What is Hoxhaism?

[Kestrel_194]

Hello again comrades, I was just reading some other thread about a banned member who was a Hoxhaist or something along those lines. I am interested to know what Hoxhaism is and how it works.

[scarletghoul]

Its pretty much just "I like Stalin. Post-Stalin USSR is state capitalist. I used to like Mao, because he liked Stalin too, but now I don't like him so china is state capitalist also. The only good one left is Hoxha, and Albania is the only socialist state in the world. ps i loooooove bunkers"

[jinx92]

Hoxhaism does uphold Stalin and Hoxha as good socialist leaders, and the USSR under Stalin as socialist, and Albania under Enver Hoxha as socialist. Hoxhaism is considered to be a form of anti revisionism. Thats about all I know about it. Hope that helps.

[Rafiq]

From what I've heard, it's just Stalinism for Albanian people.

[Nolan]

Its pretty much just "I like Stalin. Post-Stalin USSR is state capitalist. I used to like Mao, because he liked Stalin too, but now I don't like him so china is state capitalist also. The only good one left is Hoxha, and Albania is the only socialist state in the world. ps i loooooove bunkers"

Nice strawman.

[Nolan]

From what I've heard, it's just Stalinism for Albanian people.

I'm not Albanian...

[Nolan]

First of all, "Hoxhaism" only exists in contrast to other things that are called Marxism-Leninism.

Hoxhaism is anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism. No more (unlike Maoism), no less. Maoists may be anti-revisionists as well, but we reject one more form of revisionism than they do.

[Rafiq]

I'm not Albanian...

So you're a confused Socialist?

[Nolan]

So you're a confused Socialist?

Hey troll.

[scarletghoul]

Shut up Chapayev


Hoxhaism is anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism. No more (unlike Maoism), no less. Maoists may be anti-revisionists as well, but we reject one more form of revisionism than they do.How is that different to what i said

[Kuppo Shakur]

I keep trying to see the bright side of Hoxhaism, but I can't get past "nationalistic sectarian dogma".
Can anyone recommend me some good objective reading on the subject?

[gorillafuck]

It's a form of anti-revisionism that doesn't like Mao.

[BIG BROTHER]

Hoaxism is not a real ideology.

I do not say this only because it is reactionary, I consider Maoism reactionary too yet I consider it a legitimate ideology. It had a significant impact in society and proposted a major "aportation" which was using the Peasantry as the leading force for the revolution in "semi-feudal" countries and develop socialism with "New Democracy"

Hoaxism really is nothing more than the prostitution of Marxism by Enver Hoxha who didn't want to be subordinate to the USSR and feared that the "De-Stalinasation" could hurt the power of his bureaucratic caste. His only acomplishment was to fill Albania of useless bunkers.

[Kestrel_194]

Thanks guys, very helpful. :lol:

[Ismail]

I keep trying to see the bright side of Hoxhaism, but I can't get past "nationalistic sectarian dogma".Mao, Sankara, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Castro, etc. relied on "national" "socialisms." Hoxha didn't.


Hoaxism is not a real ideology.You're right, neither "Hoaxism" or "Hoxhaism" are real ideologies. The term was first used as "Hoxhaite" and was used by Maoists to describe the "ultra-left" (or, depending who you talked too, "rightist") policies of Enver Hoxha, who dared to criticize Mao and Maoism as anti-Marxist. Hoxha himself never recognized the term, and the Albanian Government only used the words Marxism-Leninism to describe their ideology.

Good thing is that pro-Hoxha parties in Ecuador, Tunisia, the Ivory Coast, Brazil, Chile, etc., etc. are doing what they can to make a difference. Many pro-Hoxha parties fought guerrilla wars, too.

If anyone has a question about Hoxha and/or "Hoxhaism" and/or Albania from 1944-1992 then feel free to ask.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Mao, Sankara, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Castro, etc. relied on "national" "socialisms." Hoxha didn't.
Oh, now I see.:rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Oh, now I see.:rolleyes:Care to list any "innovations" Hoxha claimed on the part of Marxism-Leninism based on the "unique conditions of Albania" or somesuch? Mao had his "Three Worlds Theory," "New Democracy," "Cultural Revolution," etc. Kim had "Juche," Castro based himself off of guerrilla warfare, Tito of course was Tito, and Sankara was generally just a bourgeois-nationalist with a red vocabulary.

Hoxha was even critical of Che Guevara, who he regarded as a progressive figure but someone who also had anti-Marxist ideas because he negated the role of the vanguard party.

Hoxha had books with titles such as Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism, Yugoslav "Self-Management": A Capitalist Theory and Practice (when the Soviets post-Stalin and the Chinese post-Mao were praising Tito the skies), The Khrushchevites, The Titoites, etc. Not exactly the stuff an "inclusive" bourgeois-nationalist would write. Not to mention his two volumes of Reflections on China and his book Imperialism and the Revolution notably criticized Maoism.

[Kestrel_194]

Who was Hoxha?

[PhoenixAsh]

Who was Hoxha?

Serious?

Ok...he was the secretary-general of the Albanian Workers (communist) Party (PPSH).


...interesting side note...the party was probably a nice example of nepotism...as somewhere over 20 members of the 35 members of the Cenral committe weer closely related....
I did not know that up until todat...

[Ismail]

The PPSh leadership was based around the leaders of the National Liberation War and their wives. This wasn't very good, but it did not have significantly detrimental effects. After all the Soviet leadership wasn't significantly nepotistic, but that did not prevent the rise of Khrushchev. In the late 1960's and early 1970's there were various measures designed to combat bureaucracy and to enhance the role of the working class in economic and social affairs (along with spreading socialist doctrine in the minds of workers and peasants), but by the 1980's these mostly petered out and revolutionary initiatives gave way to phraseology, especially since the economy declined significantly from 1987-1990 and liberalizing tendencies quickly developed.

The USSR under Lenin and Stalin faced similar problems. Mass organizations (e.g. trade unions, cultural organizations) began to ossify, the Party was seen as something that merely steered society along rather than act as the defender of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and basic economic concerns triumphed over ideological self-sacrifice. There was also of course problems with a lack of direct worker participation in actual economic affairs which only got worse as time went on.

As for Hoxha himself, he was leader of Albania from 1944 until his death in 1985. "Hoxhaism" formed as a split from Maoism in the 1976-1978 period.

[Tommy4ever]

I've never really understood the appeal of Hoxhaism. What makes it attractive to people?

It does seem to be a suprisingly popular branch of socialism despite its rather undesirable characteristics.

[Zanthorus]

It does seem to be a suprisingly popular branch of socialism despite its rather undesirable characteristics.

The amount of people who follow an ideology on Revleft is not indicative of it's popularity in real life. There are quite a few Left-Communists on here but in reality we are quite marginal.

[Tommy4ever]

I've only been on Revleft for days. I don't really know what's popular here. However there are quite a few pro-Hoxha groups around the world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

...interesting side note...the party was probably a nice example of nepotism...as somewhere over 20 members of the 35 members of the Central committee weer closely related....
I did not know that up until today...


The PPSh leadership was based around the leaders of the National Liberation War and their wives. This wasn't very good, but it did not have significantly detrimental effects.

I don't see nepotism when there are couples stacking up leadership committees, especially if it's a means of promoting gender equality or LGBT civil rights. :confused:

It's when this is extended to include in-laws and family relatives, that's when you've got a problem.

BTW, care to reconcile these two statements?


Many pro-Hoxha parties fought guerrilla wars, too.


Castro based himself off of guerrilla warfare

[Rjevan]

I've never really understood the appeal of Hoxhaism. What makes it attractive to people?
Straightforward, consistent and genuine anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism, almost incredible success and progress in formerly extermely backward and tribal Albania, great contributions to ML theory, e.g. by analyses on revisionism and events around the world, quality stuff by contemporary "Hoxhaist" parties - all of this and more adds up, you know. ;)

[Tommy4ever]

Straightforward, consistent and genuine anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism, almost incredible success and progress in formerly extermely backward and tribal Albania, great contributions to ML theory, e.g. by analyses on revisionism and events around the world, quality stuff by contemporary "Hoxhaist" parties - all of this and more adds up, you know. ;)

But doesn't the tyranny, support of Stalin and the fact that Albania is Europe's poorest country add up?

[Rjevan]

But doesn't the tyranny, support of Stalin and the fact that Albania is Europe's poorest country add up?
Depends how you define tyranny (and what sources about Albania you use and trust ;)), support of Stalin indeed adds up but on the positive side of the list and Albania being the poorest country in Europe... well, what do you expect? First of all, capitalism has been restored a good while ago and second, you really have to consider how Albania was before the communists came to power. It was basically a jump from medieval times to an industrialised and almost self-sufficient country in spite of extreme internal and external difficulties and being surrounded by hostile nations. What was achieved in Albania is gigantic and impressive enough for me and it'd be asked a bit too much that Albania ranks among Europe's top nations today.

[graymouser]

Hoxhaism really grew as a current in reaction to the post-Cultural Revolution changes in China. It was breaking free at the same time that Deng Xiaoping was starting on the road to capitalist restoration in China, and as such drew a portion of the Maoist movement after it. It's never really had a tremendous mass appeal, but pulling off a portion of the groups oriented toward Maoist China in the late 70s gave them some numbers for a while.

Most Hoxhaist groups have been in sharp decline like all other Stalinist trends and the far left in general. The ones on this board are mostly with the American Party of Labor, a tiny party that has managed to recruit a handful of people online.

[Tommy4ever]

Support for Stalin is positive? :(:crying::blink:

Wow. Just wow.

Revleft is a very strange place.

[graymouser]

(double post removed)

[28350]

Support for Stalin is positive? :(:crying::blink:

Wow. Just wow.

Revleft is a very strange place.

Not everything you have been taught is true.

[gorillafuck]

Serious?
Don't act like its a dumb question. I never heard of Hoxha before I came to this website.


Most Hoxhaist groups have been in sharp decline like all other Stalinist trends and the far left in general. The ones on this board are mostly with the American Party of Labor, a tiny party that has managed to recruit a handful of people online.
I would be somewhat surprised if the APL even have meetings.

[PhoenixAsh]

Don't act like its a dumb question. I never heard of Hoxha before I came to this website.

Fair enough. That is why you did get an answer....though google, search and reading posts above your question would have indicated who he was.

[Obs]

Support for Stalin is positive? :(:crying::blink:

Wow. Just wow.

Revleft is a very strange place.
Yeah I know, you'd think people would be turned off by the fact that he was literally personally responsible for one billion deaths.

[Ismail]

Don't act like its a dumb question. I never heard of Hoxha before I came to this website.Well here's the contemporary relevance of Hoxhaism:

Tunisia

The pro-Hoxha PCOT is seemingly the main secular opposition force around. The Trotskyist WSWS unsurprisingly criticized it a few days back:

This makes Hamma Hammami, leader of the still-illegal Workers’ Communist Party of Tunisia (PCOT), a potential key player. PCOT is an Albanian Maoist party aligned with the Workers Communist Party of France (PCOF) and an avowed admirer of Stalin’s tyranny and that of Enver Hoxha. He has also called for a government of national unity. Arrested three days ago, Ghannouchi has now released him.

Hammami has been repeatedly arrested and tortured by the regime. His wife, the lawyer Radhia Nasraoui, and their children have been persistently harassed and interrogated. Hammami has been prominent in the coverage of the Western media. The New York Times named the couple as oppositionists. Their participation in any national unity government would be utilised to lend it false credentials as a decisive break with the old regime.Miles in a post:

The Hoxhaists should be jumping for joy over this. The PCOT is really the only political party in Tunisia that didn't have ties to Bin Ali's regime. I would suspect that this fact would make them extremely popular among those workers who want to clear away every bit of the old order. The PCOT could find itself thrust into a position akin to that of the Maoists in Nepal: the de facto political leadership of a mass democratic movement.

It's the Hoxhaists' turn to show and prove.The Americas

In Ecaudor the PCMLE is illegal but has a legal, electoral front known as the MPD which has seats in the legislature. It is noted for its opposition to the Correa government.

In Chile and Brazil there pro-Hoxha parties there have a presence. I know a communist from Chile who said that his professor asked him questions about communism, and eventually started asking him if he was interested in joining Acción Proletaria, the pro-Hoxha party in Chile.

Africa

The Ivory Coast has an active pro-Hoxha party. There are also somewhat pro-Hoxha wings in ZANU-PF and some pro-Hoxha types in Mali. Benin and Burkina Faso have small parties (the Beninese one won a legislative seat in the 90's.)

Middle East

There are pro-Hoxha groups in Turkey. They mostly operate under the EMEP, which has a presence among students and has its own small TV station. There is also a pro-Hoxha party in Iran which has a rather long history, but is small and operates in exile.

Historically

In the 1970's and 80's various pro-Hoxha parties engaged in guerrilla warfare in Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and Colombia. In Ethiopia there were pro-Hoxha groups operating within the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (which was opposed to the pro-Soviet Derg regime), and as late as 1989 Meles Zenawi was calling Albania a good example of socialism, but pro-Hoxha elements were thrown out in 1990 as Zenawi became pro-US. In Burkina Faso the pro-Hoxha party there split during the rise of Thomas Sankara, one side supported him as a progressive figure (which is, as far as I know, Hoxha's own view) while the other side was against Sankara.

In Nicaragua the pro-Hoxha party there gained seats, but it also had a rather ultra-left history. Hoxha called for the pro-Albania party to critically support the Sandinistas (said party had its armed wing work with the FSLN against the Somoza regime), but then the militias seemingly went over to the Contras, its trade union wing became increasingly less popular as it became increasingly anti-Sandinista, and the party itself, although it won seats in the mid-1980's, was seen as "sectarian" by the FSLN and thus there were considerable tensions. Still, the party there condemned the FSLN when it succumbed to anti-communist demands such as banning strikes.

Germany had a significantly pro-Hoxha party in the 1970's and early 1980's, and even had a clandestine cell in the GDR. The Stasi put an end to that, and the pro-Hoxha party split as the 1980's progressed.

Pro-Hoxha parties never really caught on in Western Europe or in North America outside of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), which distanced itself from Hoxha in the early 90's.


and the fact that Albania is Europe's poorest country add up?In 1944 the life expectancy in Albania was about 38 years. In 1985 it was around 75. The literacy rate in 1944 was only about 10%, by 1950 it was (I recall) around 60% and by 1985 it was comparable to the United States. This isn't going into economic matters.

Sure, Albania is the poorest country in Europe. It was also by far the poorest country in Europe in 1944. The 1991-1992 capitalist economic "reforms" ruined the economy, and the 1997 pyramid schemes caused the reactionary leader, Sali Berisha, to plead for NATO presence as his country was being besieged by "communists."


The ones on this board are mostly with the American Party of Labor, a tiny party that has managed to recruit a handful of people online.I don't expect Ecuadorian, Tunisian, or Zimbabwean pro-Hoxha persons to make accounts on RevLeft just like I don't expect Algerian or Sri Lankan Trotskyists, or Filipino or Nepali Maoists to do so either.


BTW, care to reconcile these two statements?Castro did not base himself off of a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. It's why he was able to say on May 21, 1959 the following: "Our revolution is neither capitalist nor Communist.... Capitalism sacrifices the human being, communism with its totalitarian conceptions sacrifices human rights... Our revolution is not red but olive green. It bears the color of the rebel army from the Sierra Maestra." (The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, pp. 243-244.) As Khrushchev said in September 1960, "Castro is not a Communist now, but United States policies will make him one within two years." (Castro: A Political Biography, p. 148.)

Kinda hard to do that sort of thing when you're leading a rebellion named something like the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, or the Red Flag Party.

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

Not everything you have been taught is true.

That's comparable to denying the holocaust. Soviet State Communism is the biggest historical failing of the left, the atrocities of that whole period of time is a disgrace to the movement and the number one argument used against anyone who would fight for an end to the injustices of capitalism. It is really fucking hard to argue for the revolution when there are still jackasses who support that monstrous regime.

[Crimson Commissar]

That's comparable to denying the holocaust. Soviet State Communism is the biggest historical failing of the left, the atrocities of that whole period of time is a disgrace to the movement and the number one argument used against anyone who would fight for an end to the injustices of capitalism. It is really fucking hard to argue for the revolution when there are still jackasses who support that monstrous regime.
Stop believing this reactionary american propaganda bullshit. Where is your proof of the USSR being a "monstrous regime"? In American history text books from the cold war? Don't be so ridiculous.. :rolleyes:

[Nolan]

That's comparable to denying the holocaust. Soviet State Communism is the biggest historical failing of the left, the atrocities of that whole period of time is a disgrace to the movement and the number one argument used against anyone who would fight for an end to the injustices of capitalism. It is really fucking hard to argue for the revolution when there are still jackasses who support that monstrous regime.

You're fucking stupid if you don't think we've heard this 400000000000 times before on Revleft. You can take your tears about krondstadt or Stalin or whatever elsewhere, and we'll focus on the demonization of socialist countries and the whitewashing of liberal history.

[Ismail]

That's comparable to denying the holocaust.No it isn't. No one denies the existence of the Cheka, the labor camps, Kronstadt, the attacks against "dissident socialists," Red Terror, famine, etc. under Lenin, just as no one denies the famine, industrialization deaths, Great Purges and other such things under Stalin. No one here is denying anything.

Also "monstrous" isn't exactly a remark someone adhering to historical materialism would make about a country. Just like "evil," "horrible," "terrible," etc.

[28350]

That's comparable to denying the holocaust. Soviet State Communism is the biggest historical failing of the left, the atrocities of that whole period of time is a disgrace to the movement and the number one argument used against anyone who would fight for an end to the injustices of capitalism. It is really fucking hard to argue for the revolution when there are still jackasses who support that monstrous regime.

"Not everything you have been taught is true" clearly means "I'M A NAZI"

Go vote for the labour party.

[Rooster]

So... revisionism is bad, huh? Is that Hoxhaism?

[gorillafuck]

The Americas

In Ecaudor the PCMLE is illegal but has a legal, electoral front known as the MPD which has seats in the legislature. It is noted for its opposition to the Correa government.
Weren't they the ones who were backing the attempted right wing coup?

[Nolan]

Weren't they the ones who were backing the attempted right wing coup?

:rolleyes:

Correa is a social democrat. He was attacking the rights of workers and it wasn't just police that wanted his head. It couldn't really be called a coup attempt since the entire state apparatus sided with the Correa regime.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I would be somewhat surprised if the APL even have meetings.
I imagine it would be like the three stooges. That would be kind of funny, but why would I watch that when there is funnier stuff to watch like some cute cheesy romantic comedy?


But in all seriousness, they seem to spend way too much of their time nitpicking about how many worlds there are to annoy the Maoists.

[Ismail]

So... revisionism is bad, huh? Is that Hoxhaism?Pretty much, yes.

The book which basically launched the "Hoxhaist" movement in the late 1970's can be viewed online: http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm
Hoxha's book condemning Eurocommunism: http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-eurocommunism_is_anti-communism.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Castro did not base himself off of a Marxist-Leninist vanguard party. It's why he was able to say on May 21, 1959 the following: "Our revolution is neither capitalist nor Communist.... Capitalism sacrifices the human being, communism with its totalitarian conceptions sacrifices human rights... Our revolution is not red but olive green. It bears the color of the rebel army from the Sierra Maestra." (The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol, pp. 243-244.) As Khrushchev said in September 1960, "Castro is not a Communist now, but United States policies will make him one within two years." (Castro: A Political Biography, p. 148.)

Kinda hard to do that sort of thing when you're leading a rebellion named something like the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, or the Red Flag Party.

So guerrilla warfare by Hoxhaists is OK in your books, then? :confused:

[Ztrain]

May I ask How it is pronounced

[Catmatic Leftist]

May I ask How it is pronounced
Enver Hoxha
[ɛnˈvɛɾ ˈhɔdʒa] EHN-VEHR HUD-ZHA

[Kuppo Shakur]

May I ask How it is pronounced
Ho-Ha-Esh-Mah

[Obs]

May I ask How it is pronounced
Hodja-ism.

[RED DAVE]

Straightforward, consistent and genuine anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism, almost incredible success and progress in formerly extermely backward and tribal Albania, great contributions to ML theory, e.g. by analyses on revisionism and events around the world, quality stuff by contemporary "Hoxhaist" parties - all of this and more adds up, you know. ;)All of which led to capitalism.

RED DAVE

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

No it isn't. No one denies the existence of the Cheka, the labor camps, Kronstadt, the attacks against "dissident socialists," Red Terror, famine, etc. under Lenin, just as no one denies the famine, industrialization deaths, Great Purges and other such things under Stalin. No one here is denying anything.

Also "monstrous" isn't exactly a remark someone adhering to historical materialism would make about a country. Just like "evil," "horrible," "terrible," etc.

Well admittedly i may have been using overly emotive language but i would consider "the existence of the Cheka, the labor camps, Kronstadt, the attacks against "dissident socialists," Red Terror, famine, industrialization deaths, Great Purges" as worthy of condemning a regime as monstrous, just as i would condemn a capitalist regime that did similar things. And if no one is denying these things then fair enough i have misunderstood the posts i was replying to.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Hoxaism , as much as Maoism doesn't make much sence. Hoxaism only takes in consideration historical events including socialist states , but cannot be clearly defined in today course of events. I don't see any reason why would someone declare himself a Hoxaist and not Marxist-Leninist

[Gustav HK]

Hoxaism , as much as Maoism doesn't make much sence. Hoxaism only takes in consideration historical events including socialist states , but cannot be clearly defined in today course of events. I don't see any reason why would someone declare himself a Hoxaist and not Marxist-Leninist

Because the official name for "hoxhaism" is "marxism-leninism" (sometimes with the prefix "anti-revisionist").

"Hoxhaism" is mostly used to avoid confusion, because there are so many others that call themselves "marxist-leninists".

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

"Not everything you have been taught is true" clearly means "I'M A NAZI"

Go vote for the labour party.

I said that the things you were denying the USSR of doing were comparable to the holocaust in their scale, not that you were a nazi, that is not what i was saying at all. You however have immediately decided that a revolutionary Anarcho-Communist (Me) am a supporter of a centre-left reformist party that props up capitalism because i don't agree with you, if we are going to talk strawmans i think perhaps you are guiltier than me.

[Obs]

I said that the things you were denying the USSR of doing were comparable to the holocaust in their scale, not that you were a nazi, that is not what i was saying at all. You however have immediately decided that a revolutionary Anarcho-Communist (Me) am a supporter of a centre-left reformist party that props up capitalism because i don't agree with you, if we are going to talk strawmans i think perhaps you are guiltier than me.

Hey, we've got at least one supposed 'anarchist' on here who advocates voting for the Democrats.

[Ismail]

So guerrilla warfare by Hoxhaists is OK in your books, then? :confused:As much as partisan warfare was for Hoxha and Co. during World War II. There's a difference between Che's "foco" theory and Marxist-Leninist parties leading guerrilla wars.


May I ask How it is pronouncedXh in Albanian is j, so it's Hoja. That's how it's pronounced by Albanians.

Here's a random 1980's Albanian propaganda video in bad English to showcase this fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ETP_Co02F4

On Albanian pronunciation: http://www.argjiro.net/albi/green/index.php3?book=2&chapter=0&subchapter=0

[AnarchoCommunistEyepatch]

Hey, we've got at least one supposed 'anarchist' on here who advocates voting for the Democrats.

There is quite a difference between an anarchist suggesting you vote for the Democrats and me being accused of being a proponent of the Labour party because i don't agree with the policies of the USSR.

[28350]

I said that the things you were denying the USSR of doing were comparable to the holocaust in their scale, not that you were a nazi, that is not what i was saying at all. You however have immediately decided that a revolutionary Anarcho-Communist (Me) am a supporter of a centre-left reformist party that props up capitalism because i don't agree with you, if we are going to talk strawmans i think perhaps you are guiltier than me.

Actually, I was hoping you'd misconstrue it as a more... personal insult.
I'm sure you are 100% Anarcho-Communist Revolutionary

[Ztrain]

alright thanks

[hardlinecommunist]

Mao, Sankara, Tito, Kim Il Sung, Castro, etc. relied on "national" "socialisms." Hoxha didn't.

You're right, neither "Hoaxism" or "Hoxhaism" are real ideologies. The term was first used as "Hoxhaite" and was used by Maoists to describe the "ultra-left" (or, depending who you talked too, "rightist") policies of Enver Hoxha, who dared to criticize Mao and Maoism as anti-Marxist. Hoxha himself never recognized the term, and the Albanian Government only used the words Marxism-Leninism to describe their ideology.

Good thing is that pro-Hoxha parties in Ecuador, Tunisia, the Ivory Coast, Brazil, Chile, etc., etc. are doing what they can to make a difference. Many pro-Hoxha parties fought guerrilla wars, too.

If anyone has a question about Hoxha and/or "Hoxhaism" and/or Albania from 1944-1992 then feel free to ask.
Ismail who were some of The Pro Hoxhaist Parties that fought guerrilla wars could you list them

[not your usual suspect]

As for Hoxha himself, he was leader of Albania from 1944 until his death in 1985. "Hoxhaism" formed as a split from Maoism in the 1976-1978 period.
Do "Hoxhaists" have a problem with this? Do they see this as problematic at all? That one person was "leader" for over forty years?
Do "Hoxhaists" consider the return of capitalism to Albania a failure of Hoxhaism? If so, is there an analysis about how to prevent this in the future? If not, what would be suggested as the top two or three major causes?

PS to the mods, I note that I can force line breaks by inserting <br /> in my posts. Wouldn't it be better to just fix the problem? I know you are reading my posts because you don't let me post unmoderated...

[Ismail]

Ismail who were some of The Pro Hoxhaist Parties that fought guerrilla wars could you list themEthiopia - the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front (wasn't itself pro-Albania, but ostensibly the main organization within it, the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray, held onto a theoretical pro-Albania view up until late 1989 or early 1990.)
Colombia - Popular Liberation Army (it demobilized in the 90's, but dissident factions continue fighting)
Ecuador - Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (stopped fighting in the 90's, has a legal electoral front with seats in the legislature)
Brazil - Communist Party of Brazil (guerrilla activity in the 70's and 80's)
Venezuela - Red Flag Party (began fighting in the 1970's, demobilized in the 90's, has moved away from being pro-Albania and is now more Maoist than anything)
Nicaragua - MILPAS (fought alongside the Sandinistas against the Somoza regime, then a section joined the Contras against the Sandinistas)


Do they see this as problematic at all? That one person was "leader" for over forty years?Todor Zhivkov was leader of Bulgaria for 35 years (1954-1989) and that in itself had no effect on anything. Fidel Castro of course was leader for 49 years and this didn't make him an insatiable madman. I think what matters is not that one man leads a vanguard party for a long time, but how much power the working class itself has. After all, Stalin led the Soviet Union for around 29 years but within less than 5 Khrushchev and Co. (the bureaucracy) pretty much tossed him aside without any problems. One man alone does not spell the life or death of proletarian rule.

I will note that the leader of a "socialist" country is expected to be not just a leader, but a theoretician. Even Zhivkov, who was otherwise a generic bureaucrat, had various "theoretical" works by the virtue of him paying lipservice to Marxism-Leninism. Even in modern-day China you have the leaders of the CCP being praised for their "great theoretical innovations" such as the Three Represents. Enver Hoxha, unlike Zhivkov, was a very "ideological" leader, seen as a guiding force of the party since its very foundations, and Hoxha was the only prominent Albanian Communist at the time the party was founded in 1941.

Deng Xiaoping (who ruled for a long time), in an interview with Mike Wallace in 1986, said (http://web.peopledaily.com.cn/english/dengxp/vol3/text/c1560.html) the following:

Deng: I am all for the abolition of life tenure and the institution of a retirement system. As you know, I told the Italian correspondent Oriana Fallaci that my plan was to work until 1985. It's already a year beyond that date. I am now considering when to retire. Personally, I should like to retire soon. However, this is a rather difficult question. It is very hard to persuade the Party rank and file and the Chinese people to accept that. I believe if I retire before I die, it will help ensure the continuation of the present policies. It will also be in keeping with my own wishes. However, I need to work harder to talk people around. In the end, as I am a member of the Communist Party, I must obey the decision of the Party. I am a citizen of the People's Republic of China, so I must obey the will of the people. I am still hoping that I can succeed in persuading the people to come round to my view.

Wallace: You told Fallaci "until 1985''; what will you tell me?

Deng: To be quite frank, I am trying to persuade people to let me retire at the Party's Thirteenth National Congress next year. But so far, all I have heard is dissenting voices on all sides.Todor Zhivkov, in an interview with Robert Maxwell in 1981, said the following (contained within Peace and Security for the Peoples, 1985, pp. 151-152.):

It is not easy to answer this question...

You probably know that for half a century I have been in the ranks of the Bulgarian Communist Party. About a decade and a half I fought at the front line of its difficult struggle... After the victory of the socialist revolution I carried out the tasks the Party was entrusting me with. In 1954 I was elected First Secretary... I have been re-elected to this post at all the following congresses... I have always felt an inner gratitude and filial responsibility for the high trust placed in me; I have always striven to give as much energy and knowledge as possible in my entire work and behaviour to justify this trust.

I personally regard my election... as an obligation to work still more actively and purposefully for translation into being the decisions of the 12th Party Congress, for the triumph of its April line and for the construction of a mature socialist society in my motherland.
Do "Hoxhaists" consider the return of capitalism to Albania a failure of Hoxhaism? If so, is there an analysis about how to prevent this in the future? If not, what would be suggested as the top two or three major causes?Do Trotskyists regard the rise of Stalin as a "failure" of Leninism? Do "Stalinists" regard the post-1956 restoration of capitalism in the USSR as a "failure" of Marxism-Leninism? Then you have the Maoists, the Brezhnevites (those who felt capitalist restoration began with Gorbachev), etc.

If I had to give 3 reasons I'd say the following:
1. There was a lack of education for workers and peasants about how to build a socialist society. Apathy grew throughout the 1980's as the population, in a way similar to the Eastern Bloc as a whole, felt that the West was a land of glory and abundance, and saw the Albanian economy becoming increasingly poorer due to its isolation, which they associated with planned economies and, by extension, socialism (and, by that extension, Marxist analysis.)
2. The country itself was totally isolated after 1978, and was basing itself off of what was perceived as the imminent rise of proletarian revolutions across the world. Obviously that didn't happen, and the lack of new technologies and materials (as James S. O'Donnell notes in his 1999 study of Albania under Hoxha) coupled with a rapidly rising population pushing up against self-sufficient but little-developing agriculture caused the economy to falter after the mid-1980's.
3. As in the USSR, there were practically no mechanisms for averting the rise of revisionists within the party. Despite its vanguard role, the Albanian Party of Labour became increasingly disconnected from the Albanian people after the 1970's, and even before then issues like bureaucracy and liberalism were tackled but never overcome. This is a problem stretching back to the Bolsheviks under Lenin, and it's obviously a pretty big issue.

Solutions would involve things like working to empower workers so that they can exercise sufficient political and economic control, and taking advantage of the new situation the world is in (internet, mass communications in general, industrial development, etc.) to educate workers on how to actually wield this power in a way which can see through the global defeat of capitalism.