Any good biographies of Enver Hoxha?

[Tommy4ever]

Does anyone know a good biography of Hoxha?

[Red Future]

Try asking the Hoxhaists on the forum

[Nox]

Nope, but I can tell you that it is pronounced ho-ja or ho-dza

[Kamos]

If you want to know about Hoxhaism, Ismail is your man. He knows everything about it. (Well, he's the most informative person on the subject that I've seen, anyways.)

[Nox]

If you want to know about Hoxhaism, Ismail is your man. He knows everything about it. (Well, he's the most informative person on the subject that I've seen, anyways.)

I'll vouch for that.

[Gustav HK]

http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/Enver_Hoxha_His_Life_and_Work.pdf

http://www.mltranslations.org/Albania/EnverNL.htm

[Roach]

Enver Hoxha had an auto-biography, a part of the communist literature over his life can be found on-line, the site that Gustav linked is a pretty good one for ''Hoxhaist'' Anti-Revisionism in general, also his memories of his meetings with Stalin, published in 1981, can be found at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/stalin/intro.htm, as well as a small entry on the glossary of Marxists.org, another good ML page is this http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/enver-hoxha-page/, and of course there is some small material on the sites of the ''hoxhaist international'', the CIPOML, and on their parties websites, like the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, the Revolutionary Commmunist Party of Brazil, the Worker's Communist Party of Tunisia, etc. All on their respective languages. Some english translations of CIPOML can be found on the Espresso Stalinist, and on this greek blog: http://anasintaxi-en.blogspot.com/

To make my contribution to this thread, I will repost an article from Ml-translation, from the German Anti-Revisionist newspaper, the Roter Morgen:




Summary and excerpts from Roter Morgen
April, 1991
April 11 - 6th Anniversary of the Death of Comrade Enver Hoxha
Consistent Fighter against Revisionism

Six years ago, on April 11, 1985, Comrade Enver Hoxha died, the great leader of the Party of Labor of Albania, the stubborn fighter against every deviation from Marxism (revisionism), against every degeneration of socialism. Especially today, when his statues are being torn down in Albania and his politics are being thrown overboard, we wish to honor him on the anniversary of his death, by showing some essential aspects of his politics and his achievements.
[Enver Hoxha in his youth experienced the oppression and exploitation of Albania by the numerous occupiers and great powers, and joined the democratic movement, for which he spent some time in jail.
[He spent some time in France, where he was a sympathizer with the CP of France, and published articles in "Humanite" on the Zog regime. He also worked in the Albanian Consulate in Belgium, but was dismissed by Zog's agents, and returned to Albania in 1936.
[The years of struggle had formed Enver Hoxha into a communist. While a teacher in a high school in Korca he became an activist in the communist group of Korca. After the Italian occupation of Albania, by the decision of the group, Hoxha moved to Tirana to develop the anti-fascist struggle. He worked to unite the various communist groups and to found the Communist Party.
[The Albanian Communists struggled actively against fascism, they organized the popular resistance and fought as partisans in the mountains. But the splintering hindered the struggle, and had to be overcome.]

The Communist Party
[Enver Hoxha understood clearly the necessity of building a united, conscious and battle-hardened Party. On November 8, 1941, at a conference of the communist groups of Albania in Tirana, the Communist Party was founded.
[The CPA, which later became the PLA, organized a National Liberation Army to carry out armed struggle against fascism. Besides the CPA, there was no other party or force in Albania that pursued this goal. The CPA made this the goal, not only of the workers, but also of the peasants and handicrafts people.
[In the fight against first the Italian and then the German fascists, 28,000 Albanians were killed, 7.3% of the population were killed or severely wounded, 21% of the houses were destroyed, a third of the livestock were killed, and the few bridges, factories, etc. were destroyed or damaged.]

The Liberation of Albania
[Although 700,000 fascist soldiers set foot on Albanian soil, they were defeated. Comrade Enver Hoxha stood at the head of the CPA and the National Liberation Army. People's Councils were elected. Finally, on November 28, 1944, the Albanian Democratic Government took power. The decades long struggle of the Albanian people for independence and freedom was crowned with success.
[Enver Hoxha and the CPA and the Albanian people had an immense task before them. The Zog regime and the fascists had left nothing behind. There was more than 90% illiteracy, hardly any schools, no industry, etc. Whoever had any bread was considered rich. There were the most reactionary, medieval ideologies and customs such as feuds, feudal relations existed, and women were treated as slaves.
[The Albanian Communists and Enver Hoxha were not daunted, and did what was needed to provide the most urgent necessities for the people. Grain and irrigation were developed to ensure bread. Schools were constructed and skilled workers were trained to provide a minimum of culture and education. Factories, hydroelectric power plants and railroads were built, and the first steps were taken towards creating a modern industry. Health care and hygiene were developed, and doctors and nurses were trained.
[The successes of the first years of the building of the People's Republic surpassed the development of the previous decades many times over. The people had lived in hunger and poverty. Now the country awoke, lived and stepped boldly forward.]

Permanent Struggle
[The Albanian Party soon learned that not everyone who calls himself a communist is one in actuality. Tito had sold himself to Western capital. He wanted to turn Albania into a Yugoslav province. He became an agent of capital in the socialist camp, who wanted to establish his revisionism, his treason to Marxism, in all communist parties.
[The PLA and Albania were directly threatened. Tito and his people already had groups in Albania. Comrade Enver Hoxha defended Marxism against Tito's attack as well as the independence of Albania and the PLA. Together with Stalin and the Communist Information Bureau he lead a resolute struggle against Tito's betrayal.


[B]Modern Albania
[Under Enver Hoxha's leadership Albanian industry and agriculture were continuously developed. The production of their own spare parts, the development of their own power supply, the electrification, their own first steel, an expanding raw materials industry, a growing rail network, their own first tractors - these were all victories. Under Enver Hoxha's leadership Albania moved from a semi-feudal country to an industrial-agricultural one.
[All these successes could only be reached through socialism and a planned economy. Other developing countries could only dream of such successes. The planned economy made it possible to put the few economic reserves in the most important sectors. In Albania the plan was not something dead, but a call to arms. Clearly Albanian industry had not reached the level of the great Western imperialist economies. This was impossible in the conditions of the imperialist world market. But this makes the successes of socialist planned economy even more outstanding.
[The splendid economic development of Albania made social and cultural progress possible which is unthinkable even in many industrial countries. There were no taxes or inflation. Medical care was free and so good that Albania had the lowest infant mortality rate in Europe. Men could retire at 60 and women at 55. Everyone had a roof over their head, even if it was not luxurious. More than 70% of the youth had a high school education. Technical schools and the first university in the country, the Enver Hoxha University, were built. The list could be continued indefinitely.]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Under the leadership of Comrade Enver Hoxha socialism in Albania was constructed and the dictatorship of the proletariat was made a reality. This did not mean a dictatorship of the bureaucrats over the proletariat, but actual rule of the working class. They determined with their party the plan and the course. They could call to account representatives and directors, if they did not operate in the interests of the working people.
The Party consciously placed itself and the state apparatus under the control of the working people. They learned from the results of the degeneration of the Soviet Union and the East European countries. Cadres had to regularly take part in production. New Party members had to be examined carefully by their colleagues. Every functionary could be publicly criticized and had to publicly respond. The Party discussed all important problems with the masses. Only in this way could, the life threatening situations such as, for example, the attempt at annexation by Yugoslavia, the military threats of Khrushchev, the Chinese economic sabotage, be overcome.
Enver Hoxha was a front rank fighter for the close connection of the Albanian Party with the working masses. He struggled untiringly against every form of bureaucratism, all tendencies to degeneration...

Mistakes?
Today Enver Hoxha is pictured in the bourgeois press as a monster, who bloodily suppressed a whole people. The same is done as with Stalin. Everywhere "mistakes" are spoken of and Enver's Albania is attacked.
Naturally Enver made mistakes. How could one have such a long life full of struggle without mistakes. Our Party thinks, for example, that Enver underestimated the economic foundations of revisionism and therefore did not fight them sufficiently. But we do not act as know-it-alls in this regard. We know from our own practice as a communist party who quickly one can make mistakes. And above all: the mistakes weigh nothing in comparison with the accomplishments and successes of Enver Hoxha. Under his leadership Albania was an inspiration for every progressive and revolutionary person in the whole world. Even an anti-communist wave in Albania can not in the long run darken the gains of Enver Hoxha for his country and the world revolution. On the contrary! The quick integration of present day Albania into the capitalist world market will soon bring forward the achievements of Albania under socialism. The shabby reality of reintroduced capitalism: unemployment, exploitation, dependency, poverty and hunger, will bring the work of Comrade Enver Hoxha more strongly to light.

[RED DAVE]

Waiter, gimme a glass of state capitalism. A small glass, please.

RED DAVE

[Nox]

Oh god, RED DAVE's at it again!

[RED DAVE]

Oh god, RED DAVE's at it again!Oh Lord, the Stalinist apologists are at it again.

Been to Nepal lately?

RED DAVE

[Nox]

Oh Lord, the Stalinist apologists are at it again.

Been to Nepal lately?

RED DAVE

Oh no, he's back! :crying:

[Roach]

Oh Lord, the Stalinist apologists are at it again.

Been to Nepal lately?

RED DAVE

As a matter of fact, most ''Hoxhaist'' Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists denounce Maoism as a revisionist tendency, and, consequently are critical of the UCPN, Maoists on their part, reject Enver Hoxha's criticisms of Mao Tse-Tung, including the Maoists from Nepal.

So, to make it simple:

ENVER HOXHA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEPAL.

[Nox]

As a matter of fact, most ''Hoxhaist'' Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists denounce Maoism as a revisionist tendency, and, consequently are critical of the UCPN, Maoists on their part, reject Enver Hoxha's criticisms of Mao Tse-Tung, including the Maoists from Nepal.

So, to make it simple:

ENVER HOXHA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEPAL.

you owned that noob

[The Man]

The American Party of Labor has posted a documentary on youtube about Enver Hoxha and life in Socialist Albania (I highly suggest you watch it).

V_nlWEIWOJA

[RED DAVE]

Maoism, Stalinism and Hoxhaism are all forms of, and justifications for, state capitalism.

Now if you all don't want to share the cake together, that's your business.

RED DAVE

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

So, I tried looking as I thought some were just being lazy or something but I'm actually shocked that there really isn't any biographies on Hoxha.

[Nox]

Maoism, Stalinism and Hoxhaism are all forms of, and justifications for, state capitalism.

Now if you all don't want to share the cake together, that's your business.

RED DAVE

You've already proven that you know very little about our views, stop trying...

And if it's our business, why are you here seeking attention?

[Kamos]

You've already proven that you know very little about our views, stop trying...

And if it's our business, why are you here seeking attention?

Better question, why are you giving him any?

[Gustav HK]

I have also heard of a book called "The artfull Albanian", but I don´t know if it is a biography.

[RED DAVE]

You've already proven that you know very little about our views, stop trying...Do you want me to stop trying to show that Satlinism, Maoism and Hoxhaism have little or nothing to do with socialism?


And if it's our business, why are you here seeking attention?Comrade, I don't have to get attention by refuting ideologies that have holes in them big enough to drive a Mack truck. You attract attention with your ridiculous notions: like the one that Albania was socialist.

If this were so, tell us why there was no massive workers uprising when Albania became capitalism. And tell us why there were no uprisings in the USSR or China?

In Russia after the Revolution, an attempt to reinstate the old system produced a massive civil war, which the workers won.

ETA: The Stalinist counter-revolution, unfortunately confined to the Party, went on until the purges killed off the opposition to state capitalism.

Why did the USSR, China and Albania revert to private capitalism with barely a squeak?

The answer is that these countries were already capitalist, state capitalist. And all that happened in that the workers exchanged one set of bosses for another.

RED DAVE

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Waiter, gimme a glass of state capitalism. A small glass, please.

RED DAVE
Maoism, Stalinism and Hoxhaism are all forms of, and justifications for, state capitalism.

Now if you all don't want to share the cake together, that's your business.

RED DAVE
I don't see how this is relevant to wanting to read a book on Hoxha. He asked for a book on Hoxha, not your political opinion.
I don't like Bakunin and Marx, but I still read biographies on them... You're being a bit obnoxious. I don't like Hoxha, but c'mon Red Dave...

[Tiger Tamer]

As someone who is partly Albanian (My grandparents fled the dictatorship) all I can say is fuck that monster and everyone who likes him.

[Roach]

As someone who is partly Albanian (My grandparents fled the dictatorship) all I can say is fuck that monster and everyone who likes him.


Man, I was going to post something about that, but than I saw the ''about me'' on your profile (enfasis by me):



<LI class=profilefield_category>About Tiger Tamer Interests trollin stalnists Political Statement everything i said about albania i made up.

So, I will just wait you change that and, in a very honest way, say that that all your posts about Albania are true.

[Red Commissar]

I have also heard of a book called "The artfull Albanian", but I don´t know if it is a biography.

This book is a collection of Hoxha's memoirs from what I gather. Basically getting the relevant parts that involve important parts of his life, such as his time in WW II and the break with other Communist leaders. I've actually seen it in my library before, so I may go take a look at it tomorrow to see the exact contents. I'm only concerned because the editor of the collection, Jon Halliday, wrote a rather slanted Mao bio and I'm not sure if he tried to jam the same perspective into the editing of these memoirs. I'll see when I check out the book at the uni library.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Nope, but I can tell you that it is pronounced ho-ja or ho-dza

Funny, I've been pronouncing it hoax-ah.

[RED DAVE]

Maoism, Stalinism and Hoxhaism are all forms of, and justifications for, state capitalism.
I don't see how this is relevant to wanting to read a book on Hoxha. He asked for a book on Hoxha, not your political opinion.
I don't like Bakunin and Marx, but I still read biographies on them... You're being a bit obnoxious. I don't like Hoxha, but c'mon Red Dave...C'mon, Comrade, threads like this wander all over the road. And having some notion in advance of the politics of someone we are reading about is frequently a plus. ;)

RED DAVE

[The Man]

C'mon, Comrade, threads like this wander all over the road. And having some notion in advance of the politics of someone we are reading about is frequently a plus. ;)

RED DAVE

Your a Libertarian Socialist/Anarchist/Left Com/Non-Doctrinaire yet you want to persuade someone from learning about a Marxist-Leninist Leader?

[Red_Struggle]

C'mon, Comrade, threads like this wander all over the road. And having some notion in advance of the politics of someone we are reading about is frequently a plus. ;)

RED DAVE


Why isn't this fucker banned yet? Seriously, this is all you ever do on revleft. You contribute nothing and you stand for nothing.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Your a Libertarian Socialist/Anarchist/Left Com/Non-Doctrinaire yet you want to persuade someone from learning about a Marxist-Leninist Leader?

I think the thread is an excuse for him to say...

"holy shit! didn't yew know!? he was state capitalistztst!?!!11questionmark!!?11one!?!? fooooook himz, omgah, seriously, if only you knew, Nepal took mah babay."

[RED DAVE]

Don't worry, comrades. It's less than two months till your man's birthday (October 16). You can have a pee-party then.

Until then, why not stick to politics.

RED DAVE

[Kamos]

[COLOR=RED]RED DAVE[COLOR]

Lolfail

[RED DAVE]

Lolfailfify

RED DAVE

[Red Commissar]

I'll see when I check out the book at the uni library.

And I have done so. It is basically a selection of Hoxha's memoirs from mostly these sources (according to the editors):

-The Anglo-American Threat to Albania
-The Titoites
-With Stalin
-The Khrushchevites
-Reflections on China, I and II

And again according to the editor, this would approach nearly 3500 pages total, so he has taken what he felt was most relevant to illustrate Hoxha's career and life. In scope, it begins during the resistance in WW II and works its way up to Hoxha's thoughts on Mehmet Shehu's downfall going into the early 1980s. There's also some additions about Hoxha's thoughts on the Kosovo issue and the Corfu Channel Incident (including Britain's subsequent confiscation of Albanian gold that they confiscated from the Nazis).

Thing to keep in mind about this is that since these are ultimately personal accounts, it's going to be from Hoxha's POV obviously.

[thesadmafioso]

Why isn't this fucker banned yet? Seriously, this is all you ever do on revleft. You contribute nothing and you stand for nothing.

Seriously? You are calling for someone to be banned for voicing a rather standard critique of the Soviet Bloc and bringing it up in a topic about a leader closely associated with such ideology? There is no sense in saying that someone doesn't stand for anything just over the fact that they don't stand for what you stand for. Unless of course everything which is not HOXHA or STALIN so far as political theory goes is nothing to you.

If anything I would think you deserve an infraction for using such corrosive and inflammatory language for no justifiable reason.

[Roach]

Seriously? You are calling for someone to be banned for voicing a rather standard critique of the Soviet Bloc and bringing it up in a topic about a leader closely associated with such ideology? There is no sense in saying that someone doesn't stand for anything just over the fact that they don't stand for what you stand for. Unless of course everything which is not HOXHA or STALIN so far as political theory goes is nothing to you.

If anything I would think you deserve an infraction for using such corrosive and inflammatory language for no justifiable reason.

This is pathetic, the OP was asking for biographies of Enver Hoxha, me and other posters gave him some on-line options and commented about some publications, than Red Dave comes with this incredible post:


Waiter, gimme a glass of state capitalism. A small glass, please.

RED DAVE

If he posted some Anti-Hoxha bio, we would have aswered in a proper way, but no, his posts in this thread were nothing but provocations based on an absurd comparisson between ''hoxhaism'' and the nepali maoists, that comparission alone has an aggressive nature, since the line of the Albanian-aligned parties is different and sometimes antagonistic to that of the Maoist CPs, wich is not some obscure fact open only to those who have studied Sino-Albanian history, but a crystal clear fact and one of the main reasons that there is something that you like to call ''hoxhaism''. I will not go too far and say that someone needs to be baned or receive an infraction, but there is no real reason for you to enter this.

[thesadmafioso]

This is pathetic, the OP was asking for biographies of Enver Hoxha, me and other posters gave him some on-line options and commented about some publications, than Red Dave comes with this incredible post:



If he posted some Anti-Hoxha bio, we would have aswered in a proper way, but no, his posts in this thread were nothing but provocations based on an absurd comparisson between ''hoxhaism'' and the nepali maoists, that comparission alone has an aggressive nature, since the line of the Albanian-aligned parties is different and sometimes antagonistic to that of the Maoist CPs, wich is not some obscure fact open only to those who have studied Sino-Albanian history, but a crystal clear fact and one of the main reasons that there is something that you like to call ''hoxhaism''. I will not go too far and say that someone needs to be baned or receive an infraction, but there is no real reason for you to enter this.

I think Red Dave already dealt with this critique in good order in this post.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2216894&postcount=26

I will touch on it momentarily as well though, as it has been mentioned yet again.

He was presenting to the topic a perfectly common and somewhat legitimate criticism of Hoxha, and as the user was asking for suggestions of literature on this figure this could only serve as supplementary information to aid in his apparent desire to develop a more thorough understanding of this historical figure.

I hardly think you would contest the fact that it is always wise to take knowledge into the proper context, and this is all that Red Dave was attempting to facilitate in his initial post which you have so crudely vulgarized as being irrelevant to this discussion.

And though Maoism may differ in many aspects from Hoxhaism, a comparison between the two is not entirely unfounded. The similarities between the two veins of ideological thought are quite striking in many regards, and it is not without base to make an offhand remark which loosely correlates both.

[The Man]

Don't worry, comrades. It's less than two months till your man's birthday (October 16). You can have a pee-party then.

Until then, why not stick to politics.

RED DAVE

Speaking of birthdays, Enver Hoxha and I share the same birthday.

[thesadmafioso]

Speaking of birthdays, Enver Hoxha and I share the same birthday.

I take it that was the deciding factor that drove you over to the glorious ideology of Hoxhaism, right? I mean, it's not like there is really much actual sense to the deviation to actually make someone adopt it just out of reasonable material analysis or anything like that.

[Roach]

He was presenting to the topic a perfectly common and somewhat legitimate criticism of Hoxha, and as the user was asking for suggestions of literature on this figure this could only serve as supplementary information to aid in his apparent desire to develop a more thorough understanding of this historical figure.

This would be true, if he actually presented some kind of source or material to be discussed in this thread, I linked 3 diferent sites, besides refering to possible sources on-line, he just wrote a snide one-liner, that he tried to justify some posts later.



I hardly think you would contest the fact that it is always wise to take knowledge into the proper context, and this is all that Red Dave was attempting to facilitate in his initial post which you have so crudely vulgarized as being irrelevant to this discussion.

I am not stupid enough to believe that was just some simplification of a more complex ideia, that was a bait, it had as an objective to engage in a flame war, I simply refuted the ideia that Maoism in Nepal has something to do with Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninism, without engaging into unnecessary drama.


And though Maoism may differ in many aspects from Hoxhaism, a comparison between the two is not entirely unfounded. The similarities between the two veins of ideological thought are quite striking in many regards, and it is not without base to make an offhand remark which loosely correlates both.

Of course it isn't, but it was not a comparisson between Mao's China and Hoxha's Albania, it was between the Maoists from Nepal and the modern Marxists-Leninists followers of the PLA's line, two ideological trends that splitted from each other in the late 70s.

[Roach]

I take it that was the deciding factor that drove you over to the glorious ideology of Hoxhaism, right? I mean, it's not like there is really much actual sense to the deviation to actually make someone adopt it just out of reasonable material analysis or anything like that.


Of course it was! Hoxhaism is the most mediocre tendency of all of the anti-capitalist left!

I mean, Enver Hoxha never wrote anything besides some speeches, Imperialism and the Revolution, The Kruschevites, The Titoites, Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism, Reflections on the Middle-East, Reflections on China and some more volumes of selected works.

They dont even like to call themselves Hoxhaists, they prefer ''Marxist-Leninists'', those silly bastards never produced any prominent figure besides Bill Bland, João Amazonas, Hamma Hammami or the PCMLE.

[thesadmafioso]

This would be true, if he actually presented some kind of source or material to be discussed in this thread, I linked 3 diferent sites, besides refering to possible sources on-line, he just wrote a snide one-liner, that he tried to justify some posts later.




I am not stupid enough to believe that was just some simplification of a more complex ideia, that was a bait, it had as an objective to engage in a flame war, I simply refuted the ideia that Maoism in Nepal has something to do with Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninism, without engaging into unnecessary drama.



Of course it isn't, but it was not a comparisson between Mao's China and Hoxha's Albania, it was between the Maoists from Nepal and the modern Marxists-Leninists followers of the PLA's line, two ideological trends that splitted from each other in the late 70s.

Yeah, I don't think Red Dave was truly trying to go for an in depth analysis of the finer details between the modern movement in Nepal and traditional Maoist thought, it struck me as being more of a broad quip than anything else. One that was still quite effective at displaying a larger point too.


Of course it was! Hoxhaism is the most mediocre tendency of all of the anti-capitalist left!

I mean, Enver Hoxha never wrote anything besides some speeches, Imperialism and the Revolution, The Kruschevites, The Titoites, Euro-Communism is Anti-Communism, Reflections on the Middle-East, Reflections on China and some more volumes of selected works.

They dont even like to call themselves Hoxhaists, they prefer ''Marxist-Leninists'', those silly bastards never produced any prominent figure besides Bill Bland, João Amazonas, Hamma Hammami or the PCMLE.

Wait, your dear leader wrote about things? What an amazing feat worthy of jubilant celebration! You say he even has volumes of selected works? Oh dear, I may have to stop by my local church of the holy Hoxha and convert today!

Seriously though, the fact that someone wrote about politics doesn't mean they deserve their own personal tendency.

[Roach]

Seriously though, the fact that someone wrote about politics doesn't mean they deserve their own personal tendency.

There is no such a thing you call Hoxhaism, in revleft it is just a name used to differentiate the Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists to the ones aligned to the CSUP's line after the Sino-Soviet split, in some places, like Ecuador, Hoxhaist is a slander.

[thesadmafioso]

There is no such a thing you call Hoxhaism, in revleft it is just a name used to differentiate the Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninists to the ones aligned to the CSUP's line after the Sino-Soviet split, in some places, like Ecuador, Hoxhaist is a slander.

Wait, what? Are you saying Hoxhaism doesn't actually exist in the real world and that it was made up specifically for use on revleft?

Well, this is awkward. I'm just going to sit by and see if Ismail shows up to offer you a lecture on the various different Hoxhaist parties of the world or something along those lines.

[Roach]

Wait, what? Are you saying Hoxhaism doesn't actually exist in the real world and that it was made up specifically for use on revleft?

Well, this is awkward. I'm just going to sit by and see if Ismail shows up to offer you a lecture on the various different Hoxhaist parties of the world or something along those lines.


Strange, because he is probably going to agree with me, none of the parties from the ''official hoxhaist international'' refer themselfs as hoxhaists, perhaps this is why they call it the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations, neither did the ones who become revisionist like the PCdoB or the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray. Actually the two most active parties from the ICMLPO are the Communist Workers Party of Tunisia and the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador.

To make you a little happier, there is one small organisation in Germany that considers itself ''Stalinist-Hoxhaist'', though the ICMLPO already has an contributor in Germany, it is the KPD-ml.

[thesadmafioso]

Strange, because he is probably going to agree with me, none of the parties from the ''official hoxhaist international'' refer themselfs as hoxhaists, perhaps this is why the call it the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations, neither did the ones who become revisionist like the PCdoB or the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray, actually the two most active parties from the ICMLPO are the Communist Workers Party of Tunisia and the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador.


To make you a little happier, there is one small organisation in Germany that considers itself ''Stalinist-Hoxhaist'', though the ICMLPO already has an contributor in Germany, it is the KPD-ml.

Alright, this is just a useless argument over irrelevant semantics at this point.

[Roach]

Alright, this is just a useless argument over irrelevant semantics at this point.


Hey, I am not the one who accused someone of lacking knowledge of his own tendency, I just hope you learned something at least.

[thesadmafioso]

Hey, I am not the one who accused someone of lacking knowledge of his own tendency, I just hope you learned something at least.

Yeah, I learned that some Hoxhaist's really enjoy pointless semantics and that they can easily confuse an abuse of such with actual knowledge.

[Roach]

Yeah, I learned that some Hoxhaist's really enjoy pointless semantics and that they can easily confuse an abuse of such with actual knowledge.

This became more than just ''pointless semantics'' when you affirmed that ''Hoxhaism'' was tendency dedicated only to the cult of personality of Enver Hoxha, my point was and still is that not only ''hoxhaist'' organisations never refer themselves as such, with just some minor exceptions, and that Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism was able to develop into more than just Enver Hoxha and his Albanian Party, despite many problems having appeared during this development.

[thesadmafioso]

This became more than just ''pointless semantics'' when you affirmed that ''Hoxhaism'' was tendency dedicated only to the cult of personality of Enver Hoxha, my point was and still is that not only ''hoxhaist'' organisations never refer themselves as such, with just some minor exceptions, and that Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism was able to develop into more than just Enver Hoxha and his Albanian Party, despite many problems having appeared during this development.

Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, you more or less admitted that they are the same thing. Thus, we are arguing over semantics largely. You are just trying to smugly assert that Hoxhaism doesn't exist and that I am mistaken in using the term over the point that most Hoxhaist parties don't actually use the term themselves.

And this 'tendency', whatever the hell you want to call it, is still heavily based upon the personality cults of Stalin and Hoxha. Affix what terminology to it which you will, but you will not be able to cover the massive separation between [insert whatever you are calling your brand of Stalinism here] and the actual thought of Marx and Lenin.

[Roach]

Anti-Revisionist Marxism-Leninism, Hoxhaism, you more or less admitted that they are the same thing. Thus, we are arguing over semantics largely. You are just trying to smugly assert that Hoxhaism doesn't exist and that I am mistaken in using the term over the point that most Hoxhaist parties don't actually use the term themselves.And this 'tendency', whatever the hell you want to call it, is still heavily based upon the personality cults of Stalin and Hoxha. Affix what terminology to it which you will, but you will not be able to cover the massive separation between [insert whatever you are calling your brand of Stalinism here] and the actual thought of Marx and Lenin.

No, again you say that there is a wholle political tendency dedicated only to the personality cult of Enver Hoxha, I cannot deny that there is some admiration for Hoxha as an individual, but what drove the organisations I mentioned to adopt the Party of Labour of Albania's line was his materialist analisys of both Soviet and Maoist revisionisms, if those organisations did adopt out of simple admiration for Hoxha the individual, it would indicate an absurd level of political amateurism on their part. As a good example, Maoists uphold Mao's works as a new, superior addition to Marxist science, that is not the same neither with Enver Hoxha, with Stalin or even Engels, who are considered simple continuations to Marx and Lenin's line of thought.

How can a political tendency be based around the cult of a specific individual, while at the same time reducing this individuals role in it's own political line?

[thesadmafioso]

No, again you say that there is a wholle political tendency dedicated only to the personality cult of Enver Hoxha, I cannot deny that there is some admiration for Hoxha as an individual, but what drove the organisations I mentioned to adopt the Party of Labour of Albania's line was his materialist analisys of both Soviet and Maoist revisionisms, if those organisations did adopt out of simple admiration for Hoxha the individual, it would indicate an absurd level of political amateurism on their part. As a good example, Maoists uphold Mao's works as a new, superior addition to Marxist science, that is not the same neither with Enver Hoxha, with Stalin or even Engels, who are considered simple continuations to Marx and Lenin's line of thought.

How can a political tendency be based around the cult of a specific individual, while at the same time reducing this individuals role in it's own political line?

Yeah, your tendency is more or less based around a cult of personality. One that led to a split with the evil revisionists. That doesn't make it a tendency, it just gives you an excuse to masquerade about as if it did.

And I don't know, why don't you answer that question? I'm not the Hoxhaist here, come up with your own convoluted avoidance measures to combat the glaring cognitive dissidence generated by your favorite dictator and his glorious party line.

[Ismail]

Plenty of parties aligned themselves with Albania after 1978. "Hoxhaism" as a term was used by Maoists to attack these parties. They almost always referred to themselves as Marxist-Leninists, never "Hoxhaists."

Anyway there really isn't a biography of Hoxha. Hoxha did, however, write memoirs about his youth and life in 1930's France, but both books are in Albanian and French, respectively.

If you can read French, here's the 1930's one: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/French/enver_hoxha_annees_de_jeunesse_souvenirs_fr.pdf

[RED DAVE]

[W]hat drove the organisations I mentioned to adopt the Party of Labour of Albania's line was his materialist analisys of both Soviet and Maoist revisionisms, if those organisations did adopt out of simple admiration for Hoxha the individual, it would indicate an absurd level of political amateurism on their part.
Fearless leader of Albanian political professionals demonstrating his criticism of Maoist revisionism.



http://i51.tinypic.com/hwe8ms.jpg


RED DAVE

[Ismail]

Fearless leader of Albanian political professionals demonstrating his criticism of Maoist revisionism.Trotsky described Stalin as a "brave and sincere revolutionary" in 1925 (Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast, p. 454.) Don't forget that Hoxha's diary, of which two volumes of his analyses on China were released under the title Reflections on China, made clear that he held a high opinion of the Chinese up until the early 70's, but even throughout the 1960's had reservations about Chinese policy, especially as the GPCR intensified. In his 1956 visit to China Hoxha was suspicious when Mao emphasized that Stalin made "mistakes."

[thesadmafioso]

Trotsky described Stalin as a "brave and sincere revolutionary" in 1925 (Deutscher, The Prophet Outcast, p. 454.) Don't forget that Hoxha's diary, of which two volumes of his analyses on China were released under the title Reflections on China, made clear that he held a high opinion of the Chinese up until the early 70's, but even throughout the 1960's had reservations about Chinese policy, especially as the GPCR intensified. In his 1956 visit to China Hoxha was suspicious when Mao emphasized that Stalin made "mistakes."

Trotsky clearly wanted to prevent a split in the party and to avoid any fragmentation of the revolution, how is that quote relevant here? Yes, he later altered his position quite dramatically after he was given no choice but to take a formal stance of opposition to Stalin's dictatorial aspirations, but that doesn't excuse this crude comparison.

Plus, it's not as if Stalin had done much of anything in this point in history beyond acting as a mediocre Bolshevik who had a minimum role in the party, the revolution, and the civil war. Stalin was such a lackluster figure that he was hardly deserving of prominent critique, and it was not as if Trotsky could of had the foresight at the time to predict the full extent of his maniacal egotism or the results it would produce.

Hoxha, on the other hand, was given more than enough of a chance to renounce the revisionism of Mao before doing so. There really is not much room to make this sort of vulgar correlation.

[Tommy4ever]

Plenty of parties aligned themselves with Albania after 1978. "Hoxhaism" as a term was used by Maoists to attack these parties. They almost always referred to themselves as Marxist-Leninists, never "Hoxhaists."

Anyway there really isn't a biography of Hoxha. Hoxha did, however, write memoirs about his youth and life in 1930's France, but both books are in Albanian and French, respectively.

If you can read French, here's the 1930's one: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/French/enver_hoxha_annees_de_jeunesse_souvenirs_fr.pdf

It seems inevitable that you are going to have to right the definite biography of Hoxha yourself Ismail.

ps Well, my request for a book went horribly wrong, somehow degenerating into a tendency war rather quickly. :rolleyes:

I do think the place for debating Hoxha and Hoxhaism is elsewhere ....

[Ismail]

Trotsky clearly wanted to prevent a split in the party and to avoid any fragmentation of the revolution...

Hoxha, on the other hand, was given more than enough of a chance to renounce the revisionism of Mao before doing so.Except Hoxha, too, wanted to prevent a split in what he regarded as a united Marxist-Leninist world movement against revisionism and capitalism. Hoxha and the PLA did privately criticize the CCP when Mao met with Nixon and sent a letter to the CC of the CCP over the matter. The first public split came when in 1977 Hoxha, in an unsigned editorial in Zëri i Popullit, denounced the Three Worlds Theory as anti-Marxist without mentioning Mao by name. Hua Guofeng retorted with an article defending the theory in Renmin Ribao, also not mentioning Hoxha by name. From this relations between the two states quickly soured.

[thesadmafioso]

Except Hoxha, too, wanted to prevent a split in what he regarded as a united Marxist-Leninist world movement against revisionism and capitalism. Hoxha and the PLA did privately criticize the CCP when Mao met with Nixon.

Trotsky's desire for maintaining party unity was at least reasonable though, the Stalin of 1925 would of more or less appeared to be a rather indiscrete figure at the time.

This is hardly comparable to Mao, who could very well of been open to criticism at a much earlier time.

[The Man]

I take it that was the deciding factor that drove you over to the glorious ideology of Hoxhaism, right? I mean, it's not like there is really much actual sense to the deviation to actually make someone adopt it just out of reasonable material analysis or anything like that.

What do you fucking think I am? Fucking 3? Your are truly an asshole. I actually just saw that his birthday matches with mine in this thread.


Piss off.

[The Man]

Fearless leader of Albanian political professionals demonstrating his criticism of Maoist revisionism.



http://i51.tinypic.com/hwe8ms.jpg


RED DAVE

http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/double-facepalm.jpg


Ever hear of the Sino-Albanian Split? No? I didn't think so.

Read This, for Enver Hoxha's critique on Maoism: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch6.htm

[thesadmafioso]

What do you fucking think I am? Fucking 3? Your are truly an asshole. I actually just saw that his birthday matches with mine in this thread.


Piss off.

Yes, I literally meant to imply that you are 3 and that your shared date of birth with Hoxha was the only reason that you adopted the tendency or whatever it is you are choosing to call it of 'Hoxhaism'.

[RED DAVE]

In his 1956 visit to China Hoxha was suspicious when Mao emphasized that Stalin made "mistakes."I would be suspicious too of someone who considered Stalinism to be just a "mistake."

But I think that what you're saying is that Mao shouldn't have been criticizing Stalin's "mistakes" at all. Or am I wrong on that?

RED DAVE

[Roach]

Yes, I literally meant to imply that you are 3 and that your shared date of birth with Hoxha was the only reason that you adopted the tendency or whatever it is you are choosing to call it of 'Hoxhaism'.

Yes, you wanted to leave the impression that the only reason that one would indentify him/herself with ''hoxhaism'' would be out of an infatile obsession.


Trotsky's desire for maintaining party unity was at least reasonable though, the Stalin of 1925 would of more or less appeared to be a rather indiscrete figure at the time.

This is hardly comparable to Mao, who could very well of been open to criticism at a much earlier time.

Albania had good political and trade relations with China since the late 50s, they wouldn't throw everything away for nothing, if you are capable of throwing the ''stalinoid moster'' paradigm for some minutes and pretend that not every sentence that goes out of Hoxha's mouth is part from complex plot to gain more and moar powah, read some what he already wrote about this in his book Imperialism and the Revolution.


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




Iwould be suspicious too of someone who considered Stalinism to be just a "mistake."

But I think that what you're saying is that Mao shouldn't have been criticizing Stalin's "mistakes" at all. Or am I wrong on that?

RED DAVE

From the text I qouted in the first page of this thread:


Mistakes?
Today Enver Hoxha is pictured in the bourgeois press as a monster, who bloodily suppressed a whole people. The same is done as with Stalin. Everywhere "mistakes" are spoken of and Enver's Albania is attacked. Naturally Enver made mistakes. How could one have such a long life full of struggle without mistakes. Our Party thinks, for example, that Enver underestimated the economic foundations of revisionism and therefore did not fight them sufficiently. But we do not act as know-it-alls in this regard. We know from our own practice as a communist party who quickly one can make mistakes. And above all: the mistakes weigh nothing in comparison with the accomplishments and successes of Enver Hoxha. Under his leadership Albania was an inspiration for every progressive and revolutionary person in the whole world. Even an anti-communist wave in Albania can not in the long run darken the gains of Enver Hoxha for his country and the world revolution. On the contrary! The quick integration of present day Albania into the capitalist world market will soon bring forward the achievements of Albania under socialism. The shabby reality of reintroduced capitalism: unemployment, exploitation, dependency, poverty and hunger, will bring the work of Comrade Enver Hoxha more strongly to light.

[thesadmafioso]

Yes, you wanted to leave the impression that the only reason that one would indentify him/herself with ''hoxhaism'' would be out of an infatile obsession.



Albania had good political and trade relations with China since the late 50s, they wouldn't throw everything away for nothing, if you are capable of throwing the ''stalinoid moster'' paradigm for some minutes and pretend that not every sentence that goes out of Hoxha's mouth is part from complex plot to gain more and moar powah, read some what he already wrote about this in his book Imperialism and the Revolution.







From the text I qouted in the first page of this thread:

Here is the thing, I'm not actually willing to ignore the millions of innocent people wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, and executed by Stalin and those leaders who upheld his name by doing the same. I'm not going to just forget about the brutal suppression of the revolution and its aims as it was undertaken by these dictatorial mad men so that I may read something they wrote in a rosier light.

Also, quoting a source which identifies Hoxha as "Comrade Hoxha" and another which was coincidentally written by Hoxha himself, that certainly sounds unbiased.

[Ismail]

But I think that what you're saying is that Mao shouldn't have been criticizing Stalin's "mistakes" at all.Quite right, considering that Mao saying that Stalin made "mistakes" was another way of Mao inviting "Mao Zedong Thought" to bring forth a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism, untainted by Stalin's so-called "mistakes" as defined by Mao and Khrushchev.

[RED DAVE]

But I think that what you're saying is that Mao shouldn't have been criticizing Stalin's "mistakes" at all.
Quite right, considering that Mao saying that Stalin made "mistakes" was another way of Mao inviting "Mao Zedong Thought" to bring forth a "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism, untainted by Stalin's so-called "mistakes" as defined by Mao and Khrushchev.I think you missed it. What you're saying is that Hoxha shouldn't have been upset about Mao's discussing Stalin's mistakes because Mao discussion Stalin's "mistakes" was a way of advancing Maoist thought.

Whew!

RED DAVE

[Ismail]

Marxists.org has a thing about the Sino-Albanian split and its effects in the USA.

See: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/index.htm


When the New Communist Movement (NCM) first began to take shape and spread nationally in the early 1970s, hopes for a unified U.S. Maoism quickly disappeared. Even when the NCM divided into four distinct tendencies – pro-Deng Xiaoping, pro-Gang of Four, pro-Enver Hoxha and “anti-dogmatist” – each pool of forces expected to prevail as the recognized “true” Marxist-Leninists. But with a few exceptions, the remaining New Communists of the late 1970s saw all their efforts fall into deeper fragmentation and relative isolation.

Initially, the heart of every debate was China’s post-Cultural Revolution foreign policy, and the responsibility of U.S. communists in response to Beijing’s turn to an anti-Soviet alliance with Washington. The debate was sharpened in 1977 when China’s long-time ally, the Party of Labor of Albania (PLA), openly attacked the “Theory of Three Worlds” with its polemic “The Theory and Practice of the Revolution.” The Albanians argued that the “Three Worlds Theory” ignored the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and socialism and called on the working class to unite with capitalists in “third” and “second” world countries to stop “superpower hegemony.” The effect of “Theory and Practice…” was to split the world Marxist-Leninist movement into a pro-“three worlds theory” camp that continued to support the Communist Party of China (CPC) and an opposing camp that supported the PLA’s polemic. This was the largest split in world Maoism since its formation in 1963 and it would only deepen as China continued to turn its back on the Cultural Revolution and strengthen its policy of alliance with US imperialism...

The RCP majority argued that the “Three Worlds Theory” promoted by Deng was a distortion of Mao’s thesis, and that favoring one superpower over another amounted to class collaboration. Even before Mao’s death, it had tried to distance itself from certain aspects of the Chinese line on the international situation, maintaining opposition to regimes that were finding favor with Beijing as anti-Soviet allies, such as the Shah’s Iran and Mobutu’s Zaire...

The PLA’s initial attack on the “three worlds theory” didn’t mention China or directly criticize Mao. And many of the groups that initially supported the Albanian position, still supported Mao and Cultural Revolution policies of the CPC. But by 1978, the PLA began to widen its attack: accusing the CPC of wavering in its struggle against modern revisionism and charging that Mao had never really been a Marxist-Leninist (pro-Albania groups in the U.S. quickly followed the PLA lead). The response of the CPC was to cut aid to Albania.

The newly pro-Albania groups circulated Hoxha’s brand-new polemics against “Maoism” as a deviation on a par with Trotskyism. For the PLA, the classical Soviet world outlook of two camps – capitalist and socialist – still held, even if the socialist camp was reduced to one country – Albania. But while their newfound hostility to Maoism was retroactive, their previous support for positions that Albania had defended when it was allied with China, were not reconsidered.

While some groups made direct contact with the Albanian Party of Labor to declare their solidarity, the PLA declined to grant “official” recognition to any of them....

In 1977, Albania began to publicly if indirectly distance itself from Chinese foreign policy, as exemplified by the Zëri i Popullit editorial, “Theory and Practice of the Revolution”. By the following year, however, the break became an open one with the publication and translation into numerous foreign languages of Enver Hoxha’s book, Imperialism and the Revolution, which not only took issue with the “theory of three worlds” but criticized Mao Tse-Tung Thought as an “anti-Marxist theory”.

The Chinese reaction soon followed. In July 1978, the Chinese government notified the Albanian government that it was stopping its economic and military aid to Albania and recalling its economic and military experts. The Albanians replied with a letter accusing the Chinese leadership of using technical problems as a cover for the real reason – political disagreements over China’s foreign policy.

Many new communist movement groups quickly took sides in the dispute. A number of groups which had previously opposed the “theory of three worlds,” including the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninist, the Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee, and the Leninist Core, quickly expanded their critique of Chinese foreign policy to open opposition to Maoism. Some of these groups, which had been among the most zealous proponents of “Mao Tse-Tung Thought,” now viewed with each other to prove who was the most critical of Maoism and the most vociferous opponent of Chinese “social imperialism”.

Despite the allegiance of these groups to the Enver Hoxha and Party of Labor of Albania (PLA), the PLA did not reciprocate. The Albanians maintained a policy of recognizing a single party in a foreign country (usually based on how well the party toed the Albanian line). However, the PLA distanced itself from the US groups over fears of “CIA infiltration.”

The Revolutionary Communist Party, on the other hand, rejected the Albanian attack on Mao, arguing that the “theory of three worlds” was not Mao’s, but that of Chinese revisionists. Many supporters of the “theory of three worlds” either ignored or played down the China-Albania break.

[The Man]

For the things that I have posted in this thread, Stagger Lee, someone I admire because of that one funny post called me a 'cornball' :laugh:

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Speaking of birthdays, Enver Hoxha and I share the same birthday.

You are the messiah foretold in the prophecy.

[The Man]

You are the messiah foretold in the prophecy.


As shown:

http://beprepared2012.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/mayan_calendar1.jpg