Enver Hoxha on the communist history of the world

[Albanian]

I like to write something about the influence of the Albanian communist leader Enver Hoxha. There is so little info on the mater, and if someone can put some light on the mater it will be great.
Thanx

[Jolly Red Giant]

It will be very short - he had none :thumbup1:

[al8]

Do your own homework, Albanian.

[The Idler]

What about Hoxha? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=120421&highlight=hoxha)

[scarletghoul]

It will be very short - he had none :thumbup1:
Do your own homework, Albanian.
What worthless responses.

Hoxha did have some influence in world history. Obviously he influenced Albania, and the region in general. First by leading the partisans to victory in WW2 and establishing a socialist state. Then he split with the Khruschev crew and then with Red China which contributed significantly to the weakening of Left forces in the world. Hoxhaist parties emerged in some countries but never had a huge impact. He doesn't stand out as a defining figure in world history really (despite what Hoxhaists may insist), he was just an orthadox Stalinist who contributed to the dividing and weakening of the socialist countries. Antirevisionism is good, but Hoxha was too rigid about it and this was not good. One could call it ultra-anti-revisionism.

So yeah a mixed influence imho. Posetive- helped defeat nazis and established a socialist state, resisted revisionism. Negative - too rigid, broke up leftist movement a little more.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Hoxha did have some influence in world history.

my apologies - he did leave a legacy - 750,000 one-man concrete bunkers to defend against an invasion by the USA, USSR and Yugoslavia (most of whom were so badly built they fell apart within a few years). The Albanians have preserved a few as tourist attractions.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

my apologies - he did leave a legacy - 750,000 one-man concrete bunkers to defend against an invasion by the USA, USSR and Yugoslavia (most of whom were so badly built they fell apart within a few years). The Albanians have preserved a few as tourist attractions.

Just me or is basically every thread here a repeat of another one not too long ago? I could have sworn I read this just a few weeks ago.

Then follows a debate and in the end everyone is on the same page as they were when the debate started. :thumbup1:

[al8]

I'm surprised that you Albanian would't find anything on his influance. His book as have been translated into numerous languages. An not just the big ones, the smaller ones too. There is even a book called Heimvaldastefnan og Byltingin which is an Icelandic translation of his book Imperialism and Revolution in wide circulation and large quantities. Many communists world wide have identified with Hoxha and the experience of socialist Albania for his and its stern and principled communist stances and practices.

[Wanted Man]

Well, Hoxha spent a lot of time reflecting on Albania's international relations. You can find his reflections on China here (http://redrebelde.blogspot.com/2008/09/enver-hoxhas-reflections-on-china-part_08.html), with additional parts linked at the bottom under "Blog Archive".

There is a commentary from the anti-communist Radio Free Europe on these reflections as well. It also quotes parts of the reflections relating to Korea, Romania, anti-revisionist parties within Warsaw Pact nations, etc. http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/117-1-7.shtml

[Ismail]

Hoxha was certainly influential internationally and his influence continues to be felt to this day. The Malian Party of Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labour), the MPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Popular_Democr%C3%A1tico) in Ecuador, and various other parties in Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Benin), the Ivory Coast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivo ire), Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_of_Iran), Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMEP), Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_%28Brazil%29) and Burkina Faso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaic_Revolutionary_Communist_Party) are Hoxhaist and have influence.

In the 1980's Hoxhaists especially had influence in Burkina Faso (there was a split amongst Hoxhaists; some were anti-Sankara, some were pro, but Sankara named a fountain after Hoxha), Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frente_Obrero) (where they called for a new civil war against the revisionist Sandinistas), Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shola-y-Jaweid), Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia (where they had guerrilla movements), and Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_League_of_Tigray) (Hoxhaists led by Meles Zenawi who overthrew the reactionary Derg regime, though Zenawi moved to the right rapidly thereafter).

For a Trotskyist like Jolly Red Giant to say that Hoxhaism "has no influence" is more than a little ironic and shows both profound ignorance and national-chauvinism.


my apologies - he did leave a legacy - 750,000 one-man concrete bunkers to defend against an invasion by the USA, USSR and Yugoslavia (most of whom were so badly built they fell apart within a few years). The Albanians have preserved a few as tourist attractions.Actually, it was required for the managing persons of these bunkers to test them by standing in them as they were fired upon by tanks. The bunkers stood, ergo they passed as adequate.

[manic expression]

Fine, I'll bite. So Ismail, you're saying that Hoxhaism outside of Albania boils down to scattered minor parties that have scarcely impacted much of anything (aside from a fountain in Burkina Faso, evidently)...and groups that sided with imperialist aggression in Ethiopia and Nicaragua (they'd fit right in with Hoxhaism's pals UNITA).

Your post, really, says all there needs to be said about the usefulness of Hoxhaism.

[Ismail]

Whatever you say, Brezhnevite troll. My post was a rebuttal to your fellow Trotskyist JRG in-re the claim that Hoxhaism had/has no influence worldwide.

Also the Derg regime in Ethiopia was national-chauvinist and opportunist, there was scarcely anything progressive concerning it after the 1970's. You're free to reply back and defend the glories of Mengistu Haile Mariam and his extraordinarily popular regime, but then I'd remind you this is a thread about Hoxhaism worldwide, not "Brezhnevism vs. Hoxhaism Pt. XXVII."

[Lenin II]

Brezhnevite pro-Soviet revisionist parties have done so much better.

Just look at the Communist Party of the USA...or the CP of Canada...or any CP for that matter.

Obviously the global leaders of revolution, those wonderful reformists.

[Ismail]

Just look at the Communist Party of the USA...or the CP of Canada...or any CP for that matter.The CPC was particularly menacing. Ever saw their very socialist-inclined bankruptcy papers after the USSR fell and their coffers emptied and they were subsequently forced to participate in Canada's 1993 election under the revolution banner of "No Affiliation"?

Oh, while we're on the subject of Canada, the ex-Hoxhaist CPC-ML is probably better than the CPC and has relatively more support.

[manic expression]

Whatever you say, Brezhnevite troll. My post was a rebuttal to your fellow Trotskyist JRG in-re the claim that Hoxhaism had/has no influence worldwide.
It wasn't a very good one, then. Your post is a resource I will draw from every time a Hoxhaist vainly tries to cover up Hoxhaism's complete irrelevance outside of Albania.


Also the Derg regime in Ethiopia was national-chauvinist and opportunist, there was scarcely anything progressive concerning it after the 1970's. You're free to reply back and defend the glories of Mengistu Haile Mariam and his extraordinarily popular regime, but then I'd remind you this is a thread about Hoxhaism worldwide, not "Brezhnevism vs. Hoxhaism Pt. XXVII."No, I'll just note that the Hoxhaists in Ethiopia were fighting on imperialism's side, just as Hoxhaism gave rhetorical support to apartheid's pals in Angola. Like I said, your post says everything that needs to be said about why Hoxhaism isn't taken seriously.


Brezhnevite pro-Soviet revisionist parties have done so much better.

Just look at the Communist Party of the USA...or the CP of Canada...or any CP for that matter.

Obviously the global leaders of revolution, those wonderful reformists.:lol: If anything, the CPUSA is closer to your ideology in practice. When US imperialism calls, both Hoxhaism and the charlatans of the CPUSA come running.

[Ismail]

No, I'll just note that the Hoxhaists in Ethiopia were fighting on imperialism's side,Funny how it was Mengistu asking for US aid and having diplomats visit London for talks by the end, then. In fact Ethiopia still received mostly US aid under Mengistu until the Ogaden War: "[f]rom an average of about $10 million a year between 1969 and 1974, US military deliveries reached a total value of $18.5 million in 1974-75, $26 million in 1975-76 and almost $135 million in 1976-77." ([I]Marxist Modern: An Ethnographic History of the Ethiopian Revolution, p. 137.) It wasn't until the Soviets figured that Ethiopia was a more useful ally than Somalia that they switched from supporting the latter to supporting the former, even though Siad Barre was a better Marxist than Mengistu.

In Talk of the Devil, an interview of Mengistu occurs in which he admits that he would have been either pro-US, pro-Chinese, or pro-Soviet; whoever gave more aid.


just as Hoxhaism gave rhetorical support to apartheid's pals in Angola.Hoxha condemned UNITA as he condemned the pro-Soviet MPLA, so no.


Like I said, your post says everything that needs to be said about why Hoxhaism isn't taken seriously.... Except in the countries noted.

[manic expression]

In Talk of the Devil, an interview of Mengistu occurs in which he admits that he would have been either pro-US, pro-Chinese, or pro-Soviet; whoever gave more aid.
"By the end" was when the Gorbachev had abandoned the USSR's progressive role in Africa and the rest of the world. That's exactly what you wanted, though, the end of Soviet influence and the effective hegemony of US imperialism. But why do you never truly ask yourself why the Soviet Union was supporting the Derg? And if they were doing it for imperialist reasons, please outline the Soviet capitalists who sought private profit through Soviet policy there.


Hoxha condemned UNITA as he condemned the pro-Soviet MPLA, so no.By condemning the anti-apartheid forces in Angola and equivocating them with imperialism, Hoxha certainly supported UNITA's line. So yes.


... Except in the countries noted.I refer you to your own post. A fountain, indeed.

[Ismail]

And if they were doing it for imperialist reasons, please outline the Soviet capitalists who sought private profit through Soviet policy there.Geo-strategic interests in the Red Sea to secure influence and trade.


By condemning the anti-apartheid forces in Angola and equivocating them with imperialism, Hoxha certainly supported UNITA's line. So yes.Well Savimbi was at least a private Marxist who criticized his pro-US backers in secret, and maintained a more or less consistent line against Soviet social-imperialism in the 60's, 70's and 80's. He then continued fighting the Angolan Government even when the US abandoned him. By comparison, José dos Santos became pro-capitalist very quickly after the USSR stopped supporting Angola and instantly swayed towards a pro-US stand.

This does not make Savimbi a great person. He was a Maoist, he was following Mao's Three Worlds Theory, which was a revisionist and reactionary theory, but as a Marxist I would rate him better than pretty much every Angolan "Communist" who later turned towards capitalism when Soviet aid ceased coming in.

[Wanted Man]

Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frente_Obrero) (where they called for a new civil war against the revisionist Sandinistas)

(...)

Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_League_of_Tigray) (Hoxhaists led by Meles Zenawi who overthrew the reactionary Derg regime, though Zenawi moved to the right rapidly thereafter).

Hmm, I think we can see a pattern emerging here. How very surprising that these bona fide Hoxhaists somehow "moved to the right rapidly". I wonder why. :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Hmm, I think we can see a pattern emerging here. How very surprising that these bona fide Hoxhaists somehow "moved to the right rapidly". I wonder why. :rolleyes:The Nicaraguan Hoxhaists later endorsed Daniel Ortega for President in 2001. By then they had abandoned Hoxhaism, of course.

[Wanted Man]

Well, at least some of them got smart, then.

[manic expression]

Geo-strategic interests in the Red Sea to secure influence and trade.
You didn't answer the question. Try again.


Well Savimbi was at least a private Marxist who criticized his pro-US backers in secret, and maintained a more or less consistent line against Soviet social-imperialism in the 60's, 70's and 80's. He then continued fighting the Angolan Government even when the US abandoned him. By comparison, José dos Santos became pro-capitalist very quickly after the USSR stopped supporting Angola and instantly swayed towards a pro-US stand.
A "private Marxist". Your argument gets more pathetic by the minute. More like Savimbi was a confirmed friend of apartheid. Marxists judge individuals by their actions, not what they say to one group when they're around them. Further, Savimbi carried on his war because it became a personal vendetta against his enemies, not for any ideological conviction. And the only reason he was able to carry his efforts on was because he was able to draw on tribal loyalties in the east.


This does not make Savimbi a great person. He was a Maoist, he was following Mao's Three Worlds Theory, which was a revisionist and reactionary theory, but as a Marxist I would rate him better than pretty much every Angolan "Communist" who later turned towards capitalism when Soviet aid ceased coming in.
So you'd rate a key ally of apartheid higher than those who fought for Angola's sovereignty. As we can finally see, Hoxhaism gives lip-service to Marxism while it lines up behind imperialism.

[Ismail]

You didn't answer the question. Try again.I did answer the question, otherwise you'd need to logically argue that the US invasion of Afghanistan wasn't imperialist.


A "private Marxist". Your argument gets more pathetic by the minute. More like Savimbi was a confirmed friend of apartheid.He was, in fact, a private Marxist or at least a left-leaning nationalist. You don't read Portuguese, but perhaps Google Translate can help you here: http://www.angonoticias.com/full_headlines.php?id=13632


Marxists judge individuals by their actions, not what they say to one group when they're around them.Savimbi rationalized his actions by pointing to Molotov-Ribbentrop.


And the only reason he was able to carry his efforts on was because he was able to draw on tribal loyalties in the east.Read: he enjoyed the support of the peasantry there.


So you'd rate a key ally of apartheid higher than those who fought for Angola's sovereignty. As we can finally see, Hoxhaism gives lip-service to Marxism while it lines up behind imperialism.Savimbi participated in the pre-liberation Angolan government in exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Government_of_Angola_in_Exile) against Portuguese colonialism, and of course UNITA was founded during the anti-Portuguese liberation struggle.

"He [Savimbi] claimed to be a supporter of free markets, but observers noted the lack of any functioning businesses in UNITA territory and the leadership's control of all money... he continued to wear Mao-style headgear in the bush and made his lieutenants carry a book of dialectical materialist sayings called [I]Practical Guide for the Cadre."
(Tom Zoellner. The Heartless Stone: a Journey Through the World of Diamonds, Deceit and Desire. New York: St. Martin's Press. 2006. p. 180.)

[manic expression]

I did answer the question, otherwise you'd need to logically argue that the US invasion of Afghanistan wasn't imperialist.
The US stands to gain resources for its private firms through its occupation of Afghanistan. What private firms sought private profit in Soviet support of the Derg?


He was, in fact, a private Marxist or at least a left-leaning nationalist. You don't read Portuguese, but perhaps Google Translate can help you here:
Savimbi rationalized his actions by pointing to Molotov-Ribbentrop.Too bad the Soviets never fought with the Nazis due to Molotov-Ribbentrop. UNITA fought with the SADF in Angola. His "private Marxism" doesn't enter into it, but nice try.


Read: he enjoyed the support of the peasantry there.Due to tribal loyalties. It was his only lifeline.


Savimbi participated in the pre-liberation Angolan government in exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Government_of_Angola_in_Exile) against Portuguese colonialism, and of course UNITA was founded during the anti-Portuguese liberation struggle.Good for them. Unfortunately, they sided with a new oppressor.


"He [Savimbi] claimed to be a supporter of free markets, but observers noted the lack of any functioning businesses in UNITA territory and the leadership's control of all money... he continued to wear Mao-style headgear in the bush and made his lieutenants carry a book of dialectical materialist sayings called [I]Practical Guide for the Cadre."
(Tom Zoellner. The Heartless Stone: a Journey Through the World of Diamonds, Deceit and Desire. New York: St. Martin's Press. 2006. p. 180.):lol: So he wore a Mao-style hat and his leadership acted like a military occupation, so he wasn't a full-on ally of apartheid. Pathetic.

[Ismail]

What private firms sought private profit in Soviet support of the Derg?They weren't private, that's all. The revisionist and state-capitalist state itself profited.


Too bad the Soviets never fought with the Nazis due to Molotov-Ribbentrop. UNITA fought with the SADF in Angola. His "private Marxism" doesn't enter into it, but nice try.It was his explanation, I never defended it.


Due to tribal loyalties. It was his only lifeline.Actually, from a Russian-language source (http://africana.ru/science/Tokarev/Tokarev_2002_Sawimbi.htm), Savimbi was able to unite the peasants in these "tribal" areas because of the fact that the Angolan Government under the MPLA often favored the mestiço elite and did relatively little for the peasantry.


So he wore a Mao-style hat and his leadership acted like a military occupation, so he wasn't a full-on ally of apartheid. Pathetic."In 1988, several former UNITA members reported to the Portuguese newsweekly, Espresso, that UNITA's political elite all followed the precepts of Savimbi's Practical Guide for the Cadre, which was described as 'a manual of dialectical materialism and Marxism-Leninism with a distinct trait of Stalinism and Maoism.' The UNITA dissidents claimed that the Guide was taught in a room filled with Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung busts, where the anthem of the Communist International was sung every day.

These former UNITA members denounced as fraudulent Savimbi's widely publicized pro-Western ideology and defense of democracy. They pointed out that there was a huge discrepancy between what UNITA claimed abroad as its objectives (i.e., negotiations with the MPLA, reconciliation, and coalition) and what the Guide taught. The Guide, said to be written by Savimbi, was considered a secret book accessible only to the political elite of UNITA."
("Jonas Savimbi, UNITA are 'terrorists' in Africans' eyes despite Washington's 'freedom fighter' toga for him," article by Shana Wills in USAfrica, 2002.)

Also the second paragraph of this page is amusing: http://books.google.com/books?id=n8cDYak68CMC&pg=PA169&dq=%22Avenida+Lenin%22+Santos&hl=en&ei=VmlJTKfrMIL-8AbswdmCCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Avenida%20Lenin%22%20Santos&f=false

[manic expression]

They weren't private, that's all. The revisionist and state-capitalist state itself profited.
Ah, so it wasn't capitalist after all. Neat.


It was his explanation, I never defended it.
:lol: So you're admitting he was a pet of apartheid. Nice to see your guy giving him encouragement, though.


Actually, from a Russian-language source (http://africana.ru/science/Tokarev/Tokarev_2002_Sawimbi.htm), Savimbi was able to unite the peasants in these "tribal" areas because of the fact that the Angolan Government under the MPLA often favored the mestiço elite and did relatively little for the peasantry.
Right, his own background had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes: But gradually, he lost that support as his increasingly insular policies alienated his allies. The operation that took his life was led by a former senior member of UNITA.


"In 1988, several former UNITA members reported to the Portuguese newsweekly, Espresso, that UNITA's political elite all followed the precepts of Savimbi's Practical Guide for the Cadre, which was described as 'a manual of dialectical materialism and Marxism-Leninism with a distinct trait of Stalinism and Maoism.' The UNITA dissidents claimed that the Guide was taught in a room filled with Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung busts, where the anthem of the Communist International was sung every day.
Yes, Savimbi lied to just about everyone on the subject of his intentions. Ultimately, it was only about him, as evidenced by his pointless continuation of the conflict for years. I'm not sure why you keep deluding yourself into thinking it was much more than that, although desperation seems a likely reason.

[Lenin II]

If anything, the CPUSA is closer to your ideology in practice. When US imperialism calls, both Hoxhaism and the charlatans of the CPUSA come running.

By this of course, you mean Americna imperialism, somehow, and not Chinese, Russian, European or any other kind of imperialism. Of course, you offer zero proof that Hoxha or "Hoxhaists" support imperialism. In fact, revisionists in the Soviet Union and China collaborated with US imperialism while Hoxha stood up to it.

Again, geopolitics determine the class nature of a movement, state, etc.

But hey, your buddy Mao supported Pinochet and Mobutu and no Brezhnevite piece of shit ever condemns him, so I guess I shouldn't expect much.

[manic expression]

By this of course, you mean Americna imperialism, somehow, and not Chinese, Russian, European or any other kind of imperialism. Of course, you offer zero proof that Hoxha or "Hoxhaists" support imperialism. In fact, revisionists in the Soviet Union and China collaborated with US imperialism while Hoxha stood up to it.

Again, geopolitics determine the class nature of a movement, state, etc.

But hey, your buddy Mao supported Pinochet and Mobutu and no Brezhnevite piece of shit ever condemns him, so I guess I shouldn't expect much.
I do mean American imperialism, which leads the imperialist camp, and has since 1945. But European imperialism is implicit in this. Russian imperialism only got a chance to assert itself as the Soviet Union fell. Chinese imperialism was defeated in 1949.

Hoxha aligned his goals with imperialism, though, through his rationalization of pro-apartheid reactionaries, through his equivocation of progressives with imperialists, through his general opposition to socialists around the world. When one group is calling for the destruction of the PCC and another group is calling for the destruction of the PCC...the stated justifications are secondary.

The determining factors of states and movements are class; working-class states are opposed to bourgeois ones and the like. In your worldview, people who disagree with Stalin and/or Hoxha are automatically imperialist.

I criticize Mao in certain areas, and I'm on record on this forum for condemning Mao's recognition of Pinochet. Obviously you haven't the slightest clue who you're arguing with. Perhaps next time you can figure out what I think before throwing out your cute little insults, ok?

[Ismail]

Ah, so it wasn't capitalist after all. Neat."...neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. The modern state is only the organisation with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists... The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of all the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not abolished; it is rather pushed to an extreme." (Engels: Anti-Duhring, p. 307)

"...there is nothing strange in certain forms of public ownership being tolerated in a particular society which is governed by an exploiting class, so long as they do not harm, and may even help the fundamental interests of that exploiting class... In capitalist society a joint stock company may be considered a kind of capitalist form of 'public ownership' and some workers may even hold shares in it". (Chen Boda, 'Yugoslav Revisionism', Peking Review, No. 16, 1958).

Equating capitalism solely with private property is ridiculous.

[manic expression]

Equating capitalism solely with private property is ridiculous.
:lol: Looks like Ismail has put on his Trotskyist hat. He must keep it next to his Che shirt.

The Engels quote you're using is hopelessly misapplied. First, Engels was looking at a bourgeois state, and the October Revolution established a worker state. The dynamics simply are not there; Engels saw capitalist states taking more part in privatized production, whereas the Soviet Union had already abolished that base in law and in practice (in the countryside by 1935, too). Second, the fundamentals of capitalism are nonexistent. The absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value implies that the Soviet Union was not capitalist. There was no large market for manpower and labor was not used as a commodity.

So you can keep misquoting Marxism all you like, it still doesn't change the fact that you don't really have an argument.

[Lenin II]

Looks like Ismail has put on his Trotskyist hat. He must keep it next to his Che shirt.

Except Ismail isn’t a member of a Trotskyite cult that’s a split from a split from a split from an expulsion. You are.


The Engels quote you're using is hopelessly misapplied. First, Engels was looking at a bourgeois state, and the October Revolution established a worker state. The dynamics simply are not there; Engels saw capitalist states taking more part in privatized production, whereas the Soviet Union had already abolished that base in law and in practice (in the countryside by 1935, too). Second, the fundamentals of capitalism are nonexistent. The absence of generalized commodity production and the rule of the law of value implies that the Soviet Union was not capitalist. There was no large market for manpower and labor was not used as a commodity.

Flatly declarative statements make it all true. Evidence doesn’t matter—we have whole books, this guy has the line of a Trotskyite cult that fellates Rosa Luxemburg, Brezhnev, Deng Xiaoping, Hugo Chavez and Tito.


So you can keep misquoting Marxism all you like, it still doesn't change the fact that you don't really have an argument.

And you’re nothing but a worthless troll who baits and cites nothing. Anyone who opposes you is a CIA agent.

[meow]

i like what someone does in threads like this.
lets see i think it goes

*yawn*

insignificant sects fighting about who is more insignificant. how exciting. not really. it doesnt even qualify for intelectual conversation.

for the op (who i note has one post in last 5 days since joined) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha should have much info. plus see links at end which should be useful. from me i say that hoxha had no important influence on world at large.

[manic expression]

Except Ismail isn’t a member of a Trotskyite cult that’s a split from a split from a split from an expulsion. You are.
And yet Ismail does his best Trotskyist impression whenever it suits him best, just as you're doing the "Che was OK except for the fact that he stood against everything Hoxha was saying at the time" dance in the other thread. Hoxhaism: Against revisionism, except when it's convenient.

As for the history of the PSL, Marcy's tendency came from defending socialism against anti-socialist sentiment in 1956, and that's what we continue to do to this day. That's called integrity, since someone forgot to tell you.


Flatly declarative statements make it all true. Evidence doesn’t matter—we have whole books, this guy has the line of a Trotskyite cult that fellates Rosa Luxemburg, Brezhnev, Deng Xiaoping, Hugo Chavez and Tito.
So you're not going to deal with what I wrote on the facts of Soviet society, because you're politically bankrupt and your entire line stems from how someone views Stalin (or by the legality of facial hair). Thanks, it's easier to prove my point with you helping me out.

Oh, and yes, you have "whole books". So did Verwoerd. Maybe you guys can share notes, seeing as you keep ending up on the same side.


And you’re nothing but a worthless troll who baits and cites nothing. Anyone who opposes you is a CIA agent.
I cite history. That's enough.

[Wanted Man]

Flatly declarative statements make it all true. Evidence doesn’t matter—we have whole books, this guy has the line of a Trotskyite cult that fellates Rosa Luxemburg, Brezhnev, Deng Xiaoping, Hugo Chavez and Tito.

How can one possibly "fellate" Rosa Luxemburg?

In any case, if we have to continue the sexually frustrated, borderline homophobic rhetoric: at least this "Trotskyite cult" (lol) has no difficulties finding partners. It's a bit more dynamic than riding the petrified dick (to borrow from maldoror) of Enver Hoxha all day.

[Ismail]

Well this thread really can't be for anything more than bad jokes and national-chauvinist disparaging about Albania now. I suppose in this case random factoids about Hoxha and/or Albania should be good enough for this topic. It appears all threads in-re Hoxha or Hoxhaism are descending into jabs about banned beards, Burkinabé fountains, and Hoxha's super-secret admiration of apartheid as revealed by Brezhnevites.


In any case, if we have to continue the sexually frustrated, borderline homophobic rhetoric:Random fact: Hoxha is the only communist leader I know of who is alleged to have been bisexual. By more than one Albanian source.

Also in Albania homosexuality under Hoxha was linked with "male chauvinism" (e.g. feudal clan lords), whereas lesbians were tolerated because they "helped enforce gender equality." Probably the only state of its kind that had such a... unique (if evidently flawed) analysis.

As Bill Bland (http://ml-review.ca/aml/Albania/ALBANIANLIFE/No441989.htm) tried to explain it to an Englishman in 1989:

From the fact that Albanian law prohibits male homosexuality only, it could be argued that it is discriminatory in favour of women. In fact, however, Albanian law makes a number of such positive discriminations, on the grounds that, as a result of the centuries-old socially inferior position of women, certain positive discriminations are for the time being necessary in 'order to bring about genuine equality between the sexes.Of course this has nothing to do with Lenin II's comments, but I figure this would be a more interesting post than manic expression accusing me of siding with apartheid again.

[Nolan]

I can't help but wonder if Manic Expression thinks the U.S. Post Office is a socialist institution.

[manic expression]

Well this thread really can't be for anything more than bad jokes and national-chauvinist disparaging about Albania now.
Yes, disagreeing with Hoxha's policies and positions means you hate Albania. :rolleyes:


Of course this has nothing to do with Lenin II's comments, but I figure this would be a more interesting post than manic expression accusing me of siding with apartheid again.
It's natural for you to shy away from topics that make you uncomfortable.


I can't help but wonder if Manic Expression thinks the U.S. Post Office is a socialist institution.
Of course not, it's a nationalized firm operated and controlled by a bourgeois state. We know it's a bourgeois state because it draws its power and interests and members from the capitalist class...who depend on private property. You see, it's better to look at the fundamentals of a society instead of focusing on what the leading party thinks of Stalin.

[Cyberwave]

Fine, I'll bite. So Ismail, you're saying that Hoxhaism outside of Albania boils down to scattered minor parties that have scarcely impacted much of anything (aside from a fountain in Burkina Faso, evidently)...and groups that sided with imperialist aggression in Ethiopia and Nicaragua (they'd fit right in with Hoxhaism's pals UNITA).

Your post, really, says all there needs to be said about the usefulness of Hoxhaism.

Hoxhaism is merely an extension of Marxism-Leninism. There exist plenty of Marxist-Leninist parties then, and I'm sure plenty of their members support the Hoxhaist lines as well. What a baseless argument.

[Brother No. 1]

and I'm sure plenty of their members support the Hoxhaist lines as well.

Just to say off: Wrong. While the line of the Organization I follow, Freedom Road Socialist Organization Fight Back, supports Hoxha's Albania as a socialist state we do not follow Hoxhaism. Espically since the FRSO goes with the*ahem*"Breznhevite" Ludo Martens party.

[Wanted Man]

Hoxhaism is merely an extension of Marxism-Leninism. There exist plenty of Marxist-Leninist parties then, and I'm sure plenty of their members support the Hoxhaist lines as well. What a baseless argument.

What "Hoxhaist lines" would those be? I'm sure most would acknowledge Albanian socialism, and applaud the Albanian party's struggle against revisionism at the time. They certainly took a strong stand, and we can learn a lot from them.

On the other hand, Mao, Hoxha, and the worldwide "M-L" parties that developed in their wake made the mistake of being uncompromising and hostile towards other socialist countries, towards communist parties that were still full of militant workers despite their revisionist leadership, and eventually towards each other as well. That kind of thing will always happen when uncomradely attacks are the norm instead of actual criticism and self-criticism. Of course, this was done by the revisionists to the same, or higher degree, but then part of the struggle against revisionism is not to fall into their methods, to not be spiteful and uncomradely, in order to win the workers over from revisionist class collaboration and things like that.

Incidentally, just yesterday I had the opportunity to read part of a book by Ludo Martens about the internal struggle within the Workers Party of Belgium in the 1989-1991 period. In a chapter on Hoxha (I suppose some within the party had a fling with Hoxhaism for a while), he says pretty much what I said above.

Now, the interesting thing about the existence of this and other books is that it shows how these analyses were formed. Lively discussions and struggles took place within the party at its most critical moment, when there was massive external pressure during the events of Tiananmen and Timisoara. Yet the party managed to deal with these issues internally, despite all these pressures, and came to an analysis which I think is correct. And yes, this includes a clear break with "Hoxhaism" as "Hoxhaists" would defend it, while recognising all the positives of Hoxha. Of course, the chapter on Hoxhaism is only a small part of the book, but it's most relevant to the discussion here. What's interesting is that all these debates and analyses were carefully recorded and can now be read in book form. The same goes for the analysis that the parties developed of the velvet counter-revolution in Eastern Europe. We can read the books, we can watch Martens explaining it on Youtube, whatever you want. What have we got opposed to this? The weblog of an American "party" that hardly deserves the name and Revleft posts? I'd say that's a very thin basis for a political line.

So anyway, that is how real communist parties determine their positions on these matters, how they develop politically. Fake communists forego all this. For instance, you can have a collection of people who have no real democracy, but simply declare themselves "Hoxhaists", and anyone who is not a "Hoxhaist" is essentially not good enough for them. That's why most of them will never amount to anything in terms of being actors in class struggle of any kind, regardless of how many one-figure electoral results from Ecuador they post (as if that determines everything, as if they had anything to do with that, concretely). So no, I don't think you'll find many members within real Marxist-Leninist parties that "support the Hoxhaist lines" as Hoxhaists on Revleft espouse them.

[howblackisyourflag]

According to wiki, Albania under his rule increased life expectancy by 9 months for everyyear of its existence, among other achievments, but it had the same problems every other undemocratic socialist country had.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So what's the modern-day significance of Hoxhaism? (Outside of this website/internet projects, of course.)

[Ismail]

So what's the modern-day significance of Hoxhaism? (Outside of this website/internet projects, of course.)Read the first page. Most Hoxhaist parties are in places like Ecuador, Benin, Mali and Burkina Faso. You won't hear too much from them. If you want an "industrialized" state where Hoxhaism has a presence, there's the EMEP in Turkey.

[Gustav HK]

Also the Danish hoxhaists, although very few, are very active and leading in the movement against the war in Afghanistan (and also against the war in Iraq, but since there are no longer Danish troops in Iraq, the most important for the danish anti-war movement is to protest the war in Afghanistan, not that they have forgot Iraq).

Maybe you heard about the incident where red paint was poured on the danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in 2003, well it was done by a Danish hoxhaist (and one of his non-hoxhaist friends). Moreover that Danish hoxhaist was also a leading member of the Danish trade union for pedagogues.

[Wanted Man]

Read the first page. Most Hoxhaist parties are in places like Ecuador, Benin, Mali and Burkina Faso. You won't hear too much from them. If you want an "industrialized" state where Hoxhaism has a presence, there's the EMEP in Turkey.

EMEP contributed to the latest International Communist Seminar, together with such luminaries as the CPs of China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. So they must be filthy pan-socialists and Brezhnevite pieces of shit.

[Ismail]

EMEP contributed to the latest International Communist Seminar, together with such luminaries as the CPs of China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc. So they must be filthy pan-socialists and Brezhnevite pieces of shit.But the EMEP itself is the public, legal organization of the TDKP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_Turkey), just as Ecuador's MPD is the public, legal organization of the PCMLE.

[thälmann]

the situation of emep and tdkp is not so clear, so its not the best example...
but a lot important partys in turkey support the albanian line( i wouldnt call all of them hoxhaist) like the tikb, and the http://www.mlkp.info/ a very militant organisation, one of the best ones in europe in my opinion... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yPq6Gfwex0&feature=related

about ethopia: maybe mengistu make some progressive things, but that has nothing to do with socialism or marxism leninism...the opression of eritrea for example was totally stupid.
by the way almost all of the ethopian opposition organisations was pro albanian at that time...

[Invader Zim]

my apologies - he did leave a legacy - 750,000 one-man concrete bunkers to defend against an invasion by the USA, USSR and Yugoslavia (most of whom were so badly built they fell apart within a few years). The Albanians have preserved a few as tourist attractions.
I recall reading that quite a few of them were pointed in towards Albania too, to keep his people in check.

[Ismail]

I recall reading that quite a few of them were pointed in towards Albania too, to keep his people in check.Except that's false. I've never been able to find any evidence of that (nor has Lenin II, who has other material I don't on Albania), and the only "source" I've heard it from was an unsourced claim in Wikipedia circa 2005 or so anyway.

If there was bunkers pointed inwards, then I guess all those workers with guns who were encouraged every week to train en masse for guerrilla warfare (remember, practically every Albanian had a gun and children were trained to use weapons) in the event of a Greek, Yugoslav, or NATO invasion of the country and who subsequently entered the bunkers to prepare for people's war got a pretty shitty education. (Albanian citizens owning weapons and training in bunkers is noted in Jan Myrdal's Albania Defiant and William Ash's Pickaxe and Rifle—both authors visited Albania, witnessing the drills and everyone leaving their houses with rifles)

Then again you like to cite Robert Conquest as a "source" on Stalin (when everyone else outside of David Horowitz and Co. regards him as a hack), so sources have never been your specialty.

[Glenn Beck]

I recall reading that quite a few of them were pointed in towards Albania too, to keep his people in check.

Realistically shouldn't most of them be facing towards Albanian towns and cities? I mean the whole point of the bunkers was to give Albanian partisans positions to stage guerrilla attacks from the wilderness in case of an invasion, since they knew they wouldn't be able to hold the cities and towns for more than about ten minutes against a modern army with tanks and bombers and shit.

[Ismail]

Realistically shouldn't most of them be facing towards Albanian towns and cities? I mean the whole point of the bunkers was to give Albanian partisans positions to stage guerrilla attacks from the wilderness in case of an invasion, since they knew they wouldn't be able to hold the cities and towns for more than about ten minutes against a modern army with tanks and bombers and shit.Adding onto this the bunkers were made to be easily mobile through the use of cranes.

[thälmann]

is it possible to get ja myrdal albania defiant online?

[Ismail]

is it possible to get ja myrdal albania defiant online?No, and I'm fairly sure Monthly Review Press has it copyrighted. Otherwise I'd transcribe it and put it online since it isn't that long. Both Myrdal and Ash had something in common though: they were both Maoists looking at Albania at the height of the Sino-Albanian alliance. Myrdal mentions China rather in passing, and I think his book does better at noting observations, whereas Ash goes all out; he talks about Mehmet Shehu praising the GPCR and Hoxha discussing the mass line, and how Albania and China will take on the world through their immortal alliance, etc. But Ash's book is, in some respects, better at history than Myrdal's, though Myrdal focuses a bit more on the struggle between Albania and Yugoslavia in the 1945-48 period.