso and Ismail are right. Best to see this in hindsight.

[ls]

To add to this, a lot of Marx's personal letters with Engels have remarks such as "the Jew..." and "Moses..." whenever he referred to the people he owed money when he was having trouble with his expenses throughout his years in London. There was even one remark Marx made in regards to what happened with the American Civil War in which he stated that in the South, all the work is done by "the niggers." See The Letters of Karl Marx edited by Saul Padover (as a sidenote, however, Padover was a liberal anti-communist who viewed the USSR as a "serious threat." So his stance and editorial abilities should be taken with serious criticism of course).

Does that make me think much less of Marx because of his statements? No, it does not. Kayser_Soso and Ismail are right. Best to see this in hindsight.

Of course not, I was merely pointing out that Lenin was before his time in a number of respects, that doesn't mean I agree with all of his perspectives or indeed his prejudices either however, every revolutionary of the time had their various prejudices but some were clearly more advanced than others.

[Il Medico]

To add to this, a lot of Marx's personal letters with Engels have remarks such as "the Jew..." and "Moses..." whenever he referred to the people he owed money when he was having trouble with his expenses throughout his years in London. There was even one remark Marx made in regards to what happened with the American Civil War in which he stated that in the South, all the work is done by "the niggers." See The Letters of Karl Marx edited by Saul Padover (as a sidenote, however, Padover was a liberal anti-communist who viewed the USSR as a "serious threat." So his stance and editorial abilities should be taken with serious criticism of course).

Does that make me think much less of Marx because of his statements? No, it does not. Kayser_Soso and Ismail are right. Best to see this in hindsight.
I would like to note the On the Jewish Question was actually written in defense of Jews. He was also a strong proponent of Jewish political emancipation; while it is well know that he hated Judaism (and all other religions for that matter). As for the term "nigger", I think it is fair to say that back then it was not always used as an insult. A passage from The Sun also Rises comes to mind. In that passage one character talking about a black boxer he had met in Vienna, praising him as "A wonderful nigger". I agree that we must take into account the time period and the way words are used. Marx was not infallible though and we need not make excuses for his flaws or the flaws of any other revolutionary. However, holding prejudiced views or using prejudiced language common at the time is a far cry from acting on those prejudices and criminalizing an entire group of people.

[Ismail]

My point was that you can't blame it on western psychology, because both considered it a mental disorder.I was not blaming anything on Western psychology, I was saying that the realization that homosexuality was not a mental disorder occurred in the West, during the Cold War, and during a time in which the cultural divide between West and Eastern Europe were fairly obvious. To a socialist in the East, one would be a fool to listen to Western psychology when "scientific" psychology allegedly triumphed it when it came to homosexuality.

It was in response to claims earlier on in this debate that basically amounted to "Well in the 70's the West was realizing the errors of homophobia, so why didn't the supposedly enlightened Stalinists do the same, hmm?" Or worse, "In the 1890's Oscar Wilde in Britain and Sigmund Freud in Austria said that homosexuality wasn't a big deal. Also, Emma Goldman. The Stalinoids deliberately ignored these far-reaching calls in order to engage in their insatiable lust for homosexual blood and, ultimately, to destroy socialism."

[Jethro Tull]

Why would an Albanian care about Oscar Wilde or Emma Goldman?

Is that a serious question? The same reason a forum full of mostly native English-speakers are arguing about Albania, duh...

communists are internationalists, in case you forgot.


After all, we're talking about Albanian culture and the Albanian Communists, whose outlook, as noted, was that homosexuality was a relic of feudalism and adopted by capitalism to enslave women.And they're excused from having irrational ideas because they're Albanians? I'm confused by this line of thinking, I also think it's slightly offensive towards Albanians.


These were also ancient, feudal, and capitalist states. Not socialist states.Irrelevant.


It isn't like "Oh hey, those guys allowed homosexuality" meant that Communists (or anyone) associated those states as representing good things either.Irrelevant. The point I was establishing was that permissiveness towards homosexuality existed before the APA removed homosexuality as a psychological disorder. Considering the APA has always been a totalitarian organization that exists to subjugate the masses, using the excuse that you participated in oppression of homosexuals prior to the APA's 1971 decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness is pathetic. It's like saying I hold no moral culpability for hunting a species of animal to extenction prior to the engangered species act.


Engels said "The latter [the Greek men], who would have been ashamed to evince any love for their own wives, amused themselves with hetaerae in all kinds of amours. But the degradation of the women recoiled on the men themselves and degraded them too, until they sank into the loathsomeness of boy-love, degrading both themselves and their gods by the myth of Ganymede."

Yes because 20th century Albania is exactly like Bronze Age Athens.


So the legalization of homosexuality in bourgeois states means...

The bourgeois state in question wants to placate homosexuals, duh...


I'm saying that Russians did not care about homosexuality and regarded it as an aberration.Racist generalization.


Same with Albanians and basically all religious and/or industrialized societies at that time.More racist generalization. Are you saying all Albanians are religious?

Also, regardless of being racist, that argument's simply asinine. Communists are supposed to challenge the ideologies of patriarchal indoctrination (a.k.a. "religion") and capitalist valorization. (a.k.a "industrial society") You're basically saying it's OK for Robin Hood and Little John to run around raping and murdering people because the Sheriff of Nottingham does it too...


You're saying that because Albania and the USSR did not tolerate homosexuality, this is proof that they were not socialist states.Incorrect. I'm saying that Albania and the USSR were not communist societies, hence they did not tolerate homosexuality. Whether or not they were "socialist states" is a matter I'm less interested in debating, you could make the case that the Roosevelt administration or Nazi Germany was "socialist" if you wanted to.


It's one thing to say that they were wrong about homosexuality (in which case, duh), it's another to use it as a way to damn Hoxha and/or Hoxhaism forever.It's one of many examples of how the Hoxhaist regime was a total sell-out.

[Ismail]

communists are internationalists, in case you forgot.And apparently Oscar Wilde and Emma Goldman are great sources of theoretical insight for Communists.

Also there's a difference between being an internationalist and accepting the social views of another state. Hoxha advocated world revolution, I'd say that's fairly internationalist.


And they're excused from having irrational ideas because they're Albanians?In the 1940's-80's when they had no access to sources that did not list homosexuality as a non-mental illness, yes.


I also think it's slightly offensive towards Albanians.Why? Most Albanians today, and especially back then, will not and did not have a high opinion of homosexuals. Same with most of the rest of the world.


using the excuse that you participated in oppression of homosexuals prior to the APA's 1971 decision to no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness is pathetic. It's like saying I hold no moral culpability for hunting a species of animal to extenction prior to the engangered species act.The point is that no one in the socialist states cared about the APA. As far as they were concerned it was a capitalist propagation center that carried no relevancy for socialist states.


Yes because 20th century Albania is exactly like Bronze Age Athens.My point is that "In different cultures in earlier times homosexuality existed just fine" is irrelevant.


Racist generalization.In 1500 AD Russians (as in, Russian men) generally viewed women as inferior. Do you dispute this, or is this too a "racist generalization"? Oh, also, much like my comments about Russians not liking homosexuals, I'm content to report that the rest of the world was not tolerant of them either at that time.


More racist generalization. Are you saying all Albanians are religious?Today most Albanians are agnostic because religious discussions were banned post-1967 and only repealed around 1990. Albania had a very high birthrate in between this time, etc.


Communists are supposed to challenge the ideologies of patriarchal indoctrination (a.k.a. "religion") and capitalist valorization. (a.k.a "industrial society") You're basically saying it's OK for Robin Hood and Little John to run around raping and murdering people because the Sheriff of Nottingham does it too...I do not view being against homosexuality as being against Communism. The liberation of the means of production by the working class and the establishment of socialism worldwide can likely occur irregardless of the international proletariat's views on homosexuality. I view the acceptance of homosexuality as inevitable.

Your example would have some effect on me if it was more like "The Sheriff of Nottingham murders peasants who collectivize, therefore the Communists do the same." This would obviously be anti-communist. A state that bans homosexuality, however, would not be anti-communist, just socially in the wrong.


I'm saying that Albania and the USSR were not communist societies, hence they did not tolerate homosexuality.And this is where we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes communism.


It's one of many examples of how the Hoxhaist regime was a total sell-out.What was there to "sell-out" too? I cannot read in the Manifesto, or in any of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc., a portion which says anything to the extent of "True Communists must strive for the liberation of homosexuals as a prerequisite for socialist construction." Homosexuals being free and equal is obviously a noble goal and something Communists should advocate, of course.

Also it should be noted that the PLA viewed the campaign against homosexuality as a campaign for women's rights. That Hoxha equated "homosexuality" with "Tribal chieftains who congregate to the detriment of women" (to put it that way) and equating it with male chauvinism (to the extent that lesbians were pretty much not punished because they were seen as fighting for gender equality), shows that homosexuality was clearly viewed in a different light by Hoxha and Co. It was not part of some insidious campaign to discredit Communism.

[Jethro Tull]

And apparently Oscar Wilde and Emma Goldman are great sources of theoretical insight for Communists.

Irrelevant. (Although both of them are greater sources of theoretical insight for communists than Hoxha or any other Stalinist autocrat.) The discussion at hand is: Is it possible to denounce oppression of homosexuals prior to 1971? (or any other random period of time) The answer: Yes. Goldman and Wilde are merely two well-known examples to audiences familiar with the English-speaking literature.


Also there's a difference between being an internationalist and accepting the social views of another state.

Wait, are you really saying that (hypothetical) acceptance of homosexuals by the Albanian "Communist" leadership would have indicated a negative social influence from Western states? Is homosexuality particularly "Western"? Reeks of red-brown social fascism. Why not just support the Iranian "Islamic Revolution", while we're at it?


Hoxha advocated world revolution, I'd say that's fairly internationalist.

There are many people who advocate internationalism but are in fact not internationalists. There are many people who advocate communism who are in fact not communists.


In the 1940's-80's when they had no access to sources that did not list homosexuality as a non-mental illness, yes.

Anyone who lived in the 1940s-80s with any functioning rational capacity could tell you homosexuality isn't a mental illness. I have already listed two individuals who, during and before the turn of the century, publicly spoke out against the persecution of homosexuals, there are surely at least thousands more. The Albanian communists didn't care. If they were using the "scientific" sources of the western psychiatric establishment, which itself sought to oppress and marginalize homosexuals, it was a pretense for their own patriarchal subjugation. End of story.


Why? Most Albanians today, and especially back then, will not and did not have a high opinion of homosexuals. Same with most of the rest of the world.

The point is Albanians are, generally speaking, no less bigoted, in regards towards homosexuality or any other subject, than any other group of people. It is therefore not acceptable to use "Albanian" as an excuse for persecution of homosexuals.

Right now the majority of people, Albanian or otherwise, are, at the least, potentially hostile towards the communist political project. We don't create our positions based on what the majority agrees upon, but rather what is correct. This is communism, not populist mass-totalitarianism.


The point is that no one in the socialist states cared about the APA. As far as they were concerned it was a capitalist propagation center that carried no relevancy for socialist states.

Yet modern-day Hoxhaites, on this message board, use the APA's homophobia to excuse the homophobia of the Hoxha regime. Shameful.


My point is that "In different cultures in earlier times homosexuality existed just fine" is irrelevant.


In 1500 AD Russians (as in, Russian men) generally viewed women as inferior.

And it's different in 2009 AD?


Do you dispute this, or is this too a "racist generalization"?

It's a racist generalization to say "My friend Mikhail likes to spit on waitresses and call them '*****es' whenever he goes to a restauraunt, but it's OK because he's Russian and most Russians generally view women as inferior."


Oh, also, much like my comments about Russians not liking homosexuals, I'm content to report that the rest of the world was not tolerant of them either at that time.

"at the time"...you clearly have delusions about the progress of liberal civilization or whatever.

The majority hates homosexuals. So should we? The majority also seems to have no problem with capitalism, they haven't overthrown it yet....

Say what you want about the Bolshevik regime, they imposed pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies on their citizens, because they wanted to alleviate suffering and expand individual liberty, regardless of the grievances of "the masses", when it's not even their business anyway. (It's no one's business whether I get an abortion or have a homosexual relationship. It's not one person's. It's not 100,000 people's.)

Today most Albanians are agnostic because religious discussions were banned post-1967 and only repealed around 1990. Albania had a very high birthrate in between this time, etc.


I do not view being against homosexuality as being against Communism.

Communists to not believe in harassing adult strangers about their sexuality, or micromanaging their sex lives, unless their sexual behavior is somehow harmful. Any "communist" ideology that embraces the persecution of homosexuals is not authentically free or libertarian, therefore not communist. At best it's social-fascist third positionism.


The liberation of the means of production by the working class and the establishment of socialism worldwide can likely occur irregardless of the international proletariat's views on homosexuality. I view the acceptance of homosexuality as inevitable.

You're incorrect. The liberation of the means of production requires the abolition of the patriarchal family, which would entail the collapse of patriarchal values which reinforce so-called homophobia.


Your example would have some effect on me if it was more like "The Sheriff of Nottingham murders peasants who collectivize, therefore the Communists do the same." This would obviously be anti-communist. A state that bans homosexuality, however, would not be anti-communist, just socially in the wrong.

I disagree. A state that bans homosexuality can not be by definition communist. It is either a patriarchal tribe, a fuedal regime, or a bourgeois dictatorship. A communist society by definition abolishes the foundations of patriarchal society.


And this is where we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes communism.

Clearly. You seem to think the Socialist People's Republic of Albania has something to do with creating communism.


What was there to "sell-out" too?

The workers. Everyone who was promised freedom from capitalism.


I cannot read in the Manifesto

Communism is not some weird religious cult that worships the holy text of the Communist Manifesto. If it was, communism would be pretty mediocre as far as weird religious cults go, because the Communist Manifesto is not that great. (In Marx's defense, it was one of his ameteur texts)


in any of the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.

Communism is not some Jim Jones cult-of-personality oriented around Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.


"True Communists must strive for the liberation of homosexuals as a prerequisite for socialist construction."

The abolition of capitalist state power is a prerequisite for the construction of communism, (not to be confused with the "socialism" of Hoxha, which is no better than the democracy of Jefferson) something that's obvious from any reading of Marx's life-works. Regardless of Marx's personal opinion of homosexuals, the only way the prohibiotion of homosexuality could continue after the abolition of the capitalist state, would be if the capitalist state was replaced by a fuedal state or a patriarchal band or tribe that serves as an embryonic proto-state.


Homosexuals being free and equal is obviously a noble goal and something Communists should advocate, of course.

But if they advocate for the exact opposite, it's OK too, because they're just backwards Albanians.


Also it should be noted that the PLA viewed the campaign against homosexuality as a campaign for women's rights.

The PLA had elements that were in need of purging in order for the PLA to advance authentic communism. It's impossible for every single person involved in the PLA to have the exact same outlook towards homosexuality, same goes for the PPSh. To point out that the homophobic douchebags won out in those two specific examples is not to say "the PLA and PPSh had no potential for human liberation and are not worth studying". Yet, you don't even seem interested in making sure the homophobic assholes don't gain control of our party next time around.


That Hoxha equated "homosexuality" with "Tribal chieftains who congregate to the detriment of women" (to put it that way)

My point is that his perspective was wrong and lead to the oppression of individuals by a capitalist regime. Right-wing reactionary groups use the same argument all the time. The argument's wrong when they make it it, it's wrong when left-wing reactionaries like Hoxha make it.

"Tribal chieftans" probably also liked music and pottery. Let's send all the musicians and ceramic-crafters to jail.


and equating it with male chauvinism (to the extent that lesbians were pretty much not punished because they were seen as fighting for gender equality)

So what? It's somehow better to harass, criminalize, and incarcerate only half the homosexual poupulation? If only those homosexual men knew better, they could have chosen to be born with vaginas.

That's like saying "Well, [X] white nationalist group does advocate genocide for Mexicans, but they also claim that Africans and people of African descent to be ubermenschen along with Western Europeans, so they're good."


shows that homosexuality was clearly viewed in a different light by Hoxha and Co.

A different light than anyone who has actually thought about the issue of homosexuality from a genuinely freedom-loving perspective, yes.


It was not part of some insidious campaign to discredit Communism.

"insideous campaign to discredit communism" is a good verbal description of the entire history of the RPSSh, or any other Marxist-Leninist state for that matter.

[Ismail]

The answer: Yes. Goldman and Wilde are merely two well-known examples to audiences familiar with the English-speaking literature.You said English-speaking, which excludes Russia and Albania. And I also doubt that Wilde was widely read by workers, and I doubt that Goldman's writings on homosexuals were widely read by workers too.


Wait, are you really saying that (hypothetical) acceptance of homosexuals by the Albanian "Communist" leadership would have indicated a negative social influence from Western states? Is homosexuality particularly "Western"?No, it just isn't particularly internationalistic. "Adopt my social views or fuck you" = chauvinist.


Why not just support the Iranian "Islamic Revolution", while we're at it?We do, as did Hoxha. It united the Iranian masses against imperialism and the despotic Shah.


Anyone who lived in the 1940s-80s with any functioning rational capacity could tell you homosexuality isn't a mental illness.Really? Better tell that to all those intellectuals who considered it a mental illness, then.


I have already listed two individuals who, during and before the turn of the century, publicly spoke out against the persecution of homosexuals, there are surely at least thousands more.Once again, why would the Russians or Albanians care about them?


The point is Albanians are, generally speaking, no less bigoted, in regards towards homosexuality or any other subject, than any other group of people. It is therefore not acceptable to use "Albanian" as an excuse for persecution of homosexuals.So are you saying that tolerance of homosexuality in the US is equal to tolerance of homosexuality in Albania? Especially in the 60's and 70's?


Yet modern-day Hoxhaites, on this message board, use the APA's homophobia to excuse the homophobia of the Hoxha regime. Shameful.We "excuse the homophobia" because no one in Albania or the USSR except a few Western-educated types accepted homosexuality, and this was not based on willing ignorance, it was based on the genuine belief that it was a social illness or an attempt to discredit women's liberation.


And it's different in 2009 AD?OH GOD RACIST CHAUVINIST HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE THAT RUSSIAN MEN (generally) HOLD WOMEN IN LOW REGARD

- me parodying you.


It's a racist generalization to say "My friend Mikhail likes to spit on waitresses and call them '*****es' whenever he goes to a restauraunt, but it's OK because he's Russian and most Russians generally view women as inferior."Actually not really if this was 1800 AD or something. It'd be wrong, but not unexpected. In today's world, however, it would be wrong, and in the Soviet Union it would most certainly be wrong and punished.


"at the time"...you clearly have delusions about the progress of liberal civilization or whatever.No, I'm simply a materialist. In the 40's pretty much no straight people except intellectuals in the West defended homosexuality.


Say what you want about the Bolshevik regime,It was a great event that liberated millions.


they imposed pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies on their citizens, because they wanted to alleviate suffering and expand individual liberty, regardless of the grievances of "the masses", when it's not even their business anyway.Actually the masses didn't really care because "pro-homosexual" policies were never enforced. Soviet psychologists were already treating homosexuality as a social illness, and the acceptance of homosexuality was limited to some Western-educated intellectuals.


You're incorrect. The liberation of the means of production requires the abolition of the patriarchal family,No it does not. The abolition of the patriarchal family occurs during socialism.


The workers. Everyone who was promised freedom from capitalism.Straight workers in Albania totally longed for homosexual liberation I guess.


Communism is not some Jim Jones cult-of-personality oriented around Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc.I'm glad you told me that. Now, stop saying what is or isn't Communist I guess, because apparently you don't think what the writers of Communist theory said is relevant.


Regardless of Marx's personal opinion of homosexuals, the only way the prohibiotion of homosexuality could continue after the abolition of the capitalist state, would be if the capitalist state was replaced by a fuedal state or a patriarchal band or tribe that serves as an embryonic proto-state.Once again, under socialism the patriarchal family system is ended. But you don't actually believe in the socialist stage.

Once again, we have fundamental differences on what Communism is.

[Plagueround]

It would really help anarchism if 1. Every time someone asks a legitimate question about a socialist historical figure, a flood of anarchists don't flock to the thread to spout tired epithets about OMG DICTATORZ. Surely one can come up with well formulated arguments and facts instead of blind dismissal. It makes you look stupid.
2. Stop bringing up Catalonia as the answer to everything. You don't automatically win for bringing up Catalonia. Catalonia was just as much a failure as any of the states you're so quick to dismiss, and it makes you look really stupid if the best rebuttal for these states lasting decades is an ultimately failed revolution that lasted less than three years. Not to demean the memory of the Spanish revolutionaries of course.

Is it really that difficult to let people have a reasonable conversation without a bum rush to shout them down?

Same goes for the infantile dismissal of anarchists by some of our more narrow minded Marxist-Leninists. Certainly it's possible for both sides to debate without resorting to the bourgeois stereotyping that we both experience?

[Andres Marcos]

Didn't stop the early early government from legalizing it. And when since do leftist care if something is controversial?


This didn't stop Soviet Russia from legalizing homosexuality though, despite apparently not having access to the scientific evidence you believe needs to be in place for homosexuality to be acceptable. In fact there were plenty of sexologists at that time who were arguing in favour of homosexuality being legalized, including the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Germany, but you're obviously more interested in apologizing for viciously homophobic policies, including the ban that was imposed on male homosexuality under Stalinism in 1933, than approaching history in an honest and open way.


Of course not, I was merely pointing out that Lenin was before his time in a number of respects, that doesn't mean I agree with all of his perspectives or indeed his prejudices either however, every revolutionary of the time had their various prejudices but some were clearly more advanced than others.

Just an FYI, even when the USSR legalized homosexuality, Lenin proposed all homosexuals go into asylums to "treat" their mental disease, he called it a "bourgeois disease" and a "Western disease"(Hekma, Gert; Oosterhuis, Harry; Steakley, James D (1995), Gay men and the sexual history of the political left). The Marxist anti-homosexuality was rooted in Marx and Engels' theory on its origins, they said it was bourgeois degeneracy and a priviledge of the upper-classes from ancient to modern society. Homophobia has been apart of Communism from the 1840s to just very recently. Anarchists were pretty big on accepting LGBTs but that doesn't not mean they all did, for example the Spanish anarchists:


"If you are an anarchist, that means that you are more morally upright and physically strong than the average man. And he who likes inverts is no real man, and is therefore no real anarchist."

-Male inverts and homosexuals: Sex discourse in the Anarchist Revista Blanca, Published in Gert Hekma et al. (eds.)"Gay men and the sexual history of the political left" by Harrington Park Press 1995

Engels in the Origin of the Family described it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading".

Most Communists today though have abandoned this outdated political position. I think people really need to see that for nearly 250 years the Left has been in the dark about LGBT issues, and first need to get the facts straightened out on the USSR decriminalization because few of us would promote the old law if it was known that the Bolsheviks wanted instead to institutionalize homosexuals to "treat" their disease. Its like your grandparents, do you fault them for holding most likely the same views as the Bolsheviks to Homosexuals(probably even worse) or holding ultra-dogmatic religious views, conditions shape a lot of the consciousness of people, for example marrying children used to be okay, Rape was/is a normal part of war, Marrying for love was unheard of 100 years ago, blacks used to be slaves in the USA(even when many nations had already emancipated African Slaves on the continent). All of these things were "normal" in their proper context.

[ls]

Decriminalising homosexuality is still a massive step forward, also not forcing asylum treatment on them is clearly progressive compared (in the context of that time) to others, for instance compare this to the outlawing of that and abortion later on (even though they were lifted, still).

As for anarchist positions on homosexuality, they were and remain only as progressive as other communists imo. No more or less.

[Jethro Tull]

Just an FYI, even when the USSR legalized homosexuality, Lenin proposed all homosexuals go into asylums to "treat" their mental disease, he called it a "bourgeois disease" and a "Western disease"(Hekma, Gert; Oosterhuis, Harry; Steakley, James D (1995), Gay men and the sexual history of the political left). The Marxist anti-homosexuality was rooted in Marx and Engels' theory on its origins, they said it was bourgeois degeneracy and a priviledge of the upper-classes from ancient to modern society. Homophobia has been apart of Communism from the 1840s to just very recently. Anarchists were pretty big on accepting LGBTs but that doesn't not mean they all did, for example the Spanish anarchists:



Engels in the Origin of the Family described it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading".

Most Communists today though have abandoned this outdated political position. I think people really need to see that for nearly 250 years the Left has been in the dark about LGBT issues, and first need to get the facts straightened out on the USSR decriminalization because few of us would promote the old law if it was known that the Bolsheviks wanted instead to institutionalize homosexuals to "treat" their disease. Its like your grandparents, do you fault them for holding most likely the same views as the Bolsheviks to Homosexuals(probably even worse) or holding ultra-dogmatic religious views, conditions shape a lot of the consciousness of people, for example marrying children used to be okay, Rape was/is a normal part of war, Marrying for love was unheard of 100 years ago, blacks used to be slaves in the USA(even when many nations had already emancipated African Slaves on the continent). All of these things were "normal" in their proper context.

The problem with this is that people are getting stupider, not more enlightened as your posts imply.

"the Left has been in the dark about LGBT issues". I think what you need to say is that straight hompohobes have been a vocal minority among the Left.

[Andres Marcos]

The problem with this is that people are getting stupider, not more enlightened as your posts imply.

what evidence to support this claim? I think we have progressed a lot from the flat earth, inquisition, fuedal days. In what ways have people gotten "stupider"



"the Left has been in the dark about LGBT issues". I think what you need to say is that straight hompohobes have been a vocal minority among the Left.

Sources? Sexual Liberation was hardly ever touched by the left until just recently, with the exception of anarchists(and even they did not make it a major issue and some like the Spanish anarchists held homophobic machismo views), socialists and communists held on to rather conservative views on homosexuality and promiscuity, and if they did not, then they certainly did not denounce it(or support homosexuality or free-love...Kollantai was always on the margins with her sexual liberation viewpoint), it was generally looked down upon(if not violently opposed) to promote anything other than monogamous and heterosexual lifestyles in the movement. It was only in the 60s and 70s that Gay Liberation came out widespread amongst the left, the Black Panthers were the among the first Communist group in the US to call for emancipation of gays, that is for nearly 120 years prior to that it was standard policy to consider homosexuality a "bourgeois disease" based on old writings of Engels and Marx. If the majority of the left was pro-gay that rests on you to prove, I have provided sources which show that anti-homosexual sentiment was actually common, tolerated/accepted in the Old Left, there simply is no basis to say the majority of the old left felt the same about LGBT rights as we do today. What sources do you have to state that it was only a "vocal minority" on the Left who have been straight up homophobes? I think the majority of Communists and socialists from the 19th to early to mid 20th Centuries were in today's context VERY homophobic.

[Red Dreadnought]

Well I think Lenin possition over sexuallity is correct at that context (Soviet Republic fighting all enemies); not a sacred truth of course. But of course he promoted a behaviour no wanting to criminalize people. The facts are that stalinists criminalized homosexuality.

Nothing of sympaty of Hoxha's Stalinism, and he's "Popular" Republic. He was a mystifier of marxism, and antiproletarian guy, like good stalinist.

By the way, at 70`s he excommunicate Mao by his "Tree World's Theory" and considered finally him an "antiimperialist" more that a "real communist" (See "Collected Works")

[Andres Marcos]

Well I think Lenin possition over sexuallity is correct at that context (Soviet Republic fighting all enemies); not a sacred truth of course. But of course he promoted a behaviour no wanting to criminalize people. The facts are that stalinists criminalized homosexuality.

Like I said...Lenin called it a disease, Lenin's positions were just as incorrect as Stalin's. Yes, the CPSU criminalized homosexuality, it was a conservative mistake based on old writings of Engels, but do today's "stalinists" support this? My Party is led by a gay man. We have applied self-criticism on this issue, why should we be blamed for what the USSR did in the 1930s? Do people blame Trotskyists for racism based on Trotsky's words?(calling Stalin an asiatic) I don't think so.


He was a mystifier of marxism, and antiproletarian guy, like good stalinist.

That is your opinion. Hoxha had over 70 volumes of writing, there is no making Marxism vague, as for "anti-proletarian" know this, the wage differentials in Albania never went over 2:1, workers in the late 70s until Hoxha's death set their OWN quotas(the Party trusted them to be enthusiastic on goals), which were always higher than the one set by their directors, and there were absolutely zero taxes in Albania post 1976. Albania as a matter of fact was probably the most radical socialist state to have existed at that time and more so than the Soviet Union in any part of its history.



By the way, at 70`s he excommunicate Mao by his "Tree World's Theory" and considered finally him an "antiimperialist" more that a "real communist" (See "Collected Works")

The Three World's Theory is pretty chauvinist and some would say racist, Mao promoted the "war against whites versus the non-whites", with this mess. Secondly, the Three Worlds said that American Imperialism was less dangerous than Soviet Social-imperialism. I would say after Hoxha's split with mao in 1974, he got more radical.

[Ismail]

Mao's "Three Worlds Theory" was pretty much just an attempt to say "We're trading and on good terms with the US now, and we'll justify this via Communist phraseology and under the world's lamest guise of anti-imperialism." Hoxha noted that this was revisionist, and China responded by cutting off aid and pretending that Albania didn't exist.

Fact is, pretty much all Maoists today accept that the TWT was rightist and not something to emulate. Only some "Two Whatevers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Whatevers)"-esque parties such as the MIM were apologists for it, even though it was fairly at odds with the MIM's third-worldism.


Mao promoted the "war against whites versus the non-whites"I don't really see where he did this. Lin Biao's "Global countryside encircles the global city" is far more "racialist" if you (incorrectly IMO) want to go that route.

[Andres Marcos]

I don't really see where he did this. Lin Biao's "Global countryside encircles the global city" is far more "racialist" if you (incorrectly IMO) want to go that route.


"the Europeans think that the world belongs exclusively to the whites and that they are the superior class, while the coloured peoples are inferior. The Chinese people," Li Ta-chao continues, "must be ready to wage a class struggle against the other races of the world, in which they will once again display their special national qualities"

-Imperialism and Revolution

Li Dazhao was one of the founders of the CCP. The Three worlds fits perfectly into that philosophy of petty-bourgeois first world workers vs. third world proletarians.

[Jethro Tull]

what evidence to support this claim?

As it specifically retains to homophobia, there are as many people hostile towards homosexuals as there were two generations ago. There are also as many "tolerant and accepting" people.

In general, communism is not a new-age millinealism where people magically more enlightened as history progresses towards its zenith. You might as well believe in dolphins levitating out of the sea in 2012.

Marx predicted that as capitalism completed its process of valorization, the workers would become more revolutionary. Marx guessed (incorrectly) that the workers in the most productive positions of society would have the most revolutionary potential, therefore he bet on the industrial sector, of the most developed reigons of the capitalist word (ie: northwest europe, at the time) and dismissed workers percieved as unproductive (panhandlers, prostitutes, petty criminals, etc.) as "lumpen".

In retrospect, Bakunin's prophecies at the time have shown to come closer to the truth, (as developed by later thinkers, Fanon, Mao, et. al) in that these workers percieved as most "unproductive" (third world rural workers, etc.) have been the most likely to rebel. As workers are immersed in the cultural vacuum of the metropolis, they become more dependent on capitalism in mediating and determining all aspects of their life, they become less questioning of capitalism, more complacent.

There are as many free-thinking, subversive, dissident individuals among the WWII generation as there are among the YouTube generation. The YouTubers, even those who are dissident, have grown accustomed to advances in capitalist development, and are threfore more attached to capitalism.


I think we have progressed a lot from the flat earth, inquisition, fuedal days. In what ways have people gotten "stupider"

We're talking about a difference of two or three generations. No one in Hoxha's generation believed the Earth was flat, nor was the Spanish Inquisition occuring at the time.

Far from being a symptom of "fuedal oppression", the Spanish Inquisition was a specific law-enforcement campaign waged as a single thread in a general blanket of totalitarian repression needed to complete the primitive accumulation of capital. It's therefore an example of how things have gotten worse as the development of capitalism progressed, as the measures of totalitarian control taken by the state prior just don't compare.

This really isn't the thread to get into discussion of primitive astronomical systems, however regarding your comments on "flat earth" I will say that the idea of a flat earth is wrong not because it is old but because it is incorrect. Many incorrect ideas proliferate and flourish in the modern times we live in. Many primitive schools of astronomy have been vindicated by the additional perception of the heavens granted to our people by the powerful space-telescopes of capitalism. (eg: Greco-Indian, Mesoamerican, etc.) We shouldn't think of old ideas as "archaic", many traditional ideas are tradition because they've stoodthe test of thousands of years of experimentation.

Fuedalism in general, while oppressive, exploitative, and thoroughly unnessicary, is slightly better than capitalism. For one thing the oppressed class has more autonomy. Secondly, the oppressor class, which degrades not only humanity, but the entire eco-system of the Earth, to fulfill their desires of constant material luxury, has less material power to do so. As communists we must intervene and forbid the further progress of capitalist development.


Sexual Liberation was hardly ever touched by the left until just recently

This is an obvious lie. For example, you were discussing Engels' attitude towards homosexuality. One of the few references to homoseuality we have in the literature of Marx and Engels, besides Engels' Origins of the Family, (To my knowlege Marx never wrote on the subject of homosexuality, although I could very easily be wrong about this) is a letter Engels wrote to Marx on June 22nd, 1869. (You can find it on Marxists.org) Engels was writing in response to a pamphlet Marx had forwarded to him written (I believe) by Ulrichs regarding the liberation of homosexuals and "Uranians". (hermaphrodites / trans-people)

In the letter, Engels complained that "they [the 'paederasts'] have such important men in all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rosing to Schweitzer, they cannot fail to triumph" and that "beginning to count themselves, and discover that they are a power in the state." In Engels' defense, he may have been complaining merely of a specific subculture of homosexual pedophiles agitating for the 'right' of adults to molest children, using the language of sexual liberation. (The 19th century equivilant of NAMBLA, or Hakim Bey) Either way, this is enough to thoroughly rebuke your claim that homosexual liberation was not a prominantly discussed and analyzed issue among the Left of the time, that it was not a serious consideration, and only emerged as a relevant issue later on.


with the exception of anarchists

This is a pretty large exception considering many (myself included) even claim Marx as an anarchist.


the Spanish anarchists held homophobic machismo views

"the Spanish anarchists" were not a homogenous hivemind. There were many "Spanish anarchists" who were skull-dugging Stalinist bureaucrats. The CNT blatantly helped the Communist Party of Spain crush the POUM and los Amigos de Durruti, because they were "adventurists" standing in the way of "Republican Unity". Some of the projects built up by some Spanish "anarchists" perfectly replicated the conditions of capitalist production. Just because someone calls themself an "anarchist" doesn't mean they aren't a repressive asshole.


It was only in the 60s and 70s that Gay Liberation came out widespread amongst the left

Again, Engels' letter to Marx alone refutes this notion, at least from Engels' perception, unless you're referring to the 1860s.


the Black Panthers were the among the first Communist group in the US to call for emancipation of gays

There were members of the party who were pro-homosexual liberation, and members who were anti-homosexual liberation. It was a struggle between various factions within the party, just as it was in 1869. There was no homogenous "Black Panther Party". You're making everything black-and-white. Homosexuals certainly haven't waited for leftist bureaucrats such as Huey Newton to proclaim their official support before they started resisting oppression.


that is for nearly 120 years prior to that it was standard policy to consider homosexuality a "bourgeois disease" based on old writings of Engels and Marx.

Not everyone followed the "standard policies" of the left-wing bureaucracies. (Oh yeah, I forgot, all the people who actually used their critical-thinking skills, and functioned as actual communists, instead of as socialist party bureaucrats, are "anarchists" who get excluded.)


If the majority of the left was pro-gay that rests on you to prove

I wish to prove no such thing, as it's irrelevant. If the majority of the so-called "left" was pro-rape, rape would still be immoral.


I have provided sources which show that anti-homosexual sentiment was actually common, tolerated/accepted in the Old Left

You have proven that there were three anti-homosexual leftists - Engels, Lenin, and an anonymous Spanish anarchist. I haven't denied that homophobic assholes have always existed among the "Left". However there have always been people to oppose them, for obvious reasons. A good portion of the radical left is still very homophobic, the only difference is that (at least in the English-speaking world) our language is more PC.


I think the majority of Communists and socialists from the 19th to early to mid 20th Centuries were in today's context VERY homophobic.

You're suggesting that "today's context" is less homophobic? Have you asked a homosexual about this?

[Gustav HK]

I have some questions too about Hoxha and hoxhaist Albania:

First. Under the "Ideological and Cultural revolution" in 1966-1968 millitary ranks were abolished, and they were first restored after Hoxha´s death. But how can an army be without ranks, I mean there must be somebody who gives orders and others who obeys, especially if it is in a battle.
This question also applies to the other times where millitary ranks were abolished such as in the USSR to 1936 and PRC from the Cultural Revolution and until the 80´s.

Second. Hoxha declared Albania to be the "worlds first atheist state", and religious institutions were banned. But how was it to be a religious person it that time? Here you always hear about how religious people were prosecuted, but is it really so, or were the "cases", that western media talks about more "isolated cases" made by some more extremist parts of the PPSH and the state rather than official policy?

I have also heard from a thread here on Revleft called "Atheist Albania" that Hoxha himself didn´t want the offensive course against religion, and that it was forced on him by younger, more extremist party members.

[Kayser_Soso]

I have some questions too about Hoxha and hoxhaist Albania:

First. Under the "Ideological and Cultural revolution" in 1966-1968 millitary ranks were abolished, and they were first restored after Hoxha´s death. But how can an army be without ranks, I mean there must be somebody who gives orders and others who obeys, especially if it is in a battle.
This question also applies to the other times where millitary ranks were abolished such as in the USSR to 1936 and PRC from the Cultural Revolution and until the 80´s.

Second. Hoxha declared Albania to be the "worlds first atheist state", and religious institutions were banned. But how was it to be a religious person it that time? Here you always hear about how religious people were prosecuted, but is it really so, or were the "cases", that western media talks about more "isolated cases" made by some more extremist parts of the PPSH and the state rather than official policy?

I have also heard from a thread here on Revleft called "Atheist Albania" that Hoxha himself didn´t want the offensive course against religion, and that it was forced on him by younger, more extremist party members.

On the issue of the military, the "abolishment of ranks" is a slightly inaccurate term. It worked something like this(at least in the USSR): In a normal military, you have an officer, such as a colonel. Depending on the military and nation in question, a colonel may command anything from a battalion to a regiment. Keep in mind that this may be in wartime when officers might be short in supply. The basic idea though, is that a certain rank entitles one to command different military formations. What the original Red Army system did, was when someone was put in charge of say, a brigade, they were a Brigade Commander(Kombrig), if they were put in charge of a division, Komdiv. This ranking system existed from 1935-40, though in 1941 some still held these rank titles.

[Cheung Mo]

One of the last prominent groups that identifies primarily with Hoxha's ideas is Venezuela's Bandera Rojas, a political party that was running around with right-wing death squads and shooting Chavez supporters during the failed coup of 2002.

[Bright Banana Beard]

One of the last prominent groups that identifies primarily with Hoxha's ideas is Venezuela's Bandera Rojas, a political party that was running around with right-wing death squads and shooting Chavez supporters during the failed coup of 2002.
They has changed since 1998. Many cadres instead went to Chavista camp after the party called Chavez a social-fascist. Soon after, they were expelled from the ICMLPO(U&S) in 2005. So some ex-member of Bandera Rojas formed Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Venezuela and are currently a member of ICMLPO.

[Ismail]

One of the last prominent groups that identifies primarily with Hoxha's ideas is Venezuela's Bandera Rojas, a political party that was running around with right-wing death squads and shooting Chavez supporters during the failed coup of 2002.It also got infiltrated by the CIA in the 90's.

Before that however, it was a guerrilla movement from the 70's-90's that was condemned by the US government as a "terrorist" organization. And it was indeed Hoxhaist.

Also last time I saw their website in 2006 (I think it's down by now, since the party itself is basically dead and abandoned Hoxhaism long ago) they had a huge Mao portrait and never mentioned Hoxha. They, in fact, identified as Maoist.

[ReggaeCat]

some1 said i stopped posting...nah just toook a break from politics...xD
so..myself didn't live hoxha time....me parents did...and i hear 2 opposite opinions who lived on 2 different places same time..it's kinda weird but im gonna tell you both opinions

Mom speaking
It was a quiet time.You never feared of loosing something...girls and boys actually were friends (which nowadays doesnt happens thta much)and we had our lives to live and not the TV living for us.Although there were much work and actually even sundays hoxha called like an socialist action wich all the people worked for free to do smth for example clean the roads or smth like that...depends on the situation.The salary depended on how "heavy" your work was wich means the miners took the highest salary.The land ws cultivated and it's not like now wich you see an deserted albania and all that land being unworked...(:mad: FUCKING DEMOCRACY!!!!!!)

Father saying:
It wasn't that good.YOu couldnt say bad things about the party.(why would you?)Also If you disagreed with the party and it was serious they put you in jail(political prisoners ffs...-1 hoxha :lol:)and...in the party there were too many who hunted the carrieers and not socialism so..if you wanted to get a big position in the party you just had to spy on others..even false spy..as some1 said i don't remeber who..."That time Communist was The leaders of the party and the simple people...all the others were the kulaks..."Also where my father lived they didnt had much things to buy....i mean...they had most 2 shirts...and the villages was very poor....even with the food wasnt that good...


Conclusions i made...
Depending on the time...A giant step was made seeing the albanian state after WWII but mistakes and oppresion by the state was also there...still there were no gulags...not so much killing but....it could be better....that's the cocnlusion for 2 ppl who lived hoxha socialism from 74-75 till it fell.Hope it didnt tired you.:laugh::cool:

[ReggaeCat]

also i would like to add from my mother's experience that she was trained for some months to use guns...how to defend herself in case of an outside inasion and if that happened everyone i repeat EVERYONE would come out and fight...that's one of the reasons why albania had the third best defencive armies....also..at school in most of the cases(i mena university) would go the one who had the best results in the tests...so only the best went to university...that's good i think...also..if for example you wasnt the best student at school...the teacher had the right to send you another student who was one of the best in class to help you out...meaning everyone cared on how your progress goes...of course the student that time..was"the good child" who did everything the elder told to...for example if some1 asked you to go buy him smth cause he cant or stuff...you were bound by un wrote rules to go...just because you had attitude and you respected the more olders than you...:)
This last one continued even after the fall of socialism cause i remeber some neighbour asked me to go and buy em smth and i felt ashamed if i didnt..Ye i guess i was a good child..:D

[FSL]

First. Under the "Ideological and Cultural revolution" in 1966-1968 millitary ranks were abolished,


Regarding this, could someone supply a list of at least the really major changes that went through this period? For example, other than this or making the state officialy atheist, I 've read about setting the lowest to highest wage ratio to 1/2. Is that true?

I 've always found Albania's stance on USSR's or China's revisionism was correct or agreed with Hoxha's critique on eurocommunism etc but this period seems like on where the main line in the party reeks leftism.
Unless Hoxha was in the minority at that time, I 'm surprised so many supporters of him can at the same time support the young Soviet Union. Was he?

[ReggaeCat]

after stalin death i think ussr with hrushov went on revisionsm...you cant't say stalin was an revisionist...ifi understood correct what you said

[Gustav HK]

Why did Hoxha support the invasion of Hungary in 1956 but opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

[RED DAVE]

Now, I don't seek to defend any restriction on abortion that he may have made, though I think we need to understand such things in the context of their times. In the Soviet Union under Stalin, for instance, there were restrictions put on abortion, because there was a significant population decline.Why the fuck would anyone think that a society that puts a restriction on abortion has anything to do with socialism?

RED DAVE

[Kayser_Soso]

Why the fuck would anyone think that a society that puts a restriction on abortion has anything to do with socialism?

RED DAVE


Yes, if a society doesn't fit your ideal image of what socialism is, then it can't have anything to do with socialism. That is an entirely rational point of view.

[Kayser_Soso]

Why did Hoxha support the invasion of Hungary in 1956 but opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Hoxha didn't support the invasion of Hungary in 1956. He was certainly not sympathetic to the counter-revolutionary side, but he saw it as the outgrowth of Soviet and Titoist meddling in the affairs of Hungary.

Take the example of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. I think that for its part, the Afghan Communist party was doing good work, until the Soviets came in and assassinated the country's leader, putting the unpopular faction of the party in power, and convinced them to roll back reforms that had been very popular. Of course I would not support the reactionary tribalist rebels, but the USSR caused the problem and they were really a negative force in the whole scheme of things.

[RED DAVE]

Why the fuck would anyone think that a society that puts a restriction on abortion has anything to do with socialism?
Yes,No.


if a society doesn't fit your ideal image of what socialism is, then it can't have anything to do with socialism.It's not a matter of what my "ideal image of what socialism is." It's a matter of what socialism is.

Socialism is a form of society based on workers control of industry, from bottom to top, just as capitalism is based on capitalist control of industry from bottom to top. Socialism will be the freest form of society in history, or it isn't socialism. It's something else, like state capitalism, which is what Albania was.


That is an entirely rational point of view.I agree. :D

Why would socialists (or Communists) take part in measures designed to reduce the freedom of people below the level of freedom provided in capitalist countries? The answer is: they wouldn't unless they were stalinists, a kind of leftist that, I'm sad to see still exists.

RED DAVE

[Kayser_Soso]

It's not a matter of what my "ideal image of what socialism is." It's a matter of what socialism is.

Socialism is a form of society based on workers control of industry, from bottom to top, just as capitalism is based on capitalist control of industry from bottom to top. Socialism will be the freest form of society in history, or it isn't socialism. It's something else, like state capitalism, which is what Albania was.

This is an all or nothing viewpoint, which is why people like you never get anywhere. Again, you are positing an ideal vision of socialism, actually Communism, and then trying to declare that if something doesn't conform to this, it has nothing to do with socialism. Since sarcasm doesn't set you straight, being direct might help.

What do you think should happen, if you have a revolution for example, and in the process of defeating the counter-revolution and outside reactionary forces, your socialist society has to enact some not-so-libertine laws? Should we then conclude that your society, till the time it manages to defeat capitalism worldwide, has nothing to do with socialism? By your logic, we should do just that.

This kind of logic is the same thing that libertarian capitalists use to defend capitalism- name something bad about capitalism, in this era or the past, and they will always try to convince you that your example "wasn't really capitalism". In other words, it wasn't ideal, therefore it wasn't capitalism, therefore you can't blame capitalism for it.



Why would socialists (or Communists) take part in measures designed to reduce the freedom of people below the level of freedom provided in capitalist countries? The answer is: they wouldn't unless they were stalinists, a kind of leftist that, I'm sad to see still exists.

RED DAVE

First of all, freedom is an abstract concept. Lenin always said that when someone speaks of freedom, a Communist should ask for whom, to do what.

You ask why they would reduce freedom, as though one day the evil Lenin and Stalin conspired to be a couple of assholes and take away everyone's freedom. Did you ever consider the historical context in which these things took place? Did you ever consider that socialism was born in blood, and that there were only a few brief periods of respite when the Bolsheviks, or any socialist group worldwide were not facing overwhelmingly powerful opponents, armed to the teeth, who had no goal other than the total annihilation of the first socialist states?

Do you think that might have influenced the decision of these leaders just a bit? You compare these countries to the leading capitalist countries of the day, as though they were on an equal footing. They were anything but. The Western capitalist countries could enjoy greater negative freedom(defined as what you are not prohibited from doing), because security wise, militarily and economically, they held the advantage from the start. This advantage did wax and wane during certain periods but they always maintained at least some advantage. Coupled with this, leading capitalist countries were able to export their capital and by this process export many of the worst miseries of capitalism.

To compare the USSR to the US or some Western European state in terms of personal freedom is just ridiculous, and you are ignoring, either deliberately or out of ignorance, the massive historical context in which states like Albania existed.

It's easy for you to sit here on a computer and judge those leaders and states, but where is your "freest" revolution? I have to repeat this over and over again, but countries like the USSR and Albania(and several other countries to a lesser extent) made attempts at establishing socialism and Communism. To an extent they accomplished the former, but ultimately failed. This does not mean they had "nothing to do with socialism."

Like it or not, the definition of socialism you are using is idealistic, and your reasoning unrealistic and illogical.

[bailey_187]

Why the fuck would anyone think that a society that puts a restriction on abortion has anything to do with socialism?

RED DAVE

Since when did a shit part of the Superstructure determine the whole mode of production?

Capitalism is Capitalism with or without abortion allowed. Feudalism is Feudalism with or without abortion allowed. Primitive Communism is Primitive Communism with or without abortion allowed.

[Gustav HK]

Hoxha didn't support the invasion of Hungary in 1956. He was certainly not sympathetic to the counter-revolutionary side, but he saw it as the outgrowth of Soviet and Titoist meddling in the affairs of Hungary.



Here in Tirana we did not fail to speak up. I called the Soviet ambassador and told him angrily:
“We are completely uninformed about what is going on in a number of socialist countries. Tito and company have a finger in the organization of the counter-revolution in Hungary. You are abandoning Hungary to imperialism and Tito. You must intervene with arms and far piazza pulita1 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm#1) before it’s too late.”

E. Hoxha

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm

"piazza pulita" means "make a clean sweep".

It seems that Hoxha wanted the Soviet Union to intervene in Hungary.

[Albanianarchist]

There is some controversy about that. In fact lots of Albanian communists were afraid that after Hungary, Albania was going to be next. One fact that remains for sure, was that Hoxha was in a really uncomfortable position at that time. Power struggle in the party, Northern Albania (Kosovo, Albanian part of FYROM, etc) being left out of Albania, despite the Bujan Conference, which caused a lot displeasure among the population, and lots of other issues prevented Hoxha from being "the spoiled child" of Communist superpowers. You know, it's a bad game of mutual favors with Russia, all the way to Soviet-Albanian split.