A certain quote from Enver Hoxha?

[The Man]

I'm trying to find a quote that Enver Hoxha said. He said it like this I believe: "It's a compliment to be called a Stalinist." I've searched google and stuff and couldn't find it.. (Ismail can you help me :laugh:?) So you guys can copy and paste the quote below.. Thanks!

[Ismail]

"The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." (Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 234-235.)

[A.J.]

I'm trying to find a quote that Enver Hoxha said. He said it like this I believe: "It's a compliment to be called a Stalinist." I've searched google and stuff and couldn't find it.. (Ismail can you help me :laugh:?) So you guys can copy and paste the quote below.. Thanks!

"Anti-Stalinism is an elaborate cover for opportunism" - Yours Truly

[Rafiq]

I don't think it's a compliment to adhere the name of a Man who was the head of state of an already degenerated Soviet Union. Even if one takes into account that he did the best he could, you still have to realize that his theories put into practice are failures (socialism in one country) and blaming revisionism is simply Idealist. They revised the Soviet System for a reason, not just because they're assholes because they feel like it

[Ismail]

They revised the Soviet System for a reason, not just because they're assholes because they feel like itCare to explain what their "reasons" (supposedly forced upon them) were? The only argument I've heard was that the masses hated Stalin so much that they were just about to break free from the millions of gulags and rise up to destroy the whole system or something. Or, to use ComradeOm's academic terminology, Stalin presided over a "coercive economy" which had to be toned down to save "Stalinism." This is then tied into supporting the right-wing argument that socialism cannot coexist with periods of decline in the standard of living, which was something promoted by Bukharin, Khrushchev, Deng, etc. It then ends in "well the living standards of workers were raised after Stalin" which thus leads us to "Stalin was evil and wanted workers to starve."

[Rafiq]

Care to explain what their "reasons" (supposedly forced upon them) were? The only argument I've heard was that the masses hated Stalin so much that they were just about to break free from the millions of gulags and rise up to destroy the whole system or something. Or, to use ComradeOm's academic terminology, Stalin presided over a "coercive economy" which had to be toned down to save "Stalinism." This is then tied into supporting the right-wing argument that socialism cannot coexist with periods of decline in the standard of living, which was something promoted by Bukharin, Khrushchev, Deng, etc. It then ends in "well the living standards of workers were raised after Stalin" which thus leads us to "Stalin was evil and wanted workers to starve."

Perhaps Stalin's method of economic planning could not repair the country in time, not to mention all of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise there were no Famines after Khrushchev's policies (I'm not an idiot, I won't say the famines were all Stalin's fault, they weren't).

And perhaps the reason Khrushchev did what he did was the same Reason Ronald Reagan did what he did: The Soviet Union already had formed an internal contradiction, meaning that a dialectical contradiction between the workers and the state had already formed twenty years prior.

Khrushchev did what he did as a member of the Soviet Bourgeoisie, nothing less. Perhaps Stalin would have done the same.

But yes, I'd much rather have some sort of welfare state of workers cooperatives in one country than Socialism in one country, which, if you ask me, is more revisionist than anything Khrushchev did.

Socialism cannot exist surrounding by hoards of Imperialist nations. Stalin, was a man who refused to believe that, and, Jesus Christ, with being invaded by over 17 countries and than later on Nazi Germany, he sure gave fate the finger.

However, after that, you can't expect the country to collapse at least sometime, not to mention all the cold war spending.

And, pardon me, was it not Stalin that allowed more private buisness to lurk in the USSR?

[Ismail]

It's no surprise there were no Famines after Khrushchev's policies (I'm not an idiot, I won't say the famines were all Stalin's fault, they weren't).Are you saying there would have been famines under Stalin after the war (and, obviously, after the war-related famine)? I mean I would have thought that the famines wouldn't occur since, you know, collectivization and the mechanization of agriculture.


Khrushchev did what he did as a member of the Soviet Bourgeoisie, nothing less. Perhaps Stalin would have done the same.Stalin's work Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR was denounced as "left-deviationist" after he died, and Khrushchev for instance began selling tractors to collectives, something Stalin explicitly criticized in his book.


And, pardon me, was it not Stalin that allowed more private buisness to lurk in the USSR?Uh, no? The NEP was ended under Stalin. There were some foreign businesses, but that was a policy started by Lenin.