Hoxhaists and Maoists

[The Man]

They seem like they fight a lot, and claim that each other is 'revisionist'. Can someone please describe to me Hoxhaist beliefs?

[Gorilla]

Can someone please describe to me Hoxhaist beliefs?

Anyone [EDIT: who claimed to be a Marxist] who got on the wrong side of Albania's foreign policy is revisionist.

(NB: Everyone got on the wrong side of Albania's foreign policy.)

[RedSunRising]

They seem like they fight a lot, and claim that each other is 'revisionist'. Can someone please describe to me Hoxhaist beliefs?

I think its a family feud. Which are always the bitterest.

[Nolan]

Anyone who got on the wrong side of Albania's foreign policy is revisionist.

(NB: Everyone got on the wrong side of Albania's foreign policy.)

Right, Greece and France were revisionist, and Albania was just an anti-social child that hated the world.

In Albania, the term "Hoxhaism" was never used and it's still not used in most "Hoxhaist" parties. It's anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism that rejects Mao's "creativity" with ML.

Bill Bland could actually be considered the first Hoxhaist, not Hoxha himself.

[The Man]

Right, Greece and France were revisionist, and Albania was just an anti-social child that hated the world.

In Albania, the term "Hoxhaism" was never used and it's still not used in most "Hoxhaist" parties. It's anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism that rejects Mao's "creativity" with ML.

Bill Bland could actually be considered the first Hoxhaist, not Hoxha himself.

So are Hoxhaists opposed to a People's War and a Cultural Revolution?

[Rafiq]

Nolan summed it up pretty well. I don't know the Hoxhaist stance on alliance with the National Bourgeoisie, though. Basically, Hoxhaism is Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism with sympathy toward Stalin yet rejection of Mao's theories and tactics.

Both are Revisionist in the Marxian camp imo.

But if had to choose between the two, I'd most definitely be a Hoxhaist.


So are Hoxhaists opposed to a People's War and a Cultural Revolution?

People's War maybe, as from what I hear, Hoxha described Che's works as Petit Bourgeoisie, including Focioism.

And regarding cultural revolution, what do you mean by that? Do you mean in the sense that as the 'Socialist' mode of production replaces the capitalist one, the culture of society will change? Than most likely they do believe that.

[The Man]

Both are Revisionist in the Marxian camp imo.

But if had to choose between the two, I'd most definitely be a Hoxhaist.

Do you mind elaborating on that? I mean, why would you choose to be a Hoxhaist?

[RedSunRising]

Basically Hoxhaism is classic Communism under Lenin and Stalin's leadership.

While as Maoism is more adaptive.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

They seem like they fight a lot, and claim that each other is 'revisionist'. Can someone please describe to me Hoxhaist beliefs?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm

Please read this. It is a perfect summary of "Hoxhaists'" beliefs in regards to Mao/Maoism

[mosfeld]

People's War maybe, as from what I hear, Hoxha described Che's works as Petit Bourgeoisie, including Focioism.
Focoism is not People's War, and Maoists are opposed to this armed revisionist trend. Take a look at "Guevara, Debray, and Armed Revisionism (http://www.bannedthought.net/Cuba-Che/Guevara/Guevara-Debray-Wolff.pdf)" if you want further elaboration.

I've also never heard Hoxhaites badmouth the PPWs. Take a look at "Maoism and People's War (http://www.mltranslations.org/Denmark/maoism.htm)", a short comment by the Workers' Communist Party of Denmark. They moan about how they're revisionists blah blah (the usual Hoxhaite shit), but they still claim that they support the PPWs since "it would be not only sectarian, but also positively reactionary, not to support them."

Hoxhaites are opposed to the GPCR, though. You can read Hoxha's slanderous book "Imperialism and Revolution" where he states: "[t]he course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power."

[Rafiq]

Ah, didn't know that about focioism.

Secondly, Hoxhaists are opposed to the 'cultural revolution' that occurred in China, and not the basic principal itself.

[Rafiq]

Do you mind elaborating on that? I mean, why would you choose to be a Hoxhaist?


Maoism, in my opinion, is pretty damn reactionary.

It's like Marxism-Leninism on cocaine.

[DDR]

All this thing only comes after the sino-albanian split. Hoxa disgusted by the revisionism in the USSR try to befriend Mao to form a anti-revisionist alliance. It didn't went well and Hoxa denounce Mao as a revisionist, began to build bunkers, and all the history that you know.

More info (in spanish, sorry) here:

http://www.45-rpm.net/antiguo/palante/conflictos.htm

[L.A.P.]

Since this is a shit fest in the making I'll add my two sense. I don't consider Hoxhaism any more anti-revisionist than Maoism and it would be useless to try to argue which one was. From what I have seen, Hoxhaists criticize Mao for his adaption of Marxism-Leninism to China's material conditions. These criticisms often come off as dogmatic and elitist especially since Hoxha spent most of his time when writing theory trying to prove why he was the only true Marxist-Leninist in the world. Not to mention there doesn't seem to be any core tenet of Hoxhaism that sets it apart from other currents of Marxist thought except "We don't like Mao and the People's Republic of China, we like Hoxha and the People's Republic of Albania because Hoxha is the best at imitating all of Stalin's exact actions and ideas right down to his favorite cereal."

[gorillafuck]

Hoxhaism considers the USSR under Stalin and Albania under Hoxha's leadership to be the only socialist state to ever not be revisionist (and therefore state capitalist and social imperialist). The difference is Maoism considers the USSR and it's allies to be revisionist after Stalin but did not consider China and it's allies to be revisionist, and supports Maoist tactics such as protracted peoples war and cultural revolution.

[RedSunRising]

Maoism, in my opinion, is pretty damn reactionary.

It's like Marxism-Leninism on cocaine.

I actually did Laugh Out Loud reading that!

The reason why its like as you put it "Marxism-Leninism on cocaine" is that we draw our support generally from the most oppressed and repressed across the globe. Kids who never got a chance to finish high school no mind go to college. Those who grew up on what the English call "sink estates" or in actual shanty towns. Kids who watched their moms age prematurely from slaving in sweat shops and their childhood friends destroyed by drug addiction and so die early deaths. Maybe for those reasons Maoists are the probably in some ways in the least sophisticated tendency on this forum, that though doesnt stop us from being also probably the most sincere. We are the world's oppressed and exploited majority....There are more of us than labor aristocrats and capitalist scum.

Maoism is belief in yourself and your class, and hope for a radically new world.

[L.A.P.]

I actually did Laugh Out Loud reading that!

The reason why its like as you put it "Marxism-Leninism on cocaine" is that we draw our support generally from the most oppressed and repressed across the globe. Kids who never got a chance to finish high school no mind go to college. Those who grew up on what the English call "sink estates" or in actual shanty towns. Kids who watched their moms age prematurely from slaving in sweat shops and their childhood friends destroyed by drug addiction and so die early deaths. Maybe for those reasons Maoists are the probably in some ways in the least sophisticated tendency on this forum, that though doesnt stop us from being also probably the most sincere. We are the world's oppressed and exploited majority....There are more of us than labor aristocrats and capitalist scum.

Maoism is belief in yourself and your class, and hope for a radically new world.

Sectarian romanticism at its best.

[khad]

Do you mind elaborating on that? I mean, why would you choose to be a Hoxhaist?
So you can convince yourself that mercenary jihadis like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the private armies of South African apartheid are the way forward.

Same goes for the other ideology mentioned in this thread.

Haven't people tired of these "I'm more ML than you" games yet?

[gorillafuck]

yeah it should probably be noted that both of these tendencies supported Mujihadeen in Afghanistan and basically any group that fought the USSR.

[Nolan]

Ah, didn't know that about focioism.

Secondly, Hoxhaists are opposed to the 'cultural revolution' that occurred in China, and not the basic principal itself.

Yes. Albania had a rough equivalent of the cultural revolution.

[L.A.P.]

yeah it should probably be noted that both of these tendencies supported Mujihadeen in Afghanistan and basically any group that fought the USSR.

If your speaking in regards to the People's Republic of China then this presumption is false. By the time the Soviet War in Afghanistan happened Maoism was wiped clean by Deng Xiaoping turning Mao into a figure of romanticized nationalism and removing references to him in academia. Unless your talking about Maoist organizations then you may be right for all I know because I wasn't alive back then.

[Nolan]

So you can convince yourself that mercenary jihadis like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the private armies of South African apartheid are the way forward.

Same goes for the other ideology mentioned in this thread.

Haven't people tired of these "I'm more ML than you" games yet?

So we oppose American imperialism in Afghanistan today because we think the Taliban is "the way forward"?

[khad]

If your speaking in regards to the People's Republic of China then this presumption is false. By the time the Soviet War in Afghanistan happened Maoism was wiped clean by Deng Xiaoping turning Mao into a figure of romanticized nationalism and removing references to him in academia. Unless your talking about Maoist organizations then you may be right for all I know because I wasn't alive back then.
Unfortunately, China's overt support for the South African auxiliary UNITA happened when Mao was still around.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

That was in 1975 though. By that point Mao had been going senile or something since 1969 and Zhou Enlai had been implementing his pro-US line since 1971 after he defeated Lin Biao and his supporters.

[Rafiq]

I actually did Laugh Out Loud reading that!

The reason why its like as you put it "Marxism-Leninism on cocaine" is that we draw our support generally from the most oppressed and repressed across the globe. Kids who never got a chance to finish high school no mind go to college. Those who grew up on what the English call "sink estates" or in actual shanty towns. Kids who watched their moms age prematurely from slaving in sweat shops and their childhood friends destroyed by drug addiction and so die early deaths. Maybe for those reasons Maoists are the probably in some ways in the least sophisticated tendency on this forum, that though doesnt stop us from being also probably the most sincere. We are the world's oppressed and exploited majority....There are more of us than labor aristocrats and capitalist scum.

Maoism is belief in yourself and your class, and hope for a radically new world.

what an irrelevant post. I'm not criticizing third workers for joining maoist movements, I'm criticizing mao's maoist theories.

[RedSunRising]

what an irrelevant post. I'm not criticizing third workers for joining maoist movements, I'm criticizing mao's maoist theories.

And I was explaining why Mao's Maoist theories are so appealing to non-labour aristocrat workers.

Authoritarianism is a two edged sword. Revisionists in reality seem to like authority for its own sake, the distortions in the USSR which were brought about by its isolation in a world of capitalism were turned into good points to the extent that the major party claiming to be Communist is fascist. The ANC rules over a capitalist Azania still filled with white power.

[red cat]

That was in 1975 though. By that point Mao had been going senile or something since 1969 and Zhou Enlai had been implementing his pro-US line since 1971 after he defeated Lin Biao and his supporters.

Although that is what some Maoists think, there is another explanation to it. This picture might help.

http://hindu.com/fline/fl2703/images/20100212270312401.jpg

[gorillafuck]

If your speaking in regards to the People's Republic of China then this presumption is false. By the time the Soviet War in Afghanistan happened Maoism was wiped clean by Deng Xiaoping turning Mao into a figure of romanticized nationalism and removing references to him in academia. Unless your talking about Maoist organizations then you may be right for all I know because I wasn't alive back then.ALO allied with mujihadeen. And also, what khad said.

[L.A.P.]

Unfortunately, China's overt support for the South African auxiliary UNITA happened when Mao was still around.

I've only read about it happening when Deng was in power though.


Although that is what some Maoists think, there is another explanation to it. This picture might help.

http://hindu.com/fline/fl2703/images/20100212270312401.jpg

I don't get it.


ALO allied with mujihadeen. And also, what khad said.

Well fortunately the Afghanistan Liberation Organization wasn't the end-all of Maoism especially considering that they were against the social imperialism of the Soviet Union while failing to recognize the Western imperialist support for the Mujahideen.

[RedSunRising]

I've only read about it happening when Deng was in power though.

Soviet Social-Imperialism supporting the Indian state and all that went and still goes with it??? :confused:

[Gorilla]

This thread is getting incredibly dumb. And yeah, I did start that.

Can a Hoxhaist please explain for the OP what Hoxhaism - or I suppose you would say, anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism in the tradition of Hoxha - is all about and why it is teh awesome?

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes. Albania had a rough equivalent of the cultural revolution.
Although, one suspects, only rather grudgingly:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vRk7O9DVDkA/SAW9Im76tlI/AAAAAAAABNI/cZq98DMZj9A/s400/arnavutluk-history-albania+partizani+1946.gif

[Ismail]

Can a Hoxhaist please explain for the OP what Hoxhaism - or I suppose you would say, anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism in the tradition of Hoxha - is all about and why it is teh awesome?Because Hoxha rejected Maoism, pro-Soviet "Marxism-Leninism," Eurocommunism and "national" variants of "socialism," e.g. Juche and Ba'athism.

Claims that Hoxha "supported apartheid" from Brezhnevites are as dumb as claims that Hoxha was a "Zionist" from the RCPUSA. Hoxha said that neither the MPLA or UNITA were Marxist-Leninist organizations, therefore neither deserved support. Besides that he denounced Mao's (and his successors') backing of reactionary anti-communists like Mobutu and Pinochet. He isn't the sort to back apartheid.

On Afghanistan, Hoxha supported anti-Soviet resistance there, yes. He called for the Soviet soldiers to adopt revolutionary defeatism.

Hoxha never claimed to "advance" Marxism-Leninism, only to defend it from revisionism.

That's all "Hoxhaism" is about.

[Red_Struggle]

Also, Albania's cultural revolution was actually guided by a solid plan (cutting official's wages, increased women's participation in government, increased criticism of officials and management through bulletin posts, outlawing religion, etc.). But it should be noted that the idea of a cultural revolution goes all the way back to Lenin, not Mao or Hoxha.

We also reject Mao for his absolutizing the role of the peasantry, his three worlds theory, and for allowing the bourgeoisie into the party (bloc of four classes).

[Kléber]

So let me get this straight.

Trotskyists criticized Soviet revisionism while defending the USSR: they were imperialist agents, they had to be killed.

Maoists/Hoxhaists fought to destroy the USSR and its allies, joining forces with imperialist puppet armies like contras and mujahedin: they were anti-revisionist heroes, we should revere them as great disciples of Stalin.

Do these guys have it backwards or what?

[Red_Struggle]

Maoists/Hoxhaists fought to destroy the USSR and its allies

Not off to a good start.


joining forces with imperialist puppet armies like contras and mujahedin

Anti-revisionist MLs did not "join forces" with the Contras or Mujahideen. As Ismail pointed out, Hoxha did lend words of support to the Mujahideen under the banner of national self-determination, and encouraged Soviet soldiers to engage in revolutionary defeatism. As for Nicaragua, the MAP (ML) were the ones Hoxha supported, if that even matters to you.

[Kléber]

Not off to a good start.
lol am i being interviewed?


Anti-revisionist MLs did not "join forces" with the Contras or Mujahideen. As Ismail pointed out, Hoxha did lend words of support to the Mujahideen under the banner of national self-determination, and encouraged Soviet soldiers to engage in revolutionary defeatism. As for Nicaragua, the MAP (ML) were the ones Hoxha supported, if that even matters to you.The MAP-ML's armed wing, MILPAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILPAS), did indeed join the contras and provided the CIA with guerrilla cadre. It changed the last part of its name from anti-somocistas to anti-sandinistas.

The Afghan Maoists launched a coup attempt (as the Revolutionary Group of the Peoples of Afghanistan) together with fundamentalist reactionaries in August 1979, that was before the Soviet invasion. The ALO under Faiz Ahmad joined Hekmatyar's forces, who eventually killed them.

[Red_Struggle]

The MAP-ML's armed wing, MILPAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILPAS), did indeed join the contras and provided the CIA with guerrilla cadre. It changed the last part of its name from anti-somocistas to anti-sandinistas.

A section of their militias did break off and join the Nicaraguan Democratic force, although the party itself did not endorse the Contras. In the urban areas, the MAP-ML militias were affiliated with Frento Orbrero, the party's trade union wing. There isn't a whole lot of info in the MAP-ML, but their union wing did lead a series of strikes, occupations, and sabotage.

[RED DAVE]

Then there's this icon of world revolution:

http://i55.tinypic.com/2mfrep.jpg


http://i51.tinypic.com/121a2o5.jpg


http://i51.tinypic.com/2ldbsci.jpg


RED DAVE

[Ismail]

"To receive President Nixon and talk with him, without having diplomatic relations with the United States of America, but on the contrary, having a state of hostility between the two states, and above all, knowing that he is the number one enemy of the peoples, is not correct and will not be accepted by the peoples, the revolutionaries and the genuine communists. We are among those who do not accept this decision and will not support it." - Hoxha, July 24 1971, Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 555.

Needless to say the Chinese went much further to the right after that.

As for Nicaragua, the Albanian Government critically supported the FSLN and established diplomatic relations with Nicaragua in 1979. The MAP-ML and the MLPUSA (among some other "more Hoxhaist than Hoxha"-type parties) were anti-FSLN.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Boris Ponomarev was more consistent in anti-colonialism than Maoists, Hoxhaists, and most Third Campists (of the Trotskyist variety) all put together.

[RED DAVE]

Boris Ponomarev was more consistent in anti-colonialism than Maoists, Hoxhaists, and most Third Campists (of the Trotskyist variety) all put together.Uh-huh. Right. Sure.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2hov1o3.jpg

(That's the great anti-colonialist Ponomarev along with a few of his fearless leaders.)

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^

http://visualrian.com/images/item/870930
http://visualrian.com/images/item/870931
http://visualrian.com/images/item/790381

;)

[Ismail]

So to be a "consistent anti-colonialist" you need to hold photo-ops with petty-bourgeois Algerian nationalists and convene meetings with foreign pro-Soviet CPs while you yourself are a leading CPSU member.

Pretty much every Soviet official was a "consistent anti-colonialist" then.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Not at all. Check out my History thread on Boris Ponomarev. :)

[Ismail]

^^^ Not at all. Check out my History thread on Boris Ponomarev. :)I don't see anything "anti-colonialist" about him. He was simply the frontman for Soviet foreign policy initiatives. The Soviets took advantage of anti-colonialism, and revisionist attempts to placate petty-bourgeois left-wing regimes with "non-capitalist development" reflect that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Please post your explanations in that thread.

[Ismail]

I'd rather not.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Although that is what some Maoists think, there is another explanation to it. This picture might help.

http://hindu.com/fline/fl2703/images/20100212270312401.jpg

Yeah sure, but making an alliance with the even worse superpower wasn't the answer. I agree with Lin Biao's line which was to oppose both superpowers, or if that was a bit idealist a tactical alliance with the lesser one. Zhou Enlai's however was just to be friends with the USA, nothing to do with the danger of the USSR. Even before the invasion of Czechoslovakia he'd been making overtures to Romania and Yugoslavia, the two most pro-US states of the Eastern Bloc.

[Kiev Communard]

I don't see anything "anti-colonialist" about him. He was simply the frontman for Soviet foreign policy initiatives. The Soviets took advantage of anti-colonialism, and revisionist attempts to placate petty-bourgeois left-wing regimes with "non-capitalist development" reflect that.

Except that it was Lenin and Stalin who first began toying with colonial petty-bourgeois nationalist movements - from Lenin's effective support to Ataturk (ignoring the destruction of nascent Communist movement in Turkey and genocide and expulsion of Anatolian Greeks) to Stalin's insistence on CPC subordination to Kuomintang in 1925-1927, so in that sense Brezhnevist line is perfectly Leninist/Stalinist, while Hoxhaist one is paradoxically "ultra-left".

[Die Neue Zeit]

It flows from the anti-colonial line first pioneered by the Second International, in the form of Karl Kautsky's national liberation polemics against Rosa Luxemburg. It has to do with applying "Self-determination and self-government" from the Erfurt Program re. local autonomy to another sphere.

[Kiev Communard]

It flows from the anti-colonial line first pioneered by the Second International, in the form of Karl Kautsky's national liberation polemics against Rosa Luxemburg. It has to do with applying "Self-determination and self-government" from the Erfurt Program re. local autonomy to another sphere.

Of course, I know that. Besides, I would say that Bolsheviks were heavily influenced by Kautskyan doctrine, and I agree with Paul Mattick that it was actually Bolsheviks who tried to implement Kautsky's ideas on economical structure of post-revolutionary society in practice, while he himself became a Bernsteinite after 1914 at latest. Concerning theoretical relationship between Leninism and Kautskyanism, I see that this article was posted on this forum back in 2003, but as long time had passed, I'll post a new link there - http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve Obviously we differ on the evaluation of Kautsky's legacy - you would most likely deem it positive and worth emulating, while I am rather negative, - but it is still fairly interesting subject.

[Ismail]

Except that it was Lenin and Stalin who first began toying with colonial petty-bourgeois nationalist movements - from Lenin's effective support to Ataturk (ignoring the destruction of nascent Communist movement in Turkey and genocide and expulsion of Anatolian Greeks) to Stalin's insistence on CPC subordination to Kuomintang in 1925-1927, so in that sense Brezhnevist line is perfectly Leninist/Stalinist, while Hoxhaist one is paradoxically "ultra-left".Three big differences:

1. Neither Lenin nor Stalin formed neo-colonies.
2. Stalin viewed the continuation of the CCP-Guomindang alliance as an objective necessity precisely because he feared the Guomindang right-wing would triumph over the left-wing and leave the CCP exposed. Stalin's analysis was not the best, but letters and such opened up after 1991 show that he didn't regard Chiang's coup lightly. The equivalent under Lenin would be when Lenin sent Ottoman leader Ismail Enver to suppress an anti-Bolshevik uprising in Central Asia (many leftists from the Ottoman Empire hated him and refused to be at the same place as he when he visited Moscow) and instead Ismail Enver proceeded to assist the uprising.
3. Neither Lenin nor Stalin courted petty-bourgeois nationalists with revisionist theories.

[red cat]

Yeah sure, but making an alliance with the even worse superpower wasn't the answer. I agree with Lin Biao's line which was to oppose both superpowers, or if that was a bit idealist a tactical alliance with the lesser one. Zhou Enlai's however was just to be friends with the USA, nothing to do with the danger of the USSR. Even before the invasion of Czechoslovakia he'd been making overtures to Romania and Yugoslavia, the two most pro-US states of the Eastern Bloc.

Worse with respect to whom? There is no doubt that when the whole world is taken into account, the USA is the worst power around. But this varies locally. For example, the principal enemy of the Chinese proletariat today is Chinese imperialism, not US imperialism. Similarly, British communists must organize primarily against British imperialism. Declaring US imperialism as the principal enemy of each and every section of the international proletariat is not only a wrong line but also serves as a cover for other capitalist or imperialist oppressors.

Maoists are not united on a line regarding Zhou Enlai. However, the threat of a military attack on China from USSR had become very real in later years.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

They seem like they fight a lot, and claim that each other is 'revisionist'.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2738867068_34a09f3770.jpg

[Kiev Communard]

Three big differences:

1. Neither Lenin nor Stalin formed neo-colonies.

The treatment of so-called "national republics" under War Communism and Stalin's rule could be described as "neo-colonial" as their economic development was subordinated to the designs of Moscow's bureaucratic planners, while local needs and concerns were mainly disregarded. In addition, such territories as Central Asian republics were turned into mono-cultural outlets for the needs of the world market, and Ukrainian Holodomor could also be viewed as the typical expression of primitive accumulation processes, with grain confiscated from peasants having been sent into the world market at low prices.

2. Stalin viewed the continuation of the CCP-Guomindang alliance as an objective necessity precisely because he feared the Guomindang right-wing would triumph over the left-wing and leave the CCP exposed. Stalin's analysis was not the best, but letters and such opened up after 1991 show that he didn't regard Chiang's coup lightly. The equivalent under Lenin would be when Lenin sent Ottoman leader Ismail Enver to suppress an anti-Bolshevik uprising in Central Asia (many leftists from the Ottoman Empire hated him and refused to be at the same place as he when he visited Moscow) and instead Ismail Enver proceeded to assist the uprising.

I am sure that later Soviet leaders also did not like their petty-bourgeois nationalist partners in the Third World, but they might also have said that they urged local CPs to enter into alliance with them just to "combat the right-wingers". The infamous alliance between Nasser (who suppressed workers' strikes and banned working-class organizations) and Khruschev's USSR was justified on exactly the same grounds as Stalin justified "unity" with Guomindang (yes, this is more accurate transliteration). USSR's reaction to Sadat's pro-American turn did not justify their previous nationalist overtures (not that Mao's support for Sadat was anything better).


3. Neither Lenin nor Stalin courted petty-bourgeois nationalists with revisionist theories.

The example of Congress of the Peoples of the East (which M.N. Roy refused to attend precisely on the grounds that it meant the capitulation to petty-bourgeois nationalism) clearly shows that such "revisionist" theories were contemplated even in Lenin and Zinoviev's time. In addition, I would say that it was their political praxis, rather than official theories that mattered. One might just as well say that Khrushchev and Brezhnev merely codified (in rather dogmatic way) the actual practices of previous USSR governments as regarded petty-bourgeois nationalists (and actual bourgeois governments - compare Lenin's support for Atatürk with Brezhnev's assistance to Prince Sihanouk and Khrushchev's alliance with Emperor Haile Selassie, and you shall see my point).

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Worse with respect to whom? There is no doubt that when the whole world is taken into account, the USA is the worst power around. But this varies locally. For example, the principal enemy of the Chinese proletariat today is Chinese imperialism, not US imperialism. Similarly, British communists must organize primarily against British imperialism. Declaring US imperialism as the principal enemy of each and every section of the international proletariat is not only a wrong line but also serves as a cover for other capitalist or imperialist oppressors.
Well I was saying the USA, I should really have been saying Western imperialism as a whole, of which US imperialism is the main representative.

Maoists are not united on a line regarding Zhou Enlai. However, the threat of a military attack on China from USSR had become very real in later years.
No less of a threat as a USA military attack was. In fact there was probably more of a danger from the USA. The Soviet/Mongolian-Chinese border at which the Soviets had their troops mobilised was about 7500 km long and the Soviets' allies were unreliable. The USA meanwhile had already basically fought a full-scale war with China in Korea during which they'd killed about 4 million Koreans, had their troops just over China's southern border in Indochina killing millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians, had plenty of nukes aimed at China, was directly occupying China in Taiwan and in Hong Kong with Britain which where constantly coming into conflict with the mainland, etc.

[caramelpence]

was directly occupying China in Taiwan and Hong Kong which where constantly coming into conflict with the mainland, etc.

Firstly, Hong Kong was a British colony though there were American soldiers stationed there (hardly enough to constitute an occupation in any case) and secondly the strategy of the CPC in relation to Hong Kong was based around warding off reunification until it could be obtained on conditions that would favor the CPC, which meant not pursuing reunification when it would threaten Hong Kong's role as a source of economic benefit, given that Hong Kong was, during the Maoist period, China's largest source of foreign exchange, through exports of food, water, and basic goods, and Hong Kong was also important as a provider of loans. The CPC did not take advantage of the 1967 riots even though they offered a genuine possibility of national reunification with China and social revolution in Hong Kong and their position on Hong Kong is overall an example of the opportunism that lay at the heart of the CPC's approach to international issues and their inability or unwillingness to carry out national reunification to its full conclusion.

Maoists = Lakkkie$ of Briti$h KKKoloniali$m in Hong Kong!

[Ismail]

"Hong Kong has become the centre of capitalist financing for China." - Hoxha, July 17, 1976, Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 260.

"Thus the policy of China in its relations with the other countries developed into the China-United States of America axis. Taiwan was forgotten. Hong Kong and Macao were forgotten, and even Vietnam, which was fighting, was forgotten. And precisely at the time when Vietnam was being savagely bombed the final talks between Mao and Chou En-lai on the one hand, and Kissinger and Nixon on the other, took place." -December 18, 1977, ibid., p. 741.

[Kléber]

"...We are among those who do not accept this decision [to welcome Nixon to China] and will not support it." - Hoxha, July 24 1971, Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 555.
A private diary entry, made public years after the fact, hardly qualifies as principled anti-revisionism.


As for Nicaragua, the Albanian Government critically supported the FSLN and established diplomatic relations with Nicaragua in 1979.That was a much better position, but in Maoist terms it means they supported a bourgeois government which was allied with "fascist" Russia.

[Ismail]

A private diary entry, made public years after the fact, hardly qualifies as principled anti-revisionism.Perhaps not, except the month after that Hoxha sent a letter to the Central Committee of the CCP which noted amongst other things that: "... we inform you that we consider your decision to receive Nixon in Beijing as incorrect and undesirable, and we do not approve or support it. It will also be our opinion that Nixon's announced visit to China will not be understood or approved of by the peoples, the revolutionaries and the communists of different countries." (Selected Works Vol. IV, p. 668.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Of course, I know that. Besides, I would say that Bolsheviks were heavily influenced by Kautskyan doctrine, and I agree with Paul Mattick that it was actually Bolsheviks who tried to implement Kautsky's ideas on economical structure of post-revolutionary society in practice, while he himself became a Bernsteinite after 1914 at latest. Concerning theoretical relationship between Leninism and Kautskyanism, I see that this article was posted on this forum back in 2003, but as long time had passed, I'll post a new link there - http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve Obviously we differ on the evaluation of Kautsky's legacy - you would most likely deem it positive and worth emulating, while I am rather negative, - but it is still fairly interesting subject.

I read Dauve's work long before you did, when I started my theoretical projects. ;)


I am sure that later Soviet leaders also did not like their petty-bourgeois nationalist partners in the Third World, but they might also have said that they urged local CPs to enter into alliance with them just to "combat the right-wingers". The infamous alliance between Nasser (who suppressed workers' strikes and banned working-class organizations) and Khruschev's USSR was justified on exactly the same grounds as Stalin justified "unity" with Guomindang (yes, this is more accurate transliteration). USSR's reaction to Sadat's pro-American turn did not justify their previous nationalist overtures (not that Mao's support for Sadat was anything better).

The only two big problems with the anti-colonial movements were the deficits of independent working-class political organization (which would have meant building CP opposition on the sidelines) and populist unity against all bourgeois influence.


One might just as well say that Khrushchev and Brezhnev merely codified (in rather dogmatic way) the actual practices of previous USSR governments as regarded petty-bourgeois nationalists (and actual bourgeois governments - compare Lenin's support for Atatürk with Brezhnev's assistance to Prince Sihanouk and Khrushchev's alliance with Emperor Haile Selassie, and you shall see my point).

One needs to distinguish between bourgeois nationalists and petit-bourgeois nationalists.

[caramelpence]

"Hong Kong has become the centre of capitalist financing for China." - Hoxha, July 17, 1976, Reflections on China Vol. II, p. 260.

"Thus the policy of China in its relations with the other countries developed into the China-United States of America axis. Taiwan was forgotten. Hong Kong and Macao were forgotten, and even Vietnam, which was fighting, was forgotten. And precisely at the time when Vietnam was being savagely bombed the final talks between Mao and Chou En-lai on the one hand, and Kissinger and Nixon on the other, took place." -December 18, 1977, ibid., p. 741.

These arguments are almost if not entirely contradictory. Hoxha is right in saying that Hong Kong was crucial in financial terms for the PRC. How then would it be correct to say that the CPC subsequently "forgot" Hong Kong? They did not do this at all, the importance of Hong Kong was still recognized and there were still the same implications for the continued existence of the British colonial government. The CPC retained a covert party branch in Hong kong throughout this period. If Hoxha meant that the CPC had forgotten Hong Kong in the sense of no longer pursuing national reunification, then this was in no way something new or tied to the development of closer ties with the United States - the CPC's policy on Hong Kong had been relatively consistent in that it dated back to the 1920s, before the party had even taken power, and consisted of recognizing the value, in political and economic terms, of Hong Kong remaining separate from the mainland over the medium-term.

More to the point, what does it matter of Hoxha made some anti-Maoist remarks in his diary, about Hong Kong or anything else? Why are these fairly prosaic remarks being taken as profound and theoretical?

[Ismail]

More to the point, what does it matter of Hoxha made some anti-Maoist remarks in his diary, about Hong Kong or anything else? Why are these fairly prosaic remarks being taken as profound and theoretical?Well it wasn't just "some anti-Maoist remarks" considering that all of his diary entries on China from 1962 to 1977 were big enough to constitute two volumes with 800 pages each, but in any case I just did it just 'cause.

As a note you might find this an interesting read: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/chinecon.htm

[hardlinecommunist]

Boris Ponomarev was more consistent in anti-colonialism than Maoists, Hoxhaists, and most Third Campists (of the Trotskyist variety) all put together.
No he was not
Boris
Ponomarev was a frontman for
Soviet
Revisonism and a
Revisionist in his own right

[Die Neue Zeit]

Tell me, then, why the "beloved" Stalin after WWII completely neglected anti-colonial struggles in the Third World, from southeast Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. It was Boris Ponomarev and his immediate co-thinkers who turned this around and who were consistent (unlike Khrushchev who wavered after the Cuban Missile Crisis).

[mosfeld]

I'm guessing it's due to war recovery in the motherland. You can take a look at his archives on MIA and see that he still extends internationalist support (solidarity), though not necessarily material support.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring also to "solidarity," which can be easily trumped by foreign policy realpolitik.

[Ismail]

Stalin offered weapons to both the PCI and the PCF in 1948, as noted by Erik Van Ree. The CPI and Stalin also discussed the possibility of armed struggle in India around 1951.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring to anti-colonial struggles, not communist struggles (where he sold out on Greece).

[hardlinecommunist]

Tell me, then, why the "beloved" Stalin after WWII completely neglected anti-colonial struggles in the Third World, from southeast Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. It was Boris Ponomarev and his immediate co-thinkers who turned this around and who were consistent (unlike Khrushchev who wavered after the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Stalin did not neglect the anti-colonial struggles in the Third World as he supported the National Liberation struggles in China Korea India Indochina The Phillppines among other places in the Third World in Korea Stalin armed the Korean Peoples Army under Kim IL Sung during the early years of the DPRK and he supported The DPRK During the Fatherland Liberation War aganist US imperialism and its allies plus he supported China under Chairman Mao as well during this same period

[hardlinecommunist]

I was referring to anti-colonial struggles, not communist struggles (where he sold out on Greece).
Stalin did not sell out Greece Josip Broz Tito sold Greece out

[Tim Finnegan]

Stalin did not neglect the anti-colonial struggles in the Third World as he supported the National Liberation struggles in China Korea India Indochina The Phillppines among other places in the Third World in Korea Stalin armed the Korean Peoples Army under Kim IL Sung during the early years of the DPRK and he supported The DPRK During the Fatherland Liberation War aganist US imperialism and its allies plus he supported China under Chairman Mao as well during this same period
You might want to do a little more research into the exact nature of the Soviet occupation of North Korea and that of the Kim regime before you go slinging rubbish like "Fatherland Liberation War".


Stalin did not sell out Greece Josip Broz Tito sold Greece out
Are we really having the "which selfish murdering bastard was the bigger selfish murdering bastard" argument? Because that does nobody any good.

[Ismail]

You might want to do a little more research into the exact nature of the Soviet occupation of North Korea and that of the Kim regime before you go slinging rubbish like "Fatherland Liberation War".Well I know that the DPRK was quite popular, what with the land reform among other things.

As for the Korean War, from reading some books and misc. materials on the subject, it basically went like this:

*Provocations by South Korea*
Kim Il Sung: "I'd like to move troops to the South to dealt a crushing blow to the American-backed ex-Japanese collaborators."
Stalin: "No."
Kim Il Sung: "We believe it is in the best interests of the Korean nation to see through the defeat of the American-backed puppets. As such, I'd like to move our troops southward."
Stalin: "No."
Kim Il Sung: "I want to fight the South Korean imperialist puppets."
Stalin: "If they are aggressive, they will launch an offensive. Then you'll be in a good position to kick ass."
*US troops withdraw from South Korea*
Kim Il Sung: "OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE SOUTH KOREA HASN'T BEEN LIBERATED YET."
Stalin: "I give in."
*Glorious DPRK invasion of the South*
Kim Il Sung: "Seoul has fallen!"
*US troops arrive, push back DPRK troops, stalemate occurs*
Stalin: "Little Korea cannot be defeated by the US imperialists! The US is doomed to collapse! Socialism is victory!"
*Stalin dies*
*Armistice signed*

[Die Neue Zeit]

Various historians have written about Stalin's reluctance against Kim's blatant belligerence. There's nothing surprising about Stalin's usual realpolitik.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well I know that the DPRK was quite popular, what with the land reform among other things.
Popular, but crazy racist with it. Kim was always banging on about the genetic, moral and cultural superiority of the Koreans, not only over the Japanese and Americans, but even over the Chinese and the Russians. If the term "red fascism" has ever made any sense, it's in reference to North Korea.

[Commissar Rykov]

Popular, but crazy racist with it. Kim was always banging on about the genetic, moral and cultural superiority of the Koreans, not only over the Japanese and Americans, but even over the Chinese and the Russians. If the term "red fascism" has ever made any sense, it's in reference to North Korea.

Exactly, Juche as an ideology disturbed me with their racist rhetoric and they didn't seem to understand why it would be considered disturbing. As much as I would love to throw support behind the DPRK it is not an ideological group that I can support with any kind of conscience.

[Chicxulub]

Hoxhaism is the bastardization of Stalin's economic policies, mixed with state atheism that was actually oppressive, and good ol' nationalism/racism.

Hoxha was a damn fool.

[Ismail]

Hoxhaism is the bastardization of Stalin's economic policies,I fail to see how. Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. (which was attacked as "left-deviationist" by the CPSU after 1953 and was criticized by Mao) was seen as a model work for Albanian economists.


and good ol' nationalism/racism.I've seen no substantial evidence of any "nationalism," much less racism.

[Chicxulub]

I've seen no substantial evidence of any "nationalism," much less racism.

"the only religion of Albania is Albanianism."

--Enver Hoxha (something an internationalist wouldn't really be saying, no?)


from wiki:


In Communist Albania, an Illyrian origin of the Albanians (without denying Pelasgian roots[21] a theory which has been revitalized today[29]) continued to play a significant role in Albanian nationalism,[33] resulting in a revival of given names suppposedly of "Illyrian" origin, at the expense of given names associated with Christianity. This trend had originated with the 19th century Rilindja, but it became extreme after 1944, when it became the communist regime's declared doctrine to oust Christian or Islamic given names. Ideologically acceptable names were listed in the Fjalor me emra njerëzish (1982). These could be native Albanian words like Flutur "butterfly", ideologically communist ones like Proletare, or "Illyrian" ones compiled from epigraphy, e.g. from the necropolis at Dyrrhachion excavated in 1958-60.

sounds oh-so internationalist, doesn't it? sounds like another typical fascist to me.

[Ismail]

"the only religion of Albania is Albanianism."

--Enver Hoxha (something an internationalist wouldn't really be saying, no?)He actually took the quote from Pashko Vasa, a 19th century Albanian politician who was against the division of Albanians into hostile religious groups.


sounds oh-so internationalist, doesn't it? sounds like another typical fascist to me.I don't see how. The goal was to eradicate all traces of religion from Albania and to promote the unity of the Albanian people. The Soviets helped consolidate plenty of nations through similar processes such as the Turkmen and Byelorussians. None of his views were fascistic in the least, and it's rather ridiculous to characterize a man who led the Albanian anti-fascist resistance against both Italy and Nazi Germany as "another typical fascist." Albanian nationalism had a decidedly left-wing tinge in the 1920's and 30's anyway. Luigj Gurakuqi, Bajram Curri (who looked to Lenin as a hero of the oppressed peoples), Avni Rustemi (forced the Albanian parliament in 1924 to stand in a period of silence due to the death of Lenin), Fan S. Noli (established a left-wing, bourgeois-democratic government in 1924 and established diplomatic ties with the USSR, and was couped not long after by the reactionary Ahmet Zogu), and so on. Nationalism was not about "glorious Albania" expanding to establish an empire or whatever. It was about securing national liberation from centuries of oppressive foreign rule.

As Hoxha said in 1977, "Every people has its own culture. We have our culture, they have theirs, but we ought to take what is good from the culture of foreigners and if they want, let them take what they like from our culture. We are internationalists and we see matters from the Marxist Leninist angle, which means you must in no way be conservative, sectarian or liberal." (Two Friendly Peoples, p. 258.)

[Tim Finnegan]

sounds oh-so internationalist, doesn't it? sounds like another typical fascist to me.
I'd say that the naming one is really rather more ambiguous. The Celtic countries, particularly Ireland, have experienced a similar revival of traditional names (although not usually with the same anti-Christian bent), with no particular indication of rightward or leftward leanings. (Certainly, if I ever have children, I hope to give them traditional Gaelic names, or, if I have them with a person of an other cultural background, a mixture of Gaelic names and traditional names from their culture.) Quite often, a traditionally marginalised nation embracing its heritage is a perfectly innocent attempt to carve out some space for themselves as themselves, a space which has been traditionally denied to them by more powerful entities. Shopping for names from Peru to Finland is a privilege uniquely granted to those whose culture is so secure in its hegemony as to allow such indulgence in exoticism that, apparently, you presume to be "internationalist".

[agnixie]

Popular, but crazy racist with it. Kim was always banging on about the genetic, moral and cultural superiority of the Koreans, not only over the Japanese and Americans, but even over the Chinese and the Russians. If the term "red fascism" has ever made any sense, it's in reference to North Korea.

He was admittedly considered an insane backwater personality cult leader by the mainstream communist party of Korea in Seoul; I doubt he'd have remained in power for long in a united People's Republic of Korea.

[Ismail]

I'd say that the naming one is really rather more ambiguous. The Celtic countries, particularly Ireland, have experienced a similar revival of traditional names (although not usually with the same anti-Christian bent), with no particular indication of rightward or leftward leanings. (Certainly, if I ever have children, I hope to give them traditional Gaelic names, or, if I have them with a person of an other cultural background, a mixture of Gaelic names and traditional names from their culture.) Quite often, a traditionally marginalised nation embracing its heritage is a perfectly innocent attempt to carve out some space for themselves as themselves, a space which has been traditionally denied to them by more powerful entities. Shopping for names from Peru to Finland is a privilege uniquely granted to those whose culture is so secure in its hegemony as to allow such indulgence in exoticism that, apparently, you presume to be "internationalist".Indeed. It's worth noting that in the 19th and early 20th centuries that the Albanians had to struggle for things as basic as an alphabet and the usage of Albanian language in schools and administration.

In his book The Anglo-American Threat to Albania, Hoxha notes that: "Like many other countries, Albania has not been recognized by any of those different British governments which have safeguarded the domination of British capital over the peoples and the world, as a state and a country which, through innumerable efforts and sacrifices through the centuries, have fought against various invaders, to be free and sovereign, but on the contrary, the inhabitants of this 'Land of the Eagles' have been considered a savage, barbarous people, without culture, at a time when, despite their small numbers, these people have been indomitable and no less cultured than the people of Scotland or Cornwall." (p. 6.)

In addition: "The British bourgeoisie even used Darwin's scientific theory to justify the monstrous crimes it committed. Distorting this theory, it invented 'social Darwinism' to 'prove' that a bigger and more powerful people should eliminate or assimilate a smaller people, hence, it supported the reactionary concept that 'the big fish eats the small.'" (p. 8.)

I'd like to see someone reconcile "Hoxha was a fascist" with what he actually wrote.

On a coincidental note, "Albania" is a Latin word. The actual name the Albanians themselves use is Shqipëria. This is amusing only because Scotland was also called "Albania" at one point long ago in history, which came from "Alba" and later morphed into Albany. Lord Byron also liked to compare Albania with Scotland, and was one of Hoxha's favorite poets.