APL's Theoretical Journal!

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://revolutionaryspiritapl.blogspot.com

[Dimentio]

While the APL certainly is a somewhat bizarre party with an obscure ideology, I have enjoyed to read some of what the APL has published. I am especially thinking about the stuff on the Red Phoenix blog, for example that series of articles which pwned Glenn Beck.

[Kassad]

My only question is this: there's a Prairie Fire who writes for Monkey Smashes Heaven, a Maoist Third-Worldist online journal, and there's also a Prairie Fire who's with the American Party of Labor and writes for this new online journal. Are these two different people, or did Prairie Fire (whoever they are) decide to forsake Maoism Third-Worldism for Hoxhaism?

[Dimentio]

My only question is this: there's a Prairie Fire who writes for Monkey Smashes Heaven, a Maoist Third-Worldist online journal, and there's also a Prairie Fire who's with the American Party of Labor and writes for this new online journal. Are these two different people, or did Prairie Fire (whoever they are) decide to forsake Maoism Third-Worldism for Hoxhaism?

I think Prairie Fire is just a good writer who is asked by various movements to write articles about different subjects.

[Kassad]

I think Prairie Fire is just a good writer who is asked by various movements to write articles about different subjects.

I would agree with you, but recently Monkey Smashes Heaven released several polemics and debates between the Maoists and Hoxhaists from the American Party of Labor. Prairie Fire was debating on the side of the Third-Worldists in an attempt to refute Hoxhaist theory.

[Glenn Beck]

They're two different people.

[Dimentio]

I would agree with you, but recently Monkey Smashes Heaven released several polemics and debates between the Maoists and Hoxhaists from the American Party of Labor. Prairie Fire was debating on the side of the Third-Worldists in an attempt to refute Hoxhaist theory.

Alright, then probably two different persons.

I consider the APL somewhat more serious than MSH.

[Kassad]

Alright, then probably two different persons.

I consider the APL somewhat more serious than MSH.

I consider them both to be part of the ideological fringe known as the anti-revisionist movement, which appears to be incredibly small, yet still manages to get its face out there once in a while. Frankly, I don't see Maoist Third-Worldists or Hoxhaists really having much of an effect on the international communist movement right now. Let's hope it stays that way, for our sake.

[Dimentio]

I consider them both to be part of the ideological fringe known as the anti-revisionist movement, which appears to be incredibly small, yet still manages to get its face out there once in a while. Frankly, I don't see Maoist Third-Worldists or Hoxhaists really having much of an effect on the international communist movement right now. Let's hope it stays that way, for our sake.

Yes, but the hoxhaists are not insane.

The maoist-thirdworldists are insane.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Actually, they are two different Prairie Fire person. Currently, our biggest presence is in Albania, Turkey, and Ecuador. Just because we criticized the socialist states doesn't mean we side with imperialism. If you think revisionism isn't a threat, then take a look what happen to many socialist states. I love it how Pepsi got inside USSR and calling it socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I consider them both to be part of the ideological fringe known as the anti-revisionist movement, which appears to be incredibly small, yet still manages to get its face out there once in a while. Frankly, I don't see Maoist Third-Worldists or Hoxhaists really having much of an effect on the international communist movement right now. Let's hope it stays that way, for our sake.

I see you've mellowed down to become a tankie. :D

[RHIZOMES]

While the APL certainly is a somewhat bizarre party with an obscure ideology

Says the revolutionary leftist technocrat... :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Frankly, I don't see Maoist Third-Worldists or Hoxhaists really having much of an effect on the international communist movement right now.Yes, because Maoism-Third Worldism and Hoxhaism clearly have much in common.

Also I'd disagree. In Ecuador it participates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Popular_Democr%C3%A1tico) in the legislature and enjoys a semi-legal existence (actual CP, which used to be engaged in guerrilla warfare, is illegal, hence their electoral front, and their Presidential candidate was assassinated in 1999). In Mali the Hoxhaists there participate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labor) in the governing coalition, fight as guerrillas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Liberation_Army) in Colombia, participates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Brazil) in the Brazilian Government (although if you feel the PC do B is social-democratic, which isn't entirely unfounded, one could always look at the PCR (http://pcrbrasil.org/)), etc.

There are also the exiled Iranian Hoxhaists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Party_of_Labour), and the historical examples of the Nicaraguan Hoxhaists (who participated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAP-ML) in the legislature in the 80's and criticized the Sandinista's petty-bourgeois views), the Hoxhaists in Ethiopia who overthrew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLLT) Mengistu's regime, etc. Of these, only the Ethiopian Hoxhaists totally gave up their Marxism-Leninism. Also for what it's worth, the Beninese Hoxhaists got a MP elected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Benin) in 1995. There were even clandestine Hoxhaist party cells (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany/Marxists-Leninists) in the GDR.

Then there's Enver Hoxha himself, who led Albania.

So yeah, comparing the two influence-wise is retarded.

[Valeofruin]

I consider them both to be part of the ideological fringe known as the anti-revisionist movement, which appears to be incredibly small, yet still manages to get its face out there once in a while. Frankly, I don't see Maoist Third-Worldists or Hoxhaists really having much of an effect on the international communist movement right now. Let's hope it stays that way, for our sake.

Going to pretend you just don't know enough about the APL instead of assuming you are just not a Marxist-Leninist

[Kassad]

Going to pretend you just don't know enough about the APL instead of assuming you are just not a Marxist-Leninist

Like I've said before, not praising every shit Stalin took does not make me any less of a Marxist-Leninist. Seeing as to the fact that I've had pretty long discussions with many of the members of the party and have read most of the documents they've published so far, I'd say I understand their brand of anti-revisionism quite well.

Of course, some choose to respond like Ismail did, with mature arguments and facts, despite the fact that I still believe that Hoxhaism is mostly an brand of Marxism that doesn't really apply to class struggle in the United States. You, on the other hand, just call me a phony Marxist-Leninist, which is a common argument among your types and it's mostly why you are seen as a complete joke. I don't uphold the theory of state capitalism, nor do I believe in the anti-revisionist notion of social-imperialism, thus I don't really fit into the ideological category of Hoxhaism or Maoism, which is why I refer to myself as a Marxist-Leninist.

[Valeofruin]

Like I've said before, not praising every shit Stalin took does not make me any less of a Marxist-Leninist. Seeing as to the fact that I've had pretty long discussions with many of the members of the party and have read most of the documents they've published so far, I'd say I understand their brand of anti-revisionism quite well.

Of course, some choose to respond like Ismail did, with mature arguments and facts, despite the fact that I still believe that Hoxhaism is mostly an brand of Marxism that doesn't really apply to class struggle in the United States. You, on the other hand, just call me a phony Marxist-Leninist, which is a common argument among your types and it's mostly why you are seen as a complete joke. I don't uphold the theory of state capitalism, nor do I believe in the anti-revisionist notion of social-imperialism, thus I don't really fit into the ideological category of Hoxhaism or Maoism, which is why I refer to myself as a Marxist-Leninist.

Theoretical or historical discussions? Your reply leads me to believe the later, but I may be wrong...

Note I didn't call you a phony Marxist-Leninist, in fact I assumed otherwise, I'm not the one using words like 'your types' here, I just wanted to hear you elaborate a bit as to why the APL is a fringe you'd never support...

You made it clear you disagree with the historical analysis of the APL but aside from this what qualms do you have with their theory? I, and the APL would love to hear your criticisms I'm sure.

Edit:

To clarify if I seem overly hostile here, I apologize... I just feel many Marxist-Leninists have got Hoxhaists all wrong... It seems Hoxhaism is disregarded as a factionalist trend.. the reality is this can not be further from the truth. Hoxhaists welcome criticism, strive to make improvements to their movement and stances...

[Ismail]

I don't uphold the theory of state capitalism, nor do I believe in the anti-revisionist notion of social-imperialism, thus I don't really fit into the ideological category of Hoxhaism or Maoism, which is why I refer to myself as a Marxist-Leninist.You're better known as a Brezhnevite.

[Prairie Fire]

My only question is this: there's a Prairie Fire who writes for Monkey Smashes Heaven, a Maoist Third-Worldist online journal, and there's also a Prairie Fire who's with the American Party of Labor and writes for this new online journal. Are these two different people, or did Prairie Fire (whoever they are) decide to forsake Maoism Third-Worldism for Hoxhaism?


There are two different Prairie Fire's: Myself, and the MSH PF.

You can tell us apart by our rhetoric.


Yes, but the hoxhaists are not insane.

Nicest thing that you have ever said to me.

[Dimentio]

Your welcome.

[Valeofruin]

Still waiting for kassad to elaborate a bit as to what specifically is wrong with the theory of the hoxhaists.. why would hoxhaism be dangerous if it had any influence?

[Ismail]

Still waiting for kassad to elaborate a bit as to what specifically is wrong with the theory of the hoxhaists.. why would hoxhaism be dangerous if it had any influence?Pretty much because we get to be accused of "sectarianism" or "ultra-leftism" (we share this trait, apparently, with anti-revisionist Maoists) due to our disagreements over China or Cuba.

I really can't see why any other Marxist-Leninist would "fear" Hoxhaists. We can work with other M-Ls quite easily, and it isn't like we go around screaming about the glories of Enver Hoxha to every worker we come across.

[Valeofruin]

Pretty much because we get to be accused of "sectarianism" or "ultra-leftism" (we share this trait, apparently, with anti-revisionist Maoists) due to our disagreements over China or Cuba.

I really can't see why any other Marxist-Leninist would "fear" Hoxhaists. We can work with other M-Ls quite easily, and it isn't like we go around screaming about the glories of Enver Hoxha to every worker we come across.

In fact, at least in my opinion Enver Hoxha isn't even really the 'main man' if you will in Hoxhaism... I'd give that title to Stalin.

From my experiences we do alot more talking about and glorifying of Stalin then Hoxha... Stalin of course being a figure most M-L's and even most Maoists view relatively positively.

I'd also point out alot of anti Revisionists were driven out by the bulk of the Marxist-Leninists in ye olde days... probably for being too outspoken, and staying Leninist while Moscow took a swing to the right, (hence putting them to the left of the new Soviet 'Leninists')

[Kassad]

I was out of town for a few days, so sorry for the late response. I don't really plan on responding to accusations as to what kind of ideology I hold, but on why I'm not exactly looking for Hoxhaists to become vanguards of the revolution, it's pretty simple. As I said, and Ismail pointed out, many accuse Hoxhaists of ultra-leftism, and rightfully so. Hoxhaists share ideological similarities with anti-communists and Cliffites that describe the former Easter Bloc, Cuba, Vietnam, China and Korea as 'state capitalist.'

I don't recall ever seeing Hoxhaists call for much of a defense from counterrevolution in workers states anywhere, or if they do, they likely pull the Trotskyist line of 'we defend it from imperialism, but want to destroy the revolution and its gains in favor of workers revolution that will most likely actually lead to capitalist control.'

I also see Hoxhaists as very sectarian, in that like Maoists, they seek a continuation of Marxism-Leninism which is already a valid science -- the most valid and relevant form of Marxist theory that has been the prime motivator of communist struggles worldwide. You accuse Maoists of attempting to further or alter Marxism-Leninism if I remember correctly, yet you do the same thing.

As shown in this thread, Hoxhaists basically praise every shit Stalin ever took and I never see any kind of real criticism of what Stalin did. The last thing I want is people leading the communist movement who don't practice self-criticism.

And that, class, is why Hoxhaists are not able to lead the communist movement, should not lead the communist movement and never will lead the communist movement.

[Rjevan]

I don't recall ever seeing Hoxhaists call for much of a defense from counterrevolution in workers states anywhere, or if they do, they likely pull the Trotskyist line of 'we defend it from imperialism, but want to destroy the revolution and its gains in favor of workers revolution that will most likely actually lead to capitalist control.'
I see your point, the problem just is the lack of workers states. Marching through the city, shouting "Support the socialist workers states by upholding and defending Khrushchevism-Dengism-Kimism against counter-revolutionaries!!!" seems quite paradox to me, as the counter-revolution was already celebrating its victory there. So criticising these particular states and calling for proletarian revolutions actually is defending the gains of the revolution against the counter-revolution, not the other way around.


I also see Hoxhaists as very sectarian, in that like Maoists, they seek a continuation of Marxism-Leninism which is already a valid science -- the most valid and relevant form of Marxist theory that has been the prime motivator of communist struggles worldwide. You accuse Maoists of attempting to further or alter Marxism-Leninism if I remember correctly, yet you do the same thing.
You can't make a comparison here, as you said, Maoists see Mao Zedong Thought as a new stage and the most advanced developement of Marxism-Leninism. Hoxhaists see Hoxha's theories as contributions, additions and extensions to Marxism-Leninism, just like the theories of Stalin, but don't declare them a new stage, there is no Marxism-Leninism-Hoxhaism. As far as I understand the term "Hoxhaist" is used to distinguish yourself from revisionist parties claiming to be ML or from Maoist parties calling themselves ML. The ALP site accordingly says: " 'Hoxhaism' is a word sometimes used to describe the supporters of the line of Enver Hoxha, the Albanian leader who portrayed himself as a defender of Marxism-Leninism. Seeking to uphold Marxist-Leninist theory, Hoxha defended Stalin from revisionist attacks and expressed his disdain for Brezhnevism, Titoism, Eurocommunism, Maoism, "anti-dogmatic" movements and other covers for revisionism and social-democracy. 'Hoxhaism,' then, is the defense of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice, and 'Hoxhaists' refer to themselves as Marxist-Leninists."


As shown in this thread, Hoxhaists basically praise every shit Stalin ever took and I never see any kind of real criticism of what Stalin did. The last thing I want is people leading the communist movement who don't practice self-criticism.
As far as I am informed there is Hoxhaist criticism of Stalin as well as of Hoxha as learning from mistakes is an important task for every Marxist-Leninist party. But self-criticism actually isn't the right term here, as far as I know no Hoxhaist group/party has ever claimed to be Stalin or Hoxha. Also, it's Stalin's theory which most Marxist-Leninist uphold, not his personal flaws and the mistakes he made and nobody plans to adapt one-to-one every single action Stalin ever took for today's situation.
But this doesn't mean that constant criticism of Stalin is in order, publishing books like "The Revolution almost betrayed - how Stalin messed things up once again (boo)" is maybe a bit counter-productive. Actually that reminds me much more of Trotskyism and counter-revolutionary actions than criticising revisionist states.

[Ismail]

As I said, and Ismail pointed out, many accuse Hoxhaists of ultra-leftism, and rightfully so. Hoxhaists share ideological similarities with anti-communists and Cliffites that describe the former Easter Bloc, Cuba, Vietnam, China and Korea as 'state capitalist.'I was unaware anti-communists accuse these states of being state-capitalist. Indeed, I was under the impression that they considered them to be wholly socialist or "Stalinist" regimes.

A Marxist analysis will bring forth the fact that these states were/are state-capitalist.


I don't recall ever seeing Hoxhaists call for much of a defense from counterrevolution in workers states anywhere, or if they do, they likely pull the Trotskyist line of 'we defend it from imperialism, but want to destroy the revolution and its gains in favor of workers revolution that will most likely actually lead to capitalist control.'A genuine workers revolution will lead to capitalist control? News to me. I guess we can safely cross out workers struggles anywhere because they may fail and the "gains of the revolution" (meticulously dissolved one-by-one by state-capitalism) wholly reversed somehow.

But yes, we do defend states from imperialism, such as the DPRK or Cuba. We cannot apply this to all states, however. China, for example, is a growing imperialist power.


I also see Hoxhaists as very sectarian, in that like Maoists, they seek a continuation of Marxism-Leninism which is already a valid science -- the most valid and relevant form of Marxist theory that has been the prime motivator of communist struggles worldwide. You accuse Maoists of attempting to further or alter Marxism-Leninism if I remember correctly, yet you do the same thing.I fail to see how we "alter" Marxism-Leninism.


As shown in this thread, Hoxhaists basically praise every shit Stalin ever took and I never see any kind of real criticism of what Stalin did. The last thing I want is people leading the communist movement who don't practice self-criticism.I've seen very little talk about Stalin in this thread. Apparently a failure to "practice self-criticism" means that we haven't praised China or Cuba as socialist (or "degenerated workers") states.


And that, class, is why Hoxhaists are not able to lead the communist movement, should not lead the communist movement and never will lead the communist movement.Apparently the "communist movement" you speak of considers China socialist and warns the workers not to rise up, lest they get defeated and fascism reigns triumphant or whatever. I must admit I'm not too fond of such a "movement" which talks pseudo-communism.

[Valeofruin]

Kassad, you are entirely wrong.

Firstly, you did not give much in the way of a theoretical argument against Hoxhaism, you again resort to various Hoxhaists opinions on history, for example their views on Stalin.

You made no effort to argue against the theoretical merits of Stalin but rather you seem to refer to his actions, ie all the various shits he took throughout his life.

Since this tends too be an issue each Hoxhaist has his own opinion on, Ill point out I see many errors in Stalin, just not the same ones you do.

The RCP/ Maoists often accuse Stalin of 'chopping heads' much as you seem to be doing. This I disagree with.... I defend Stalin against the imperialist lies about genocide and such, in fact, I'd say the facts show that if anything he did not chop ENOUGH heads. Another error was the way in which he handled Eastern Europe, IMO they were better off 'fewer but better' as Lenin would say.

Hoxhaists generally do not praise every shit Stalin took, but do agree with his theory, holding him, as I've mentioned, as one of the key figures in their ideology.

As for North Korea, contrary to your claims, Hoxhaists have viscously stood up to the Trotskyite tactics not just in the DPRK and Cuba but in Iran as well.

Contrary to your claim, Hoxhaists are in FULL agreement with you over the DPRK.

On the other hand most Hoxhaists are pessimistic on Cuba... While Cuba is a state that has resisted US imperialism, it has been substantially weakened, primarily by reliance on the USSR. Most Hoxhaists are astounded by, and praise Cuba for managing to remain a remotely progressive state despite its location, the blockade and its lack of self reliance.

As for China, well... we have a genuine disagreement there if you tow the PSL party line on that question... but still this is a minor dispute, hardly one worth feeling some great fear of Hoxhaism over.

Thus far its worth mentioning your line reminds me of a mix of Gus Hall (every state with a red flag, rich history and government control over key industries is socialist) and Bob Avakian (we have to revise the way we look at Stalin and anti revisionism)... interesting,...

As for the science of Marxism-Leninism, they seek to continue the science, not a continuation of it.. you are likely in agreement with 90% of Hoxhaism