Hoxhaism

[Impulse97]

Hey all. Been reading up on 'Ole Hoxy and thought it best to ask some questions and clarify some stuff before continuing.

So far I really like what I see, except that it seems to follow the more authoritarian line of Stalinism. I can see a need for structure n a Socialist state, but not repression and tyranny.

Well, here's the meat of it.

1) Is Hoxha and his ism repressive? E.g. does it jail political opponents rather liberally and generally discourage freedom of speech, assembly, workers democracy etc. etc.?

2) How much does the governemt interfere with the average citizens daily life?

3) What are Hoxhaism's general views on bureaucracy and cult of personality?

4) Do Hoxhaists support Stalin, but remain critical of mistakes and shortcomings or do they support him unconditionally?

5) How compatible is it with Luxembourg's theory's?

Well, that's all I can think of for now. Any input is greatly appreciated.

I'd also like to get a Khrushchev Revisionist's input on Hoxhaism.

Much, obliged.

[The Man]

Hey all. Been reading up on 'Ole Hoxy and thought it best to ask some questions and clarify some stuff before continuing.

So far I really like what I see, except that it seems to follow the more authoritarian line of Stalinism. I can see a need for structure n a Socialist state, but not repression and tyranny.

Well, here's the meat of it.

1) Is Hoxha and his ism repressive? E.g. does it jail political opponents rather liberally and generally discourage freedom of speech, assembly, workers democracy etc. etc.?

2) How much does the governemt interfere with the average citizens daily life?

3) What are Hoxhaism's general views on bureaucracy and cult of personality?

4) Do Hoxhaists support Stalin, but remain critical of mistakes and shortcomings or do they support him unconditionally?

5) How compatible is it with Luxembourg's theory's?

Well, that's all I can think of for now. Any input is greatly appreciated.

I'd also like to get a Khrushchev Revisionist's input on Hoxhaism.

Much, obliged.

As a Hoxhaist myself, I will attempt to answer these questions.


To answer one and two in a simple answer, let's just say that Albania actually 100% BANNED religion (I do not support this standpoint), so most of the citizens of Socialist Albania were Agnostics. I believe it was law that each citizen must have a cache of weapons in each home, so as you can see Freedom of Religion was not welcome, and standardized military training for all citizens was necessary as well (In case of NATO/USSR invasion). Worker's Democracy/Councils were prominent in Albania, in fact, here is a picture of a Workers' Council meeting in Socialist Albania under Hoxha:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?groupid=7&pictureid=7320

We are Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists who are quite fond of Stalin, his ideals, and his works. Hoxhaism isn't necessarily compatible with Luxemburgism or Left Communism because Hoxhaism is a 'Stalinist' ideology.

[Impulse97]

As a Hoxhaist myself, I will attempt to answer these questions.


To answer one and two in a simple answer, let's just say that Albania actually 100% BANNED religion (I do not support this standpoint), so most of the citizens of Socialist Albania were Agnostics. I believe it was law that each citizen must have a cache of weapons in each home, so as you can see Freedom of Religion was not welcome, and standardized military training for all citizens was necessary as well (In case of NATO/USSR invasion). Worker's Democracy/Councils were prominent in Albania, in fact, here is a picture of a Workers' Council meeting in Socialist Albania under Hoxha:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?groupid=7&pictureid=7320

We are Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists who are quite fond of Stalin, his ideals, and his works. Hoxhaism isn't necessarily compatible with Luxemburgism or Left Communism because Hoxhaism is a 'Stalinist' ideology.

In bold is what I can't agree with. No one should be forced to do these things. Suggested, with rewards for completion sure, but not forced.

Could you or another Hoxhaist elaborate on the stance on Stalin? Do you admit mistakes and shortcomings?

EDIT: Took this from Wikipedia. Will oppressive, totalitarian things be common in a modern Hoxhaist revolution/state?



Certain clauses in the 1976 constitution effectively circumscribed the exercise of political liberties that the government interpreted as contrary to the established order.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-67) In addition, the government denied the population access to information other than that disseminated by the government-controlled media. The Sigurimi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigurimi) (Albanian secret police) routinely violated the privacy of persons, homes, and communications and made arbitrary arrests. Internally, the Sigurimi followed the repressive methods of the NKVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD), MGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_for_State_Security_%28Soviet_Union%29), KGB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB), and the East German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Germany) Stasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi). "Its activities permeated Albanian society to the extent that every third citizen had either served time in labour camps or been interrogated by Sigurimi officers."[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-68) To eliminate dissent, the government imprisoned thousands in forced-labour camps or executed them for crimes such as alleged treachery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery) or for disrupting the proletarian dictatorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_dictatorship). Travel abroad was forbidden after 1968 to all but those on official business. West European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_European) culture was looked upon with deep suspicion, resulting in arrests and in bans on unauthorised foreign material.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-69) Art was made to reflect the styles of socialist realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism).[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-70) Beards were banned as unhygienic and to curb the influence of Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) (many Imams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imams) and Babas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bektashi) had beards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beard#Islam)) and the Orthodox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Christianity) faith.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-71)
All Albanians were required to obtain permits for the ownership of cars (which did not fall under private property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property)[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-72)), refrigerators and typewriters among other things.[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-73) The justice system regularly degenerated into show trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Show_trials). "...[The defendant] was not permitted to question the witnesses and that, although he was permitted to state his objections to certain aspects of the case, his objections were dismissed by the prosecutor who said, 'Sit down and be quiet. We know better than you.'"[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-74) In order to lessen the threat of political dissidents and other exiles, relatives of the accused were often arrested, ostracised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracised), and accused of being "enemies of the people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_people)"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#cite_note-75)

[ComradeGrant]

Is the lack of a picture of a worker's council supposed to be ironic or did my computer fail to load it or what?

[Ismail]

The picture probably won't show for those not in the Hoxhaist group on RevLeft or something. It only shows the National Liberation Councils established during the 1942-1946 period. They were replaced by People's Councils afterwards. Both were structured somewhat like Soviets, but they weren't much more than glorified administrative districts in practice.


1) Is Hoxha and his ism repressive? E.g. does it jail political opponents rather liberally and generally discourage freedom of speech, assembly, workers democracy etc. etc.?"Is Hoxha"? Hoxha isn't a "thing," he lived from 1908-1985. Anyway that's a ridiculous question.


2) How much does the governemt interfere with the average citizens daily life?Ridiculous question. Socialism brings the liberation of the proletariat. It "interferes" as much as socialism interferes.


3) What are Hoxhaism's general views on bureaucracy and cult of personality?"It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works Vol. 32, 1970, pp. 56-57.)

"Marx condemned the cult of the individual as something sickening. The individual plays a role in history, sometimes indeed a very important one, but for us Marxists this role is a minor one compared with the role of the popular masses, which make history, carry out the revolution, and build socialism and communism. For us Marxist-Leninists the role of the individual is a minor one also in comparison with the major role of the communist party, which stands at the head of the masses and leads them." (E. Hoxha, Reflections on China Vol. I, 1979, p. 223. Bold in the original.)


4) Do Hoxhaists support Stalin, but remain critical of mistakes and shortcomings or do they support him unconditionally?No one is perfect. Pro-Albanian groups support Stalin as a defender of Leninism and as a man who more or less worked to build socialism in the USSR. We do not agree with most Maoist criticisms of Stalin.


5) How compatible is it with Luxembourg's theory's?About as much as Lenin or Stalin's views were. That is to say, not at all.

[Impulse97]

The picture probably won't show for those not in the Hoxhaist group on RevLeft or something. It only shows the National Liberation Councils established during the 1942-1946 period. They were replaced by People's Councils afterwards. Both were structured somewhat like Soviets, but they weren't much more than glorified administrative districts in practice.

"Is Hoxha"? Hoxha isn't a "thing," he lived from 1908-1985. Anyway that's a ridiculous question.

Ridiculous question. Socialism brings the liberation of the proletariat. It "interferes" as much as socialism interferes.

Next time I'll make sure to post this in the ridiculous question subforum. >.<

Anyhoo, what I meant by the those is do Hoxhaists, who take from Hoxha, advocate or allow repression? He seemed to go against that cult thing as time went on. Not to mention his repression towards the end. Granted these are Cap sources, but it still concerned me. Socialism may bring the liberation of the peoples, but who implements it and how can negate some of this.



"It will take decades to overcome the evils of bureaucracy. It is a very difficult struggle, and anyone who says we can rid ourselves of bureaucratic practices overnight by adopting anti-bureaucratic platforms is nothing but a quack with a bent for fine words." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works Vol. 32, 1970, pp. 56-57.)

"Marx condemned the cult of the individual as something sickening. The individual plays a role in history, sometimes indeed a very important one, but for us Marxists this role is a minor one compared with the role of the popular masses, which make history, carry out the revolution, and build socialism and communism. For us Marxist-Leninists the role of the individual is a minor one also in comparison with the major role of the communist party, which stands at the head of the masses and leads them." (E. Hoxha, Reflections on China Vol. I, 1979, p. 223. Bold in the original.)

Good, very good.



No one is perfect. Pro-Albanian groups support Stalin as a defender of Leninism and as a man who more or less worked to build socialism in the USSR. We do not agree with most Maoist criticisms of Stalin.

No one is, but we cannot deny mistakes and the fact that they need fixing to ensure a better socialist future.

[Ismail]

We don't mind repression of the bourgeoisie and anti-communist elements. The way it went about in Albania and the USSR had errors and caused unnecessary alienation at times.

[Impulse97]

We don't mind repression of the bourgeoisie and anti-communist elements. The way it went about in Albania and the USSR had errors and caused unnecessary alienation at times.


Okay, thats understandable, but do you condone torture on these elements? Or a more relaxed method of keeping them from starting a counter revolution.

What would one have to do to incur the wrath of the state? Could I speak out against the state without fear of imprisonment?

Sorry for all the questions, but I want a very clear and throughout picture of this school of thought and how it will be implemented.

[Ismail]

Well all "Hoxhaism" is, more or less, is Marxism-Leninism. Obviously modern-day "Hoxhaists" are going to try to learn from mistakes. There's no set doctrines on torture or "freedom of speech" (a rather broad term.) Obviously no one is going to say "freedom of speech should be outlawed."

[Тачанка]

"Is Hoxha"? Hoxha isn't a "thing," he lived from 1908-1985. Anyway that's a ridiculous question.

... to which you don't even answer.


Ridiculous question. Socialism brings the liberation of the proletariat. It "interferes" as much as socialism interferes.
And how much? Instead of discarding his question as "ridiculous", why not answer?


No one is perfect. Pro-Albanian groups support Stalin as a defender of Leninism and as a man who more or less worked to build socialism in the USSR.
How did he work? Was he a miner? A farmer? :lol:

Ban on abolition, ban of homosexual practices in 1933. Up to 5 years of hard labor for gays. Not to mention the anti semitic progroms, doctor's plot, closure of mosques and all that kind of bullshit.

Let's see what Lenin has to say about anti semitism:
youtube watch?v=XZzOgFY45s8&feature=related
(I can't yet post links I think)
Deport them there, now here, and back there - Fuck yeah, my name's Stalin, I'm a man of steel, and head of the state. Of course, my followers will say that I had nothing to do with anything evil, and if I did, they say it was neccessary! :D


About as much as Lenin or Stalin's views were. That is to say, not at all.
But Luxemburg was what someone would later call a leninist(rather, marxist)... she was even much more of what some on here call leninist than Lenin was. Or else she wouldn't have supported the october revolution, the bolshevik party, nor Lenin, right?

Lenin's and Stalin's views are different, though, and Hoxha's in conclusion too (since he's a baby-Stalin)

Bolshevik original position, Lenin's position: Building socialism in Russia will be impossible without the help of the international proletariat, because it would be, sooner or later, isolated from the rest of the world and implode because of the pressure and the need for a better-paid privileged elite. (Or else they would GTFO to neighboring, rich countries)

Stalin in 1934: We have achieved socialism in one country.
while women on the street are being imprisoned for selling self-made shoes... and marriages were being done just to get an extra room... where worker's rights like the ones the october revolution created mentioned earlier were suppressed...

Marx' position: Socialism is a higher historical stage than capitalism.
Living standard in the CCCP: Sucked compared to capitalist hellholes like America. Illiteracy still going. Stalin happy with the new "soviet millionaires" coming up, as a sign of a healthy economy, according to soviet intelligence.
Equality? Nah.

Also, Kuomintang - never forget. 1927, when Stalin's faction was already de facto the ruling one, the CCCP supported the liberal kuomintang of China against the communists, because they would be pro-Soviet Union, at least that's what they thought... They later butchered commies all over the place.

[Uncle Rob]

Hey all. Been reading up on 'Ole Hoxy and thought it best to ask some questions and clarify some stuff before continuing.

So far I really like what I see, except that it seems to follow the more authoritarian line of Stalinism. I can see a need for structure n a Socialist state, but not repression and tyranny.

There are a couple problems with this. First I would like to address briefly the idea of authoritarianism. I quote from Engels' "On Authority"

A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

The dictatorship of the proletariat must use it's power to oppress all it's opponents by force or otherwise, just as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie does to it's opponents. If you do not like the idea of this then you cannot call yourself a socialist.

Secondly, what you call "Stalinism" is not a trend of socialism. Stalin made no major theoretical contributions to Marxism. We study Stalin insofar as to gain a greater understanding of the process of building socialism and the means of which the dictatorship of the proletariat must exercise to maintain it's position as the ruling force of society.




1) Is Hoxha and his ism repressive? E.g. does it jail political opponents rather liberally and generally discourage freedom of speech, assembly, workers democracy etc. etc.?

Single men do not embody the initiative of the masses. As was stated earlier, individuals do play their part but ultimately it's whole classes the move history. That being said, Hoxha did support the dictatorship of the proletariat which means political repression of dissidents, the jailing of political opponents, and the abolition of freedom of speech. This is not because Hoxha thought it was a good idea (he did) but because history has given us a clear picture that once the bourgeoisie has lost it's position of the ruling class, their struggle against the new masters (the working class) intensifies. It is of practical measure that the workers exercise steadfast and decisive measures against counter-revolutionary attempts and that means political suppression. Albeit, we can congratulate Hoxha for having been able to exercise more workers democracy than any other Socialist state preceding including the U.S.S.R.



2) How much does the governemt interfere with the average citizens daily life?

Considering the Soviets and other working class bodies as well as the communist party are the regulating forces of the economy (and therefore society in general) we can say a great deal of it, if not all. I agree with Ismail's stance on this question.



3) What are Hoxhaism's general views on bureaucracy and cult of personality?

"Hoxhaism" is not a trend is socialism either. Like Stalin, he made no theoretical contributions to Marxism other than a strong emphasis on anti-revsionism which any Marxist-Leninist should have in the first place. Both Stalin and Hoxha were Marxist-Leninists

Further, bureaucracy is an unfortunate consequence of any large economy. We draw an example from the Paris commune in combating it by making political representatives subject to recall at anytime unquestionably, which aids in fighting it. As for the cult of personality, to support anything of the sort his disgustingly anti-Marxist. Both Hoxha and Stalin recognized this, however we reserve the right to criticism Stalin for not dealing with his cult as much as he should have.



4) Do Hoxhaists support Stalin, but remain critical of mistakes and shortcomings or do they support him unconditionally?

Any Marxist should be critical of all mass leaders and to learn from their mistakes. To not do so is to treat history unscientifically and consequently it is anti-Marxist. I do not "support" Stalin per-say I do however think he has merit. If we look at what he did during his time at head of the Soviet Union we see him make attacks upon the bourgeoisie and bourgeois property relations. This alone signifies he had the working classes interests at heart and dispite his pitfalls (there are a few) ultimately I see him as a positive influence upon the world communist movement as did Hoxha. There is a good point of view by Bruce Franklin in an introduction he wrote. you can download the pdf here: http://redstarlibrary.org/?p=955



5) How compatible is it with Luxembourg's theory's?

I'm not terribly familiar with Luxembourg so I can not give a definitive answer to this.

[Ismail]

... to which you don't even answer.I can't answer ridiculous, broad questions.


How did he work? Was he a miner? A farmer?Was Lenin?


Ban on abolition,There were public discussions on it before it was restricted. (See Popular Opinion in Stalin's Russia by Sarah Davies)

No doubt it was a negative event, though.

But what did the Soviets think of abortion before Stalin? We might have an answer. In Abortion and Protection of the Human Fetus there is a quote (p. 250) of the Soviet abortion statue established in 1920. It reads as follows: "The worker-peasant government is aware of the whole evil of this phenomenon for the collective. By consolidating the Socialist system and through propaganda against abortions within the female population of the working masses... It envisages the gradual elimination of this phenomenon." Its legality was based on the economic well-being of women being harmed by any illegalization. Accordingly its restriction in 1936 was coupled with some benefits (http://www.red-channel.de/books/abortion.htm) to women who kept children, though of course many women still felt economic hardship regardless.


ban of homosexual practices in 1933.Homosexuality was seen as a practice that would go away with time. When it didn't, hostility to it within Soviet society rose. Soviet society at large was highly intolerant of homosexuality at this time, and Russian society still remains highly homophobic in the main. Lenin and Trotsky were hardly radical on issues of sexuality, and neither spoke out in defense of the legalization of homosexuality at any point, nor did Trotsky comment on its illegalization in the 1930's.


Not to mention the anti semitic progroms, doctor's plotWell first of all let us look at what Stalin thought of anti-semitism. Of course since it's Stalin we need to use both a public and a private source.

Public, 1931: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1931/01/12.htm

Private, 1949 on a rise in anti-semitic attitude in articles: "Why Mal'tsev, and then Rovinskii between brackets? What's the matter here? How long will this continue…? If a man chose a literary pseudonym for himself, it's his right…. But apparently someone is glad to emphasise that this person has a double surname, to emphasise that he is a Jew…. Why create anti-Semitism?" (quoted in The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin by Erik Van Ree, p. 205.)

On the Doctors Plot, Grover Furr summed up (http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/factionalism_ginzburg_lies1109.html) the situation:



The "Doctors' Plot" case had nothing to do with Stalin.

Ferociously anticommunist and anti-Stalin researcher Gennadiy Kostyrchenko exposed the supposed "plan" to execute the Doctors and exile Soviet Jews in 2003, in an article titled "Deportatsiia -- Mistifikatsiia" in the Russian Jewish journal Lekhaim in September 2002 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.lechaim.ru/ARHIV/125/kost.htm).
According to anti-Stalin Soviet dissident Zhores Medvedev it was the aged Stalin who put an end to this case (Stalin i evreiskaia problema. Chapter "Stalin i 'delo vrachei'" (http://www.anonym.to/?http://scepsis.ru/library/id_1753.html)).
According to Stalin's daughter Svetlana Allilueva (Twenty Letters To A Friend, Letter 18 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://vlastitel.com.ru/stalin/itog/doch/18.html)) Stalin didn't believe the charges against the Doctors anyway.


Nobody can find any examples of "bestial anti-Semitism" during Stalin's time. Kostyrchenko himself, and the far-right "Memorial" organization, published a book titled State Antisemitism in the USSR. But they don't have any examples of it during Stalin's time.

In 1999 an official volume of documents on Beria was published (Lavrentii Beriia. 1953. Moscow, 1999, pp. 21-23), in which it was revealed that: it was Beria who


had the Doctors' case dismissed, and
proposed a resolution to the Presidium (name for the Politburo after October 1952) criticizing Ignat'ev, head of the MGB, for permitting these falsifications and beatings of the prisoners.

(These documents are now online in Russian at http://labazov.livejournal.com/655083.html#cutid2 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://labazov.livejournal.com/655083.html#cutid2) GF 11.15.09)
After Beria had been arrested (or killed -- we can't be sure which) Khrushchev had Ignat'ev restored to a leading post, and even named him as a "victim" in his infamous "Secret Speech" at the 20th Party Congress (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marx.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm) (click on the link and search for "Ignatiev" to find this passage - GF)
Deport them there, now here, and back there - Fuck yeah, my name's Stalin, I'm a man of steel, and head of the state.On deportations during WWII see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=5042


But Luxemburg was what someone would later call a leninist(rather, marxist)... she was even much more of what some on here call leninist than Lenin was. Or else she wouldn't have supported the october revolution, the bolshevik party, nor Lenin, right?Stalin viewed Luxemburg as a Marxist revolutionary who made various errors and distortions on the subject of Lenin's views of national self-determination and such. Pretty much all Marxist-Leninists regard Luxemburg as a progressive figure in this sense. Stalin, apparently, read a fair bit of Luxemburg's works too (although obviously disagreeing with them.)


Bolshevik original position, Lenin's position: Building socialism in Russia will be impossible without the help of the international proletariat, because it would be, sooner or later, isolated from the rest of the world and implode because of the pressure and the need for a better-paid privileged elite.I invite you to view my replies in this thread on Lenin and Stalin's views: http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-one-countryi-t154339/index.html?t=154339


Also, Kuomintang - never forget. 1927, when Stalin's faction was already de facto the ruling one, the CCCP supported the liberal kuomintang of China against the communists, because they would be pro-Soviet Union, at least that's what they thought... They later butchered commies all over the place.1927 was a blunder. In his private letters to Molotov (Stalin's Letters to Molotov: 1925-1936) amongst other sources it's clear that he was upset at the coup, and initially even blamed the CCP for supposedly failing to adhere to Comintern directives, which Stalin said would have prevented the coup. The USSR clearly worked afterwards to rectify its mistakes in this regard.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think that Hoxhaism was the last holdout of orthodox Stalinism. That is, a highly autarkic and statified capitalism, that enlisted a bureaucratic-ideological capitalist class to attempt to complete the extensive growth tasks of a post-WW I national capital. When this system could not be sustained against the tide of history, then it collapsed into neoliberal, internationally-integrated capitalism, much to the chagrin of the working class, whose living standards predictably collapsed.

[Impulse97]

I think that Hoxhaism was the last holdout of orthodox Stalinism. That is, a highly autarkic and statified capitalism, that enlisted a bureaucratic-ideological capitalist class to attempt to complete the extensive growth tasks of a post-WW I national capital. When this system could not be sustained against the tide of history, then it collapsed into neoliberal, internationally-integrated capitalism, much to the chagrin of the working class, whose living standards predictably collapsed.


Could you provide some more specific examples and details? Sources if possible.

Also, lets try and stay on topic.

[Impulse97]

Assume there is a pure Marxist-Leninist state and answer the following based on this assumption. I'd like responses from several people.

- Define a dissident worthy of political suppression.

- Explain the treatment of political prisoners in general.

- Is torture acceptable for political opponents?

- Will media in all forms be restricted or altered by the state to ensure no counterrevolutionary programs are shown or will they be open source, so to speak. Worker content, worker run and made with only government regulations to ensure the worst reactionary crap is kept off the air. Not private enterprise mind you.

- Will there be a repressive state police force, e.g. Stasi, KGB etc. etc. and how much power will state police and military forces have over the citizens.

In short I want to see if the mistakes of the past can be fixed in ML or if they are merely baggage doomed to reappear.

[Ismail]

- Define a dissident worthy of political suppression.Fascism, anti-communism.


- Explain the treatment of political prisoners in general.Ideally, reform.


- Is torture acceptable for political opponents?No.


- Will media in all forms be restricted or altered by the state to ensure no counterrevolutionary programs are shown or will they be open source, so to speak. Worker content, worker run and made with only government regulations to ensure the worst reactionary crap is kept off the air. Not private enterprise mind you.I would imagine that media would be state-run and operated. Maybe it'd be partially open-source. It would depend.


- Will there be a repressive state police force, e.g. Stasi, KGB etc. etc. and how much power will state police and military forces have over the citizens.The NKVD and the Sigurimi had good reasons for existing. Namely, to ensure the security of the state. I'm sure though that security forces won't operate the same as these did in new states. Also since the working class controls the state machinery, I'd imagine they'd have some oversight.


In short I want to see if the mistakes of the past can be fixed in ML or if they are merely baggage doomed to reappear.This is assuming that "mistakes" somehow invalidate Marxism-Leninism.

[Тачанка]

Lol @ your private invitation to reply. Like I don't have better stuff to do.
You know, there are some who are actually politically active, and not just chilling on RevLeft with his other baby Stalins who thank each others post, backing each other while just stroking each others E-Peen.


I can't answer ridiculous, broad questions.
Because you yourself follow a ridiculous pet of Stalin.


Was Lenin?Did I say he worked in the literal sense of work? Rhetorical back and forth. You're avoiding the question, Stalin literly sat on his ass with his bourgeois butt buddies in awesome white suits, chilling in restaurants and the like while the population was starving.
Maybe you should chill with Roosevelt sometime too, or like your beloved Mao with Nixon at tea time.



Homosexuality was seen as a practice that would go away with time. When it didn't, hostility to it within Soviet society rose. Soviet society at large was highly intolerant of homosexuality at this time, and Russian society still remains highly homophobic in the main. Ah, because society is homophobic, we must be so, as PROGRESSIVE COMMIES, too? That's deeply reactionary of you, to excuse it with "society hated homos"


Well first of all let us look at what Stalin thought of anti-semitism. Of course since it's Stalin we need to use both a public and a private source.

Private, 1949 on a rise in anti-semitic attitude in articles: "Why Mal'tsev, and then Rovinskii between brackets? What's the matter here? How long will this continue…? If a man chose a literary pseudonym for himself, it's his right…. But apparently someone is glad to emphasise that this person has a double surname, to emphasise that he is a Jew…. Why create anti-Semitism?" (quoted in The Political Thought of Joseph Stalin by Erik Van Ree, p. 205.)

On the Doctors Plot, Grover Furr the situation:
Since you give me this many stalinist links, here, have some Trotsky: (I know you won't read it) marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/02/therm.htm



I invite you to view my replies in this thread on Lenin and Stalin's views:
Thank you


1927 was a blunder. In his private letters to Molotov (Stalin's Letters to Molotov: 1925-1936) amongst other sources it's clear that he was upset at the coup, and initially even blamed the CCP for supposedly failing to adhere to Comintern directives, which Stalin said would have prevented the coup. The USSR clearly worked afterwards to rectify its mistakes in this regard.Of course he was upset, his allies betrayed him. Should've known before he sided with bourgeois forces (like the 3242343 times the baby-Stalins did later, never forget League of Nations)

The USSR didn't work though. Germany doesn't work, China doesn't work. Workers work. so wat, did the workers work towards a socialist future or was it just baby-Stalin(Mao, the one you adhere) with support from the baby-Stalins in the USSR? Not saying it wasn't better than the liberal, japanese shit they had earlier, but to be a satellite state of a reactionary clique, slaughtering thousands of communists in the USSR isn't the best thing either.

Oh, and you mad that even North Korea fought "revisionism" better than Hoxha's Albania? This whole Juche seems to be better than the maoism you follow...:thumbup1: Not like that says much, though.

[Ismail]

Lol @ your private invitation to reply. Like I don't have better stuff to do.Not really "private" considering I commented on your profile. You just joined the forum, I figured you might be a bit new at things. I expected a response as normal as any other.


or like your beloved Mao with Nixon at tea time."Beloved"? Hoxha certainly wasn't a big fan of Mao, or Nixon. In fact the first breach between Albania and China occurred because Nixon visited China.


Ah, because society is homophobic, we must be so, as PROGRESSIVE COMMIES, too? That's deeply reactionary of you, to excuse it with "society hated homos"Marx, who dedicated himself to the liberation of mankind, was a firm believer in phrenology (http://www.believeallthings.com/248/karl-marx-and-phrenology/). Apparently people are progressive only if they have modern knowledge at their fingertips, even if they lived over 50 or more years ago. Homosexuality at best was regarded by 1920's and 30's Communists as a disease that would go away under socialism, hardly a non-homophobic viewpoint.


Since you give me this many stalinist links, here, have some Trotsky: (I know you won't read it) marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/02/therm.htmI gave irrefutable evidence Stalin criticized anti-Semitism both publicly and privately. You tell me to read Trotsky, and I see no reason to change what I wrote. Trotsky claimed near the end of his life that Stalin "might have" poisoned (http://www.libertymagazine.com/mysteries_trotsky.htm) Lenin, and that has more or less the same amount of "evidence" as that link.


(Mao, the one you adhere)Here's Hoxha on Mao (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2093917&postcount=109), the man I supposedly "admire": "Mao Zedong should not be described as a 'prophet' of the revolutions, but a 'prophet of the counterrevolutions.' He represents the type of an anarchist who has confusion in his blood, chaos, the undermining of the dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism, but on the condition that this permanent anarchy be led by him or by his typical Chinese anarchist ideology. Mao Zedong is a Chinese Bakunin. The cultural revolution was an illustration of the ideas and actions of this Chinese Bakunin."


Oh, and you mad that even North Korea fought "revisionism" better than Hoxha's Albania? This whole Juche seems to be better than the maoism you follow... Not like that says much, though.Hoxha wasn't a Maoist, so I don't see where you're going with this. Hoxha certainly wasn't fond of Kim Il Sung (who he called a "vacillating revisionist megalomaniac") or Juche either.

I must say it was probably a mistake to have asked you to reply, considering that you seem quite bad at debate.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

your beloved Mao

Mao, the one you adhere

the maoism you follow

Just as a side note, Ismail and most "Hoxhaists" are not Maoists and see Mao as a revisionist.

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

[RED DAVE]

The NKVD and the Sigurimi had good reasons for existing.:crying:

RED DAVE

[Impulse97]

Lol @ your private invitation to reply. Like I don't have better stuff to do.
You know, there are some who are actually politically active, and not just chilling on RevLeft with his other baby Stalins who thank each others post, backing each other while just stroking each others E-Peen.

Yea, I know, but the people on this board are fantastic at getting off topic as you've just done. I just stated that I'd like to see a variety of responses, because only seeing the opinion of one person is going to get me nowhere. I want to make an informed decision on this school of thought.

Moving on....

Thanks Ismail that was a good post, it really cleared up a lot of the questions I had.

[Impulse97]

Just as a side note, Ismail and most "Hoxhaists" are not Maoists and see Mao as a revisionist.

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

Thanks for ruining the ending dude.....lol I'm reading that work now and really enjoying it. This guy had some solid ideas. Plus, Lenin is making more sense now too.

[thälmann]

"We fight against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev not because they are Jews but because they are Oppositionists." said stalin according to trotzkys paper because he noticed the rising antisemitism during the fight agains the opposition. is this a proof of his antisemitism??

[Ismail]

:crying:

RED DAVEThey didn't? Really? There weren't efforts to overthrow the Albanian Government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Subversion)? There weren't efforts to overthrow the Soviet Government or foster ethnically-based rebellions? For instance, "While much of the Stalinist hype against foreign spies has been dismissed as nothing more than the subject of Stalinist paranoia or, more cynically, Stalinist political manipulation, documents from US, British and post-Soviet security files have recently confirmed that the Soviets did indeed face a mounting threat of foreign espionage and subversion in the decade preceding the Barbarossa invasion. Soviet xenophobia found a ready justification in rampant foreign intrigues, covert plots to bring Soviet power crashing to the ground." (Jeffrey Burds, "The Soviet War against 'Fifth Columnists': The Case of Chechnya, 1942-4" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf))

[Тачанка]

"We fight against Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev not because they are Jews but because they are Oppositionists." said stalin according to trotzkys paper because he noticed the rising antisemitism during the fight agains the opposition. is this a proof of his antisemitism??

Germany? Hallo my fellow Bratwurst. I thought they teach you how to read closely. Or do you not want to?

[Ismail]

Thanks for ruining the ending dude.....lol I'm reading that work now and really enjoying it. This guy had some solid ideas. Plus, Lenin is making more sense now too.You can find more English-language Hoxha stuff here: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/enver_hoxha_books_on_foreign_languages.htm

[thälmann]

Germany? Hallo my fellow Bratwurst. I thought they teach you how to read closely. Or do you not want to?

what was it that i dont understand? maybe its because of bratwurst cant think or read?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I suspect this is Trotskyist trolling.

Technically speaking though, wouldn't those who can be described as 'Stalinists' be beyond the capability of being 'Baby Stalins' as they not only have Stalin's own thoughts regarding most matters but they have their own as well in combination with Hoxha's and other Anti-Revisionists. Which would-- Make them Super-Stalins. :lol:

Quite honestly though, how could someone accuse a Hoxhaist of being a Maoist? Hoxha was atleast consistent in comparison to Mao.

[graymouser]

Quite honestly though, how could someone accuse a Hoxhaist of being a Maoist? Hoxha was atleast consistent in comparison to Mao.
Aside from the period between the Sino-Soviet split and the Sino-Albanian split when Mao and Hoxha were ideologically close (and nobody was calling themselves Maoists, just Marxist-Leninists), the majority of Hoxhaist parties are splinters from the Maoist movement. The APL is different, but that's what happens when parties form over the internet. For someone not close to the ins and outs, it's a reasonable mistake to make.

[Ismail]

Aside from the period between the Sino-Soviet split and the Sino-Albanian split when Mao and Hoxha were ideologically close (and nobody was calling themselves Maoists, just Marxist-Leninists)They weren't ideologically close. Hoxha in his diaries in the 1960's and 70's clearly had reservations early on about the GPCR, the role of the peasantry in China, Chinese foreign policy, etc. The only thing that united China and Albania were their dual commitments to anti-revisionism against the USSR. The closest Hoxha got to being a Maoist was when he said "mass line" here and there in some speeches.

Before the Sino-Albanian split, Maoists who visited Albania basically saw it as being sorta like the USSR under Stalin, only on a much smaller scale. Again, the only significant thing that came from Maoism was that some commentators discussed how the PLA was supposedly carrying out the "mass line" in some endeavors.

[Roach]

Aside from the period between the Sino-Soviet split and the Sino-Albanian split when Mao and Hoxha were ideologically close (and nobody was calling themselves Maoists, just Marxist-Leninists), the majority of Hoxhaist parties are splinters from the Maoist movement..

Enver Hoxha explained in his major work, that the ''alliance'' with the Chinese Communist Party was only due to Mao's resistance to Soviet Social-Imperialism , and that ''alliance'' lasted so long because the Chinese seemed unwilling to engage in political debate of it's own theoretical stances or publish their literature to the Albanians, in the end Albanian Party of Labour only had a supperficial knowledge of the CCP and the People's Republic of China, a good example of that is how the Albanian cultural revolution was conducted in a completely different manner than it's Chinese counterpart, while this one focused a struggle inside the CCP, between Mao and those he called revisionists, the APL's cultural and ideological revolution succeeded in strengthening the party, destroyed reactionary tribal customs like blood feuds and the code of leke, improved the rigths of women and, of course, culminated with the infamous prohibition of religion.

Using other words, Enver Hoxha could not become a Maoist even if he wanted to.

From ''Imperialism and the Revolution'' :
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm



But why were China, its Communist Party and Mao Tsetung an enigma? They were an enigma because many attitudes, whether general ones or the personal attitudes of Chinese leaders, towards a series of major political, ideological, military, and organizational problems vacillated, at times to the right, at times to the left. Sometimes they were resolute and at times irresolute, there were times, too, when they maintained correct stands, but more often it was their opportunist stands that caught the eye. During the entire period that Mao was alive, the Chinese policy, in general, was a vacillating one, a policy changing with the circumstances, lacking a Marxist-Leninist spinal cord. What they would say about an important political problem today they would contradict tomorrow. In the Chinese policy, one consistent enduring red thread could not be found.


Naturally, all these attitudes attracted our attention and we did not approve them, but nevertheless, from what we knew about the activity of Mao Tsetung, we proceeded from the general idea that he was a Marxist-Leninist. On many of Mao Tsetung's theses, such as that about the handling of the 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, the thesis that "the countryside should encircle the city", which absolutizes the role of the peasantry in the revolution, etc., we had our reservations and our own Marxist-Leninist views, which, whenever we could, we expressed to the Chinese leaders. Meanwhile, certain other political views an stands of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, which were not compatible with the Marxist-Leninist views and stands of our Party, we considered as temporary tactics of a big state, dictated by specific situations. But, with the passage of time, it became ever more clear that the stands maintained by the Communist Party of China were not just tactics.


By analysing the facts, our Party arrived at some general and specific conclusions, which made it vigilant, but it avoided polemics with the Communist Party of China and Chinese leaders, not because it was afraid to engage in polemics with them, but because the facts, which it had about the erroneous, anti-Marxist course of this party and Mao Tsetung himself, were incomplete, and still did not permit the drawing of a final conclusion. On the other hand, for a time, the Communist Party of China did oppose US imperialism and reaction. It also took a stand against Soviet Khrushchevite revisionism, though it is now clear that its struggle against Soviet revisionism was not dictated from correct, principled Marxist-Leninist positions.


Besides this, we did not have full knowledge about the internal political, economic, cultural, social life, etc. in China. The organization of the Chinese party and state have always been a closed book to us. The Communist Party of China gave us no possibility at all to study the forms of organization of the Chinese party and state. We Albanian communists knew only the general outlines of the state organization of China and nothing more; we were given no possibilities to acquaint ourselves with the experience of the party in China, to see how it operated, how it was organized, in what directions things were developing in different sectors and what these directions were concretely.


The Chinese leaders have acted with guile. They have not made public many documents necessary for one to know the activity of their party and state. They were and are very wary of publishing their documents. Even those few published documents at our disposal are fragmentary


Some small material on the Albanian cultural and ideological revolution : http://countrystudies.us/albania/40.htm


The APL is different, but that's what happens when parties form over the internet. For someone not close to the ins and outs, it's a reasonable mistake to make.

Is it bad for modern communists to use the newly created forms of communication to organise ? And what do you suggest to the ''Hoxhaist'' parties that splited from Maoist parties, to split more and create thousands of Internationals, like trots ?

[Foreigner]

I must say that, while I am still learning a great deal, I've found this discussion extremely helpful and a springboard for other research. Bookmarked.