Kim Il Sung

[Geiseric]

I was wondering about his involvement with the korean revolution, his personal history, and what he did once he got in charge of North Korea. Any help would be appreciated.

[Per Levy]

well i dont know to much of his history, but a history student once told a little bit about him. he said that kim was one of many partisan leaders who fought the japanese occupation, when he later came to power he got rid of some of the other partisan leaders to strenghten the power of his faction. but im sure other people on this forum know much more about this, and probally can point out if im wrong here.

[Omsk]

Kim Il-sung (15 April 1912 – 8 July 1994) was a Korean communist politician who led North Korea from its founding in 1948 until his death in 1994.His cult of personality excedes even the one of Stalin and Mao,which is staggering,he is the founder of Juche (there is a thread about it,look at new posts) a variant of communist national organisation.He is the 'eternal president' (ie de facto most 'loved' man in North Korea) And his birthday is celebrated as the national holiday.Imagine that.
He was a partisan in the war against Japanese occupation,and when the glourious soviet comrades arrived in Korea,Stalin wanted to have a man he could trust in the region,he sent that monster Beria to look for such a man,and Beria found him - it was Kim Il Sung.

He was also a captain in the Red Army until the end of the war. (he recived help from the soviets) He created the KPA (profesional army) and instituted many branches of combat,as the airforce,tank battalions,and more.He was the leader of the DPRK in the Korean War,which,by some,he started. (that is a story for another thread,lets not forlong this)
After the war,in the Sino-Soviet split,he sided with China,and stayed clear of the Soviet Union.
He made alliances with Erich Honecker (Old Erich didn't need friends like him) and
Nicolae Ceauşescu,while he was a fierce enemy of Hoxa and his socialist Albania.
He died form a hearth attack and he was buried in his mausoleum,his body embalmed.
*A new constitution was proclaimed in December 1972, under which Kim became President of North Korea. In 1980 he had decided that his son Kim Jong-il would succeed him, and increasingly delegated the running of the government to him.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Actually, North Korea went independent from Soviet-Sino Split, not side with China. They only side with China after the USSR gone.

And secondly, I don't think Beria was a monster nor do I think he poisoned Stalin.

[Omsk]

Actually, North Korea went independent from Soviet-Sino Split, not side with China.
Not officialy,but they placed their bet on China.

nor do I think he poisoned Stalin.
Neither do i.

I don't think Beria was a monster
Maybe not a monster,but he definitely was not a loved nor a good,positive figure.
And from all that,you only comment on the issue of Beria?

[Chimurenga.]

Kim Il Sung was one of the baddest motherfuckers to ever live. I wish I could've met him. His picture (as a young man probably in the 1940's) graces my avatar spot.

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/05-10-01-korea65533s-unfinished-strugg.html

http://www2.pslweb.org/img/lib/922.jpg

This is him at fourteen years old when he started the "Down-With-Imperialism-Union" in middle school.

If you want a good biography, I would check this out: http://www.korea-dpr.com/lib/202.pdf

[khad]

Kim Il-sung (15 April 1912 – 8 July 1994) was a Korean communist politician who led North Korea from its founding in 1948 until his death in 1994.His cult of personality excedes even the one of Stalin and Mao,which is staggering,he is the founder of Juche (there is a thread about it,look at new posts) a variant of communist national organisation.He is the 'eternal president' (ie de facto most 'loved' man in North Korea) And his birthday is celebrated as the national holiday.Imagine that.
He was a partisan in the war against Japanese occupation,and when the glourious soviet comrades arrived in Korea,Stalin wanted to have a man he could trust in the region,he sent that monster Beria to look for such a man,and Beria found him - it was Kim Il Sung.

He was also a captain in the Red Army until the end of the war. (he recived help from the soviets) He created the KPA (profesional army) and instituted many branches of combat,as the airforce,tank battalions,and more.He was the leader of the DPRK in the Korean War,which,by some,he started. (that is a story for another thread,lets not forlong this)
After the war,in the Sino-Soviet split,he sided with China,and stayed clear of the Soviet Union.
He made alliances with Erich Honecker (Old Erich didn't need friends like him) and
Nicolae Ceauşescu,while he was a fierce enemy of Hoxa and his socialist Albania.
He died form a hearth attack and he was buried in his mausoleum,his body embalmed.
*A new constitution was proclaimed in December 1972, under which Kim became President of North Korea. In 1980 he had decided that his son Kim Jong-il would succeed him, and increasingly delegated the running of the government to him.
All that jive and you couldn't mention that he was a PLA officer. In fact one of the best the PLA had.

[Geiseric]

Does being a good officer justify the cult of personality, military dictatorship and dynastic succession that he set up?

[Omsk]

All that jive and you couldn't mention that he was a PLA officer. In fact one of the best the PLA had.
I said he was a Red Army officer....compromise? :)


Does being a good officer justify the cult of personality, military dictatorship and dynastic succession that he set up?
When did we suggest that?

[khad]

Does being a good officer justify the cult of personality, military dictatorship and dynastic succession that he set up?
What did you do during the war?


I said he was a Red Army officer....compromise? :)
Of course not. The way he made a name for himself as a guerrilla leader in Korea was in the 30s when he was fighting under the banner of the PLA. His work in the Soviet Army was more in the realm of intel.

[Omsk]

Of course not. The way he made a name for himself as a guerrilla leader in Korea was in the 30s when he was fighting under the banner of the PLA. His work in the Soviet Army was more in the realm of intel.
Still,it is worth mentioning that he served in the Red Army.

[A.J.]

In His work Reflections on China Enver Hoxha referred to Kim Il Sung as a "meglomaniac".

That's all I contribute to this thread at the moment.

[Chimurenga.]

In His work Reflections on China Enver Hoxha referred to Kim Il Sung as a "meglomaniac".

Says the guy who built hundreds of underground bunkers in case of a Soviet attack.

[The Vegan Marxist]

North Korea under Kim Il-Sung was quite prosperous, as was Albania under Hoxha. Hoxha's words against Kim Il-Sung was his ongoing lambasting campaign against socialist countries, crying revisionism, despite him not even realizing his own revisionism.

[Omsk]

North Korea under Kim Il-Sung was quite prosperous, as was Albania under Hoxha.
Hoxa made progress,but his rule was not flawless.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I heard he developed NK more rapidly than SK for some years and did some genuinely progressive things at first, but the country stagnated after a while and anyone who supports dynastic government is not a real radical.

Perhaps he started to believe in his own personality cult?


What did you do during the war?


That's the most rightwing argument I've ever heard from a "Leftist". It reminds me of arguments I saw from pro-war conservatives about the war in iraq.

"hey, maybe going to war in Iraq is a bad idea"
"Maan, where were you in VIETNAM?"

Khad, meet red herring :P

[mosfeld]

Actually, North Korea went independent from Soviet-Sino Split, not side with China. They only side with China after the USSR gone. They did however join Vietnam, the PRC, Albania and pro-China parties, such as the PKI, CPT and CPB, in not attending the Soviet-sponsored "1969 International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties".



Says the guy who built hundreds of underground bunkers in case of a Soviet attack. I'd like to know how exactly this is a legitimate argument and not just a pathetic cheap shot? Does security not matter? Please note that Im not at all fond of Hoxha or Hoxhaism.

[Omsk]

Does security not matter
Why would the Soviets take out Albania in the first place?
I understand that Yugoslavia could be paranoid in certain times,as it was a large country and its relations with the USSR were bad,(although they later improved).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Hoxa made progress,but his rule was not flawless.

Oh, no doubt!

[Chimurenga.]

I'd like to know how exactly this is a legitimate argument and not just a pathetic cheap shot? Does security not matter? Please note that Im not at all fond of Hoxha or Hoxhaism.

It reveals his paranoia. Not to mention that he was probably THE most sectarian and dogmatic Socialist leader of the twentieth century. He was in no place to judge.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

It reveals his paranoia. Not to mention that he was probably THE most sectarian and dogmatic Socialist leader of the twentieth century. He was in no place to judge.

Albania was surrounded on all sides by hostile enemies. Yugoslavia to the east and north. NATO to the west and south. I'm pretty sure Albania was technically at war with Greece for a long time as well (like the DPRK-ROK relationship).

As for Kim Il-sung, I'm an anti-revisionist but I think he was kinda alright actually. Juche often gets called revisionist but from what I can tell, it just seems to be Marxism-Leninism plus some ideas from Mao with a nice Korean name and a false attribution to Kim. Seems Kim was kinda full of himself but that doesn't automatically make him a revisionist. IMO the DPRK's main problem was and is more just the ridiculously obscene personality cults. In the complete absence of any other socialist states though, I think I'll go easy on 'em.

[Ismail]

It reveals his paranoia. Not to mention that he was probably THE most sectarian and dogmatic Socialist leader of the twentieth century. He was in no place to judge.Hoxha called Kim Il Sung a nationalist and in Volume II of his Reflections on China did indeed call him a "vacillating, revisionist megalomaniac" (p. 151) while also noting in The Khrushchevites on a 1956 visit that (p. 236), "On September 7 we arrived in Pyongyang. They put on a splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of Kim Il Sung everywhere. You had to look hard to find some portrait of Lenin, tucked away in some obscure corner." Kim Il Sung also had fine ties with Tito and like Tito tried to present himself as a leader within the "Non-Aligned Movement."

Juche was revisionist, and especially more so today with the "Songun" views of Kim Jong Il replacing the proletariat in favor of the army as the leading force of society. Such is the result of making a fetish out of "not being dogmatic."

[hardlinecommunist]

North Korea under Kim Il-Sung was quite prosperous, as was Albania under Hoxha. Hoxha's words against Kim Il-Sung was his ongoing lambasting campaign against socialist countries, crying revisionism, despite him not even realizing his own revisionism. What in your view was Enver Hoxha s own revisionism

[hardlinecommunist]

Says the guy who built hundreds of underground bunkers in case of a Soviet attack. Enver Hoxha was not being an meglomaniac Albania at that time in history really was under threat from a Soviet or Yugoslavian attack

[Red_Struggle]

It reveals his paranoia. Not to mention that he was probably THE most sectarian and dogmatic Socialist leader of the twentieth century. He was in no place to judge.

Well, so much for the Kim-il Sung thread.


Albania's geographic position was not favorable towards the building of socialism in the Mediterranean, but dammit they did it anyways. They defied Tito, Khruschev, The British, and the U.S., all while abolishing taxes, inflation, and national debt and socialist Albania actually introduced more workers' control and participation than any other "socialist" state. Why you have such a beef with Hoxha is beyond me.

[Omsk]

Enver Hoxha was not being an meglomaniac Albania at that time in history really was under threat from a Soviet or Yugoslavian attack
Don't post if you don't have an idea what you are typing.
Yugoslavia had little interest in occupying Albania,ie conquering it by force.

[manic expression]

Enver Hoxha was not being an meglomaniac Albania at that time in history really was under threat from a Soviet or Yugoslavian attack
So far that's 100% baseless conjecture on your part, but regardless I'll humor you and say that if there was any "threat" at all, it was precisely because Hoxha was a petty sectarian. His diplomatic policy was to condemn and insult anyone who didn't completely agree with his every word...crying foul after you've made your own enemies is childish.

Oh, and I like how Ismail's first response is to quote Hoxha, as if some reflexive reaction to any criticism. But he has sense: since Hoxha didn't like the floral arrangements and portraiture, the DPRK was clearly reactionary. Once again, we see that Hoxha wouldn't know a materialist analysis if it built a pillbox bunker with him.

[khad]

That's the most rightwing argument I've ever heard from a "Leftist". It reminds me of arguments I saw from pro-war conservatives about the war in iraq.

"hey, maybe going to war in Iraq is a bad idea"
"Maan, where were you in VIETNAM?"

Khad, meet red herring :P
Meet a western leftist whose ancestors have never even fought a war worth fighting.

I'm sure your pacifist hugs would have put a dent into the Japanese Imperial Army.

[Red_Struggle]

Yugoslavia had little interest in occupying Albania,ie conquering it by force.

Actually, Tito did want to turn Albania into a part of Yugoslavia. For starters, they grabbed Kosovo during the war.


Hoxha was a petty sectarian.

Denouncing revisionism and distortions of Marxism is not sectarian. He criticized the way China's GPCR was being carried out, as democratic centralism was out the window and the anarchy of the Red Guards is nothing to be proud of. Mao's active encouragement of his personality cult and his "bloc of four classes", "New Democracy", and "three worlds" theories are not legitimate in the realm of socialism.

Not to mention Khruschev told the Albanians to just focus on agriculture and the USSR would "take care of them". To this, the Albanian Party of Labor said "fuck you". Instead, they took Lenin's and Stalin's advice and indsturalized their own country.



His diplomatic policy was to condemn and insult anyone who didn't completely agree with his every word.

Bullshit. The Party of Labor lent its support to all progressive forces, while criticizing them on their shortcomings or theoretical mistakes. The party supported and reported on anti-imperialist struggles around the globe from Vietnam to Cuba, despite siding with the Soviet revisionists.

[Chimurenga.]

Albania's geographic position was not favorable towards the building of socialism in the Mediterranean, but dammit they did it anyways. They defied Tito, Khruschev, The British, and the U.S., all while abolishing taxes, inflation, and national debt and socialist Albania actually introduced more workers' control and participation than any other "socialist" state.

Ok? Who says that I'm trying to take anything from Albania as a Socialist country? I'm well aware of their advances and gains under Socialism.


Why you have such a beef with Hoxha is beyond me.

Oh, gee. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Denouncing revisionism and distortions of Marxism is not sectarian. He criticized the way China's GPCR was being carried out, as democratic centralism was out the window and the anarchy of the Red Guards is nothing to be proud of. Mao's active encouragement of his personality cult and his "bloc of four classes", "New Democracy", and "three worlds" theories are not legitimate in the realm of socialism.
Egotistically projecting "revisionism and distortions of Marxism" and condemning anyone who isn't you is sectarian. The GPCR was flawed in many ways, well done for noticing. But nothing you mention disqualifies the PRC from the realm of socialism, you just stated a few theoretical contentions and expected that to do your work for you. Unfortunately, Red Guards not behaving doesn't prove your point whatsoever.


Not to mention Khruschev told the Albanians to just focus on agriculture and the USSR would "take care of them". To this, the Albanian Party of Labor said "fuck you". Instead, they took Lenin's and Stalin's advice and indsturalized their own country. Once again, a diplomatic masterstroke by Hoxha. Khrushchev makes a not-all-that-bright suggestion (which he made to just about everyone, Khrushchev was obsessed with improving agricultural output for whatever reason) and Hoxha says "fuck you, revisionist!". Neither materialist nor wise...a description we will likely return to.


Bullshit. The Party of Labor lent its support to all progressive forces, while criticizing them on their shortcomings or theoretical mistakes. The party supported and reported on anti-imperialist struggles around the globe from Vietnam to Cuba, despite siding with the Soviet revisionists.Yes, all those "progressive" apartheid collaborators. :rolleyes: Anyway, are you denying that Hoxha condemned (and, let's be honest, insulted) the USSR and later PRC? Speak directly to the point this time.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Actually, Tito did want to turn Albania into a part of Yugoslavia. For starters, they grabbed Kosovo during the war.
To be fair, Italy took Kosovo from Serbia first.

He criticized the way China's GPCR was being carried out, as democratic centralism was out the window and the anarchy of the Red Guards is nothing to be proud of.
If Mao had continued to stick to democratic centralism at that point, capitalism would've been restored in the 60s. As for the Red Guards, they did lack a fully coherent direction at times but to characterise it all as having been entirely anarchy is to repeat the line of the Chinese revisionists and the bourgeoisie.

Mao's active encouragement of his personality cult
I'll admit he didn't exactly do much to oppose it but he didn't actively encourage it in the first place. It was mostly Lin Biao who promoted it to the levels it did get to.

[Omsk]

Actually, Tito did want to turn Albania into a part of Yugoslavia. For starters, they grabbed Kosovo during the war.
Oh please,Kosovo was a Serbian region.
And,just because Uncle Stalin said that Yugoslavia wants to anex Albania does not mean that it was Tito's plan.
Yugoslavia wanted Albanias market,not its land,its land was not very prosperous.

[Red_Struggle]

Ok? Who says that I'm trying to take anything from Albania as a Socialist country?

You're criticizing him and the party on Brezhnevite grounds, without looking at the changes in the world communist movement once revisionism and state-capitalism was rooted in the USSR.


Egotistically projecting "revisionism and distortions of Marxism" and condemning anyone who isn't you is sectarian.

Hoxha didn't criticize for the sake of criticism or splitting.


The GPCR was flawed in many ways, well done for noticing. But nothing you mention disqualifies the PRC from the realm of socialism

The GPCR did not carry very many socialist features as it was carried out. It began in the schools and was led mainly by students, with the actual working class trailing behind. You could say that some workers did support the red guards, but they were not the guiding force of the movement. Along with what I said about Mao's other theories, this is also a non-Marxist practice.

Also, how is the bloc of four classes supposedly socialist? A united front is acceptable up to a point, but after the revolution, this coalition should be replaced with true proletarian dictatorship. This did not happen in China as many of the prominent members of Mao's circle each had their own class interests with Liu Shaoxi representing the national bourgeoisie, Deng representing the petit bourgeoisie, and Gao Gang actually representing the Chinese workers (who was purged early after Stalin's death, go figure).

It should also be mentioned that it was mandatory that the old capitalists that supported Mao's policies were given managerial positions in the people's communes, and that the decentralization of the economy during the Great Leap Forward was an utter failure.


Khrushchev makes a not-all-that-bright suggestion (which he made to just about everyone, Khrushchev was obsessed with improving agricultural output for whatever reason)

So you would rather apologize for social imperialism than actually look at the economic or political superstructure of the USSR at that time?


"Khrushchev came here and had a look. 'Don't spoil the landscape with industries,' he said. 'Let's have a socialist division of labor. We'll industrialize ourselves, and you can grow lemons. Then we'll come here to you and swim.' But then our government said, 'Comrade Khrushchev, we've no intention of becoming a spa for Soviet functionaries. We've in
mind to follow Comrade Stalin's advice and industrialize our country." - Albania Defiant

Not too smart at all for a loving communist such as Khruschev.


Anyway, are you denying that Hoxha condemned (and, let's be honest, insulted) the USSR and later PRC? Speak directly to the point this time.

Yes I'll deny it because that is a lie. I'll say this one more time: Hoxha did not insult the people or workers living within said countries. He railed against Khruschev and Brezhnev for their social-imperialism and against Mao for all of his class-collaborationist internal policies and his reactionary "theories" that he applied to the whole world (allying with Pinochet, Mobuto, Savimbi, etc.). He actually expressed his admiration for the Soviet people many times in his writings, encouraging them to re-establish proletarian dictatorship.

And as for Hoxha supposedly supporting apartheid, you think you could show me a source for that?

[Ismail]

The line that Hoxha "supported" apartheid reminds me of how the RCPUSA used to say in the late 1970's that Hoxha was apparently a "Zionist." There's zero support for it.

Also yes, Yugoslavia did want to annex Albania. This isn't some sort of conspiracy; various books note it. Albania wasn't even invited into the Cominform at its founding, since Yugoslavia represented Albania within it. One of the first differences between Stalin and Tito was that Tito wanted to station troops in Albania as part of its eventual incorporation into Yugoslavia, which Stalin and Hoxha were against.

As Miranda Vickers noted in The Albanians: A Modern History, pp. 156-157: "From 1944 onwards Yugoslav pressure on the LNC increased considerably. At the end of August, the Yugoslavs appointed a new head of their Military Mission, Colonel Velimir Stojnic, to Hoxha's headquarters. Miladin Popovic (who later met a suspicious and untimely death) was withdrawn, as he was considered too friendly towards Hoxha. The Yugoslav delegation headed by Velimir Sojnic, acting under Tito's instructions, argued that Albania was too small and too weak to remain independent after the war. Albania's future would therefore be best assured by uniting with Yugoslavia to become that country's seventh Republic."

[hardlinecommunist]

Don't post if you don't have an idea what you are typing.
Yugoslavia had little interest in occupying Albania,ie conquering it by force. Yugoslavia had every intention of occupying and absorbing Albania in the late 1940s and in the decades after

[hardlinecommunist]

Oh please,Kosovo was a Serbian region.
And,just because Uncle Stalin said that Yugoslavia wants to anex Albania does not mean that it was Tito's plan.
Yugoslavia wanted Albanias market,not its land,its land was not very prosperous.
Tito and the Yugoslav Revisionists had made their intentions know to Comrade Stalin and the whole of the International Communist Movement their plan to annex Albania to Yugoslavia

[manic expression]

You're criticizing him and the party on Brezhnevite grounds, without looking at the changes in the world communist movement once revisionism and state-capitalism was rooted in the USSR.
More cheap sloganeering from the ideology that can do nothing else.


Hoxha didn't criticize for the sake of criticism or splitting.
Well, not just for the sake of criticism and splitting, for there was a higher objective involved...glorifying Hoxha. Can you explain in any materialist manner exactly why Hoxha went about insulting communists for their choice of floral arrangements and where they placed pictures?


The GPCR did not carry very many socialist features as it was carried out. It began in the schools and was led mainly by students, with the actual working class trailing behind. You could say that some workers did support the red guards, but they were not the guiding force of the movement. Along with what I said about Mao's other theories, this is also a non-Marxist practice.
It was led mainly by Mao, as chairman of the CPC. Did you think a bunch of students just woke up one morning and decided to carry out a GPCR?


Also, how is the bloc of four classes supposedly socialist? A united front is acceptable up to a point, but after the revolution, this coalition should be replaced with true proletarian dictatorship. This did not happen in China as many of the prominent members of Mao's circle each had their own class interests with Liu Shaoxi representing the national bourgeoisie, Deng representing the petit bourgeoisie, and Gao Gang actually representing the Chinese workers (who was purged early after Stalin's death, go figure).

It should also be mentioned that it was mandatory that the old capitalists that supported Mao's policies were given managerial positions in the people's communes, and that the decentralization of the economy during the Great Leap Forward was an utter failure.
I don't at all agree with the bloc of four classes, but your conclusion does not even follow your assertion. If you are contending that the PRC was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, then you will have to explain why Hoxha was so eager to ally with that very state.


So you would rather apologize for social imperialism than actually look at the economic or political superstructure of the USSR at that time?
A structure that had not fundamentally changed since 1953.


Not too smart at all for a loving communist such as Khruschev.
Ah, OK. So the USSR was imperialist because they wanted Albania to grow lemons and preserve their beaches (which I gather Hoxha did anyway). Once again, stunning materialist analysis on your part. Khrushchev makes a questionable suggestion, therefore the Soviet Union is imperialist.


Yes I'll deny it because that is a lie. I'll say this one more time: Hoxha did not insult the people or workers living within said countries. He railed against Khruschev and Brezhnev for their social-imperialism and against Mao for all of his class-collaborationist internal policies and his reactionary "theories" that he applied to the whole world (allying with Pinochet, Mobuto, Savimbi, etc.). He actually expressed his admiration for the Soviet people many times in his writings, encouraging them to re-establish proletarian dictatorship.
Once again you're side-stepping (and retreating into meaningless sloganeering) because you don't want to deal with the point directly. I didn't ask whether or not Hoxha hated Russian people, I asked whether or not Hoxha condemned and insulted the Soviet Union. It's really not all that difficult of a question, and I trust you can answer it.


And as for Hoxha supposedly supporting apartheid, you think you could show me a source for that?
You claimed Hoxha supported "progressives" abroad. I asked (indirectly) if this includes UNITA, which collaborated with apartheid during its quest to suppress Angolan sovereignty, and which received rhetoric support from Hoxha IIRC.

[Omsk]

Yugoslavia had every intention of occupying and absorbing Albania in the late 1940s and in the decades after
Are you mad?Yugoslavia didn't exist in the 40'.And in WW2,a greater Albania was forged by Italy,and its vision was a big Albania with Kosovo in it.
You should let Ismail represent you Hoxaists,he knows what he is talking about.

Miladin Popovic (who later met a suspicious and untimely death) was withdrawn, as he was considered too friendly towards Hoxha.
Miladin Popovic was killed by Balist's.

[manic expression]

The line that Hoxha "supported" apartheid reminds me of how the RCPUSA used to say in the late 1970's that Hoxha was apparently a "Zionist." There's zero support for it.
Except how he echoed the arguments of UNITA, which was collaborating with apartheid. And let's not forget Hoxhaism acting in concert with reaction in Ethiopia and Afghanistan, trying to undermine progressive forces on the coat-tails of imperialist ones.


As Miranda Vickers noted in The Albanians: A Modern History, pp. 156-157: "From 1944 onwards Yugoslav pressure on the LNC increased considerably. At the end of August, the Yugoslavs appointed a new head of their Military Mission, Colonel Velimir Stojnic, to Hoxha's headquarters. Miladin Popovic (who later met a suspicious and untimely death) was withdrawn, as he was considered too friendly towards Hoxha. The Yugoslav delegation headed by Velimir Sojnic, acting under Tito's instructions, argued that Albania was too small and too weak to remain independent after the war. Albania's future would therefore be best assured by uniting with Yugoslavia to become that country's seventh Republic."
That was an offer, not an invasion. Were the bunkers made to heroically fight off diplomatic delegations?

[Roach]

Why are the albanian bunkers so polliticaly relevant ?

[Omsk]

Why is the Berlin wall so politically relevant?:)

[Roach]

Why is the Berlin wall so politically relevant?:)

The Berlin wall is not used to ridicularize Erich Honecker's rule as if there was no real tension between East and West Germany.

[hardlinecommunist]

Are you mad?Yugoslavia didn't exist in the 40'.And in WW2,a greater Albania was forged by Italy,and its vision was a big Albania with Kosovo in it.
You should let Ismail represent you Hoxaists,he knows what he is talking about.

Miladin Popovic was killed by Balist's.
What Planet do you live on Yugoslavia did indeed exist in the 1940s you need a lesson in History and Geography real fast as it is you who does not know what you are talking about

[Omsk]

The Berlin wall is not used to ridicularize Erich Honecker's rule as if there was no real tension between East and West Germany.
It is used,in mass media especially.Many articles about the wall,and Erich Honecker directly ridicule his rule and his 'stasi land'
Oh,by the way,im actually not against Enver,but his rule was not flawless,and he should not be the idea of the perfect socialist.

What Planet do you live on Yugoslavia did indeed exist in the 1940s you need a lesson in History and Geography real fast as it is you who does not know what you are talking about
@Hardlinecommunist:You have no idea what you are talking about,THE KINGDOME OF YUGOSLAVIA existed in the 40' not socialist Yugoslavia.....And the kingdom had different ideas..

[manic expression]

Why are the albanian bunkers so polliticaly relevant ?
They are a symbol of Hoxha's policies, and the weak or else nonexistent justifications for their existence imbue them with a more profound and political meaning. In other words, Hoxha directed a socialist country that seemed to be most adept at making enemies with other socialist countries. The bunkers are merely a physical manifestation of that political trajectory, one that many communists rightly question.

[Roach]

They are a symbol of Hoxha's policies, and the weak or else nonexistent justifications for their existence imbue them with a more profound and political meaning. In other words, Hoxha directed a socialist country that seemed to be most adept at making enemies with other socialist countries. The bunkers are merely a physical manifestation of that political trajectory, one that many communists rightly question.


Was the Albanian Subersion non-existent ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Subversion

[manic expression]

Was the Albanian Subersion non-existent ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Subversion
I'm not taking that article seriously until it has better citations, but regardless I would naturally expect the CIA and other such outfits to have had designs on Albania; however that has not at all been the justification for the pillboxes, as instead, the threat of a Yugoslav or Soviet invasion has been most frequently cited. Is it your contention that the bunkers guarded against covert operations? Do you deny the proposition that had Hoxha not cut himself off from many potential allies (USSR, Yugoslavia, PRC...), socialist Albania would have been in a far stronger and more secure position than it found itself in?

[hardlinecommunist]

It is used,in mass media especially.Many articles about the wall,and Erich Honecker directly ridicule his rule and his 'stasi land'
Oh,by the way,im actually not against Enver,but his rule was not flawless,and he should not be the idea of the perfect socialist.

@Hardlinecommunist:You have no idea what you are talking about,THE KINGDOME OF YUGOSLAVIA existed in the 40' not socialist Yugoslavia.....And the kingdom had different ideas.. I said 1940s as in the time period form 1940 to 1949 meaning the whole decade of the 1940s not the year 1940 Tito and and partisans came into State Power in the period of 1944 and 1945 and Tito had State Power in Yugoslavia for the rest of the 1940s and beyond in fact Tito ruled Yugoslavia unitl his Death in 1980 so i am right and you are wrong you need to go home and read up on your history my friend

[Omsk]

No,im afraid not.:) Tito led a partisan movement during the 40' he didnt control the state until 1945.

I said 1940s as in the time period form 1940 to 1949
Be more specific next time,i cant read your thoughts.

[RedStarOverChina]

Of course not. The way he made a name for himself as a guerrilla leader in Korea was in the 30s when he was fighting under the banner of the PLA. His work in the Soviet Army was more in the realm of intel.
Actually, the PLA didn't exist until after the end of WWII in 1943. The name existed only briefly in 1927 until it was renamed "Chinese Workers & Peasants' Red Army".

Kim Jung Il joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1931. He first fought under the "North Eastern People's Revolutionary Army" (a Communist resistance army in Manchuria---Its leader was the famous communist martyr Yang Jingyu), and then under the regrouped "North Eastern Anti-Japanese United Army".

The North Eastern Anti-Japanese United Army was only nominally under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party throughout WWII. In terms of decision-making it was quite independent, and it was backed also by the Soviet Union.

[Roach]

I'm not taking that article seriously until it has better citations, but regardless I would naturally expect the CIA and other such outfits to have had designs on Albania; however that has not at all been the justification for the pillboxes, as instead, the threat of a Yugoslav or Soviet invasion has been most frequently cited. Is it your contention that the bunkers guarded against covert operations? Do you deny the proposition that had Hoxha not cut himself off from many potential allies (USSR, Yugoslavia, PRC...), socialist Albania would have been in a far stronger and more secure position than it found itself in?


I personnaly think the pillboxes were built to protect Albania from a pontential invasion coming from the western block rather than from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, but Enver Hoxha could think that one day the Soviet Union could find a reason to invade his country and overthrown him like they did with Dubcek,he was not the only, as Nicolae Ceausesco also condemd this invasion.( If it needs clarification I am not a Ceausesco supporter and the reasons to overthrown Enver Hoxha would certainly be different than the ones used to overthrown Dubcek,as well as the reasons to Albania condem the invasion would be different than the ones from Romania).

Naturally there was more tension relations between the western block and Albania, as Ismail already pointed out, Albania and Greece relations were similar to those of North and South Korea.

Of course those are only assumptions, but the point is: Albania was, and still is a poor nation, it nedeed some way to defend itself, the bunkers were one of the ways the Albanian Goverment found.

Finally the Albanian communists didn't want to be subjugated by the social-imperialist policy of specialization imposed by the Soviet Union.I am not capable of writting now a hole description about social-imperialism, but there is plenty of literature concerning it from both ''hoxhaist'' field, some posted here, and from the maoist field.

I would like you to adress my points: not to carefully cut what I wrote to make me end up like a Ceausecuist or a supporter of Socialism with a human face, like you probably did with Enver Hoxha to make him an ''apartheid supporter''.

I must appologize for not being able to present a source better than wikepedia.

[Roach]

It is used,in mass media especially.Many articles about the wall,and Erich Honecker directly ridicule his rule and his 'stasi land'



The mass media, not other Communists. But you are not completely wrong.

[Ismail]

I must appologize for not being able to present a source better than wikepedia.I can present a better source: chapter 6 of William Blum's Killing Hope. Blum certainly isn't a pro-Hoxha type.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-IbQvd13uToC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Killing+Hope+Albania&source=bl&ots=cHq3FdClcB&sig=pCzvYIHKIxHJ619-mx3rE2PaYcc&hl=en&ei=6aV-Tc62AoOGtwfN15jFCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Killing%20Hope%20Albania&f=false


If you are contending that the PRC was never a dictatorship of the proletariat, then you will have to explain why Hoxha was so eager to ally with that very state."Besides this, we did not have full knowledge about the internal political, economic, cultural, social life, etc. in China. The organization of the Chinese party and state have always been a closed book to us. The Communist Party of China gave us no possibility at all to study the forms of organization of the Chinese party and state. We Albanian communists knew only the general outlines of the state organization of China and nothing more; we were given no possibilities to acquaint ourselves with the experience of the party in China, to see how it operated, how it was organized, in what directions things were developing in different sectors and what these directions were concretely." - Hoxha (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm), 1978.

Also Khrushchev was against Hoxha's policy of heavy industry, which allowed Albania to be as self-sufficient as it was. Hoxha also refused to rehabilitate Tito, which Khrushchev and the other Eastern Bloc states did without hesitation.

Manic, I suggest you read up on Koçi Xoxe. He was Yugoslavia's choice as leader of Albania for its submersion into Yugosalvia as a "Seventh Republic," as noted by James S. O'Donnell in A Coming of Age.

[Roach]

I can present a better source: chapter 6 of William Blum's Killing Hope. Blum certainly isn't a pro-Hoxha type.

Is this good enough for you manic expression ?

[manic expression]

I personnaly think the pillboxes were built to protect Albania from a pontential invasion coming from the western block rather than from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, but Enver Hoxha could think that one day the Soviet Union could find a reason to invade his country and overthrown him like they did with Dubcek,he was not the only, as Nicolae Ceausesco also condemd this invasion.( If it needs clarification I am not a Ceausesco supporter and the reasons to overthrown Enver Hoxha would certainly be different than the ones used to overthrown Dubcek,as well as the reasons to Albania condem the invasion would be different than the ones from Romania).
Let's not get away from the facts, Dubcek was removed in no small part because he was making moves to leave the Warsaw Pact...that's a much different thing than being a well-established enemy of the USSR for decades already. The comparison doesn't fly because of this. This imagined Soviet invasion of Albania is so far-fetched it doesn't merit mention (and looking at a map the notion becomes even more absurd).

But like you said, we can't say for sure why the pillboxes were built. That, to me, is a mark of misled leadership. Hoxha was making more enemies than he could keep track, and so we're left to guess at why he was making Albania into a fortified camp instead of engaging in honest dialogue with fellow communists.


Naturally there was more tension relations between the western block and Albania, as Ismail already pointed out, Albania and Greece relations were similar to those of North and South Korea.So we're to assume that the bunkers were exclusively on the border with Greece?


Of course those are only assumptions, but the point is: Albania was, and still is a poor nation, it nedeed some way to defend itself, the bunkers were one of the ways the Albanian Goverment found.You're forgetting the key issue: Hoxha was cutting Albania off from multiple socialist countries instead of working with comrades like a principled communist. Like I said in my first post, flippantly making enemies and then complaining that you're isolated is ridiculous.


I would like you to adress my points: not to carefully cut what I wrote to make me end up like a Ceasecuist or a supporter of Socialism with a human face, like you probably did with Enver Hoxha to make him an ''apartheid supporter''.I said Hoxha supported apartheid collaborators. That's different...and it happens to be true.


Is this good enough for you manic expression ?
I should think so. Like I said, it's only natural that imperialist goons like the CIA try to overthrow a socialist society like Albania. However, that doesn't settle the matter of the bunkers (which, remember, are simply a physical manifestation of Hoxha's misguided political line).

[Robespierre Richard]

What if no single Marxist-Leninist leader was absolutely correct in everything but each one had very valid points about his situation and others? What then?

[manic expression]

"Besides this, we did not have full knowledge about the internal political, economic, cultural, social life, etc. in China. The organization of the Chinese party and state have always been a closed book to us. The Communist Party of China gave us no possibility at all to study the forms of organization of the Chinese party and state. We Albanian communists knew only the general outlines of the state organization of China and nothing more; we were given no possibilities to acquaint ourselves with the experience of the party in China, to see how it operated, how it was organized, in what directions things were developing in different sectors and what these directions were concretely." - Hoxha (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm), 1978.
So you're admitting that Hoxha willingly allied with a society he did not understand? How does this promote any notion of Hoxha as a materialist thinker? Much to the contrary, it supports his reputation as someone who put personal squabbles ahead of political substance. Snubbing the USSR was obviously the strongest motivation in Hoxha's move here.


Also Khrushchev was against Hoxha's policy of heavy industry, which allowed Albania to be as self-sufficient as it was. Hoxha also refused to rehabilitate Tito, which Khrushchev and the other Eastern Bloc states did without hesitation.Yes, because Khrushchev was obsessed with agricultural output (wasn't always that bright about it IMO), wanted to increase diversity of goods in socialist Europe (not all that bad of a goal IMO) and thought that Albania could/would ally itself with other socialist countries. I don't think he anticipated Hoxha to make a faux materialist analysis based on agricultural advice.


Manic, I suggest you read up on Koçi Xoxe. He was Yugoslavia's choice as leader of Albania for its submersion into Yugosalvia as a "Seventh Republic," as noted by James S. O'Donnell in A Coming of Age.This "submersion" was only suggested by diplomatic avenues. Why, then, the insistence that Tito was salivating at the prospect of occupying Albania? The conclusion doesn't square with the facts.

[Ismail]

Hoxha condemned UNITA just as he condemned the MPLA.


So you're admitting that Hoxha willingly allied with a society he did not understand? How does this promote any notion of Hoxha as a materialist thinker? Much to the contrary, it supports his reputation as someone who put personal squabbles ahead of political substance. Snubbing the USSR was obviously the strongest motivation in Hoxha's move here.China was the only country to support Albania's criticisms of Khrushchev, and Mao generally defended Stalin's legacy in public. If you read Hoxha's Reflections on China it becomes obvious that in the 1960's Hoxha saw China as being led mostly by a Marxist-Leninist leadership, but the launching of the GPCR and the advent of the Sino-American rapprochement quickly cause that analysis to deteriorate as Hoxha himself began to study Mao's works and criticize them.


This "submersion" was only suggested by diplomatic avenues.No it wasn't. O'Donnell notes that Xoxe and the Yugoslavs were pretty much preparing the way for Hoxha to be executed. Naku Spiru was driven to suicide after being denounced by pro-Yugoslav elements within the Albanian party. I can get other sources on this, if you'd like.

[pranabjyoti]

There is a lot of talking here about "personality cult" specially when an Asian country (PRC, DPRK) is involved. I guess most of the threads come from either European or North American writers. They have little (I guess actually NIL) idea about Asian semi-feudalism.
As Asia have a much longer history of feudalism, therefore a single person here often become a representative of some idea and it's a common practice throughout Asia to hail about the person from whom the idea is originated. It's nothing but a product of long term feudalism which often been termed as "personality cult" by Europeans.

[hardlinecommunist]

No,im afraid not.:) Tito led a partisan movement during the 40' he didnt control the state until 1945.

Be more specific next time,i cant read your thoughts.
You are twisting my words around again stop trying to save face you had your history wrong about Yugoslavia

[Chimurenga.]

You're criticizing him and the party on Brezhnevite grounds

Once again proving that Hoxhaites pander worthless rhetoric with little to no meaning whatsoever.

For the record, I'm just as critical of Hoxha's ultraleftism as I am of Mao's and his particular wing of the CPC so don't think that this is some special "beef" with Hoxha.

[manic expression]

Hoxha condemned UNITA just as he condemned the MPLA.
And yet he endorsed UNITA's line.


China was the only country to support Albania's criticisms of Khrushchev, and Mao generally defended Stalin's legacy in public. If you read Hoxha's Reflections on China it becomes obvious that in the 1960's Hoxha saw China as being led mostly by a Marxist-Leninist leadership, but the launching of the GPCR and the advent of the Sino-American rapprochement quickly cause that analysis to deteriorate as Hoxha himself began to study Mao's works and criticize them.
Yes, you put it perfectly well, Hoxha cared only about personal pettiness, not about materialism. By his own words, he did not understand PRC society, and yet he allied with them just because he was able to snub Khrushchev. Then he started condemning and insulting Mao because he realized the CPC didn't agree with his every word. No materialism here, just childish antics.


No it wasn't. O'Donnell notes that Xoxe and the Yugoslavs were pretty much preparing the way for Hoxha to be executed. Naku Spiru was driven to suicide after being denounced by pro-Yugoslav elements within the Albanian party. I can get other sources on this, if you'd like.
It seems this is an invasion without a build-up. If Xoxe wanted to launch a coup, that's one thing, but you're trying to argue that Yugoslavia was so clearly menacing Albania, except you've proven nothing of the sort.

[Omsk]

You are twisting my words around again stop trying to save face you had your history wrong about Yugoslavia
No,you were simplistic and i corrected you.By the way,i actually come from Yugoslavia,so i know what i am talking about.

It seems this is an invasion without a build-up. If Xoxe wanted to launch a coup, that's one thing, but you're trying to argue that Yugoslavia was so clearly menacing Albania, except you've proven nothing of the sort.
Albania was the aggressor in the past,(toward the people of former Yugoslavia) but,Hoxa tried to eliminate all traces of hate and fascism that had deep roots in Albania,and for that,i respect him.
And regarding the question of Hoxa's personality cult,well,yes,he had a strong personality cult,although little trace of his legacy remains in modern Albania.

[Ismail]

And yet he endorsed UNITA's line.Show me Hoxha "endorsing" UNITA's line. If by "endorsed UNITA's line" you mean Hoxha saying the MPLA regime was state-capitalist, then I suppose so, but somehow I doubt that was what Savimbi was saying throughout the 1980's.


It seems this is an invasion without a build-up. If Xoxe wanted to launch a coup, that's one thing, but you're trying to argue that Yugoslavia was so clearly menacing Albania, except you've proven nothing of the sort.Yugoslavia wanted to annex Albania. It tried to do this through government (Koçi Xoxe driving Naku Spiru to suicide and basically preparing to purge Hoxha) and economic spheres (exploitative economic treaties.)

Yugoslavia didn't invade Albania in 1948 probably because Tito was afraid of a resulting invasion of his own country by the rest of the Eastern Bloc.

[Red_Struggle]

Once again proving that Hoxhaites pander worthless rhetoric with little to no meaning whatsoever.

No, Brezhnevites are those that hail every nation that raises a red flag without examining production relations or providing a Marxist analysis, something that PSL apparently cannot do.


For the record, I'm just as critical of Hoxha's ultraleftism as I am of Mao's and his particular wing of the CPC so don't think that this is some special "beef" with Hoxha.

How the hell was Hoxha ultraleft? Because he was an anti-revisionist and a well read Marxist?

[manic expression]

Show me Hoxha "endorsing" UNITA's line. If by "endorsed UNITA's line" you mean Hoxha saying the MPLA regime was state-capitalist, then I suppose so, but somehow I doubt that was what Savimbi was saying throughout the 1980's.
The Soviet Union also involves its allies, or better, its satellites in its interference. We are seeing this concretely in Africa, where the Soviet social-imperialist and their Cuban mercenaries are intervening on the pretext that they are assisting the revolution. This is a lie. Their intervention is nothing but a colonialist action aimed at capturing markets and subjugating peoples... They have never had the slightest intention of assisting the Angolan revolution, but their aim was and is to get their claws into that African country which had won a certain independence after the expulsion of the Portuguese colonialists The Cuban mercenaries are the colonial army dispatched by the Soviet Union to capture markets and strategic positions in the countries of Black Africa, and to go on from Angola to other states, to enable the Soviet social-imperialists, too , to create a modern colonial empire.... Agostinho Neto is playing the game of the Soviets. In the struggle against the other faction, in order to seize power for himself, he called in the Soviets to help him.

That's an anti-communist, pro-apartheid collaborationist argument.


Yugoslavia wanted to annex Albania. It tried to do this through government (Koçi Xoxe driving Naku Spiru to suicide and basically preparing to purge Hoxha) and economic spheres (exploitative economic treaties.)And when did they attempt to invade? When did they even threaten to attempt to invade? They were in contact with a coup attempt...not at all the same thing, and yet you keep shouting into the wind that Yugoslavia was a clear and imminent threat to Albania. That's pure nonsense.


Yugoslavia didn't invade Albania in 1948 probably because Tito was afraid of a resulting invasion of his own country by the rest of the Eastern Bloc.And I suppose he kept those fears even after Albania became a sworn enemy of said "Bloc". :laugh: Hoxhaist "materialism" strikes again.


No, Brezhnevites are those that hail every nation that raises a red flag without examining production relations or providing a Marxist analysis, something that PSL apparently cannot do.On the PSL, that is so. The PSL cannot "hail every nation that raises a red flag without examining production relations or providing a Marxist analysis". I wish I could say the same for Hoxhaists, who judge countries to be un-socialist on the basis of floral and portraiture arrangements.

[Red_Struggle]

The PSL cannot "hail every nation that raises a red flag without examining production relations or providing a Marxist analysis".

And yet they do, from apologizing for Khruschev and Brezhnev, ignoring the economic reforms that insituted state capitalism, praising Cuba and Fidel to the skies, and either ignoring or attemping to justify Mao's bloc of classes and theory of three worlds.

Not to mention you have yet to explain how siding with Savimbi, Pinochet, and Mobuto is not revisionist or a signal of betrayal towards Communism.


I wish I could say the same for Hoxhaists, who judge countries to be un-socialist on the basis of floral and portraiture arrangements.

What the hell are you talking about, you nutcase?

[manic expression]

And yet they do, from apologizing for Khruschev and Brezhnev, ignoring the economic reforms that insituted state capitalism, praising Cuba and Fidel to the skies, and either ignoring or attemping to justify Mao's bloc of classes and theory of three worlds.

Not to mention you have yet to explain how siding with Savimbi, Pinochet, and Mobuto is not revisionist or a signal of betrayal towards Communism.
Marxists analyze Khrushchev and Brezhnev in terms of materialism, not in terms of what they said about Albanian lemons as you do. You haven't presented any evidence for this so-called "state capitalism" (once again, Hoxha dove-tails with ultra-lefts out of spite), and you won't, because you can't.

I've already said I don't agree with those Maoist positions (including support for those reactionaries). Perhaps you should stop making things up to support an inexplicable un-Marxist argument. By the way, Savimbi had quite a lot in common with your hero...they practically said the exact same things about the MPLA, Cuba and the USSR.

So, in other words, you have nothing.


What the hell are you talking about, you nutcase?
Hoxha's own words, already posted in this very thread:

On September 7 we arrived in Pyongyang. They put on a splendid welcome, with people, with gongs, with flowers, and with portraits of Kim Il Sung everywhere. You had to look hard to find some portrait of Lenin, tucked away in some obscure corner.

Yes, social relations have nothing to do with it...the DPRK was reactionary because of gongs, flowers and the angle of Lenin's portraits! :laugh: What utterly anti-Marxist trash.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I really doubt you read any of Enver Hoxha's works.

It like arguing with conservative who thinks he knows a lot about communism.

[Roach]

This : http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

That book makes the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union so simple that a monkey would understand.Now could you gives some sources that prove that socialism in the Soviet Union was not affected by Khrushev's and Kosygin reforms ?

[Red_Struggle]

Ok, until Manic expression gets a brain, I will quit responding to his trollish, unprincipled, and blatantly desperate attempts to argue. If this guy knew anything about the Soviet Union or socialism at all, he would be able to seperate socialism and Marxism-Leninism from state capitalism and revisionism. If he can't understand the difference between socialist and capitalist production relations, there is no point in arguing with such an uneducated of trash. He's one of those people that will negate whatever you say, resort to logical fallacy and ad hominim in order to make himself feel above whoever he is arguing against.


I'm out.

[Ismail]

And when did they attempt to invade? When did they even threaten to attempt to invade? They were in contact with a coup attempt...not at all the same thing, and yet you keep shouting into the wind that Yugoslavia was a clear and imminent threat to Albania. That's pure nonsense.Yugoslavia wanted to annex Albania. You can't deny this. The Yugoslav Government tried to organize a coup in Albania. You can't deny this. Yet somehow you can say that Yugoslavia wasn't a threat to Albania.

[manic expression]

I really doubt you read any of Enver Hoxha's works.

It like arguing with conservative who thinks he knows a lot about communism.
Funny, the conservative who thinks he knows a lot about communism usually tries to condemn the Soviet Union through some misunderstanding of its society. Remind you of anyone?


That book makes the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union so simple that a monkey would understand.Now could you gives some sources that prove that socialism in the Soviet Union was not affected by Khrushev's and Kosygin reforms ?So I'm sub-monkey because I don't endorse everything Hoxha ever said. Typical. Next you'll call me state capitalist because my portrait of Lenin isn't facing the appropriate angle...a real "materialist" analysis worthy of Hoxha's name.

But honestly, I'm not reading a 38-chapter book just because the Hoxhaists here are unwilling to summarize the main arguments behind their assertions and would rather throw insults at me. I'll wait until there's a clear and concise explanation of this contention that the USSR was "state capitalist".


Ok, until Manic expression gets a brain, I will quit responding to his trollish, unprincipled, and blatantly desperate attempts to argue. If this guy knew anything about the Soviet Union or socialism at all, he would be able to seperate socialism and Marxism-Leninism from state capitalism and revisionism. If he can't understand the difference between socialist and capitalist production relations, there is no point in arguing with such an uneducated of trash. He's one of those people that will negate whatever you say, resort to logical fallacy and ad hominim in order to make himself feel above whoever he is arguing against.When was the last time I insulted you ad hominem? In my last post I addressed your points in turn.

At any rate, you haven't even vaguely described what "state capitalism" would at all entail...your only argument is that Hoxha didn't like Khrushchev or Brezhnev, and so the USSR was all too obviously imperialist and "state capitalist".


Yugoslavia wanted to annex Albania. You can't deny this. The Yugoslav Government tried to organize a coup in Albania. You can't deny this. Yet somehow you can say that Yugoslavia wasn't a threat to Albania.Yugoslavia, by the evidence you've presented, offered to incorporate Albania through diplomatic contacts. It was also in contact with members of an attempted coup. Your characterization is stretched at least. None of this makes the idea of a Yugoslavian invasion even vaguely realistic.

[hardlinecommunist]

No,you were simplistic and i corrected you.By the way,i actually come from Yugoslavia,so i know what i am talking about.

Albania was the aggressor in the past,(toward the people of former Yugoslavia) but,Hoxa tried to eliminate all traces of hate and fascism that had deep roots in Albania,and for that,i respect him.
And regarding the question of Hoxa's personality cult,well,yes,he had a strong personality cult,although little trace of his legacy remains in modern Albania. If i were you Erich i would not be bragging about being from Yugoslavia since you do not know anything about your own Country you did not even know the year that your Country Yugoslavia came into existence

[Omsk]

If i were you Erich i would not be bragging about being from Yugoslavia since you do not know anything about your own Country you did not even know the year that your Country Yugoslavia came into existence
Do you know that there were 2 Yugoslav states?You don't,well i suggest you go when you read something about the 2 completely different states.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Assertion: Hoxhaism has no relevance to modern class struggle.
Challenge: Prove me wrong.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Assertion: Hoxhaism has no relevance to modern class struggle.
Challenge: Prove me wrong.

Neither does Anarchism. Prove me wrong.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Neither does Anarchism. Prove me wrong.
I have absolutely no intention or reason to.

Just prove the assertion wrong, dude.

[Roach]

I have absolutely no intention or reason to.

Just prove the assertion wrong, dude.

Have you ever heard about the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador or the Tunisian Workers Communist Party ?

[Kuppo Shakur]

Have you ever heard about the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador or the Tunisian Workers Communist Party ?
No, I don't believe I have.

Oh hey, do you mind telling me what relevance Hoxhaism has in modern class struggle?

[Wanted Man]

Assertion: Hoxhaism has no relevance to modern class struggle.
Challenge: Prove me wrong.

Obviously, if you make the assertion, you need to prove it.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Nah.

[Roach]

Nah.

Thats why I did not elaborate what I said.

[Kuppo Shakur]

Guys, what I'm saying is I can't do it. I can't prove it to myself either way. The more I read about Hoxhaism, the more confused I get about it. My initial feelings are that it's just nitpicking about shit that happened in the mid-nineties... What relevance does it have to modern class struggle?
Help me out here.

[Red_Struggle]

Guys, what I'm saying is I can't do it. I can't prove it to myself either way. The more I read about Hoxhaism, the more confused I get about it. My initial feelings are that it's just nitpicking about shit that happened in the mid-nineties... What relevance does it have to modern class struggle?
Help me out here.

There are "Hoxhaist" parties in Ecuador, Benin, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Mexico, Chile, Turkey, France, Germany, Albania, The United States, and others. A lot of them (with the exception being the APL and the Albanian PKSH currently) are organized into the ICMLPO (U&S)
http://www.cipoml.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist%E2%80%93Lenini st_Parties_and_Organizations_(Unity_%26_Struggle)

revolutionarydemocracy.com usually reports on their plenums, meetings, activities, etc. as well.

And its not just nitpicking. "Hoxhaist" parties are the most anti-revisionist and are able to describe the differences between state capitalism (state ownership plus wellfare state, independence of state enterprises, bonuses for managers, etc.) and socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The reason we uphold Albania is because of the shear amount of progress and economic growth that was achieved in such a small country, surrounded by hostile states. Their economy outgrew and outperformed that of the United States, the USSR, and the Eastern bloc because they actually maintained a wholey centrally planned economy throughout socialist Albania's lifetime. While the Soviet Union and its allies persued market reforms in their economy in order to boost production, which actually slowed down said economies and only contributed to their downfall, Albania had no part in this.


But yeah, even though these parties aren't in the limelight right now doesn't mean they don't exist and don't contribute to revolution. They're still out there in the streets agitating. In my personal experience, I've attended a few campus protestsover tuition hikes and handed out fliers and I plan to attend the anti-war demo in Pittsburgh next weekend and do the same. There isn't a shitton going on where I live, but I attend what I can.