Enver Hoxha and Socialist P.R. Albania

[tir1944]

Hoxha remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist to the end of his life.
Hoxha defeated Mussolini’s fascist forces and lead the Albanian liberation movement to victory against occupation and colonialism.
Hoxha led the world’s longest-lasting and most advanced socialist state for almost 40 years.
Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were established under Hoxha’s rule. His economic revolution was even more advanced than Stalin’s, with even more working class control over production centers.
Albania was industrialized and turned into an almost entirely self-sufficient country, despite being the poorest and most backward nation in Europe (it was a tribal society until the 50s) and being a fascist colony with only 1.5 million people.
Life expectancy under Hoxha went from 32 in the tribal days to 76.
Illiteracy before Hoxha was 90-95% in 1939, which by 1950 went down to 30% and by 1985 was equal to that of the United States.
Women’s rights were increased greatly, when in the former tribal days they were literally considered property.
Tribal warfare and honor killings were ended.
Hoxha consistently fought against imperialism and particularly U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, Cuba, Indonesia, Africa, Latin America and everywhere else.
Hoxha was the most consistent fighter against revisionism the world has ever known, exposing revisionism wherever it might be, from within his own party to the Soviet Union, China, Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Italy and onwards. He exposed revisionism on principle even when it was in his best interests to keep his mouth shut, such as with China and the Soviet Union.
Hoxha made an in-depth analysis of imperialism and social-imperialism, and explained in numerous works the connection between the two.
Hoxha was the first socialist leader to recognize Khrushchev’s revisionism and was the first to publically speak out against it.
Hoxha consistently fought against the renegade Tito and the Yugoslav revisionists.
Hoxha fought against the Greek monarcho-fascists.
Hoxha defeated coup attempts by the US, Tito, the Soviets and the Greeks.
Hoxha was the first, even before Mao, to offer a correct analysis of Khrushchev’s invasion of Hungary.
Hoxha was the first to offer an analysis of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia as well.
Although he originally supported it, Hoxha later spoke out against the Cultural Revolution as anti-Marxist after it became clear it was a struggle between rightist factions.
Hoxha recognized the nature of the Chinese state and, though he had spent decades praising it, decided to bravely push forward with his findings once and for all and declare Maoism a revisionist ideology.
Hoxha spoke out against the “Three Worlds Theory.”
Hoxha refuted the idea put forward by Mao that Soviet social-imperialism was somehow “more dangerous” than U.S. Imperialism.
Hoxha was the first to speak out against Eurocommunism and wrote an entire volume refuting it.
Hoxha condemned Nixon’s visit to Beijing and China’s collaboration with US imperialism.
Hoxha condemned the fascist coup in Chile by Pinochet and the mass slaughter of communists in Indonesia by US imperialism.
Hoxha condemned the genocidal acts in Kosova by Tito.
Hoxha created an International based solely on his own prestige.
Hoxha developed Marxism-Leninism further by exposing where revisionism comes from and how it can be fought.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/why-enver-hoxha/

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What is the point in this thread?

Do you do anything other than condemn irrelevant historical representatives of a failed ideology?

[Tim Cornelis]

Hoxha remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist to the end of his life.

So? X stayed loyal to Y. Fill in any random combination and there you go.



Hoxha defeated Mussolini’s fascist forces and lead the Albanian liberation movement to victory against occupation and colonialism.

Saving one life does not give you the right to take another, two wrongs don't make a right, etc.



Hoxha led the world’s longest-lasting and most advanced socialist state for almost 40 years.

The fact that one person leads a socialist state rather than the workers is already evidence it was not socialist, amirite?



Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were established under Hoxha’s rule. His economic revolution was even more advanced than Stalin’s, with even more working class control over production centers.

That's only in rhetoric and on paper, in practice no. Just like the Kholchov under Stalin weren't worker controlled except on paper.



Albania was industrialized and turned into an almost entirely self-sufficient country, despite being the poorest and most backward nation in Europe (it was a tribal society until the 50s) and being a fascist colony with only 1.5 million people.

Economic prosperous alone is no measure of success, otherwise we could name Hitler as successful.



Life expectancy under Hoxha went from 32 in the tribal days to 76.

Do you have a comparative study?



Illiteracy before Hoxha was 90-95% in 1939, which by 1950 went down to 30% and by 1985 was equal to that of the United States.

Well done. Does not make up for the lack of freedom though.



Women’s rights were increased greatly, when in the former tribal days they were literally considered property.

idem.



Tribal warfare and honor killings were ended.

idem.



Hoxha consistently fought against imperialism and particularly U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, Cuba, Indonesia, Africa, Latin America and everywhere else.

idem.



Hoxha was the most consistent fighter against revisionism the world has ever known, exposing revisionism wherever it might be, from within his own party to the Soviet Union, China, Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Italy and onwards. He exposed revisionism on principle even when it was in his best interests to keep his mouth shut, such as with China and the Soviet Union.

His version of the DOTP had nothing in common with Marx' prescriptions of the DOTP. Revisionism much?



Hoxha made an in-depth analysis of imperialism and social-imperialism, and explained in numerous works the connection between the two.

Intellectual narcissism.



Hoxha was the first socialist leader to recognize Khrushchev’s revisionism and was the first to publically speak out against it.

If only he recognised his own revisionism of Marxism.



Hoxha consistently fought against the renegade Tito and the Yugoslav revisionists.



Hoxha fought against the Greek monarcho-fascists.




Hoxha defeated coup attempts by the US, Tito, the Soviets and the Greeks.

That doesn't mean anything. Just because someone withstands coups does not make him admirable.



Hoxha was the first, even before Mao, to offer a correct analysis of Khrushchev’s invasion of Hungary.

By what objective standard?



Hoxha was the first to offer an analysis of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia as well.

Idem.



Although he originally supported it, Hoxha later spoke out against the Cultural Revolution as anti-Marxist after it became clear it was a struggle between rightist factions.



Hoxha recognized the nature of the Chinese state and, though he had spent decades praising it, decided to bravely push forward with his findings once and for all and declare Maoism a revisionist ideology.



Hoxha spoke out against the “Three Worlds Theory.”

props to him



Hoxha refuted the idea put forward by Mao that Soviet social-imperialism was somehow “more dangerous” than U.S. Imperialism.

Questionable though.



Hoxha was the first to speak out against Eurocommunism and wrote an entire volume refuting it.

Props to him.



Hoxha condemned Nixon’s visit to Beijing and China’s collaboration with US imperialism.

idem.



Hoxha condemned the fascist coup in Chile by Pinochet and the mass slaughter of communists in Indonesia by US imperialism.

No surprise there. What left-winger doesn't?



Hoxha condemned the genocidal acts in Kosova by Tito.

I am not aware of this event. source?



Hoxha created an International based solely on his own prestige.


An insigificant one. And it doesn't tell us anything about the accuracy of his theories.



Hoxha developed Marxism-Leninism further by exposing where revisionism comes from and how it can be fought.

good for his personal satisfaction I'm sure, because it didn't quite help the Albanian people.[/QUOTE]

[OHumanista]

What is the point in this thread?

Do you do anything other than condemn irrelevant historical representatives of a failed ideology?

I think the point he wants to "prove" is...HOXHA IS GOD!
BOW BEFORE HIS HOXHINESS! OUR GLORIOUS LEADER IS DIVINE!

Sarcasm obviously :D

[kurr]

Wanking to Albania under the dictatorship of the party, huh?Funny you dont mention the jailing of Muslims for having facial hair....

[Gustav HK]

I don´t think there was any serious punishment for having beards in socialist Albania.

Maybe only a fine, although I have heard that often the police didn´t care.

[thefinalmarch]

stuff
Well, that's me convinced!

[Apoi_Viitor]

If I can't have facial hair I don't want to be part of your revolution.

[eyeheartlenin]

I think the point he wants to "prove" is...HOXHA IS GOD!
BOW BEFORE HIS HOXHINESS! OUR GLORIOUS LEADER IS DIVINE!

Sarcasm obviously :D

Thanks to cde. OHumanista for his comment! I chuckled when I read "BOW BEFORE HIS HOXHINESS," which is pretty funny.

The more I read Tir1944's comments, the more convinced I am that he is some sad, lonely, isolated teen, who is just being an ass in order to get attention. Too bad he has to do it by supporting the totally insupportable, i.e., Stalin & Co.!

[tir1944]

I find it baffling that out of 7 comments,only Goti bothered to write a proper response (to which i'll get back soon),with the rest being either short remarks or sensless trolling/flaming and blatant ad-hominems.

[Ismail]

Funny you dont mention the jailing of Muslims for having facial hair....It was basically illegal to be a religious figure after 1968 or so. Orthodox priests were also targeted.


Do you have a comparative study?The life expectancy pre-1944 was actually 38 not 32, but yes it rose to about 62 in the 1960's and 76 in the 1980's. Sources off the top of my head (but there's various others) are A Coming of Age: Albania Under Enver Hoxha by James S. O'Donnell and Albania and the Albanians by Ramadan Marmullaku.


By what objective standard?Mao actually praised Khrushchev in 1956 for getting rid of the "Anti-Party Group" of Molotov, Kaganovich, etc. Hoxha by contrast was quite suspicious of this activity, especially after being dismayed at the results of the 20th Party Congress. During the events leading up to the Hungarian uprising Hoxha urged the Hungarian party leader to execute some of the rebels and to arrest Imre Nagy, but instead the revisionists within Hungary and the USSR said that all was fine, that such a thing would violate "socialist legality," etc. If you want I can get 1956 bits from his diaries where he mentions Hungary. I do know that he sarcastically noted in them just a few days before the uprising that the Hungarian leadership was praising Tito. Otherwise his views on Hungary and his attempts to warn people come from his 1980 memoir The Khrushchevites (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1976/khruschevites/10.htm). He certainly used every opportunity available to denounce "specific socialisms," e.g. a November 1956 article in Pravda in which he attacked such a thing along with Tito, and a February 1957 plenum meeting of the Party of Labour of Albania where he noted that counter-revolutionaries were attacking socialism under the banner of denouncing Stalin.


I am not aware of this event. source?"Genocidal" isn't the correct term, but certainly the Yugoslav leadership reneged on their promises to the Albanian people of Kosova that they would decide their future via a referendum. Elez Biberaj in Albania: A Socialist Maverick (written in 1990) also notes the discrimination Kosovar Albanians faced in their own land, how 70% of political prisoners in all Yugoslavia were of Kosovar Albanian origin, etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, this is a great thread isn't it.

The world is in economic and financial crisis, Europe is practically broke save for Germany, we have 'Occupy' movements going on around the world, hundreds have been dying in Turkey and Bangkok, there's a famine in East Africa....

...yet the most important order of the day is to save the legacies of Stalin and Hoxha.

Great work, you little internet warrior.:rolleyes:

[Ismail]

And those events can only end with opportunities lost if the conscious vanguard of the proletariat is not up and running. Evidently it isn't.

Also this is the History forum, rather hard to talk about modern-day events in here.

[thefinalmarch]

I find it baffling that out of 7 comments,only Goti bothered to write a proper response (to which i'll get back soon),with the rest being either short remarks or sensless trolling/flaming and blatant ad-hominems.
That's probably because the majority of these exploits could have just as easily have been implemented by a liberal or social democratic government -- and actual communists don't cheer on the ability of some fucking shitbag dictator to hold power for nearly half a century.

It wasn't Hoxha who defeated fascist armies, industrialised the country, increased life expectancy, literacy rates and womens' rights, and ended tribal warfare. It was the combined efforts of various elements of Albanian society. The soldiers defeated fascist armies. The workers industrialised the country. The medical establishment increased life expectancy. The education establishment increased literacy rates... &c., &c.

You get the picture. History hasn't been the product of great men, grand ideas, or great men with grand ideas. That's a hilariously idealist and therefore non-materialist and anti-Marxist assertion on your part. The same goes for revisionism, actually. The general theory of revisionism basically asserts that great men with grand ideas of their own set out to dismantle "actually existing socialism" or whatever.

It's times like these I thank the world that all the miserable leftist cults and parties in existence will never have any relevance to the organic self-movement of the working class.

[Ismail]

That's probably because the majority of these exploits could have just as easily have been implemented by a liberal or social democratic governmentNo they couldn't. Women in tribal areas were largely not allowed to leave their home and knew nothing about the outside world, blood feuds had the ability to destroy entire families and could last generations, and Albania was Europe's poorest country at the time of liberation, at the time of Albania's independence and even at the time of 1991 as well.

O'Donnell, Edwin E. Jacques in his work on Albania, Biberaj, Marmullaku, Miranda Vickers, Adi Schnytzer etc. all note that the Albanian leadership being communist (specifically its "dogmatic" and "Stalinist" variant which stressed heavy industry) produced immediate results for the country far more than any other possible government. Remember, the illiteracy rate was above 80% in 1944. By 1950 it was half that rate and by the 1980s literacy was comparable to the USA. In 1948 industrial production was already about three times higher than it was before the war, and Albania was, relatively, the country most damaged by the occupation.

It's like saying that the USSR in the 1930's could have industrialized under a liberal bourgeois administration. I don't recall capitalist countries having shock brigades or nationalizing industries, creating cooperatives and collectives, and issuing central economic plans.

Saying "oh, Stalin/Hoxha didn't do this, THE MASSES DID RNNNGHH" is just worthless posturing also adopted by the Soviet revisionists after the 1950's. No one is claiming that Hoxha literally built entire industries with his mighty Marxist-Leninist hands, or that he personally walked into villages and imparted upon the people the knowledge to read and not beat their wives. But it would be foolish to act as if Hoxha didn't have a strong influence on the PLA's development and, subsequently, the policies it pursued.

[thefinalmarch]

O'Donnell, Edwin E. Jacques in his work on Albania, Biberaj, Marmullaku, Miranda Vickers, Adi Schnytzer etc. all note that the Albanian leadership being communist (specifically its "dogmatic" and "Stalinist" variant which stressed heavy industry) produced immediate results for the country far more than any other possible government. Remember, the illiteracy rate was above 80% in 1944. By 1950 it was half that rate and by the 1980s literacy was comparable to the USA. In 1948 industrial production was already about times higher than it was before the war, and Albania was, relatively, the country most damaged by the war.

It's like saying that the USSR in the 1930's could have industrialized under a liberal bourgeois administration. I don't recall capitalist countries having shock brigades or nationalizing industries, creating cooperatives and collectives, and issuing central economic plans.
I don't see how the industrialisation process wouldn't have happened if any conceivable form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie took the place of the faux-communists in Moscow. The Soviet government responded to the shit economic situation at the time, as basically any ruling class would. Same thing with what you mentioned about Albania. As you said, it was the poorest country in Europe. The rulers again simply responded to the economic crisis. The absence of an interfering private market certainly helped speed up the process, yes, but any society in such a position would have still made the best efforts to industrialise in the aftermath of such a crisis.

[Ismail]

I don't see how the industrialisation process wouldn't have happened if any conceivable form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie took the place of the faux-communists in Moscow. The Soviet government responded to the shit economic situation at the time, as basically any ruling class would. Same thing with what you mentioned about Albania. As you said, it was the poorest country in Europe. The rulers again simply responded to the economic crisis. The absence of an interfering private market certainly helped speed up the process, yes, but any society in such a position would have still made the best efforts to industrialise in the aftermath of such a crisis.Tsarist-era Russia saw limited industrialization as well. The point is that it was due to central planning that, for instance, Albania became self-sufficient in grain in the 1970's, from a 48% dependence on Soviet imports of it in the 1950's. It was also due to central planning that Albania was able to pursue an electrification campaign that finished in 1971 (years ahead of schedule) and saw even the remotest villages have access to electrical equipment. It then proceeded to export electricity to neighboring countries.

Under central planning the national income derived from industry was around 55% in 1960, as opposed to about 3% prewar.

[Tim Cornelis]

The more I read Tir1944's comments, the more convinced I am that he is some sad, lonely, isolated teen, who is just being an ass in order to get attention. Too bad he has to do it by supporting the totally insupportable, i.e., Stalin & Co.!

What kind of below-the-belt punches are you throwing here? Maybe Tir1944 is a sincere, but imo wrong, individual? Do you think you can convince anyone of being wrong by personally offending them, calling them lonely, isolated, etc? If you're wrong and he is not, it makes you look like a fool, if you're right all you did is hurt someone's feelings.

------------------------------------
The economic achievements of Albania, such as industrialisation, education, and so forth, were and are no doubt impressive. And unlike anthropocentric, I don't think this could have been achieved at the same rate and pace as under central planning. However, it could have also been achieved (and better!) by the planned efforts of the producers and consumers (horizontal planning).


The life expectancy pre-1944 was actually 38 not 32, but yes it rose to about 62 in the 1960's and 76 in the 1980's. Sources off the top of my head (but there's various others) are A Coming of Age: Albania Under Enver Hoxha by James S. O'Donnell and Albania and the Albanians by Ramadan Marmullaku.

By comparative study I meant how did other similar countries do?

[Ismail]

By comparative study I meant how did other similar countries do?If I recall correctly Yugoslavia's life expectancy in the 1930's was in the 40's, whereas in the 1980's it was around 70. Greece was about the same. Albania's population was a lot smaller than either though, and they had less to work with so it's more of an achievement. Nothing outstanding, but yeah. More notable is the fact that Marmullaku (who was a Kosovar Albanian and Yugoslav functionary) says that even in the 1970's blood feuds continued to exist in Kosova and that 30% of the population was still illiterate (even among some young people), whereas in Albania both were basically done away with (although blood feuds came back after 1991.)

[RED DAVE]

Hoxha ...

established state capitalism in Albania which led to the establishment of private capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Gustav HK]

State capitalism? How was there state capitalism in socialist Albania?

[RED DAVE]

State capitalism? How was there state capitalism in socialist Albania?Socialism is workers control of the economy, emanating from workers control of the individual workplaces. None of this existed in state capitalist Albania.

RED DAVE

[tir1944]

And where exactly are you getting this from?

[Panda Tse Tung]

Maybe slightly unrelated but:




Hoxha developed Marxism-Leninism further by exposing where revisionism comes from and how it can be fought.



Where does it come from according to Hoxha?

[Ismail]

Where does it come from according to Hoxha?Bureaucracy, liberalism, capitulation to imperialism, ultra-left and rightist positions, idealism, opportunism, etc.

[Искра]

Hoxha build 700 000 bunkers and tito died laughing. Seriously.

Also, I didn't saw a source for genocide on Kosovo. Which is actually funny accusation if you consider that Tir1944 can acess to documentation that Tito planned to give Kosovo to Albania if Albania decides to join Balkan Socialist Federation (in 1945).

[Ismail]

Also, I didn't saw a source for genocide on Kosovo. Which is actually funny accusation if you consider that Tir1944 can acess to documentation that Tito planned to give Kosovo to Albania if Albania decides to join Balkan Socialist Federation (in 1945).Yeah, Hoxha mentioned that as well. Tito was willing to reunite Kosova with Albania, a basic demand called for by all Balkan communists since its partition in 1913 by the Great Powers, on the condition that Albania become a puppet state of Yugoslavia and later integrate itself into Yugoslavia. This, of course, included the execution of Hoxha himself, who was an opponent of Yugoslavia's attempts. It was also contrary to the wishes of the Albanian people who saw the Yugoslav domination of Albania's foreign policy and the CPA itself as something highly undesirable.

Also the "genocide" bit probably stems from the repression of Kosovar Albanians throughout the 1940's-60's by Serbian chauvinists like Ranković and Co. Hoxha wrote his article "Who Is Responsible for the Crimes of Genocide in Kosova?" shortly after Ranković was denounced and relieved of his post.

[Искра]

Ismail are you aware of the fact that Stalin, your glorious leader, was for Balkan Confederation? When Djilas visited Stalin and talked to him how Bulgarians do not cooperate Stalin put his whole fist in his mouth and said - you must devour them. You can find source for this in Rankovic's and Djilas's memoars. Also, you can find transcription of this conversation and stuff in archives of UDBA. ;)

Again, source for Kosovo genocide? Also, you can give me source for repression by Rankovic on Kosovo :)

[Ismail]

Ismail are you aware of the fact that Stalin, your glorious leader, was for Balkan Confederation? When Djilas visited Stalin and talked to him how Bulgarians do not cooperate Stalin put his whole fist in his mouth and said - you must devour them. You can find source for this in Rankovic's and Djilas's memoars. Also, you can find transcription of this conversation and stuff in archives of UDB-a.Stalin also asked if the Albanians were related to the "Albania" region in the Caucasus.

He admitted that he knew nothing about Albania and got his information on Albanian affairs from Yugoslav sources (Tito, Djilas, etc.) Hoxha spent 1945 and 1946 trying to secure a visit to the USSR without success. Stalin later told him that he was unaware of the Yugoslav intrigues against Albania.


Also, you can give me source for repression by Rankovic on KosovoUm, the Yugoslav Government? Marmalluku? Basic history? Do you like deny Great-Serb chauvinism or something?

[RED DAVE]

And where exactly are you getting this from?I presume you are talking about the definition I used for socialism above. It is the common one used around here by non-stalinists. It is a result of revolutionary practice and a sober look at the failure of Stalinism.

If you don't like it, what is your alternative?

RED DAVE

[Искра]

Albanian and Bulgarian delegates were on numerous times in Moscow. They were for Balkan Confederation until 1948. Do not rape history. It's not its fault that Marxism-Leninism is abomination.

[Ismail]

Albanian and Bulgarian delegates were on numerous times in Moscow.Albania wasn't even invited to the founding of the Cominform. The Yugoslavs drove Nako Spiru to suicide, engineered the execution of Albania's first communist (Kost Boshnjaku) to "get back" at the pro-Hoxha faction in the CPA, and introduced Serbo-Croatian as a mandatory subject in Albanian schools. Not to mention the evidently unequal economic relations between the two states, described best by O'Donnell in A Coming of Age. The struggle between the pro-Hoxha and pro-Koçi Xoxe (aka pro-Yugoslav) factions is summed up best by Nicholas C. Pano in his work The People's Republic of Albania.

Again, Albania was basically dominated by Yugoslavia until 1948. Albanian delegations were sent to Moscow were evidently Yugoslav flunkeys.

And all this time the Yugoslavs were talking to Stalin, praising Xoxe, demeaning Hoxha, and attempting to deploy troops into Albania. By that point Stalin began getting suspicious about Yugoslav intentions vis-à-vis Albania.


It's not its fault that Marxism-Leninism is abomination.The only "abomination" was Tito taking advantage of proletarian internationalism and the Comintern's orders for Yugoslav assistance to the Albanian communists in 1941 to help form the Communist Party of Albania, and using this as a bridge to dominate the affairs of the CPA and Albania and to reduce both to unequal appendages of Yugoslavia.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Bureaucracy, liberalism, capitulation to imperialism, ultra-left and rightist positions, idealism, opportunism, etc.
I actually hoped he had written down an elaborate analyses (due to how it was written down in the list), but yeah these things are evident :).

[eyeheartlenin]

What kind of below-the-belt punches are you throwing here? Maybe Tir1944 is a sincere, but imo wrong, individual? Do you think you can convince anyone of being wrong by personally offending them, calling them lonely, isolated, etc?

What adult would ignite two flame wars in under 48 hours? Tir1944 is also a proud supporter of Stalin's reprehensible campaign against Soviet Jews; anti-semites should be opposed, and I really don't care about their feelings

[tir1944]

What adult would ignite two flame wars in under 48 hours?What?



Tir1944 is also a proud supporter of Stalin's reprehensible campaign against Soviet JewsAbsolutely no and not.
Shame on you.Stop slandering me.



anti-semites should be opposedI agree.

[Nox]

Hoxha remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist to the end of his life.


There's the problem.

[Ismail]

As an elaboration of him remaining a firm Marxist-Leninist to his last day, here are two things, the first is the majority of a November 29, 1984 speech Hoxha delivered (IIRC delivered on his behalf, since he was increasingly ill) on the anniversary of Albania's liberation in 1944:
History had taught you that those peoples who do not fight are eliminated, therefore, you, my people, fought for freedom, for your language, for your customs, for your sacred soil, and you were not eliminated, but triumphed. Centuries went by in ceaseless wars in which you suffered death and destruction but you did not yield and were not quelled, and eventually, on November 29, 1944, together with your freedom you also won power, became masters of your own fate and emerged in the light for ever, because at the head of your struggle you had the heroic Communist Party, to which you, the people, gave birth and which you defended and nurtured with the blood of your finest sons, so that it would grow strong as the moments and your future and that of our Homeland required. This was a well-earned victory....

Your whole life, my people, has been revolution, even when you were starving, naked or dressed in rags, with your bodies bleeding from wounds, but fiery-spirited and unbowed. At no time has your life been meaningless, but on the contrary, every year, every day of your life, has been filled with struggles and strivings for freedom, justice and economic and social development and progress. This way of life has always kept us vigorous, and the Party of Labour has always had this on the order of the day. The Party has made the revolutionary traditions of our people an inseparable part of our life: the outstanding dates, events and figures of the people are celebrated, sung and written about. A marvellous situation has been created everywhere, the political enlightenment and outstanding patriotism of the people are immortal. As a result of this sound state of affairs Albania is advancing and building socialism successfully, people are conscientious in work and in action, fighters for the great cause of socialism and communism, and young and old love our heroic Party wholeheartedly.

All the blessings which we have created and are enjoying during the years of socialism stem from the National Liberation War of the people led by the Communist Party, which has always been enlightened by Marxism-Leninism — its unerring guide. Guided by this ideology from the time of its creation, the Party was able to imbue and temper the new man of socialist Albania with the patriotism of centuries, to unite and mobilize the whole people in the sacred war for freedom, to lead them on such a course that, besides winning their freedom, the people took power in their own hands, established the people's state power and set to work to make our beloved Albania a flourishing garden, the free country of free people.

We fought and triumphed, the whole of Albania was raised to its feet during the National Liberation War. All our villages became nurseries of partisans. The whole people was able to unite firmly around the Party, drove the barbarous foreign invaders from our soil once and for all, overthrew the power of the feudal lords, beys and capitalists, and punished the traitors as they deserved. Many of the finest sons of this people fell with honour on the field of battle, but they became torch-bearers and today all over Albania their remains rest in monumental cemeteries to which the people go continually to pay the greatest homage, because the blood they shed cemented the foundations of the new Albania.

All the foreigners who visit our country bow with respect before the graves of our heroes and say with conviction and admiration that these people have fought, have shed their blood and that war has been waged on every inch of this soil.

After Liberation you, my people, continued the struggle heroically. The Party led you in even greater, even more difficult battles, the battles for socialism which you had to win through toil and sweat, through knowledge and determination. Day by day, you are working, triumphing and advancing without laying down the rifle and without bending the knee to old enemies or to new ones in all kinds of disguises.

The Party, the people and socialism, filled Albania with great factories, combines and hydro-power stations, made the plains flourish, beautified hills and mountains with terraces, planted forests up to the Alps, and developed the livestock farming and agriculture of which Naim sang with such passion, filled the country with schools, cultural and scientific institutions, wiped out the illiteracy, the darkness and backwardness of the past, and brought the light of learning, development and scientific progress everywhere. Socialist Albania today is the only country in the world which is building socialism entirely with its own forces, without accepting credits from anyone and without being indebted to anyone, a country without taxes, without inflation and unemployment, a country where schooling and the medical service are free of charge. Every corner of Albania has been transformed to its foundations, the life of our long-suffering people has changed radically and has become secure, enlightened and prosperous. Above all, during this whole process, the Party united all the people more firmly and made them conscious of their great and decisive role in history.

This beautiful Albania which you, my Party, have built amidst so many storms, struggles and intrigues, this happy life which we enjoy today, this new man whom you formed, are your glorious works which you achieved through the strength of your people, through your determination and maturity, and through your mind enlightened by Marxism-Lenin-ism, without holding out your hand to foreigners. Not only has the aid of foreigners been very restricted, but as experience has proved, although provided under the disguise of proletarian internationalism, in essence it had an enslaving imperialist character. Believing that it did not have an enslaving character, the Albanian people and the Party of Labour of Albania accepted this aid in order to set the country on its feet again. But when we saw that with the aid that they provided the Titoites, the Soviet revisionists and those of the countries of Eastern Europe, and Mao Zedong's China had ulterior, hostile, enslaving aims, or intended to turn Albania into an appendage dependent on them, so that it would lose its freedom and independence, we tore the mask from them and told them bluntly and clearly that socialist Albania, the Party of Labour of Albania and the Albanian people were not for sale for a handful of rags, or for a few rubles, dinars or yuan, just as they had not sold themselves to the Anglo-American imperialists for their handout of rags or for their pounds sterling and dollars.

For 40 years on end, my valiant Albania, you have kept the honoured flag of Marxism-Leninism flying, just as through the centuries you have kept the flag of freedom flying, the red flag with the two-headed eagle, to which you added a five-pointed star, the star of freedom, the star of socialism and communism.

Not for one moment during the 40 years of life in socialism have you, my people, with the Party of Labour at the head, allowed the new perfidious and powerful enemies to conquer you. Once again you drew the sword, which was now keener-edged, tempered in the fires of repeated battles, and forged on the anvil of history. With this sword you, my Party, mercilessly struck down the imperialists and reactionaries, struck down the modern revisionists of all hues, and compelled those secret revisionists, who, for their own hegemonic aims, seemed to be, and from time to time posed as if they were, Marxist-Leninists and our friends, to throw off their disguise. With these stands and your lofty example, you, my Party, performed your internationalist duty and, at the same time, told others that the struggle against the revisionist currents must not cease, that there could be no agreement or compromise with them, because they were renegades and traitors. The word of our Party, its clear thinking, its courage and determination, shone forth and became beacon-lights for the peoples and revolutionaries in the world.

You, my socialist Homeland, led by the Party of Labour, waged this heroic struggle with astonishing vigour, and your powerful voice was listened to because you rose resolutely against Titoism which was unmasked in the eyes of the whole world as an ideological and political agency of American imperialism and world reaction. Over a long period you have always struggled and raised your voice against American imperialism and all the reactionary bourgeoisie of the world which seeks to keep the peoples and the proletariat of the whole world under its heel, and in the same way you have raised your voice against the Soviet social-imperialists who are struggling for world hegemony, to oppress the peoples by threatening them with the force of arms, and atomic bombs. Later your powerful voice was raised to the skies of this troubled world against the practice and theory of Mao Zedong and the entire Chinese leadership which betrayed Marxism-Leninism and set out on the revisionist course to make China an imperialist world superpower.

Infuriated by the just stands, the determination and the courage of a small people and a valiant Party, the imperialist and revisionist enemies left nothing unsaid against us. They speak and write angrily and with evil aims, «What is this people, what is this Party which is making such a clamour, what are these stubborn creatures who are not afraid to oppose powerful states?! They must be crushed, they must be liquidated, they must be brought to their knees, starved into submission through blockades...» However, they are gravely mistaken, as they have always been mistaken, because they have not known and have not wanted to know the history of the Albanian people, the manly character of the Albanian, have not wanted to recognize what lofty meaning the freedom, independence and sovereignty of the Homeland has always had for the Albanian. As the capitalists, imperialists and reactionaries they are they have thought and still think that nothing can withstand their economic and military strength and their ideology. But, you see, the peoples, whether big or small, have the strength to resist enemies. The peoples who fight always triumph; the enemies are quite unable to destroy the Marxist-Leninist parties which stand unwaveringly on their principles. Marxism-Leninism, which guides the proletariat, the genuine communist parties and the peoples who are demanding liberation and their rights, is invincible.

The struggle against Soviet revisionism and all modern revisionism is one of your most brilliant epics, my Party. This heroic struggle is an honour and pride for you, the working class of Albania, for you, the Albanian people, for you, our socialist Albania! All the states of the world, of whatever regime, all the peoples, all the political currents, friendly and hostile, cannot but admit that you are completely free, independent, and stand as firm as granite.

Our socialist Albania, you withstood the furious waves of enemies and did not yield. Your just, courageous, revolutionary, Marxist-Leninist stands have made numerous friends and admirers from all countries rally round you; even though you were small, the world proletariat looked and looks to you with hope and trust, because in your course and determination it sees its great ideal, Marxism-Leninism, the struggle for the revolution, the struggle for the overthrow of the reactionary forces which oppress and exploit it, accomplished and invincible. You have told and tell the proletariat and the peoples the truth, and the truth has extraordinary importance. The truth gives you vigour, does not allow you to fall into the abyss and break your neck, illuminates the way, opens new paths, causes mighty forces to emerge from the bosom of the people to overcome all the enemies, all the difficulties, and all the intrigues.

With their stands and opinions, socialist Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania have given and give heart and confidence to all and tell the proletariat and the peoples: stand as we stand, fight as we fight, because you will triumph as we have triumphed and are triumphing. Our victory is certain, our victory is a common victory, therefore, we must close our ranks in the heat of the war against enemies. Open fire on the revisionists, betrayers of the working class and the peoples, open fire on the imperialist plans of big world capital, because only in this way can the freedom, independence and sovereignty of the Homeland be won, and the revolution develop and triumph. All the talk about taking power by means of reforms is poppycock. The bourgeoisie and capitalism can never agree to allow the working class, the most advanced class in the world to which the future belongs, to take power. On the contrary, every day the enemies of the peoples and the proletariat are preparing sugar-coated poison pills and forging new chains of enslavement, therefore, only by fighting against the old system of the power of capital can the peoples and the proletariat triumph step by step and take power into their own hands. The Party of Labour followed this course and thus the Albanian people were liberated, and so socialist Albania has been built and is advancing.

In all your actions, heroic Party, you have had a lofty aim, and have always proceeded cautiously but without fear. Your stand has never been one of crawling, you have never been opportunist, but neither have you been sectarian, you have always marched forward on the Marxist-Leninist course. Your sole aim throughout has been the good of the peoples. You have sincerely loved the genuine Marxist-Leninists, have defended them to the end, and will always defend them in this way. You have always stated your opinions openly, gently when necessary, but you have raised your tone when this has been required. With those who have made mistakes, you have tried patiently to correct them, have advised them wisely, and at the same time, you have listened attentively to any valuable advice and have learned from it. You have supported their correct actions, but when they have been wrong you have criticised them. This is the course you have always followed, but when the cup has been filled, and you have been convinced that there is no way other than that of struggle, you have not been afraid but have declared war on enemies and have never ceased this struggle.

We have never retreated or made any concessions to enemies. History has taught us this, we have learned it not only from our own sufferings and hardships but also from those of all the peoples of the world, from their countless struggles during the centuries.

Marxism-Leninism has opened our eyes with the conclusions drawn from the analyses which it has made of the development of society through the class struggle. It teaches us that the class struggle is the motor of society, which keeps you alive, gives you strength, gives you victory. If you extinguish this struggle the bourgeoisie and capitalism will strangle and enslave you, and our people have never liked slavery. On the contrary, our people have always fought against the grip of slavery. Therefore, our Party has never ceased the class struggle, either internally or in the international arena, and never will cease it, even for a moment. For 40 years on end our people and Party have resolutely opposed and combated everything old and conservative, opportunist and liberal, all those who have tried openly or secretly to divert us from our correct course, we have fought any force or ideology which has aimed to infect the consciousness of our people, to hinder our march towards better days, towards the present and the more secure future. We have always kept the class struggle ablaze, and it is precisely this great and revolutionizing motive force which has made our small Homeland unshakeable «either by the cannon, or the bomb», as the folk song says, that is, either by revisionism, capitalism, or reaction.

We have many friends and admirers in the world. Our friends are all the peoples of the world who have a great love and respect for Albania, speak with admiration about our country and our socialist reality, and want to know where we find this strength, because they still do not understand how this reality has been achieved. Therefore, it is our duty to make the victories of the Party of Labour, the Albanian people and socialist Albania known in all their aspects to the peoples, to explain them not only with the present, but with all the glorious past history of the Albanian people. These victories are like a steel chain, the links of which are the revolutionary events inseparable from each other, which represent, at different stages, the permanent ideals of the freedom, independence, democracy, and unity of our nation, of our well-being, culture and ceaseless progress. We must explain to our brothers and admiring friends that this chain of the life of the Albanian people has achieved unprecedented toughness at the present day, thanks to Marxism-Leninism which we are trying to understand profoundly in all its aspects and to faithfully apply its principles in the conditions of our country and the international situation.

We have not permitted the principles of our foreign policy to be subordinated to the momentary changes in the world situation. We always take the international political and economic situation into account, but in our relations with other states, in our stands, we have always been guided by the Marxist-Leninist principles because they are the key to the correct understanding and assessment of world events, circumstances that arise, the intrigues and aims of imperialism towards the aspirations of the revolutionary forces, the peoples and the proletariat of each country and the whole world.

Because of all these things, when the red-letter days, the 28th and 29th of November, draw near, socialist Albania celebrates in the full meaning of the term. Everywhere there is rejoicing over the work, the achievements and the fine new life. The whole people sing about and rejoice over the great victories that have been achieved in all fields, the new socialist life, the security and great and clear prospects for the future.

I feel boundless satisfaction when I see on the TV, hear on the radio, or read in the papers about the great construction work that is going on all over the Homeland, about the triumphs and successes which have been achieved, one. after the other, in all fields. It warms my heart when I see our tireless and skilful workers and specialists building dams, constructing machinery, and setting modern plants and combines in action with competence and skill; when I see the cooperativists in the plains, the hills and the mountains, carefully cultivating the crops and getting yields of world level; when I sec the great army of our new socialist intelligentsia, the pupils and students, bending over books, or in laboratories, working on sketches and designs; when alongside men, everywhere, I see the Albanian girls and women whom the Party drew into life, working and singing, producing and managing, and raising healthy happy children, the future of the Homeland. The whole of Albania is in movement, in development, in consistent progress. Today every inch of it is the scene of construction and creation, and a school, and a barricade insurmountable to the enemies, and a stage where our people, the creators of everything, sing to the Party, their life, to freedom and socialism.

The people themselves, with the Party at the head, have created such a situation, that is why when they are working and rejoicing, especially when they come to celebrations, our people express with astonishing force the fine pure feelings which inspire them to even greater deeds.

For us, the soldiers of the Party, there can be no greater satisfaction than this, when we see you, our people, masters of your own fate, happy, contented, and free in a sovereign and independent Albania, in an Albania transformed into an impregnable fortress, and with ceaseless socialist development. The satisfaction and pride which we feel is the fruit of the great victories we have achieved, of our uninterrupted efforts, of our permanent concern to ensure that our Party is always at the head, as our tested guide.

We have lived through the past 40 years as revolutionaries know how to live, build and defend. In these years of the epoch of the Party our dear Albania has been transformed to its very foundations, has known that growth, that renewal, that all-round development which it had not experienced for whole centuries. Everything about it is new and healthy, its appearance and content, its life which is flourishing and gaining new dimensions, the new man endowed with the lofty virtues of the communist ideology, happy and proud about what has been achieved, convinced and conscious about the continuity of our course, of our efforts, our honour and prestige.

During the coming decades the people and Party, firmly united, as always, will do even more for this dear land, for this country of eagles. Hence, let us guard what we have achieved as the apple of our eye, let us go on consistently to develop it further, to leave the coming generations an Albania ever stronger, always red, like the undying flame of the hearts and ideals of communists and partisans, an Albania which will live and progress through the centuries. I am convinced that the people and the Party will raise our triumphant flag higher and higher, will raise the honour, prestige and name of socialist Albania higher and higher in the world.And bits from a December 1984 interview between Hoxha and a member of the Franco-Albanian Friendship Association:

Q: Your Yugoslav enemies speak ill of you.

A: They are extremely hostile to our viewpoint, and say things about US which no one can believe. For example, they claim that we desire the destabilisation of Yugoslavia, although we have never envisaged or said such a thing. They accuse us, further, of having provoked the events which occurred in Kosova in 1981, but this is not at all true. The people responsible for the tragic events in Kosova are the Yugoslavs themselves.

For our Part, we have stated Publicly, and also through official channels, Our Position in favour of the just claims of our Kosovar brothers, demands which are in conformity with the Yugoslav constitution...

Q: In your country it is said that without Enver Hoxha there would be no Albania.

A: I am only a member of the Party of Labour and I only serve my people. Every success achieved here has its origin in our own forces; everything has been realised with the People and in unity with it. The enemies of our country say that I am a dictator. But a single person can neither act nor work with the necessary strength without being surrounded by friends and comrades...

Q: You have confidence?

A: Yes, we have confidence - and also patience. Our close bonds with the people are for us of great importance. over long periods we have surmounted a good many difficulties and have suffered many privations, but we have never encountered opposition or the part of our people. on the contrary, they are satisfied and aware that if the regime and the government have not done more for them, this is because it was impossible to do so. Our enemies say that Albania is alone, that it is isolated, that it has no commerce with other countries. But we have commercial exchanges with all countries which desire them on the basis of reciprocal advantage and non-interference in one another's internal affairs. For the Yugoslavs that is something abnormal. However, our economy has never been reduced to the state in which the Yugoslav economy finds itself; our country has never relied upon loans and credits from abroad. And so it will always be, unlike what the Yugoslavs have done and continue to do in their country.

Q: Why, in your opinion, did Stalin not prepare for his succession?

A: Stalin did think about this. At the 19th Congress he enlarged the central Committee and the Political Bureau in order to consolidate the leadership of the Party after his death. But he was surrounded - a little like de Gaulle - by camouflaged enemies who constantly presented him with false reports. He told them: "After my death you will sell out the Soviet Union", but he did not succeed in combating them in time.

Stalin was a great man. I knew him at close quarters: I had five meetings with him. He was a wise and level-headed man. He fought the enemies of the Soviet Union and of communism.

Before and after the Second World War Stalin consolidated the position of the Soviet Union politically, economically and militarily. He had noted that his country was being undermined - and undermined gravely. Khrushchev and Mikoyan told me with their own mouths that they had organised a plot against Stalin, that they had had the intention of murdering him in a coup but feared the people. That is the kind of criminals and assassins they were. Even after Stalin's death they continued to Cry: "Long live Stalin!" and to say: "Stalin was a great man". But, at a certain moment, after having consolidated their positions, they came out against him in their notorious attack. They accused Stalin of all the crimes and faults which they had committed themselves. That we never accepted, and we declared so openly at the meeting of 81 communist Parties in Moscow in 1960. That is why they accuse us of being Stalinists. But we are Marxist-Leninist Stalinists and we put into effect all that is good for socialism in Albania.

As for the name of Lenin, they have preserved it with a view to disguising their counter-revolutionary activity.

At present the new Soviet leaders, as is seen, seek to intimidate the West by giving indications that they wish to "rehabilitate" Stalin. But the fact is that they retain the counter-revolutionary opinions which separate them from him. That is why their threats about the "rehabilitation" of Stalin cannot deceive us - and not only us! It does not deceive even the West.

[RED DAVE]

Stalin was a great man. I knew him at close quarters: I had five meetings with him. He was a wise and level-headed man. He fought the enemies of the Soviet Union and of communism.Sort of says it all.

http://ciml.250x.com/gallery/marx_engels_lenin_stalin_hoxha.jpg

Note the decline in facial hair: a sure sign of degeneracy.

RED DAVE

[SemperFidelis]

Did you guys know the designer of the massbunkers in Albania was forced to sit in his own bunker and take artilleryfire before the idea was bought?

[tir1944]

That's,i think,made up.

[RED DAVE]

When the prototype bunker was finished in the 1950s he asked the chief engineer how confident he was that it could withstand a full assault from a tank. The answer was, "Very confident".

The Communist Party supremo then insisted that the engineer stand inside his creation while it was bombarded by a tank.

Sadly for the current generation, the shell-shocked engineer emerged unscathed and his look-out posts went into production on a massive scale.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2098705.stm

RED DAVE

[Ned Kelly]

By the end of that list I was almost expecting to hear that Enver Hoxha had a 10 inch member.

[Gustav HK]

Socialism is workers control of the economy, emanating from workers control of the individual workplaces. None of this existed in state capitalist Albania.

RED DAVE

Workers control of the economy existed in Albania. Especially under, and after, the Cultural and Ideological Revolution.

The planning process was like this (AFAIK): Draft of plan --> Discussions in the country (especially in workplaces) --> amendment proposals --> Final plan (or maybe even more discussions, and then final plan).

In the individual workplaces there was also democracy, with workers participating in organizing the work, aswell as critiscism of the directors.

[RED DAVE]

Socialism is workers control of the economy, emanating from workers control of the individual workplaces. None of this existed in state capitalist Albania.
Workers control of the economy existed in Albania. Especially under, and after, the Cultural and Ideological Revolution.Let's see what you call workers control.


The planning process was like this (AFAIK):Just in general, this is not something that should be discussed on the basis of casual knowledge.


Draft of plan -->When did all this take place? Where did the plan come from? Who drafted it. What kind of relationship did that person have with the working class as a whole and with individual groups of workers in the workplaces. If the plan was produced by a committee, were minority opinions permitted and published?


Discussions in the country (especially in workplaces) -->Were these dicussions centered in the workplaces? How were these discussions organized and by who: the party, the unions, other organizions, spontaneously? What kind of material was presented for discussion? To what extent was criticism permitted, including rejection of the entire plan?


amendment proposals -->How were these amendments selected for consideration? How were they accepted or rejected.


Final plan (or maybe even more discussions, and then final plan).Who engaged in writing the final plan? Was it voted on? If so, where and how. If not, why not?


In the individual workplaces there was also democracy, with workers participating in organizing the work, aswell as critiscism of the directors.What you are saying is that there were directors appointed outside the workplaces and workers could criticize? How far could this criticism go? Could they hire and fire? Did workers vote on their relationship to the plan?

Nothing that you have posted, Gustav, demonstrates workers control. And even you had to say, "after, the Cultural and Ideological Revolution." Which means that there were problems from the beginning.

RED DAVE

[Gustav HK]

Central planning, like all of socialist society, is
based an democratic centralism, i.e., central leadership as
well as the conscious, general and direct participation of
the working rnasses. A Central Planning Commission
works out a draft five year plan. The draft is then
thoroughly discussed at mass meetings in every work
place. During the popular discussion of the five year
plan for 1981-86, 69,000 concrete proposals were made by
the masses of working people. Of these, 40,000 were
adopted in the plan and 20,000 were held for further
discussion. - From http://www.enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/newAlbania/2.pdf, p. 15.

Also read ibid, p. 22-23.

I am sure, that there was some workers´ participation in planning and organizing work even before the C&I Revolution, but under and after said revolution, bureaucracy was weakened and the proletariat strenghtened.

[Ismail]

When did all this take place?For about one or two months after the plan was suggested.


Where did the plan come from? Who drafted it.The leading state organs in collaboration with the Central Committee of the Party.


What kind of relationship did that person have with the working class as a whole and with individual groups of workers in the workplaces.One could assume that they came from working-class or peasant families.


If the plan was produced by a committee, were minority opinions permitted and published?Yes, plans were discussed and critiques made so long as they didn't call for "market socialism" or to negate what Stalin said in his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., which as Adi Schnytzer notes in his book Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: The Case of Albania was the basic text economic planners consulted in drafting the plans.


Were these dicussions centered in the workplaces? How were these discussions organized and by who: the party, the unions, other organizions, spontaneously? What kind of material was presented for discussion? To what extent was criticism permitted, including rejection of the entire plan?The trade unions organized the discussions within the workplaces. Material presented mainly centered around quotas that the factory had to fulfill, and if this was possible for the factory and its workers. Again, one could question the plan so long as one did not attack it or promote excessively low quotas.


How were these amendments selected for consideration? How were they accepted or rejected.The official History of the Party of Labor of Albania notes that, "Before being approved by the [Second] Congress [of the Party of Labour], these directives [for the first Five-Year Plan of 1951-1955] were discussed for more than two months in the Party organizations and at open meetings of the workers of town and countryside. Many opinions and proposals came forth from these meetings and the majority of them were taken into consideration by the respective organs."

In the USSR in the 1930's, if suggesting inventions was anything to go by, local committees basically sifted through constructive and unneeded criticisms and comments, and those they deemed good were sent up to higher organs for consideration.


Who engaged in writing the final plan? Was it voted on? If so, where and how. If not, why not?It was ultimately decided upon by the Central Committee of the Party. The final plan was written via the leading state organs and aforementioned CC collaborating and taking into account any critiques of the plan.


What you are saying is that there were directors appointed outside the workplaces and workers could criticize? How far could this criticism go? Could they hire and fire? Did workers vote on their relationship to the plan?As in the 1930's USSR there were boards where one could criticize the work of a manager, and unlike the 1930's USSR this was given more attention. You could even accuse a manager of neglect. A meeting of workers in the factory and, IIRC, a sort of labor court were used to decide on the situation. The firing of managers was taken by higher organs.

As Miranda Vickers has noted, "The economy and society in general depended on extreme, spartan egalitarianism. The ratio between the highest and lowest incomes was 1:2 so that in the mid-1980s a factory director would take home approximately 900 leks a month, an assembly worker 750 and a roadsweeper 600." In fact at a 1986 meeting in the capital it was hard for workers and party officials to even comprehend the idea of an incentive bonus. The "workers control" you're talking about sounds like little more than populism and the encouragement of provincial outlooks (or the outlook of one factory against another) over the development of the whole economy.

[Red_Struggle]

This thread makes me want to conver to Catholicism....instead, I will do the next pointless thing that comes to mind:

http://chanarchive.org/content/50_b/228798650/1274153621179.jpg

[Rooster]

Central planning, like all of socialist society, is
based an democratic centralism, i.e., central leadership as
well as the conscious, general and direct participation of
the working rnasses.- From http://www.enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/newAlbania/2.pdf, p. 15.

Also read ibid, p. 22-23.

I am sure, that there was some workers´ participation in planning and organizing work even before the C&I Revolution, but under and after said revolution, bureaucracy was weakened and the proletariat strenghtened.

So no worker control instead control by the central leadership?

[Ismail]

So no worker control instead control by the central leadership?That central leadership is the vanguard of the working class, which defended the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what matters the most. Do you think we're claiming Albania was like Yugoslavia, with its showy and social-democratic conceptions of "workers' control" that simply allowed workers to collectively act like miniature capitalists in each factory?

As a note, here's a 1975 bourgeois work which can be viewed in its entirely online and which has a brief section on "Workers' Participation and Incentives" during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution, though reading the whole chapter it has on Albania helps: http://books.google.com/books?id=xbbTvZJN3h0C&pg=PA265&dq=%22Workers%27+Participation+and+Incentives%22&hl=en&ei=Vjm1Trv1PIjW0QH6o-jRBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Workers%27%20Participation%20and%20Incentives %22&f=false

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

By the end of that list I was almost expecting to hear that Enver Hoxha had a 10 inch member.

Stalin was Russian. :lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That central leadership is the vanguard of the working class, which defended the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is what matters the most. Do you think we're claiming Albania was like Yugoslavia, with its showy and social-democratic conceptions of "workers' control" that simply allowed workers to collectively act like miniature capitalists in each factory?



And here, most clearly, you display your anti-worker instincts.

How can worker-led democracy flourish if the workers themselves must go along with the most central organ of the state, simply because that central organ declares (unilaterally, given the long-run nature of political change in general) itself to be the vanguard of the working class?

[RED DAVE]

When did all this take place?
For about one or two months after the plan was suggested.I should have been clearer. I meant: what year did this process take place. I gather from below that this was in the early 1950s.


Where did the plan come from? Who drafted it.
The leading state organs in collaboration with the Central Committee of the Party.So the workers in the workplaces had no role in drafting the plan. This is the pattern of top-down bureaucracy that is seen in all Stalinist endeavors, including Stalinist parties.


What kind of relationship did that person [who drafted the plan] have with the working class as a whole and with individual groups of workers in the workplaces
One could assume that they came from working-class or peasant families.You ducked the question. The obvious issue is what organizational relationship did they have with the working class. I could assume they were a member or members of the party bureaucracy.


If the plan was produced by a committee, were minority opinions permitted and published
Yes, plans were discussed and critiques made so long as they didn't call for "market socialism" or to negate what Stalin said in his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., which as Adi Schnytzer notes in his book Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: The Case of Albania was the basic text economic planners consulted in drafting the plans.So the plan was pure Stalinism. It had nothing to do with the revolutionary Marxist tradition of workers control, which Stalinism snuffs out wherever it can.


Were these dicussions [sic] centered in the workplaces? How were these discussions organized and by who: the party, the unions, other organizions [sic], spontaneously? What kind of material was presented for discussion? To what extent was criticism permitted, including rejection of the entire plan
The trade unions organized the discussions within the workplaces. Material presented mainly centered around quotas that the factory had to fulfill, and if this was possible for the factory and its workers. Again, one could question the plan so long as one did not attack it or promote excessively low quotas.In other words, the basic bureaucratic, top-down structure of the plan could not be questioned. All that workers could question is how hard they were going to work. I would assume that workers in the workplaces had no control over wages, hours, hiring and firing.


How were these amendments [to the plan] selected for consideration? How were they accepted or rejected
The official History of the Party of Labor of Albania notes that, "Before being approved by the [Second] Congress [of the Party of Labour], these directives [for the first Five-Year Plan of 1951-1955] were discussed for more than two months in the Party organizations and at open meetings of the workers of town and countryside. Many opinions and proposals came forth from these meetings and the majority of them were taken into consideration by the respective organs.""[W]ere taken into consideration by the respective organs." That's what most bosses do when we complain. "We'll certainly take this into consideration." This demonstrates that there was no democratic input to the plan from the workers.


In the USSR in the 1930'sNot a good example of anything worthwhile.


if suggesting inventions was anything to go by, local committees basically sifted through constructive and unneeded criticisms and comments, and those they deemed good were sent up to higher organs for consideration.Inventions are one thing: any capitalist corporation considers inventions. We're talking about criticisms. There is no indication that in this bureaucratic process, any serious criticism was permitted.


Who engaged in writing the final plan? Was it voted on? If so, where and how. If not, why not?
It was ultimately decided upon by the Central Committee of the Party.Wow! How's that for workers democracy!


The final plan was written via the leading state organs and aforementioned CC collaborating and taking into account any critiques of the plan.A textbook example of top-down bureaucratic functioning. Old Joe himself couldn't have done better. (But Ismail would probably consider that a compliment.)


What you are saying is that there were directors appointed outside the workplaces and workers could criticize? How far could this criticism go? Could they hire and fire? Did workers vote on their relationship to the plan?
As in the 1930's USSRAgain, not a good place to start.


there were boards where one could criticize the work of a managerWow! A workers state where workers could actually criticize their bosses who were appointed from the top! How cool is that?


and unlike the 1930's USSR this was given more attention.Wow! More attention. Workers' criticisms given "more attention" than in the 1930's USSR. Shit! Complaints by burger flippers at Mickey D's get more attention than in the 1930's USSR. Maybe Albania rose to the level of Burger King.


You could even accuse a manager of neglect.I may have an orgasm over this!


A meeting of workers in the factory and, IIRC, a sort of labor court were used to decide on the situation. The firing of managers was taken by higher organs.I could say something about what Stalinist states do with their "higher organs," but I don't want to get another infraction. However, it's clear that the process in Albania was top-down, bureaucratic, and had nothing to do with workers control.


Miranda Vickers has noted, "The economy and society in general depended on extreme, spartan egalitarianism. The ratio between the highest and lowest incomes was 1:2 so that in the mid-1980s a factory director would take home approximately 900 leks a month, an assembly worker 750 and a roadsweeper 600." In fact at a 1986 meeting in the capital it was hard for workers and party officials to even comprehend the idea of an incentive bonus.Wow! Poor bureaucrats in a poor country. Imagine that.


The "workers control" you're talking about sounds like little more than populismWhich shows (a) exactly what kind of anti-working class politics you hold to and (b) your ignorance of the meaning of the word "populism."

Why are a History mod?


and the encouragement of provincial outlooks (or the outlook of one factory against another) over the development of the whole economyYou obviously have no idea of the relationship between workers control and socialism, which means you have no idea, really, of socialism.

RED DAVE

[Die Rote Fahne]

Hoxha remained a loyal Marxist-Leninist to the end of his life.
Hoxha defeated Mussolini’s fascist forces and lead the Albanian liberation movement to victory against occupation and colonialism.
Hoxha led the world’s longest-lasting and most advanced socialist state for almost 40 years.
Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were established under Hoxha’s rule. His economic revolution was even more advanced than Stalin’s, with even more working class control over production centers.
Albania was industrialized and turned into an almost entirely self-sufficient country, despite being the poorest and most backward nation in Europe (it was a tribal society until the 50s) and being a fascist colony with only 1.5 million people.
Life expectancy under Hoxha went from 32 in the tribal days to 76.
Illiteracy before Hoxha was 90-95% in 1939, which by 1950 went down to 30% and by 1985 was equal to that of the United States.
Women’s rights were increased greatly, when in the former tribal days they were literally considered property.
Tribal warfare and honor killings were ended.
Hoxha consistently fought against imperialism and particularly U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, Cuba, Indonesia, Africa, Latin America and everywhere else.
Hoxha was the most consistent fighter against revisionism the world has ever known, exposing revisionism wherever it might be, from within his own party to the Soviet Union, China, Korea, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Italy and onwards. He exposed revisionism on principle even when it was in his best interests to keep his mouth shut, such as with China and the Soviet Union.
Hoxha made an in-depth analysis of imperialism and social-imperialism, and explained in numerous works the connection between the two.
Hoxha was the first socialist leader to recognize Khrushchev’s revisionism and was the first to publically speak out against it.
Hoxha consistently fought against the renegade Tito and the Yugoslav revisionists.
Hoxha fought against the Greek monarcho-fascists.
Hoxha defeated coup attempts by the US, Tito, the Soviets and the Greeks.
Hoxha was the first, even before Mao, to offer a correct analysis of Khrushchev’s invasion of Hungary.
Hoxha was the first to offer an analysis of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia as well.
Although he originally supported it, Hoxha later spoke out against the Cultural Revolution as anti-Marxist after it became clear it was a struggle between rightist factions.
Hoxha recognized the nature of the Chinese state and, though he had spent decades praising it, decided to bravely push forward with his findings once and for all and declare Maoism a revisionist ideology.
Hoxha spoke out against the “Three Worlds Theory.”
Hoxha refuted the idea put forward by Mao that Soviet social-imperialism was somehow “more dangerous” than U.S. Imperialism.
Hoxha was the first to speak out against Eurocommunism and wrote an entire volume refuting it.
Hoxha condemned Nixon’s visit to Beijing and China’s collaboration with US imperialism.
Hoxha condemned the fascist coup in Chile by Pinochet and the mass slaughter of communists in Indonesia by US imperialism.
Hoxha condemned the genocidal acts in Kosova by Tito.
Hoxha created an International based solely on his own prestige.
Hoxha developed Marxism-Leninism further by exposing where revisionism comes from and how it can be fought.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/why-enver-hoxha/
Cool story bro.

Edit: Hoxha also banned the evil capitalist fruit; the banana! I think he banned beards, and per-maritial sex as well.

[Ismail]

I should have been clearer. I meant: what year did this process take place. I gather from below that this was in the early 1950s.Correct.


So the workers in the workplaces had no role in drafting the plan. This is the pattern of top-down bureaucracy that is seen in all Stalinist endeavors, including Stalinist parties.Workers in the workplace had the role of making sure the factories they worked in could actually meet the quotas.


You ducked the question. The obvious issue is what organizational relationship did they have with the working class. I could assume they were a member or members of the party bureaucracy.Well they obviously weren't members of a capitalist party. Again, the party is the vanguard of the working class.


So the plan was pure Stalinism. It had nothing to do with the revolutionary Marxist tradition of workers control, which Stalinism snuffs out wherever it can.It was based on the traditions of Lenin and Stalin, yes.


In other words, the basic bureaucratic, top-down structure of the plan could not be questioned. All that workers could question is how hard they were going to work. I would assume that workers in the workplaces had no control over wages, hours, hiring and firing.As noted wages were basically the most egalitarian in the world. Under such a system asking for a wage increase was seen as promoting the methods of the Soviet revisionists. Moral over material stimuli was promoted. Wages increases were discussed, but it's important to note that working harder at your job, unlike in the rest of Eastern Europe, did not mean you got paid more. It's also worth noting that the prices of many basic goods remained the exact same from the 1950's-80's, since price controls were absolute across the whole of Albania. In fact prices for various goods were decreased, even in the 80's.

Also unlike the revisionist USSR of the 1970's onwards, managers could not fire "unprofitable" workers.


Inventions are one thing: any capitalist corporation considers inventions.Except in the USSR and Albania the process involved hundreds of workers. It was one of those things which was meant to be a mass-participation affair.


A textbook example of top-down bureaucratic functioning. Old Joe himself couldn't have done better. (But Ismail would probably consider that a compliment.)Albanian economists and planners themselves based what they did off of "Old Joe," not Tito or Khrushchev or Mao.


You obviously have no idea of the relationship between workers control and socialism, which means you have no idea, really, of socialism.You yourself say you aren't a Leninist, so evidently you have no clue what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or entails.


How can worker-led democracy flourish if the workers themselves must go along with the most central organ of the state, simply because that central organ declares (unilaterally, given the long-run nature of political change in general) itself to be the vanguard of the working class?In the first place the Party won its status as a vanguard in the national liberation war and clearly embodied the objective interests of the working class. Just as the Bolsheviks won their status (even more than the CPA did) as a vanguard through the Russian Revolution and through, again, embodying the objective interests of the working class. Just as a great many workers across Russia identified themselves with the Bolsheviks on the eve of the revolution, so did a great many Albanians identify themselves with the National Liberation Front on the eve of the liberation of the country.

[Agent Equality]

You yourself say you aren't a Leninist, so evidently you have no clue what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or entails.


Because of course only Leninists know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is :rolleyes: puh-lease.

[Ismail]

Because of course only Leninists know what the dictatorship of the proletariat isYes. Lenin certainly didn't claim that everyone has an equal understanding of what proletarian dictatorship is. You might have recalled he attacked Left-Communists, Anarchists, and rightists for their opposing or opportunist views on it and its implementation.

[Rooster]

I'm still not seeing how there was any worker control or input over the economy other than "workers had to meet quotas".


In the first place the Party won its status as a vanguard in the national liberation war and clearly embodied the objective interests of the working class. Just as the Bolsheviks won their status (even more than the CPA did) as a vanguard through the Russian Revolution and through, again, embodying the objective interests of the working class. Just as a great many workers across Russia identified themselves with the Bolsheviks on the eve of the revolution, so did a great many Albanians identify themselves with the National Liberation Front on the eve of the liberation of the country.

So where is the worker democracy in all of this?

[Iron Felix]

You yourself say you aren't a Leninist, so evidently you have no clue what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or entails. By this same logic, Marx and Engels didn't have a clue what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or entails because they weren't Leninists.

[Ismail]

By this same logic, Marx and Engels didn't have a clue what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or entails because they weren't Leninists.Lenin advanced their definition and defended it against the rightists who denied class struggle. Left-Communists, etc. claim to be "orthodox" and attack Lenin for "distorting" their definition.


I'm still not seeing how there was any worker control or input over the economy other than "workers had to meet quotas".As in the USSR planning had a social character; all was done in the service of the working-class and the construction of socialism. In Albania the working-class was involved in the affairs of the state through the people's councils and in the workplace through the trade unions. The people's councils were partially based off of the soviets. Worker democracy was demonstrated in elections and in workplace discussions.

[Tim Cornelis]

Yes. Lenin certainly didn't claim that everyone has an equal understanding of what proletarian dictatorship is. You might have recalled he attacked Left-Communists, Anarchists, and rightists for their opposing or opportunist views on it and its implementation.

Indisputable logic: Lenin said it, therefore true.

[Die Rote Fahne]

In terms of the DotP, Marx and/or engels expressed that the Paris Commune, was a prime example of a DotP. In what ways was the USSR/Albania like the Paris Commune?

[Rafiq]

Well, this is a great thread isn't it.

The world is in economic and financial crisis, Europe is practically broke save for Germany, we have 'Occupy' movements going on around the world, hundreds have been dying in Turkey and Bangkok, there's a famine in East Africa....

...yet the most important order of the day is to save the legacies of Stalin and Hoxha.

Great work, you little internet warrior.:rolleyes:

Oh, just stop it right now.

This is a pretty weak argument. I mean, you probably go on Chit Chat, watch You tube videos, go on Facebook, the fuck if I know. I think having a conversation regarding the historical accuracy of the claims made by the OP is more important.

[Ismail]

In terms of the DotP, Marx and/or engels expressed that the Paris Commune, was a prime example of a DotP. In what ways was the USSR/Albania like the Paris Commune?Marx pointed out (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm) that "the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be." Evidently, then, it stands to reason that the Commune was the most glorious example of proletarian dictatorship at the time. In Albania, despite various threats against it, the working-class was the beneficiary of all that was built in the country. The Marxist-Leninist line was predominant, production assumed a social character, the exploitation of man by man was abolished, anti-proletarian elements (bourgeois, petty-bourgeois) were put to an end, and various efforts were made to make the workers conscious of their role in society and to do away with any mentalities that could lead to the restoration of capitalism.

Albania was a socialist state, without which the dictatorship of the proletariat could not have existed for long.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh, just stop it right now.

This is a pretty weak argument. I mean, you probably go on Chit Chat, watch You tube videos, go on Facebook, the fuck if I know. I think having a conversation regarding the historical accuracy of the claims made by the OP is more important.

I was referring to the original post, which had nothing to do with the later attempts in the thread to clarify the inaccuracies in the OP. The OP itself was just a list of some of Hoxha's (questionable) achievements and beliefs.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marx pointed out (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm) that "the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be." Evidently, then, it stands to reason that the Commune was the most glorious example of proletarian dictatorship at the time. In Albania, despite various threats against it, the working-class was the beneficiary of all that was built in the country. The Marxist-Leninist line was predominant, production assumed a social character, the exploitation of man by man was abolished, anti-proletarian elements (bourgeois, petty-bourgeois) were put to an end, and various efforts were made to make the workers conscious of their role in society and to do away with any mentalities that could lead to the restoration of capitalism.

Albania was a socialist state, without which the dictatorship of the proletariat could not have existed for long.

1) The working class being the beneficiary without having political power itself, does not equal the dictatorship of the proletariat. Even if, in purely economic terms, the working class was better off than before, this is (whilst not pointless/useless) besides the point - within the DoTP/Socialist argument - if it is not accompanied by political power. Unless you believe Socialism to be an economising system where power relationships can lie outside the working class - or on behalf of the working class - as long as the working class makes some strides forwards in living standards.

2) Once again, there is no such thing as a 'Socialist State'. The state apparatus include tools of repression, that obviously can only be used by the government of the day. Thus, if you've already (as you say) eliminated non-proletarian elements, then the existence of a state at all, never mind calling that state 'Socialist', actually provides evidence that you believe political dictatorship over the working class, on behalf of the working class is equal to political dictatorship by the working class, for the working class
. You don't seem able (or seem to care) to grasp the difference between these two states (excuse the pun) of affairs.

[Ismail]

2) Once again, there is no such thing as a 'Socialist State'. The state apparatus include tools of repression, that obviously can only be used by the government of the day. Thus, if you've already (as you say) eliminated non-proletarian elements, then the existence of a state at all, never mind calling that state 'Socialist', actually provides evidence that you believe political dictatorship over the working class, on behalf of the working class is equal to political dictatorship by the working class, for the working classThe state continues to exist because of a variety of factors, such as:

1. Managing the economy at a time when the productive forces obviously do not allow one to move to the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need;
2. To manage the defense of socialism against imperialism and attempts at internal subversion;
3. To continue the construction of socialism onto the construction of communism, in which the state apparatus will begin to dissipate following the continued victories of the working-class in more and more countries as relations between states of the socialist camp become relations between humanity as a whole.

[Rafiq]

I was referring to the original post, which had nothing to do with the later attempts in the thread to clarify the inaccuracies in the OP. The OP itself was just a list of some of Hoxha's (questionable) achievements and beliefs.

Ah, that makes more sense.

The OP's original post was useless, none the less. And not to mention the unapologetic opportunism displayed by him.

[tir1944]

The OP's original post was useless, none the less. And not to mention the unapologetic opportunism displayed by him.
It was useless only if it didn't teach you anything new,which i (forgive me) doubt.
Besides,can you elaborate more on this alleged "unap. opportunism"?

[Rafiq]

It was useless only if it didn't teach you anything new,which i (forgive me) doubt.
Besides,can you elaborate more on this alleged "unap. opportunism"?

Seeing that we don't care about Enver Hoxha, and him being the representative of the Albanian bourgeoisie at the time, I don't think radical leftists take to kindly of these kinds of threads.

Hitler had accomplishments, too, however, we still find it irrelevant.

[tir1944]

Seeing that we don't care about Enver Hoxha
It's OK not to care about things,but that doesn't mean you have to post spam in the thread for those who do care.


and him being the representative of the Albanian bourgeoisie at the time, I don't think radical leftists take to kindly of these kinds of threads.
That's some really dumb shit you know.
How about mak?ing a meaningful argument and provide some kind of substantiation,eh?


Hitler had accomplishments, too, however, we still find it irrelevant.
Yes but Hitler wasn't a Marxist last time i checked.

[Rafiq]

It's OK not to care about things,but that doesn't mean you have to post spam in the thread for those who do care.

It's not Spam.


That's some really dumb shit you know.
How about mak?ing a meaningful argument and provide some kind of substantiation,eh?


I just did.


Yes but Hitler wasn't a Marxist last time i checked.

yeah well we Materialists don't base our qualifications as to who we support on what they agreed on or what they called themselves, we base our qualifications for support based on what a person does and who they represent.

[tir1944]

It's not Spam. Ok then,let's call it meaningful contribution then.


I just did. No you didn't and i suggest you revise what an "substantiated argument" means.


yeah well we Materialists don't base our qualifications as to who we support on what they agreed on or what they called themselves, we base our qualifications for support based on what a person does and who they represent. And what did Hitler did in terms of proletarian revolution?:laugh:

[Искра]

And what did Hitler did in terms of proletarian revolution?:laugh:
He supressed it. Wait a second... wasn't that Hoxha? Those H names....

[tir1944]

He supressed it. Wait a second... wasn't that Hoxha? Those H names....
What?

[Искра]

He suppressed proletarian revolution with his nationalism and chauvinism and with creation of Albanian national state. Just like bourgeoisie did with welfare state project in developed western countries, or just like Hitler who also created some kind of a welfare corporative society.

[tir1944]

You are aware of the fact that he was the leader of the national liberation movement that fought against the occupiers,domstic quislings and pro-bourgeois balists,right?
This doesn't make any sense at all and you have provided no evidence for how he allgedly "supressed the proletarian revoltion".
I'm also EAGER too see your evidence for Hoxha's chauvinism.

[Искра]

Blah blah blah NATIONAL LIBERATION blah blah blah - there's your evidence. National liberation struggles tend to create NATIONAL STATES, which are reactionary and they unite people on basis of their NATION instead of CLASS and therfore they supress the PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION. Also, so called STATE socialism supresses PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION, because it tends to devide PROELTARIAN on NATIONAL basis, instead of uniting it under INTERNATIONALISM. Also, when you create STATE CAPITALIST regime you also keep BUOURGEOISIE, just like mr. Hoxha was.

[tir1944]

National states are reactionary? State supresses the revolution?
Enough said...

[Искра]

National states are reactionary? State supresses the revolution?
Enough said...
Indeed.

[black magick hustla]

It's like saying that the USSR in the 1930's could have industrialized under a liberal bourgeois administration. I don't recall capitalist countries having shock brigades or nationalizing industries, creating cooperatives and collectives, and issuing central economic plans.


mexico, japan

[Ismail]

Kontrrazvedka believes that Yugoslavia should have annexed Albania, this is how the "national question" of the Albanians would thus be solved in his view. Nevermind the fact that it was a consistent Bolshevik policy to support the national independence of Albania and that the Comintern explicitly supported the 1924 bourgeois-democratic revolution in the country as it was occurring.

Kontrrazvedka of course is strongly opposed to the national liberation of Albania. As actual Albanian ultra-leftists and some Trotskyists argued at the time, the Communists had no hope in occupied Albania and should simply practice entryism within the fascist institutions, since there was "no proletariat" and thus waging class struggle was impossible. Under such a road it is clear that Albania would have experienced a substantially different "liberation."

There was barely even a bourgeoisie in Albania. The vast majority of that which did exist collaborated with the Italians and Germans and were subsequently wiped out. The agrarian landowners were subsequently dealt with within the first year of the People's Democratic order.


mexico, japanI was unaware Mexico and Japan were states in which feudalism predominated, or that either could be compared much with the Soviet Union and Albania. If you mean 1930's Japan, then, like Nazi Germany, it was set on a war footing and got most of its materials from the occupation of Manchuria.

[Искра]

Kontrrazvedka believes that Yugoslavia should have annexed Albania,
What.The.Fuck. :lol:

You should do stand up comedy.

[Rafiq]

Ismail you are so full of shit. Russia was the most rapidly industrializing country in 1914... It would have happened regardless of Stalin.

[Искра]

Ismail you are so full of shit. Russia was the most rapidly industrializing country in 1914... It would have happened regardless of Stalin.
Who cares about industrialization? Industrialization of country doesn’t make it socialist! Look at Netherlands and England – they were industrialized long time ago before Russia. Should, we give credit to Queen InsertHerNameCauseIDontKnow, like Stalinists give to Stalin? Was England socialist? Hell no, because one country can not be socialist! Also, concerning society where means of production were owned by [red] bourgeoisie socialist is quite preposterous.

[tir1944]

Ismail you are so full of shit. Russia was the most rapidly industrializing country in 1914... It would have happened regardless of Stalin.
Very interesting analysis.
How about some proof now?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Who cares about industrialization? Industrialization of country doesn’t make it socialist! Look at Netherlands and England – they were industrialized long time ago before Russia. Should, we give credit to Queen InsertHerNameCauseIDontKnow, like Stalinists give to Stalin? Was England socialist? Hell no, because one country can not be socialist! Also, concerning society where means of production were owned by [red] bourgeoisie socialist is quite preposterous.

Industrialisation is a part of the post-feudal process whose by-product is technological and scientific development and a rise in living standards. It also allows for a natural increase in the percentage of the population that the urban working class occupies, thus making genuine worker-led revolution possible. So yeah, [to begin with] industrialisation in a Capitalist framework is absolutely necessary for Socialism to ever be possible, however absurd that might seem in today's context of imperialism and over-consumption in some goods markets.

Indeed, Lenin himself recognised this with his call for the 1920s to be a period of State Capitalism [read: NEP]. Unfortunately, this call for State Capitalism betrays the premature nature of political Socialism in the USSR, and that Bolshevism was to lead to political dictatorship (i.e. Lenin recognise the need for capital accumulation and capitalistic development to continue from the pre-revolutionary period in the USSR, but still believed that Bolshevik dictatorship was somehow necessary amongst this?!?!!!) in the long-run.

Don't forget that, once upon a time, Capitalism was a revolutionary ideology and, because Russia was somewhat behind the west in terms of industrialisation (though not as much as has often been stated!) it was actually a society that was still on the cusp of a genuine capitalist industrial peak.

[black magick hustla]

I was unaware Mexico and Japan were states in which feudalism predominated, or that either could be compared much with the Soviet Union and Albania. If you mean 1930's Japan, then, like Nazi Germany, it was set on a war footing and got most of its materials from the occupation of Manchuria.

japan superindustralized in the late 19ths through "state capitalist" machinations. japan in the 19th century just came out from the feudal tokugawa regime that was overthrown in the bakumatsu. mexico's government created cooperatives, nationalisations, etc and brought up a country that was more than ninety percent illiterate and were barely anyone spoke spanish. the problem with stalinists is that they think their shit is unique - state capitalism has always been the natural tendency of capital

[Ismail]

japan superindustralized in the late 19ths through "state capitalist" machinations. japan in the 19th century just came out from the feudal tokugawa regime that was overthrown in the bakumatsu. mexico's government created cooperatives, nationalisations, etc and brought up a country that was more than ninety percent illiterate and were barely anyone spoke spanish. the problem with stalinists is that they think their shit is unique - state capitalism has always been the natural tendency of capitalNationalization is not the same as socialization, nor are bourgeois cooperatives the same as collectivization. You also forget in both cases that there were plenty of foreign investments in each. It also matters how industrialization was carried out. In Albania industrialization was carried out both with regards to the needs of the peasantry and to the benefit of the working-class.


Ismail you are so full of shit. Russia was the most rapidly industrializing country in 1914... It would have happened regardless of Stalin.The Bolsheviks didn't agree. Obviously any country will industrialize given enough time, but the level of industrialization achieved in the 1930's would not have been accomplished at that time under a bourgeois regime.

[Искра]

And how is this industrialization important for anything?

[Ismail]

And how is this industrialization important for anything?Apparently socialism can be achieved via feudalism. Thanks for teaching us this.

For a more serious answer, industrialization is important because it shows the vitality of central planning and its continuous ability to give focus to the productive forces rather than profit. Unlike in Yugoslavia where the republics bickered amongst themselves and the "self-managing" enterprises were constantly on the lookout for profit, in the USSR of the 1930's-50's and Albania in the 1940's-80's planning was done on a comprehensive basis, taking into account the whole economy rather than the opinions of a few shareholders or regions. Under Marxist-Leninist guidance it also prevents distortions, such as those in the USSR under state-capitalist rule which saw the military, "market socialists," etc. factions argue about resource allocation, etc. in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

[Искра]

So, Queen Elizabeth of England was a socialist? :confused:

[dodger]

And how is this industrialization important for anything?

Just one of the alternatives that spring to mind ...CARGO CULT.

[Ismail]

So, Queen Elizabeth of England was a socialist? :confused:Did she engage in central planning?

[Искра]

Did she engage in central planning?
I don't know, but Mussolini did.

[Ismail]

I don't know, but Mussolini did.Thus it is revealed: Hoxha was actually a fascist!

No, development in Fascist Italy was lopsided and the various social and economic problems between the north and south were not solved. It wasn't particularly "planned" either unless you want to confuse the state promoting the development of this or that sector with central planning. Using this logic FDR's "New Deal" was central planning as well.

[mrmikhail]

So, Queen Elizabeth of England was a socialist? :confused:

Central Planning does not make one a socialist....

the USA during WWI used central planning as apart of their war economy, similar happened during WW2. In fact most nations have at least some degree of planning during certain times (since most modern economies are classified as mixed, instead of free market or planned). Take Nazi Germany, while the economy was privately owned, it was told what to do by central planners in the government.


And Ismail is correct on Mussolini, since Italy was fascist, and thus corporatist, the corporations were formed into cartels and did basically what they wanted, with some guidance from the government (which they partially made up in reality). With basically all the industry/corporations in the North of Italy, the south never (under Mussolini at least) industrialised in any real sense, and remained an agrarian area and very very very poor...

[Rafiq]

Ismail, industrialization under Stalin was a disaster... The recources Russia had made rapid industrialization inevitable, like it was in 1914. Not to mention a lot of the growth was just a result of thegrowth was just rebuilding the damages of the civil war...

[tir1944]

No,you're wrong.
Tzarist Russia industrialized itself primarily thanks to French and British investments therefore it didn't build industries in a planned,comprehensive manner.For example before the first Pyatiletka it didn't even have any chemical(art.fertilizers etc.) industry.
Also you're wrong again because the post-war reconstruction had already been finished (and most industriess actually surpassed the pre-war levels) by the end of the NEP.
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch05.htm