Hoxha's Albania

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am no Marxist-Leninist, but i've been reading some stuff about Hoxha's Albania and the (economic, at least) achievements under Communist rule seem quite impressive.

I am wondering, how did the period 1945-1985 in Albania compare to the period of Stalin's rule in the USSR?

It seems, from an initial perusal of the facts, that Hoxha's Albania achieved some quite miraculous things in economic terms. What i'm wondering is, what was life like in his Albania? Was it quite strict and tough like the USSR and North Korea today, or less so, like Cuba today, for example? I cannot quite guage the political actions of the Party of Labour in terms of the extent of their repressions. Though many people seem to view Hoxhaism as a kind of ultimate form (in terms of orthodoxy) of Marxism-Leninism, it seems on a browse of the history of his Albania that it was a fairly successful period, economically speaking.

[Qayin]

So how does "socialist" Albania matter today if it collapsed?

[RedSunRising]

So how does "socialist" Albania matter today if it collapsed?

Because surely their are lessons to be learned by both its short comings and its achievements? In learning maybe why it collapsed and also why it managed to do all that it did?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So how does "socialist" Albania matter today if it collapsed?

This is a history sub-forum and i'm interested in the history of Albania.
:confused:

[Omsk]

So how does "socialist" Albania matter today if it collapsed?
Don't derail the thread with irelevant semi-questions.


I am no Marxist-Leninist, but i've been reading some stuff about Hoxha's Albania and the (economic, at least) achievements under Communist rule seem quite impressive.
Yes,indeed,for a country with a small population and a un-industrializes economy,the achievement were rather big.


I am wondering, how did the period 1945-1985 in Albania compare to the period of Stalin's rule in the USSR?
It was anti-revisionist,it was Marxist-Leninist,it was an period of growth and advancement,marked by both economic and population rises.


It seems, from an initial perusal of the facts, that Hoxha's Albania achieved some quite miraculous things in economic terms. What i'm wondering is, what was life like in his Albania? Was it quite strict and tough like the USSR and North Korea today, or less so, like Cuba today, for example? I cannot quite guage the political actions of the Party of Labour in terms of the extent of their repressions. Though many people seem to view Hoxhaism as a kind of ultimate form (in terms of orthodoxy) of Marxism-Leninism, it seems on a browse of the history of his Albania that it was a fairly successful period, economically speaking.

It was a very successful country, for more information on Hoxa:For starters read the wiki article,although it is not that good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha
Here are some more links:http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/navig-left/state.htm
And some more:http://www.anonym.to/?http://theredphoenix.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/letters-to-the-apl-2/


Hoxha remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist to the end of his life.
Hoxha defeated Mussolini’s fascist forces and lead the Albanian liberation movement to victory against occupation and colonialism.
Hoxha led the world’s longest-lasting and most advanced socialist state for almost 40 years.
Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were established under Hoxha’s rule.
Albania was industrialized and turned into an almost entirely self-sufficient country, despite being the poorest and most backward nation in Europe (it was a tribal society until the 50s) and being a fascist colony with only 1.5 million people.
Life expectancy under Hoxha went from 32 in the tribal days to 76.

Although,Albania post Hoxa went extremely downhill.

[Qayin]

Because surely their are lessons to be learned by both its short comings and its achievements? In learning maybe why it collapsed and also why it managed to do all that it did?
yeah I get that but its been discussed over and over and sometimes being on a forum talking about the past is not enough when we are reaching for the future

just a general criticism of 20th century fetishism

[RedSunRising]

yeah I get that but its been discussed over and over and sometimes being on a forum talking about the past is not enough when we are reaching for the future

just a general criticism of 20th century fetishism

How can you reach for the future effectively if you dont understand the past? The present is a product of the past, as will the future.

[Ismail]

I am no Marxist-Leninist, but i've been reading some stuff about Hoxha's Albania and the (economic, at least) achievements under Communist rule seem quite impressive.A Coming of Age: Albania Under Enver Hoxha by James S. O'Donnell is a good introduction to the country under Hoxha. It was written by an anti-communist with a doctorate in Albanian history.

It can be DLed from here: http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/online-library/


What i'm wondering is, what was life like in his Albania?Continuously becoming better in all fields from 1944-1977, stagnating a bit from 1977-1987, declining economically and socially from 1987-1990.


Was it quite strict and tough like the USSR and North Korea today, or less so, like Cuba today, for example?It was a little bit less isolated than the DPRK was at the time in terms of access to outside information (for those who wanted to get it, anyway.) It was pretty "tough," yes.

Here's a video of Albania in 1989: www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4FcZlHBdMQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4FcZlHBdMQ)


it seems on a browse of the history of his Albania that it was a fairly successful period, economically speaking.No one disputes the economic successes of the Hoxha era. At most they criticize his post-1978 policies which in their view "isolated" Albania from "the rest of the world."

[red cat]

A related question only for Hoxhaists to answer. Did Hoxha ever claim that there were no antagonistic classes in Albania?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Thanks Ismail and Comrade Erich.

A question for both of you (or anyone else!). How (in general terms, not in detail) were the admittedly impressive overall economic successes achieved? I'm particularly interested in the issues (if any) relating to the following:

slave labour
wage labour
worker self-management (was there any, or was it a similar situation to the USSR under Stalin?)
political repression

I am mightily impressed by the general achievements in Albania. I'm wondering to myself whether the payoff of it being achieved through (if it was) standard Marxist-Leninist means was worth it. Most Socialist countries of the 20th century made at least vaguely impressive economic gains, but the Albanian gains seem superlative.

[Red_Struggle]

A related question only for Hoxhaists to answer. Did Hoxha ever claim that there were no antagonistic classes in Albania?

I don't think he every claimed this (I haven't come across any quotes specifically pointing this out), but I could be wrong. But the bougeoisie was liquidated either during the national liberation war (most of them including the feudal classes were discredited when they either aided the nazis or opposed the communist party by joining the Bali Kombetar or Legaliti), or were expropriated following the land reforms in the fourties.

Socialist Albania was made up of the workers, peasantry, and intelligentsia, although their class differences were pretty narrow (the wage gap was 2:1), so I don't think these classes (or strata if we're talking about the inteligentsia) were antagonistic towards one another.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The wage gap thing (I believe that directors could not be paid more than 1.7:1 of what workers in the same enterprise were paid) is very impressive.

My impression is that the antagonistic classes would not have taken long, nor been difficult, to liquidate, given that well into the 20th century, Albania was still (so I read) a semi-feudal society.

[caramelpence]

The wage gap thing (I believe that directors could not be paid more than 1.7:1 of what workers in the same enterprise were paid) is very impressive.

Except, statistics of this kind are always pretty irrelevant for countries like Albania and the Soviet Union, because they obscure the extent to which certain strata received benefits and privileges that were non-monetary in nature and not available to the rest of the population - I'm not too much of an expert on the Soviet Union, but in China, cadre families had extensive household staffs like maids and chauffeurs, for example, these staffs being paid for by the state rather than out of the wages of the cadres, and in the Soviet Union, there were special shops that were only open to party and state officials.

[Red_Struggle]

How (in general terms, not in detail) were the admittedly impressive overall economic successes achieved?

They put a high emphasis on heavy industry, like the USSR did. But it seems like the cross subsidization methods utilized were more fine-tuned, so to speak. Plus there was a massive campaign to rebuild the country after the war and this definately had a positive impact on people's consciousness to develop their infrastructure as rapidly as possible.


slave labour
wage labour

In terms of "slave labor," yes, labor camps were utilized.

"Of sentences of detention, the majority were of re-education (which is the kernel of the penal system) in labour camps, and only very serious or repeated crimes were the subject of a prison sentence, for which Albania has two small prisons. He was adamant that there was no truth whatsoever in stories, largely circulated by politically hostile émigrés, that detainees were subject to inadequate diet or ill-treatment, which would obviously defeat the fundamental aim of re-education. Prisoners had the right of complaint to the Attorney-General's Office, and all complaints had to be investigated. Further, he - like other judges - visited labour camps and prisons regularly to investigate the progress of his "patients" and could order the cancellation of a remaining sentence where he was satisfied that re-education had been accomplished. It was interesting to discover that detainees in labour camps (but not in prisons) had the right to sexual relations with their wives or husbands during the two-monthly family visits, special accommodation being provided for this." - Albania, Bill Bland

Wages, as pointed out in the article, were limited to a 2:1 ratio, the most egalitarian in the world.


worker self-management (was there any, or was it a similar situation to the USSR under Stalin?)

I don't think there was any self-management in the anarchist sense of the word, although there were cooperatively run stores and farms. Most of the economy was based off the state sector, still.


political repression

In terms of repression, Albania did have a few purges throughout its lifetime, but I don't have the exact dates or who was purged. I know that a few Tito sympathizers were purged in the 40s, but you might want to ask Ismail for more details on this.

Religion was outlawed in the 60s and all mosques, churches, synagogues, etc. were transformed into canteens, sporting arenas, cultural centers, etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yeah, from what i've read the outlawing of religion was pretty harsh. I don't think that kind of thing really helps mould attitudes in the long term, which is the most important thing if we are to abolish religion in the long term.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Also, forgive me if I don't take Bill Bland particularly seriously. Not a huge fan of the guy.

[Red_Struggle]

Yeah, from what i've read the outlawing of religion was pretty harsh. I don't think that kind of thing really helps mould attitudes in the long term, which is the most important thing if we are to abolish religion in the long term.

I think it was a bit harsh, myself. I don't know of any Hoxhaist parties that advocate banning religion.

[Ismail]

A related question only for Hoxhaists to answer. Did Hoxha ever claim that there were no antagonistic classes in Albania?Hysni Kapo, who was Hoxha's #3 (and closer to Hoxha ideologically than Shehu), said the following in 1976:

The successful carrying out of the policy of the Party for the construction of the economic base of socialism also brought about the radical transformation of the old class structure of our society. With the complete establishment of socialist relations of production the process of the elimination of the exploiting classes as classes came to an end. Our society is now comprised of two friendly classes – the working class and the cooperativist peasantry, as well as the stratum of the people's intelligentsia. The alliance of the working class and the cooperativist peasantry, under the leadership of the working class, and the raising to a qualitatively new level of the unity of our people, which now has the friendship and cooperation of the two socialist classes at its foundation, constitutes the fundamental distinguishing feature of the class structure in our country today.

During this period, the working class itself, the working peasantry and the intelligentsia, have undergone radical changes, too.

The establishment of socialist ownership and the creation of the new class structure eliminated, once and for all, the exploitation of man by man as well as the social antagonisms, which are the offspring of this exploitation and the system, based on it, such as the antagonisms between town and countryside, industry and agriculture, mental work and manual work, while the essential differences between them are being gradually narrowed. They put an end to the age-long oppression of the woman and ensured the fundamental conditions for her complete emancipation, for her active participation equal with the men in running the country and in all spheres of socialist construction and social activity.Source: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albdop.htm


worker self-management (was there any, or was it a similar situation to the USSR under Stalin?)"Worker self-management" à la Yugoslavia was just a more "radical" version of social-democracy. In any case yes, the situation was similar to the USSR though workers had better pay and workplace standards, and in most cases slightly more input than in the USSR.


Except, statistics of this kind are always pretty irrelevant for countries like Albania and the Soviet Union, because they obscure the extent to which certain strata received benefits and privileges that were non-monetary in nature and not available to the rest of the population - I'm not too much of an expert on the Soviet Union, but in China, cadre families had extensive household staffs like maids and chauffeurs, for example, these staffs being paid for by the state rather than out of the wages of the cadres, and in the Soviet Union, there were special shops that were only open to party and state officials.Similar privileges existed in Albania for party and state officials.

For what it's worth though in terms of the rest of the population, a 1985 Christian Science Monitor article pointed out (http://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0403/zban.html) that:

It is a most spartan and most egalitarian society. The director of a glass factory at Vlore earns, for example, 900 leks a month (about $100 at the official exchange rate). The average worker makes between 450 to 600 leks ($50 to $65).

The ratio between highest and lowest incomes has been reduced to 2 to 1. The chancellor of Tirana University (founded in 1957), Prof. Osman Krja, receives a salary of 1,200 leks ($130), while a typical goatherd takes 600 leks home.Of course a 1983 article (http://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0519/051940.html) also pointed out that:

Because little is imported, the food supply is abysmal. For peasants, breakfast is tea and bread. Lunch is an egg, thin soup, rice, and floured-cake. Dinner is the same. Shortages of meat, milk, and sugar are endemic...

Despite a dreary daily existence and even drearier party ideology, there are signs of a rich personal life among Albanians. Young lovers stroll through city gardens. Pop music is common. And at Tirana University, blue jeans are ubiquitous. A frequent topic of conversation is the desire to have an Italian or Yugoslav bicycle, which students see advertised on television transmissions from neighboring countries....

A Greek Foreign Ministry expert on Albania said: ''Albanian communism has eliminated (economic) inequalities and fed the people. Now it has to do something else. That is its current challenge.''That connection with the outside world was never satiated, and played a large role (as it did in Eastern Europe in general) of producing illusions about Western abundance coming to Albania overnight.

[RED DAVE]

no workers control; no socialism

RED DAVE

[the last donut of the night]

no workers control; no socialism

RED DAVE

it's this type of attitude that draws people away from their natural curiosity, you know

[Ismail]

no workers control; no socialismDirect, conscious workers' control was generally deficient under Lenin as well (as Simon Pirani among others has noted.) The situation in Albania was still significantly better than the post-1950's USSR or other Eastern Bloc states, though.

[Optiow]

After reading all the posts from the Hoxhaists and Marxist-Leninists in this thread, what you say is very impressive. I have not learned a lot about socialist Albania, and I would like to believe what you say is true.

However, if socialism did so good for the country, and things went so well under socialism, why is does the communist party not hold popular support? Looking at the PKSH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Albania_%281991%29), it got less than 10,000 votes in 2005, and it represents everything Hoxha stood for.

How do yuo account for this? I do not believe you can blame it solely on 'right wing propoganda'. To me, it seems that people do not want Hoxha's Alabnia back.

[Ismail]

Looking at the PKSH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Albania_%281991%29), it got less than 10,000 votes in 2005, and it represents everything Hoxha stood for.I wouldn't say "everything" Hoxha stood for. A fair amount of Albanian "Communists" endorse Cuba and the DPRK, with the Chairman of the PKSh praising the latter a few years ago.


How do yuo account for this? I do not believe you can blame it solely on 'right wing propoganda'. To me, it seems that people do not want Hoxha's Alabnia back.Right-wing propaganda does play a large role owing to the relative youthfulness of the population, but it's worth noting that the party that succeeded the PPSh was the PSSh (aka Socialist Party of Albania), which until the mid-90's basically ran on a "we'll keep what is good and remove what is unpopular" platform like most post-1989 communist-turned-"socialist" parties. Today it's become your run of the mill right-wing social-democratic party, but most voters go to it because they think that it is against corruption and for making things better. The Communists in Albania are seen as old and out of touch.

A fair amount of people, especially in the countryside, say that life was better pre-1991. See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html?page=1

O'Donnell notes a questionnaire he gave in 1994 in Albania to around 100 people and says that, "Sixty-eight percent of the respondents said Hoxha was a tyrant and thirteen percent felt that he was a hero. The remainder of the responses on this question were a mixture of in-between answers and were inconclusive." (A Coming of Age, p. 206, 208.) I'm pretty sure the 68% would be reduced if such a questionnaire were held today.

[Optiow]

I wouldn't say "everything" Hoxha stood for. A fair amount of Albanian "Communists" endorse Cuba and the DPRK, with the Chairman of the PKSh praising the latter a few years ago.

Right-wing propaganda does play a large role owing to the relative youthfulness of the population, but it's worth noting that the party that succeeded the PPSh was the PSSh (aka Socialist Party of Albania), which until the mid-90's basically ran on a "we'll keep what is good and remove what is unpopular" platform like most post-1989 communist-turned-"socialist" parties. Today it's become your run of the mill right-wing social-democratic party, but most voters go to it because they think that it is against corruption and for making things better. The Communists in Albania are seen as old and out of touch.

A fair amount of people, especially in the countryside, say that life was better pre-1991. See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html?page=1

O'Donnell notes a questionnaire he gave in 1994 in Albania to around 100 people and says that, "Sixty-eight percent of the respondents said Hoxha was a tyrant and thirteen percent felt that he was a hero. The remainder of the responses on this question were a mixture of in-between answers and were inconclusive." (A Coming of Age, p. 206, 208.) I'm pretty sure the 68% would be reduced if such a questionnaire were held today.
Thanks for your reply. I understand what capitalism has done to the states of Eastern Europe, and it is a pity that such injustice is forgotten by many in Western nations.

I am glad people largely see socialism as a better choice than capitalism.

Just out of interest, is the fact that people see communists "as old and out of touch" confined to Albania, or is it present in the other former Eastern bloc states?

[Ismail]

Just out of interest, is the fact that people see communists "as old and out of touch" confined to Albania, or is it present in the other former Eastern bloc states?Romania, Hungary and Poland seem to be the very anti-communist countries where socialism has been associated with absolute failure and worse things. Former East Germany, ex-Czechoslovakia, ex-Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria seem to have a more split view of it.

One thing common to all these countries is that most of those defending them from within are denounced as former members of the former intelligentsia (or worse, e.g. secret police) or as those whose families were "benefactors" of said governments.

Compounding this problem is that very few people within these states actually knew much of anything about socialism. They basically knew as much about socialist politics and historical-materialist world history as your everyday American or British person knows about their own respective bourgeois-democratic politics and idealistic analysis world history. Then said people associated the entirety of scientific socialism with stagnation or worse.

Popular knowledge of communism basically consisted of the following:
* Throughout history there have been antagonistic classes. Modern history has seen two of them in direct, antagonistic contradiction: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
* You and me are the proletariat.
* We have a socialist state run by the proletariat, which is against capitalism, the system of the bourgeoisie.
* Capitalist states are corrupt, doomed to collapse and oppress the masses.
* Socialist states don't do that.
* Communism will win.

I will now quote an old post from 2007 by a Romanian:

I will speak from the perspective of Romania, but I believe the same is true for most of Eastern Europe.

The average citizen did not have a good education in Marxism and did not know very much beyond the basics you just mentioned. Marxism-Leninism was taught as a required class at high school level and higher, but the methods by which it was taught made the subject unappealing and boring to most students. Basically, students were required to memorize and regurgitate various Marxist or Leninist texts, with no effort being made to ensure that they actually understood the content or gave it any thought.

In Romania, during the later years of Ceausescu's presidency (late 70s and throughout the 80s), things got even worse, as classical Marxist texts were played down and students were increasingly required to memorize Ceausescu's speeches instead.

The only good thing that can be said about education in Eastern Europe is that Marxist texts were widely available for anyone who wanted to read them, but the education system seemed to be almost intentionally designed to make sure most people found Marxism boring and not worth their time...

It is actually true that more academic study of Marxism took place outside those countries than within them. But the reason for that is because the countries in question taught Marxism-Leninism as dogma rather than science; you were not encouraged to understand anything, but rather to quote Marxist texts to support whatever point you were trying to make.

[Kiev Communard]

Direct, conscious workers' control was generally deficient under Lenin as well (as Simon Pirani among others has noted.) The situation in Albania was still significantly better than the post-1950's USSR or other Eastern Bloc states, though.

That is why all types of orthodox Leninism, whatever their internal differences, are ultimately deficient and self-defeating. This applies both to Trotskyism and Stalinism, in its Hoxhaist and Maoist varieties as well. Trotskyists, despite their general well-meaning intentions, cannot get past stumbling bloc of electoralist 'vanguard' party, while orthodox Stalinists are nowadays generally doomed to futile guerilla struggles in Third World countries (or just as futile electoral campaigns in the First World - look at Greek and Portuguese CPs, or at German MLPD, for example), with the results of building yet again bureaucratic collectivist regime in case of victory (at best, for Maoists in Nepal demonstrated that they were incapable even of this). Make no mistake, I do not claim that Marxists-Leninists and Trotskyists are subjectively guilty of this deficiency, it is their partyist-substitutionist ideology ultimately inherited from Kautsky, which is to blame for this situation.

The more constructive way to revolutionary struggle, in my opinion, should be some combination of Council Communism and anarcho-communist Platformism in the sphere of political organizing, and anarcho-syndicalism as regards post-revolutionary organization of the economy. That, as I came to believe after my several years of experience as left-wing activist, is much better than both partyist vanguardism of Leninists and anti-organizationalism of some insurrectionists and autonomists.

[RED DAVE]

it's this type of attitude that draws people away from their natural curiosity, you knowOnly if they have dull, underdeveloped curiosity. No one is pushing anyone away from a consideration of Albania. Study it all you want. If you find any evidence of workers control of the economy, not bureaucratic control, no different from any stalinist state, let us know.

RED DAVE

[Roach]

Only if they have dull, underdeveloped curiosity. No one is pushing anyone away from a consideration of Albania. Study it all you want. If you find any evidence of workers control of the economy, not bureaucratic control, no different from any stalinist state, let us know.

RED DAVE
Individuals with a weak ideological and historical education can easily fall victim of the trotskyist apparently revolutionary rhetoric, specially if they come from the petty bourgeoisie. In this case your one-liner was dispensable.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Only if they have dull, underdeveloped curiosity. No one is pushing anyone away from a consideration of Albania. Study it all you want. If you find any evidence of workers control of the economy, not bureaucratic control, no different from any stalinist state, let us know.

RED DAVE

Generally i'm more sympathetic to your POV, regarding workers' control of the MoP than to the state-bureaucrat directed M-L view, but do you not think that in this instance, simply saying 'no worker control, no socialism' is somewhat simplistic?

Despite Albania perhaps not being utopia or an ideal version of Socialism, would you not agree that some of the gains made under Hoxha were beyond the pale, compared to other 20th century Marxist-Leninist led nations?

[RED DAVE]

Generally i'm more sympathetic to your POV, regarding workers' control of the MoP than to the state-bureaucrat directed M-L view, but do you not think that in this instance, simply saying 'no worker control, no socialism' is somewhat simplistic?No? No more than: no production of commodities for exchange; no forcible extraction of surplus value; no capitalism.

This is the legacy of Stalinism and Maoism: the very meaning of socialism is obscured.


Despite Albania perhaps not being utopia or an ideal version of SocialismIt wasn't socialism at all!


would you not agree that some of the gains made under Hoxha were beyond the pale, compared to other 20th century Marxist-Leninist led nations?What gains? What you are talking about is (a) industrialization and (b) social services.

(a) Industrialization in any Stalinist country is achieved through super-explitation of the working class. Where else does the surplus value come from to achieve this? Now, either the working class agreed, as a class, to exploit itself, for which there is no evidence. Or this was done by nondemocratic means.

(b) The social services achieved in Albania, the USSR, etc., were not trivial any more than the gains under social democracy or liberalism are trivial. But they have nothing to do with socialism.

RED DAVE

[Ismail]

(a) Industrialization in any Stalinist country is achieved through super-explitation of the working class. Where else does the surplus value come from to achieve this? Now, either the working class agreed, as a class, to exploit itself, for which there is no evidence. Or this was done by nondemocratic means.Feel free to give examples of the "super-exploitation" of the Albanian workers and peasantry. From what I've read from various books though, the Albanian Government up until the 1980's tended to be popular and most people were content with their work, most youth didn't mind taking part in construction, etc. because it was seen as something necessary for the building-up of the country into what Hoxha termed an agricultural-industrial society (as opposed to a backwards, semi-feudal one) and the effects of such construction all over Albania were pretty plainly seen in various improvements to their own lives.

[pranabjyoti]

Problem with RED DAVE and company is they always talk about "super-exploitation", but just slipped the answer that who had grabbed the "surplus value".
If you want to see "super exploitation", come to India.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Dave, would you not agree that the move from feudal relations to industrial relations, coupled with workers' new found access to proper healthcare, education, higher living standards, lower mortality rates and higher life expectancy nullify, at least to some extent, the claim that workers were 'super-exploited'?

Believe me, I understand the nature of your claim and, I guess, in a strict sense what you are saying is true, but do you not wish to at least verify some of the successes for workers under Hoxha's rule?

[Return to the Source]

Much like China after the Sino-Soviet split, Hoxha took some terrible lines on international revolutionary struggles during the Cold War. That said, the Albanian experience in socialist construction remains one of the most dynamic. I second Ismail's recommendation of A Coming of Age: Albania Under Enver Hoxha by James S. O'Donnell if you want a solid academic account of socialist Albania.

[RedSunRising]

Problem with RED DAVE and company is they always talk about "super-exploitation", but just slipped the answer that who had grabbed the "surplus value".
If you want to see "super exploitation", come to India.

Or maybe go to Albania now.

Albania than and Albania now put side by side is advertizement for Hoxha.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Make no mistake, I do not claim that Marxists-Leninists and Trotskyists are subjectively guilty of this deficiency, it is their partyist-substitutionist ideology ultimately inherited from Kautsky, which is to blame for this situation.

The Marxist Center before WWI was for mass party-movements. This isn't really "substitutionist."

[gorillafuck]

So how does "socialist" Albania matter today if it collapsed?BF0XnlXQPrY

[red cat]

I don't think he every claimed this (I haven't come across any quotes specifically pointing this out), but I could be wrong. But the bougeoisie was liquidated either during the national liberation war (most of them including the feudal classes were discredited when they either aided the nazis or opposed the communist party by joining the Bali Kombetar or Legaliti), or were expropriated following the land reforms in the fourties.

Socialist Albania was made up of the workers, peasantry, and intelligentsia, although their class differences were pretty narrow (the wage gap was 2:1), so I don't think these classes (or strata if we're talking about the inteligentsia) were antagonistic towards one another.

We will have differing opinions regarding whether antagonistic classes exist in a socialist society or not . What I am looking for is a speech by Hoxha in 1978 before the electorate where he allegedly stated that there were no antagonistic classes in Albania.

[Ismail]

We will have differing opinions regarding whether antagonistic classes exist in a socialist society or not . What I am looking for is a speech by Hoxha in 1978 before the electorate where he allegedly stated that there were no antagonistic classes in Albania.The speech is entitled "Proletarian Democracy is Genuine Democracy," but I don't have it.

Here it is in German though: http://archive.250x.com/hoxha/german/german_eh_proletarische_demokratie_1978.html

[mosfeld]

We will have differing opinions regarding whether antagonistic classes exist in a socialist society or not . What I am looking for is a speech by Hoxha in 1978 before the electorate where he allegedly stated that there were no antagonistic classes in Albania.

This is not the speech, but you should note that Hoxha made this claim (technically) in Imperialism and Revolution itself while criticizing Mao.

"On many of Mao Tsetung's theses, such as that about the handling of contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as non-antagonistic contradictions, the thesis about the existence of antagonistic classes during the entire period of socialism (...) we had our reservations (...)"
p. 386/387

"Thus he (Mao) does not see the socialist revolution as a qualitative change in society in which antagonistic classes and the oppression and exploitation of man by man is abolished, but conceives it as a simple change of places between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat"
p. 415/416

[caramelpence]

The speech is entitled "Proletarian Democracy is Genuine Democracy," but I don't have it.

Here it is in German though: http://archive.250x.com/hoxha/german...atie_1978.html

For some reason I was compelled to read through this thread and to look at that link, and the section where Hoxha says in the clearest terms that there are no class antagonisms in Albania is on page nine, according to the printed page numbers, and after the break marked by three stars. Loosely translated, the German says that "The socialist people's republic of Albania and our socialist social system are entirely different from the capitalist-revisionist states and social systems of the different countries of the world. Where does this difference lie? In the first place in the economic base, in the structure of the society, and in the superstructure that reflects this base. In the capitalist and revisionist social systems the base and the superstructure are antagonistic in relation to one another, whereas in our socialist society all class antagonisms are absent ["bar" - literally bereft] and the society is being constantly improved".

Just in case someone wanted a casual translation.

[Ismail]

Hoxha said at the 8th Party Congress in 1981 that, "The struggle for the communist education of the working people against the remnants and manifestations of alien ideologies, old and new, constitutes the broadest and most complex front of the class struggle which is going on in our country. This struggle becomes especially important and acute in the present conditions when our country is forging ahead in the construction of socialism, relying entirely on its own forces, when the struggle between socialism and capitalism, Marxism-Leninism and revisionism in the international arena has become extremely severe and when the imperialist-revisionist encirclement and its pressure on our country have become more ferocious." (Selected Works Vol. VI, pp. 372-373.)

So evidently the class struggle still existed, it just took on a new character since the exploiting classes had been eliminated while the proletariat and peasantry were having their interests increasingly united rather than divided. Hoxha's views on these things were basically the exact same as Stalin's were. A shift went from physical class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to class struggle in the sense of expanding Marxist-Leninist education (which was a subject Hoxha discussed a bit in his later years) against liberal, revisionist, etc. views which are always in danger of emerging owing to the international situation.

[Rjevan]

Ismail asked me to translate the parts about class antagonism/struggle and here we go:

In the capitalist and revisionist social systems the base and superstructure are antagonistic towards each other, whereas in our socialist society they are devoid of any class antagonism and as such consistently keep improving. (p.9)

In all non-socialist socio-economic formations, in all capitalist and revisionist states, society is not led by the working class and consequently not by its revolutionary party, which has been inspired by the theory of Marx and Lenin. In these societies there exist different, antagonistic classes that are led by their parties, which do not represent the true interests of the masses but those of the labour aristocracy or bourgeois aristocracy. (p.16-17)

The existence of antagonistic classes is the basis of the oppression of the personality of man and the working masses. On the contrary, if there is a social system that really frees man from his troubles and worries, from petty feelings and the old ideological remnants, it is the socialist system alone that realises the elimination of the exploiting classes and private property and puts an end to the exploitation of man by man. (p.30)

The Democratic Front was led by the Party of Labour of Albania, that is the vanguard of the working class, and it represents the ideas, ideals and policies which serve the best interests of the Albanian people, whereas it exposes and fights anything that might harm our socialist fatherland. The policy of the front is therefore a solid, indivisible policy because it contains no antagonistic political tendencies, no different parties which are defending the interests of diverse classes. (p.37-38)

For those who might jump to the conclusion that this means there is no class struggle under socialism: Hoxha talks about "the new bourgeoisie" which emerged in the formerly socialist USSR and the People's Democracies (p.23) and talks about the danger of "a new class of exploiters" aiming at a "regression" and "the restoration of capitalism" (p.24).

For those who might jump to the conclusion that this means there is just no class struggle in Albania:

The policy of the Democratic Front is therefore a policy of class character, and by class character we mean to say that this policy takes into account and bases itself on the class struggle inside the country and on an international level. (p.39-49)

It's like Ismail says. The exploiting classes have been eliminated but there are still "degenerated elements" which have to be fought in theory and practice to prevent that the whole society degenerates. "Proletarian Democracy is Genuine Democracy" reminds in parts of Stalin's "On the Draft Constitution of the USSR", Hoxha compares bourgeois "democracy" and socialist democracy in a very similar way. By the way, Hoxha already explained his view on class struggle under socialism at the 7th Party Congress:

The modern revisionists with the Soviet ones at their head claim that all class struggle ends with the elimination of the exploiting classes. This is a hoax which serves to disarm the working class and lull it into sleep and this way pave the path for the restoration of capitalism. This has been most clearly shown in the Soviet Union and in other former socialist countries where the new capitalist bourgeoisie seized power.

The experience of our country refuted these false and capitulationist theories of the disappearance of class struggle under socialism. The whole history of the construction of socialism in Albania is a story of uncompromising struggle between revolution and counter-revolution, between the two paths of development, against the internal and external enemies both within the people and the Party. This struggle has been waged continuously and always vehemently. Only its forms and methods have changed according to the circumstances and stages of development. Even after elimination of the exploiting classes as classes the inner and outer enemies have not for a single moment laid down their arms or halted their fight against socialism. Therefore our party and our people have waged the class struggle with strict consistency and in a correct Marxist-Leninist way in all areas as a crucial condition for the final victory of the socialist way over the capitalist.

[red cat]

Hoxha said at the 8th Party Congress in 1981 that, "The struggle for the communist education of the working people against the remnants and manifestations of alien ideologies, old and new, constitutes the broadest and most complex front of the class struggle which is going on in our country. This struggle becomes especially important and acute in the present conditions when our country is forging ahead in the construction of socialism, relying entirely on its own forces, when the struggle between socialism and capitalism, Marxism-Leninism and revisionism in the international arena has become extremely severe and when the imperialist-revisionist encirclement and its pressure on our country have become more ferocious." (Selected Works Vol. VI, pp. 372-373.)

So evidently the class struggle still existed, it just took on a new character since the exploiting classes had been eliminated while the proletariat and peasantry were having their interests increasingly united rather than divided. Hoxha's views on these things were basically the exact same as Stalin's were. A shift went from physical class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to class struggle in the sense of expanding Marxist-Leninist education (which was a subject Hoxha discussed a bit in his later years) against liberal, revisionist, etc. views which are always in danger of emerging owing to the international situation.

About this new character of class struggle, do you think that in any of the levels of socialism that can turn back to capitalism, class struggle can become confined to expanding education ? Ultimately capitalist restoration takes place because a new bourgeoisie takes control of the state apparatus, including the military. Doesn't this amount to physical class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?

[Ismail]

About this new character of class struggle, do you think that in any of the levels of socialism that can turn back to capitalism, class struggle can become confined to expanding education ?Yes, along with anti-bureaucratic measures. This was the view Lenin and Stalin took.


Ultimately capitalist restoration takes place because a new bourgeoisie takes control of the state apparatus, including the military. Doesn't this amount to physical class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?No. Khrushchev did not take power as a bourgeoisie, yet his group within the Politburo clearly represented the interests of managers, technocrats, liberal party theorists, and others who winded up restoring capitalism in the USSR. A new bourgeoisie arose from the restoration of capitalism, not before it.

[Devrim]

Continuously becoming better in all fields from 1944-1977, stagnating a bit from 1977-1987, declining economically and socially from 1987-1990.

So what you are saying here is that it experienced expansion during the post-war boom, then a period of stagnation as the crisis started to kick back in following the 1973 oil crisis, leading into decline.

Coincidentally this is the same as was the tendency in the rest of the capitalist world.

Devrim

[Ismail]

So what you are saying here is that it experienced expansion during the post-war boom, then a period of stagnation as the crisis started to kick back in following the 1973 oil crisis, leading into decline.

Coincidentally this is the same as was the tendency in the rest of the capitalist world.That's certainly odd, since Albania didn't actually interact much with the capitalist world, and after 1977 it cut off pretty much all ties with it and outlawed investments and pretty much any non-barter international trade. I'm pretty sure that's why it was stagnating, not because of the oil crisis or whatever. In the 1950's it received $200 million in Soviet aid and in the 1960's it received $125 million from the Chinese, neither of which it had to pay back and both of which were used to build heavy industry and fund Albanian social services.

Also correlation does not imply causation.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So what you are saying here is that it experienced expansion during the post-war boom, then a period of stagnation as the crisis started to kick back in following the 1973 oil crisis, leading into decline.

Coincidentally this is the same as was the tendency in the rest of the capitalist world.

Devrim

What exactly are you implying here? The key word should be coincidentally, but I don't think that's how you viewed your comment.

[red cat]

Yes, along with anti-bureaucratic measures. This was the view Lenin and Stalin took.

This anti-bureaucratic measure under Stalin went to the extent of arrest, public trials and execution of reactionaries. That was military struggle conducted by the proletarian state against the weakened bourgeoisie.


No. Khrushchev did not take power as a bourgeoisie, yet his group within the Politburo clearly represented the interests of managers, technocrats, liberal party theorists, and others who winded up restoring capitalism in the USSR. A new bourgeoisie arose from the restoration of capitalism, not before it.

Classes are characterized by the material conditions of the society. Bureaucrats are not a separate class. They have certain powers over ordinary people which can be used indirectly to control the means of production. So the bureaucrats who use their powers to topple the socialist state are the new bourgeoisie. With time they transform into or bring in new reactionaries who are open capitalists.

[Devrim]

What exactly are you implying here? The key word should be coincidentally, but I don't think that's how you viewed your comment.

That Albania was as capitalist as the West, China, and the Soviet bloc.


Devrim

[Ismail]

This anti-bureaucratic measure under Stalin went to the extent of arrest, public trials and execution of reactionaries. That was military struggle conducted by the proletarian state against the weakened bourgeoisie.There were also attempts in the 1930's and late 40's to curb bureaucracy on the civilian front, but these didn't really go anywhere.


Classes are characterized by the material conditions of the society. Bureaucrats are not a separate class. They have certain powers over ordinary people which can be used indirectly to control the means of production. So the bureaucrats who use their powers to topple the socialist state are the new bourgeoisie. With time they transform into or bring in new reactionaries who are open capitalists.Yes, but before this they are not bourgeois. The Maoist line that the party somehow automatically breeds a new bourgeoisie is revisionist for the reasons Hoxha pointed out.

[pranabjyoti]

No. Khrushchev did not take power as a bourgeoisie, yet his group within the Politburo clearly represented the interests of managers, technocrats, liberal party theorists, and others who winded up restoring capitalism in the USSR. A new bourgeoisie arose from the restoration of capitalism, not before it.
Actually, Khrushchev & Co take power on behalf of the newly evolving petty-bourgeoisie class. Bourgeoisie was eliminated in the USSR but the petty-bourgeoisie section remained and they nurtured the seeds of future bourgeoisie in them. Moreover, the long bloodshed from 1917 to 1945 made the whole soviet population too much tired and the proletariat weakened and that factor helped a lot to the Khrushchev & Co to take the power.

[Ismail]

That Albania was as capitalist as the West, China, and the Soviet bloc.Except the example you gave was terrible and had practically nothing to do with Albania's economy. The falling rate of profit and financial capital in capitalist states were relevant to Albania because...

[RED DAVE]

About this new character of class struggle, do you think that in any of the levels of socialism that can turn back to capitalism, class struggle can become confined to expanding education ? Ultimately capitalist restoration takes place because a new bourgeoisie takes control of the state apparatus, including the military. Doesn't this amount to physical class struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat?My only quibble with this is to call any country such as the USSR, China or Albania socialist in any sense of the word. If there was socialism, there would be a fight over workers control outside and inside the party.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

There were also attempts in the 1930's and late 40's to curb bureaucracy on the civilian front, but these didn't really go anywhere.

Yes, but before this they are not bourgeois.

Then what are they? If they are not the bourgeoisie then we have to deduce that class struggle stops under socialism.


The Maoist line that the party somehow automatically breeds a new bourgeoisie is revisionist for the reasons Hoxha pointed out.

Listing Hoxha's points here would be more helpful to the discussion.

[Ismail]

Volume V of Hoxha's Selected Works (http://www.enverhoxha.ru/enver_hoxha_books_on_foreign_languages.htm) was put online. At 1045 pages it includes "Proletarian Democracy is Genuine Democracy" at page 233-263 (PDF 245-275) of the book.

Link: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_selected_works_volume_V_eng.pdf

It also includes Hoxha's speech to the 7th Party Congress of the PLA, which goes from pages 1-137 (PDF 13-149.)

[Uncle Rob]

My only quibble with this is to call any country such as the USSR, China or Albania socialist in any sense of the word. If there was socialism, there would be a fight over workers control outside and inside the party.

RED DAVE


Could you give us your definition of socialism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Only if they have dull, underdeveloped curiosity. No one is pushing anyone away from a consideration of Albania. Study it all you want. If you find any evidence of workers control of the economy, not bureaucratic control, no different from any stalinist state, let us know.

RED DAVE

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Most people, clearly, are not consciously political and have little interest in the subject. Your post smacks of intellectual elitism, even if you do generally have sound political beliefs.

[Genti]

"5 Years you will cry for me , 10 Years you will shout me , and 100 year you will want me back but you will not find me "

Enver Hoxha

[Ismail]

"5 Years you will cry for me , 10 Years you will shout me , and 100 year you will want me back but you will not find me "

Enver HoxhaIt seems very unlikely that Hoxha would actually say that. You're free to provide a source, since I haven't found anything either on Google Books or Google itself.

[Tim Cornelis]

Does anyone have information on its autarky? Did it not trade at all? Or only a little? And were there shortages as a result? Etc. etc.

[Ismail]

Does anyone have information on its autarky? Did it not trade at all? Or only a little? And were there shortages as a result? Etc. etc.It didn't trade with the USA or USSR, but it wasn't cut off from trade with other countries.

There were definitely shortages, most notably in machine parts, technology, and consumer goods. In 1985 Albanian exports were at 2,101 lekë and imports were at 2,520. (A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha, p. 177.) West Germany, Italy and Yugoslavia were the main countries Albania traded with in the 1980's, followed by the DPRK, China, some Eastern Bloc states, Austria, Cuba, etc. The 1976 Constitution (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albconst.htm) noted that, "The granting of concessions to, and the creation of foreign economic and financial companies and other institutions or ones formed jointly with bourgeois and revisionist capitalist monopolies and states, as well as obtaining credits from them, are prohibited in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania." Hoxha never claimed that Albania would be autarkic, just that it would rely on its own forces first and foremost in terms of economic construction and defense.