Why I am a Titoist

[khlib]

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed. Under Tito's rule, its accomplishments were outstanding:

-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.
-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world.
-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.
-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management.
-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army.
-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish.
-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression.

Please feel free to add to this list! Let us never forget the accomplishments of comrade Josip Broz Tito.

[Conscript]

Yugoslavia relied a lot on western investment and tito. When tito died and western investment turned into debt, it dissolved into one big nasty ethnic conflict which was already in the making. The nationalisms were never surmounted like they were in the USSR, unfortunately.

That and market socialism is ew.

What is 'titoism' anyway? I know im criticizing it, sort of, but all of these accomplishments are that of yugoslavia. It's like crediting marxism leninism with victory in WW2.

[tir1944]

It's like crediting marxism leninism with victory in WW2.
The country probably wouldn't have industrialized itself to the point of being able to resist the Nazi Germany without a Marxist-Leninist leadership and Stalin.
IMO.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed. Under Tito's rule, its accomplishments were outstanding:

-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.
-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world.
-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.
-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management.
-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army.
-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish.
-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression.

Please feel free to add to this list! Let us never forget the accomplishments of comrade Josip Broz Tito.
Stalin created "Marxism-Leninism" ... how can his vision of it be a perversion when his was the original. I can see it being a perversion of Marxism, which I wholeheartedly agree ... but M-L was absolutely Stalin's creation ...

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

He also squashed political freedoms, had political opponents murdered and had a rather poor track record when it came to civil liberties.

But yes, Kardelj's worker self managment and market socialism was pretty cool.

[khlib]

The nationalisms were never surmounted like they were in the USSR, unfortunately.
Since the breakup of the USSR, there have been many ethnic conflicts in the former republics (Chechens, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Georgia-Ossetia, Georgia-Abkhazia, Ossetia-Ingush, and Moldova-Pridnestrovje), showing that national questions were not overcome any more in the USSR than in Yugoslavia.


market socialism is ew.
could you elaborate, please?


What is 'titoism' anyway? I know im criticizing it, sort of, but all of these accomplishments are that of yugoslavia. It's like crediting marxism leninism with victory in WW2.
Titoism is the name of the practical implementation of the theories of Marx and Lenin in the Yugoslav context under Josip Broz Tito, just as Stalinism refers to the implementation of Marxism-Leninism under Stalin in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. "Stalinism," referring to the policies of Joseph Stalin, is often credited for the victories of the USSR during WWII, as Stalin was the Marshal of the Soviet Union (head of Red Army). In the same way, Titoism can be credited for the victories of the Yugoslavia during WWII because Tito was the Marshal of Yugoslavia, leading the partisans to victory.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

could you elaborate, please?

Idea of workers co-operatives opperating on a 'free' market, Proudhon and anarcho-collectivists wrote alot on it, Edvard Kardelj also took some ideas from it. I can't post links yet, so just wiki 'market socialism'.

[khlib]

Stalin created "Marxism-Leninism" ... how can his vision of it be a perversion when his was the original. I can see it being a perversion of Marxism, which I wholeheartedly agree ... but M-L was absolutely Stalin's creation ...
Marxism-Leninism was indeed a term coined by Stalin in order to try to lend legitimacy and historical precedence to his policies. But, if they came back from the dead today, who do you think Marx and Lenin would actually see as better carrying out their goals and visions: Stalin or Tito?


He also squashed political freedoms, had political opponents murdered and had a rather poor track record when it came to civil liberties.
Name one leader of a socialist country who you think has better protected political freedoms and civil liberties than Josip Broz Tito.

[Iron Felix]

Where is this wonderful paradise called Yugoslavia? Can't find it on the map.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Where is this wonderful paradise called Yugoslavia? Can't find it on the map.

Can't find the USSR either...

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Marxism-Leninism was indeed a term coined by Stalin in order to try to lend legitimacy and historical precedence to his policies. But, if they came back from the dead today, who do you think Marx and Lenin would actually see as better carrying out their goals and visions: Stalin or Tito?


Name one leader of a socialist country who you think has better protected political freedoms and civil liberties than Josip Broz Tito.
I already agreed that it was a perversion of Marxism, do I really need to repeat myself?

[khlib]

I already agreed that it was a perversion of Marxism, do I really need to repeat myself?

Sorry comrade, you must have misunderstood my point. I am saying that while Marxism-Leninism as a term was coined by Stalin, the theories and principles of Marx and Lenin were better realized in Yugoslavia under Tito.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Name one leader of a socialist country who you think has better protected political freedoms and civil liberties than Josip Broz Tito.

Salvador Allende

trollface.jpg

[Iron Felix]

Can't find the USSR either...
I am not a fan of the USSR either.

What is funny about Titoism is that the term was coined by Stalinists as the new heresy, the new Trotskyism/Bukharinism.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

What is funny about Titoism is that the term was coined by Stalinists as the new heresy, the new Trotskyism/Bukharinism.

I could swear Stalinists do nothing more than invent new slurs for thier opponents...

[Tim Cornelis]

Name one leader of a socialist country who you think has better protected political freedoms and civil liberties than Josip Broz Tito.

What kind of argument is that? It's like arguing as follows: "Monarchy A had more freedoms than monarchy B, therefore I advocate monarchy A". Just because he was the lesser evil does not make him not evil.

Your other arguments are also shallow and meaningless.


Marx advocated the liberation of man


And Tito was a dictator. People in Yugoslavia were as free as people are now under Lukashenko in Belarus. Maybe there is not a severe degree of repression, but it still is a dictatorial country that lacks basic freedoms.

And "workers' self-management" in practice was "co-determination" of workers and public officials. Moreover, unemployment in Yugoslavia was extremely high. The market economy needs to be abolished.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Moreover, unemployment in Yugoslavia was extremely high.

Really? I've always heard that he supposedly achieved almost 100% employment (though that could just be propoganda).

[PolskiLenin]

I am sympathetic to Tito and so on due to my biases as a Slav ;), but still, I have tried to put aside those biases and look scientifically at Titoism, and unfortunately, titoism isn't what you say it is.

True, years later in the aftermath of the ethnic bloodbath of the former Yugoslavia, millions still look back longingly to bygone days when Tito personally directed the destiny of the country on its “unswerving road to socialism.” For at least then there was no “fraternal” war, and Yugoslavia was held in high regard internationally and renowned for its achievements, both political and economic, as a multinational entity capable of resisting the Stalinist eastern bloc. Yet, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did eventually collapse in the face of genocide, war, and economic depression. Its failure, however, was not a failure of socialism or a failure of ethnic cooperation and coexistence but instead a failure on the part of the ideology and policies of Josip Broz Tito used to build socialism in Yugoslavia, known collectively as the Stalinist variation of Titoism.

The popular propaganda tale of Tito’s rise to power as the supreme leader of Yugoslavia is one of inspiring heroism, exhilarating and arousing rhetoric, and nationalist sentiment in which Tito, the revolutionary communist partisan, leads his people victoriously into battle against the fascist invaders and is later propelled to a position of power in an excited wave of anxiousness to begin the struggle to build socialism for the Yugoslav people. Such an absurd fiction is entirely contradictory to the historical reality of how Tito actually arrived at the position of political leadership over the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, and later the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In reality, Tito was no revolutionary communist. His career at the top of the Yugoslav Communist Party (YCP) was bound up with the Stalinization of the international communist movement, and Tito’s earliest actions in the People’s Liberation War were, as Tony Cliff correctly wrote in On the Class Nature of the “People’s Democracies”:
“to abolish the plebeian democratic character of the armed forces and transform it into a regular army hierarchically organised, with ranks, medals, etc. On 1 May 1943 the ranks of officers and non-commissioned officers were introduced, and in the next four months about 5,000 officers and generals were created, and Tito was raised to the rank of Marshal. These higher layers of the Tito army took the commanding positions in state administration and economy when at the end of 1944, Belgrade, Zagreb and other important towns were liberated from the Germans.”

In all of Tito's leadership spheres, he created a bureaucracy to entrench his rule, this was true in the partisan forces of the People's Liberation War, and the Jugoslavian state. this is a major fault of titoism - bureaucracy - as even though workers were allowed to some extent self management, the massive potential productivity of planned economics was wasted by the bureaucracy of the YCP that held power over the sectors that weren't allowed self management, and still some sway in self management.

when I say that tito was no revolutionary communist, it's true. May I remind you of the Bihac program, the original program of the partisans and Jugoslav struggle against fascism. this extremely conservative program simply stated conservative demands, as tito called for the social status quo to be kept in the name of the infamous Stalinist People's Front Policy. the program stated:

"(2) The inviolability of private property and the providing of every possibility for individual initiative in industry, trade and agriculture.

(3) No radical changes whatsoever in the social life and activities of the people except for the replacement of reactionary village authorities and gendarmes who may have gone over to the service of the invaders by popularly elected representatives truly democratic and popular in character. All the most important questions of social life and State organisation will be settled by the people themselves through representatives who will be properly elected by the people after the end of the war."

The only seemingly "communist" aspects of the program were the "abolition of private property" and the "election of representatives for representation." Yet, the reality was that this program was still conservative, as most property in the remote areas of the partisan warfare was already public, and the "popular, democratically elected representatives" would really just be Tito's bureaucracy that was directly transferred from the partisan force into the ruling administrative positions as cities were liberated.
Tito’s transition to more “socialist” policies and rhetoric and so on were only products of revisionist change in the course of his increasing dictatorship of the nation, again characteristic of the slow revisionist, stagist change advocated by the Stalinist “People’s Front” theory.

Lastly, tito's resistance to Stalin was not out of difference of theory or practice, etc. but rather for personal greed over WHO was to rule over jugoslavija with their bureaucracy and military.
I do, however, give a LOT more credit to tito in areas than most hardcore Trotskyists do, and I’m more than open to be convinced against my existing opinion.

[PolskiLenin]

And btw, all comrades interested in a good read should read Communism and Fatherland by Boris Ziherl. I believe it is on MIA...

[Nox]

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed. Under Tito's rule, its accomplishments were outstanding:

-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.
-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world.
-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.
-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management.
-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army.
-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish.
-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression.

Please feel free to add to this list! Let us never forget the accomplishments of comrade Josip Broz Tito.

Firstly, Yugoslavia wasn't Socialist.

Secondly, fuck Serbia.

Thirdly, Kosovo is Albania.

Thankyou

[khlib]

And Tito was a dictator. People in Yugoslavia were as free as people are now under Lukashenko in Belarus. Maybe there is not a severe degree of repression, but it still is a dictatorial country that lacks basic freedoms.
Could you please elaborate on what "basic freedoms" exactly people lacked?


Firstly, Yugoslavia wasn't Socialist.
Secondly, fuck Serbia.
In what ways was Yugoslavia not a socialist country? And we don't need this ethnic hatred on the board. How can you be an anarchist and say "Kosovo is Albania"? You do know Albania is a state, yeah? Saying any territory "belongs" to a state does not seem very anarchist to me.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why I am a Titoist
Excuses, excuses.

[tir1944]

Comrade Polish Lenin,the Bihać program was written in a situation where the Comparty was still in no position of (legitimate/recognized) power.It had to be implemented because otherwise the Allies would hesitate on recognizing Tito instead of the Royal Government in London,and the British would have most likely refused military (and other aid).
Actually,Yugoslavia became a "one party" state only some time after the end of WW2,after the period where it even had a Royal prime minister...


Secondly, fuck Serbia.
Thirdly, Kosovo is Albania.What is this shit?
Fuck Serbia?
Chill out man.

[Искра]

Some people are so thick and ignorant. Why do people like Nox and IronFelix have an urge to post such stupid crap?

Ok, now... one by one. Firstly I’ll answer to OP and then to really good post by PolskiLenin.


The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed. Under Tito's rule, its accomplishments were outstanding:
I'm very fond of Yugoslavia and it represents field of my academic interest. All of you could notice that in quite a few occasions when Yugoslavia or post-Yugoslav countries were discussed. Also, as a person who know quite a lot about history of Yugoslav nations I could agree with this statement that “under Tito’s rule, its accomplishments were outstanding”. This is true. Yugoslavia was turned into big industrialized country from semi-feudal ancien regime. Accomplishments were not just economical, but also political; for example: right of women to vote and participate in political life etc. Still, those accomplishments can not hide true state capitalist nature of Yugoslavia. In Communist Manifesto you could find a lot of places where Marx & Engels praise capitalism and praise economical and political accomplishments of capitalism and liberalism, but still they say that this is not enough and we need a socialist revolution. My position towards Yugoslavia is almost the same.


-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.
This is still open question. I’m still trying to learn more about non-aligned movement. So, I won’t answer on this question, but I’ll give you nice book to read on this subject: Tvrtko Jakovina: Treća strana hladnog rata. You said that you understand our language. This book is based on documentation of foreign ministers of Yugoslavia.


-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world. This is true, but I can’t see how that is important. With Croatian passport you can travel freely. I can see only one good argument here and it’s against Eastern Bock, but those countries were in stage of constant siege and paranoia.


-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.This was success, I agree, but only short termed because it was based on few myths which were closely related to Tito’s person. I wrote some time ago about this, so I’ll just quote myself.


Yugoslavian state ideology was based on a few myths. I don’t use this term “myth” to refer something which is not true or which is fabricated, but I use it to name something that is almost transcendental, something which is giving sort of an identity to this community. In the case of Yugoslavia these myths were (i) National Liberation Struggle (cro. Narodno oslobodilačka borba – NOB), (ii) socialist self-management, (iii) “brotherhood and unity” (cro. “bratstvo i jedinstvo”) and (iv) cult of marshal Tito. These myths were never questioned. First, myth is saying that all nations of Yugoslavia liberated themselves using their own power, without Allied intervention (there was a small Soviet intervention in Serbia, but that’s quite irrelevant when we analyze whole struggle), and that they defeated Germans, Italians and their collaborators (Croatian Ustaše, Serbian Četnik’s and Nedić’s forces, Albanian Balije’s, Russian Čerkez’s, Slovenian White Army etc.). Yugoslav post-war propaganda always empathies great sacrifices of Yugoslav partisans, brutality of enemy etc. You can see this myth by watching Yugoslav partisan movies (which are great!). Second myth is based on struggle against Stalin and creation of specific Yugoslav socialist path – workers self-management. It’s also important to emphasize that ideology of workers self-management claimed that in order to reach communism it’s important to dissolve the Party and to let worker councils to run the factories and economy, but also neighborhoods etc. In order to dissolve Party Tito changed name of Communist Party of Yugoslavia (and all its national branches) into Union of Communists. There was no real difference in practice, but ideological idea was to include more and more people in managing the society. Of course, Yugoslav self-management was nice on paper (which is really true, it’s really interesting experiment and if you are interested you should really read about that), but, as we say here in Croatia, paper can take everything, or in other words ideology was far from reality. State never dissolved, but it grew stronger, so did Party (even Tito retired centralists – note: he didn’t killed them, he really retired them) etc., and workers never self-manage their work places, but instead of them that job was done by beurocrats – new ruling class. I won’t write much here about economy and “market socialism” since it’s not topic, but it’s important to know that this form of state capitalism was more liberal comparing to Russian (Soviet), so some forms of private property existed. Third myth was “brotherhood and unity” which is maybe most important myth in order to understand collapse of Yugoslavia. Tito and his right hand Kardelj were aware of history of nationalism of south Slavs and idea of Yugoslavia etc. Since state ideology was to dissolve the state Tito never tried to turn all people in Yugoslavs. That was idea of Aleksandar Ranković who was centralist, but he was retired in 70’s. Kardelj said that Yugoslavia is consisted of “nations” and “nationalities”. Nations were: Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Macedonians. Each nation had its republic. Serbia was special, because it also had two autonomous regions: Vojvodina and Kosovo. Nationalities were something which we would now, in liberal democracy, called minorities. Biggest were, of course, Albanians on Kosovo, but there were also Germans, Italians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Hungarians etc. Each nation had its own communist party (union of communists) and after Tito died each nation gave their representative into new formed body called “predsjedništvo” which ruled Yugoslavia. Also, it’s important to say that Bosnian and Macedonian nations did formally exist before Yugoslavia. We could also say something similar regarding Montenegrins. Yugoslav paradigm regarding national question in Yugoslavia is that there were no majorities and minorities. That is really important! This is what “brotherhood and unity” was all about. This principle of inclusion was everywhere. Yugoslav authorities were always trying to keep balance, so that in every important position in the country is one representative of each nation. For example in Yugoslav National Army there were 6 generals and one was Croat, one was Serbian etc. You get the picture? Problem was with some nationalities, such as Albanians who were huge in numbers but were not represented as nations were. At the end of 80’s Albanians wanted to have status of nation which was a spark for a Serbian nationalism, at least for an excuse... Forth myth was Tito’s cult... and we all know what that was about. He was hero of WW2 (he’s only Allied leader who was wounded in a war, because he was always with his troops), founder of Non-aligned movement, he showed Stalin middle finger etc. etc. In the end, his cult was glue of Yugoslav unity, and that’s why shits started to happen when he died. (Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/serbia-blame-collapse-t162057/index.html?p=2250406#post2250406 )


-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management. This is just about rhetorical ideological games. Although, Tito was maybe closer to Marx and Lenin because he said that state must fade away, this was only rhetoric and in practice Yugoslavia had really a lot of similar with USSR. Self-management way also only about rhetoric, but I’ll come to that later.


-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army. This should never been forgotten.


-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish. This is true. Yugoslavia didn’t have blockade of art or pop culture from West like Soviet Union used to have. You could buy for example 2 Tone records in Yugoslavia or The Clash’s LP’s.


-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression. You should not forget that Yugoslav system was also repressive state capitalist regime. There were no gulags but there was Goli otok for Stalinists and numerous jails for political enemies.

PolskiLenin your answer is like an answer of real Trotskyite :) Yeah, it’s true that Tito “purged” CPY from Trotskyites and social democrats when he gain power. He was very “ruthless” and as an NKVD’s agent he participated in Spanish Civil war, where he was staioned on a border with France where he used to execute anarchists and anti-Stalinists who were running to France after 1937.

It’s true that during the WW2 Tito was as Stalinist as you can be. Communist Party of Yugoslavia was one of most loyal parties to Soviet Union and to Stalin. CPY followed all Comintern directives and policies – such as People’s front. That is why their politics was conservative and cautious and just like all Stalinists – they collaborated with bourgeoisie. For example, it’s well known fact that CPY tried to reach as much as possible members of Croatian Peasants Party (HSS) – leading Croatian party from Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They succeed in that, even trough many of HSS’s members remained loyal to “London government” and to ban Ivan Šubašić. At the beginning of a war Tito even tried to make an alliance with Četnik’s, because they were against Germans back then, but Draža Mihajlović and his scum decided that it’s more important to defeat “inner enemy” and relay on victory of Allies, so that they can establish Great Serbia. Also, it’s a fact that after WW2 elections were held on which CPY won their power and Šubašić was defeated. That’s how socialist regime was established.

So, after all of this it’s clearly that during the WW2 Tito was really good Stalinist. Now, regarding spilt with Stalin I would like to quote myself again, but I wrote that replay in Zapadni Balkan forum on Croatian so fuck it.

Tito and Stalin spit came because Yugoslav elites opposed to Soviet imperialism. It’s well known fact that Soviet Union, in order to recover its economy after WW2, created certain amount of enterprises in its satellite countries. Those enterprises where created by Soviet and satellite capital, but all surplus values went straight to Soviet Union. That left satellite countries in deep shit. Yugoslavia opposed creation of such enterprises. Also, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union were in fight because of “Trieste crisis” and because CPY gave money, food and weapons to Greek partisans, even Soviet Union agreed that Greece should be British after WW2 ends.

What was Titoism and did it worked? I answered on that question here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2278208&postcount=2

[R_P_A_S]

oh for fuck-sake.. lols.. an other "ist" and "ism" to add to the stagnation of the revolutionary left.. YAWN!!

[Yuppie Grinder]

ya'll authoritarian socialists sure are sectarian at times

[Sir Comradical]

Tito sold his country to the IMF which ended up plunging Yugoslavia into serious debt, division and eventually inter-ethnic slaughter.

[Искра]

Tito sold his country to the IMF which ended up plunging Yugoslavia into serious debt, division and eventually inter-ethnic slaughter.
Cool propaganda, but it wasn’t like that. Inner-ethical conflicts happened because of political liberalization, which caused secessions (Slovenian & Croatian), which caused creation of nation-states and nationalism. Croatian now has bigger dept than Yugoslavia and regarding IMF it didn’t cause anything but bigger economical liberalization (which is bad as it is, but still it didn’t cause a war). Problem with Yugoslavia was that its ideology was defeated with fall of Berlin Wall.

[Tim Cornelis]

Really? I've always heard that he supposedly achieved almost 100% employment (though that could just be propoganda).

Nope, 16,5% unemployment rate.



Unemployment was a major problem for Yugoslavia in the late 1980s. During that period, over 875,000 Yugoslavs worked abroad and as much as 25 percent of workers employed in the productive social sector were classified as surplus labor; nevertheless, more than 1.2 million people were registered as unemployed in 1988. This was about one-sixth of the total working-age population of Yugoslavia that year ... Because unprofitable Yugoslav enterprises often were supported by the government and prevented from going into bankruptcy, workers in the social sector rarely lost their jobs before the reform of 1990. Therefore, a large proportion of job seekers in the 1980s were young people. In 1988 over 92 percent of the unemployed were under age forty, and nearly 57 percent were under age thirty. Yugoslav unemployment also tended to be long-term: according to official statistics for 1988, although almost one-quarter of the unemployed were able to find work in less than six months, almost 62 percent were without a job for over one year, many for more than three years. A third characteristic of Yugoslav unemployment was the large regional differences in unemployment rates. In 1986 Slovenia was at virtually full employment while the underdeveloped region of Kosovo had more than one job seeker for every two workers employed in the social sector.

source (http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/yutoc.html#yu0101).


Could you please elaborate on what "basic freedoms" exactly people lacked?

The fact people did not control their own lives, the fact you could be imprisoned for stating your opinion, the fact you could be murdered for stating your opinion, the fact Yugoslavia was a dictatorship.

Also, on Tito as a person:


Milovan Djilas, in his books such as Anatomy of a Moral, The New Class and Rise and Fall, describes how Tito took over the former royal palaces and the best hunting preserves for his own use, as well as the royal train (Milovan Djilas, Rise and Fall, 1985, pp.14-16). Lower functionaries followed this example; the best hotels were commandeered for use by federal government agencies and veterans of the partisan war. Special stores, on the model of Stalin’s Russia, were set up for the exclusive use of top party officials and the like; they were unpopular right from the word "go", and after some years Kidrić and Djilas persuaded Tito to do away with them. However:

"Even after the special stores were abolished, members of the Politburo and a lesser number of top officials continued to have privileged sources of supply. They were fed by Tito’s farms and, through his staff, were provided with first-class merchandise at advantageous prices" (Djilas, p.19).

And why workers' self-management in Yugoslavia was a farce:


"Yugoslav governments, at all levels, but especially at communal level, exercise final control over all major investment decisions in ‘their’ enterprises. They sanction credits from local banks, despite the fact that the banks are supposed to be controlled by the enterprises. They force local firms to take on additional quotas of workers, irrespective of whether they are needed or not. They choose the directors of local enterprises and banks, ensuring that they are politically reliable, and often give these posts to politicians who are not well qualified to fill them. And they even put pressure on local enterprises to follow a policy of autarky. For example, they block enterprise plans to invest in other communes (or republics); and they try to ensure that, so far as possible, local enterprises buy their supplies from other local enterprises....

"So, in spite of the high claims for the self-management system, the workers were not to be trusted to manage their own affairs. They were to be kept strictly under the control of the local party bureaucracy. The motives for this policy were not, of course, simply ideological. If the workers had been allowed to exercise genuine rights of self-management, tens of thousands of party bureaucrats would have lost their power and their comfortable jobs" (Lydall, pp.78-9).

So, in conclusion. Tito lived like a monarch, workers' self-management was non-existent, and the market economy had significant negative drawbacks such as unemployment and income inequality.

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed? Yeah right

[Sir Comradical]

Cool propaganda, but it wasn’t like that. Inner-ethical conflicts happened because of political liberalization, which caused secessions (Slovenian & Croatian), which caused creation of nation-states and nationalism. Croatian now has bigger dept than Yugoslavia and regarding IMF it didn’t cause anything but bigger economical liberalization (which is bad as it is, but still it didn’t cause a war). Problem with Yugoslavia was that its ideology was defeated with fall of Berlin Wall.

Well yes, the overthrow of Yugoslavia has a lot to do with the overthrow of the workers states to the north and north-east. Economic problems leading to job insecurity and worsening standards for the workers is the breeding ground for nationalism/secessionism. This is the impression I got from Parenti's book 'To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia'.

[Искра]

Nope, 16,5% unemployment rate.
There was unemployment in Yugoslavia just like in all other socialist countries. Other socialist countries just manage to better hide this information from people. So, let’s use real statistic, shall we?

Here’s article by Croatian political economy professor Zdravko Petak on collapse of Yugoslavia: http://www.cpi.hr/download/links/hr/7309.pdf. It’s on Croatian, but type “nezaposlenost” (unemployment) and you’ll get data. So, articles say that until 80’s (or after Tito died) unemployment wasn’t big issue in Yugoslavia. In 1990 unemployment in Slovenia was 4.8% and on Kosovo it was 38.4%. Slovenia was most developed part of Yugoslavia while Kosovo was quite opposite. In 70’s Tito opened borders work Yugoslav workers to go to work on West so that he could solve unemployment problems.



The fact people did not control their own lives, the fact you could be imprisoned for stating your opinion, the fact you could be murdered for stating your opinion, the fact Yugoslavia was a dictatorship. This is not true. Have you hear for Marxist-Humanist magazine called Praxis? Do you know that in 70’s and 80’s first works of Kropotkin, Bakunin, Mao Tse Tung, Proudhon, Karl Korsh, Paul Mattick etc. were translated on Croatoserbian? Do you know that in Yugoslavia academics wrote freely about “civil society” and other liberal democratic stuff? Also, you could listen to western music and a lot of Yugoslav bands had really anti-system songs, but still they were not killed, imprisoned or anything like that. So, yes Yugoslavia was an one party dictatorship but people there had much greater liberties than other people from Eastern Block.


Also, on Tito as a person:How cares about Tito as person? Also quoting Djilas is like quoting Šubašić.


And why workers' self-management in Yugoslavia was a farce:It was a farce.


So, in conclusion. Tito lived like a monarch, workers' self-management was non-existent, and the market economy had significant negative drawbacks such as unemployment and income inequality. Moralist and week conclusion. Yugoslavia failed because it was a state capitalist regime and ruling class wanted more power and greater profits, so it was for stronger economical liberalizations. Unemployment is product of all capitalist economies. Regarding Tito, he lived like all “communist” dictators and the way he lived is not essential for analysis of Yugoslavia. Self-management failed because of its practice, not theory.

[Искра]

Well yes, the overthrow of Yugoslavia has a lot to do with the overthrow of the workers states to the north and north-east. Economic problems leading to job insecurity and worsening standards for the workers is the breeding ground for nationalism/secessionism. This is the impression I got from Parenti's book 'To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia'.
I agree, still regarding political liberalisation read my post here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/serbia-blame-collapse-t162057/index.html?p=2250406#post2250406

[Искра]

Oh, yeah and I made Yugoslav Study Group (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=846)here so that we can have one place to discuss SFRY. Feel free to join up ;)

[Conscript]

Since the breakup of the USSR, there have been many ethnic conflicts in the former republics (Chechens, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Georgia-Ossetia, Georgia-Abkhazia, Ossetia-Ingush, and Moldova-Pridnestrovje), showing that national questions were not overcome any more in the USSR than in Yugoslavia.

The soviet government was never overcome with national chauvinists like in yugoslavia. A lot of the ethnic conflict in the former USSR came after the collapse, after the ending of autonomous oblasts and generous state investment. Instead countries like georgia and russia want to rule those minorities.

I'm not familiar with the problem in moldova though, so I can't comment.



could you elaborate, please?

Market socialism is self-defeating and dangerous, especially when it's limited to one country like Yugoslavia and vulnerable to external market forces. Communists don't wish to retain a system of exchange, why should we buy and sell not only resources, but labor power, between ourselves, with the goal of making profit?

Only a planned economy can properly run things. No market will provide according to need and produce with the goal of abundance. No market will guarantee full employment, honest insurance, and incentivizing subsidies.



Titoism is the name of the practical implementation of the theories of Marx and Lenin in the Yugoslav context under Josip Broz Tito, just as Stalinism refers to the implementation of Marxism-Leninism under Stalin in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. "Stalinism," referring to the policies of Joseph Stalin, is often credited for the victories of the USSR during WWII, as Stalin was the Marshal of the Soviet Union (head of Red Army). In the same way, Titoism can be credited for the victories of the Yugoslavia during WWII because Tito was the Marshal of Yugoslavia, leading the partisans to victory.

So, titoism merely amounts to tito's personal achievements? The ideology implements partisan victories?

[Искра]

The soviet government was never overcome with national chauvinists like in yugoslavia. A lot of the ethnic conflict in the former USSR came after the collapse, after the ending of autonomous oblasts and generous state investment. Instead countries like georgia and russia want to rule those minorities.

I'm not familiar with the problem in moldova though, so I can't comment.
All ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia started after collapse of Yugoslavia. Except on Kosovo. Still, USSR and Yugoslavia situation is the same.


Market socialism is self-defeating and dangerous, especially when it's limited to one country like Yugoslavia and vulnerable to external market forces. Communists don't wish to retain a system of exchange, why should we buy and sell not only resources, but labor power, between ourselves, with the goal of making profit?

Only a planned economy can properly run things. No market will provide according to need and produce with the goal of abundance. No market will guarantee full employment, honest insurance, and incentivizing subsidies. Picking between 2 capitalist system won't lead you anywhere.


So, titoism merely amounts to tito's personal achievements? So the ideology implements partisan victories?
No, it's more than that.

And of course that implements partisan victories.

[Conscript]

All ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia started after collapse of Yugoslavia. Except on Kosovo. Still, USSR and Yugoslavia situation is the same.

The wars did, but there was friction before that in places like Croatia (croatian spring) and kosovo. Not to mention, not long after tito the government was led by nationalists like Milosevic.


Picking between 2 capitalist system won't lead you anywhere.

A planned economy is not capitalist. There is no capital, and the means of production are owned in common and run according to raw need, not monetary 'demand'.

If your referring to a planned economy of the likes of Gosplan, then I agree it is capitalist.



No, it's more than that.

I guessed but I was hoping to be informed.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Spit on Tito all you like, but he made more for his country than any of your other so called progressive "socialist" leaders could imagine. In my honest opinion he was one of the greatest political leaders of the 20th century. I would rather live in Tito's "revisionist" state, than any of your "socialist utopias". Yugoslavs didn't get sent to gulags, Yugoslavs didn't have to be terrified of their state, Yugoslavs were free to travel anywhere in the world, unlike the USSR, Albania, Czechoslovakia etc. etc. where people waited up to three years to get approved to come to Yugoslavia to visit the beach.

Yugoslavia had the greatest system to actually function in the world to date. Our debt was miniscule, however when Tito died the IMF saw their chance and ruined us by setting conditions which we could not meet. Ethnic hatred was a result of a mixture of the hard times and politicians wanting support. As we all know, people under crisis tend to turn towards nationalist ideologies before they turn to leftist ones.

I suggest watching the documentary "The weight of chains" to get a better understanding of Yugoslavia and its demise.


As for Nox, spreading ethnic hatred, in a region where this same kind of talk has caused so much bloodshed (and will more than likely cause more) is really immature, and shows how childish you really are. What are you, like 15 or so? Start reading, and learning, and stop talking, it will do you a world of good. What you just said was quite, quite insulting to an entire nation of people.

[Искра]

The wars did, but there was friction before that in places like Croatia and Albania. Not to mention, not long after tito the government was led by nationalists like Milosevic.
I could probably find you same amount if not more of nationalism and national related issues in USSR.


A planned economy is not capitalist. There is no capital, and the means of production are owned in common and run according to raw need, not monetary 'demand'.

If your referring to a planned economy of the likes of Gosplan, then I agree it is capitalist.
I'm referring to SU's state capitalism.


I guessed but I was hoping to be informed.
Well read my posts...


So, what did exactly Titoism advocated?

First, it was disappearance of state in order so that Yugoslavia can reach communism. It’s important to emphasise that this “idea” also came as opposition to Stalinism. Stalinism was declared revisionist, nationalists and beaucratic deviation of Marxism-Leninism. Yugoslav leadership was against Stalinism and one-party state. According to Tito and Kardelj state should firstly disappear from “market”, from economical sphere and give it to workers councils at factories and workplaces. Workers councils should run economy. In workers councils all workers should discuss and vote on how to run their workplace. There should be also some kind of “experts” who will give their advices to workers, but decisions should be up to workers council. There were also communal councils which should act as political bodies (I still don’t know much about them - sorry). Yugoslav leadership was against one-party state (like in Soviet Union), but they were also against plural-liberal democracies (like Milovan Djilas proposed, but then he was forced to emigrate). Their “invention” was called direct democracy which was, according to Kardelj’s speech from 1968, above “West and East”. Yugoslav leadership also declared that in order to achieve communism Communist party must dissolve. Therefore Tito renamed Communist Party of Yugoslavia into Union of Communists. In reality change was only in name, as Yugoslavia was still one-party state in Soviet Union style, even there were greater political liberties. There’s also one important concept regarding Yugoslavia. That was “no minority-no majority” concept which tried to establish equality between Yugoslav nations in order to suppress nationalism. Regarding economy – economy was still planned. I wasn’t exact like in Soviet Union and its puppet states, but it was planned, with bigger liberation of marked, where numerous of workers run enterises and cooperatives were formed, but also certain private property enterprises were allowed. Sometimes some “radical leftists” from ex-Yugoslavia tell this joke: Yugoslavian economy was based on Marx on table, but also on Proudhon under the table. In the end, all ideas of Yugoslav political elites failed. Workers didn’t run their workplaces, but “experts” did. Later “experts” manage to get some capital trough corruption and to form their enterprises and later demand greater liberalisation of market and economy. Concept of “no minority-no majority” failed with political liberalisation as Yugoslav national elites were afraid to become “minorities” so they decide for independence of their republics. (Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2278208&postcount=2)

[Conscript]

Yugoslavia indeed accomplished a lot, compared to rest of the communist countries it was a model. I just don't think it is model for socialism, thus my dislike of 'Titoism'.


I could probably find you same amount if not more of nationalism and national related issues in USSR.

You can, but there's not much outside of baltic nationalism by the time Stalin died.

[Искра]

Well I dislike all socialism so far.

[Conscript]

There's only so much to like compared to the bad things I suppose.

postcount +1

[DaringMehring]

I agree with the posters who say socialism was not achieved in Yugoslavia. By the classical Marxism definition of socialism, that is true.

However, I think Yugoslavia was among the best of the degenerated/deformed "workers" states. There was inexcusable murder and repression, but not nearly on the same scale as happened elsewhere. The country developed pretty well, there was a good bit of egalitarianism, and the citizens had more liberties than some other places. There was even a decent amount of dissent allowed, for instance Dusan Makavejev's films "Man is not a Bird" and "WR: Mysteries of the Organism."

And of course, just look at what happened when Yugoslavia collapsed/was dismembered. A bloody ethnic conflict, full of atrocity. You see what Yugoslavia managed to prevent... and have to give credit.

One old man in the market just off the main square in Zagreb once told me, "socialism was the best thing that ever happened to us. You Americans just don't understand. This war, these bombings, are all because socialism was defeated" --- or something to that effect. I can't remember it was more than a couple years ago. Anyway, it is hard to argue his point. Capitalism and war have devastated those countries. The only "normal" one is Slovenia and semi-normal is Croatia.

[khlib]

The fact people did not control their own lives, the fact you could be imprisoned for stating your opinion, the fact you could be murdered for stating your opinion, the fact Yugoslavia was a dictatorship.

lol, where did you hear that people were "murdered" for stating their opinions in SFRY?

You have to recognize the context in which Tito was ruling. He came to power immediately following an ethnic civil war. The territory of Yugoslavia is very ethnically diverse and mixed. A "majority rules" democracy would never have worked (as we are seeing now in Bosnia) because it would have been seen as the tyranny of the majority nationality over the others.


The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed? Yeah right

Again, I ask you to name a socialist country that you think was better than the SFRY.

[Leo]

Again, I ask you to name a socialist country that you think was better than the SFRY.

Quite possibly, of all the countries claiming to be "socialist", Yugoslavia was the best one to live in, despite still being rather repressive, especially towards dissidents. Saying this by itself does not, however, make Yugoslavia more "socialist" than Russia, China, North Korea etc. In fact saying this by itself does not make Yugoslavia socialist at all.

Tito, regardless of his future disagreements with Stalin, was Stalin's man in the Yugoslavian party all the way through until he took power. His methods, his ideology and his practice were and always remained Stalinist. In fact saying that Yugoslavia is a socialist country is based on the first ideological premise of Stalinism: the idea that there can be a socialist country, the idea that socialism in one country is a possibility. This is not only Stalin's most fundamental perversion of the opinions of Marx, Engels and Lenin all of whom argued that socialism can only be built on a world-wide level, as a result of the word revolution, but it is also a counter-revolutionary rejection of proletarian internationalism.

Tito's Yugoslavia wasn't a "workers' state" either. The working class never took power in Yugoslavia, nor did it ever have anything to do at all with the state. Tito and his partisans took power in Yugoslavia, and they did that not for the interests of the Yugoslavian working class or the international proletariat: they took power in their own interests, in the interests of the Yugoslav national capital and in Russian foreign interests. Tito's regime was always a bourgeois and capitalist regime. Tito was one of the more honest leaders of the so-called "socialist" countries in that he didn't actually hide that he lived a very bourgeois life that much. The non-aligned movement was of course a bourgeois movement to the core, including nasty militarist and dictatorial leaders with a good amount of blood on their hands.

The worst crime of Titoism however was producing Hoxhaism. Yugoslavia and their relations with other countries shaped the entire Albanian state ideology. Had Tito left Albania alone and just gave them Kosovo, Hoxha and his colleges wouldn't have had formed such fanatical alliances with Russian and Chinese imperialists and then come up with their own insane brand of Stalinism.

[Искра]

I agree with Leo on everything, except on Hoxhaism. I don’t wanna discuss Kosovo in a way “who should really have it”, because that reminds me of nationalist – right wing discussions and similar shit (I know that that wasn’t Leo’s attention). It’s quite obvious why did Yugoslavia took Kosovo, because they liberated whole territory of ex-Kingdom of Yugoslavia and took it under their control. I don’t agree that with Kosovo being Albanian (in a sense of belonging to Albanian state) would prevent creation of Hoxhaism. Hoxhasim was created in 1948 with Yugoslavia being kicked out of Comintern. It’s ideology of paranoia, because of Albanian’s geographical position. As you can see Albania was encircled with their “enemies”, so Hoxha was afraid all the time that Yugoslavia would attack Albania. Of course, this was just his paranoia, because Yugoslavia had better reasons to be afraid of attack from Eastern Block if we consider that it had borders with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania.

[Nox]

I agree with Leo on everything, except on Hoxhaism. I don’t wanna discuss Kosovo in a way “who should really have it”, because that reminds me of nationalist – right wing discussions and similar shit (I know that that wasn’t Leo’s attention). It’s quite obvious why did Yugoslavia took Kosovo, because they liberated whole territory of ex-Kingdom of Yugoslavia and took it under their control. I don’t agree that with Kosovo being Albanian (in a sense of belonging to Albanian state) would prevent creation of Hoxhaism. Hoxhasim was created in 1948 with Yugoslavia being kicked out of Comintern. It’s ideology of paranoia, because of Albanian’s geographical position. As you can see Albania was encircled with their “enemies”, so Hoxha was afraid all the time that Yugoslavia would attack Albania. Of course, this was just his paranoia, because Yugoslavia had better reasons to be afraid of attack from Eastern Block if we consider that it had borders with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania.


his paranoia

http://blog.concrete-mushrooms.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/albania_bunkers-300x225.jpg

[Ismail]

The worst crime of Titoism however was producing Hoxhaism. Yugoslavia and their relations with other countries shaped the entire Albanian state ideology. Had Tito left Albania alone and just gave them Kosovo, Hoxha and his colleges wouldn't have had formed such fanatical alliances with Russian and Chinese imperialists and then come up with their own insane brand of Stalinism.Actually Hoxha wasn't all that concerned with Kosova remaining in Yugoslavia. In fact in 1946 he explicitly said that, "Is it in our interests to ask for Kosovo? That is not a progressive thing to do. No, in this situation, on the contrary, we must do whatever is possible to ensure that the Kosovars become brothers with the Yugoslavs." (quoted in Kosovo: A Short History, p. 319.) During the war the CPA strongly denounced the "uniting" of Kosova with the rest of Albania via Italian and later German occupation, and noted that the question of Kosova could only be decided by the Kosovar Albanians themselves on the basis of the liberation of both Albania and Yugoslavia from fascism.

The issue was that Kosovar Albanians were unequal within Yugoslavia. They were the poorest region, they were subject to discrimination and police repression, and in the late 1980's endured open supremacism against them by Serbs, which led to the 90's and Kosovar Albanians hailing NATO as their "savior" from Milošević's men. From 1948 onwards when Hoxha was able to openly criticize Yugoslavia's treatment of Kosovar Albanians he made clear that Albania was not demanding Kosova, it was demanding equality for Kosovar Albanians within it. In fact right-wing Albanian nationalists denounce Hoxha as a "traitor" to Albanian "national interests." Quite a few Kosovar Albanian nationalists fled to Albania and were promptly sent back to Yugoslavia throughout the 1950's-80's. Said right-wingers also denounce Hoxha as a "Serb agent" because the CPA worked closely with the CPY during WWII, and also because the CPA opposed the right-wing and collaborationist Balli Kombëtar, which called for an "ethnic Albania" during that time.

Edit: A fatal dent in the whole "Enver Hoxha's ideological views revolved around Yugoslavia and Tito" claim consists in the fact that Albania improved diplomatic and economic relations with Yugoslavia both after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and after the Sino-Albanian split. Said relations were strongly hampered in 1981 with the suppression of Kosovar student protests and Yugoslavia claiming that Albania was behind them. Albania feared an invasion from the Warsaw Pact or NATO more than Yugoslavia.

A 1980 Zëri i Popullit article noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/albyugo.htm) that, "In the face of the threats of the Soviet, American and other imperialist aggressors against Yugoslavia, the Albanian people adhere to what comrade Enver Hoxha said at the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, that in the case of an eventual attack by the Soviet Union or any power against Yugoslavia, the Albanian people will stand by the Yugoslav peoples. Thus everyone can rest assured that if the question arises of the defence of freedom and independence from imperialist aggressors of no matter what kind, the Albanians and Yugoslavs will once more fight together against the common enemies as they fought in the past." This didn't stop Hoxha denouncing Titoism, it didn't stop him writing a lengthy memoir called The Titoites in 1982, nor did it stop him from noting Yugoslavia's dependence on Western loans in a 1978 book he authored titled Yugoslav "Self-Administration": A Capitalist Theory and Practice.

[Leo]

I agree with Leo on everything, except on Hoxhaism. I don’t wanna discuss Kosovo in a way “who should really have it”, because that reminds me of nationalist – right wing discussions and similar shit (I know that that wasn’t Leo’s attention). It’s quite obvious why did Yugoslavia took Kosovo, because they liberated whole territory of ex-Kingdom of Yugoslavia and took it under their control. I don’t agree that with Kosovo being Albanian (in a sense of belonging to Albanian state) would prevent creation of Hoxhaism. Hoxhasim was created in 1948 with Yugoslavia being kicked out of Comintern. It’s ideology of paranoia, because of Albanian’s geographical position. As you can see Albania was encircled with their “enemies”, so Hoxha was afraid all the time that Yugoslavia would attack Albania. Of course, this was just his paranoia, because Yugoslavia had better reasons to be afraid of attack from Eastern Block if we consider that it had borders with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania.

Yes - I am not saying Albania should have had Kosovo, or that Yugoslavia should have had it. What I am saying is that Yugoslavia wanting Albania, and Albania wanting Kosovo in turn caused the ideological twists and turns of Albanian Stalinism to be determined more or less by Yugoslavian foreign policy.


Actually Hoxha wasn't all that concerned with Kosova remaining in Yugoslavia. In fact in 1946 he explicitly said that, "Is it in our interests to ask for Kosovo? That is not a progressive thing to do. No, in this situation, on the contrary, we must do whatever is possible to ensure that the Kosovars become brothers with the Yugoslavs." (quoted in Kosovo: A Short History, p. 319.) During the war the CPA strongly denounced the "uniting" of Kosova with the rest of Albania via Italian and later German occupation, and noted that the question of Kosova could only be decided by the Kosovar Albanians themselves on the basis of the liberation of both Albania and Yugoslavia from fascism.

What Hoxha and his colleagues said during the WW2 or even in 1946 is fundamentally irrelevant. Hoxha's main concern during the war obviously wasn't the threat of a Yugoslav attack. Evidently they "denounced the uniting of Kosova with the rest of Albania via Italian and later German occupation", because their main concern at the time was the Italians and the Germans. They had been demanding and aiming the formation of Greater Albania since 1943 (The Mukje Agreement) however they had to give up their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war under pressure from the Yugoslavs. This was due to the fact that Albania had become a Yugoslav satellite state after the war. In 1946 when Hoxha said all these, Albania was basically a Yugoslav puppet state, based on the Yugoslavs buying Albanian raw materials. In 1947, however, the relations started getting worse, as the Albanians started thinking that the money they were being paid for the raw materials actually wasn't enough and the Yugoslavs started talking about integrating Albania. Several important members of the Albanian People's Assembly who opposed Yugoslavia got arrested, Hoxha's ally Spiru was targeted, didn't get any support from his own party (even Hoxha betrayed and denounced him for distrupting Albanian-Yugoslav relations) and ended up committing suicide, Hoxha was bitterly criticized for pitting the Albanian public against Yugoslavia and the Albanian Party itself, evidently not being taken seriously enough, wasn't invited to the founding of the Cominform and Albania was represented by the Yugoslavian Party. Stalin told Djilas that Yugoslavia should swallow Albania. The Albanian Party itself was almost going to yield, and they had appealed to join Yugoslavia as a seventh republic, yet when Yugoslavia's relations with Russia broke, the Albanian Party immediately took the opportunity and made a u-turn.


The issue was that Kosovar Albanians were unequal within Yugoslavia. They were the poorest region, they were subject to discrimination and police repression, and in the late 1980's endured open supremacism against them by Serbs, which led to the 90's and Kosovar Albanians hailing NATO as their "savior" from Milošević's men.

Living conditions wise, and especially after the 70ies, they were hardly any worse than the Albanians in Albania. Of course they were subjected to national oppression. Again, of course, they were simply used as a trump-card in the negotiations between greater power pursuing their own interests and ambitions.


From 1948 onwards when Hoxha was able to openly criticize Yugoslavia's treatment of Kosovar Albanians he made clear that Albania was not demanding Kosova

They rather played the issue up as a trump card - it wouldn't seem nice of course, saying they wanted to annex Kosovo. And of course, the Yugoslavians were as much concerned about the treatment of the Albanians in Albania as the Albanians were about the treatment of the Kosovans.


In fact right-wing Albanian nationalists denounce Hoxha as a "traitor" to Albanian "national interests." Quite a few Kosovar Albanian nationalists fled to Albania and were promptly sent back to Yugoslavia throughout the 1950's-80's. Said right-wingers also denounce Hoxha as a "Serb agent" because the CPA worked closely with the CPY during WWII, and also because the CPA opposed the right-wing and collaborationist Balli Kombëtar, which called for an "ethnic Albania" during that time.

Of course there were times, when it suited his interests, that Hoxha actually did work as a "Serb agent" of sorts. However, the CPA did initially collaborate with Balli Kombëtar, they did sign the Mukje Agreement with him after all. It didn't go so far of course when Kombëtar and his men chose to work with the Germans.


Edit: A fatal dent in the whole "Enver Hoxha's ideological views revolved around Yugoslavia and Tito" claim consists in the fact that Albania improved diplomatic and economic relations with Yugoslavia both after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia and after the Sino-Albanian split. Said relations were strongly hampered in 1981 with the suppression of Kosovar student protests and Yugoslavia claiming that Albania was behind them. Albania feared an invasion from the Warsaw Pact or NATO more than Yugoslavia.

Actually, Hoxha's siding with China against Russia was exactly determined by the Yugoslav-Soviet relations. By 1956 following the death of Stalin, the Yugoslavians and the Russians had made their peace and got so close that Tito was among the first to support the suppression of the Hungarian workers uprising. When Hoxha, in turn, broke with China, the Chinese had got closer to the Yugoslavians via the Non-Aligned Movement and their mutual healthy relations with the Americans. Tito thus, surprisingly, became one of the first to run to Mao's funeral to pay his respects in 1976. The fact that certain overtures occasionally took place is not surprising. In the world of bourgeois states, there are fundamentally no enemies - only rivals.


A 1980 Zëri i Popullit article noted (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv7n2/albyugo.htm) that, "In the face of the threats of the Soviet, American and other imperialist aggressors against Yugoslavia, the Albanian people adhere to what comrade Enver Hoxha said at the Seventh Congress of the Party of Labour of Albania, that in the case of an eventual attack by the Soviet Union or any power against Yugoslavia, the Albanian people will stand by the Yugoslav peoples. Thus everyone can rest assured that if the question arises of the defence of freedom and independence from imperialist aggressors of no matter what kind, the Albanians and Yugoslavs will once more fight together against the common enemies as they fought in the past."

Yes, well by 1980, having burned their relations with the Russians as well as the Chinese, the Albanians needed somewhere to go. Making certain overtures towards the Yugoslavians was one option, since without being supported by a stronger force, the Albanian economy would have collapsed. The Yugoslavians didn't help - the Albanian economy collapsed.


This didn't stop Hoxha denouncing Titoism, it didn't stop him writing a lengthy memoir called The Titoites in 1982, nor did it stop him from noting Yugoslavia's dependence on Western loans in a 1978 book he authored titled Yugoslav "Self-Administration": A Capitalist Theory and Practice.

Nor did it stop him from building hundreds of thousands of bunkers all over Albania.

[Ismail]

They had been demanding and aiming the formation of Greater Albania since 1943 (The Mukje Agreement) however they had to give up their demands for a Yugoslav cession of Kosovo to Albania after the war under pressure from the Yugoslavs.Hoxha denounced the agreement shortly after its formation, and of the two CPA representatives who signed it, one of them (Ymer Dishnica) was a "moderate" who the very anti-communist and anti-Hoxha Albanian émigré Arshi Pipa notes was more of a nationalist than a communist. (Albanian Stalinism, p. 78.) Saying that they "demanded" it is certainly incorrect considering that even if we accept a version of history wherein Hoxha thought the Agreement was a good idea, this was a meeting in which a compromise was adopted by the CPA delegates and the BK delegates. A compromise the CPA leadership regarded as unprincipled and giving in to nationalism.


In 1946 when Hoxha said all these, Albania was basically a Yugoslav puppet state,This is true, but at the same time Hoxha never moved away from this position. In his book The Titoites he defended the position of the CPA in-re the Mukje Agreement and on its position vis-à-vis Kosova.


Several important members of the Albanian People's Assembly who opposed Yugoslavia got arrested,Including Kost Boshnjaku, the first Albanian sent by the Comintern in 1918.


Hoxha's ally Spiru was targeted, didn't get any support from his own party (even Hoxha betrayed and denounced him for distrupting Albanian-Yugoslav relations) and ended up committing suicide,Of course Hoxha was facing the same sort of pressure Spiro himself was. Spiro winded up taking his own life and thus strengthening the pro-Yugoslav wing of the Party while Hoxha risked execution for his stands which, as you yourself can agree, were obviously not in accord with Yugoslavia's wishes.


Stalin told Djilas that Yugoslavia should swallow Albania.As I've noted in another thread, Stalin basically admitted that he knew nothing about Albania. He got his information on Albania from Yugoslav sources until 1947 (when Hoxha was able to visit) and 1948. Stalin didn't say "I don't care about Albania, treat them like dirt," he was assuming that what the Yugoslavs were saying about everything being fine was more or less correct and was speaking more in terms of how the West would react to such an annexation.


The Albanian Party itself was almost going to yield, and they had appealed to join Yugoslavia as a seventh republic,That was under the direction of Koçi Xoxe, Yugoslavia's man in Tirana who had proposed that Albania join it after the Yugoslavs "suggested" it to the CPA.


Living conditions wise, and especially after the 70ies, they were hardly any worse than the Albanians in Albania.Really? Ramadan Marmalluku (a Yugoslav functionary) noted in the 1970's that 30% of the Kosovar Albanian population was illiterate whereas illiteracy had basically been obliterated in Albania. That's one improvement.


Actually, Hoxha's siding with China against Russia was exactly determined by the Yugoslav-Soviet relations. By 1956 following the death of Stalin, the Yugoslavians and the Russians had made their peace and got so close that Tito was among the first to support the suppression of the Hungarian workers uprising.Hoxha viewed the Soviet-Yugoslav rapprochement as an indication of Soviet revisionism rather than the originating factor of said revisionism. Hoxha notes in his memoirs (and his diaries) that he was already suspicious of the post-Stalin government.

For instance we have this:

"Moscow, Sunday
February 26 1956

All night long I read the secret report of N. Khrushchev that he gave to us as he did the same with all other foreign delegations. The report rejects the figure and all the acts of the great Stalin.

I understood the position of Khrushchev and his other companions against Stalin and his glorious acts during the meeting of the congress where Stalin's name wasn't mentioned even once for anything good, but I never thought at that time that they could ever come to this point.

I shudder when I think how much the bourgeoisie and reactionaries will rejoice when they get this report in their hands, for I'm sure will they will launch a campaign of lies and who knows how much that will last. Tito should be very glad after reading this report, as I'm sure he has read it.

What an incalculable damage for the Soviet Union and the socialist camp! What an embarrassing responsibility in front of history!

I cannot put anything onto paper. It's too little to say: 'I am shocked'!"
(Enver Hoxha. Ditar 1955-1957. Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 1987. p. 125.)

There are also the Russian-language memoirs of the son of a Soviet diplomat in Albania, who remarked that Hoxha "cried like a baby" when Stalin died in 1953.

It's worth noting that the Soviets after 1956 treated Albania quite badly. Besides calling on it to basically give up its industrial development at the "benefit" of serving as an agricultural basis for the rest of Eastern Europe (replace "Eastern Europe" with "Yugoslavia" and you got a repeat of 1946-1947 Yugoslav-Albanian economic debates), it also withheld important food aid at a time of acute food shortages and, of course, tried to overthrow the Party leadership in favor of reliable pro-Soviet individuals.


When Hoxha, in turn, broke with China, the Chinese had got closer to the Yugoslavians via the Non-Aligned Movement and their mutual healthy relations with the Americans.Hoxha's diaries show his suspicions about Mao and China throughout the 1960's. In fact his very own diary notes that his visit to China all the way back in 1956 made him suspicious of Mao when Mao talked about how Stalin allegedly made "mistakes," including those concerning Yugoslavia. I know you'll suddenly go "Yugoslavia!" but then one must keep in mind that the Albanians also accused the Chinese of pressures against the Party of Labour of Albania, of attempting to have it mimic the line of the CCP following Nixon's visit (which Hoxha strongly disliked and had the Central Committee draft a letter to its Chinese counterpart criticizing the action), and of even trying to initiate a coup within the armed forces. The Chinese praising Tito the skies was the cherry on top of a consistently revisionist foreign policy.


The fact that certain overtures occasionally took place is not surprising. In the world of bourgeois states, there are fundamentally no enemies - only rivals.This is what I don't get: Albania is damned as some sort of wacky country because it "isolated" itself, yet Albania is also damned for not isolating itself. What should Hoxha have done in this position, then? I already noted that he denounced Tito. Unless, of course, you adopt the ultra-left position (which I'm sure you do) that Hoxha could have done anything ever but it would not have helped because he is tainted with the evil of being the leader of a country.

I also don't see how this jibes with Albania's foreign policy being based around being anti-Yugoslav. If that was the case then why not just ally with the Brezhnevite USSR (which welcomed full relations with Albania and "praised" it as a socialist state)?


since without being supported by a stronger force, the Albanian economy would have collapsed. The Yugoslavians didn't help - the Albanian economy collapsed.I'm sure the Yugoslavs really could have helped out the Albanians in the 1980's with mounting ethnic strife and a gigantic debt which forced Yugoslavia to initiate capitalist-esque austerity programs. Hoxha himself viewed the Yugoslav economy as being in crisis and when Tito died noted in his diary that Yugoslavia was in danger of fracturing now that he had died. Hoxha also opened up relations with West Germany and Italy, does that mean that he wanted them to be "stronger powers" as well? Is that why the 1976 Constitution banned foreign investments and reduced trade between Albania and other countries to bartering goods?

[Ernesto Che Makuc]

I agree but why did Yugoslavia collapsed?

[Leo]

Hoxha denounced the agreement shortly after its formation, and of the two CPA representatives who signed it, one of them (Ymer Dishnica) was a "moderate" who the very anti-communist and anti-Hoxha Albanian émigré Arshi Pipa notes was more of a nationalist than a communist. (Albanian Stalinism, p. 78.) Saying that they "demanded" it is certainly incorrect considering that even if we accept a version of history wherein Hoxha thought the Agreement was a good idea, this was a meeting in which a compromise was adopted by the CPA delegates and the BK delegates. A compromise the CPA leadership regarded as unprincipled and giving in to nationalism.

The entire party denounced the agreement shortly after its formation because the Yugoslavian Party considered it to be a counter-revolutionary move. The Yugoslavians being so influential in the Albanian Party and the Albanians being more or less dependent on them, they went along. The Albanian Party certainly wanted Kosovo for a Greater Albania, whether they thought it was realistically possible is a different question. Dishnica was a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Albanian Party. Hoxha himself was in favor of the agreement until the Party leadership were told off by the Yugoslavian delegate in Albania, Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo. Typically, Hoxha made a complete u-turn, confessed his error and condemned his comrade, Dishnica.


This is true, but at the same time Hoxha never moved away from this position.

There is a clear difference in tone between calling for the unity of the Kosovans and the Yugoslavians and claiming the Serbains are conducting a genocide against the Albanians in Kosovo.


Of course Hoxha was facing the same sort of pressure Spiro himself was. Spiro winded up taking his own life and thus strengthening the pro-Yugoslav wing of the Party while Hoxha risked execution for his stands which, as you yourself can agree, were obviously not in accord with Yugoslavia's wishes.

Well, by betraying his comrade Spiro and paying lip-service to the Yugoslavian rule, Hoxha was risking nothing. Ever the sneaky politician, he was waiting for his time to strike.


As I've noted in another thread, Stalin basically admitted that he knew nothing about Albania. He got his information on Albania from Yugoslav sources until 1947 (when Hoxha was able to visit) and 1948. Stalin didn't say "I don't care about Albania, treat them like dirt," he was assuming that what the Yugoslavs were saying about everything being fine was more or less correct and was speaking more in terms of how the West would react to such an annexation.

Stalin wasn't saying "treat the Albanians like dirt" but he was saying "you can have Albania". And this during the formation of the Cominform in September 1947. Of course, Stalin had met Hoxha himself in July 1947. He claims in his memoirs that Stalin told him that: "I have acquainted myself, especially, with the heroism displayed by the Albanian people during the Anti-fascist National Liberation War" and asked him for more information which Hoxha recounts giving detailed answers. Without a doubt, not all the content and obviously not the real politics are included in the memoirs. It is however quite a poor try to claim that Stalin didn't know about the Albanian situation - of course he knew. This is a bit like claiming Obama doesn't know anything about Puerto Rican politics.


That was under the direction of Koçi Xoxe, Yugoslavia's man in Tirana who had proposed that Albania join it after the Yugoslavs "suggested" it to the CPA.

Yes, and he had majority support in the Albanian Party until the Tito-Stalin split.


Hoxha viewed the Soviet-Yugoslav rapprochement as an indication of Soviet revisionism rather than the originating factor of said revisionism.

No, this was the ideological explanation he gave to the already developed split. After taking power, Khrushchev had started pushing the Albanians to reach a reconciliation with the Yugoslavians. Hoxha feared the Russians might even replace him with someone more moderate towards Yugoslavia. Hoxha repeatedly refused the Russian demands for the rehabilitation of Koçi Xoxe as gesture of good will towards the Yugoslavians. following the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, Hoxha formed his main argument in defense of Stalin around the charges that Titoism was at the roots of the problems of the so-called socialist countries. The note you quote is telling in how Hoxha is talking about how happy Tito will be. So in fact, the relationship with Yugoslavia was at the basis of Albania's charges of revisionism against the Russians.


There are also the Russian-language memoirs of the son of a Soviet diplomat in Albania, who remarked that Hoxha "cried like a baby" when Stalin died in 1953.

A bit like Bin Ladin crying when the Tahrir square movement erupted? Psychologically telling, however politically irrelevant.


Hoxha's diaries show his suspicions about Mao and China throughout the 1960's.

So? Politicians are supposed to be more suspicious of their allies than they are of their rivals.


In fact his very own diary notes that his visit to China all the way back in 1956 made him suspicious of Mao when Mao talked about how Stalin allegedly made "mistakes," including those concerning Yugoslavia. I know you'll suddenly go "Yugoslavia!"

I don't have to now that you did.

Hoxha himself, of course, says that Stalin made mistakes however - I'm just pointing that out to highlight what really upset him,


but then one must keep in mind that the Albanians also accused the Chinese of pressures against the Party of Labour of Albania

Publicly, not until the split I don't think. Of course, any larger power having a smaller power as a satellite would like to control the internal affairs of the smaller power. I'm sure after their experiences with the Yugoslavians and the Russians, the Albanians knew what they were getting into.


, of attempting to have it mimic the line of the CCP following Nixon's visit (which Hoxha strongly disliked and had the Central Committee draft a letter to its Chinese counterpart criticizing the action),

Which disturbed the Albanians because, surprise surprise, the Yugoslavians had also developed good relations with the Americans and all these overtures were connected to each other.


and of even trying to initiate a coup within the armed forces.

Oops. Perhaps the Chinese should have learned a few tricks from the Americans on how to initiate military coup d'etats in satellite countries.


The Chinese praising Tito the skies was the cherry on top of a consistently revisionist foreign policy.

No, it was simply an aspect of the same policy which led China to break with Russia and side with Albania. What disturbed the Albanians about this was that they were getting closer to the Yugoslavians, and like the Russians before them, wanted the Albanians to become closer to the Yugoslavians like them.

In the world of Stalinism, you split first and invent the ideological background later.


This is what I don't get: Albania is damned as some sort of wacky country because it "isolated" itself, yet Albania is also damned for not isolating itself.

I am not damning them as a wacky country either because they isolated themselves or because they didn't isolate themselves. In fact I am not damning Albania as a wacky country at all. The situation is rather tragic: Albaina had the misfortune of being sold out to its one real rival by the two great imperialist powers it took shelter in. In the end, they had nowhere to go to, their economy collapsed and they started building hundreds of thousands of bunkers (militarism is often used as a remedy against economic crisis).


What should Hoxha have done in this position, then? I already noted that he denounced Tito. Unless, of course, you adopt the ultra-left position (which I'm sure you do) that Hoxha could have done anything ever but it would not have helped because he is tainted with the evil of being the leader of a country.

I am utterly uninterested what Hoxha should have done in this position or another. It has got nothing to do with him being good or evil. He was the head of a bourgeois state, and what I concern myself in regards to bourgeois states is analyzing them, not moralizing about what they should have done. I analyze Albania same as I analyze Belgium or Norway.

What would have served their interests the most? Well the only other possible move would be to go back to Russia in the Brezhnev era. Brezhnev and the Russians were much farther from the Yugoslavians than the Chinese or the Americans at the time. It probably would have kept their economy out of crisis at least until 1985. They would have gone down with the rest of the Russian block as they did of course. At least, however, we probably wouldn't have had so many Hoxhaists today.


I also don't see how this jibes with Albania's foreign policy being based around being anti-Yugoslav. If that was the case then why not just ally with the Brezhnevite USSR (which welcomed full relations with Albania and "praised" it as a socialist state)?

I think the reason the Albanians didn't do this was because they were genuinely scared of the Russians. They may have felt that they had gone too far to return to the Russian sphere, and they may have feared that they were being lured into a trap, that the Russians, while they had the Albanians in their orbit, would pursue a vendetta because Hoxha and his colleagues bit the hand that was feeding them (as Khrushchev once called it). They may have felt that the price to pay for Russian support was too heavy. They may have thought that the Russians were unreliable when it came to their relations with the Yugoslavians - which was most certainly the case. In either case, other than the Russians they had nowhere else to go to, so for this or that reason they chose isolation. In regards to staying in power, it was the less risky option.


I'm sure the Yugoslavs really could have helped out the Albanians in the 1980's with mounting ethnic strife and a gigantic debt which forced Yugoslavia to initiate capitalist-esque austerity programs.

Well, yes they could have. Despite Yugoslavia's economic problems, Albanian economy was small enough for them to help - and of course no help is for free.


Hoxha himself viewed the Yugoslav economy as being in crisis and when Tito died noted in his diary that Yugoslavia was in danger of fracturing now that he had died.

Tito himself said Yugoslavia will be in danger of fracturing when he was dead. Yugoslav economy was of course in crisis. However world economy in general was in crisis. It was not a surprise that Yugoslav economy was effected.


Hoxha also opened up relations with West Germany and Italy, does that mean that he wanted them to be "stronger powers" as well?

No, it means he had to open an economical window, because he had to tie Albania to the world market this way or the other in order to prevent total suffocation.


Is that why the 1976 Constitution banned foreign investments and reduced trade between Albania and other countries to bartering goods?

No, that is an attempt at isolationism - and it makes a small country more ripe for the eventually chosen stronger power - which did not come.

[Ismail]

The Albanian Party certainly wanted Kosovo for a Greater Albania, whether they thought it was realistically possible is a different question. Dishnica was a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Albanian Party. Hoxha himself was in favor of the agreement until the Party leadership were told off by the Yugoslavian delegate in Albania, Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo.According to Dedijer, Hoxha gave the reason that he didn't condemn the Agreement at first because he wanted to see the BK split between those who were for and against the Agreement. Then Vukmanović-Tempo and Koçi Xoxe convinced Hoxha to denounce it as soon as possible. Hoxha evidently had no problem with denouncing it, considering that in his memoirs he clearly attacks the Agreement and in the History of the Party of Labor of Albania various notes are made to the effect that the CPA (through the National Liberation Movement) tried to work with all those BK members willing to defect and oppose its collaborationist program.

Obviously Albania did feel that Kosova did belong to Albania considering that Kosovar Albanians played a prominent role in the struggle for Albanian independence, the role of various Kosovar Albanians against the reactionary King Zog regime, their role in supporting the 1924 bourgeois-democratic government (which was also backed by the Comintern), etc. Tito himself noted that Kosova should have been in Albanian hands but that "Great Serb reaction" (his words) would attack the CPY and make this move impossible. Regardless, Hoxha stressed that there was no problem with Kosova remaining within Yugoslavia so long as the Kosovar Albanians were fairly treated and so long as they enjoyed cultural contacts with Albania proper.


There is a clear difference in tone between calling for the unity of the Kosovans and the Yugoslavians and claiming the Serbains are conducting a genocide against the Albanians in Kosovo.Only because of the unequal status Kosovar Albanians had within Yugoslavia itself, as I noted above.


Well, by betraying his comrade Spiro and paying lip-service to the Yugoslavian rule, Hoxha was risking nothing. Ever the sneaky politician, he was waiting for his time to strike.No, Nicholas C. Pano among others note that by "betraying his comrade Spiro" he basically saved himself as opposed to joining in with Spiro, which would have ended with both of them in an unenviable position.


Stalin wasn't saying "treat the Albanians like dirt" but he was saying "you can have Albania". And this during the formation of the Cominform in September 1947. Of course, Stalin had met Hoxha himself in July 1947. He claims in his memoirs that Stalin told him that: "I have acquainted myself, especially, with the heroism displayed by the Albanian people during the Anti-fascist National Liberation War" and asked him for more information which Hoxha recounts giving detailed answers. Without a doubt, not all the content and obviously not the real politics are included in the memoirs. It is however quite a poor try to claim that Stalin didn't know about the Albanian situation - of course he knew. This is a bit like claiming Obama doesn't know anything about Puerto Rican politics.It's nice to see you read bits of With Stalin, then. You should also note the parts where Stalin asks if the Albanians are related to the Caucasian "Albania" region, among other things.

"Stalin's ignorance [about Albania] was confirmed when Edvard Kardelj, Tito's foreign-policy advisor, met him around the same time. Stalin asked Kardelj questions about the origins of the Albanians, commenting, 'They seem to be a rather backward and primitive people,' to which the Yugoslav ambassador replied, 'But they are very brave and faithful'—a statement that somewhat reinforced Stalin's opinion of the Albanians, as he continued, 'Yes, they can be as faithful as a dog, that is one of the traits of the primitive.'"
(Miranda Vickers. The Albanians: A Modern History. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2000. p. 171.)

Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, not a country which historically has always been obscure until very recently. Again, it's fairly obvious that Stalin relied on the Yugoslavs for his information at first, including obviously events during the war since it isn't like Stalin read Albanian periodicals or personally visited the battlefront to communicate with partisans.


Hoxha formed his main argument in defense of Stalin around the charges that Titoism was at the roots of the problems of the so-called socialist countries. The note you quote is telling in how Hoxha is talking about how happy Tito will be. So in fact, the relationship with Yugoslavia was at the basis of Albania's charges of revisionism against the Russians.Well Yugoslavia had tried to annex Albania, probably would have had Hoxha executed if that succeeded, had formed an alliance with US imperialism, and was now praising the USSR for denouncing Stalin and evidently hoping for the Albanian leadership to be replaced.


So? Politicians are supposed to be more suspicious of their allies than they are of their rivals.So Hoxha is a "politician" no matter what he does. If he allies with China in the belief that the Soviets had abandoned socialist construction then he's really showing his true colors as a "bourgeois nationalist," yet when he criticizes the Chinese for initiating border disputes with the USSR, trying to reconcile with the USSR, promoting alliances with reactionary pro-US forces in the 1970's, initiating the "GPCR," etc. then he's also a "politician." Hoxha apparently can't ever win.


In the end, they had nowhere to go to, their economy collapsed and they started building hundreds of thousands of bunkers (militarism is often used as a remedy against economic crisis).The military proper was actually considered rather neglected as the 1980's went by. Around 400 officers had been purged in the 1970s and variously accused of either wanting to overthrow the government with Chinese backing, wanting to disregard the "dual adversary" views of Hoxha (i.e. both US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism must be equally combated), or of simply wanting to undermine the role of the Party. Miranda Vickers has noted that by the late 80's the military was reduced to having its members ask collective farms for sheep and such to herd and eat since the army's chain of command had broken down along with its food rationing system.

The "People's War" doctrine, which stressed self-defense by the Albanian people themselves against an external attack, was adopted in the late 60's when the economy was experiencing good economic growth and Chinese aid.


I am utterly uninterested what Hoxha should have done in this position or another. It has got nothing to do with him being good or evil. He was the head of a bourgeois state, and what I concern myself in regards to bourgeois states is analyzing them, not moralizing about what they should have done. I analyze Albania same as I analyze Belgium or Norway.And this is where we fundamentally differ, myself as a Marxist-Leninist and you as a Left-Communist.


Well, yes they could have. Despite Yugoslavia's economic problems, Albanian economy was small enough for them to help - and of course no help is for free.The Albanians were looking for trade, not economic aid. It wasn't until 1989 that the government outright called for economic aid from the West, and that was when its economy was clearly in decline and said government under Alia was praising the GDR as a "socialist" state, giving up Albania's militant foreign policy, etc.

[kurr]

Tito was most definitely a stalinist

[Binh]

You should read the history of Tito and Yugoslavia a little more closely.

Tito blocked the return of tens of thousands of Serbs who were the victims of Nazi ethnic cleansing (in conjunction with Albanian and Croatian fascists) to their homes in Kosovo. He promised Kosovo autonomy after the war but broke his promise, so he kept Serbs from coming back to the province in an attempt to make up for that.

The 1999 Kosovo war and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Serbs from the province had a lot to do with how Tito handled these problems after the war was won.

[tir1944]

Can we get a source for this?

[Leo]

According to Dedijer, Hoxha gave the reason that he didn't condemn the Agreement at first because he wanted to see the BK split between those who were for and against the Agreement. Then Vukmanović-Tempo and Koçi Xoxe convinced Hoxha to denounce it as soon as possible. Hoxha evidently had no problem with denouncing it, considering that in his memoirs he clearly attacks the Agreement and in the History of the Party of Labor of Albania various notes are made to the effect that the CPA (through the National Liberation Movement) tried to work with all those BK members willing to defect and oppose its collaborationist program.

Hoxha never had any problems denouncing his previous positions when he had to for his interests. Obviously he had to defend his effective positions rather than his initial positions - official histories are written based on what is done, not on initial reactions.


Obviously Albania did feel that Kosova did belong to Albania considering that Kosovar Albanians played a prominent role in the struggle for Albanian independence, the role of various Kosovar Albanians against the reactionary King Zog regime, their role in supporting the 1924 bourgeois-democratic government (which was also backed by the Comintern), etc.

Yes, obviously Albania wanted Kosovo. Was this so hard to admit?


Tito himself noted that Kosova should have been in Albanian hands but that "Great Serb reaction" (his words) would attack the CPY and make this move impossible. Regardless, Hoxha stressed that there was no problem with Kosova remaining within Yugoslavia so long as the Kosovar Albanians were fairly treated and so long as they enjoyed cultural contacts with Albania proper.

Isn't it funny how Tito and Hoxha were capable of making diplomatic statements?


Only because of the unequal status Kosovar Albanians had within Yugoslavia itself, as I noted above.

Aside from unequal status being something way different than genocide, it would be extremely naive to think that this reaction of the Albanians' genuine concern about the well being of the Kosovans. They played the Kosovo card when it suited their interests, and made diplomatic statements about it when it suited their interests.


No, Nicholas C. Pano among others note that by "betraying his comrade Spiro" he basically saved himself

Yes, selling out comrades to save his skin - a very noble quality for a revolutionary idol.


as opposed to joining in with Spiro, which would have ended with both of them in an unenviable position.

Yes, by this logic anyone betraying their comrades to save their skin is doing the right thing. You have just justified naming names to the police in order to present Hoxha's actions as acceptable, congratulations.


It's nice to see you read bits of With Stalin, then. You should also note the parts where Stalin asks if the Albanians are related to the Caucasian "Albania" region, among other things.

The discussion Stalin and Hoxha has about the roots of the Albanians are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand. There was nothing nice about reading Hoxha, or reading Stalin and Mao for that matter - schoolchildren can write deeper theory than these three.


"Stalin's ignorance [about Albania] was confirmed when Edvard Kardelj, Tito's foreign-policy advisor, met him around the same time. Stalin asked Kardelj questions about the origins of the Albanians, commenting, 'They seem to be a rather backward and primitive people,' to which the Yugoslav ambassador replied, 'But they are very brave and faithful'—a statement that somewhat reinforced Stalin's opinion of the Albanians, as he continued, 'Yes, they can be as faithful as a dog, that is one of the traits of the primitive.'"
(Miranda Vickers. The Albanians: A Modern History. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2000. p. 171.)

Again utterly irrelevant in regards to Stalin's knowledge of the actual, geo-political situation. Does show what sort of a reactionary national chauvinist he was though.


Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, not a country which historically has always been obscure until very recently.

Albania is actually not that obscure a country in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Albanians actually played a prominent role in the late Ottoman Empire.


Again, it's fairly obvious that Stalin relied on the Yugoslavs for his information at first, including obviously events during the war since it isn't like Stalin read Albanian periodicals or personally visited the battlefront to communicate with partisans.

By 1947, Stalin did not just rely on the Yugoslavians as he had talks with Hoxha himself. Before too, the Stalinist practice was one of micro-management. I don't think the Russians left the practical affairs all to the Yugoslavians alone, reports from the GPU/NKDV must have been coming about Albania as well. Albania was actually a strategically important country during World War 2.


Well Yugoslavia had tried to annex Albania, probably would have had Hoxha executed if that succeeded

Unlikely. Hoxha would have managed to find a way to get on good terms with the Yugoslavians. He wouldn't have been so high ranking though.


had formed an alliance with US imperialism,

He had formed relations with US imperialism, not yet a full fledged alliance.


and was now praising the USSR for denouncing Stalin and evidently hoping for the Albanian leadership to be replaced.

The Yugoslavians were praising the USSR, but not simply for ideological reasons. They were hoping they could form a more equal relationship with Khrushchev: they hoped Russian imperialism under him had a softer strategy towards its allies that Russian imperialism under Stalin. The Albanians, quite rightly from their own perspective, perceived the Yugoslavians as a threat. The Yugoslavians, while they wanted tight control in Albania, weren't really worried at all about the Albanian threat - the Albanians couldn't threaten Yugoslavia.


So Hoxha is a "politician" no matter what he does.

Hoxha surely was a politician. Surely you aren't going to claim he was a doctor or an accountant?


If he allies with China in the belief that the Soviets had abandoned socialist construction then he's really showing his true colors as a "bourgeois nationalist," yet when he criticizes the Chinese for initiating border disputes with the USSR, trying to reconcile with the USSR, promoting alliances with reactionary pro-US forces in the 1970's, initiating the "GPCR," etc. then he's also a "politician."

This is not in any way responding to anything I said. Hoxha was a bourgeois nationalist, not because of the alliances he made but because he was a bourgeois nationalist, he argued that "socialism" was possible in one country, he described himself as a patriot and led a war of national liberation. His alliances and rivalries determined by his material, concrete interests as a statesman and his ideology was determined by his alliances and rivalries.


Hoxha apparently can't ever win.

Win what? He won alright, he stayed in power till he died. That's victory enough for a guy like him.

Of course one could say he won only because he didn't live for four more years.


The military proper was actually considered rather neglected as the 1980's went by. Around 400 officers had been purged in the 1970s and variously accused of either wanting to overthrow the government with Chinese backing, wanting to disregard the "dual adversary" views of Hoxha (i.e. both US imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism must be equally combated), or of simply wanting to undermine the role of the Party. Miranda Vickers has noted that by the late 80's the military was reduced to having its members ask collective farms for sheep and such to herd and eat since the army's chain of command had broken down along with its food rationing system.

The "People's War" doctrine, which stressed self-defense by the Albanian people themselves against an external attack, was adopted in the late 60's when the economy was experiencing good economic growth and Chinese aid.

The situation of the army is utterly irrelevant here. What I am saying is that the militaristic production, the building of hundreds of thousands of bunkers, was an economical measure. I am not talking about any doctrines, I am talking about the concrete building of the bunkers.



I am utterly uninterested what Hoxha should have done in this position or another. It has got nothing to do with him being good or evil. He was the head of a bourgeois state, and what I concern myself in regards to bourgeois states is analyzing them, not moralizing about what they should have done. I analyze Albania same as I analyze Belgium or Norway.

And this is where we fundamentally differ, myself as a Marxist-Leninist and you as a Left-Communist.

Evidently. I can't expect you to view Albania as what it really was if you see it as the socialist paradise.


The Albanians were looking for trade, not economic aid.

Trade is investment and investment is a better economic aid than economic aid.


It wasn't until 1989 that the government outright called for economic aid from the West, and that was when its economy was clearly in decline and said government under Alia was praising the GDR as a "socialist" state, giving up Albania's militant foreign policy, etc.

Obviously, as they had no other choice of action left. Hoxha would have ended up doing the same thing had he been alive.

[thefinalmarch]

postcount +1
I will never for the life of me understand why people want to increase their postcount. I'd rather have a high rep-to-posts ratio :lol:

[Ismail]

Yes, by this logic anyone betraying their comrades to save their skin is doing the right thing. You have just justified naming names to the police in order to present Hoxha's actions as acceptable, congratulations.Except it wasn't a case of naming names, it was a case of building up one's forces on a tactical level. If Hoxha denounced Khrushchev immediately after the Twentieth Party Congress he'd not fare too well (although not executed) either.


The discussion Stalin and Hoxha has about the roots of the Albanians are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.Except noting how little Stalin knew about Albania.


Albania is actually not that obscure a country in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Albanians actually played a prominent role in the late Ottoman Empire.If you read any book written in the 1910s-1980s about Albania you'll see all sorts of mentions about how obscure Albania was to non-Albanians. Parts of the country in the northern mountains had no significant contact with the outside world since medieval times. I'm well aware of Albanian influence within the Ottoman Empire, but that has little bearing on Albania itself. You could learn all about Muhammad Ali of Egypt or random Pashas of Albanian background who served the Ottoman government and you won't get much closer to learning about Albania itself (unless you read up on Ismail Qemali or something.)

Obviously today Albania isn't all that obscure (hence why I said "historically has always been obscure until very recently") but back then there were plenty of comparisons made to Tibet, Borneo, the Emirate of Bukhara, or any other random area deemed not all that popular as a travel destination for West Europeans.


Hoxha surely was a politician. Surely you aren't going to claim he was a doctor or an accountant?He was a "politician" in the same sense as Lenin or Stalin in that he managed government affairs. He wasn't some Albanian version of Metternich.


his ideology was determined by his alliances and rivalries.Not really. Let's hear the changes in his ideological views from 1944-1985. Maoists would gladly note to you that he was never a Maoist, he evidently wasn't a Titoist, he opposed Khrushchev's reforms, he attacked "Eurocommunism," etc.


Trade is investment and investment is a better economic aid than economic aid.Of course it is, and that was the point: for Albania to engage in equal trade in order to boost its own productive forces. Again, no matter what you're going to blast the Albanian Government due to your ultra-leftism.


Obviously, as they had no other choice of action left. Hoxha would have ended up doing the same thing had he been alive.There was certainly "hardline" opposition to Alia's policies, e.g. from Hoxha's wife Nexhmije.

You still haven't shown that Hoxha based his ideology on whatever Yugoslavia was doing. For that matter you haven't qualified just what makes Hoxha's "brand" of "Stalinism" "insane."

[ZeroNowhere]

I will never for the life of me understand why people want to increase their postcount. I'd rather have a high rep-to-posts ratio :lol:
You get a blue name.

...That's it, really.

[Leo]

Except it wasn't a case of naming names, it was a case of building up one's forces on a tactical level.

It was the case of publicly denouncing someone with whom Hoxha believed in the same things, who had been turned into a scape-goat. Hoxha's attitude was a little different from those who condemned communism in the American witch trials, or confessed to being counter-revolutionaries during the Moscow trials. He voiced opinions he was dead against and sold out his own comrade to save his own skin.


If Hoxha denounced Khrushchev immediately after the Twentieth Party Congress he'd not fare too well

Yes, better wait until you are allied with another great power to denounce your former patrons.


Except noting how little Stalin knew about Albania.

About the history of Albania and the roots of the Albanian people. These are completely irrelevant to Stalin's knowledge of the contemporary Albanian geo-political situation.


If you read any book written in the 1910s-1980s about Albania you'll see all sorts of mentions about how obscure Albania was to non-Albanians. Parts of the country in the northern mountains had no significant contact with the outside world since medieval times. I'm well aware of Albanian influence within the Ottoman Empire, but that has little bearing on Albania itself. You could learn all about Muhammad Ali of Egypt or random Pashas of Albanian background who served the Ottoman government and you won't get much closer to learning about Albania itself (unless you read up on Ismail Qemali or something.)

You are of course talking about some parts of Albania. However lets not forget that Albania was occupied during and partitioned after the World War 1. So it wasn't that obscure to the European powers. It's tends to be rather hard when a country is so close to Italy and Greece.


He was a "politician" in the same sense as Lenin or Stalin in that he managed government affairs. He wasn't some Albanian version of Metternich.

He was an Albanian version of Metternich, Churchill or Mussolini and Stalin was a Russian version of the same sort of people, within the limits of their respective ideologies. Good luck trying to find a backbone in the ideologies of the likes of such people.

Despite all his faults and errors, Lenin was not a politician like these gentlemen. He was a revolutionary who had a backbone; whose main concern was not his own or Russia's interests but those of the world revolution; who did not change his ideology as he made and broke alliances.


Not really. Let's hear the changes in his ideological views from 1944-1985. Maoists would gladly note to you that he was never a Maoist

They might as much as they like. He was as much a Maoist as anyone could be until his break with China: "We are exceptionally glad that the historic Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China unanimously elected, in an ardent revolutionary atmosphere, the Party leadership with Comrade Mao Tse-Tung, the founder and great leader of the Communist Party of China, the outstanding Marxist-Leninist and the strategist of genius of revolution, as its leader (...) . This Central Committee is made up of revolutionaries tested in fierce class battles and in the flames of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and boundlessly faithful to Chairman Mao Tse-Tung and to his invincible thought (...) The Albanian Communists and people who are bound by an unbreakable friendship with the Chinese Communists and people, immeasurably rejoice at the great victory of the Ninth National Congress of the Communist Party of China and they regard it as their own victory. Our hearts throb as one. We are inseparable brothers and comrades-in-arms. Our unity is steel-like (...) The Albanian Party of Labour and the entire Albanian people wholeheartedly wish that the Communist Party of China and the great Chinese people, armed with all-conquering Mao Tse-Tung thought and under the wise and far-sighted Marxist-Leninist leadership of Mao Tse-Tung, will achieve new and ever greater successes and victories on the bright road of socialism established by the Ninth National Congress. Long live the great and glorious Communist Party of China! May Chairman Mao, great leader, great Marxist-Leninist and the closest friend of the Albanian people, live as long as the mountains!" (1969) To get more Maoist than that, Hoxha would have had to proclaim that Mao was the personification of god walking among mortals.


he evidently wasn't a Titoist

And, although Hoxha evidently wasn't a "Titoist", there was a time where did whatever the Yugoslavian Party asked him to do, including condemning his comrades. He of course didn't like the situation but being a sneaky politician, he waited for his time to come and didn't take any risks.


he opposed Khrushchev's reforms

Because Khrushchev wanted reconciliation with Yugoslavia.


he attacked "Eurocommunism," etc.

Because he thought having followers in the "international communist movement" was important.


Of course it is, and that was the point: for Albania to engage in equal trade in order to boost its own productive forces.

Who says they were to engage in equal trade? What is equal trade? Before the Stalin-Tito split, the Yugoslavians were paying the Albanians three times what the Albanian raw materials were worth and even that wasn't "equal" enough apparently, as the Albanians started complaining they weren't getting enough money.


Again, no matter what you're going to blast the Albanian Government due to your ultra-leftism.

Again, I am not interested in "blasting" the Albanian government. I've made it clear that I see it as a bourgeois government - there is nothing surprising in a bourgeois government trading, needing foreign investment, wanting to strengthen its ties to the world market.


There was certainly "hardline" opposition to Alia's policies, e.g. from Hoxha's wife Nexhmije.

Who was the director of the Party School and held no important ranks in the party. Shows how serious a challenge the hardline opposition posed to Alia.


You still haven't shown that Hoxha based his ideology on whatever Yugoslavia was doing.

I think I have, you are simply denying it because accepting it would mean giving up your own ideology. I'll simply summarize:

- Hoxha wants to oppose the Yugoslavian domination, is disciplined by the Yugoslavians and ends up doing what they tell him to do.
- Tito and Stalin split, Hoxha take the opportunity and side with Stalin, formulates his ideological opposition to Titoism from a pro-Stalin perspective.
- Stalin dies, Khrushchev wants reconciliation with the Yugoslavians and tries to force Hoxha to make gestures towards Tito. When Khrushchev criticizes Stalin, Hoxha's main reaction is to defend him by attacking Titoism.
- Khrushchev also starts having problems with the Chinese. Hoxha sides with the Chinese and together they denounce Khrushchev's revisionism. Thus, Albania ends up siding with China and leaving the Russian block.
- Forming a block of its own starts looking like a rather bad course for the Chinese so they start establishing relations with the US and more importantly with Yugoslavia. These relationships reach a high point with the Non-Aligned Movement. The Chinese don't want the Albanians to harm their new good relations with the Yugoslavians. In 1978, the Sino-Albanian split takes place, the Albanians split from the Chinese as well.

It is quite simple and quite obvious. Its your choice if you want to close your eyes to it.


For that matter you haven't qualified just what makes Hoxha's "brand" of "Stalinism" "insane."

Oh that has got little to do with Hoxha's or Albania's actions. Their actions were just as sane as those of any other bourgeois state. That so many people saw Albania as the socialist paradise and that some people still talk about these things (after what it was all came out) is whats behind the insanity of Hoxhaism.

[Ismail]

About the history of Albania and the roots of the Albanian people. These are completely irrelevant to Stalin's knowledge of the contemporary Albanian geo-political situation.Except you've provided no evidence that Stalin knew much anything about said geo-political situation or about the Albanian leadership. Stalin did ask the Yugoslavs about Hoxha, what they knew about him, etc. so evidently he wasn't all that well-briefed concerning him. Remember, the Soviets had no involvement in liberating Albania. The Soviets worked with the Yugoslav partisans and helped them liberate Belgrade.


You are of course talking about some parts of Albania. However lets not forget that Albania was occupied during and partitioned after the World War 1. So it wasn't that obscure to the European powers. It's tends to be rather hard when a country is so close to Italy and Greece.It was still obscure to them. The memoirs of various British officers who helped the Albanian partisans in the 1940's note that the British knew very little about the situation in Albania. Edward Grey in 1913 noted that Albania was a little-known country and that its borders were being decided on by the Great Powers entirely based on political concerns between them, with practically no knowledge (or, of course, care) about what Albanians thought about them. The Italians knew a lot about Albania during the 20's and 30's, but that was because the reign of King Zog was basically that of an Italian puppet, and the Italians had "advisors" in the army, owned the "national" bank, etc.


He was an Albanian version of Metternich, Churchill or Mussolini and Stalin was a Russian version of the same sort of people, within the limits of their respective ideologies. Good luck trying to find a backbone in the ideologies of the likes of such people.Joffe noted in his unpublished memoirs that of the various diplomatic, economic, etc. agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers, Lenin spoke often of having "dirty tricks" within them.

Despite all his faults and errors, Lenin was not a politician like these gentlemen. He was a revolutionary who had a backbone; whose main concern was not his own or Russia's interests but those of the world revolution; who did not change his ideology as he made and broke alliances.Joffe noted in his unpublished memoirs that of the various diplomatic, economic, etc. agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers, Lenin spoke often of having "dirty tricks" within them. Of course Stalin spoke of similar things as well.

I was unaware that Stalin ever changed his ideological views after 1925, or that Hoxha ever substantially changed his own at all.


To get more Maoist than that, Hoxha would have had to proclaim that Mao was the personification of god walking among mortals.No, to get more Maoist than that Hoxha would need to have actually been a Maoist. Writing an official letter praising the CCP and Mao is a bit different from actually being a Maoist. As noted his own diaries in the 1960's and 70's show him attacking Maoism. He never adopted China's "Three Worlds Theory" and any author dealing with 1960's Albania will note that the relationship between China's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" and Hoxha's "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" were slight outside of the former obviously influencing the latter coming into existence. Hoxha did, of course, denounce the "GPCR" as well with growing intensity in his diaries and in closed meetings of the Central Committee.


Because Khrushchev wanted reconciliation with Yugoslavia.Again, Hoxha's own diaries show that when Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Hoxha was more than a little upset. That same year saw a party conference in which various bureaucrats and military men (as noted by Nicholas C. Pano) tried to remove Hoxha from his post as head of the Party, claiming that he was insufficiently struggling against the "cult of the individual" and suchlike.


Who says they were to engage in equal trade? What is equal trade? Before the Stalin-Tito split, the Yugoslavians were paying the Albanians three times what the Albanian raw materials were worth and even that wasn't "equal" enough apparently, as the Albanians started complaining they weren't getting enough money.James S. O'Donnell notes the exploitative economic relationship between Albania and Yugoslavia in the 1940's in A Coming of Age.

Equal trade was trade based on barter. E.g. Albania would exchange electricity for industrial parts.


Again, I am not interested in "blasting" the Albanian government. I've made it clear that I see it as a bourgeois government - there is nothing surprising in a bourgeois government trading, needing foreign investment, wanting to strengthen its ties to the world market.There isn't much surprising about anything ever wanting to do that at a time when socialism hasn't triumphed in most of the world.


Who was the director of the Party School and held no important ranks in the party. Shows how serious a challenge the hardline opposition posed to Alia.I never said it was a serious challenge, but it did exist. Nexhmije to this day is still an avowed communist and defends her husband's policies.


- Tito and Stalin split, Hoxha take the opportunity and side with Stalin, formulates his ideological opposition to Titoism from a pro-Stalin perspective.As opposed to what? An anti-Stalin perspective?


- Stalin dies, Khrushchev wants reconciliation with the Yugoslavians and tries to force Hoxha to make gestures towards Tito. When Khrushchev criticizes Stalin, Hoxha's main reaction is to defend him by attacking Titoism.Authors on Albanian history would also note that the events in 1956 in Hungary and Poland also prompted Hoxha to indirectly attack Khrushchev, e.g. by attacking calls for "different roads to socialism" in a November 1956 Pravda article.


- Khrushchev also starts having problems with the Chinese. Hoxha sides with the Chinese and together they denounce Khrushchev's revisionism. Thus, Albania ends up siding with China and leaving the Russian block.Hoxha's diaries show that, outside of the initial apprehension of Mao saying in 1956 that Stalin made "mistakes" in-re Yugoslavia among other things, he was quite optimistic about China at the time. You forget that in the 1960's the Chinese also tried to reconcile with the Soviets, which Hoxha criticized in his memoirs.

[Искра]

Wait, you use Hoxha's diaries as somekind of a source? :unsure:

[Leo]

Except you've provided no evidence that Stalin knew much anything about said geo-political situation or about the Albanian leadership.

So you are saying that Stalin was lying when he said he looked into the Albanian situation and Hoxha was unable to explain it to him.


Stalin did ask the Yugoslavs about Hoxha, what they knew about him, etc. so evidently he wasn't all that well-briefed concerning him. Remember, the Soviets had no involvement in liberating Albania. The Soviets worked with the Yugoslav partisans and helped them liberate Belgrade.

Who, in turn, worked with the Albanian partisans and helped them liberate Tirana. And it would be absolutely amazing if you think that the NKDV wasn't present in these countries, being one of the biggest spy networks in the world at the time.


It was still obscure to them. The memoirs of various British officers who helped the Albanian partisans in the 1940's note that the British knew very little about the situation in Albania. Edward Grey in 1913 noted that Albania was a little-known country and that its borders were being decided on by the Great Powers entirely based on political concerns between them, with practically no knowledge (or, of course, care) about what Albanians thought about them. The Italians knew a lot about Albania during the 20's and 30's, but that was because the reign of King Zog was basically that of an Italian puppet, and the Italians had "advisors" in the army, owned the "national" bank, etc.

It may have been in obscure in 1913. The British were never that involved until WW2. For the rest of Europe, it wasn't that obscure after WW1.


Joffe noted in his unpublished memoirs that of the various diplomatic, economic, etc. agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers, Lenin spoke often of having "dirty tricks" within them.

There weren't that many agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers in Lenin's day. Initially, the (correct) principle was to have everything in the open - the working class has nothing to hide when talking with its enemy they said. This was what was done in Brest-Litovsk. By 1923, the Bolsheviks themselves had changed and were now secretly selling guns to the Germans (the Rapallo treaty) behind the back of the German revolution. Lenin himself was never involved with either, he was never the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations in fact, his position was in a minority in the party. for a considerable period.


I was unaware that Stalin ever changed his ideological views after 1925

You are joking, aren't you?


No, to get more Maoist than that Hoxha would need to have actually been a Maoist. Writing an official letter praising the CCP and Mao is a bit different from actually being a Maoist. As noted his own diaries in the 1960's and 70's show him attacking Maoism. He never adopted China's "Three Worlds Theory" and any author dealing with 1960's Albania will note that the relationship between China's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" and Hoxha's "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" were slight outside of the former obviously influencing the latter coming into existence. Hoxha did, of course, denounce the "GPCR" as well with growing intensity in his diaries and in closed meetings of the Central Committee.

Hoxha did not denounce the GPRC, in fact admitted that they supported it even after his break with Maoism. Hoxha indeed did not adopt the three worlds theory - but not all Maoists do anyway. Hoxha says with his own words that he accepts the Mao Zedung thought, you can deny it all you want.


Again, Hoxha's own diaries show that when Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Hoxha was more than a little upset.

Probably he read something into it about Yugoslavia.


James S. O'Donnell notes the exploitative economic relationship between Albania and Yugoslavia in the 1940's in A Coming of Age.

Oh I am not saying it wasn't - I am saying that the Yugoslavians were giving them a better deal than anybody else would for these raw materials. There was a price to pay though: subordination.


I never said it was a serious challenge, but it did exist. Nexhmije to this day is still an avowed communist and defends her husband's policies.

Obviously I don't consider her a communist as I don't consider her husband one either. I will suffice to say that her positions were obviously shaped by nostalgia rather than real politics. Hoxha's positions would have been shaped by real politics, and he would have done what Alia did.


As opposed to what? An anti-Stalin perspective?

The root of the problem, he traces to Titoism, not to Soviet revisionism. This is quite telling.


Authors on Albanian history would also note that the events in 1956 in Hungary and Poland also prompted Hoxha to indirectly attack Khrushchev, e.g. by attacking calls for "different roads to socialism" in a November 1956 Pravda article.

Irrelevant and speculative. Besides, Hoxha mainly blamed Titoism for the events in Hungary and Poland.


Hoxha's diaries show that, outside of the initial apprehension of Mao saying in 1956 that Stalin made "mistakes" in-re Yugoslavia among other things, he was quite optimistic about China at the time. You forget that in the 1960's the Chinese also tried to reconcile with the Soviets, which Hoxha criticized in his memoirs.

So? Are you saying that they didn't side with the Chinese?

I'm getting pretty bored of this to be honest.

[Ismail]

Wait, you use Hoxha's diaries as somekind of a source? :unsure:Well you'd think that his diaries would be more accurate than his public pronouncements, no? Besides that he wrote very long entries in his diaries at times discussing ideological and theoretical issues. In total he wrote 23 volumes worth of published diaries, and more were being published until the year 1990 hit and the government decided to stop printing them.

And now on to Leo.


So you are saying that Stalin was lying when he said he looked into the Albanian situation and Hoxha was unable to explain it to him.Well unless you believe that the Albanian national liberation war lasted after 1944, then no.


Who, in turn, worked with the Albanian partisans and helped them liberate Tirana. And it would be absolutely amazing if you think that the NKDV wasn't present in these countries, being one of the biggest spy networks in the world at the time.I never heard of the NKVD being in Albania. You're free to provide a source.


You are joking, aren't you?No? I mean Trotskyists claim that Lenin adopted Trotsky's views in early 1917 and that he tacitly accepted Permanent Revolution after being in opposition to it (calling it "absurdly left" in 1914) for years. Obviously I don't believe that, but you could also find anarchists who will also say that Lenin changed his views on the state upon assuming state power, etc. That's baseless as well.

Also claiming that "he was never the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations in fact, his position was in a minority in the party for a considerable period" doesn't mean much. Lenin threatened to resign if the Brest-Litovsk treaty wasn't signed, and you had "left-communists" like Bukharin attacking him. He was anxious about the Bolsheviks overthrowing Georgia lest Social-Democrats in the West denounce Soviet Russia. He was active early on in agreeing to economic agreements, e.g. oil deals in Baku with the Germans.


Hoxha did not denounce the GPRC, in fact admitted that they supported it even after his break with Maoism. Hoxha indeed did not adopt the three worlds theory - but not all Maoists do anyway.They publicly supported it, but if you read his diaries it's very clear that he had criticisms of it from the beginning which grew over time.

Here's an example outside of his diary from Vol. IV of his Selected Works, which is on MIA: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1966/10/01.htm

It's mild, obviously, but it's a list of criticisms from the opening days of the "GPCR."


Hoxha says with his own words that he accepts the Mao Zedung thought, you can deny it all you want.Yet there's no example of Hoxha actually enacting Maoist policies. If you want I can tell you right now that the closest he did to this was saying "mass line" a few times in the late 60's and early 70's, and they obviously shared the view of the USSR being state-capitalist and social-imperialist.

Here's an example of Hoxha quite obviously attacking the "GPCR" in a 1978 letter: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/07/30.htm

Not to forget that Hoxha obviously attacked the "GPCR" in his book Imperialism and the Revolution.


I will suffice to say that her positions were obviously shaped by nostalgia rather than real politics.Actually even when the subject came up in prison of executing enemies, etc., she still insisted that there was nothing wrong with this. When asked if she was a Marxist she said that "we have always believed ," that she was an atheist, etc. If you want I could get the interview, which was conducted when she was in prison in 1997. It's like saying that Molotov was more interested in nostalgia than "real politics" in his 1970's and 80's conversations with Chuev, ditto with Kaganovich.


Hoxha's positions would have been shaped by real politics, and he would have done what Alia did.Except not really. It was only a year after Hoxha's death that efforts were made to promote greater pay incentives (note that Albania had the world's most egalitarian wage structures), to abandon the idea of collectivizing individual livestock in farms, etc. It was like the USSR between 1953-1955, Stalin in public was upheld, but in private many of his activities were negated, e.g. his book [I]Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was denounced as "left-deviationist."


So? Are you saying that they didn't side with the Chinese?He did, what's your point? He wasn't a Maoist, he actually protested to the CCP's Central Committee in 1972 when Nixon met Mao, and at the same time Albania used the economic aid given to it (as O'Donnell among others note) to create his goal of a generally self-sufficient Albania. Even in the 1940's he spoke of "relying on our own forces" in-re economics.

[Leo]

Well unless you believe that the Albanian national liberation war lasted after 1944, then no.So you are saying that Stalin explicitly stopped looking into the Albanian situation after 1944, as if he was trying to be ignorant about it? You are getting more and more absurd.


I never heard of the NKVD being in Albania. You're free to provide a source.If you think they weren't, you are extremely naive.


Also claiming that "he was never the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations in fact, his position was in a minority in the party for a considerable period" doesn't mean much. Lenin threatened to resign if the Brest-Litovsk treaty wasn't signed, and you had "left-communists" like Bukharin attacking him.Which was an internal party discussion, not a negotiation between them and the Germans.


He was anxious about the Bolsheviks overthrowing Georgia lest Social-Democrats in the West denounce Soviet Russia.His positions about Georgia changes - however he wasn't the one making the policies in Georgia.



You are joking, aren't you? No?Just read the history of the Comintern for fucks sake.


He was active early on in agreeing to economic agreements, e.g. oil deals in Baku with the Germans.Was he now? And when exactly would that be?


They publicly supported it, but if you read his diaries it's very clear that he had criticisms of it from the beginning which grew over time.

Here's an example outside of his diary from Vol. IV of his Selected Works, which is on MIA: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1966/10/01.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1966/10/01.htm)

It's mild, obviously, but it's a list of criticisms from the opening days of the "GPCR."So publicly he was a Maoist, while privately he made/prepared mild criticisms. OK.


Yet there's no example of Hoxha actually enacting Maoist policies. If you want I can tell you right now that the closest he did to this was saying "mass line" a few times in the late 60's and early 70's, and they obviously shared the view of the USSR being state-capitalist and social-imperialist.Meh, I mean what are Maoist policies? I don't think it can be said that there ever was a consistent Maoist policy either - the history of Maoism itself has been written by the results of inner party struggles in the Chinese Communist Party.


Here's an example of Hoxha quite obviously attacking the "GPCR" in a 1978 letter:

Not to forget that Hoxha obviously attacked the "GPCR" in his book Imperialism and the Revolution.I don't think Hoxha attacking the GPCR in 1978 proves anything,


Actually even when the subject came up in prison of executing enemies, etc., she still insisted that there was nothing wrong with this. When asked if she was a Marxist she said that "we have always believed ," that she was an atheist, etc. If you want I could get the interview, which was conducted when she was in prison in 1997.I am absolutely not interested in reading such interview. I think the summary you make itself clearly shows that it was all about nostalgia.


It's like saying that Molotov was more interested in nostalgia than "real politics" in his 1970's and 80's conversations with Chuev, ditto with Kaganovich.No it isn't, both Molotov and Kaganovich were, while relatively obscure and unimportant figures until 1923, had been a part of the core of Stalin's ruling faction for years. The were among Stalin's closest henchmen for thirty years. And when Mr. Mustache died, they were ousted from power. Realistically, of course, they had no chance of coming back to the top, but at least Molotov did, by playing his cards right, managed to get a rehabilitation in the Brezhnev era.


Except not really. It was only a year after Hoxha's death that efforts were made to promote greater pay incentives (note that Albania had the world's most egalitarian wage structures), to abandon the idea of collectivizing individual livestock in farms, etc. It was like the USSR between 1953-1955, Stalin in public was upheld, but in private many of his activities were negated, e.g. his book [I]Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was denounced as "left-deviationist."Which again is not to say he wouldn't have done the same thing.


He did, what's your point? He wasn't a Maoist, he actually protested to the CCP's Central Committee in 1972 when Nixon met MaoSo did many Maoists. He was as much as a Maoist can anyone could be in those days, at least publicly which is what counts.


and at the same time Albania used the economic aid given to it (as O'Donnell among others note) to create his goal of a generally self-sufficient Albania. Even in the 1940's he spoke of "relying on our own forces" in-re economics. Which is pretty nationalistic but also quite impossible. Self-sufficiency is impossible for countries far larger than Albania. The world market is a whole, no country is self-sufficient.

Again, I'm getting pretty bored of this.

[Ismail]

So you are saying that Stalin explicitly stopped looking into the Albanian situation after 1944, as if he was trying to be ignorant about it? You are getting more and more absurd.You're the one claiming that Albania had information readily available on it and that the NKVD were roaming the mountains using their magical Stalin powers. One wonders why Stalin would ever even need to ask the Yugoslavs anything about Albania.

Also let's be honest, I'm pretty sure Stalin was flattering Hoxha a bit. I seriously doubt Stalin knew much about what was going on in Albania. I'm sure he received updates from the Yugoslavs, but that doesn't make someone well-informed.


If you think they weren't, you are extremely naive.Apparently so is every writer on Albanian history. Again, if you can't provide information on NKVD activities in Albania then it's safe to say you're just pulling things out of your behind.


Which was an internal party discussion, not a negotiation between them and the Germans.Evidently it was an internal party discussion about Brest-Litovsk, about whether it should be ratified or not, etc. I doubt Hoxha just woke up every day and unilaterally decided a course of action for things either.


His positions about Georgia changes - however he wasn't the one making the policies in Georgia.I fail to see how that changes anything.


Just read the history of the Comintern for fucks sake.I have. I fail to see how Stalin changed his ideological views to any significant extent. The most you could say is that he toned down or dropped his views on "social-fascism" (which wasn't a view cooked up by him in the first place).


Was he now? And when exactly would that be?From The Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin:

Germany urgently needed the agricultural and mineral wealth and the railroad system of Georgia, and even more so the oil wells of Azerbaijan, to sustain her war effort. Thinking ahead to the postwar world, German leaders also intended to use Transcaucasia as a spearhead into the markets of the Middle East... Germany, beset by shortages, had counted on replenishing her resources from the captured south and west of Russia, and controlled much of the economy of Georgia during 1918; but in Berlin the resources of Georgia were not regarded as sufficient. Enver's race to Baku... threatened to wreck the armistice arrangement with Russia... The German leaders told the Russian ambassador in Berlin that they would take steps to stop the Ottoman advance if Russia gave assurances that she would supply at least some of Baku's oil to Germany. "Of course, we will agree," Lenin cabled to Stalin in reporting this development.
Meh, I mean what are Maoist policies? I don't think it can be said that there ever was a consistent Maoist policy either - the history of Maoism itself has been written by the results of inner party struggles in the Chinese Communist Party.Besides the "mass line" (which is an ambiguous and in any case not original concept) there was the "two-line struggle" within the Party, New Democracy, obviously the necessity of a "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," the Three Worlds Theory, and a tendency for Maoists to emphasize the youth and the peasantry at the head of "protracted people's wars."

Again, despite saying "mass line" a few times, Hoxha adhered to none of those.


I don't think Hoxha attacking the GPCR in 1978 proves [I]anything,The point was that he very obviously did attack the "GPCR."

If you want, the two volumes of Hoxha's Reflections of China are online in English and provide plenty of criticism of the "GPCR" in his diaries:
* http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_reflections_on_china_volume_I_eng.pdf
* http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_reflections_on_china_volume_II_eng.pdf

Of course as you note he did publicly praise the "GPCR" in a perfunctory way, and even his diaries show that he didn't think it was all that bad at first, but by 1970 his views obviously dampened. The more important point is that the "GPCR" was not implemented in Albania.


Which again is not to say he wouldn't have done the same thing.That's idle speculation. I'm fairly sure Stalin wouldn't have denounced his own work as "left-deviationist," though. :p


Again, I'm getting pretty bored of this.I'm not posting for your personal entertainment.

[Leo]

You're the one claiming that Albania had information readily available on it and that the NKVD were roaming the mountains using their magical Stalin powers.

Yes, cause its all mystical mountains cut off from the rest of the world, Albania, no cities and civilization whatsoever. Right.


One wonders why Stalin would ever even need to ask the Yugoslavs anything about Albania.

Why not? Could he not have wanted to know what the Yugoslavians were thinking and planning?


Also let's be honest, I'm pretty sure Stalin was flattering Hoxha a bit. I seriously doubt Stalin knew much about what was going on in Albania. I'm sure he received updates from the Yugoslavs, but that doesn't make someone well-informed.

I am sure he received updates from multiple sources.


Apparently so is every writer on Albanian history.

Perhaps they simply assumed that an organization which had spies everywhere in Europe didn't happen to miss a Nazi occupied country between Italy and Greece.


Evidently it was an internal party discussion about Brest-Litovsk, about whether it should be ratified or not, etc. I doubt Hoxha just woke up every day and unilaterally decided a course of action for things either.

No, but after he and his lackeys murdered all his rivals in the party, it was basically like him waking up, coming up with a political line and everyone else unanimously approving.


I fail to see how that changes anything.

The point is that he wasn't calling the shots about Georgia.


I have. I fail to see how Stalin changed his ideological views to any significant extent. The most you could say is that he toned down or dropped his views on "social-fascism" (which wasn't a view cooked up by him in the first place).

Again, you gotta be joking.


Germany urgently needed the agricultural and mineral wealth and the railroad system of Georgia, and even more so the oil wells of Azerbaijan, to sustain her war effort. Thinking ahead to the postwar world, German leaders also intended to use Transcaucasia as a spearhead into the markets of the Middle East... Germany, beset by shortages, had counted on replenishing her resources from the captured south and west of Russia, and controlled much of the economy of Georgia during 1918; but in Berlin the resources of Georgia were not regarded as sufficient. [Ismail] Enver's race to Baku... threatened to wreck the armistice arrangement with Russia... The German leaders told the Russian ambassador in Berlin that they would take steps to stop the Ottoman advance if Russia gave assurances that she would supply at least some of Baku's oil to Germany. "Of course, we will agree," Lenin cabled to Stalin in reporting this development.

So?


Besides the "mass line" (which is an ambiguous and in any case not original concept) there was the "two-line struggle" within the Party, New Democracy, obviously the necessity of a "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," the Three Worlds Theory, and a tendency for Maoists to emphasize the youth and the peasantry at the head of "protracted people's wars."

It was far more complicated that that but I am not gonna go into the faction war in China.


Again, despite saying "mass line" a few times, Hoxha adhered to none of those.

He publicly said he adhered to the Mao Zedung Thought - no matter what you said.

He probably didn't think of the ridiculous position this would put Hoxhaists trying to claim he never was a Maoist years after his death.


The point was that he very obviously did attack the "GPCR."

Yes, after he split with China.


Of course as you note he did publicly praise the "GPCR" in a perfunctory way, and even his diaries show that he didn't think it was all that bad at first, but by 1970 his views obviously dampened. The more important point is that the "GPCR" was not implemented in Albania.

It wasn't the sort of thing which could have been "implemented" anywhere, it was an ideological cover-up for a faction war. There were no factions rival to Hoxha left in the Albanian Party.


That's idle speculation.

No, its a logical conclusion. I would expect a man who spend his whole life calculating and doing what was necessary for his interests to do so in the future had he lived for longer. A politician as sneaky as Hoxha would not have gone down Ceausescu style.


I'm not posting for your personal entertainment.

No? But that breaks my heart.

[Ismail]

Yes, cause its all mystical mountains cut off from the rest of the world, Albania, no cities and civilization whatsoever. Right.You haven't provided any evidence of the NKVD in Albania. I've never seen it mentioned by anyone that there were NKVD persons in Albania. You honestly might as well be talking as if you were a protégé of Joseph McCarthy, talking about nonexistent communist conspiracies that just have to exist.


Why not? Could he not have wanted to know what the Yugoslavians were thinking and planning?Sure he could, but the memoirs of Djilas, Dedijer, etc. make clear that he asked them quite a lot of questions about Albania. Some sources about Albania speak about how the Soviets initially distrusted Hoxha and thought that he might have been influenced by the British. Nowhere have I read that the Soviets actually knew what was going on in Albania to any significant extent. You'd think that there would be something like "and then Stalin sent his agents to Tirana" or something, but I've never seen anything like that in the various books I've read concerning Albania. It's generally noted that Hoxha's visit to the USSR in 1947 was the start of Stalin moving away from a distrust of Hoxha to supporting him.


Perhaps they simply assumed that an organization which had spies everywhere in Europe didn't happen to miss a Nazi occupied country between Italy and Greece.Maybe all the NKVD operatives in Albania suffered from narcolepsy and were unable to report their findings. Maybe they undertook operations so secretive no Soviet or Albanian source has ever commented on them. Maybe there never actually were any NKVD agents in Albania.


The point is that he wasn't calling the shots about Georgia.He evidently didn't question the wiseness of the action after it was carried out. The only thing that concerned him was making sure Georgians had equal rights within the USSR.


So?So... why does this action not elicit your disapproval?


He publicly said he adhered to the Mao Zedung Thought - no matter what you said.Yet there's no evidence of him actually adhering to it in practice. Again you can't name a single Maoist policy of his; doesn't matter what Chinese faction would have thought it appropriately Maoist.


He probably didn't think of the ridiculous position this would put Hoxhaists trying to claim he never was a Maoist years after his death.He did acknowledge that Albanian sources (including himself) praised "Mao Zedong Thought," so no.


Yes, after he split with China.No, during the "GPCR." Again, feel free to skim the two volumes of his Reflections on China. In addition I've already noted he brought it up outside of his diaries in meetings of the Central Committee.


There were no factions rival to Hoxha left in the Albanian Party.Actually that's not correct. As I said 400 or so military men were shot in the 1970's, and there was also a purge of the economic and cultural fields. Important Party members like Beqir Balluku and Abdyl Këllezi were executed. And they were pro-China in orientation.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok real quick. I am interested in reading this but i have to ask. Is this full of semantics and shit slinging or is there real theoretical and historical discussion. These broken up quotes are really holding me back. If someone could just say whether or not its something worthwhile reading it then please. do so.

and let me offer a song. Though im not a 'titoist' or market socialist myself i find this song to be very mellow and nice.
8xvOcYA54Xc

[Искра]

In my opinion this is a good discussion which becomes little bit boring with Ismal vs. Leo discussion on Hoxhaism and Albania vs. Yugoslavia. It’s worth reading.
:)

[Leo]

Got rather boring in the end :)

[PolskiLenin]

I've had an entire revelation and change of mind regarding this.

[Искра]

I've had an entire revelation and change of mind regarding this.
Could you explain it better? :confused:

[Искра]

I've just read Ernest Mandel's article Yugoslav Economic Theory (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1967/04/yugotheory.html) which is really good criticism of Yugoslav economy or market socialism. I recomend this to everyone.

Also, I posted this (along with Croatian translation (http://www.radnickaborba.org/2011/11/04/ernest-mandel-jugoslavenska-ekonomska-teorija/)) into Yugoslav study group, so you can go there if you want to discuss this article :)

[PolskiLenin]

I have actually had a "revelation" I guess you could say regarding this. I've spent the last several months studying in depth yugoslavian socialism ("Titoism") and the realistic extent of workers' democracy in the People's Liberation War and in Yugoslavia. If anyone's interested, we should talk about it.

I'm wholly convinced now, as my research has attested to, that REAL, GENUINE socialism was the political, economic nature of Yugoslavia.

Lastly, "Nox", your uncomradely manner of discussion is inappropriate, along with your national chauvinism. Please debate honestly and comradely, leaving out all nationalist prejudice.

[Robespierre Richard]

I have actually had a "revelation" I guess you could say regarding this. I've spent the last several months studying in depth yugoslavian socialism ("Titoism") and the realistic extent of workers' democracy in the People's Liberation War and in Yugoslavia. If anyone's interested, we should talk about it.

I'm wholly convinced now, as my research has attested to, that REAL, GENUINE socialism was the political, economic nature of Yugoslavia.

Go on, I'm very interested.

[Ismail]

As a note, since this discussion I had done more research into Nako Spiru. Turns out he actually played a part in trying to unseat Hoxha at the 1944 Berat plenum of the Communist Party of Albania. He was used as an agent of the Yugoslavs but was later abandoned in favor of the more reliable Koçi Xoxe. Thus part of his reason for committing suicide was because the Yugoslavs had dirt on him which they could easily use.

[Искра]

I'm wholly convinced now, as my research has attested to, that REAL, GENUINE socialism was the political, economic nature of Yugoslavia.
Hm.. what? Could you write more about it?

[Tovarisch]

I always liked Tito after I learned about him. He seemed to be very anti-nationalist and worker-friendly. He did not suppress religion and actually allowed people to travel outside of Europe. Everybody had free health care, and everybody had a chance to learn and work. And most importantly: people were happy. I know many Yugoslavian immigrants who loved Tito's rule. Even people who did hate his rule during his administration are now claiming that they miss him.

[Prometeo liberado]

Can't find the USSR either...

Pretty sure you can find both the USSR and Yugoslavia right between Global Capital and Revisionism.

[Ismail]

He seemed to be very anti-nationalist and worker-friendly.That depends on the definition of nationalism. He certainly emphasized "national roads to socialism." Obviously he was not nationalistic against the varieties of Slavs, but he did engage in national chauvinism against Albania, which Djilas notes. Djilas also noted that before the Soviet-Yugoslav break in 1948 Tito was afraid that "the Russians" would "get to Albania" before the Yugoslavs could annex it.

In his foreign policy he consistently supported bourgeois forces like Nasser and Indira Gandhi. The "communists" he was on friendly terms with included Kim Il Sung and Nicolae Ceaușescu, who also stressed "national roads." In domestic affairs he heavily indebted his country to the IMF and the West and promoted the movement of Yugoslav laborers abroad in West Germany and other countries. Not to mention that in the end "self-administration" remained a system praised by social-democrats, not communists. He was "worker-friendly" in the same sense Olof Palme and other "radical" social-democrats were.


He did not suppress religionThe Soviets didn't suppress religion either. In fact religion wasn't really suppressed anywhere outside of the DPRK, China and Albania, and in the former two the cults of Kim and Mao assumed semi-religious significance anyway. Of course you mean that religion basically had no restrictions on it, which definitely helped in it asserting a chauvinistic and nationalist role as Yugoslavia began to dissolve.


Everybody had free health care, and everybody had a chance to learn and work.Free health care and education does not make a country socialist.


And most importantly: people were happy. I know many Yugoslavian immigrants who loved Tito's rule. Even people who did hate his rule during his administration are now claiming that they miss him.That's mainly because his government basically ran like a social-democratic one after the 60's and because of the horrendous civil wars that emerged after Yugoslavia collapsed. During the 1950's-70's Western capital flew into the country and assured high living standards. Once the gigantic debt Tito accrued came to haunt Yugoslavia in the 80's, though, the government resorted to classic, capitalist-style austerity measures which increased worker discontent.

[Sendo]

Once the gigantic debt Tito accrued came to haunt Yugoslavia in the 80's, though, the government resorted to classic, capitalist-style austerity measures which increased worker discontent.

The debt Tito accrued is nothing compared to the loans that came in the 80s and the 90s and the destruction from war, the debt to feed the war machine, reparations, concessions, etc.

You can't compare any IMF or World Bank deal from the past two decades to those before. The scale of the loans alone is far different.

[Ismail]

The debt Tito accrued is nothing compared to the loans that came in the 80s and the 90s and the destruction from war, the debt to feed the war machine, reparations, concessions, etc.

You can't compare any IMF or World Bank deal from the past two decades to those before. The scale of the loans alone is far different."In just the first 5 months of this year the deficit was 2 billion dollars. At the 11th Congress of the League of 'Communists' of Yugoslavia, Tito declared, 'the deficit with the Western market has become almost intolerable'. Nearly three months after this congress, he declared again in Slovenia, 'We have especially great difficulties in trade exchanges with the European Common Market member countries. There the imbalance to our disadvantage is very great and constantly increasing. We must talk with them very seriously about this. Many of them promise us that these things will be put in order, that imports from Yugoslavia will increase, but up to now we have had very little benefit from all this. Each is putting the blame on the other'. And the deficit in foreign trade, which Tito does not mention in this speech of his, exceeded 4 billion dollars in 1977. This is a catastrophe for Yugoslavia."
(Enver Hoxha. Yugoslav "Self-Administration": A Capitalist Theory and Practice. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1978. pp. 39-40.)

"The loans it has received amount to over 11 billion dollars. From the United States of America alone Yugoslavia has received over 7 billion dollars in credits."
(Ibid. pp. 25-26.)

Compare with Albania: "the new 1976 Constitution was enacted which prohibited foreign debt and foreign aid" and subsequently "Albania had little, if any foreign debt. This fact is astounding for any country but it is especially so for an East European country which traditionally has very high foreign debt. The Central Intelligence Agency's publication, The World Factbook, showed that in 1983, Albania imported goods worth $280 million but exported goods worth $290 million, which produced a trade surplus of $10 million. The 1984 state budget showed expenditures of $1.28 billion and revenues of $1.29 billion."
(James S. O'Donnell. A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha. New York: Columbia University Press. 1999. p. 65, 88.)

But the huge amount of debts Yugoslavia accrued from the West aren't that surprising when we see other revisionist regimes, such as Poland in 1981:

"The best evidence of the grave situation in the 'socialist community' and of the deep contradictions eroding it are the recent events in Poland, which have led that country to the brink of economic catastrophe and to major social and political upheavals. These are consequences of the line pursued by the Polish revisionist party for the re-establishment of capitalism, of the all-round subjugation of the country to the Soviet Union, of opening the doors to Western capital and the consequence of the large debts of Poland, which amount to the colossal sum of 27 billion dollars. Herein lies the source of the revolts of the working class and working people of Poland."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. VI. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1987. p. 392.)

Hoxha, writing in his diary in February 1982, noted that:
"Yugoslavia is up to its neck in debts and cannot repay them with more loans. In that country there is immense unemployment, inflation is galloping, prices are going up every day beyond the reach of ordinary working people."
(Ibid. p. 531.)

And from a bourgeois source: "Dr Spasoje Medenica, a Federal Minister, calculated that the internal debt (including the outstanding bills, the overruns of investment costs and the credit obligations to the National Bank arising from the devaluation of the dinar) amounted in 1983, to 2,000 billion dinars: a figure representing one half of Yugoslavia's national income. According to Branko Ćolanović, the Chairman of Jugobanka of Belgrade in 1983, 'Yugoslav enterprises are indebted to the banks and the banks to each other, and everyone is indebted to everyone else. We are excessively preoccupied with foreign currency and have neglected dinar insolvency.' In these circumstances the persistent IMF clamour for 'a positive rate of interest' i.e. one that is higher than the current rate of inflation, has predictably fallen on deaf ears.

To prevent a financial breakdown, massive rescue operations worth several billion dollars each had to be put together in 1983 and again in 1984, by international institutions, capitalist governments and commercial banks, under the sponsorship of the US administration, relieving the Yugoslavs of the immediate obligation to repay the capital."
(Nora Beloff. Tito's Flawed Legacy: Yugoslavia and the West since 1939. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1986. p. 235.)

[GallowsBird]

Firstly, Yugoslavia wasn't Socialist.

Secondly, fuck Serbia.

Thirdly, Kosovo is Albania.

Thankyou

And how is this a vlaid contribution to the discussion?

I am hardly pro-Titoism but that is just flame bating.

:rolleyes:

[Susurrus]

The Soviets didn't suppress religion either. In fact religion wasn't really suppressed anywhere outside of the DPRK, China and Albania, and in the former two the cults of Mao and Kim assumed semi-religious significance anyway.

Umm, care to provide an independent source for that? Because I'm nearly 100% certain that's untrue.

[Ismail]

Umm, care to provide an independent source for that? Because I'm nearly 100% certain that's untrue.Albert Szymanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union notes that religion was never suppressed. There were various religious schools for Muslims and Catholics, Jews could observe their religious practices, etc. In the Lithuanian SSR, for instance, the Catholic Church had its power remain strong amongst the people and was a source of nationalism. Szymanski only quotes Western or Soviet dissident sources in his book. It's generally recognized in just about any academic source that religious beliefs were not criminalized and that various churches and mosques existed.

Of course religious activity was limited and religion was just about totally depoliticized, but that's not the same as suppression.

Only Albania declared itself the world's first and only officially atheistic state. Hoxha criticized attempts by the Soviets, Poles, and other revisionist forces to "reach out" to the Papacy and other religious institutions.

[Sendo]

I understand that Hoxha had such and such a conclusion. I know that Yugoslavia was shackled with debt. What I'm saying is that the policies of the IMF, Reagan, Bush, NATO, and economic ministers of the breakaway republics did far more to screw over the Southern Slav people (or peoples depending on one's ethnic views) than Tito's debt.

Posterchildren of the damage that IMF wreaks upon countries came about in the last two decades. The seizures and grabs of resources and capital in South Korea, Bolivia, Philippines and elsewhere is a product of more recent times. Loans in Tito's time weren't the same thing. POSCO, for example, was funded by loans. The World Bank and IMF were not, at that time, masters of manipulating defaulted loan situations into coups d'etat. In fact, World Bank balked at the very idea when Park presented it to them in 1968.

Ismail, you hold Hoxha at this high level, superior to Mao, Castro, Tito, Ho, tc in every aspect it seems. You can have that opinion, fine then. But I don't understand how you can use that to bludgeon everyone else's heroes. In 2011, what is Hoxha's legacy in Albania? Materially or ideologically? How about abroad? I think that the reason we see Hoxhaist Parties is due to the splits: LeftComs and Bolsheviks, then Trotskyists and MLs, and anti-Mao/Hoxha MLs and anti-USSR MLs, then Maoists and Hoxhaists. Hoxha was always theorizing and explaining why he was better than all, or rather, the only real living Marxist, etc. but what does it matter today? Is your point to tally up the ways that X displeased Hoxha and prove that X, therefore, is a revisionist?

I just don't get your point. I don't see much positive about Hoxhaism; it's all negative. It seems so focused on proving that it's not revisionism than proving what it is. Whatever gains it made are not on the scale of what happened in the USSR and China with far greater populations. Whatever gains it made have not lasted as long as the gains made in Cuba. So why must Hoxha's diaries be used as a club with which to bash and discredit all non-Albanians?

[CommieTroll]

I understand that Hoxha had such and such a conclusion. I know that Yugoslavia was shackled with debt. What I'm saying is that the policies of the IMF, Reagan, Bush, NATO, and economic ministers of the breakaway republics did far more to screw over the Southern Slav people (or peoples depending on one's ethnic views) than Tito's debt.

Posterchildren of the damage that IMF wreaks upon countries came about in the last two decades. The seizures and grabs of resources and capital in South Korea, Bolivia, Philippines and elsewhere is a product of more recent times. Loans in Tito's time weren't the same thing. POSCO, for example, was funded by loans. The World Bank and IMF were not, at that time, masters of manipulating defaulted loan situations into coups d'etat. In fact, World Bank balked at the very idea when Park presented it to them in 1968.

Ismail, you hold Hoxha at this high level, superior to Mao, Castro, Tito, Ho, tc in every aspect it seems. You can have that opinion, fine then. But I don't understand how you can use that to bludgeon everyone else's heroes. In 2011, what is Hoxha's legacy in Albania? Materially or ideologically? How about abroad? I think that the reason we see Hoxhaist Parties is due to the splits: LeftComs and Bolsheviks, then Trotskyists and MLs, and anti-Mao/Hoxha MLs and anti-USSR MLs, then Maoists and Hoxhaists. Hoxha was always theorizing and explaining why he was better than all, or rather, the only real living Marxist, etc. but what does it matter today? Is your point to tally up the ways that X displeased Hoxha and prove that X, therefore, is a revisionist?

I just don't get your point. I don't see much positive about Hoxhaism; it's all negative. It seems so focused on proving that it's not revisionism than proving what it is. Whatever gains it made are not on the scale of what happened in the USSR and China with far greater populations. Whatever gains it made have not lasted as long as the gains made in Cuba. So why must Hoxha's diaries be used as a club with which to bash and discredit all non-Albanians?

The scale of the foreign debt that Yugoslavia accumulated under Tito compared to the scale of a national deficit in the post-Tito years is irrelevant, it doesn't change the fact that he was a Capitalist and in turn his choice to associate with Western Capitalist institutions played a major role in the demise of The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Under Hoxha, Albania underwent a process of industrialization, land reform and social reform. Because of Hoxha's policies the adult literacy rate was raised to 85% with free healthcare and education like in Tito's Yugoslavia. After the rule of the Ottoman's, Albania was the most underdeveloped country in Europe which had no formal infrastructure. Albania was then overtaken by Italian Imperialism as a source of cheap raw materials. Throughout fascist rule in Albania the country developed at a normal rate but post WWII the policies of The Albanian Party of Labour and Enver Hoxha successfully industrialized Albania with no foreign debt. The souring of relations which took place between Albania and Yugoslavia rests on the shoulders of Tito. Tito looked to annex Albania into Yugoslavia and even tried to oust Hoxha at one stage by trying to influence key Party members by offering loans and supports, in my eyes that's Capitalistic bribery. Tito sought to use Albania the same way Mussolini did, as a colony and as a source of cheap raw materials. ''Market Socialism'' is nothing but a contradiction to Marxist theory.

[Tovarisch]

My grandmother told me that during 1930's and 1940's, people were forbidden from reading many books, especially bibles. The best way to catch bible-readers during the time was by using little children as spies. A teacher at school would ask young children to tell them if parents were reading a bible at home. Little kids thought it was a game, and obediently told on their parents, as they were not aware that their parents could possibly be sent away to Siberia. And not all of the reports were even real, as a child may get pissed off at a parent for not buying a toy, and then as revenge, rattle out on the parent, even if the parent did not break any laws.

Also Ismail, you sound like a bit of a nationalist. I like Hoxha too, he made Albania a much more progressed country. However, you seem to hold a hatred of every single communist whose name does not rhyme with Mosha. Titoist Yugoslavia was just as socialist as Albania, and unlike their eastern neighbors, people were not starving or being killed for absolutely no reason at all (ahem Ceausescu).

Also, while Serbia is often seen as an oppressive bully, you have to look at things from Serbia's point of view. They were oppressed heavily during most of their existence by the Ottoman Empire and later Austria. While this does not justify Serbia's disgraceful actions, Serbia was not always an oppressor

[Ismail]

Ismail, you hold Hoxha at this high level, superior to Mao, Castro, Tito, Ho, tc in every aspect it seems. You can have that opinion, fine then. But I don't understand how you can use that to bludgeon everyone else's heroes.Because I don't operate on "heroes," I operate on if a leader was a Marxist-Leninist or not. For what it's worth, though, Hoxha had a fairly high opinion of Ho Chi Minh even though Vietnam itself pursued a revisionist course.


In 2011, what is Hoxha's legacy in Albania? Materially or ideologically? How about abroad?The government of Albania is highly anti-communist and because of policies under Hoxha a good deal of the country's population is comprised of young people. Albanian history books tend to whitewash the collaborators of fascism during the war (the Balli Kombëtar) and barely talk about the "communist regime" except to denounce it. I've seen more than a few Albanians actually argue that Hoxha "ruined" Albania and that he was an "agent" of Tito and the Slavs sent to isolate Albania from the West. Ridiculously, one of the most "important" issues of Hoxha's leadership in the Albanian public consciousness is if he was sexually attracted to men, with an anti-communist biography that recently came out repeating this allegation and said book being endorsed by both Albanian President Berisha and Kosovar President Thaçi.

Of course a non-distorted analysis of his legacy would show, as James S. O'Donnell and Peter R. Prifti notably do in their works on Albania under Hoxha, that the country attained great strides in industrialization, agriculture, education, health care, culture, and in maintaining its own independence.

Abroad there were various parties which upheld Albania and the work of Enver Hoxha. The largest of these included the PCdoB in Brazil, the PCMLE in Ecuador, and the KPD/ML in the two German states. Radio Tirana was (amongst the 'socialist states') third only to Chinese and Soviet radio in terms of the power of its transmitters and the variety of the languages it offered. Although there are few parties today that would explicitly consider themselves pro-Hoxha (besides generally upholding him and disagreeing with Maoists), there's nothing dated about him or his stands.


Hoxha was always theorizing and explaining why he was better than all, or rather, the only real living Marxist, etc. but what does it matter today? Is your point to tally up the ways that X displeased Hoxha and prove that X, therefore, is a revisionist?Tito's revisionism (or, say, the Castros today) isn't based on Hoxha not liking them.


I just don't get your point. I don't see much positive about Hoxhaism; it's all negative. It seems so focused on proving that it's not revisionism than proving what it is. Whatever gains it made are not on the scale of what happened in the USSR and China with far greater populations. Whatever gains it made have not lasted as long as the gains made in Cuba. So why must Hoxha's diaries be used as a club with which to bash and discredit all non-Albanians?What gains has Cuba made relative to Albania? Cuba made great strides in literacy and fairly good strides in health care, that's about it. But socialism isn't based on these things. Cuba was a neo-colony of the Soviets and obediently followed their foreign policies in just about everything. Today they're opening up to market capitalism.


Also Ismail, you sound like a bit of a nationalist.I'm not an Albanian. Actual bourgeois nationalists in Albania today hold Hoxha in contempt and claim he "betrayed" Albania's "national interests."


and unlike their eastern neighbors, people were not starving or being killed for absolutely no reason at all (ahem Ceausescu).Ceaușescu starved people because he decided to pay off his debt to the IMF in such a way that even the IMF itself was criticizing him. He implemented super-austerity measures, whereas the Yugoslavs in the 80's implemented more minor measures.

A 1984 article:

"In actual reality, of course, self-management – after a long period of increasing suffocation by the bureaucratic cancer – has already effectively been terminated. Reflecting on the circumstances of its demise, it is instructive to note that it was the West rather than the East which dealt the final blow...

In a recent survey of Yugoslavia by the Financial Times, it was noted that 'Yugoslavia's protracted economic crisis, now in its fourth or fifth year, is beginning to change the political system.' ... as the commentaries in both The Times and the Financial Times noted last June, the country's acceptance of capitalist economic principles – exclusive reliance on monetary mechanisms – is seen as implying that 'the West is ahead ideologically' of the Soviet Union. This year, furthermore, Yugoslavia has agreed to move away from the barter trade with Comecon towards greater exchange with the West. Current agreements with the IMF and the World Bank show Yugoslavia's commitment to liberalize controls, which still cover over 80 per cent of all imports, to relax the terms under which foreign capital can invest, and to open (for the first time) the service sector to it as well. In return, the banks are promising patience and tolerance.

However, it is obvious that this addiction to foreign loans, which the LCY leadership has acquired over the past decade or two, will have to be paid for by the Yugoslav working class."
(Branka Magaš. The Destruction of Yugoslavia: Tracking the Break-up 1980-92. London: Verso. 1993. p. 97.)

"The papers give – in all the Yugoslav languages – advance notice of new wage cuts and price increases. I read with interest that shipyard workers in Split will have their wages lowered by 40 per cent. Average wage cuts: 20-40 per cent. Average price increases: 30-100+ per cent. The prices of black bread, milk and cooking oil will be protected. The IMF has demanded a drastic cut in domestic consumption and the closure of loss-making enterprises. Hundreds of telexes arrive daily at the door of the Federal government in Belgrade protesting against wage cuts."
(Ibid. p. 131.)

Compare with Albania in 1982 as reported by the Communist Party of Ireland (Marxist-Leninist): "On June 5, the day before the opening of the 9th Congress of the Albanian Trade Unions, the Council of Ministers of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania announced reductions in the price of various mass commodity goods and of many public services. The prices of certain items, including meat, clothing, shoes, televisions, radios, washing machines, bicycles, prams, kitchen utensils, watches, etc., were reduced by amounts ranging from 7-35%, whilst the price of various public services fell by 8-15½%. There is no inflation in Socialist Albania. The only changes in prices which have taken place since liberation in 1944 are reductions in prices. This is in stark contrast to the serious and ever-growing burden on the people caused by the continually soaring prices in the capitalist and revisionist countries."
(Red Patriot. Vol. 6, No. 3/4. Aug. 1st 1982. p. 11.)

[Paul Cockshott]

The soviet government was never overcome with national chauvinists like in yugoslavia. A lot of the ethnic conflict in the former USSR came after the collapse, after the ending of autonomous oblasts and generous state investment. Instead countries like georgia and russia want to rule those minorities.

I'm not familiar with the problem in moldova though, so I can't comment.




Market socialism is self-defeating and dangerous, especially when it's limited to one country like Yugoslavia and vulnerable to external market forces. Communists don't wish to retain a system of exchange, why should we buy and sell not only resources, but labor power, between ourselves, with the goal of making profit?

Only a planned economy can properly run things. No market will provide according to need and produce with the goal of abundance. No market will guarantee full employment, honest insurance, and incentivizing subsidies.




So, titoism merely amounts to tito's personal achievements? The ideology implements partisan victories?


The wars did, but there was friction before that in places like Croatia (croatian spring) and kosovo. Not to mention, not long after tito the government was led by nationalists like Milosevic.



A planned economy is not capitalist. There is no capital, and the means of production are owned in common and run according to raw need, not monetary 'demand'.


Some needs can be allocated politically, but for consumer goods some sort of market feedback, with a public retai agency is needed.

[red1936]

1) Lol, Tito an anti-imperialist?, Tito was a US comprador, he tried to join the marshal plan repeatidly each time he was rejected. He even met on friendly terms with reactionary figures such as emperor Hirohito XD I would recomend reading the page the Espresso stalinist has on Tito, the website even compiled a photo montage of Tito with reactionaries.

2) Tito managed to bring them together?, by that you mean Serbian chauvanism that helped destroy the Yugoslav union?

3) According to a friend of mine who has had encounters with former citizens of the Yugoslav republics (Serbia) the reading of Lenin was actually discouraged, what do you mean my Stalin distorted Leninism?

“We Jugoslavs have discarded classic deviations between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism. History has erased such a distinction. Life now pushes toward the evolutionary progress… I think that even in the United States there is a tendency toward socialism. A big change began with your New Deal and your economy retains many of its features. For example, state intervention in the economy is much larger.”
(Tito, quoted in Cyrus Leo Sulzberger. The Last of the Giants. New York: Macmillan. 1970. p. 270.)

Tito made a career off of distorting Marxism-Leninism and the legacy of Lenin, Leninism does opress, it opresses the Bourgeoisie! you even contradicted yourself by saying Tito rejected distortions of Leninism AND did not censor art, Marx and Lenin wrote about the concept of Social-realism, not allowing degenerate arts to act as if they are art, art should be about the struggle of the workers and things that affect the workers.

The only valid point you made was number 5.

[Ismail]

1) Lol, Tito an anti-imperialist?, Tito was a US comprador, he tried to join the marshal plan repeatidly each time he was rejected. He even met on friendly terms with reactionary figures such as emperor Hirohito XD I would recomend reading the page the Espresso stalinist has on Tito, the website even compiled a photo montage of Tito with reactionaries.A better argument is the fact that tons of reactionaries actually went to Yugoslavia to mourn Tito's death.

Although the various photos of Tito with Haile Selassie does remind me of this:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/KhrushchevSelassie.jpg

Also after the fall of Ranković in the 60's (who was Tito's right-hand man, probable successor, called a "dubious Marxist" by Stalin, and treated Kosovar Albanians as perennially "treasonous" elements) Serbian chauvinism lost a lot of leverage in federal politics.

But yeah, as one anti-communist source puts it:

"One hears Yugoslav Communists say things that would warm the heart of any 'free enterprise' advocate. State intervention? Must be cut to an absolute minimum. Price controls? Very undesirable—imposed temporarily for some vital goods, but to be removed as soon as possible. Taxes? Accepted with great reluctance and should not stifle efforts to maximize profits. Yet, one also catches, in addition to Adam Smith, echoes of every conceivable socialist idea—not just Marx, let alone Lenin, but the early socialists and syndicalists, Owen, even more Proudhon, plus a strong dose of anarchism or anarchosyndicalism."
(Paul Lendvai. Eagles and Cobwebs: Nationalism and Communism in the Balkans. New York: Doubleday & Company, INC. 1969. p. 92.)

And of course the namedropping of Owen, Proudhon, and whatever other idealistic and petty-bourgeois utopians were just "ideological" excuses for constructing a "socialist market system" like so:

"The real changover actually started in 1954, when state financing was abolished and investment funds were separated from the state budget. Starting with the meager concession of being able to elect or dismiss the workers' councils, by the end of the fifties the enterprises planned their production independently, marketed their products, bought raw materials, decided on employment, made their own arrangements with foreign firms, and enjoyed increasing freedom in investing their capital and distributing their profits. Though projected bold reforms in 1961 were temporarily frustrated by bureaucracy, the enterprises could henceforth divide their net earnings independently once they had paid their federal and local taxes.

Parallel reforms in 1953 to 1964 gradually introduced a working market mechanism with government control maintained through price and investment, fiscal and monetary policies. State administration was drastically reduced; the six republics and the communes (there are at present 517 such local administrative districts) were given increased powers in political and economic decisions. Ministries were abolished and only a few administrative state secretariats remain. Enterprises are no longer in any way subordinate to the central institutions; they form their own branch associations and set up business chambers to represent their interests.

The constitutional reform of 1953 established a bicameral basis in local self-government and also at republican and federal levels, and the new Constitution of 1963 made the entire system even more complicated, with a corporate structure resembling in some ways Mussolini's Italy.... [with] a so-called Council of Producers elected on a vocational basis in enterprises, thus excluding self-employed peasants and artisans..."
(Ibid. pp. 98-99.)

One thing that I hear a lot and indicative of the emphasis placed on "heroism" (as it were) rather than actual Marxism is this from the first post:

-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army.Well the Albanians defeated Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and quisling administrations with no help from the Red Army. But that's not the point. Kim Il Sung led the resistance against Japanese fascism in Korea, does that mean he is eternally glorious? De Gaulle led the French resistance, does that matter five, ten or twenty years down the line?

In fact I never did address the first post, so I might as well:


-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.I've already mentioned that Yugoslavia was indebted to the West thanks to Tito and that it wanted to join the Marshall Plan, but Tito had a rapprochement with the Soviets in 1955. After 1961 Soviet and Yugoslav ministers both stated that their respective views on foreign policy basically coincided with one another. In addition to this the "Non-Aligned Movement" was a collection of bourgeois states each claiming their own generally inoffensive "African" or "Arab" socialism, which often resulted in the suppression of actual socialists in said countries.


-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world.All that accomplished was to promote the hastening of economic "reforms" in the 60's, 70's and 80's so that Yugoslavia could be "more like Europe." Compare this to Hoxha who said that, "No, comrades, we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." (On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, p. 261.)


-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.This is true, although as noted there was chauvinism against Kosovar Albanians, who were denied their ability to unite with Albania proper because, by Tito's own admission, he didn't want to alienate Serbs.


-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management.Let's see how Marx and Lenin were treated:

"If a traveler chooses to spend the end of April and the beginning of May in the Balkans and happens to cross from Bulgaria into Yugoslavia, he is invariably struck by an amazing contrast. In Sofia, or in the smaller towns and villages near the Yugoslav border, he sees red banners everywhere, slogans hailing the Soviet Union and Bulgaria marching shoulder to shoulder proudly toward communism. On the 1st of May he is confronted with columns of people bearing the traditional flags and pictures.

There is quite a difference in the Yugoslav towns, particularly in the capital. To be sure, May Day is a public holiday, yet there is hardly any red or decoration of any color. At the most one sees here and there a solitary weather-beaten picture of the Holy Trinity of Communism displayed on the façades of party or union headquarters. When one reaches Belgrade, the picture changes even more dramatically. Instead of the apostles of revolution, with or without beards, the main boulevards are lined with huge billboards displaying such symbols of capitalism as General Motors or Ford, sprinkled with advertisements for Mercedes or Citroen and other leading motor companies. For the past few years, May Day has coincided with the Belgrade motor show and the 'masses' march to the fairground to admire and in some cases even to buy cars, rather than to imitate their fellow Communists in neighboring countries."
(Lendvai, p. 75.)

It's also rather strange that the "true successor of Lenin" would disavow vanguardism:

"For, from its 7th congress of April 1958, the Yugoslav party held that Communists 'should no longer be concerned primarily with questions relating to the overthrow of capitalism', that it was possible to achieve socialism without a revolution and that Communist parties need not enjoy a power monopoly in pursuit of socialism."
(Geoffrey Stern. The Rise and Decline of International Communism. Aldershot: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. 1990. p. 177.)


-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish.In neighboring Albania, which had just about the strictest adherence to socialist realism, culture actually did flourish as Peter R. Prifti notes in his work Socialist Albania since 1944, with a great variety of folkloric, theatrical, artistic and written entertainment thanks to state-sponsored efforts. Yugoslav "cultural production" just tended to mimic the West.


-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression."While other Communist governments let out only a trickle of tourists and for the time being at least would not even dream of allowing hundreds of thousands of their proud socialist citizens to be 'exploited' by foreign capitalists, the Yugoslavs are becoming more and more business-minded, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of migrants. The press and the officials freely admit that, given the existing domestic situation, they can see only blessings, such as fat remittances, acquisition of new skills, and a reduction in the amount of unconcealed unemployment. In fact, any slackening of demand in the West for foreign workers would be a severe loss. It is amusing, but also typical, that Yugoslav newspapers followed the 1966-67 recession in Germany with anxiety instead, as one might have expected, of being light-hearted about this confirmation of the 'inevitable doom of capitalism.'"
(Lendvai, p. 107.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some needs can be allocated politically, but for consumer goods some sort of market feedback, with a public retail agency is needed.

I'm not sure a lot of posters here are aware of the difference you make between basic clearing prices and full-blown price fluctuations all over the place between the high-end clearing price and the low-end clearing price. I'm definitely against the latter.

[Paul Cockshott]

Is not even absolutely necessary to allow any price fluctuations, you could sell all consumer goods at labour content provided the state wholesale agency adjusts the plan rapidly in the face of goods being sold out or being unsold.

[Babeufist]

I am Titoist too! Titoism is not only Yugoslavian ideology but broader phenomenon. For example Polish Titoist was Wladyslaw Gomulka, Hungarian Titoist was Laszlo Rajk, Bulgarian Titoist was Traicho Kostov, I suppose American Titoist was Earl Browder. There was also German Titoist party http://www.bpb.de/themen/PQ3CU9,3,0,Die_SED_und_der_Titoismus.html (http://www.bpb.de/themen/PQ3CU9,3,0,Die_SED_und_der_Titoismus.html)
Titoism is realistic Communism - Communism adopted to specific national conditions.

[Ismail]

Browder was basically a social-democrat who openly called for dissolving the Communist Party of America in favor of a "mass party" and was a believer in "American exceptionalism," you know that right? Gomułka by contrast was just a nationalist who was boosted up after Stalin's death as a man subjected to "Stalinist repression."

It was none other than Enver Hoxha who wrote a nice introduction to Browderism in his book Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism. See: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/eurocommunism/I.pdf (book pages 24-37)

[Rafiq]

All that accomplished was to promote the hastening of economic "reforms" in the 60's, 70's and 80's so that Yugoslavia could be "more like Europe." Compare this to Hoxha who said that, "No, comrades, we cannot and should not follow 'the European road'; on the contrary, it is Europe which should follow our road, because, from the political standpoint, it is far behind us, it is very far from that for which Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin fought, and for which our Party fights today." (On the Further Revolutionization of the Party and the Whole Life of the Country, p. 261.)


So why is it you think Albanians were forbidden from leaving the country, just like most of the Socialist countries at the time? Or does leaving Albania automatically signify that you are adopting "Revisionist reforms" :laugh:

[Ismail]

So why is it you think Albanians were forbidden from leaving the country, just like most of the Socialist countries at the time? Or does leaving Albania automatically signify that you are adopting "Revisionist reforms" :laugh:People were forbidden from leaving Albania? Really? Is that why Albanian professors and researchers were able to go to London to look at the British war archives circa 1971? Is that why various Albanian professors were allowed to teach in Kosovo after 1968 (after the Yugoslav Government began to concede to some Kosovar Albanian demands), were able to give lectures in France, etc.?

But of course as noted Yugoslavia allowed all sorts of workers to leave... to become migrant laborers in West Germany, and to thus base a significant amount of the Yugoslav economy on foreign capitalist exploitation.

But of course I'm sure you'll argue that Yugoslavia correctly understood the "material conditions" through "workers' self-management" much like the DPRK, apparently firmly grasping these as well, did the same via Juche. Anyone who opposed Tito and Kim Il Sung is thus evil because some idiot teenager from Detroit defines "orthodox Marxism" on the internet. Some would say that both are just symbols of nationalist deviations from Marxism-Leninism, but you'll just go along to argue that they were totally necessary and become apologists for both and all other forms of revisionism in general.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I suppose American Titoist was Earl Browder.

I just lost the little respect I had for the ultimate revisionists of revisionists in Eastern Europe: Josip Broz Tito.


And I think that (if Ismail has not already quoted it) people should this:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm
by Comrade Enver Hoxha.

[Rafiq]

People were forbidden from leaving Albania? Really? Is that why Albanian professors and researchers were able to go to London to look at the British war archives circa 1971? Is that why various Albanian professors were allowed to teach in Kosovo after 1968 (after the Yugoslav Government began to concede to some Kosovar Albanian demands), were able to give lectures in France, etc.?

But of course as noted Yugoslavia allowed all sorts of workers to leave... to become migrant laborers in West Germany, and to thus base a significant amount of the Yugoslav economy on foreign capitalist exploitation.

But of course I'm sure you'll argue that Yugoslavia correctly understood the "material conditions" through "workers' self-management" much like the DPRK, apparently firmly grasping these as well, did the same via Juche. Anyone who opposed Tito and Kim Il Sung is thus evil because some idiot teenager from Detroit defines "orthodox Marxism" on the internet. Some would say that both are just symbols of nationalist deviations from Marxism-Leninism, but you'll just go along to argue that they were totally necessary and become apologists for both and all other forms of revisionism in general.

So now I support the DPRK and Bourgeois-Liberal Tito? :laugh:

No illusions, the only reason people were allowed to leave Yugoslavia was because Yugoslavia was in some major debt and needed migrant workers to go abroad to pay it off, we know.

All the Socialist states during the time (DPRK included...!) refused to let people leave. Common citizens in Albania were forbidden from leaving the country. Or would you like to deny that to, you shriveled up pathetic piece of shit?

Worker's self management and Juche were just reflections of their own shit conditions. All sorts of bizzare ideological mystifications arose in the 20th century Socialist countries, most notibally Albania, which tried to reverse the Marxian Materialist method taking the "Anti Revisionist" stance.

Anti Revisionism, Guloush Communism, Worker's Self Management, Juche, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics... Ah.... Socialism in one country was weak. They all had to formulate these batshit insane concepts to compensate for the giant fucking mess they were all in. But you know, the rule of capital disguises itself in many different forms, whether it be "socialism", "democracy", "fascism" or "insert religion". That's just how capital is able to operate.

But no, continue to support this:

http://www.gaffngun.com/gallery/data/521/bird-shit-kid.jpg


And than rail against this:

http://buttercupshouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/birdshit.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_J3MC3sX7BIg/RzBkgeRIwQI/AAAAAAAAADc/bXSg2kCG8gk/s400/Birdshit.JPG

Because, in the end, oh Ismail, Albania and the DPRK's state of affairs were just different ways of getting shit on. We know the DPRK was a shit hole. When will you say the same about Albania?

[Ismail]

Worker's self management and Juche were just reflections of their own shit conditions. All sorts of bizzare ideological mystifications arose in the 20th century Socialist countries, most notibally Albania, which tried to reverse the Marxian Materialist method taking the "Anti Revisionist" stance.More apologism for Juche, Titoism, and all sorts of rightism in general. You still haven't explained one single "deviation" Hoxha made from Marxism-Leninism, even though you've said he made "several" in the past. I'd say you have, however, made a deviation from Marxism in various ways, most notably by defending the carrying out of the Holocaust as something apparently necessary for German capitalism to undertake. This meshes nicely with your utter contempt for "liberalism," indicative of an incipient fascist tendency.


Anti Revisionism, Guloush Communism, Worker's Self Management, Juche, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics... Ah.... Socialism in one country was weak. They all had to formulate these batshit insane concepts to compensate for the giant fucking mess they were all in.Let's hear the "batshit insane concepts" Hoxha proposed. It can't be anti-revisionism, since that's not an ideology or "great theoretical advance" or "national road to socialism" or whatever, it's just opposition to the Khrushchevite and later Brezhnevite line of the USSR and its satellites in regards to the character of Stalin. Not like Hoxha or the Albanian Party of Labour said "ANTI-REVISIONISM IS THE STATE IDEOLOGY" or whatever, it's just a word used.


Because, in the end, oh Ismail, Albania and the DPRK's state of affairs were just different ways of getting shit on. We know the DPRK was a shit hole. When will you say the same about Albania?You're free to adopt the analysis of "X country is a shit hole" to justify whatever you'd like. Just don't call it Marxism. I don't blame Juche for the imperialist blockade of the DPRK, I blame Juche for legitimizing the DPRK's reactionary, state-capitalist regime and standing in opposition to scientific socialism.

[Rafiq]

I stopped reading at the part where you said I supported the holocaust :laugh: Oh man, I'm dieing right now. Now I'm a Fascist :laugh: :laugh: Ismail please tell me you are trolling.

Sorry, the holocaust WAS necessary to assure the survival of German capitalism. Which is why.... DUN DUN DUN... German capitalism should have been abolished and the German Bourgeiusie killed! :ohmy: Is that too Radical of a demand for you?

Jesus fucking christ... First I support Juche, now I support Fascism and Hitler. This is a new low for you.

[Omsk]

Bourgeois-Liberal Tito?


A flawed and incomplete understanding of a couple of political ideologies does not mean you have in your hands some huge knowledge,as you have showed here:

Tito was not a liberal,that's a capitalist myth.

He was a vicious anti-communist and he was brutal as he could be.

Don't even get me started on Rankovic and the OZNA,later UDBA.

Read about Tito,than speak.

[Rafiq]

Let's hear the "batshit insane concepts" Hoxha proposed. It can't be anti-revisionism, since that's not an ideology or "great theoretical advance" or "national road to socialism" or whatever, it's just opposition to the Khrushchevite and later Brezhnevite line of the USSR and its satellites in regards to the character of Stalin. Not like Hoxha or the Albanian Party of Labour said "ANTI-REVISIONISM IS THE STATE IDEOLOGY" or whatever, it's just a word used.

Anti Revisionism is an Ideology and is very comparable with Juche during the time. Still why don't you answer me: Albanian citizens (common people, not spies or academics) were not allowed to leave their country?



You're free to adopt the analysis of "X country is a shit hole" to justify whatever you'd like. Just don't call it Marxism. I don't blame Juche for the imperialist blockade of the DPRK, I blame Juche for legitimizing the DPRK's reactionary, state-capitalist regime and standing in opposition to scientific socialism.

Because your view of what Marxism is, means something? I am a consistent Marxist and a Materialist. You are a consistent Hoxhaist and an Idealist (Dualist). You blame Ideas, I blame structural base of society (mode of production, productive forces organized in X unique way).

Whose the Scientific Socialist again?

[Omsk]

Anti Revisionism is an Ideology


No it's not.

[Rafiq]

A flawed and incomplete understanding of a couple of political ideologies does not mean you have in your hands some huge knowledge,as you have showed here:

Tito was not a liberal,that's a capitalist myth.

He was a vicious anti-communist and he was brutal as he could be.

Don't even get me started on Rankovic and the OZNA,later UDBA.

Read about Tito,than speak.

The Concept of Worker's self management are inherently left liberal. Market Socialism is a Left Liberal concept.

How is that a capitalist myth?

[Rafiq]

No it's not.

Yes it is.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

By definition, all forms of Marxism-Leninism are an Ideology, and this Ideology has different shades. Anti revisionism is merely a deviation from this traditional ideology. By Anti Revisionism, I mean Hoxhaism.

[Omsk]

The Concept of Worker's self management are inherently left liberal. Market Socialism is a Left Liberal concept.

How is that a capitalist myth?


You are making the begginers mistake,Tito changed his policies a number of times,and he himself,personally,was never the 'liberal/free spirit' type - and he was quite brutal during the 1948 period,as was his butcher,Rankovic,however,in 1950,after the break with the USSR,Tito sought to revise and let his theoretical clique to find something new,and to come up with a 'counter-theory' - thus he accepted the Socialist Self Managament idea and some other theories.But this was after quite some time,and to go so boldly into such horrible generalization,is simplistic at best,demagogic at worst.

[Rafiq]

You are making the begginers mistake,Tito changed his policies a number of times,and he himself,personally,was never the 'liberal/free spirit' type - and he was quite brutal during the 1948 period,as was his butcher,Rankovic,however,in 1950,after the break with the USSR,Tito sought to revise and let his theoretical clique to find something new,and to come up with a 'counter-theory' - thus he accepted the Socialist Self Managament idea and some other theories.But this was after quite some time,and to go so boldly into such horrible generalization,is simplistic at best,demagogic at worst.

Liberalism doesn't mean "free spirit type". I don't think you know what I mean when I say Liberal. I mean left Liberalist, brutality is irrelivent in such a judgement.

[Ismail]

Anti Revisionism is an Ideology and is very comparable with Juche during the time. Still why don't you answer me: Albanian citizens (common people, not spies or academics) were not allowed to leave their country?"Spies"?

There were occasional instances of Albanian persons, primarily in the 80's, visiting relatives in Kosovo or Çamëria (a part of northern Greece.) It's worth asking: why would anyone want to leave Albania? Living standards were constantly rising up until the very last years of the 1980's. Many persons fled because they themselves were anti-communists. There were various instances in the 1940's and 50's of Yugoslav and Greek-based terrorist bands comprised of Albanian exiles.


very comparable with Juche during the time.Is that why Hoxha noted that the DPRK couldn't repay its debts and called Kim a vacillating revisionist megalomaniac (his words)?

[Omsk]

Liberalism doesn't mean "free spirit type". I don't think you know what I mean when I say Liberal. I mean left Liberalist, brutality is irrelivent in such a judgement.


I know what you ment,and i stand with my words that Tito can't just be classified as a 'Liberal' - because he changed his views often,and such generalization is not adequate.
If we have to 'label' him - he was an outright right-winger,of the nationalist sort.

Yes it is.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology)

By definition, all forms of Marxism-Leninism are an Ideology, and this Ideology has different shades. Anti revisionism is merely a deviation from this traditional ideology. By Anti Revisionism, I mean Hoxhaism.

There is just Marxism-Leninism and opportunism,(speaking within the non-Trotskyists/Left Comm/Anarchist streams) and Anti-Revisionism was,and is a movement to oppose all forms of revision of the original Marxist-Leninist ideology.

And im not interested in Hoxhaism,as i don't think there are any Hoxhaists on this forum.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Yes it is.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology

By definition, all forms of Marxism-Leninism are an Ideology, and this Ideology has different shades. Anti revisionism is merely a deviation from this traditional ideology. By Anti Revisionism, I mean Hoxhaism.

How can the original and unadulterated form of an ideology be different from and independent of that original ideology?

^^^Did you notice how that did not make sense? Neither does your assertions that Anti-Revisionism Marxism-Leninism is an ideology separate from Marxism-Leninism.

[Rafiq]

From sources I will post later (I'm busy) almost no emigration occured in Albania due to restriction laws.

And, Antirevisionism resembled Juche in that:

It was a deviation from the traditional Communist ideology at the time formulated to adjust to that specific country, and both were forms of Bourgeois thought (Idealism) in nature.

[Ismail]

From sources I will post later (I'm busy) almost no emigration occured in Albania due to restriction laws.Yes, and?


It was a deviation from the traditional Communist ideology at the time formulated to adjust to that specific countryWhat "traditional Communist ideology" did the Party of Labour of Albania "deviate" from that it apparently didn't "deviate" from before?

You haven't given one example of the "deviations" Hoxha and the PLA supposedly made.

For instance, here's a ridiculous and indeed idealist conception of things by Kim Il Sung:

"I said to Choe Dok Sin, 'Whether one lives in the north or in the south, one must consider the question of reunification with top priority given to the nation. Only when the nation exists are there social classes and isms, don't you think? What is the use of communism, nationalism or a belief in 'God' without the nation?'"
(Kim Il Sung. With the Century Vol. 2. Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House. 1992. p. 46.)

Thus according to Kim the class system doesn't come into existence until nations form.

[REDSOX]

Josef Broz Tito was indeed a great leader of Yugoslavia. He defeated the nazis by wearing them down in a guerilla war which the nazis could not win. He stood up to Stalin and refused to be bullied and cajoled by the Soviets at that time. He turned Yugoslavia into a force to be reckoned with and was a collosus on the world stage. Life for many yugoslavs improved over the years and their achievements in science, technology and industrialisation as well as improving social indicators were admired throughout the world. However he also made many mistakes in the later years of his life such as his disastrous worker control policies which introduced competition into the factories and abandoned key aspects of central planning thus reinforcing ethnic divisions which were to sadly tear the country apart years later. He also became more authoritarian as he got older persecuting former allies like Milovan Dilijas because of his criticism of tito's policies. He also became increasingly a vain individual who lived too much of a privileged life. He also borrowed heavily in the international finance markets in the 1970's leading to debt problems for yugoslavia in the 80's which led to structual adjustment programs for the yugoslav people dictated by the IMF. On balance i think he was a great leader but who made mistakes as time went on, certainly when i visited croatia a few years ago and talked to folks there, there was a lot of nostalgia for the tito era especially amongst the old folk, all gone now sadly

[Ismail]

He "stood up to Stalin" while treating Albania as a neo-colony. He was a "colossus" among such great figures as Nasser, Indira Gandhi, Brezhnev, Nixon and Pol Pot. He could count Kim Il Sung and Nicolae Ceaușescu as friends. It's actually not too bad that he arrested Đilas, considering that he was a liberal who later became an outright anti-communist, while Aleksandar Ranković (who was called a "dubious Marxist" by Stalin, a term he also labeled Đilas) was, by the admission of the Yugoslav government itself, responsible for chauvinism and repression against Kosovar Albanians.

I don't see what there is to envy. Hoxha led the Communist Party of Albania in struggle against fascism as well (without any Soviet help, unlike Yugoslavia), but that doesn't mean people should praise him as a glorious socialist solely because of that.

[REDSOX]

Milovan may well have been a liberal socialist but thats no reason to arrest a guy or persecute him. He was entitled to his opinion and there is no credible evidence that he was a traitor to Yugoslavia. I also meant by "Collosus" Tito's stature and respect that he had, far more than just a few leaders worldwide, not surprising after his World War 2 endeavours. When he died many paid their respects though notably not PresidentJimmy Carter or President Fidel Castro who did not get on with Tito that well sadly, in fact i think they despised each other, often battling each other in the non aligned movement. I think he got on with Che guevara though.

[Roach]

Honestly the amount of right-wingers who showed up to Tito's funeral is probably one of the most definitive proofs of the opportunist nature of his foreing policies.

[l'Enfermé]

I wouldn't say Hoxha has deviated much from Marxism-Leninism...the problem is that Stalin, Mao, Hoxha, etc, deviated from Marx, Engels and Lenin. This is why the Stalinist obsession with anti-revisionism is ridiculous, Stalinism/MLism itself is a revisionism of Marxism! It's revisionists accusing other revisionists of revisionism...

[Omsk]

while Aleksandar Ranković (who was called a "dubious Marxist" by Stalin, a term he also labeled Đilas)

Correct,not only a 'dubious Marxist' - but a quite nationalist orientated figure.He was also praised by the nationalist intellectuals after his split with Tito.Most right-wingers see him as a special figure,and a man who should have replaced Tito.

As for Djilas,well,he was an anti-communist,and he was one of Tito's "dissidents" .

[Amal]

What irritates and pissed me off are some Titoists in this thread, who, in their effort to make Tito great, equated USSR with Gulag, suppression of "dissent(!)", control on culture etc. Being an Indian, I know Tito is close to Indira Gandhi, the ruthless murderer and autocrat of India, who destroyed India's first attempt to revolution.
To the "Titoists", to me, the real sign of a great revolutionary leader is how much he/she spreads his/her hands to the leftists of other countries. At least, being very much ignorant about actions of Tito, can say that he had a very very bad record in this regard.

[Rafiq]

Yes, and?

http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/rw/2011/e.caro/02_c2.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00043.x/abstract

From a quick google search without even trying.


What "traditional Communist ideology" did the Party of Labour of Albania "deviate" from that it apparently didn't "deviate" from before?


The Traditional, Orthodox Stalinist Ideology that was in existence throughout the Soviet Union. All of them had to adjust to countries other than the Soviet Union itself, which resulted in disaster (even for the SU).


You haven't given one example of the "deviations" Hoxha and the PLA supposedly made.




For instance, here's a ridiculous and indeed idealist conception of things by Kim Il Sung:


To this crime, he was no more of an Idealist than Hoxha was. They all had their Idealist bastardizations of Marxism. For example, Hoxha attributed the rotting of whole structural econimic and political systems, to the revision of Ideas and thought. But Marxist Materialists understand thought, in all forms, operates in response to material conditions... Whether this benefits the proletarian class, or the bourgeois class, depends on the situation, but none the less, both respond to material conditions. So Instead of blaming the revision of Ideas, I blame the political and economic structure in which those people can even exist (The bourgeoisie).



Thus according to Kim the class system doesn't come into existence until nations form.


good, he's an idiot.

Like how you criticize Soviet Imperialism after 1953 (And not before, where there were many accounts), you only criticize the Idealism of leaders you don't like. What about Hoxha's rampant Idealism? Even Mao's was not comparable to his. At least Mao tried to give a materialist explanation of revisionism.

[Искра]

Even I share your concerns, I doubt that BA will do anything and Ismail will continue to troll and destroy every discussion where he can post some stupid quotes in order to hide that he has no understanding of politics what so ever...

[blake 3:17]

This is why the Stalinist obsession with anti-revisionism is ridiculous, Stalinism/MLism itself is a revisionism of Marxism! It's revisionists accusing other revisionists of revisionism...

It does get very very circular... I admit to Western chauvinism regarding Yugoslavia. When I first became a Marxist the research library I had access had a gazillion editions of Praxis (I'm pretty sure that was the title), the English language Yugoslavian international news and theory magazine, and I found myself mocking all the reports on tractors, etc.

Turns out that tractors are important! Or we wouldn't be eating.

From the bits I know Tito was a genuinely creative practical Marxist socialist.

[Omsk]

From the bits I know Tito was a genuinely creative practical Marxist socialist.

No,no,no.

[Ismail]

From a quick google search without even trying.Yawn. You use Google. That's great.


The Traditional, Orthodox Stalinist Ideology that was in existence throughout the Soviet Union. All of them had to adjust to countries other than the Soviet Union itself, which resulted in disaster (even for the SU).I see. So, let's hear what "adjustments" Hoxha made which were, of course, in your view "deviations."

I mean saying that US capitalism is peacefully growing into socialism and that the New Deal was, objectively, a step towards socialism, which is what Tito argued, doesn't sound like an "adjustment" to me, nor was letting kulaks into collective farms (a prominent charge made by the Cominform resolution of 1948.) Kim Il Sung saying that the nation must exist first before classes, or Kim Jong Il saying that the army is the most revolutionary "class," don't qualify as "adjustments" either.


So Instead of blaming the revision of Ideas, I blame the political and economic structure in which those people can even exist (The bourgeoisie).Albanian publications noted quite a bit of the material basis for revisionism, as did Hoxha.


good, he's an idiot.To you it is good, of course, because Kim there is just "adapting" to "material conditions."


Like how you criticize Soviet Imperialism after 1953 (And not before, where there were many accounts),Are you going to Google for information about "Soviet imperialism" before 1953 too?


Even Mao's was not comparable to his. At least Mao tried to give a materialist explanation of revisionism.Yes, Mao, the man who sought to "Sinicize" his "Marxism" and cribbed from Confucianism and Taoism. As with Kim Il Sung, Mao, too, understood the "material conditions" as well I guess.


From the bits I know Tito was a genuinely creative practical Marxist socialist.Actually Hoxha was a genuinely creative and practical Marxist and socialist. Tito, like Kim Il Sung, Mao, Deng, Castro, and what have you, were just revisionists.

[Omsk]

(And not before, where there were many accounts)


Give me an example.

[Rafiq]

Yawn. You use Google. That's great.

And you think that sources funded by the Albanian state back than are more credible? It's common fucking sense that you couldn't leave the country. Or are all the Albanians I know lying (the elderly as well). No, no, I believe Ismail over them.... :rolleyes:


I see. So, let's hear what "adjustments" Hoxha made which were, of course, in your view "deviations."


Well, an obscure and bizarre deviation would be the last country on Earth to still be adhering to the dated Stalinism that would work in no country other than a tiny, rural nation like Albania. That was unique for the time, and they were certainly deviations from the mainstream communist currents internationally. Plus, the addition of Albanian Nationalism (Oh, excuse me, "Patroitism") was certainly unique only to Albania.


I mean saying that US capitalism is peacefully growing into socialism and that the New Deal was, objectively, a step towards socialism, which is what Tito argued, doesn't sound like an "adjustment" to me, nor was letting kulaks into collective farms (a prominent charge made by the Cominform resolution of 1948.) Kim Il Sung saying that the nation must exist first before classes, or Kim Jong Il saying that the army is the most revolutionary "class," don't qualify as "adjustments" either.


I call you an Idealist because you pay too much attention to the Theoretical works of single "leaders", (I.e., what they say) and the actual class background of these leaders. Tito saying New Deal was a step toward Socialism, and Kim Sung Il having a fucked up conception of the origins of class are certainly Idealist, and Juche, and Titoism are Idealist as well. But why do we not ask why they made these statements?

1. Tito's Yugoslavia sought the opertunity to break with the Soviet Union, and in order to create better relations with the United States, economically at least, this type of ass kissing was necessary. The state needed justification for allying itself with the Imperialist United States while claiming to be Socialist, much how Stalin (His status quo) used the excuse of "Nation's right to self determination" when they made the pact with Nazi Germany. Certainly we all remember good old Molotov when he said "Fascism is just a matter of taste". That is, of course, until the war actually happened.

2. Kim Sung Il was in a divided Korea, and to make it the sole ambition of "The North Korean people" to re unify with the south required Justification as well. All forms of capital require mystification and Illusion, whether it be anti revisionism, or "revisionism" itself. Because Anti Revisionism in nature was Revisionist, for the biggest offender of this crime was none other than Stalin himself (Not that I am suggesting he could have done anything, anyway).


Albanian publications noted quite a bit of the material basis for revisionism, as did Hoxha.


Let's see them.


To you it is good, of course, because Kim there is just "adapting" to "material conditions."


Now I know why you say I'm an apologist for Juche, etc. (Much how Marxists were labeled apologists of mass murder before the Bolshevik Revolution, apologists for greed, etc.), It's because we have not yet estabilished the class character of North Korea.

Your theory would hold up if North Korea, the Soviet Union, etc. were worker's states to begin with . I'm sorry you don't know when I mean "Material conditions".

For example, in Nazi Germany, for those material conditions, so long as the Bourgeoisie retained class power, the holocaust was inevitable.

Such a horrible atrocity is to be expected for the Bourgeois states. After all, Lenin told us that capital would commit the most atrocious of crimes, to satisfy it's own hunger.

But it was not inevitable that the German bourgeoisie would win against the proletariat (As that is Idealist-Long Term determinist thinking). The Proletariat had a chance. If the Proletariat were successful over the Germans, than Nazi Germany itself would not have existed, therefore the Holocaust would be unnecessary.

Material conditions are solid. They are indifferent toward class interest. It is different classes that have to respond to material conditions in different ways, i.e. Kim Sung Il's status quo would respond to material conditions because it's in their class interest, but it may not be in the class interest of some sort of imaginary North Korean Proletariat to adopt something like "Juche".

The point is, with such a system in place in the Soviet Union, something like the complete restoration of capitalism is to be expected, after all, look at the fucking timeline of the Soviet Union, it was nothing but a Slow degeneration, from the doing away of Internationalism to the pacts with Capitalist states internationally.

And none the less, for North Korea, a country with almost Identical conditions as Russia did, Juche was to be expected. Stalinism, or "pure Marxism Leninism" is a Bourgeois ideology. And such a bourgeois ideology cannot adopt to every country in the same way, major adjustments were necessary. Ideology is a reflection of material conditions.

Just as fascism was different in Hungary, in Romania, in Germany and Italy.

You are no different from those who morally criticize Bankers for profiting off of Children on an individual scale, the point is, to abolish the system in which such a profit could even be made.

That is materialism. You judge me on the presupposition that I ever supported these bourgeois states even before the "revisionism". I always, as an Orthodox Marxist, retained the notion that the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Yugoslavia were all bourgeois states that were to be opposed.


Are you going to Google for information about "Soviet imperialism" before 1953 too?


That isn't necessary, it's common knowledge. (Devrim pointed out and cited many in regards to Middle Eastern Imperialist ventures, which you were unable to reply to, and the thread was over, look it up if you like).

But of course, you will never accept these, you will merely give your justification for them, a justification that is almost identical to the justifications given for the imperialist ventures of the Soviet Union after Stalin.



Yes, Mao, the man who sought to "Sinicize" his "Marxism" and cribbed from Confucianism and Taoism. As with Kim Il Sung, Mao, too, understood the "material conditions" as well I guess.


As I already stated, you don't know what is meant by Material conditions. Responding to material conditions is different for every class interest. The bourgeoisie is responding to material conditions, but would the proletariat respond to them in the same way? Fuck no!

The Point is, Stalin's Soviet Union was just as much, scientifically (inb4 BUT TITO SAID THAT NEW DeAL WAS SOCIALIST WAAAA) as any other Socialist country afterwords, a Bourgeois state. But your presupposition suggests otherwise. Not my problem.

Maoists at least attempt to give a "Materialist" explanation of revisionism (But fail utterly). At least they recognize Idealism lurks within the concept.


Actually Hoxha was a genuinely creative and practical Marxist and socialist. Tito, like Kim Il Sung, Mao, Deng, Castro, and what have you, were just revisionists.


They were all creative bastards, that doesn't mean anything. They were creative in Bastardizing Marxism to for fill their own class interest. "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics :laugh:" Now that's creativity! Meh, "Anti Revisionism" isn't creative, it's unoriginal and boring. If I were like them, trying to justify my class power and hte rule of capital, I would have created "Hoxha's Materialism with Albanian characteristics".

:laugh: You're a failure, Ismail. The only way you can argue with someone is to falsly accuse of them the opposite of your ideological mystifications. Really, in all your posts, the only thing you've ever said was "Well you support Juche, unlike Hoxha, who constantly opposed it" and "But "material conditions" are really just excuses people make, and don't actually exist. Materialism only means that everything is made of matter no spirits. That's what Hoxha said at least.".


I can see it now. Don't even reply to this post, I know what you're going to say.





You support Juche.



You juche apoligist.



So you support the Nazis?



Your freind Kim il Sung thought differently



Actually no, Stalin was never an Imperialist, the Soviet Union only fucked over those countries because they deserved it.



No, Nationalism and patroitism are different because they have different names.

[Rafiq]

Basically, Ismail, you rely upon the Presupposition all of these countries weren't Bourgeois states to begin with. It was foolish of me to expect you'd think otherwise and take you seriously.

[Rafiq]

Give me an example.


Why don't you ask your best friend?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1594199&postcount=7

Hmmph... Some of Stalin's actions were Objectively Imperialist... That's very interesting.

[Rafiq]

Btw Ismail, the CPUSA 35' forward supported New Deal and they were a Soviet sockpuppet. And that was before "revisionism".

What about Tito again? :laugh:

[Pretty Flaco]

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed. Under Tito's rule, its accomplishments were outstanding:

-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.
-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world.
-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.
-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management.
-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army.
-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish.
-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression.

Please feel free to add to this list! Let us never forget the accomplishments of comrade Josip Broz Tito.

maybe i could give you a quarter and then you could call someone who actually gives a fuck. i see you're from detroit and i dont see how any of the particulars of titos government have any relevancy for the modern left of the united states. i guess because tito teaches us how to solve problems with under/unemployment, urban decay, violence, poor working conditions/pay, and a terrible education system?

[Ismail]

And you think that sources funded by the Albanian state back than are more credible? It's common fucking sense that you couldn't leave the country. Or are all the Albanians I know lying (the elderly as well). No, no, I believe Ismail over them....My point is: why does it matter? Did I ever deny that you couldn't flee the country?


Well, an obscure and bizarre deviation would be the last country on Earth to still be adhering to the dated Stalinism that would work in no country other than a tiny, rural nation like Albania."Dated"? Are you a social-democrat now?

"Stalinism is soooo dated, unlike hip and cool Juche and Maoism!"


That was unique for the time, and they were certainly deviations from the mainstream communist currents internationally.So basically because Hoxha didn't "go with the flow" and claim his own sort of "national road to socialism" he... deviated somehow. You don't seem to know what the word means.


Plus, the addition of Albanian Nationalism (Oh, excuse me, "Patroitism") was certainly unique only to Albania.Well yes, I don't think you can have much Albanian nationalism in, say, the USSR. And no, it was indeed nationalism, something quite important since unlike many other nationalisms, Albanian nationalism was based on the Albanian nation actually existing and Albanians being united regardless of religion. It wasn't based on the idea that the Albanians were akin to the Israelites (unlike Serbian nationalism), or that they were the "Third Rome" (unlike Tsarist-era Russian nationalism.)


But why do we not ask why they made these statements?We answer this all the time. They made these statements because they themselves were anti-communists, because they aligned their interests with capitalist powers and had no interest whatsoever in socialist construction.


1. Tito's Yugoslavia sought the opertunity to break with the Soviet Union, and in order to create better relations with the United States, economically at least, this type of ass kissing was necessary. The state needed justification for allying itself with the Imperialist United States while claiming to be Socialist,Of course. But Tito was obviously a reactionary to begin with, hence why he broke with the USSR under Stalin.


much how Stalin (His status quo) used the excuse of "Nation's right to self determination" when they made the pact with Nazi Germany.I've... never heard that argument being used. Ever.


Certainly we all remember good old Molotov when he said "Fascism is just a matter of taste". That is, of course, until the war actually happened.He also initially said, in private, that Lenin's words that the second world war would be the harbinger of revolutions across Western Europe were going to occur as a result of the pact. Big difference between saying that fascism is another shade of capitalism and saying that the New Deal is a qualitative step towards socialism.


2. Kim Sung Il was in a divided Korea, and to make it the sole ambition of "The North Korean people" to re unify with the south required Justification as well.Actually the Soviet revisionists called on the DPRK to go to the negotiating table shortly after Stalin died. The Soviet revisionists similarly tried to undermine the struggle of the Vietnamese people for the reunification of their country.


Let's see them.You could try Hoxha's conversation with Zhou Enlai, contained in Volume IV of Hoxha's Selected Works.

The rest of your post is just justifications for capitulation to imperialism. You are much like the Maoists who attack "dogmatism" and use this attack to justify all sorts of revisionist analyses and apologetics.

[Omsk]

Tito was an opportunist and revisionist,his entire carrier is 'opportunistic' . (He was a loyal Cominternist when he realised he had the chance to get more power,again,he was also a loyal 'Stalinist' when the partisans liberated country and Yugoslavia needed diplomatic support.And than,when he saw the chance to get some 'alliances' he decided that suddenly,Stalin is a monster of evil! And of course,when Stalin died,he rebuilt relations with the USSR,and continued his strategy of the 'neutrualist' position on the world political map.

And,Rafiq,i wanted your opinion.I,personally,don't think the USSR actually engaged in imperialism during the pre 1953 (ie pre the Anti-Party crysis and the rise of Nikita.) period.

[Rafiq]

My point is: why does it matter? Did I ever deny that you couldn't flee the country?

Why do you think it was necessary on behalf of the state to assure citizens couldn't leave?


"Dated"? Are you a social-democrat now?


Marxism Leninism had to evolve for these Bourgeois states to exist, and Stalinism, in a sense had to die and give birth to many branches of Stalinism, in order for it to spread to different countries.


"Stalinism is soooo dated, unlike hip and cool Juche and Maoism!"


Stop trolling, or should I have to get the BA involved again. You know very well I'm not a supporter of Juche, and I'm not a Maoist. You're a moderator, and Trolling in such a manner is unacceptable for your position. If you want to be a shit head, than you shouldn't have become a Mod. Being dated doesn't mean you're "Not as good", it just means you're dated and useless. Kim Sung Il's ruling state found Orthodox stalinism useless, perhaps it for filled the hunger of capital in the USSR, but not in North Korea. In the end, they were all dogs of capital.


So basically because Hoxha didn't "go with the flow" and claim his own sort of "national road to socialism" he... deviated somehow. You don't seem to know what the word means.


Everybody Deviated in one way or another. It's just Albania's deviation was unique in that it tried to mimic the last vestiges of Orthodox Stalinism. Hoxha was more Stalinist than Stalin, if you will.


Well yes, I don't think you can have much Albanian nationalism in, say, the USSR. And no, it was indeed nationalism, something quite important since unlike many other nationalisms, Albanian nationalism was based on the Albanian nation actually existing and Albanians being united regardless of religion. It wasn't based on the idea that the Albanians were akin to the Israelites (unlike Serbian nationalism), or that they were the "Third Rome" (unlike Tsarist-era Russian nationalism.)


So, are you an apologist for Nationalism now? Nationalism is Bourgeois in nature, regardless of it's theological orientation. Or do you agree with our Left Nationalist "Comrades" who deny nationalism bourgeois in nature?


We answer this all the time. They made these statements because they themselves were anti-communists, because they aligned their interests with capitalist powers and had no interest whatsoever in socialist construction.


So, why do you think the Soviet backed CPUSA supported New Deal in 1935, surly they must have considered it a "Step toward Socialism". Or were they reformists in nature? You can't say they were revisionists, this was 1935, before "revisionism".


Of course. But Tito was obviously a reactionary to begin with, hence why he broke with the USSR under Stalin.


And Stalin's status quo, who, you know, participated in witch hunts with Nazis to hunt down and kill Communists? Have you any idea how many Communists were given to the Nazis on behalf of the Soviet Government in the 30's?



He also initially said, in private, that Lenin's words that the second world war would be the harbinger of revolutions across Western Europe were going to occur as a result of the pact. Big difference between saying that fascism is another shade of capitalism and saying that the New Deal is a qualitative step towards socialism.


If he had to say it in Private, he was a coward and a counterrevolutionary. I don't care what Politicians do in their private life. It's what they present themselves publicly that makes them worth our time.


Actually the Soviet revisionists called on the DPRK to go to the negotiating table shortly after Stalin died. The Soviet revisionists similarly tried to undermine the struggle of the Vietnamese people for the reunification of their country.


This has nothing to do with my point.


You could try Hoxha's conversation with Zhou Enlai, contained in Volume IV of Hoxha's Selected Works.


There is still not materialist basis here.


The rest of your post is just justifications for capitulation to imperialism. You are much like the Maoists who attack "dogmatism" and use this attack to justify all sorts of revisionist analyses and apologetics.


Have you ever heard of the Lacanian concept of the big other? It's very interesting. You require mystification in order to dismiss my post and forfill your intellectual laziness. I Always respond to every part of your posts. Why can you never do the same? Respond to the post and tell us why it's a capitulation to imperialism. And if you cannot, you cannot make such assertions, and that, this last bit right here, is full of shit and is not to be taken seriously.

[Rafiq]

And,Rafiq,i wanted your opinion.I,personally,don't think the USSR actually engaged in imperialism during the pre 1953 (ie pre the Anti-Party crysis and the rise of Nikita.) period.

giving the same justifications for Stalin's Imperialism that Khrushchev gave for his... Hmm... Seems legit.

[KlassWar]

I've gotta admit I like Tito.

Yes, socialist self-management was essentially a sham (not that "soviet power" was genuine either :rolleyes:). Yes, Tito and his clique were a buncha corrupt revisionists that ran what basically amounted to a glorified social-democracy. Then again, Yugoslavia wasn't a major world power capable of overthrowing world capitalism. The best they could do was try and hold on until capitalism collapsed in the West.

Their split with Stalin had them in the delicate position of playing both the West and the Soviets in an opportunistic form of pseudo-neutrality... But it's not like they had much choice, anyway.

Socialism in One Country is pretty much bullshit (at the very least, you need a damn big country)... To actually establish communism, world revolution has to happen.

All things considered, Yugoslavia was competently run: The standard of living was high, and it was one of the most socially open Socialist countries. They were doing a good job at keeping their shit together and holding on 'till the next big revolutionary wave...

Problem is, the whole Brotherhood and Unity spiel cracked down during the economic crisis of the '70s-'80s... Which didn't leave the Soviet Union unscathed either, mind ya.

Tito and his clique weren't exactly outstanding socialists, but they ran a country that was actually nice to live in and where there wasn't much repression (by Iron Curtain standards).

I'd still rate Socialist Yugoslavia

[A Marxist Historian]

I've gotta admit I like Tito.

Yes, socialist self-management was essentially a sham (not that "soviet power" was genuine either :rolleyes:). Yes, Tito and his clique were a buncha corrupt revisionists that ran what basically amounted to a glorified social-democracy. Then again, Yugoslavia wasn't a major world power capable of overthrowing world capitalism. The best they could do was try and hold on until capitalism collapsed in the West.

Their split with Stalin had them in the delicate position of playing both the West and the Soviets in an opportunistic form of pseudo-neutrality... But it's not like they had much choice, anyway.

Socialism in One Country is pretty much bullshit (at the very least, you need a damn big country)... To actually establish communism, world revolution has to happen.

All things considered, Yugoslavia was competently run: The standard of living was high, and it was one of the most socially open Socialist countries. They were doing a good job at keeping their shit together and holding on 'till the next big revolutionary wave...

Problem is, the whole Brotherhood and Unity spiel cracked down during the economic crisis of the '70s-'80s... Which didn't leave the Soviet Union unscathed either, mind ya.

Tito and his clique weren't exactly outstanding socialists, but they ran a country that was actually nice to live in and where there wasn't much repression (by Iron Curtain standards).

I'd still rate Socialist Yugoslavia

Basically, Tito, Stalin, Hoxha, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Mao all had fundamentally the same political concept, namely "socialism in one country." Except they disagreed with each other as to which country that was. But the differences between them are far, far less important than the similarities.

All of 'em were awful in one way or another, what was Tito's particular brand of awfulness?

Yugoslavia wasn't too swift to live in by the 1980s, something everybody forgets. Titoite "market socialism" and "self management" led to the country having probably the highest per capita debt owed to western bankers of any country in the world outside of Latin America then, and the bankers simply took over the economy, resulting in probably the only "socialist" country in history with an unemployment rate over 20%, and rapidly downspiraling living standards.

Followed by collapse, and mass murderous ethnic cleansing, which "self management" of individual factories created the momentum for, by economically pitting different groups of workers against each other in a "self managed" "market socialist" system.

Which is why Tito and Titoism was so popular among anti-Stalin leftists until Tito died, and now nobody outside the former Yugoslavia has a good word for him these days.

-M.H.-

[Amal]

Problem here is that basically very few understand a simple point. IF YOU WIN IN A SINGLE COUNTRY, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE WON JUST ONE FRONT. "Worldwide revolution" is one of basic foundation of Marxism and known well before Trotsky. Why Trotsky preached in the name of worldwide revolution can be called "overnight worldwide revolution". He is just unable to understand that by winning in a single country, you have to make a good stronghold from where you can start the campaign to the next front. Even petty common sense denies the fact that revolutionary conditions will be ripen in most of the countries at the same time and we just have to wait for the golden moment. To me it seems like that all the fruits in a garden will ripe in just a few days. Totally silly and at the end it's actually preventing us to do any kind of organizational work other than just waiting for the "golden moment".

[A Marxist Historian]

Problem here is that basically very few understand a simple point. IF YOU WIN IN A SINGLE COUNTRY, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE WON JUST ONE FRONT. "Worldwide revolution" is one of basic foundation of Marxism and known well before Trotsky. Why Trotsky preached in the name of worldwide revolution can be called "overnight worldwide revolution". He is just unable to understand that by winning in a single country, you have to make a good stronghold from where you can start the campaign to the next front. Even petty common sense denies the fact that revolutionary conditions will be ripen in most of the countries at the same time and we just have to wait for the golden moment. To me it seems like that all the fruits in a garden will ripe in just a few days. Totally silly and at the end it's actually preventing us to do any kind of organizational work other than just waiting for the "golden moment".

Amal, this elementary blunder on your part leads me to suspect you never have actually read anything by Trotsky. Are you familiar with the Marxist Internet Archive? You can read just about everything Trotsky ever wrote without paying a dime, and if you read even a little Trotsky, you wouldn't be making statements like that which make you sound like a fool.

Nobody except maybe some of our more detached from reality "left coms" on Revleft thinks that you have to wait for revolution to ripen everywhere at the same time.

In fact, the idea that revolution will start at the "weakest link," as Lenin liked to put it, which was Russia in 1917, and only then spread elsewhere, is exactly the essence of Trotsky's famous theory of "permanent revolution."

Trotsky didn't just understand that you have to start somewhere and fortify the revolutionary stronghold till it spreads, he put his body where his mouth was, and organized and commanded the Red Army! For seven years, from 1918 to 1925!

So maybe we have some folk here on Revleft who want to just post happily away and wait for that "golden moment," but putting Trotsky in that bag isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong, and you would do better to change your tune in order not to embarrass yourself.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Why do you think it was necessary on behalf of the state to assure citizens couldn't leave?Because most who did want to leave would have simply been put in the service of anti-communists, as did actually happen in practice.


Marxism Leninism had to evolve for these Bourgeois states to exist, and Stalinism, in a sense had to die and give birth to many branches of Stalinism, in order for it to spread to different countries.Except in Albania, apparently.


Stop trolling,I don't troll. I stand by my views of you.


So, are you an apologist for Nationalism now? Nationalism is Bourgeois in nature, regardless of it's theological orientation. Or do you agree with our Left Nationalist "Comrades" who deny nationalism bourgeois in nature?I take the line of Lenin and Stalin on nationalism and patriotism. Albanian nationalism indeed tended to be progressive, being as it was anti-religious and was opposed to Ottoman or Greek domination of the country. Under socialism it continued to have a progressive character. Of course under King Zog Albanian nationalism was twisted to support the idea of a monarchy being "proper," in line with Albanian national tradition, etc.

Of course nationalisms can become reactionary as well. Serbian nationalism against the Ottoman Empire was all fine and dandy, Nationalism in which the Serbs must recapture the holy land of Kosovo so that their hundreds of years of persecution for holding onto their valiant Christian faith against the Moslem hordes... not so progressive.


So, why do you think the Soviet backed CPUSA supported New Deal in 1935, surly they must have considered it a "Step toward Socialism". Or were they reformists in nature? You can't say they were revisionists, this was 1935, before "revisionism".Actually they didn't call it a "step towards socialism," they called it fascism.

E.g. http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm


Much is made about the eventual backing of the New Deal by the Communist Party of America in 1935, however the Communist Party backing only came as part of the "Popular Front" movement, which was when American Communists decided to support New Deal legislation in an effort to prepare American industry for conflict with the European fascists.
Despite the Popular Front backing of the New Deal though, Marxists continued to criticize the plan as essentially American fascism. Whether or not their charges were correct or not is actually beside the point, the point is that the New Deal does not represent left-wing socialist ideology, as is often thought, and despite the apparent support for the New Deal by left-wing political groups, much of that support actually came more in the form of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type support, Roosevelt and his New Deal being the enemy of European fascism. These views were reflected in many American Communist publications, such as this October 1941 publication of The Communist (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/library/the_communist.htm).
The New Deal was seen by the radical American left as the best hope to mobilize America in preparations for a fight against European fascism, which was always something that far left political groups were more concerned about than the average citizen. During the early and mid 1930s the average American citizen was not overly concerned with the goings on in Europe, and in fact many supported the Fascist regimes there because of their anti-Communist and pro-order policies, but the far American left was acutely aware of the magnitude of the problems in Europe and was opposed to the Fascist regimes from the start, because of course the Fascists were anti-leftist regimes.
This is why, even during the mid 1930s, members of the American far left were already thinking about war with the Fascist powers of Europe and indeed they were participating in that war early by volunteering to fight against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War, the precursor to WWII, and this is why the New Deal was seen by the American far left in a different light than that of the American mainstream. To them it was about more than just domestic policy, they recognized it as the mobilization of industry to prepare for war, and as such backed the New Deal on those terms. The American Communist Party opposed the FDR administration's lack of support for anti-lynching legislation and what was seen as a weak stance on issues of racial and gender justice.
Have you any idea how many Communists were given to the Nazis on behalf of the Soviet Government in the 30's?Nope, and I've never seen any actual numbers either. It seems particularly weird too, since I heard this was a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, aka 1939-1941, not "in the 30's" in general. Last I heard there were things like the Spanish Civil War and Dimitrov humiliating Göbbels at the Reichstag Fire trial during the 30's.


If he had to say it in Private, he was a coward and a counterrevolutionary. I don't care what Politicians do in their private life. It's what they present themselves publicly that makes them worth our time.Actually the main point of signing the Pact in the eyes of various communists (Molotov and Stalin included) was that now Nazi Germany could invade France and promptly get stuck. Then the German and French proletariat would rise up and soon there would be communist rebellions across Western Europe.

So in this case they were privately discussing what they thought would happen. Of course France folded soon after, but yeah.

And you're still wrong in any case. To give one example, in public Gorbachev called on the CPSU to carry forward the glorious banner of Lenin in all fields. In private he worked to dismantle whatever remaining "socialist" legacy still existed. In cases like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact what occurred in private has much more value than public pronouncements.

[Rafiq]

Because most who did want to leave would have simply been put in the service of anti-communists, as did actually happen in practice.

Look deep into yourself. Do you actually believe this? That's fucking absurdity. And, if you could cite me some evidence as to whether this happened in practice, (Credible citations) I'd be more than satisfied with such a bizzare assertion.


Except in Albania, apparently.


Well, no. Stalinism had to die and branch off into several different sects to adjust to these countries, for the time. Except, in a small Country like Albania, many things were possible. The very essence of this "Preservation of Marxism Leninism (Stalin)" was in itself a bastardization of this original, non intentinial Orthodox Stalinism. Take for example, Anarcho Capitalism and Free Market Libertarian Ideology, although it is in par with classical liberalism, it is all together useless and cannot adapt to modern times, therefore cannot be counted as the remnants of classical liberalism.
Because the very act of trying to preserve Orthodox Stalinism is working against the very concept of doing so. So, Free Market Libertarianism is really just a sect and and offshoot of liberalist thought, the very notion that is a continuation signifies the fact that it is something entirely different of what became of Classical Liberalism. And, Hoxhaism is no different (And yes, Hoxhaism does exist, I'm not going to choose sides between the senseless squabble between Hoxhaists and other ML's about who the real ML's are).




I don't troll. I stand by my views of you.


Than, with all due respect, that just means you're an idiot. I don't know of any intelligent person that would classify me in the Maoist or Juche camp. Perhaps reading more books that aren't just about Albania will enable you to realize that Ideology exists beyond the mind of Hoxha himself (As in, you can't classify people you don't like as Maoists just because Hoxha didn't know what Orthodox Marxism is).


I take the line of Lenin and Stalin on nationalism and patriotism.

do you know how familiar this sounds? Lenin was an avid anti-Nationalist, by the way.


Albanian nationalism indeed tended to be progressive, being as it was anti-religious and was opposed to Ottoman or Greek domination of the country. Under socialism it continued to have a progressive character. Of course under King Zog Albanian nationalism was twisted to support the idea of a monarchy being "proper," in line with Albanian national tradition, etc.


That is exactly why the Socialist ******* exists, Ismail. They like to differentiate between "Reactionary" Nationalism and "Revolutionary, progressive" Nationalism. They have written many theory in regards. So, would it be so bad to call you a "Left Wing Nationalist" now? What are your qualms with the Socialist *******, other than the existence of Strasserists? You do agree in regards to their policy on Nationalism, that's for sure.


Of course nationalisms can become reactionary as well. Serbian nationalism against the Ottoman Empire was all fine and dandy, Nationalism in which the Serbs must recapture the holy land of Kosovo so that their hundreds of years of persecution for holding onto their valiant Christian faith against the Moslem hordes... not so progressive.


http://www.socialist*******.com/t454-progressive-vs-reactionary-nationalism

?


Actually they didn't call it a "step towards socialism," they called it fascism.


Right, which is why they supported the Democrats and called for a "No strike policy" in World War two. And you're link isn't credible to the slightest.


Nope, and I've never seen any actual numbers either. It seems particularly weird too, since I heard this was a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, aka 1939-1941, not "in the 30's" in general. Last I heard there were things like the Spanish Civil War and Dimitrov humiliating Göbbels at the Reichstag Fire trial during the 30's.


Perhaps your studies are very limited in regards, then.


Actually the main point of signing the Pact in the eyes of various communists (Molotov and Stalin included) was that now Nazi Germany could invade France and promptly get stuck. Then the German and French proletariat would rise up and soon there would be communist rebellions across Western Europe.


Which is of course why they engaged in several Business deals and Trade relations.


So in this case they were privately discussing what they thought would happen. Of course France folded soon after, but yeah.


In public, he supported them. I don't care what his personal views were. This was his policy, this is what they acted in favor of.


And you're still wrong in any case. To give one example, in public Gorbachev called on the CPSU to carry forward the glorious banner of Lenin in all fields. In private he worked to dismantle whatever remaining "socialist" legacy still existed. In cases like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact what occurred in private has much more value than public pronouncements.

Gorbachev only said he wanted to liquidate communism after the SU collapsed so he could look nice in front of the Western Cameras. And it's not so much what they say, it's what they do. And Molotov signed a pact with the Nazis.

[Amal]

Amal, this elementary blunder on your part leads me to suspect you never have actually read anything by Trotsky. Are you familiar with the Marxist Internet Archive? You can read just about everything Trotsky ever wrote without paying a dime, and if you read even a little Trotsky, you wouldn't be making statements like that which make you sound like a fool.

Nobody except maybe some of our more detached from reality "left coms" on Revleft thinks that you have to wait for revolution to ripen everywhere at the same time.

In fact, the idea that revolution will start at the "weakest link," as Lenin liked to put it, which was Russia in 1917, and only then spread elsewhere, is exactly the essence of Trotsky's famous theory of "permanent revolution."

Trotsky didn't just understand that you have to start somewhere and fortify the revolutionary stronghold till it spreads, he put his body where his mouth was, and organized and commanded the Red Army! For seven years, from 1918 to 1925!

So maybe we have some folk here on Revleft who want to just post happily away and wait for that "golden moment," but putting Trotsky in that bag isn't just wrong, it's laughably wrong, and you would do better to change your tune in order not to embarrass yourself.

-M.H.-
If so, then why his followers are against the "socialism in one country" with all their tooth and nail?

[A Marxist Historian]

If so, then why his followers are against the "socialism in one country" with all their tooth and nail?

Because you can't build socialism in one country, which was a universally accepted Marxist truism before Stalin came along. You won't even find anything by Marx explicitly stating this, simply because the very idea of socialism in one country was inconceivable for Marx. Just read the Communist Manifesto and you should see what I mean.

As Lenin put it, the world revolution will start at the "weakest link" in the capitalist chain. Then it spreads.

If it never spreads, then the revolution degenerates. As happened in the USSR.

How long can an isolated revolutionary workers state hold out, and keep on the path of trying to build socialism, without any delusions that this can be accomplished in one country? That depends on all sorts of particular circumstances. One of course being the quality of the party leadership, which went way down after Lenin died and Trotsky was pushed out by the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin clique.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

Because you can't build socialism in one country, which was a universally accepted Marxist truism before Stalin came along. You won't even find anything by Marx explicitly stating this, simply because the very idea of socialism in one country was inconceivable for Marx. Just read the Communist Manifesto and you should see what I mean.

This is ahistorical Idealist nonsense. Toward Lenin's death, you see more mentioning of "The building of socialism in one country". It was not as if everything was fine, and then big bad Stalin came along and bastardized Marxism. Things like "SIOC" weren't surprising. Russia was an isolated country that had to adjust itself to the world economy. The counter revolution was an inevitability if the revolutions failed elsewhere. Bastardizations of Marxism were very common among countries with similar Situations in comparison to Russia, you know.


As Lenin put it, the world revolution will start at the "weakest link" in the capitalist chain. Then it spreads.


Lenin said that for their current situation, i.e. for The Bolshevik Revolution. He didn't say this would always be the case. After the revolution isolated, Lenin didn't talk much of "World Revolution", as he became pessimistic, he saw what a shit situation the Bolsheviks were in.



How long can an isolated revolutionary workers state hold out, and keep on the path of trying to build socialism, without any delusions that this can be accomplished in one country? That depends on all sorts of particular circumstances. One of course being the quality of the party leadership, which went way down after Lenin died and Trotsky was pushed out by the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin clique.


Had that "clique" be disinigrated and "Trotsky and Lenin" stayed, there wouldn't be much of a difference as to what the Soviet Union looked like in it's class composition, and what was experienced in the 1930's. Don't you know that as early as 1920, the Bolsheviks were arming Kemalists in Turkey? Such degeneration would continue, regardless of leadership.

[Ismail]

Look deep into yourself. Do you actually believe this? That's fucking absurdity. And, if you could cite me some evidence as to whether this happened in practice, (Credible citations) I'd be more than satisfied with such a bizzare assertion.Sure thing. In The Great Betrayal by Nicholas Bethell it is noted that the British, American, Greek and Yugoslav Governments worked to overthrow Hoxha in the 1949-1952 period using refugees. The Americans and British went so far as to actually send people into Albania with that goal. The book Killing Hope by William Blum also has a short chapter on this, and it is mentioned by Owen Pearson in the third volume of his work on modern Albania, too.

Harry Hamm in his book Albania: China's Beachhead in Europe, remarked (p. 66) that "there can be no doubt that there is some infiltration from the Yugoslav side of the frontier." A senior military official, Panajot Plaku, fled Albania in 1956 and went to Yugoslavia where he subsequently blasted radio propaganda against the Albanian government. Khrushchev asked what would happen if the USSR gave amnesty to Plaku, to which Hoxha responded that Plaku must be handed over so that he could be hanged in the capital, and that Albania would break off relations with the USSR if it brought him into Soviet territory. Khrushchev relented but Plaku remained in Yugoslavia regardless.


Lenin was an avid anti-Nationalist, by the way.Is that why he called for national self-determination for all oppressed peoples? Is that why he explicitly praised socialist patriotism, or do I need to get out that quote of his as well?

For such an "avid anti-Nationalist" maybe you can tell me why the Kosovo Committee praised Lenin, called him the "savior of Albania," etc. in the 1920's? And these weren't communists, they were local tribal leaders who tended to promote progressive causes in Albania proper.

Of course Lenin was against bourgeois nationalism, the kind that called on the Germans, Russians, Brits, French, etc. to unite regardless of class to defend the "fatherland" from the other imperialist power in WWI. That's a reactionary nationalism, one which no communist supports.


They like to differentiate between "Reactionary" Nationalism and "Revolutionary, progressive" Nationalism. They have written many theory in regards.Indeed, they claim that the Holocaust was either "necessary" or that it wasn't so bad, or even that it somehow didn't happen. They praise Mussolini, Ceaușescu, Kim Il Sung, etc. for being "creative," for understanding the "material conditions" of their countries, etc. You should visit there, you'd be much at home.

As for me, who adheres to scientific socialism (that is, Marxism-Leninism), I understand the role of nationalism quite well. So do all Marxists. Of course according to you nationalism must always triumph socialism, since there's apparently never a shortage of "material conditions" that apparently must necessitate bastardizing Marxism. Thus Kim Il Sung was merely operating in accordance with the "Korean material conditions," Mao with the "Chinese material conditions," etc. and thus were not "boring" like the stodgy Hoxha who most Albanian bourgeois nationalists actually consider a traitor to the Albanian nation for apparently being an "agent of Tito" and "selling out" Kosovo.

Which reminds me...

Right, which is why they supported the Democrats and called for a "No strike policy" in World War two.I guess when the time comes to fight fascism there's no more "material conditions" that necessitate anything, right? Kim Jong Il can say that the army, not the proletariat, is the most revolutionary class, and Mao can elevate the peasantry higher than the proletariat because of the "material conditions," yet the CPUSA does its best to assist the war effort (it was also promoting the opening of a second front in Europe to assist the USSR, etc.) and it's now totally evil.

Granted, the CPUSA did have a right-wing leadership in comparison with most CPs. Browder, however, was kicked out not long after his slide towards open revisionism of the most obvious type.


Which is of course why they engaged in several Business deals and Trade relations.Indeed. Stalin's Wars is a good read on this point. The Bolsheviks signed agreements with the Brits in the early 20's and still backed the overthrow of their government. Or do you deny this as well?


In public, he supported them. I don't care what his personal views were. This was his policy, this is what they acted in favor of.Molotov supported the Nazis? Really?

You seem to follow the typical Trot brigade in denouncing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Not surprising, so much for the "materialist" in you.

[Rafiq]

Sure thing. In The Great Betrayal by Nicholas Bethell it is noted that the British, American, Greek and Yugoslav Governments worked to overthrow Hoxha in the 1949-1952 period using refugees. The Americans and British went so far as to actually send people into Albania with that goal. The book Killing Hope by William Blum also has a short chapter on this, and it is mentioned by Owen Pearson in the third volume of his work on modern Albania, too.

There's a mighty difference between allowing emigration and immigration. Surly, of course, it's suspicious for someone to want to enter that shit hole, so it's understandable that these were simply foreign agents.


Harry Hamm in his book Albania: China's Beachhead in Europe, remarked (p. 66) that "there can be no doubt that there is some infiltration from the Yugoslav side of the frontier." A senior military official, Panajot Plaku, fled Albania in 1956 and went to Yugoslavia where he subsequently blasted radio propaganda against the Albanian government. Khrushchev asked what would happen if the USSR gave amnesty to Plaku, to which Hoxha responded that Plaku must be handed over so that he could be hanged in the capital, and that Albania would break off relations with the USSR if it brought him into Soviet territory. Khrushchev relented but Plaku remained in Yugoslavia regardless.


Irrelevant. If anything, just goes to show how insecure the Albanian state was, going out of their trouble executing some guy for hosting a radio show in fucking Yugoslavia.


Is that why he called for national self-determination for all oppressed peoples? Is that why he explicitly praised socialist patriotism, or do I need to get out that quote of his as well?


Stalin's (and Hoxha's) nationalism isn't comparable to Lenin's thesis on a nation's right to self determination.


For such an "avid anti-Nationalist" maybe you can tell me why the Kosovo Committee praised Lenin, called him the "savior of Albania," etc. in the 1920's? And these weren't communists, they were local tribal leaders who tended to promote progressive causes in Albania proper.


The National Bolsheviks praise Stalin, though, I highly doubt that Stalin's ideological composition has anything to do with them.


Of course Lenin was against bourgeois nationalism, the kind that called on the Germans, Russians, Brits, French, etc. to unite regardless of class to defend the "fatherland" from the other imperialist power in WWI. That's a reactionary nationalism, one which no communist supports.


Lenin opposed all Nationalism, which is why he was an Internationalist.

Supporting Nationalism is a ban able offense, on this site, Ismail. Several members of the Socialist ******* have been banned from this site for reasons identical to what you have just posted.


Indeed, they claim that the Holocaust was either "necessary" or that it wasn't so bad, or even that it somehow didn't happen. They praise Mussolini, Ceaușescu, Kim Il Sung, etc. for being "creative," for understanding the "material conditions" of their countries, etc. You should visit there, you'd be much at home.


Okay, cite me some posts from the Socialist ******* that talk about how Creative those individuals were, and how they were responding to Material conditions. I never said any of those assholes "Understood" material conditions, just as the Rockafellers, Carnagie didn't, they merely responded to them in favor of their class interest (which was antithetical to the proletarians). I've said this one thousand fucking times. But no, continue to talk out of your ass, twist and distort the opinions of other users, just so you don't sound as stupid as you are in your posts.


As for me, who adheres to scientific socialism (that is, Marxism-Leninism), I understand the role of nationalism quite well.

:laugh: Don't entertain me. You're an avid Bourgeois-Idealist.

The role of nationalism is to enhance the ideological hegemony of the Bourgeois class.


So do all Marxists. Of course according to you nationalism must always triumph socialism, since there's apparently never a shortage of "material conditions" that apparently must necessitate bastardizing Marxism.

According to Ismail, it's a matter of free will one must take to choose over "Nationalism" and "Marxism" (which isn't even a system or ideology). Even though Several times over, I've stated the class composition of North Korea, of the Soviet Union, all of which were not worker's states or proletarian dictatorships, but Bourgeois states to begin with.

Why was Bastardizing Marxism a necessity? Because those countries were counter revolutionary Bourgeois states who cared little for Marxism.

Fucking facepalm. I'm disgusted. You don't know what fucking material conditions are? And you call yourself a Marxist?

You can't have a Bourgeois state and at the same time have a revolutionary ideological hegemony. You can't have a Proletarian state when a tiny fraction of your population is proletarian, and the countries with majority of proletarians didn't experience it.


Thus Kim Il Sung was merely operating in accordance with the "Korean material conditions," Mao with the "Chinese material conditions," etc. and thus were not "boring" like the stodgy Hoxha who most Albanian bourgeois nationalists actually consider a traitor to the Albanian nation for apparently being an "agent of Tito" and "selling out" Kosovo.


yes, and? By the way, you fucking piece of shit, every single human being on Earth acts in accordance to material conditions, whether they know it or not (EVEN HOXHA!). The difference was that countries cannot and are not ruled based on the interest of a single leader, but the class in which that leader represents. You rely on the presupposion that these were not states that operated within the constraint of Capital, therefore it's nothing short of surprising you'd categorize Material conditions as something unique, something of a choice, that you either "Respond to them" or not. The difference was that, Hoxha adopted his "Anti Revisionist" Marxism Leninism solely because Albania was a tiny ass nation with a small population, with almost identical situation as 30's Russia. Mao had to adjust Stalinism to China, Kim Sung Il with Korea. The truth was, they were all shit holes, they were all forms of the rule of Capital's dogs.


Which reminds me...
I guess when the time comes to fight fascism there's no more "material conditions" that necessitate anything, right?

Material Conditions are not something you can "Choose" to abide by. So yes, Stalin and Hoxha's policies were in direct response of the mode of production's manifestations to for fill the hunger of capital.

Ismail fucking read this: You're a confused, pathetic little worm. You're confusing Material conditions with "situation". When in truth, material conditions are direct means of influence manifested by the mode of production. Thought itself is a reflection of the mode of production (which includes class). Meaning, it's not a choice one has to make as to whether he wants to abide by Material conditions. All humans must.

Even Bourgeois academics recognize that all countries have different situations. That doesn't equal Material conditions. But what they do not recognize is Materialism. The mode of production is what is steering the wheel in Stalinist Russia, contrary to your "Great Man" Idealist profile picture. And that's another thing, you rely upon the notion that all these figures had supreme executive and absolute power over their countries, when, in fact, each and every one of them were dogs of capital.

Study fucking materialism. Please.



Kim Jong Il can say that the army, not the proletariat, is the most revolutionary class, and Mao can elevate the peasantry higher than the proletariat because of the "material conditions," yet the CPUSA does its best to assist the war effort (it was also promoting the opening of a second front in Europe to assist the USSR, etc.) and it's now totally evil.


I'm not a little shit moralist like you, so I don't adhere to this notion of "evil".

This isn't a debate over whether Mao or Kim Jong Il are better than the CPUSA


All of these countries had very similar conditions as Russia did in the early 1920's. A majority of peasants in the population, a non industrialized country, a country living off of the remnants of Feudalism with a system rotting away. So this was basically a re-experience of Stalinist degeneration, minus the actual proletarian revolution that occurred prior. So, such counter revolution is to be expected, but we cannot expect it to be identical to Orthodox Stalinism, because Orthodox Stalinism itself was a mere reflection of Russia's composition (Orthodox Stalinism is Russian, despite Stalin being georgian). So, we get Maoism (Marxism Leninism on Cocaine) and Juche (Marxism Leninism with double rainbows), we get Titoism (Marxism Leninism with a smiley face), we get Hoxhaism (Try hard Orthodox Stalinism). These were all irrelevant ideologies, it doesn't realy fucking matter what their theoretical composition was, each and every single one was developed and created in direct response to the dialectical forces of material world, and was so different by complete coincidence, i.e. Some chain of events caused them to spring out. Orthodox Stalinism had to die and give birth to dozens of very fucked up and ugly children. One of the children had no legs or arms (Hoxhaism) but none the less looked the most like Mama Stalinism, minus actual legs and arms.



Granted, the CPUSA did have a right-wing leadership in comparison with most CPs. Browder, however, was kicked out not long after his slide towards open revisionism of the most obvious type.


The CPUSA was a sockpuppet of the Soviet Union. Their ideological makeup was identical to that of the CPSU. Browder was kicked out after the end of WW2 where the SU decided to butt heads with the U.S. in competition for Nazi technology and geographic influence.


Indeed. Stalin's Wars is a good read on this point. The Bolsheviks signed agreements with the Brits in the early 20's and still backed the overthrow of their government. Or do you deny this as well?


It's very complicated. During the EARLY 1920's, trade relations were established with most Bourgeois states, though, yes, they did "Support the Overthrow of their governments". But usually calls against the British state were made in 1928, when trade relations were cut for reasons external from opposing the Bourgeoisie. Stalin then, in order finalize his socialist justification for dealing with Bourgeois states, as stated in his famous interview with that one German, championed a "Nation's right to self determination" when asked whether it was the aim of the Soviet Union to spread revolution. Stalin repeatedly denied that it was the goal of the Soviet State to spread the revolution. It was a slow and painful degeneration.

By 1938, for Molotov, for the whole Soviet Leadership, spreading revolutions across Western Europe was of little to no interest to the Soviet Government. Actually, most of the uprisings that took place in the West, Soviet backed Communist parties were among the first to side with the Bourgeois state and the police against the proletariat. And that's a common fact.



Molotov supported the Nazis? Really?


Well, I don't know what he supported "Personally", but strategically, yes. It's no surprise really.


You seem to follow the typical Trot brigade in denouncing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Not surprising, so much for the "materialist" in you.


http://blastmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/facepalm.jpg

Ladies and Gentlemen, Ismail is the most creative person on Revleft. First, Rafiq, of course, was an apoligist of Deng. He loved Deng so much. Then, he loved Juche. Kim Sung Il was his main man. Then, he loved the Nazis and the Holocuast. And now he's a trot.

According to Ismail, Rafiq is a Juche-Dengist-Nazi-Trot. Yup, that's right, he actually believes, within all his heart, that I am a Juche Dengist Nazi Trot. As if there are no contradictions within that very clusterfuck. Nope. Not according to Ismail.

I don't "Denounce" the pact. Just like I don't denounce relations between the United States and the United Kingdom. Why? Because the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were both states operating within the framework of capital. The Trots were so shocked in horror when they found out about this, their beloved workers state engaging in the ultimate betrayal. While those of us who have their heads out of their asses would not have been surprised at all, because, they weren't worker's states, despite the Soviet Union calling itself one, or the ruling party in Nazi Germany being called "The National Socialist Worker's party".

Very iffy, you are, Ismail. You're an open Supporter of nationalism, and this thread proves it. Even if you try to get rid of your post, it's in my post quoted now. Socialist Phlanx members support "Progresive" nationalism and oppose "reactionary" nationalism, yet their still banned.. For supporting Nationalism.

And why you are an exception? And for how long? We will not know.

[Rafiq]

I've quoted everything Ismail has to say. Ismail, the great theoretician, finds it necessary to fragment my posts, take out parts of them, or re arange them in order to respond to them.

I will demonstrate this very easily.

Two hominid are debating. One is a Gorilla, the other is a Bonobo.

Bonobo post:


Where the fuck be my FOOD, I'm GOING TO KILL SOMONE FUCK YOU ALL

Gorilla, you can't be such a jerk all the time, why can't you sit and relax like us bonobos? Chill out, man.

Now, notice as the Gorilla is dumbfounded by this and has no Idea what to say. So, Gorilla decides to take other precautions.

Gorilla's post in response


Gorilla, you can't be such a jerk all the time. Why don't you allow us bonobos to steal your food?Well, sir, because us Gorillas are a very complex and advanced species, and we've learned that stealing isn't okay. Of course, for a Bonobo, what can you expect?

[Amal]

Mao with the "Chinese material conditions," ......etc.
Sorry to say, your understanding of Mao and his teachings is pure BS. Mao, on an interview with Edgar Snow clearly stated that ALL PEASANTS DREAM TO BE A BOURGEOISIE when Snow was very Enthusiastically reporting him that how the peasants representation in communes and collective farms were increasing at that time. Mao, like all proper Marxists, know well about the basic character of peasantry.
In 1949, only 10% of the Chinese population lived in the cities and a fewer of them are industrial workers. Villages were mostly under feudal lords and in short, most of the Chinese population of that time were living in feudal condition than capitalist. And that's why he termed the nation that he actually created as "New Democracy", not even socialist. That's the "material condition" of China during 1949 and no ground level revolutionary worker can deny that. Can you show some example of Mao's writings where he glorified peasants as "a revolutionary fighting force for socialism"?
Material condition exists everywhere and it actually depends you that whether you use it for some revolutionary purpose or some excuse of your inability. Sorry to say, you have learn to make the difference between the two.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I've quoted everything Ismail has to say. Ismail, the great theoretician, finds it necessary to fragment my posts, take out parts of them, or re arange them in order to respond to them.

I will demonstrate this very easily.

Two hominid are debating. One is a Gorilla, the other is a Bonobo.

Bonobo post:


Now, notice as the Gorilla is dumbfounded by this and has no Idea what to say. So, Gorilla decides to take other precautions.

Gorilla's post in response


Re-read that and ask yourself if it made any sense.

[Ismail]

Ah, I see, so you're a Left-Communist after all. I can just ignore you, then. All your hatred for Lenin and Stalin is completely identical with Left-Communist attacks. The only thing that distinguishes you (and it isn't unique to you) is that you make apologia for Juche, Maoism, Titoism and what have you. I'll just note two things because the rest of your post just shows that, in the end, you're an autodidact with an anger problem.


Browder was kicked out after the end of WW2 where the SU decided to butt heads with the U.S. in competition for Nazi technology and geographic influence."To Browder: Received Foster's telegram [which criticized Browder's views]. Please report which leading party comrades support his views. I am somewhat disturbed by the new theoretical, political, and tactical positions you are developing. Are you not going too far in adapting to the altered international situation, to the point of denying the theory and practice of class struggle and the necessity for the working class to have its own independent political party? Please reconsider all of this and report your thoughts."
(Dimitrov to Browder, March 1944, quoted in Harvey Klehr & John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New York: Vail-Ballou Press. 1998. p. 106.)


It's very complicated.Wow, suddenly it's all so "complicated" when Stalin comes to the fore. Kim Il Sung, Mao, Tito, and every single revisionist adopted their own bastard "Marxisms" simply because they apparently had to do so. You argue the same thing for Stalin as well, of course, but in reality your attack is mostly on Stalin. Mao and other "creative" reactionaries are just secondary.


Very iffy, you are, Ismail. You're an open Supporter of nationalism, and this thread proves it. Even if you try to get rid of your post, it's in my post quoted now. Socialist Phlanx members support "Progresive" nationalism and oppose "reactionary" nationalism, yet their still banned.. For supporting Nationalism.You're the one who argued that the Holocaust was necessary. You're the one who makes apologia for Juche, Maoism, and other revisionist "isms." You praise the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Why would I remove my post? I am indeed a supporter of national liberation. Find me anyone who would take issue with Fan Noli, with Çerçiz Topulli, with Bajram Curri, with Luigj Gurakuqi, Avni Rustemi, Omer Nishani, Halim Xhelo and a host of other Albanian nationalists, most of whom, it should be noted, were affiliated with the early 20's Comintern in some way. Go ahead and try to get me banned for being an "Albanian nationalist" in your eyes. See how that goes.

[Rafiq]

Ah, I see, so you're a Left-Communist after all.

Not true, but it's at least more accurate than Juche Dengist Nazi trot.


I can just ignore you, then. All your hatred for Lenin and Stalin is completely identical with Left-Communist attacks.

I concur with Bordiga in regards to Lenin. Lenin was awesome. But I don't have any illusions, if Lenin would have lived ten years longer he would have been the same as Stalin. But he didn't. I support Lenin... Symbolically, what he represented within that time frame in the Soviet State. But I'm also an avid supporter of Felix Dzerzhinsky until his death.


The only thing that distinguishes you (and it isn't unique to you) is that you make apologia for Juche, Maoism, Titoism and what have you. I'll just note two things because the rest of your post just shows that, in the end, you're an autodidact with an anger problem.


Oh, hold on, so now I'm a Left Juche Dengist Nazi Trot Maoist Communist?


"To Browder: Received Foster's telegram [which criticized Browder's views]. Please report which leading party comrades support his views. I am somewhat disturbed by the new theoretical, political, and tactical positions you are developing. Are you not going too far in adapting to the altered international situation, to the point of denying the theory and practice of class struggle and the necessity for the working class to have its own independent political party? Please reconsider all of this and report your thoughts."
(Dimitrov to Browder, March 1944, quoted in Harvey Klehr & John Earl Haynes. The Soviet World of American Communism. New York: Vail-Ballou Press. 1998. p. 106.)


Yes, yes, we know, this was at 1944 when the Untied States and the SU started competing for Japan.


Wow, suddenly it's all so "complicated" when Stalin comes to the fore. Kim Il Sung, Mao, Tito, and every single revisionist adopted their own bastard "Marxisms" simply because they apparently had to do so. You argue the same thing for Stalin as well, of course, but in reality your attack is mostly on Stalin. Mao and other "creative" reactionaries are just secondary.


Scumbag Ismail, replies to this:


It's very complicated. During the EARLY 1920's, trade relations were established with most Bourgeois states, though, yes, they did "Support the Overthrow of their governments". But usually calls against the British state were made in 1928, when trade relations were cut for reasons external from opposing the Bourgeoisie. Stalin then, in order finalize his socialist justification for dealing with Bourgeois states, as stated in his famous interview with that one German, championed a "Nation's right to self determination" when asked whether it was the aim of the Soviet Union to spread revolution. Stalin repeatedly denied that it was the goal of the Soviet State to spread the revolution. It was a slow and painful degeneration.


And only quotes this:


It's very complicated.

I don't care about them on an individual basis, because, single men don't rule states. There isn't a hierarchy to opposing Bourgeois leaders. I like Stalin, if ever, more than Mao and Kim sung il because he had cool propaganda posters and had a decent mustache.

Ismail, go up and look at my post about the two Hominids having a discussion on Rev Left. Did you not just prove my point?



You're the one who argued that the Holocaust was necessary. You're the one who makes apologia for Juche, Maoism, and other revisionist "isms." You praise the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.


The people that actually read all of my post are probably laughing at you right now. Please cite me some full quotes, that aren't tampered in any way shape or form (And, I'll know, by the way, I'll just plug them into the search and if there aren't exact results you're full of shit), that support these. I oppose The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, but I oppose the Muhaj scum even more. Fuck both, hoxha supported the Muj's.


Why would I remove my post? I am indeed a supporter of national liberation.


Many users support National Liberation, but there is a fine line between supporting that and actually supporting Nationalism on a personal level. Nationalism is antithetical to Socialism.


Go ahead and try to get me banned for being an "Albanian nationalist" in your eyes. See how that goes.

Are you not a Left Wing Nationalist, Ismail?

[Rafiq]

Re-read that and ask yourself if it made any sense.

The gorilla, when quoting the Bonobo's post, made it seem like the Bonobo said something he did not, by re arranging the wording in the quote.

[Ismail]

Yes, yes, we know, this was at 1944 when the Untied States and the SU started competing for Japan.You're free to give any evidence that the CPUSA's increasingly revisionist and reformist line was stymied because of the increased differences between the USSR and USA in-re Japan as early as March 1944.


I oppose The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, but I oppose the Muhaj scum even more. Fuck both, hoxha supported the Muj's.He did? Do you have a quote?

I mean it's rather hard to "oppose" the Soviet invasion yet when people in Afghanistan proper actually, you know, oppose it, they're labeled "Mujahidin." Hoxha said that Albania sided with the people of Afghanistan, but apparently that's just a secret codeword for the Mujahidin. Well in that case it speaks more for the inability of Afghan leftists to organize themselves against the Soviet revisionists and their puppets on one hand and the reactionary Mujahidin on the other, both attacking said leftists at the same time.

Yet you yourself that you oppose the Afghan resistance "even more." So in fact you tactically back the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, whatever "reservations" you have being irrelevant, just as many pro-Soviet revisionist parties had "reservations" about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.


Many users support National Liberation, but there is a fine line between supporting that and actually supporting Nationalism on a personal level. Nationalism is antithetical to Socialism.What is national liberation if not nationalism used in the service of anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist causes? That's the whole damn point of a national liberation struggle, the oppressed nation (regardless of class) is freed from the bonds of imperialism or colonialism.


Are you not a Left Wing Nationalist, Ismail?I would never identify myself as such, no. Just like I wouldn't call myself an "Orthodox Marxist" because it's evidently an internet phenomena picked up by you to mean whatever you want it to mean.


Can you show some example of Mao's writings where he glorified peasants as "a revolutionary fighting force for socialism"?
Material condition exists everywhere and it actually depends you that whether you use it for some revolutionary purpose or some excuse of your inability. Sorry to say, you have learn to make the difference between the two.Hoxha's Imperialism and the Revolution provides clear examples of Mao favoring the peasantry over the proletariat. Of course, you, Rafiq, Kontra and others will defend Mao. Kontra claims that Hoxha's book is actually a "racist" attack on Mao, and it reminds me of Barry Lyndon who acted much like Rafiq does and who also provided apologetics for Maoism.

Revisionists tend to defend each other.

[Rafiq]

You're free to give any evidence that the CPUSA's increasingly revisionist and reformist line was stymied because of the increased differences between the USSR and USA in-re Japan as early as March 1944.

It's common sense. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the Soviet governmnet got dissatsified with Bowder only after they started to butt heads with the U.S. ? No, no, it's REVISIONISM that caused it! :lol: And you call yourself a Marxist.


He did? Do you have a quote?


He armed them. He said he supported the "Afghan people". Really, this is just the Muhajadeen. What other fighting force is there that represented the "Afghan people" besides the muj's?


I mean it's rather hard to "oppose" the Soviet invasion yet when people in Afghanistan proper actually, you know, oppose it, they're labeled "Mujahidin." Hoxha said that Albania sided with the people of Afghanistan, but apparently that's just a secret codeword for the Mujahidin. Well in that case it speaks more for the inability of Afghan leftists to organize themselves against the Soviet revisionists and their puppets on one hand and the reactionary Mujahidin on the other, both attacking said leftists at the same time.


Those "Leftists" were dogs of the Muj. It was Maoist China that funded the Muhajadeen, along with Hoxhaist albania. It's no surprised Hoxhaists and Maoists fought alongside their masters in battle. Any Marxist knows you cannot support "X nationality's people". Such does not exist. You can support a class, and a class's interest. We know what Bourgoeois statesmen mean when they say "People". They mean the people that they support.

Can't I support the Kulaks under the guise of "Ukrainian people against the Soviet State"?


Yet you yourself that you oppose the Afghan resistance "even more." So in fact you tactically back the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, whatever "reservations" you have being irrelevant, just as many pro-Soviet revisionist parties had "reservations" about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.


I don't support the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, but I won't cry for ever muj that was butchered.


What is national liberation if not nationalism used in the service of anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist causes? That's the whole damn point of a national liberation struggle, the oppressed nation (regardless of class) is freed from the bonds of imperialism or colonialism.


Lenin never supported Class collaboration in regards to national liberation. Cite me proof other wise. Lenin supported movements that were Nationalist, that's different from openly supporting nationalism yourself.


I would never identify myself as such, no. Just like I wouldn't call myself an "Orthodox Marxist" because it's evidently an internet phenomena picked up by you to mean whatever you want it to mean.


Orthodox Marxism was a very large school of thought that had a tremendous amount of Influence on Marxian thinking. I don't know many Hoxhaist schools of thought that exist external from Albania or the internet, though. Hoxhaism didn't influence anything about Marxism.


Hoxha's Imperialism and the Revolution provides clear examples of Mao favoring the peasantry over the proletariat.

If I wanted Mao's opinion, I'd read Mao, not Hoxha.


Of course, you, Rafiq, Kontra and others will defend Mao. Kontra claims that Hoxha's book is actually a "racist" attack on Mao, and it reminds me of Barry Lyndon who acted much like Rafiq does and who also provided apologetics for Maoism.


Sigh. This is sad. So is Kontra a Maoist too now?


Revisionists tend to defend each other.


Ismail, when I say this, I mean it with uttermost sincerity, and I'm going to say this in the best manner I could spit out into typed words: You have your head up your ass.

Ismail believes Rafiq is a Left Juche Dengist Nazi Maoist Communist.


Ismail Also believes Rafiq, Kontrazzvedka, Amal, and Barry Lindon are engaged in a revisionist conspiracy to discredit the works of "Oh so glorious" dear leader Hoxha.

Tell me, members of Revleft, for those of you who are friends of Ismail: For how long are you going to take this ass clown seriously?

[gorillafuck]

I can understand academic interest in Tito, but advocacy of "Titoism" means that you want the world to have a revolutionary movement based around recreating Yugoslavia.

I don't think much more needs to be said to show how absurd this is.

[Искра]

As usually, Ismail turned this thread into his own ego shitstorm, which makes impossible to discuss anything on this borad which can be connected with Hoxha in any way. In Internet dictionary this shitfest is called trolling.

But look... if you are deep in the BA's ass you can troll forum like Ismail does.

[Ismail]

It's common sense. Do you really think it's a coincidence that the Soviet governmnet got dissatsified with Bowder only after they started to butt heads with the U.S. ? No, no, it's REVISIONISM that caused it! And you call yourself a Marxist.I see, so you have no evidence.


He armed them.Wow, Albania actually sent arms to the Mujahidin? This is news to me. Perhaps you can provide the source for this lie?

There was a tiny pro-Albanian and apparently urban-based group opposed to the Soviet invasion, and one of the splits of Shola-y-Jaweid was apparently pro-Albanian in orientation as well. That's about it. They had no connection with Albania otherwise.


He said he supported the "Afghan people". Really, this is just the Muhajadeen. What other fighting force is there that represented the "Afghan people" besides the muj's?Not much, just like how in South Africa there wasn't any other force besides the African National Congress, or how in Palestine most Palestinians (with notable left-wing exceptions—denounced by you as "Islamist asslickers"—of course) follow either the Palestine Liberation Organization, aka Fatah, or Hamas.

If the force standing up to foreign imperialism is not leftist in orientation than it is the task of the leftists in said country to make it so. If they cannot then they must still struggle for national liberation and demonstrate their commitment to it against the imperialist invaders. Most of the "leftists" in Afghanistan were pro-Soviet revisionists who discredited themselves fairly quickly, and those who struggled against the Soviets were either executed or imprisoned.


Those "Leftists" were dogs of the Muj.Yet it was the Mujahidin that was seen as leading the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism. Because of the anti-communist policies of the Soviet revisionists and the Afghan revisionists, leftist sentiment was gravely damaged in the country.


It was Maoist China that funded the Muhajadeen, along with Hoxhaist albania.China did indeed fund the Mujahidin in direct collaboration with US imperialism. There's zero evidence that Albania was even able to fund anything. I know a guy who says that the PIRA tried to get arms from the Albanians in the 70's and they refused.


Any Marxist knows you cannot support "X nationality's people". Such does not exist. You can support a class, and a class's interest.And evidently the interests of the working-class are furthered by opposing imperialism, are they not? Certainly the exploited Afghan proletariat, subjected to Soviet occupation and a puppet regime, should be supported against said occupiers.


Can't I support the Kulaks under the guise of "Ukrainian people against the Soviet State"?No, because the Ukrainian people as a whole were not against the Soviet Union, and because the Soviets didn't invade the Ukraine and set up a puppet regime on a state-capitalist basis.


Lenin never supported Class collaboration in regards to national liberation. Cite me proof other wise. Lenin supported movements that were Nationalist, that's different from openly supporting nationalism yourself.Then why did the Comintern call on the Albanian communists to work with bourgeois nationalists from 1917 onwards and even have said nationalists work with the Comintern? Why did the Soviets not support communists in Afghanistan vis-à-vis Amanullah Khan? Why did the Soviets back Atatürk if they were so apparently against national liberation? Why did Zinoviev call for Muslims to rise up in a "holy war" against imperialism?

I never claimed I was a nationalist, so I don't see your point.


Orthodox Marxism was a very large school of thought that had a tremendous amount of Influence on Marxian thinking. I don't know many Hoxhaist schools of thought that exist external from Albania or the internet, though. Hoxhaism didn't influence anything about Marxism."A very large school of thought..."

Who? DNZ? What the hell is an "Orthodox Marxist"? What revolutionary struggles were waged by "Orthodox Marxists"? I recall Lenin attacking various Mensheviks and others who proclaimed an "orthodoxy" which hid their own opportunism, though.


Sigh. This is sad. So is Kontra a Maoist too now?No, but whenever the issue is Hoxha vs. Mao, it seems you, Kontra, Brospierre, etc. distinctly side with Mao. You yourself have said "at least Mao..." this and "at least Mao..." that.

Also Barry Lyndon has been banned for like two years now. I mention him since he was very similar in temperament to you, right down to the unholy mixture of Brezhnevism, ultra-leftism, general eclecticism, etc.


As usually, Ismail turned this thread into his own ego shitstorm, which makes impossible to discuss anything on this borad which can be connected with Hoxha in any way. In Internet dictionary this shitfest is called trolling.I'm not the one making gigantic-sized font posts or calling people "pathetic little worm(s)."

[The Young Pioneer]

This is the best thread evarz.

Except...where are the marine life photographs?

[Grenzer]

Who? DNZ? What the hell is an "Orthodox Marxist"? What revolutionary struggles were waged by "Orthodox Marxists"? I recall Lenin attacking various Mensheviks and others who proclaimed an "orthodoxy" which hid their own opportunism, though.

As interesting as this has been, I thought I'd interject here. Orthodox Marxism could be construed to be the school of thought which was created by Karl Kautsky and was the dominant ideology of the Second International.. indeed, it could be argued that Marxism as a cohesive school of thought didn't really exist until people like Kautsky came along. It is said that Lenin didn't really have that many novel innovations, and that most of his theoretical foundations were just borrowed directly from Orthodox Marxism to the degree that it could be said that Lenin was not a Leninist, but an Orthodox Marxist. It's not my opinion, it's just what gets passed around in certain circles. Orthodox Marxism died with the collapse of the Second International.

In more recent times, it seems that there has been an interest in resurrecting the ideas of the Second International, and one of it's chief theorists, Kautsky in particular. In this sense, one could call themselves an Orthodox Marxist if that is where they get the foundation of their theory from. Exceedingly few people do these days; primarily the people in the CPGB for the most part. DNZ, Q, and Rakunin(when he was around) are some supporters of this, and is Rafiq I think. It's certainly true that there haven't really been any revolutions under the banner of Orthodox Marxism, but I think it would be a mistake to use this as the basis of a critique. After all, with the creation of Leninism and the world communist movement having been subordinated to it from the October revolution to the fall of the Berlin Wall; I'd say we are objectively further away from socialism in terms of class consciousness than we were before we had Leninism! I don't think it's necessarily anachronistic, as the entire impetus behind the resurrection of Orthodox Marxism is that it has more relevance to our struggles today than does Leninism. Historically, Leninism has shown itself to impotent in advancing class struggle in industrialized countries, so there may be merit to it.

Regarding Lenin and the Mensheviks, I think it's fair to mention ahead of time that restating Lenin's opinion isn't an argument.

Anyway, I didn't mean to disrupt the argument; but it seemed fair to point a few things out about Orthodox Marxism as you have made the statement that it "doesn't exist" in the past. I mean, if Marxism-DeLeonism can exist, then I don't see why Orthodox Marxism can't too.

[Rafiq]

I see, so you have no evidence.

If you really, with all your heart believe bowder was expelled because Revisionism and not because that was the exact moment where the U.S. and the Soviet Union butt heads (With bowder still being pro-U.S.) your head is literally inside of your anus.


Wow, Albania actually sent arms to the Mujahidin? This is news to me. Perhaps you can provide the source for this lie?

There was a tiny pro-Albanian and apparently urban-based group opposed to the Soviet invasion, and one of the splits of Shola-y-Jaweid was apparently pro-Albanian in orientation as well. That's about it. They had no connection with Albania otherwise.


Seeing Albania as an extremely irrelevant country, it's hard to find just about anything in regards to their foreign policy during the Soviet-Afghan war. I didn't pull it out of my ass, though, as I recall hearing this somewhere. Even if they didn't arm them, it would only be because they couldn't afford it.


Not much, just like how in South Africa there wasn't any other force besides the African National Congress, or how in Palestine most Palestinians (with notable left-wing exceptions—denounced by you as "Islamist asslickers"—of course) follow either the Palestine Liberation Organization, aka Fatah, or Hamas.


It's not comparable to support the ANC and the Muhajadeen (One being Bourgeois, the other Reactionary-petite bourgeois). I don't recall cases of the ANC sponsoring organized human trafficking, slavery, and throwing acid upon the faces of young school girls. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

And yes, the so-called "Left Wing" groups in Palestine today are Islamist asslickers, adopting several reactionary viewpoints to appeal to Hamas and it's supporters.

I
f the force standing up to foreign imperialism is not leftist in orientation than it is the task of the leftists in said country to make it so. If they cannot then they must still struggle for national liberation and demonstrate their commitment to it against the imperialist invaders.

So much moralist bullshit with absolutely no scientific character whats so ever. It is not as simple as "Country vs. Invaders". Anti Imperialism minus class collaboration is not inherently Anti "Leftist", but our Maoist friends have proved to us class collaboration inevitably leads to the victory of the oppressing class, in the end.

By the way, Ismail, Afghanistan got it's victory over "Soviet Social Imperialism", just like Hoxha wanted, the Muj's won. Good job, Hoxha, Afghanistan is such a beautiful Marxist Leninist paradise.


Most of the "leftists" in Afghanistan were pro-Soviet revisionists who discredited themselves fairly quickly, and those who struggled against the Soviets were either executed or imprisoned.


You cannot deny that they were progressive in the construction of Afghanistan. For the first time, Women were being educated, Religious fundamentalism was becoming a thing of the past, secularization was rapid. Bourgeois, none the less, but if I was living in Afghanistan as a "Proletarian" (If any existed) I'd much rather live under that, than the Muj.


Yet it was the Mujahidin that was seen as leading the struggle against Soviet social-imperialism.Because of the anti-communist policies of the Soviet revisionists and the Afghan revisionists, leftist sentiment was gravely damaged in the country.


Jesus fucking christ this is pathetic. So, are you honestly trying to tell me that the Afghan "people" saw these policies as revisionist, and therefore started to join the Muhajadeen? Leftism wasn't shattered because of "revisionism". Actually, Ismail, can you please provide us with some of those "revisionist" policies? Not much was going on in Afghanistan except the modernization of the country.


China did indeed fund the Mujahidin in direct collaboration with US imperialism. There's zero evidence that Albania was even able to fund anything. I know a guy who says that the PIRA tried to get arms from the Albanians in the 70's and they refused.


Because they couldn't afford it.


And evidently the interests of the working-class are furthered by opposing imperialism, are they not? Certainly the exploited Afghan proletariat, subjected to Soviet occupation and a puppet regime, should be supported against said occupiers.


1. There wasn't an Afghan Proletariat.

2. The struggle against the Soviet Occupiers was 100% organized by the Afghan landowners, who were furious that their land was being confiscated by the state and given to the Peasant Population.

3. There was no evidence that an single Afghan proletarian movement arose and fought against Soviet Social Imperialism. None. And if there was, I'd be the first to support it.

Your presupposion relies on the notion that there was an exploited Afghan Proletariat in the first place, and even if that was true, it also relies on the fact that there was an Organized proletarian based movement that fought against hte Soviet Union because of their level of class concision.

This argument, you fall flat on your face, Ismail.



No, because the Ukrainian people as a whole were not against the Soviet Union, and because the Soviets didn't invade the Ukraine and set up a puppet regime on a state-capitalist basis.


"No, because the Afghan people as a whole were not against the Soviet Union, and because the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan forcefully (The Afghan govt called for assistance) and set up a puppet regime (The Ukrainian SSR) on a state-capitalist basis (Something that doesn't exist)".


There isn't any statistical evidence to show whether the majority of Ukrainians supported the Stalin regime, and if there is, it was "evidence" recorded by the NKVD, which, if you ask me, isn't the most trustworthy source. No doubt Afghanistan was a capitalist state, but no more than Stalinist Russia was, both operated within the realm of the capitalist mode of production (And not because THE GOVEMEEEENT IS THE CAPITALISTS INZTEAD AND DA PROLETARIAnZ ARE EXPLITED BY THE GREEEDY STATEZ AND TA STATEZ GOT ALL ZA PROFIT).


Then why did the Comintern call on the Albanian communists to work with bourgeois nationalists from 1917 onwards and even have said nationalists work with the Comintern?

Cite this. Cite me that they told Afghan Communists to work with "Bourgeois nationalists".


Why did the Soviets not support communists in Afghanistan vis-à-vis Amanullah Khan? Why did the Soviets back Atatürk if they were so apparently against national liberation? Why did Zinoviev call for Muslims to rise up in a "holy war" against imperialism?


Those are very seperate in nature.

For one, support for Kemalists (And the massacre of Turkish communists) and Khan were done as a direct response to Russia's isolation. It didn't have any "Friends" internationally. Support for Kemalists and Khan was never a moral support. (thus had to do with russia never surpassing the capitalist mode of production itself to adjust to these state of affairs).

And, during the Russian civil war, with a Majority of Muslims in the population, the Bolsheviks sought the opportunity to rally them against the White counter revolution, but in the end, the Bolsheviks never supported class collaboration, and indeed, they divided their support among the Muslims, trying to turn the peasantry against the Feudal Lords. They said to the Afghan peasants something like this, not exact quote btw "To the Muslims of hte former empire, for hundreds of years you have been rallying under the green banner of your prophet, on behalf of the oppressing class for holy war. Now it is time to emancipate yourself for the real holy war, against the classes that have oppressed you".

Doesn't sound much like Class collaboration to me.


I never claimed I was a nationalist, so I don't see your point.


Hoxha was a nationalist. You claimed(in a different thread) you had no theoretical qualms with Hoxha. So that must mean you are a nationalist.


"A very large school of thought..."

Who? DNZ? What the hell is an "Orthodox Marxist"? What revolutionary struggles were waged by "Orthodox Marxists"? I recall Lenin attacking various Mensheviks and others who proclaimed an "orthodoxy" which hid their own opportunism, though.


Sigh, so you don't know what Orthodox Marxism is after all. Orthodox Marxism is mostly theoretical, but, pre-war SPD and others could be classified as Orthodox Marxist. The Mensheviks, on the other hand, were Left Liberal scum bags who had nothing to do with Marxism, and if ever, only because it's in their opportunist nature.

During World War 1, a division between the revolutionaries and the reformists occurred, and many of the "Orthodox" Marxists became counterrevolutionary bastards (Like Kautsky). Lenin, though, could be easily clasified as an Orthodox Marxist.

Here are some concepts of Orthodox Marxism, via Wikipedia:

A strong version of the theory that the economic base determines the cultural and political superstructure (see also economic determinism, economism and vulgar materialism).

The claim that Marxism is a science.

The attempt to make Marxism a total system, adapting it to changes within the realm of current events and knowledge.

An understanding of ideology in terms of false consciousness.

That every open class struggle is a political struggle, as opposed to economist claims.

A pre-crisis emphasis on organizing an independent, mass workers' movement (in the form of welfare, recreational, educational, and cultural organizations) and especially its political party, combining reform struggles and mass strikes without overreliance on either.

The socialist revolution is necessarily the act of the majority.


Sorry to break it to you, Ismail, but without Orthodox Marxism, we wouldn't have the Marxism we know today, and as a matter of fact, Marxism Leninism wouldn't exist in the same way that it did. Orthodox Marxism had a tremendous amount of influence on Marxism, both in the Reaction to it(Frankfurt School) and the emphasis of it. Hoxhaism had an influence on absolutely no Marxist School of thought, there aren't any academic circles adhering to Hoxhaism, or any historical ties to proletarian based movements.

I'm not here ot play the "MY tendency is better" game, because I fucking hate the concept of the tendency to begin with. But it is foolish to dismiss Orthodox Marxism, contrary to Hoxhaism, which is a theoretical Joke in almost all Marxian schools of thought.



No, but whenever the issue is Hoxha vs. Mao, it seems you, Kontra, Brospierre, etc. distinctly side with Mao. You yourself have said "at least Mao..." this and "at least Mao..." that.


Because Mao was such a bastard, if you're worse than Mao, that means something. That's why I said "At Least Mao tried to give a materialist explanation of Revisionism (And failed)". Because Mao was one crazy motherfucker, and if you're dumber than him, and then claim to be the last remnants of real "Marxism", you're a joke.


Also Barry Lyndon has been banned for like two years now. I mention him since he was very similar in temperament to you, right down to the unholy mixture of Brezhnevism, ultra-leftism, general eclecticism, etc.


Barry Lyndon requested to be banned because of his College or whatever. Hold on, Hold that thought. Attention, Rafiq is now a Ultra Left Juche Brezhnevist Nazi Tito-Maoist Dengoid Revisionite-Trotskyite-Communist.

Yup, Ismail actuallly believes that, with all his heart.

Seriously, are you just pulling shit out of your ass now?


I'm not the one making gigantic-sized font posts or calling people "pathetic little worm(s)."

Well, you don't read my posts anyway, so I figured if I make them bigger it's like shoving it down your throat. You keep coming to the same conclusions because you aren't reading my post, because, I don't know, they make you insecure about your views of Hoxha?

If this is called a debate, I am winning Ismail. Look at the post size comparison between me and you. I make a giant post, and you only respond to maybe 1/5 of it. That means you are bowing down to the rest of the 4/5th of my post. Because if you're failing to address them, but address another section of my post, this means you either a) lack the ability to address them b) agree with it. So the section that you're replying to is the only one that you think you can respond to. See where I'm getting at?

[NorwegianCommunist]

What do you mean about the passport?
It was one of the best in the world.

I don't know much about passports other than you need it to travel/get through airport security.
But how is that passport different from others?


Maybe add to the list; Tito held Yugoslavia together, after he died it took 10 years before a civil war broke out and around 140,000 died.
+ rape camps were mumslim women were used to produce Serbian offspring.

[Ismail]

Seeing Albania as an extremely irrelevant country,National chauvinism sure is awesome, isn't it Rafiq?


it's hard to find just about anything in regards to their foreign policy during the Soviet-Afghan war.Not really. You could read old Zëri i Popullit issues denouncing the war in pretty clear terms. You could also read Hoxha's Reflections on the Middle East.


I didn't pull it out of my ass, though, as I recall hearing this somewhere.They didn't even fund "official" pro-Albania parties around the world (I've talked to people from the KPD/ML, PCdoB, etc. who recalled the 1970's-80's.) Out of all the books on Albanian history I've read, not one says that the Albanians funded any rebel movement in Afghanistan.


Even if they didn't arm them, it would only be because they couldn't afford it.Well considering that Hoxha viewed the USA and China as imperialist superpowers, I doubt they'd be coordinating their activities with them.


It's not comparable to support the ANC and the Muhajadeen (One being Bourgeois, the other Reactionary-petite bourgeois). I don't recall cases of the ANC sponsoring organized human trafficking, slavery, and throwing acid upon the faces of young school girls. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.Typical Brezhnevite argument. The actions of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and others like him whose popularity owed more to American and Pakistani support than any enduring loyalty amongst the Afghan populace do not negate the fact that the Mujahidin were seen by said Afghans as leading the way against the Soviet occupation.


So much moralist bullshit with absolutely no scientific character whats so ever. It is not as simple as "Country vs. Invaders". Anti Imperialism minus class collaboration is not inherently Anti "Leftist", but our Maoist friends have proved to us class collaboration inevitably leads to the victory of the oppressing class, in the end.A strange argument. By waging the national liberation war the communist forces actually gain strength by demonstrating their resolve against the foreign invader. Obviously the goal is to not subordinate yourself to bourgeois or other reactionary forces in the process, but to play a leading role in this struggle. The Maoists obviously couldn't be relied upon to do this.


By the way, Ismail, Afghanistan got it's victory over "Soviet Social Imperialism", just like Hoxha wanted, the Muj's won. Good job, Hoxha, Afghanistan is such a beautiful Marxist Leninist paradise.You've now gone from "opposing" the Soviet invasion to putting its imperialism in quotation marks. Nice strawman as well. Hoxha did not call for a "Marxist-Leninist paradise" in Afghanistan, he called for a war of national liberation against the Soviet occupiers. Only when freed from this occupation could the Afghan communists actually work on the basis of waging class struggle against the feudal forces who, thanks to the Soviet occupation, were able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan to begin with.


You cannot deny that they were progressive in the construction of Afghanistan. For the first time, Women were being educated, Religious fundamentalism was becoming a thing of the past, secularization was rapid. Bourgeois, none the less, but if I was living in Afghanistan as a "Proletarian" (If any existed) I'd much rather live under that, than the Muj.Basic Brezhnevite apologia for Soviet social-imperialsim.


Actually, Ismail, can you please provide us with some of those "revisionist" policies? Not much was going on in Afghanistan except the modernization of the country.Really? Is that why the Soviets basically controlled all of Afghanistan's resources, dominated its civilian life, etc.? The book Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation has quite a bit on this.

There's also this Marxist-Leninist analysis: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE45AFGHANISTAN.html

The "modernization of the country" Brezhnevites and people like you go on about was in the service of Soviet social-imperialism. The Sparts actually gave examples of Afghans working as mechanics on Soviet tanks as an 'example' of the expansion of the Afghan proletariat. And you're right, not much was going on in Afghanistan, its government was composed of sham "socialists" who had been either subservient to the monarchy (the Parcham faction) or who confused a military coup with a revolution (the Khalq faction.) After 1987 the Soviets had Najibullah pray on national TV, the constitution was amended to praise Islam, and basically any remaining "socialist" veneer was eradicated.

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany also worked to "modernize" Albania. I guess opposing the fascist occupation was a bad move, too? The funny thing is that you accuse me of being "idealist" yet your whole analysis here is basically "the Soviet occupiers built schools" versus "the Mujahidin were fundamentalist Muslims." Therefore, even though you recognize that the USSR was an imperialist entity (apparently), you have some sort of need to apologize for its intervention and highly unpopular occupation of the country. You do realize that people didn't jump to their feet and fight just because their religious leaders called on them to do so, right? You are aware of the fact that the Soviets behaved brutally towards rural Afghanistan and bombed countless villages because, as with Israelis arguing about Palestinian resistance, "the Mujahidin use civilian areas."


1. There wasn't an Afghan Proletariat.Really? So who existed in the urban areas, then? The proletariat was small, yes, but it existed. Communists did interact with it.


2. The struggle against the Soviet Occupiers was 100% organized by the Afghan landowners, who were furious that their land was being confiscated by the state and given to the Peasant Population.And this same "modernizing" government offered the landowners their land back in 1983. Very nice. More Brezhnevite apologia.


3. There was no evidence that an single Afghan proletarian movement arose and fought against Soviet Social Imperialism. None. And if there was, I'd be the first to support it.I don't know your definition of a "proletarian movement." The ALO and smaller left-wing rebellions did organize amongst students and workers, and obviously amongst many peasants who bore the brunt of the Soviet occupation.


"No, because the Afghan people as a whole were not against the Soviet Union, and because the Soviets didn't invade Afghanistan forcefully (The Afghan govt called for assistance) and set up a puppet regime (The Ukrainian SSR) on a state-capitalist basis (Something that doesn't exist)".I like how you don't know your history.

Yes, the Afghan government called for assistance under Taraki, because entire sections of the army were defecting to the rebels. So desperate was Taraki that he actually asked the Soviets to send in Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc. from the USSR proper and just dress them up as Afghan soldiers. Then Taraki was overthrown by Amin, whose more "independent" foreign policy worried the Soviets, and who wasn't calling for assistance anymore. Thus the Soviets finally decided to answer the request for "assistance" months later and promptly shot him. That's a very interesting definition of "call for assistance."

The Ukrainian SSR was set up in the course of guerrilla struggle covertly backed by the Russian Bolsheviks and enjoying the support of the majority of the proletariat. There's no evidence of dissatisfaction amongst Ukrainians for Soviet rule even during the absolute worst time (the famine) approaching anything like that of Afghanistan.


Cite this. Cite me that they told Afghan Communists to work with "Bourgeois nationalists".Did you mean Albanians? In that case sure. Nicholas C. Pano in his book [I]The People's Republic of Albania states the following (pp. 27-30):

Other Albanians looked upon the Russian communists, with their slogans of national self-determination, as champions of the oppressed minorities of Europe. For this reason several prominent members of the United Committee of Kosovo and Çamëria (the Kosovo Committee), an organization dedicated to the restoration of these provinces to Albania, established regular contacts with Comintern agents in Yugoslavia early in 1920... In December, 1921, Bajram Curri, one of the leaders of the Kosovo Committee, met with the Soviet minister in Vienna to discuss the Kosovo question. He presented the Russian diplomat with a memorandum which concluded:

The Albanian people await impatiently the determination of their frontiers not on the basis of brutal and bloody historical considerations, but rather on the basis of the situation which actually exists today.

With the firm conviction that Soviet Russia will be able in the near future to determine the boundaries of Europe, especially in the Balkans, in a just manner, I pray that the great Soviet government will grant our just requests at that time.In addition to encouraging and later subsidizing the activities of the Kosovo Committee, the Comintern acting through the Balkan Communist Federation, also sought to establish a communist party in Albania... hop to enlist the support of such liberal Albanian politicians as Bishop Fan Noli and their cause.

The task of creating a communist party in Albania was entrusted to a young Albanian intellectual, Konstandin Boshnjaku, who had been educated in Russia. In 1919 and 1920 Boshnjaku sought to infiltrate the liberal and nationalist political groups... [he made] a profound impression upon many young Albanian students and intellectuals, especially those who belonged to the social-political organization known as [I]Bashkimi (The Union of Young Albanians), which had been formed in 1922.

By 1923, when it became evident that Boshnjaku failed, the Soviets adopted a new course of action... Boshnjaku was ordered to abandon his efforts to create an Albanian Communist Party and to concentrate instead upon generating popular support for Albanian participation in the Balkan Communist Federation...

When the liberals failed to win a majority in [the 1923] elections, the Comintern sent Pentchev to Albania to reassess the political situation. Pentchev and Boshnjaku were instrumental in bringing about a resolution to honor Lenin, who had recently died. The Albanian Constituent Assembly passed this tribute to the late Soviet dictator in February, 1924.

Four months later, when the Albanian liberals seized power under the leadership of Fan Noli, the Executive Committee of the Comintern voted to support the new Albanian regime. The pro-communist elements in the Noli coalition were jubilant when a similar stand was taken by the Balkan Communist Federation and the Italian Communist Party.There was clear class collaboration; there were communists in Noli's entourage and involved with his government. Besides Boshnjaku there was Sejfulla Malëshova and Llazar Fundo (Noli's secretaries.) Halim Xhelo and Selim Shpuza also became oriented towards communism in this period. Ali Kelmendi, who was to become the main man of Albanian communism in the 1930's, also backed the Noli government.

I can provide more sources, if you'd like.

As for Afghanistan, any history book concerning it will note Soviet support for Amanullah Khan.


but in the end, the Bolsheviks never supported class collaboration, and indeed, they divided their support among the Muslims, trying to turn the peasantry against the Feudal Lords.Is that why many delegates protested when Ismail Enver Pasha was invited to give a speech to the Bolsheviks at one point and there was so much opposition that a letter had to be sent instead, to be read on behalf of him?


Here are some concepts of Orthodox Marxism, via Wikipedia:So basically you get your ideology from a Wikipedia article.

[Omsk]

Maybe add to the list; Tito held Yugoslavia together, after he died it took 10 years before a civil war broke out and around 140,000 died.


This is not a marxist view,as a single man can't 'hold the country in shape'.Tito and the rest of the revisionists were the ones responsible for the war and the problems in the 20th and 21st century Balkans.If you want some more details,i could write more.



+ rape camps were mumslim women were used to produce Serbian offspring


What?

[Rafiq]

National chauvinism sure is awesome, isn't it Rafiq?

Albania was an irrelevant country, there's nothing chauvinistic about that.


Not really. You could read old Zëri i Popullit issues denouncing the war in pretty clear terms. You could also read Hoxha's Reflections on the Middle East.


And while we're add it, why don't you read Mao's justifications for supporting the aparthied? :rolleyes". I don't give five fucks about Hoxha's excuse, we want Facts. Hoxha isn't a credible source.


They didn't even fund "official" pro-Albania parties around the world (I've talked to people from the KPD/ML, PCdoB, etc. who recalled the 1970's-80's.) Out of all the books on Albanian history I've read, not one says that the Albanians funded any rebel movement in Afghanistan.


That's because they were broke... And that's also because there were barely any Hoxhaist parties in the world and usually if there were, they were tiny and irrelevant.


Well considering that Hoxha viewed the USA and China as imperialist superpowers, I doubt they'd be coordinating their activities with them.


The hell if he wouldn't. The U.S. and China had relativly no interest at all with Albania, anyway. You act as if Albania even had the option, militarily, and financially.


Typical Brezhnevite argument. The actions of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and others like him whose popularity owed more to American and Pakistani support than any enduring loyalty amongst the Afghan populace do not negate the fact that the Mujahidin were seen by said Afghans as leading the way against the Soviet occupation.


The Muhajadeen were leading this Landowner's revolt, and, it's undeniable the only support they got was outside of the cities. The Muj took advantage of the fact that many of the country side weren't educated and were relatively isolated. Btw, are you going to deny it was organized by Afghan landowers? Because I do have proof for that.


A strange argument. By waging the national liberation war the communist forces actually gain strength by demonstrating their resolve against the foreign invader. Obviously the goal is to not subordinate yourself to bourgeois or other reactionary forces in the process, but to play a leading role in this struggle. The Maoists obviously couldn't be relied upon to do this.

You've now

Yes because National Liberation wars, such as Nepal, Algeria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. were not countries, in the end, ruled by the oppressing classes. Hoxha and Mao aren't too different on their class collaborationist bullshit. At least Stalin just all together went and funded the oppressing class anyway, as if the outcome would be any different.


You've now gone from "opposing" the Soviet invasion to putting its imperialism in quotation marks. Nice strawman as well. Hoxha did not call for a "Marxist-Leninist paradise" in Afghanistan, he called for a war of national liberation against the Soviet occupiers. Only when freed from this occupation could the Afghan communists actually work on the basis of waging class struggle against the feudal forces who, thanks to the Soviet occupation, were able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan to begin with.


"Soviet Social Imperialism" doesn't exist. It's just Imperialism. Only idiot Maoists and their offshoots say otherwise.

Okay, Hoxha got what he wanted, a National Liberation war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This totally paved the way for Afghan "communists" (Who didn't exist externally from the "revisionists" other than groups made up of 5 assholes). :rolleyes:


Basic Brezhnevite apologia for Soviet social-imperialsim.


Why don't you point out why I'm wrong instead of being a dismissive piece of shit?


Really? Is that why the Soviets basically controlled all of Afghanistan's resources, dominated its civilian life, etc.? The book Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Soviet Occupation has quite a bit on this.


Why don't we just go ahead and cite the black book of communism while you're at it.


There's also this Marxist-Leninist analysis: http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALLIANCE45AFGHANISTAN.html


They blame the problem in Afghanistan was that there wasn't a strong Hoxhaist party. Yet, in places where their were, most notably Albania, the end result was shit. What the fuck is your point?


The "modernization of the country" Brezhnevites and people like you go on about was in the service of Soviet social-imperialism.

Yes, and? The country was still being modernized. I mean fuck both, but to support the "Afghan People" (I.e. the Muj) is reactionary.


The Sparts actually gave examples of Afghans working as mechanics on Soviet tanks as an 'example' of the expansion of the Afghan proletariat.

...Okay? There wasn't a proletarian coincious based movement in Afghanistan that fought against the Soviets, and if there was, I'd be the first to support it. The only real opponents to Soviet Imperialism were Afghan Landowners, who were more reactionary than the Soviets themselves, and history is my witness.


And you're right, not much was going on in Afghanistan, its government was composed of sham "socialists" who had been either subservient to the monarchy (the Parcham faction) or who confused a military coup with a revolution (the Khalq faction.)

Did I say that the Afghan govt. was ruled by a mass-party movement?


After 1987 the Soviets had Najibullah pray on national TV, the constitution was amended to praise Islam, and basically any remaining "socialist" veneer was eradicated.


Yes, we should criticize Najibullah pray on TV, and then support the (Islamist) Mujahadeen under the guise of the "Afghan people". What the fuck?


Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany also worked to "modernize" Albania. I guess opposing the fascist occupation was a bad move, too?

Except the PPSH at the time wasn't composed of Reactionary Landowners who sought to enslave the Peasant population. In comparison with the Fascists, the PPSH was more socially progressive (And they were "relevant" for Albania).



The funny thing is that you accuse me of being "idealist" yet your whole analysis here is basically "the Soviet occupiers built schools" versus "the Mujahidin were fundamentalist Muslims." Therefore, even though you recognize that the USSR was an imperialist entity (apparently), you have some sort of need to apologize for its intervention and highly unpopular occupation of the country.

The Soviets were indeed more progressive, but if anything this just goes to show how reactionary the Taliban were. If the Soviet Imperialists were progressive, what the hell does this have to say about the Muhajadeen?

Take for instance, a Fascist movement arises in the United States. Are they to be supported (If they have a lot of support from the South)? Who is more progressive, the Liberalist State of the U.S. or the Fascists who want to bring a return to some, I don't fucking know, Thomas Jefferson Agrarian dreamworld? Of course the Liberalists should never be supported. But does this signify we should openly support the Fascists under the guise of the "American people"? No. One is Conservative Bourgeois and the other is Reactionary petty bourgeois. You're probably not going to respond to this, so I'm going to use this big font so everyone can see that. (And if you are going to respond to it, it's because I just pointed out you were not going to).


You do realize that people didn't jump to their feet and fight just because their religious leaders called on them to do so, right? You are aware of the fact that the Soviets behaved brutally towards rural Afghanistan and bombed countless villages

The Mujaheddin formed long before the actual war. And yes, the Peasants whom were the "Property" of the landowners did Jump on their feet, they were uneducated, manipulated, and brainwashed. It is not as if the Soviets started massacring people and then the Muj formed in response. No, the muj formed in response to the Afghan Landowners getting fucked. Reactionaries.


because, as with Israelis arguing about Palestinian resistance, "the Mujahidin use civilian areas."


Blah Blah blah, I don't want to argue with you about the several excuses that are made in War. I think what's more important is to note the origins of the Muj.


Really? So who existed in the urban areas, then? The proletariat was small, yes, but it existed. Communists did interact with it.


There was no "Proletariat" in the sense that there was no proletarian movements. I'd suspect you'd think so, since, yes, they were organized democratically, like in the good old Stalinist (30's) USSR. Of course we Marxian scientists recognize that Worker's "Democratically" organizing things isn't a change in the mode of production. Albania was Socialist because there were worker's councils? That's bullshit. There were worker's councils in Afghanistan.


And this same "modernizing" government offered the landowners their land back in 1983. Very nice. More Brezhnevite apologia.


It was too late by then. Please cite that by the way. But yes, if they did, it was out of desperation.


I don't know your definition of a "proletarian movement." The ALO and smaller left-wing rebellions did organize amongst students and workers, and obviously amongst many peasants who bore the brunt of the Soviet occupation.


The ALO wasn't a proletarian movement. It was Left of capital (Maoist). There was absolutely no Proletarian base in the movement at all, it was made of petty bourgeois Islamist-asslickers


I like how you don't know your history.


the history that you want to think is true, yes, I don't concur with it.


Yes, the Afghan government called for assistance under Taraki, because entire sections of the army were defecting to the rebels.

Yes, and?


So desperate was Taraki that he actually asked the Soviets to send in Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc. from the USSR proper and just dress them up as Afghan soldiers.

This doesn't negate anything I said.


Then Taraki was overthrown by Amin, whose more "independent" foreign policy worried the Soviets, and who wasn't calling for assistance anymore.


Religious groups were given copies of the Quran, and Amin began to refer to Allah in speeches. He even claimed that the Saur Revolution was "totally based on the principles of Islam."


And you complain about Najibullah? He wasn't asking for asistance because he tried to appeal to the Afghan Landowners. He failed.



Thus the Soviets finally decided to answer the request for "assistance" months later and promptly shot him. That's a very interesting definition of "call for assistance."




[I]General Tukharinov, Commander of the 40th Army, met with Afghan Major General Babadzhan to talk about Soviet troop movements before the Soviet army's intervention.[74] On 25 December Dmitriy Ustinov issued a formal order, stating "The state frontier of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan is to be crossed on the ground and in the air by forces of the 40th Army and the Air Force at 1500 hrs on 25 December". This was the formal beginning of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.[75]


There were circle in the PDPA that wanted Amin gone. So yes, they did call for assistance. The Muj were growing and Amin couldn't do shit, so the Afghan Military decided to take matters into their own hands.



The Ukrainian SSR was set up in the course of guerrilla struggle covertly backed by the Russian Bolsheviks and enjoying the support of the majority of the proletariat. There's no evidence of dissatisfaction amongst Ukrainians for Soviet rule even during the absolute worst time (the famine) approaching anything like that of Afghanistan.


There isn't any evidence that an invisible banana man is fucking you as we speak, but it really isn't likely, now is it?

There isn't any evidence that suggests the Ukrainians were fond of the Soviet State in the 30's, but from personal accounts and people who lived in Ukraine, who were told stories by their elders, it doesn't look that way. Feel free to cite NKVD archives, though. It doesn't mean shit.



Did you mean Albanians? In that case sure. Nicholas C. Pano in his book The People's Republic of Albania states the following (pp. 27-30):


See my post about Turkey and Afghanistan during that time. By 1920, as stated in this text, by 1920 the Soviets were arming Kemalists in Turkey. They were desperate.


There was clear class collaboration; there were communists in Noli's entourage and involved with his government. Besides Boshnjaku there was Sejfulla Malëshova and Llazar Fundo (Noli's secretaries.) Halim Xhelo and Selim Shpuza also became oriented towards communism in this period. Ali Kelmendi, who was to become the main man of Albanian communism in the 1930's, also backed the Noli government.

I can provide more sources, if you'd like.

As for Afghanistan, any history book concerning it will note Soviet support for Amanullah Khan.


Albania didn't even have a fucking communist party in the early 20's.


Is that why many delegates protested when Ismail Enver Pasha was invited to give a speech to the Bolsheviks at one point and there was so much opposition that a letter had to be sent instead, to be read on behalf of him?


This doesn't negate ANYTHING that I said. The bolsheviks strategically tried to divide the Muslim population on the basis of class.


So basically you get your ideology from a Wikipedia article.

Absolutely not, I came across the Article only after my introduction to Orthodox Marxism.

And, everyone listen up, despite my last post, Ismail again proves my point. He only responded to less than half of my post. The parts that negate his bullshit he refuses to respond to.

[Art Vandelay]

There isn't any evidence that an invisible banana man is fucking you as we speak, but it really isn't likely, now is it?

I may get in trouble (do not really care) because I am not really contributing to the discussion (enjoying it none the less) but holy shit that was funny. :laugh:

[Ismail]

Albania was an irrelevant country, there's nothing chauvinistic about that."Irrelevant" how? You could say Palestine is "irrelevant" using this same logic. The same logic that allows people to brush off the entire Middle East as a place where the USA should just nuke it all, and other ignorant reactionary positions.


And while we're add it, why don't you read Mao's justifications for supporting the aparthied? :rolleyes". I don't give five fucks about Hoxha's excuse, we want Facts. Hoxha isn't a credible source.So Hoxha noting the social-imperialist USSR's war of occupation in Afghanistan is now akin to the Chinese backing UNITA and the FNLA? I must say, for someone like yourself who "opposes" the Soviet invasion, you sure seem to like defending it.


That's because they were broke... And that's also because there were barely any Hoxhaist parties in the world and usually if there were, they were tiny and irrelevant.Yeah, like the PCdoB... the largest CP in Portugal. Or the PCOT, the largest CP in Tunisia. Or the Nicaraguan and Burkinabé CPs who were significant enough to have a say in the governments (the former against the rightist FSLN, the latter splitting over whether to work with Sankara or not.) Or the Malian CP which led the struggle against the Soviet-backed regime of Moussa Traoré. Or the KPD/ML, which was large and organized enough to operate simultaneously in the FRG and GDR, the latter obviously in a clandestine fashion. Or the PCMLE in Ecuador, which waged a fairly notable guerrilla struggle and today has seats (via a Front, since it itself is still technically illegal) in the legislature, etc.

Of course I'm sure some parties were tiny and "irrelevant." I don't think the pro-Hoxha party in the Netherlands ever amounted to much, and pro-Albanian sentiment never really took off in the USA.

Which reminds me, can you even name one modern-day "Orthodox Marxist" organization?


The hell if he wouldn't. The U.S. and China had relativly no interest at all with Albania, anyway. You act as if Albania even had the option, militarily, and financially.Actually Hoxha did have the option. In the 1970's the US Government was actually trying to restore diplomatic relations with Albania, and the Soviet press "praised" Albania for its work in the construction of socialism while also calling for the "normalization of relations." Hoxha and the Party of Labour refused to restore relations with either of the two superpowers. Even when Hoxha died the Soviets sent a telegram expressing their "sadness" for his passing, and the PLA promptly returned it back.

At both the 7th and 8th Congress of the PLA in 1976 and 1981 Hoxha stressed that the PLA would never restore diplomatic relations with these two states, and it wasn't until 1990 that this was done when Albania was transitioning to capitalism.


The Muhajadeen were leading this Landowner's revolt, and, it's undeniable the only support they got was outside of the cities. The Muj took advantage of the fact that many of the country side weren't educated and were relatively isolated. Btw, are you going to deny it was organized by Afghan landowers? Because I do have proof for that.Again, I made my point clear. The Mujahidin were a reactionary force (as noted) but were only able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan because:

A. The Soviets invaded and occupied the country to prop up an unpopular regime which took power via a military coup;
B. Leftist sentiment in Afghanistan was discredited because of this.

Of course other factors assisted in this as well, like the USA, Pakistan and China funding the Mujahidin.

Just because the Mujahidin sucks doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were conducting a war of occupation against the Afghan population. The Vietcong weren't at the gates of Saigon either (the Afghan army wasn't that incompetent), too bad the people in the rest of the country mattered a whole lot more and made up a pretty hefty majority.


Yes because National Liberation wars, such as Nepal, Algeria, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. were not countries, in the end, ruled by the oppressing classes.Nepal was not a national liberation war. You evidently don't know what the term means.

Because you don't know what the term means, you evidently don't understand the significance of national liberation.


"Soviet Social Imperialism" doesn't exist. It's just Imperialism. Only idiot Maoists and their offshoots say otherwise.Actually it is called Soviet social-imperialism (a term used by Hoxha, BTW) because it attempts to hide its imperialist nature via "socialist" demagoguery. Lenin used terms like social-patriotism to refer to "socialists" who did similar things in defense of imperialism in WWI.


Okay, Hoxha got what he wanted, a National Liberation war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This totally paved the way for Afghan "communists" (Who didn't exist externally from the "revisionists" other than groups made up of 5 assholes).Actually the Afghan people got what they wanted. Of course you can just sit there and go "har-de-har, stupid Afghans" but that's your prerogative.


Why don't you point out why I'm wrong instead of being a dismissive piece of shit?Because the building of schools, roads and creating exciting new job opportunities for working under Soviet imperialists has nothing to do with the fact that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, exploited it, oppressed its people, and set up a puppet regime. Just like the Italians doing the same in Albania (they even used the bogus argument that "order" in Albania had to be restored) doesn't mean that suddenly resistance to imperialism goes out the window because unemployment was kept in check by the Italian forces.


Why don't we just go ahead and cite the black book of communism while you're at it.Alrighty, here's another, more academic source: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7b69p12h;brand=eschol


They blame the problem in Afghanistan was that there wasn't a strong Hoxhaist party. Yet, in places where their were, most notably Albania, the end result was shit. What the fuck is your point?Well, for one thing, the Communist Party of Albania did a pretty good job with its own national liberation struggle against fascist occupation. A notable and consistent Marxist-Leninist party would, presumably, do better under the conditions present than the Maoists.


Yes, and? The country was still being modernized. I mean fuck both, but to support the "Afghan People" (I.e. the Muj) is reactionary.Then how do you "fuck both"? Evidently this is not only impossible but is a bad thing because the Soviets were "modernizing" Afghanistan. So basically you're just being demagogic and contentless.

You do realize that most Soviet Army personnel from Afghanistan left in a condition similar to Vietnam War veterans, right? Most didn't see the war as a glorious event that assisted mankind's progress, but as an event where they either simply "answered their country's call" and just shrug their soldiers when it comes up, or they themselves took part in massacring Afghans and later developed problems like alcoholism, PTSD, etc.


Did I say that the Afghan govt. was ruled by a mass-party movement?No, but you seem to want to defend it for some reason even though the vast majority of Afghans did not identify with it in any way.


Yes, we should criticize Najibullah pray on TV, and then support the (Islamist) Mujahadeen under the guise of the "Afghan people". What the fuck?My point was that the Soviets had alienated the Afghan people so much that after a particularly strong offensive failed in 1986 the Soviets basically said "fuck it" and had Najibullah announce he was a glorious Muslim all along. It's just an example of how utterly unpopular the puppet regime was.


Except the PPSH at the time wasn't composed of Reactionary Landowners who sought to enslave the Peasant population. In comparison with the Fascists, the PPSH was more socially progressive (And they were "relevant" for Albania).If the PKSh (as the PPSh was known in 1941-1948) hadn't existed there would have been the Balli Kombëtar (or a similar organization), which in history as we know it collaborated actively with the occupiers because of the fear they had concerning the communists. Yet do you really think the "Orthodox Marxist" position in this case would have been to "fuck both" the Nazi-Fascist occupiers and the bourgeois-nationalist opposition which, if somehow the PKSh never existed, would have gained support among the vast majority of the Albanian people?

There is, after all, that famous phrase by Engels that "the nation which exploits another forges its own chains."


The Soviets were indeed more progressive, but if anything this just goes to show how reactionary the Taliban were. If the Soviet Imperialists were progressive, what the hell does this have to say about the Muhajadeen?The Soviet social-imperialists were not progressive. Nor were the Mujahidin.

[qote]Take for instance, a Fascist movement arises in the United States. Are they to be supported (If they have a lot of support from the South)? Who is more progressive, the Liberalist State of the U.S. or the Fascists who want to bring a return to some, I don't fucking know, Thomas Jefferson Agrarian dreamworld? Of course the Liberalists should never be supported. But does this signify we should openly support the Fascists under the guise of the "American people"? No. One is Conservative Bourgeois and the other is Reactionary petty bourgeois.[/quote]I actually did want to skip over this, since it sounds like a bad videogame plot.

Is the South somehow its own distinct nation and nation-state which was invaded by the North and occupied by it?

Like... is this intentionally meant to be the worst analogy you could come up with?


The Mujaheddin formed long before the actual war.And it's telling that the "revolutionary" government was so unpopular that it had trouble fighting these relatively few initial forces.


And yes, the Peasants whom were the "Property" of the landowners did Jump on their feet, they were uneducated, manipulated, and brainwashed. It is not as if the Soviets started massacring people and then the Muj formed in response. No, the muj formed in response to the Afghan Landowners getting fucked.Well yeah, and then the Soviets massacred peasants and the Mujahidin suddenly looked like the protectors of the people. Again, the Soviets acted like an occupying force. It's no different than how the people of South Vietnam became increasingly disaffected with the USA as a result of, you know, its atrocities.

Soviet soldiers would occasionally destroy entire villages because some guerrillas had family members there. Does that really sound like an army that was merely defending "progressive gains"?


It was too late by then. Please cite that by the way. But yes, if they did, it was out of desperation.The ML-Review article I linked to noted it.


The ALO wasn't a proletarian movement. It was Left of capital (Maoist). There was absolutely no Proletarian base in the movement at all, it was made of petty bourgeois Islamist-asslickersI'd just like to note that movements can have a proletarian basis regardless of what actions they'd do once in power. Lenin made this point various times. Parties like the PSOE, Labour in the UK, etc. demonstrate this.

The ALO certainly had a more progressive basis (being as it was oriented towards students and the sons and daughters of peasant families) than the Mujahidin. Do you deny this?


And you complain about Najibullah? He wasn't asking for asistance because he tried to appeal to the Afghan Landowners. He failed.Afghanistan was a puppet state. Najibullah sought to be "inclusive." That's how puppet regimes try to gain legitimacy. It's also why the National Fatherland Front (an auxiliary organization of the PDPA) was broadened in the mid-80's to try and encourage ex-Mujahidin to join.


There were circle in the PDPA that wanted Amin gone. So yes, they did call for assistance. The Muj were growing and Amin couldn't do shit, so the Afghan Military decided to take matters into their own hands.So the Afghan military (the same force that was crumbling and seeing defections everywhere) was a legitimate force able to call for foreign "assistance" (an invasion, obviously something more dramatic than Taraki envisioned)?

Perhaps you'd like to provide a source for this claim, at any rate? I mean shortly after the invasion the USSR claimed that Amin was actually a secret CIA agent all along and that the Soviets were thus restoring "order" to Afghanistan from the evil agent and purger Amin.

The whole "assistance" stuff is bunk. I am reminded of Hoxha's words on a similar situation:

"Fully defeated, also, was the 'legal' argument of the Soviet revisionists to justify their aggression in Czechoslovakia. The 'famous' letter of some Czechoslovak personalities allegedly addressed to the Soviets and to some other Warsaw Treaty countries 'to ask for their aid in suppressing counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia' was absolutely proved to be a fraud. Nobody came out to confirm being the author of that letter. The Soviet troops were not invited either by the Czechoslovak Government, or by the President of the Republic, by the parliament or the Central Committee of the Party. Even Hitler in his time acted with more tact: as least be obtained by force the signature of the President Hacha, when he occupied Czechoslovakia."
(Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1972. p. 518.)


Albania didn't even have a fucking communist party in the early 20's.You asked for a source; you asked it two times in fact, and now you're backing away. The fact is that the Comintern encouraged communists in Albania to collaborate with liberal bourgeois-nationalist figures, both in Albania proper and in Kosovo.


This doesn't negate ANYTHING that I said. The bolsheviks strategically tried to divide the Muslim population on the basis of class.Well yeah, that was the goal. What's your point? The fact is that at various times the Bolsheviks supported bourgeois-nationalist forces and figures even at the protest of actual communists.


The parts that negate his bullshit he refuses to respond to.Wouldn't that mean, by your own admission, that the majority of the content in your posts are bullshit?

The fact is that you're calling the brutal occupation of a foreign country "progressive." You can make excuses as much as you'd like, including the very same ones pro-Soviet and certain Trot parties worldwide made both then and now. It doesn't change the facts at hand. I'm sure the millions of Afghans murdered as "sympathizers" of the Mujahidin, or as "collateral damage" casualties would have been really proud to have been granted land the puppet regime not long after offered to return to the landlords in exchange for them no longer fighting the government (something that seems to cut at your argument so badly you timidly asked for a source.) I'm also sure many dead Afghan peasants would have enjoyed the prospect of sending their daughters to a school where they'd quickly learn the necessity of "respecting" the Soviet occupiers and otherwise risk being shot for daring to protest against their presence in the country, the same presence you proclaim should be "fucked" as much as the Mujahidin.

Quite frankly it's not much different from those "leftists" who praised the downfall of the Taliban at the hands of US imperialism as an "objectively progressive" development. It's the same reductionist logic which supplants class struggle in favor of some abstract notion of a "more progressive" society being built by a hated occupier that kills and maims in its effort to "pacify" the vast majority of the country in question, and which by its activities elevates the very same reactionary forces that fell from grace into the position of heroes amongst the populace.

In fact I have an idea, how about you tell me the difference between the Soviets invading Afghanistan to save its "objectively progressive" government from a triumphing but otherwise disparate collection of guerrillas led by landowning and clergy elements, and the USA invading Afghanistan to oust the obviously reactionary Taliban in favor of an "objectively progressive" government which allowed (in theory) for the schools to reopen, women to become productive members of society, etc.? What makes these two arguments fundamentally different? Here's an analogy that is based on the real world, not something requiring you to go across the Atlantic (or Pacific) Ocean to some alternate history USA. What makes the Soviet occupation "objectively progressive" and the American occupation not?

Feel free to accuse me of "moralizing" or whatever, your "Orthodox Marxism" remains a fraudulent internet eclecticism. At least Barry Lyndon was consistent on this point: he argued that the USSR was a "workers' state" basically throughout its existence, whereas you apparently recognize that the Soviet war in Afghanistan was an imperialist war. Yet, as clear as day, you've come right out and admitted you side with imperialism in this case because of its "objectively progressive" quality. Actually this may not be true by the time another post or two comes from you, since you're already trying to mimic the official Soviet line that the Soviets were selflessly entering Afghanistan at the request of... not the actual head of state (who was shot and replaced), and apparently (from your "military requested it" comment) not the government (which was dismissed and replaced as well) either.

[Rafiq]

I've had only access to tapatalk for the past couple days... I'll address your horse shit in a matter of hours, though. :laughing: just had a glimpse and all I see is more half assed arguments that you' ve been making from start.

[Ismail]

all I see is more half assed arguments that you' ve been making from start.Well yeah, I actually adhere to an ideology and think consistency is important, I don't bounce from "I oppose both the Soviet occupation and the Mujahidin" to "the Soviets brought progress to Afghanistan against the reactionary Mujahidin" to "the Soviets were called in by (insert unrepresentative group or institution) to assist the Afghan (insert entity here since 'people' is a word you seem to despise, probably owing to your own anti-social views) against the Mujahidin."

Just like you talk about how much you "oppose" the DPRK, while still being an apologist for the adoption of Juche because "oh, well, Kim Il Sung had to do it in accordance with the material conditions against outdated(!) Stalinism." Now you're "opposing" the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan while using the same arguments as the USSR itself used to justify the occupation. This stems from the fact that you don't use any class analysis, but instead use an essentially geo-political one where there's just "good" against "bad," despite your attempts to deny this and create a "scientific" veneer as transparent as Juche itself.

As an aside, I forgot to reply to this:

Hoxhaism had an influence on absolutely no Marxist School of thought, there aren't any academic circles adhering to Hoxhaism,Good. The last thing Marxism needs is an excuse for another Žižek, Sartre or Althusser. Considering that there's no such thing as "Hoxhaism" to begin with and that it literally just means Marxism-Leninism (or "Stalinism" if you prefer), that's doubly good.

"Marxism-Leninism is not a monopoly of a privileged few who 'have the brains' to understand it. It is the scientific ideology of the working class and the working masses, and only when its ideas are grasped by the broad working masses does it cease to be something abstract and is turned into a great material force for the revolutionary transformation of the world."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 179-180.)

"Knowledge, all the beautified academic advice is of no value, is just a worthless ornament without practice, without its complete and organized implementation in practice. 'The portentous advice and methods' of the conceited intellectual who is divorced from life, from practice, are sterile; they produce nothing, neither bread nor boots, nor butter, neither meat nor houses. Such an intellectual displays nothing but his unhealthy intellectualism, the great deficiency above all in his ideological formation with our Marxist-Leninist world outlook, as a result of which he does not know why he works and whom he should serve."
(Ibid. p. 544.)

[Rafiq]

"Irrelevant" how? You could say Palestine is "irrelevant" using this same logic. The same logic that allows people to brush off the entire Middle East as a place where the USA should just nuke it all, and other ignorant reactionary positions.

The Middle East and Palestine aren't irrelevant, they're of main interest to United States and Imperialist foreign policy in modern times. Albania could never be compared in the same way.


So Hoxha noting the social-imperialist USSR's war of occupation in Afghanistan is now akin to the Chinese backing UNITA and the FNLA? I must say, for someone like yourself who "opposes" the Soviet invasion, you sure seem to like defending it.


Would you support Fascists if they were fighting against Imperialism? Which side would you consider more progressive? Communists oppose both. But which one is more socially progressive in regards to views on Women, minorities, etc. ?


Yeah, like the PCdoB... the largest CP in Portugal. Or the PCOT, the largest CP in Tunisia. Or the Nicaraguan and Burkinabé CPs who were significant enough to have a say in the governments (the former against the rightist FSLN, the latter splitting over whether to work with Sankara or not.) Or the Malian CP which led the struggle against the Soviet-backed regime of Moussa Traoré. Or the KPD/ML, which was large and organized enough to operate simultaneously in the FRG and GDR, the latter obviously in a clandestine fashion. Or the PCMLE in Ecuador, which waged a fairly notable guerrilla struggle and today has seats (via a Front, since it itself is still technically illegal) in the legislature, etc.


Communism is irrelevant in both Tunisia and Portugal. When you say "Largest CP", that could have anywhere from two to 100 members in those countries. Nice try, shit head.


Of course I'm sure some parties were tiny and "irrelevant." I don't think the pro-Hoxha party in the Netherlands ever amounted to much, and pro-Albanian sentiment never really took off in the USA.


All of them are. The Tunisian and Portuguese Hoxhaist parties are just as irrelevant as the rest.


Which reminds me, can you even name one modern-day "Orthodox Marxist" organization?


Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thought. It's not, in any way shape or form, an ideological vanguard for a mass movement. It's not comparable to hoxhaism, trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Even though none of those would exist without Orthodox Marxism.


Actually Hoxha did have the option. In the 1970's the US Government was actually trying to restore diplomatic relations with Albania, and the Soviet press "praised" Albania for its work in the construction of socialism while also calling for the "normalization of relations." Hoxha and the Party of Labour refused to restore relations with either of the two superpowers. Even when Hoxha died the Soviets sent a telegram expressing their "sadness" for his passing, and the PLA promptly returned it back.


If Hoxha "Normalized" relations with the U.S., it would make little to no difference. It still didn't have an option, it was never a large player in world politics, despite your obscure fantasies of Hoxha's Albania ever being relevant.


At both the 7th and 8th Congress of the PLA in 1976 and 1981 Hoxha stressed that the PLA would never restore diplomatic relations with these two states, and it wasn't until 1990 that this was done when Albania was transitioning to capitalism.


What's your point, exactly? That they had the option to put an embassy in the USSR and the United States? How noble of them.


Again, I made my point clear. The Mujahidin were a reactionary force (as noted) but were only able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan because:

A. The Soviets invaded and occupied the country to prop up an unpopular regime which took power via a military coup;


The regime was only unpopular on the Rural, isolated side of Afghanistan in which the population was largely illiterate and uneducated. The Landowners took advantage of this and as a result... We know the story.


B. Leftist sentiment in Afghanistan was discredited because of this.


Again, the sky is blue, who cares? We are arguing on whether the Muj are to be supported.


Of course other factors assisted in this as well, like the USA, Pakistan and China funding the Mujahidin.


Actually, shit head, this was probably the most significant factor, all others merely being a chain of events in response.


Just because the Mujahidin sucks doesn't change the fact that the Soviets were conducting a war of occupation against the Afghan population.

What kind of Populist bullshit is this? That still isn't viable justification for supporting the Muj ("Afghan people" in bullshit terms).



The Vietcong weren't at the gates of Saigon either (the Afghan army wasn't that incompetent), too bad the people in the rest of the country mattered a whole lot more and made up a pretty hefty majority.


The Vietcong can't be compared to the fucking Muhajadeen, I'm sorry.


Nepal was not a national liberation war. You evidently don't know what the term means.


Many Maoists claim it was. Okay, even if it was not in Hoxhaist terms, can you name me a couple successful National Liberation wars (that INCLUDED class collaboration) that didn't end up with the oppressing class in power?


Because you don't know what the term means, you evidently don't understand the significance of national liberation.


Yes yes, dismiss my whole post because I mentioned Nepal.


Actually it is called Soviet social-imperialism (a term used by Hoxha, BTW) because it attempts to hide its imperialist nature via "socialist" demagoguery. Lenin used terms like social-patriotism to refer to "socialists" who did similar things in defense of imperialism in WWI.


Actually, it's just Imperialism, because we Scientific Marxists understand the terms in a strict materialist matter, and recognize a country is Imperialist regardless if it prefers to drape itself in a red banner.


Actually the Afghan people got what they wanted. Of course you can just sit there and go "har-de-har, stupid Afghans" but that's your prerogative.


Hoxha wanted the "Afghan People" (The Muj) to be victorious over the Soviet Union. He got what he wanted. He predicted that this would pave way for real class struggle in Afghanistan and real grounds for "real communists" (Hoxhaists which don't exist) to gain the support of hte population and take over the country. You tell me, was he right? Is Afghanistan a better place without the Soviet "puppet regime"? A real Marxian such as myself would oppose both sides in the conflict, seeing that both the rule of the PDPA and modern day Afghanistan are pretty shitty. But since Hoxhaists chose to side with the Muj, they have to be consistent and identify with the result.


Because the building of schools, roads and creating exciting new job opportunities for working under Soviet imperialists has nothing to do with the fact that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, exploited it, oppressed its people, and set up a puppet regime. Just like the Italians doing the same in Albania (they even used the bogus argument that "order" in Albania had to be restored) doesn't mean that suddenly resistance to imperialism goes out the window because unemployment was kept in check by the Italian forces.


These are not comparable scenarios. Like I said, the Albanian PPSH cannot be compared to the Muhajadin, but the Muj can definitely be compared to several Fascist currents. The PPSH were more Progressive than the Italian Fascists, yet the Muj was extremely reactionary in comparison to the Soviet Union. That's the difference.


Alrighty, here's another, more academic source: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7b69p12h;brand=eschol


Okay, more Bourgeois academic works. I can cite you 100 books that are "Academic" that assert Stalin killed 30 million people. This isn't a viable source, though.


Well, for one thing, the Communist Party of Albania did a pretty good job with its own national liberation struggle against fascist occupation. A notable and consistent Marxist-Leninist party would, presumably, do better under the conditions present than the Maoists.


And what was end result? A shit hole. A bigger shit hole than the "revisionist" countries. As a matter of fact, revisionist countries on average did much better than Albania.


Then how do you "fuck both"? Evidently this is not only impossible but is a bad thing because the Soviets were "modernizing" Afghanistan. So basically you're just being demagogic and contentless.


A situation emerges between Liberalist Imperialists and Fascist resistance that has support of the majority of the population. What's your answer?


You do realize that most Soviet Army personnel from Afghanistan left in a condition similar to Vietnam War veterans, right? Most didn't see the war as a glorious event that assisted mankind's progress, but as an event where they either simply "answered their country's call" and just shrug their soldiers when it comes up, or they themselves took part in massacring Afghans and later developed problems like alcoholism, PTSD, etc.


When did I have illusions in regards to the Soviet motives in Afghanistan? Just because it's easy to point out that a group which forces women to marry their rapists is a tad bit less progressive than the Soviet Union.


No, but you seem to want to defend it for some reason even though the vast majority of Afghans did not identify with it in any way.


Okay? I don't care if the majority of Afghans didn't identify with it. Also, from experience, it doesn't look like the majority of Albanians identified with their state. The mass immigration from Albania immidetly after the collapse could be a sign.


My point was that the Soviets had alienated the Afghan people so much that after a particularly strong offensive failed in 1986 the Soviets basically said "fuck it" and had Najibullah announce he was a glorious Muslim all along. It's just an example of how utterly unpopular the puppet regime was.


And foreign imperialism external from the Soviet Union had nothing to do with this. You seem to be under the impression that the Soviet Union was the only power that had interests in Afghanistan...


If the PKSh (as the PPSh was known in 1941-1948) hadn't existed there would have been the Balli Kombëtar (or a similar organization), which in history as we know it collaborated actively with the occupiers because of the fear they had concerning the communists. Yet do you really think the "Orthodox Marxist" position in this case would have been to "fuck both" the Nazi-Fascist occupiers and the bourgeois-nationalist opposition which, if somehow the PKSh never existed, would have gained support among the vast majority of the Albanian people?


I love how you think Orthodox Marxism is some kind of Ideology or collective group of individuals who have the same opinion about everything. It's quite pathetic.


There is, after all, that famous phrase by Engels that "the nation which exploits another forges its own chains."


Be consistent. Want me to quote some Marx and Engels that were supporting British Imperialism in India?


The Soviet social-imperialists were not progressive. Nor were the Mujahidin.


No doubt. But as a women, as a religious minority, who'd you rather live under?


I actually did want to skip over this, since it sounds like a bad videogame plot.


Oh fucking god, did you actually think it was supposed to be a deep fucking story? You totally ignored the fucking analogy. Ismail, answer me this: Conflict between Imperialist Liberalists and actual, existing Fascists. Whom do you think is more progressive? Both are to be opposed. But which one do you deem more reactionary?


Is the South somehow its own distinct nation and nation-state which was invaded by the North and occupied by it?


Jesus fucking Christ you're a dumb one. Why do you take it so literal? It's a very simple analogy: The U.S. liberalists invade X place, X place Fascists opposing U.S. Imperialism with support of Rural population. Which one do you think, in your opinion, is more progressive? In your opinion, do you support Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad or Osama against U.S. Imperialism?


Like... is this intentionally meant to be the worst analogy you could come up with?


Something I pulled out of my ass, but the analogy brings up a great point. Would you support Fascists in the name of Anti Imperialism? Would you deem them as more progressive than the Liberalist-Bourgeois U.S.?


And it's telling that the "revolutionary" government was so unpopular that it had trouble fighting these relatively few initial forces.


No, it just so happens that it's impossible to reach any sort of Victory in Afghanistan with such terrain, etc. when dealing with Geurrila warfare. Even if they had 20 million soldiers with them they wouldn't make a difference.


Well yeah, and then the Soviets massacred peasants and the Mujahidin suddenly looked like the protectors of the people.

And this was after the Muj initially formed. And, I don't think there is much evidence to back up the claim that the Soviets massacred Peasants for no fucking reason, but oh well. Stalin probably did kill 30 million because he felt like it, glorious Imperialist sources told me this so it must be true.


Again, the Soviets acted like an occupying force. It's no different than how the people of South Vietnam became increasingly disaffected with the USA as a result of, you know, its atrocities.


But the Vietcong was socially progressive and the Muj were fucking disgusting Imperialist dogs. Don't you know the Muj was just a puppet of U.S.-Chinese interests in the region? Pakistani and Saudi dogs were merely part of the pack. It was an inter imperialist war. Feel free to support one end of the Imperialist spectrum of Capital.


Soviet soldiers would occasionally destroy entire villages because some guerrillas had family members there. Does that really sound like an army that was merely defending "progressive gains"?


Seems more progressive than massacring entire villages + bringing the country back 500 years back in time. The Soviet Soldiers fucked a lot of shit up in Hungary, but at least, in the end, it was better than what it was under Fascism. Why do you pick and choose? You'll deny Soviet Crimes in Hungary but assert they were made in Afghanistan. Why? Where in "Revisionist" doctrine does it say kill a bunch of fucking people for no reason"?


The ML-Review article I linked to noted it.


ML's are such good sources who aren't full of shit. :rolleyes:


I'd just like to note that movements can have a proletarian basis regardless of what actions they'd do once in power. Lenin made this point various times. Parties like the PSOE, Labour in the UK, etc. demonstrate this.


Lenin didn't ever make such a point. You can't have a proletarian basis when the majority of your makeup is from Students and Peasants. Sorry.


The ALO certainly had a more progressive basis (being as it was oriented towards students and the sons and daughters of peasant families) than the Mujahidin. Do you deny this?


Of course not, but they were irrelevant and basically if they did not exist it would make no difference.


Afghanistan was a puppet state. Najibullah sought to be "inclusive." That's how puppet regimes try to gain legitimacy. It's also why the National Fatherland Front (an auxiliary organization of the PDPA) was broadened in the mid-80's to try and encourage ex-Mujahidin to join.



Who the fuck are you arguing with? Of course it was a puppet state. The question is, who is worse, the Muj or the puppet state? Both are to be opposed. You seem to concur with Hoxha in supporting the Muj against them.

No one in the West really knew the true face of the Muj until they actually got into power. Hoxha is not an exception. He was a stupid and naive bastard.


So the Afghan military (the same force that was crumbling and seeing defections everywhere) was a legitimate force able to call for foreign "assistance" (an invasion, obviously something more dramatic than Taraki envisioned)?


No, but that's different from the Soviets just invading the country for no reason. Surly a full blown puppet government wouldn't even need to call in Assistance, the Soviets would just come regardless.


Perhaps you'd like to provide a source for this claim, at any rate? I mean shortly after the invasion the USSR claimed that Amin was actually a secret CIA agent all along and that the Soviets were thus restoring "order" to Afghanistan from the evil agent and purger Amin.


It is common sense. Do you deny the Muhajadeen were growing under Amin? Do you deny many in the Afghan government thought Amin was fucking crazy as hell and wanted him deposed?



The whole "assistance" stuff is bunk. I am reminded of Hoxha's words on a similar situation:


You need to get out of this fantasy land where you think people take Hoxha seriously. I don't care what he has to say. He isn't a credible source.



You asked for a source; you asked it two times in fact, and now you're backing away. The fact is that the Comintern encouraged communists in Albania to collaborate with liberal bourgeois-nationalist figures, both in Albania proper and in Kosovo.


Those sources didn't say anything about the Bolsheviks supporting Class collaboration in Albania. Like I said, Albania didn't even have a communist party in the early 20's, so your source is not to be taken seriously.


Well yeah, that was the goal. What's your point? The fact is that at various times the Bolsheviks supported bourgeois-nationalist forces and figures even at the protest of actual communists.


Again, read what I said about Turkey, Afghanistan, etc. during the time. Besides, theoretically, Lenin had no illusions, National Liberation in class collaboration is to be avoided.


Wouldn't that mean, by your own admission, that the majority of the content in your posts are bullshit?


No, becuase you're the only one spouting out the bullshit. I'm responding to everything you've said. Even in this segment alone, you've only responded to little over half of what I actually posted.


So, the fact that you wouldn't respond to a lot of my post signifies that you either concur with them or cannot respond because you're too stupid. Which means that, in such an argument, they stand unrefuted.





The fact is that you're calling the brutal occupation of a foreign country "progressive."

Not progressive, but more progressive than the Muj. The Muj was an Imperialist proxy. One Imperialist power can be more progressive than the other, that doesn't mean their over all character is progressive.


You can make excuses as much as you'd like, including the very same ones pro-Soviet and certain Trot parties worldwide made both then and now.

Keep arguing with a ghost


It doesn't change the facts at hand. I'm sure the millions of Afghans murdered as "sympathizers" of the Mujahidin, or as "collateral damage" casualties would have been really proud to have been granted land the puppet regime not long after offered to return to the landlords in exchange for them no longer fighting the government

Millions of Afghans civilians were not murdered as a direct result of Soviet Bullets. The same sources you post concur with the bullshit about the red army raping the shit out of Europe in WW2. Papa Hegel's notion of totality heavily remains relevant to this.


(something that seems to cut at your argument so badly you timidly asked for a source.)

I wasn't denying it, I just was curious. And you haven't provided a source, and it wasn't common sense, so I'd take it your just talking out of your ass.


I'm also sure many dead Afghan peasants would have enjoyed the prospect of sending their daughters to a school where they'd quickly learn the necessity of "respecting" the Soviet occupiers and otherwise risk being shot for daring to protest against their presence in the country, the same presence you proclaim should be "fucked" as much as the Mujahidin.


Boo hoo let's get all emotional. Shut the fuck up. The Soviets, if anything, would have just left hte PDPA in head of state. And, as evidence shows, people who didn't "Respect" the Soviet Union, young girls, were never shot for this. I doubt it would be any different.

Look deep into yourself, you pile of shit. Do you really think that the Soviet soldiers would systemically shoot little girls for "protesting"? Sounds a lot like the Fascist propaganda in WW2 against the SU, more shock value bullshit. And yes, fuck both sides, fucking scum bag, now you're criticizing me because I'm not supporting the Muj? Little girls who just want an education have acid thrown on them, young girls taken as property as wives, fucking rape victims forced to marry their offenders, would never exist under the Soviet Union, nothing comparable, not even such reactionary atrocities would exist under the United States of America.


Quite frankly it's not much different from those "leftists" who praised the downfall of the Taliban at the hands of US imperialism as an "objectively progressive" development.

Except it was the U.S. who created that shit storm, who created the Muj, and, in the end, do nothing progressive for Afghanistan.


It's the same reductionist logic which supplants class struggle in favor of some abstract notion of a "more progressive" society being built by a hated occupier that kills and maims in its effort to "pacify" the vast majority of the country in question, and which by its activities elevates the very same reactionary forces that fell from grace into the position of heroes amongst the populace.

You want to lecture me on Class struggle yet you claim no classes existed in Afghanistan and that it was just "The people" verse "Soviet Union". :laugh:



In fact I have an idea, how about you tell me the difference between the Soviets invading Afghanistan to save its "objectively progressive" government from a triumphing but otherwise disparate collection of guerrillas led by landowning and clergy elements, and the USA invading Afghanistan to oust the obviously reactionary Taliban in favor of an "objectively progressive" government

But did I say I fucked supported the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Yes, you piece of shit, in the end, the proxy regime the U.S. would set up would be more progressive than the Muhajadeen it is fighting against. That is a fact. That doesn't mean being more progressive signifies support from Radicals, it just means what it means. The U.S. style of Imperialism isn't setting up progressive govt and modernizing country, it is go in, fuck things up, and leave it to rot to shit.


You're the one taking sides in the conflict, not me. I just don't have my head in my ass and won't ever dare consider support for the Muj.



which allowed (in theory) for the schools to reopen, women to become productive members of society, etc.?

The U.S. Backed Islamic republic of Afghanistan is a theocratic Shit hole which more or less is on the same level of being reactionary as the Muj.



What makes these two arguments fundamentally different? Here's an analogy that is based on the real world, not something requiring you to go across the Atlantic (or Pacific) Ocean to some alternate history USA. What makes the Soviet occupation "objectively progressive" and the American occupation not?

I didn't fucking say the Soviet Union's occupation was objectivly progressive, I said it was more progressive than the fucking Muj, there is a difference, you know, you fuck.




Feel free to accuse me of "moralizing" or whatever, your "Orthodox Marxism" remains a fraudulent internet eclecticism.

Orthodox Marxism is more structurally organized in Ideas than Hoxhaism, calling it eclecticism is absurdity. I am not the embodiment of Orthodox Marxism, by the way.

orthodox Marxism historically had more of a basis outside of the internet than Hoxhaism. Without Orthodox Marxism, Marxism Leninism would not exist, and Marxian thinking would be very much shit. Hoxhaism on the other hand, is very much so just an internet cult.




At least Barry Lyndon was consistent on this point: he argued that the USSR was a "workers' state" basically throughout its existence,

that's not consistency, that's just being a dumbass.


whereas you apparently recognize that the Soviet war in Afghanistan was an imperialist war.

yes, okay? I didn't ever say I supported the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, feel free to cite me evidence that I did.



Yet, as clear as day, you've come right out and admitted you side with imperialism in this case because of its "objectively progressive" quality.

Ismail the dumbass thinks more Progressive is the same as Objectivly Progressive in general. Hezbollah Islamist are more progressive than the Muj but both are fucking disgusting reactionary scum who are to be opposed.

Ismail is the one taking sides supporting the Muhajadeen, which is why he's accusing me of supporting the Soviet Union, to justify his own shitty reactionary position.




Actually this may not be true by the time another post or two comes from you, since you're already trying to mimic the official Soviet line that the Soviets were selflessly entering Afghanistan at the request of..

Your prediction is wrong. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?


. not the actual head of state (who was shot and replaced), and apparently (from your "military requested it" comment) not the government (which was dismissed and replaced as well) either.



That's not propaganda from me, it's an objective historical fact.

[Rafiq]

Well yeah, I actually adhere to an ideology and think consistency is important, I don't bounce from "I oppose both the Soviet occupation and the Mujahidin" to "the Soviets brought progress to Afghanistan against the reactionary Mujahidin"

Just becaue you're dumb ass can't comprehend my position doesn't mean I'm not consistant:

The Soviet Union was an imperialist force in Afghanistan which seeked to relieve the hunger of Capital. It was to be opposed.

Although, the Soviet Union was fighting against the Muj, which was an Imperialist proxy. This should tell us that both the Muj and the Soviets should be opposed as an Inter Imperialist war, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was more Progressive socially than the Muj.

That's my position in regards to Afghanistan. That doesn't mean I have my head up my ass, though. I understand that a lot of the content against the Soviet Union is mere propaganda, which doesn't really mean anything.

And I'm inconstant?

Scumbag Hoxhaists: Support Soviet Social Imperialism after Khruschev for "Scientific" reasons, claiming that having a more progressive strucutre doesn't signify the class character of a country (Which is, true, no doubt).


- Then they support Soviet Imperialist ventures before 1953. Why? "Because worker's had more control and things were more progressive"



to "the Soviets were called in by (insert unrepresentative group or institution) to assist the Afghan (insert entity here since 'people' is a word you seem to despise, probably owing to your own anti-social views) against the Mujahidin."

Literally, this doesn't mean anything. Ismail claims I have anti social views because I oppose the usage of the word "The People" as populist reactionary rhetoric. He then claims that he is a Marxist.


Just like you talk about how much you "oppose" the DPRK, while still being an apologist for the adoption of Juche because "oh, well, Kim Il Sung had to do it in accordance with the material conditions against outdated(!) Stalinism."

Ismail knows that before, I clearly said that the class character of all Stalinist countries was the same as the Bourgoeis Western countries, so it was better for the DPRK regime to retain it's class power by doing away with old Stalinism. Yet, he continues to say it is a contradiction that I point this out at the same time while I oppose the DPRK. Little does he know that, in reality, I oppose the Bourgoeisie of all shades.




Now you're "opposing" the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan while using the same arguments as the USSR itself used to justify the occupation.

A lot of them weren't false. That's a fact.


This stems from the fact that you don't use any class analysis, but instead use an essentially geo-political one where there's just "good" against "bad," despite your attempts to deny this and create a "scientific" veneer as transparent as Juche itself.


Actually, you mother fucker, I opposed the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. That doesn't change the fact taht the Muj were Feudalist Landowners while the Soviet Union were Bourgeois. The Bourgeoisie, according to Marx, are more progressive than the remnants of Feudalism. But in modern times, both are to be opposed, as we must analyze the outcome: the enslavement of the proletariat (Unless Afghanistan never sees a Proletariat).




As an aside, I forgot to reply to this:
Good. The last thing Marxism needs is an excuse for another Žižek, Sartre or Althusser. Considering that there's no such thing as "Hoxhaism" to begin with and that it literally just means Marxism-Leninism (or "Stalinism" if you prefer), that's doubly good.


They're still better than Hoxha. Hoxha was an idiot.

Marxism is a Scientists, and those (Besides Sartre) contributed ot the development of this science. Hoxha on the other hand sat on his ass and complained about Tito.


"Marxism-Leninism is not a monopoly of a privileged few who 'have the brains' to understand it. It is the scientific ideology of the working class and the working masses, and only when its ideas are grasped by the broad working masses does it cease to be something abstract and is turned into a great material force for the revolutionary transformation of the world."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 179-180.)


Because the working classes of modern times are more influenced by Hoxha than the individuals you mentioned :rolleyes:


"Knowledge, all the beautified academic advice is of no value, is just a worthless ornament without practice, without its complete and organized implementation in practice. 'The portentous advice and methods' of the conceited intellectual who is divorced from life, from practice, are sterile; they produce nothing, neither bread nor boots, nor butter, neither meat nor houses. Such an intellectual displays nothing but his unhealthy intellectualism, the great deficiency above all in his ideological formation with our Marxist-Leninist world outlook, as a result of which he does not know why he works and whom he should serve."
(Ibid. p. 544.)


Because Hoxha said it, it must be true.

He's wrong. Knowledge is of great value. Because class struggle is something that sprouts about organically from the Proletariat, not from marxist leninists running around with Kalashnikovs screaming at people.

You're not a Marxist after all, you're just a Utopian Socialist who calls himself a Marxist because Hoxha did.

[Rafiq]

What this thread has shown us? Ismail must constantly make up things about his opponents in order to actually formulate an argument.

Ismail, finds it necessary to censor parts of a paragraph I would make and respond to the rest. Why? Perhaps because if he were to respond to all of my post without tampering with it, his argument shatters to pieces in the eyes of everyone watching this thread.

[gorillafuck]

Ismail and Rafiq must be breaking some records with post length here.

[Rafiq]

Ismail and Rafiq must be breaking some records with post length here.

You obviously haven't been around to see my debate with the user: The Insurrection. Boy that one was long. But, it was none the less of good quality, i.e. he didn't just make up shit about me and pull things out of his ass.

But, I think Rosa's posts break records.

Also, Ismail's posts aren't as big as mine because he ignores half of my post

[KlassWar]

This is not a marxist view,as a single man can't 'hold the country in shape'



That's only halfway true: Historically, there have been plenty leaders who've gotten so good at the factional game that they can keep the different ethnic gangs in a semi-stable equilibrium.

When those leaders die, these backroom deals and power sharing agreements often fall apart and things go FUBAR.

[Ismail]

The Middle East and Palestine aren't irrelevant, they're of main interest to United States and Imperialist foreign policy in modern times. Albania could never be compared in the same way.Well that's relative, isn't it? After all, Albania was the first East European state to endure a coup attempt by both British and American forces. Various diplomatic measures were also undertaken to exert pressure in the 1944-1946 period. Albania was seen as a "weak link" in the "Iron Curtain" at the time.


Would you support Fascists if they were fighting against Imperialism? Which side would you consider more progressive? Communists oppose both. But which one is more socially progressive in regards to views on Women, minorities, etc. ?I would support anti-imperialism, so would any consistent Marxist. If fascists somehow maneuvered to become the leading anti-imperialist force in the eyes of the people then that's of concern for leftists fighting against imperialism. The people who have to endure imperialist occupation while being told "sorry, please wave the glorious banner of Marx and Engels" or whatever will have no reason whatsoever to support a communist movement that is unwilling to oppose imperialism.


Communism is irrelevant in both Tunisia and Portugal. When you say "Largest CP", that could have anywhere from two to 100 members in those countries. Nice try, shit head.Communism in irrelevant in Portugal? Really? Great grasp of history. That's why reactionaries felt that the "Carnation Revolution" was some sort of radical communist seizure of power (or leading up to it) in 1974. That's why the Communists were the leading force in opposition to Salazar's fascistic government.

Also the PCOT was, excepting the Islamists, the best known clandestine opposition to the Ben Ali regime.


Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thought. It's not, in any way shape or form, an ideological vanguard for a mass movement. It's not comparable to hoxhaism, trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Even though none of those would exist without Orthodox Marxism.So basically I can point out notable pro-Albania parties, and you can't point out any "Orthodox Marxist" parties (or organizations in general, apparently) because they don't exist outside the internet.

Don't throw stones inside glass houses, and all that.


If Hoxha "Normalized" relations with the U.S., it would make little to no difference. It still didn't have an option, it was never a large player in world politics, despite your obscure fantasies of Hoxha's Albania ever being relevant.Why quotations around "normalized"? The USA broke off all diplomatic relations with Albania in 1946. Do you just put quotation marks around words for no reason?

For what it's worth, Albania was named by the West as the "worst offender" in terms of assisting the Greek Communists, as noted by Stavro Skendi.


What's your point, exactly? That they had the option to put an embassy in the USSR and the United States? How noble of them.My point is that Albania would not collaborate with US imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism, even though both were willing to roll out the red carpet for it if it gave up its struggle.


The regime was only unpopular on the Rural, isolated side of Afghanistan in which the population was largely illiterate and uneducated. The Landowners took advantage of this and as a result... We know the story.Really? What about protests that occurred in the cities and all the "Maoists" (real or just anti-Soviet persons with the label attached) who were arrested as a result of them? Do you have any sources on the supposed popularity of the puppet regime in urban areas? Obviously one can expect less open resistance since, you know, the first place said regime and the Soviet occupiers would make secure as possible would be those areas.


Again, the sky is blue, who cares?Sorry for trying to analyze the situation in Afghanistan for you.


Actually, shit head, this was probably the most significant factor, all others merely being a chain of events in response.Really? Sure, militarily US, Pakistani and Chinese aid helped out a great deal. That doesn't alter the character of the conflict or the fact that, with aid or no aid, the Mujahidin would still come out being seen as the "liberators" of Afghanistan.


What kind of Populist bullshit is this? That still isn't viable justification for supporting the Muj ("Afghan people" in bullshit terms).What other force was fighting the imperialists besides the "Muj" and the few left-wing forces that were able to not be arrested by the puppet regime and the Soviets, and who in any case are denounced as "Islamic asslickers" by you anyway?


The Vietcong can't be compared to the fucking Muhajadeen, I'm sorry.Who cares what you think can't be compare to what? Anti-imperialism isn't about picking and choosing, it's about opposing imperialism.


Many Maoists claim it was.Name one. That's a complete misuse of the term.


Okay, even if it was not in Hoxhaist terms, can you name me a couple successful National Liberation wars (that INCLUDED class collaboration) that didn't end up with the oppressing class in power?This is where your "Orthodox Marxism" comes in to try and "own" me. If I say Albania, of course, you'll just say "oh no, the evil Stalinist bourgeoisie bla bla bla," and if I say any other country you'll note that, amazingly enough, national bourgeoisie came to power against the comprador bourgeoisie and its imperialist (or colonialist) backers! Wow, just like Stalin, Hoxha, and others said it would! Yes, that's the point in national liberation wars where the communists aren't at the head.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of contradictions. That's why you don't understand (or rather refuse to understand) what anti-imperialism actually means and why it's undertaken. The point is to get rid of the external imperialist aggressor so that the the native bourgeoisie can be fought against.


Actually, it's just Imperialism, because we Scientific Marxists understand the terms in a strict materialist matter, and recognize a country is Imperialist regardless if it prefers to drape itself in a red banner.Well you "scientific Marxists" should be smart enough, then, to know that Hoxha wasn't arguing that the USSR had some sort of "new" imperialism, just that it draped it in the color red, just like the social-patriots Lenin denounced were no different in practice from the "patriots" who backed imperialist war for "glory," the only difference was that the social-patriots (SPD, most notably) used inane arguments to "show" that a defeat in WWI would somehow be a defeat for the working-class.


Hoxha wanted the "Afghan People" (The Muj) to be victorious over the Soviet Union. He got what he wanted. He predicted that this would pave way for real class struggle in Afghanistan and real grounds for "real communists" (Hoxhaists which don't exist) to gain the support of hte population and take over the country. You tell me, was he right? Is Afghanistan a better place without the Soviet "puppet regime"? A real Marxian such as myself would oppose both sides in the conflict, seeing that both the rule of the PDPA and modern day Afghanistan are pretty shitty. But since Hoxhaists chose to side with the Muj, they have to be consistent and identify with the result.The end result was the defeat of the Soviet social-imperialist aggressors. That was a victory. Of course American imperialism, along with Pakistan, produced the rise of the Taliban (as is known they tended to back the most reactionary forces amongst the Mujahidin, while Pakistan supported the Taliban regime) which demonstrated the need for continued anti-imperialism through leftist forces which, of course, did not exist.


These are not comparable scenarios. Like I said, the Albanian PPSH cannot be compared to the Muhajadin, but the Muj can definitely be compared to several Fascist currents. The PPSH were more Progressive than the Italian Fascists, yet the Muj was extremely reactionary in comparison to the Soviet Union. That's the difference.Yet we don't base anti-imperialism on abstract notions of who is more "progressive" or not, especially when the only argument you can make is that the Soviets built roads whereas the Mujahidin liked Islam a lot.


Okay, more Bourgeois academic works. I can cite you 100 books that are "Academic" that assert Stalin killed 30 million people. This isn't a viable source, though.100 "academic" books on what subject? Bill McGee's Overview of 2000 Years of History? The History of Romania With Some 2 Pages on How Stalin Sucked? The books I mentioned are specifically about Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation. You haven't given one single source (bourgeois or Soviet-apologist) for anything thus far.

The fact that you take such an approach shows how not only are you not "scientific" in the least, but that you can't even discern how to use sources.


And what was end result? A shit hole. A bigger shit hole than the "revisionist" countries. As a matter of fact, revisionist countries on average did much better than Albania.And the USA and Western Europe did better than all of them if we're gonna discuss living standards and access to common goods. What's your point? Are you going to praise Deng Xiaoping and his calls to "liberate the productive forces" so that China would (on paper) have a gloriously advanced economy and flourishing domestic trade? Are you going to underrate the point of actually struggling for socialism in favor of abstract notions of being "better"?


A situation emerges between Liberalist Imperialists and Fascist resistance that has support of the majority of the population. What's your answer?Oppose imperialism, of course. Again, not the fault of the people that the fascists would come in and take advantage of a situation with no sizable leftist elements.


Okay? I don't care if the majority of Afghans didn't identify with it.Of course not, you are an apologist of "progressive" imperialism. The Afghan people oppose American imperialism? Well too bad, guys, Uncle Sam > actual people of the country. Ditto with Iraq, I guess.


Also, from experience, it doesn't look like the majority of Albanians identified with their state. The mass immigration from Albania immidetly after the collapse could be a sign.Well yeah, or it could be a sign of the economy completely collapsing in the 1991-1992 period as well. I'm fairly sure it's the latter, considering that in America tons of Albanians worked to get materials and funds to the KLA and other "patriotic" activities.


And foreign imperialism external from the Soviet Union had nothing to do with this. You seem to be under the impression that the Soviet Union was the only power that had interests in Afghanistan...What's your point? Of course the USA and China had interest in Afghanistan. The Americans wanted it to be the "Soviet Vietnam," and the Soviet leadership was dumb enough to confirm that in practice in more ways than one.


I love how you think Orthodox Marxism is some kind of Ideology or collective group of individuals who have the same opinion about everything. It's quite pathetic.I must admit I was a bit scared that all the "Orthodox Marxists" on earth were mentally ill lonely persons like yourself. Then I realized "Orthodox Marxism" is whatever you want it to mean.


Want me to quote some Marx and Engels that were supporting British Imperialism in India?No thanks, I've had many reactionaries bring those quotes up time and time again to show how "racist" Marx and Engels were. Of course the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred in the second-to-last decade of the 20th century, not the 17th to 19th centuries when capitalism still had a progressive role in the world.

Of course some "Marxists" use Marx and Engels' quotes to defend the American invasion of Afghanistan as well.


But as a women, as a religious minority, who'd you rather live under?There was a collection of female "Islamic asslickers" who opposed the Soviet invasion in the 80's, and were quite left-wing to boot. You might have heard of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Association_of_the_Women_of_Afghanis tan) if you actually studied Afghan history.


Oh fucking god, did you actually think it was supposed to be a deep fucking story?No, it's just irrelevant to the question of national liberation. The South is not a nation.


In your opinion, do you support Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad or Osama against U.S. Imperialism?The task of overthrowing them belonged to the working-class, not imperialism.


Something I pulled out of my ass, but the analogy brings up a great point. Would you support Fascists in the name of Anti Imperialism? Would you deem them as more progressive than the Liberalist-Bourgeois U.S.?Objectively anti-imperialism is, in fact, progressive against imperialism (at least ever since imperialism, in its modern form noted by Lenin, came into existed.) The great thing is that you yourself are in a bind as a result of this fantasy scenario, because there's no real argument here that the "liberalist-bourgeois" USA would actually be "progressive" in any meaningful sense. You don't have the advantage of Afghanistan being underdeveloped and largely feudal and tribal in this instance.

But just to reply to this fantasy scenario: since there's no question of national oppression (and thus no question of national liberation), the communists must organize against both reactionary political forces.


No, it just so happens that it's impossible to reach any sort of Victory in Afghanistan with such terrain, etc. when dealing with Geurrila warfare. Even if they had 20 million soldiers with them they wouldn't make a difference.Sorta like Vietnam?


And, I don't think there is much evidence to back up the claim that the Soviets massacred Peasants for no fucking reason, but oh well.Much like apologists for the Vietnam War would argue that "oh, well, American officers and troops had reasons" for various massacres as well.

Yet there were atrocities in Afghanistan perpetuated by the Soviets. The Soviets destroyed many villages and killed countless civilians because the Mujahidin was basically seen as the resistance of the Afghan countryside itself.


But the Vietcong was socially progressive and the Muj were fucking disgusting Imperialist dogs. Don't you know the Muj was just a puppet of U.S.-Chinese interests in the region? Pakistani and Saudi dogs were merely part of the pack. It was an inter imperialist war. Feel free to support one end of the Imperialist spectrum of Capital.Using this logic the Vietnam were just "stooges" of the North Vietnamese government (actually that isn't really inaccurate), who were in turn part of Soviet and Chinese interests in the region.

The actual attitude of Vietnamese workers and peasants isn't put into the equation by you, though, it's just abstract "progressive" forces versus "reactionary" or "disgusting" forces. Because the Vietcong and DRV weren't fundamentalist Muslims, they earn your stamp of reluctant approval. Because the Mujahidin considered themselves fighting for a "holy war," and because the US and Chinese backed them, they become evil even if the overwhelming amount of the population of Afghanistan supported them.


Seems more progressive than massacring entire villages + bringing the country back 500 years back in time. The Soviet Soldiers fucked a lot of shit up in Hungary, but at least, in the end, it was better than what it was under Fascism. Why do you pick and choose? You'll deny Soviet Crimes in Hungary but assert they were made in Afghanistan. Why? Where in "Revisionist" doctrine does it say kill a bunch of fucking people for no reason"?There was no question of national liberation in Hungary. And no, we don't deny the crimes of Khrushchev and others in Hungary, who liquidated the party there in favor of a complacent replacement and who were to blame in the first place for allowing fascist and counter-revolutionary forces to emerge. Hoxha notes this in The Khrushchevites.


Lenin didn't ever make such a point. You can't have a proletarian basis when the majority of your makeup is from Students and Peasants. Sorry.Even when you have the support of proletarians? Really?


Who the fuck are you arguing with? Of course it was a puppet state. The question is, who is worse, the Muj or the puppet state? Both are to be opposed. You seem to concur with Hoxha in supporting the Muj against them.Again, Hoxha did not support the Mujahidin. He supported the Afghan people against the Soviet occupation. Just because you're anti-social and have no concept of "people" doesn't mean anyone else has to follow your idiosyncrasies. If I say "I support the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation" that doesn't mean "may the Zionist pig-dogs be defeated by Hamas inshallah," it means that the primary task for the Palestinian people (obviously referring first and foremost to workers and peasants) is to achieve national self-determination as a precondition for the struggle for socialism.


No, but that's different from the Soviets just invading the country for no reason. Surly a full blown puppet government wouldn't even need to call in Assistance, the Soviets would just come regardless.Actually a puppet government would ask for assistance. The point of these governments is to bring legitimacy to the occupier. Both Italy and puppet Albania declared war on Greece. Nazi-occupied Albania praised Hitler for "liberating" Albania from the Italian occupiers and signed various things "regulating" the conduct of German troops in the country.

The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan for no reason. Hoxha noted that it had plenty: Amin was slowly moving out of the Soviet sphere of influence, Pakistan was a loyal American ally, Khomeini's Iran was influencing various Islamic movements (including in Afghanistan), and the Soviets wanted to maintain a pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan in the face of all these things.


It is common sense. Do you deny the Muhajadeen were growing under Amin? Do you deny many in the Afghan government thought Amin was fucking crazy as hell and wanted him deposed?Amin (and Taraki) belonged to the "radical" wing of the pro-Soviet Afghan revisionists, the Khalq. Amin apparently compared himself to Stalin and irritated the Soviets by being too "radical" in his plans for social reform. The issue here is that Amin presided over an unpopular government that did not enjoy the backing of the Afghan people. It did not matter if Taraki and Amin of the Khalq led the country, or if Karmal and Najibullah led it. The state itself was not trusted and that distrust was turned into outright despising as a result of the Soviet invasion, when it was turned into an outright puppet state.

The fact that Amin was purging some rivals does not in any way give the Soviets the authority to invade Afghanistan and immediately proceed to kill its head of state, no. As Hoxha wrote in his diary on December 21, 1979:

"The fact is that through their military intervention, the Soviets killed the first [Taraki, i.e. the Soviets didn't outwardly mind when he was couped] and second [Amin] and brought the next, the third [Karmal], from Czechoslovakia, where he was ambassador, and installed him as head of state.

It is rumored that the Soviets have intervened in Afghanistan with two or three divisions of tanks and aircraft in the same way that they intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968... saying that they have intervened on the basis of the Treaty of Collaboration and Friendship they have signed with Afghanistan."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. pp. 522-523.)



Those sources didn't say anything about the Bolsheviks supporting Class collaboration in Albania. Like I said, Albania didn't even have a communist party in the early 20's, so your source is not to be taken seriously.Nicholas C. Pano is a recognized authority on Albanian history. Even stern anti-communists like Nikolaos A. Stavrou have noted that the Comintern instructed the communist to work with democratic forces.

So tell me, what happened in Albania in 1924 then if not communists collaborating with the Albanian Government? This same government which promptly sought diplomatic recognition from the USSR and which was openly backed by the Comintern


Not progressive, but more progressive than the Muj. The Muj was an Imperialist proxy. One Imperialist power can be more progressive than the other, that doesn't mean their over all character is progressive.The Mujahidin commanded popular support because it was the strongest force fighting the Soviets. An imperialist proxy would be something like RENAMO in Mozambique which was dependent on South Africa for aid and which had relatively little support.


I wasn't denying it, I just was curious. And you haven't provided a source, and it wasn't common sense, so I'd take it your just talking out of your ass.What's the point in providing sources if you'll either call them "bullshit" (because they're Marxist-Leninist) or bring up "some people say Stalin killed 30 million people so this totally unrelated person is talking about Afghanistan and is a capitalist so he's unreliable"?


Boo hoo let's get all emotional. Shut the fuck up.Rafiq here is saying "fuck you" to millions of Afghans and trying to keep up his façade of internet manliness. Still a joke. Reminds me of those fascist "national bolshevik" types who praise the DPRK to the sky. Ideology becomes secondary to attacking "liberalism."


Look deep into yourself, you pile of shit. Do you really think that the Soviet soldiers would systemically shoot little girls for "protesting"?So tell me how open protests against the Soviet occupation fared in the cities.


Except it was the U.S. who created that shit storm, who created the Muj, and, in the end, do nothing progressive for Afghanistan.Really? I kinda thought the Mujahidin (you know, the original organizations) had origins going back to the late 60's and early 70's. Then of course some factions appeared after the rise of Khomeini in Iran.

The Mujahidin existed and were a serious problem for the Afghan government before the Soviet invasion and before the US (which had given arms to them shortly before said invasion to incite the Soviets) armed them.


You want to lecture me on Class struggle yet you claim no classes existed in Afghanistan and that it was just "The people" verse "Soviet Union".You're the one making no class analysis.

Yes, it was the people. The workers, the peasants, the landlords, the clergy, the vast majority of every single social and economic force in the country was anti-Soviet and anti-government, in that order.


Orthodox Marxism is more structurally organized in Ideas than Hoxhaism,What is "Hoxhaism" anyway? There's an internet term if I ever heard one.

Also you could write the most eloquent text ever made in size 7000 front and I'll just skip right over that. If you're so angry you need to express it in such a way, then it's time to go to bed.


Although, the Soviet Union was fighting against the Muj, which was an Imperialist proxy. This should tell us that both the Muj and the Soviets should be opposed as an Inter Imperialist war, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was more Progressive socially than the Muj.How was it an inter-imperialist war? Did millions of Afghans secretly sign up in the US Marines or something?


Marxism is a Scientists, and those (Besides Sartre) contributed ot the development of this science. Hoxha on the other hand sat on his ass and complained about Tito.Yeah, while Žižek calls the London rioters "savages," Hoxha noted the capitalist and chauvinist nature of Yugoslavia. While Hoxha led a party and a country, Žižek is a worthless academic who just about every leftist (I've seen the strongest critiques concerning him come from Trots) agrees basically only exists to entrap otherwise good-willed leftists and for reactionaries to buttress their "proof" that Marxism is some sort of elitist academic enterprise.

Name one thing Žižek contributed to anything except somehow involving Lady GaGa in his... stuff.


Because the working classes of modern times are more influenced by Hoxha than the individuals you mentionedConsidering that a number of notable parties were pro-Albania (unless you'd like to state that the PCdoB and PCMLE were/are somehow tiny), I'd say yes.


Because class struggle is something that sprouts about organically from the Proletariat, not from marxist leninists running around with Kalashnikovs screaming at people.... except when Soviet soldiers do it in Afghanistan, in which case it's "objectively progressive."

Believe it or not, opposing imperialism does play a part in raising the consciousness of workers and peasants.

You still haven't demonstrated how your defense of the Soviet occupation is qualitatively different from the defense of the American occupation. Apparently all the USA needs to do is have the present leaders of the country exchange traditional garb for suits and talk about getting rid of feudalism and it'll be "objectively progressive."

[Grenzer]

So basically I can point out notable pro-Albania parties, and you can't point out any "Orthodox Marxist" parties (or organizations in general, apparently) because they don't exist outside the internet.


Just felt like I needed to chip in here again.

There is actually such a party. It's the Communist Party of Great Britain, and it does seem to have a sizable membership(at least what passes as such among communist parties these days. They don't have an official ideology, but the "Orthodox Marxist" current is the most dominant. They have released a number of theoretical works and spoken extensively on the topic, so I think it's a bit unfair to say that it doesn't exist outside the internet. It's not like Rafiq and DNZ got together one day on IM and made this shit up. What prompted the resurrection of the Erfurtian style Marxism was the publication of Lar T. Lih's Lenin Rediscovered, which goes on exhaustively about the Lenin-Kautsky link.

Outside the CPGB, I'm not sure if there is anything. It could become the next big thing that causes the bourgeoisie to shit their pants at the mention of the word 'communism' or it could just fizzle out and die as an unknown school of thought. I'm not a fortune teller, so fuck if I know.

[Roach]

Just a small comment to Ismail's post, fascism has never lead a full anti-imperialist movement, since by its own nature it is expansionist, nationalist and overall imperialist. In the few occasions in which movements that could be considered due to extreme right-wing nationalist views, but not necessarily were fascists, such as the Chetniks and Balli Kombetar, were in fact in a position to fight imperialism, they have always chosen to collaborate with imperialism in some way, such as for example, to hunt down communists.

This anti-imperialist fascists situation is pretty much an incoherent and implausible scenario

[Ismail]

Just a small comment to Ismail's post, fascism has never lead a full anti-imperialist movement, since by its own nature it is expansionist, nationalist and overall imperialist. In the few occasions in which movements that could be considered due to extreme right-wing nationalist views, but not necessarily were fascists, such as the Chetniks and Balli Kombetar, were in fact in a position to fight imperialism, they have always chosen to collaborate with imperialism in some way, such as for example, to hunt down communists.

This anti-imperialist fascists situation is pretty much an incoherent and implausible scenarioYes, I know, it's just indicative of Rafiq's fondness for fantasy worlds.


There is actually such a party. It's the Communist Party of Great Britain,Ex-Brezhnevites and "New Left" types turned academic Marxists. I don't think Rafiq even identifies with Lars Lih.

[Grenzer]

Ex-Brezhnevites and "New Left" types turned academic Marxists. I don't think Rafiq even identifies with Lars Lih.

What do you mean by ex-Brezhnevites, I thought they were formerly a Trotskyist group more or less?

By academic Marxists, I assume you mean similar to the people of the Frankfurt School, who were utterly divorced from class struggle.

[Ismail]

What do you mean by ex-Brezhnevites, I thought they were formerly a Trotskyist group more or less?The CPGB was the "official" Soviet-backed party in the UK.

[Grenzer]

I think the more important thing to be considering is what the positions(in terms of their place within the party hierarchy, not ideological positions) of the current leadership were 21 years ago. I don't know the answer to that question.

[Rafiq]

Well that's relative, isn't it? After all, Albania was the first East European state to endure a coup attempt by both British and American forces. Various diplomatic measures were also undertaken to exert pressure in the 1944-1946 period. Albania was seen as a "weak link" in the "Iron Curtain" at the time.

If the United States or anyone else had an interest in Albania that could be comparable to that of the Middle East, I don't think their best means of doing so would be to drop off some weapons to fake opposition members and then piss off forever.


I would support anti-imperialism, so would any consistent Marxist. If fascists somehow maneuvered to become the leading anti-imperialist force in the eyes of the people then that's of concern for leftists fighting against imperialism. The people who have to endure imperialist occupation while being told "sorry, please wave the glorious banner of Marx and Engels" or whatever will have no reason whatsoever to support a communist movement that is unwilling to oppose imperialism.


Oh, and what's your excuse for the Invasion of Finland or Poland again? To "Stop the Fascists?". As if that isn't an Imperialist act.

Now Ismail, if I were as low as you are, I would start calling you an apologist for Fascism. But, I don't see me as the member here who is desperately failing so, you know, I'm in a position to actually address your posts without making shit up. Perhaps you could learn from that.


Communism in irrelevant in Portugal? Really? Great grasp of history. That's why reactionaries felt that the "Carnation Revolution" was some sort of radical communist seizure of power (or leading up to it) in 1974. That's why the Communists were the leading force in opposition to Salazar's fascistic government.


Communism is quite irrelevant in Portugal, actually. Hoxhaists, even more.


Also the PCOT was, excepting the Islamists, the best known clandestine opposition to the Ben Ali regime.


So basically there were Two million structurally opposed to the Ben Ali regime, 1,999,995 Islamists and five Hoxhaists. :laugh:



So basically I can point out notable pro-Albania parties, and you can't point out any "Orthodox Marxist" parties (or organizations in general, apparently) because they don't exist outside the internet.


Just off the top of my head the CPGB. Anyway, I said that there can't exist Orthodox Marxist "Parties" as Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thinking. Most parties before Eurocommunism and new Left were heavily influenced by Orthodox Marxian thinking, most noticeably none other than the Bolshevik party.

Without Orthodox Marxism, Hoxhaism would have never existed in the same way...

I'm not familiar with many Orthodox Marxist tendencies on the Internet, actually. All of the Hoxhaist parties you mentioned are tiny and irrelevant. The fact that five internet nerds decided to form a party in real life doesn't say anything.

Don't throw stones inside glass houses, and all that.


Why quotations around "normalized"? The USA broke off all diplomatic relations with Albania in 1946. Do you just put quotation marks around words for no reason?


Because "Normalizing" relations basically means the U.S. and Albania get an embassy in each of their countries. The U.S. had no particular interest in Albania at all. Think I'm lying? Look at Albania today. The U.S. hasn't even payed attention to it. Surly Hoxha would represent the last vestiges of defense against Imperialism and if his structure were to fall, the U.S. would for fill their interests in Albania, no? That's not what happened. No one gave a shit.


For what it's worth, Albania was named by the West as the "worst offender" in terms of assisting the Greek Communists, as noted by Stavro Skendi.


Yet no one gave a shit about Albania.


My point is that Albania would not collaborate with US imperialism or Soviet social-imperialism, even though both were willing to roll out the red carpet for it if it gave up its struggle.


Albania had nothing to gain from either the United States or the Soviet Union. If it did, it would have normalized relations with them just like all the other socialist states. The United States and Soviet Union would just leave Albania to rot to shit, regardless if Hoxha "Normalized" relations with them. You seem to be under the impression the U.S. government actually gave a fuck about Albania.


Really? What about protests that occurred in the cities and all the "Maoists" (real or just anti-Soviet persons with the label attached) who were arrested as a result of them? Do you have any sources on the supposed popularity of the puppet regime in urban areas? Obviously one can expect less open resistance since, you know, the first place said regime and the Soviet occupiers would make secure as possible would be those areas.


The Maoists were largely marginalized in the Urban areas, but I think it shows a lot when you didn't have Muj in places other than Rural, uneducated places. Maoists were, no doubt, educated.


The PDPA was a Marxist oriented party whose following was largely limited to an educated minority in the urban areas. Because this group's perceptions and values were at variance with those of the vast majority of conservative, rural Afghans, it enjoyed a minimum of popular support. The party was further weakened by bitter and sometimes violent internal rivalries. Two years after its founding in January 1965, the PDPA split into two factions that in terms of membership and ideology operated essentially as separate parties: the radical Khalq (Masses) faction, led by Taraki, and the more moderate Parcham (Banner) faction, headed by Karmal. Khalq's adherents were primarily Pashtuns recruited from the nonelite classes. Parcharn's adherents included other ethnic groups and tended to come from the Westernized upper classes. At the urging of foreign communist parties and probably the Soviet Union, the two factions agreed in 1977 to reunite as a single PDPA. But once the party was in power, Khalqis, having a strong following in the military, initiated a purge of Parchamis. Following an alleged Parchami plot in the summer of 1978, many Parchamis were thrown in prison and tortured. Parchami leaders, such as Karmal, were sent abroad as ambassadors in mid 1978, and they remained in exile in Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union rather than return to Afghanistan and face certain death.


This was like the first result on google. It's very well known and it's common sense.


Sorry for trying to analyze the situation in Afghanistan for you.


You're arguing with a ghost. Obviously Leftist sediment wouldn't exist in Afghanistan after the Invasion. I didn't ever say otherwise.


Really? Sure, militarily US, Pakistani and Chinese aid helped out a great deal. That doesn't alter the character of the conflict or the fact that, with aid or no aid, the Mujahidin would still come out being seen as the "liberators" of Afghanistan.


That's a lie. You underestimate the Imperialist-Propaganda machine that is wielded by the United States, and China. The Muj, arguably, would not have won the War if not forces from Pakistan and weapons from U.S. and China came to their aid.


What other force was fighting the imperialists besides the "Muj" and the few left-wing forces that were able to not be arrested by the puppet regime and the Soviets, and who in any case are denounced as "Islamic asslickers" by you anyway?


Collaboration with Islamists automatically makes you their asslicker. Even the PFLP had to adopt several reactionary positions (Like the Roman salute) to adjust to the Islamist scum.


Who cares what you think can't be compare to what? Anti-imperialism isn't about picking and choosing, it's about opposing imperialism.


Ismail, you'd sacrifice class struggle and the proletariat in favor of Anti Imperialism. Marxists understand you cannot be totally consistent when it comes to class struggle. For example, we oppose death penalty enacted by the Bourgeois class but support it after the Revolution to deal with the reaction.


Name one. That's a complete misuse of the term.


Some users here like a year ago. There was quite a shit storm about it. December, I think it was.


This is where your "Orthodox Marxism" comes in to try and "own" me. If I say Albania, of course, you'll just say "oh no, the evil Stalinist bourgeoisie bla bla bla,"

Class Collaboration wasn't an occurance in Albania's National Liberation war, and yes, the end result was the complete restoration of Capitalism, the enslavement of the proletariat (After the 90's).


and if I say any other country you'll note that, amazingly enough, national bourgeoisie came to power against the comprador bourgeoisie and its imperialist (or colonialist) backers!

Because it's true..


Wow, just like Stalin, Hoxha, and others said it would! Yes, that's the point in national liberation wars where the communists aren't at the head.


And, name me a National Liberation war, where, at the end result, with the national bourgeoisie in power, a strong communist movement grew and fought against the national bourgeoisie? That was the prediction by Hoxha, that, in Afghanistan, should the Muj win, this would pave way for a real Leftist movement. Indeed, none of the "Real" leftist movements (Hoxhaist, Maoists) would not have existed without a strong Leftist Status quo already in power. And, surly, after the destruction of the puppet state there were no Leftists in Afghanistan.


You have a fundamental misunderstanding of contradictions. That's why you don't understand (or rather refuse to understand) what anti-imperialism actually means and why it's undertaken. The point is to get rid of the external imperialist aggressor so that the the native bourgeoisie can be fought against.


Which usually ends up with a very strong Native Bourgeoisie and no class struggle. If you want me to name examples I can.


Well you "scientific Marxists" should be smart enough, then, to know that Hoxha wasn't arguing that the USSR had some sort of "new" imperialism, just that it draped it in the color red, just like the social-patriots Lenin denounced were no different in practice from the "patriots" who backed imperialist war for "glory,"

Lenin didn't say they were no different, he merely called them out on their reactionary position. That's different from a country whose within the realm of the capitalist mode of production adhering to Imperialism.


the only difference was that the social-patriots (SPD, most notably) used inane arguments to "show" that a defeat in WWI would somehow be a defeat for the working-class.


A defeat of the Muj would be a defeat for the working class (Hoxha)?


The end result was the defeat of the Soviet social-imperialist aggressors. That was a victory.

Victory for ethnic, religious minorities and women? Or victory for a class? Yes, that's right, it was a victory for the Landowners.


Of course American imperialism, along with Pakistan, produced the rise of the Taliban (as is known they tended to back the most reactionary forces amongst the Mujahidin, while Pakistan supported the Taliban regime) which demonstrated the need for continued anti-imperialism through leftist forces which, of course, did not exist.


Didn't dear leader tell us that Leftists would exist after the defeat of the USSR?

The Taliban is the Same as the Muj that were fighting the Soviets. Even the Northern Alliance were just as reactionary. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, too, reactionary scum.


Yet we don't base anti-imperialism on abstract notions of who is more "progressive" or not, especially when the only argument you can make is that the Soviets built roads whereas the Mujahidin liked Islam a lot.


It's about class. What was the class background of the Muj and the Soviets? Feudalist landlords and the Bourgeois class.


100 "academic" books on what subject? Bill McGee's Overview of 2000 Years of History? The History of Romania With Some 2 Pages on How Stalin Sucked? The books I mentioned are specifically about Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation. You haven't given one single source (bourgeois or Soviet-apologist) for anything thus far.


http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400042305

If I source that book is that okay? It specifically dealt with the Soviet state under Stalin..

Most of what I am saying is common sense, but I did link something.


The fact that you take such an approach shows how not only are you not "scientific" in the least, but that you can't even discern how to use sources.


I don't use sources because you'll denounce them for whatever reason. Just like I denounce yours for having a tad bit of bias, you know.


And the USA and Western Europe did better than all of them if we're gonna discuss living standards and access to common goods. What's your point? Are you going to praise Deng Xiaoping and his calls to "liberate the productive forces" so that China would (on paper) have a gloriously advanced economy and flourishing domestic trade? Are you going to underrate the point of actually struggling for socialism in favor of abstract notions of being "better"?


I just find it Ironic that Hoxha stressed strict anti revisionism, and according to him this is what divided him with the "Revisionist" nations. When in fact, the Revisionists did much better economically. They were all Bourgeois states, in the end, like the U.S. and Western Europe. Deng Xiaoping's reforms only changed the structure of the ruling bourgeois class's mode of rule, that's all.


Oppose imperialism, of course. Again, not the fault of the people that the fascists would come in and take advantage of a situation with no sizable leftist elements.


You'd support Fascists, then.


Of course not, you are an apologist of "progressive" imperialism. The Afghan people oppose American imperialism? Well too bad, guys, Uncle Sam > actual people of the country. Ditto with Iraq, I guess.


This is a fine example of Ismail's techniques of only quoting segments of a sentance so he could formulate some kind of argument. It's worthy of taking note that, Ismail, most members who read this thread actually read my posts saying it wasn't progressive, but oh well.



Well yeah, or it could be a sign of the economy completely collapsing in the 1991-1992 period as well. I'm fairly sure it's the latter, considering that in America tons of Albanians worked to get materials and funds to the KLA and other "patriotic" activities.


And the elderly who tell me Hoxha was a son of a *****? I haven't met one Albanian who praises Hoxha. Not one. You blame this on the fact that most Albanians are young, yet you don't account for the elderly. Even those who are in their 50's. A women told me how people would get maybe tea and one egg as a meal for the whole day. Who to believe, her or you?


What's your point? Of course the USA and China had interest in Afghanistan. The Americans wanted it to be the "Soviet Vietnam," and the Soviet leadership was dumb enough to confirm that in practice in more ways than one.


You're like the Leftists who are so shocked and appauled of U.S. Imperialism. You don't recognize the Soviet Union as a Bourgoeis state and criticize it as if it's you're lover. One could imagine Hoxha "Waaa but I thought you loved me, Bhreznev!".


I must admit I was a bit scared that all the "Orthodox Marxists" on earth were mentally ill lonely persons like yourself. Then I realized "Orthodox Marxism" is whatever you want it to mean.


Why are you under the impression that I am lonely? I'm just curious.


No thanks, I've had many reactionaries bring those quotes up time and time again to show how "racist" Marx and Engels were. Of course the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan occurred in the second-to-last decade of the 20th century, not the 17th to 19th centuries when capitalism still had a progressive role in the world.


Okay, so, if you want to quote a tiny segment of Engels (Which doesn't even back up anything you're saying) you have to be consistent and recognize they were living in a different time period.


Of course some "Marxists" use Marx and Engels' quotes to defend the American invasion of Afghanistan as well.


Perhaps some use that bit by Engels to support the Muj.


There was a collection of female "Islamic asslickers" who opposed the Soviet invasion in the 80's, and were quite left-wing to boot. You might have heard of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Association_of_the_Women_of_Afghanis tan) if you actually studied Afghan history.


are you denying women had more rights under the PDPA?


No, it's just irrelevant to the question of national liberation. The South is not a nation.


You are, by definition, an Idiot. You cannot articulate an anology so instead of attacking the root message from it, which, exists regardless of the location of such an instance, you attack the irrelivent details only written to give the analogy a cradle to rock in. If I replace "The South" with some sort of Quebec Fascist group in Canada will you stop crying?


The task of overthrowing them belonged to the working-class, not imperialism.


So you support the very same people the Working class should over throw against more Bourgeois bastards?


Objectively anti-imperialism is, in fact, progressive against imperialism (at least ever since imperialism, in its modern form noted by Lenin, came into existed.)

Afghanistan is more progressive than before, now, socially, culturally, etc.?


The great thing is that you yourself are in a bind as a result of this fantasy scenario, because there's no real argument here that the "liberalist-bourgeois" USA would actually be "progressive" in any meaningful sense. You don't have the advantage of Afghanistan being underdeveloped and largely feudal and tribal in this instance.


In comparison to Fascism, I suppose Liberalism was progressive socially. In the end, they were all Bourgoeis-Imperialists competing to for fill the hunger of capital. Do you deny the U.S. being an Imperialist force in WW2? Didn't that asshole Stalin call them progressive in doing so? Stalinists, like any Bourgeois ideological faction, will support Imperialism when it best suits them.


But just to reply to this fantasy scenario: since there's no question of national oppression (and thus no question of national liberation), the communists must organize against both reactionary political forces.


Okay, if the U.S. invaded Canada in thirty years where Fascist Qeubec Nationalists fought against the Liberalist Canadian regime, would you support Fascists? I mean, fuck you just ignored the whole analogy. Let's assume the South presented itself as a nation of peoples. Who are you to say otherwise? How exactly does one qualify to be an "Oppressed Nation"? I think the concept of "The Nation" is fucking ludicrous.


Sorta like Vietnam?


False, Vietcong had the support of the majority of the population + strategic advantage. The Muj, on the other hand....


Much like apologists for the Vietnam War would argue that "oh, well, American officers and troops had reasons" for various massacres as well.


The Soviet Union was less guilty of killing people for no reason than the U.S., they cared more about "Appealing" to the masses. Unless you want some statistics about U.S. treatment of Japan or the countries they occupied in WW2 with the Soviets in Eastern Europe.


Yet there were atrocities in Afghanistan perpetuated by the Soviets. The Soviets destroyed many villages and killed countless civilians because the Mujahidin was basically seen as the resistance of the Afghan countryside itself.


As the Muj committed crimes worse, or at the least equal with that of the Soviet Union. The wars of the ruling classes are most bloody, indeed. What's your point? Once you claim to be a Scientific Marxist and now you want to make an argument with emotional appeal?


Using this logic the Vietnam were just "stooges" of the North Vietnamese government (actually that isn't really inaccurate), who were in turn part of Soviet and Chinese interests in the region.


Yeah, that isn't inaccurate. Moving on.


The actual attitude of Vietnamese workers and peasants isn't put into the equation by you, though, it's just abstract "progressive" forces versus "reactionary" or "disgusting" forces. Because the Vietcong and DRV weren't fundamentalist Muslims, they earn your stamp of reluctant approval.

I think it's worth noting I would not have supported the VietCong. I concur with Bordiga on the issue of Imperialism. The difference is not that one side was Islamist, the other "Communist", the difference is that one had a basis in defending the interests of the landowners and the other had a basis within the Peasantry. It's normal for an ML to make the excuse of supporting the Vietcong, but to support the Muj is, by definition, reactionary (In contrast with supporting the VietCong, witch is just petty bourgeois).


Because the Mujahidin considered themselves fighting for a "holy war," and because the US and Chinese backed them, they become evil even if the overwhelming amount of the population of Afghanistan supported them.


Do you know how many supported the Fascists in Germany by 1940? Or do you need statistics?

It doesn't mean anything if the majority of the population is manipulated by X ruling class. Fact is, the Mujaheddin were just as bad as the Soviet Union, and are not to be supporting in any way. Both defended the interests of Imperialism, the difference, one was Bourgeois, the other was Feudalist Landlord class.


There was no question of national liberation in Hungary. And no, we don't deny the crimes of Khrushchev and others in Hungary, who liquidated the party there in favor of a complacent replacement and who were to blame in the first place for allowing fascist and counter-revolutionary forces to emerge. Hoxha notes this in The Khrushchevites.


The Soviet prescence in Hungary predates Khrushchev and yes, there were many crimes commited by Soviet Soldiers. Do you want me to cite that, as well?




Even when you have the support of proletarians? Really?


Many reactionary currents had the support of proletarians, it doesn't mean as a party it serves their interests as a class.


Again, Hoxha did not support the Mujahidin. He supported the Afghan people against the Soviet occupation.

The Afghan people do not exist. Stop using this populist bullshit. Do you have any grasp of class relations at all, Ismail?


Just because you're anti-social and have no concept of "people" doesn't mean anyone else has to follow your idiosyncrasies.

I'm anti social now, wonderful. There is a difference between classifying a "nation" as a collective group of interests under the guise of "The people" and understanding people do exist (When have I said otherwise?). The "Afghan People" don't exist as a collective group of interests, and any Marxist would know this. I find it pathetic you'd suggest otherwise, and try and call yourself a Marxist. By the way, for anyone whose reading this, Ismail is accusing me of being anti social because I'm not a populist. Is this not a new low?




If I say "I support the Palestinian people against Israeli occupation" that doesn't mean "may the Zionist pig-dogs be defeated by Hamas inshallah

The Palestinian people are divided into classes and several factions. You're going to have to be specific, as the very notion that a nation has a collective group of interests is reactionary and has origins in.. Dare I say, Fascism?


," it means that the primary task for the Palestinian people (obviously referring first and foremost to workers and peasants) is to achieve national self-determination as a precondition for the struggle for socialism.


The struggle of socialism has never followed the victory over the National Bourgeoisie. It just led to a overwealming support for the National Bourgeoisie and a strong one at that.

Hold the fuck up, are you trying to tell me that a National Bourgeoisie must retrieve class power before a Proletarian class can exist and eventually start a class struggle? This was the same excuse made by Deng, that his country needed heavy doses of Neoliberalism for a proletariat to rise and actually engage in class struggle.




Actually a puppet government would ask for assistance. The point of these governments is to bring legitimacy to the occupier.

So it was all a planned conspiracy. I hope you know that the call for assistance was largely secret.


Both Italy and puppet Albania declared war on Greece. Nazi-occupied Albania praised Hitler for "liberating" Albania from the Italian occupiers and signed various things "regulating" the conduct of German troops in the country.


Which has nothing to do with my post. You're such a fucking opportunist, Albania has nothing to do with this.


The USSR didn't invade Afghanistan for no reason. Hoxha noted that it had plenty: Amin was slowly moving out of the Soviet sphere of influence, Pakistan was a loyal American ally, Khomeini's Iran was influencing various Islamic movements (including in Afghanistan), and the Soviets wanted to maintain a pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan in the face of all these things.


Amin was largely responsible for growing disdain for the PDPA. It's common sense, you'll find that on the history channel, I bet. Unless you want to pick and choose which bourgeois sources are credible.


Amin (and Taraki) belonged to the "radical" wing of the pro-Soviet Afghan revisionists, the Khalq. Amin apparently compared himself to Stalin and irritated the Soviets by being too "radical" in his plans for social reform. The issue here is that Amin presided over an unpopular government that did not enjoy the backing of the Afghan people. It did not matter if Taraki and Amin of the Khalq led the country, or if Karmal and Najibullah led it. The state itself was not trusted and that distrust was turned into outright despising as a result of the Soviet invasion, when it was turned into an outright puppet state.



The Soviets were losing control because of the vast unpopularity that was being created by Amin's policies. They had to invade to stop the growing infectious swarm of Islamists because of this.


The fact that Amin was purging some rivals does not in any way give the Soviets the authority to invade Afghanistan and immediately proceed to kill its head of state, no. As Hoxha wrote in his diary on December 21, 1979:


But, it's a legitimant reason for the Bourgeoisie to do this, to defend their own class interest. Now, I don't recall supporting the Bourgeoisie, or their class interest, but they certainly do.


"The fact is that through their military intervention, the Soviets killed the first [Taraki, i.e. the Soviets didn't outwardly mind when he was couped] and second [Amin] and brought the next, the third [Karmal], from Czechoslovakia, where he was ambassador, and installed him as head of state.


You think that's fucking credible?


It is rumored that the Soviets have intervened in Afghanistan with two or three divisions of tanks and aircraft in the same way that they intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968... saying that they have intervened on the basis of the Treaty of Collaboration and Friendship they have signed with Afghanistan."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. pp. 522-523.)



Jesus Christ, are you trolling or not?


Nicholas C. Pano is a recognized authority on Albanian history. Even stern anti-communists like Nikolaos A. Stavrou have noted that the Comintern instructed the communist to work with democratic forces.


Is this in the early 1920's where Albanian communist parties did not exist?


So tell me, what happened in Albania in 1924 then if not communists collaborating with the Albanian Government? This same government which promptly sought diplomatic recognition from the USSR and which was openly backed by the Comintern


Albanian Communist parties didn't exist. I already addressed Soviet support of Bourgeois states, if you would scroll up a little. But then again, I'm sure users who care about this conversation have already read it, and are laughing at you. Besides your little dog Roach and maybe Freepalestine. Trying to make friends, are we? (That shit head messaged me more incomprehensible nonsense calling me "Kruesshev")


The Mujahidin commanded popular support because it was the strongest force fighting the Soviets. An imperialist proxy would be something like RENAMO in Mozambique which was dependent on South Africa for aid and which had relatively little support.


It isn't contradictory that the Mujahidin was an Imperialist proxy and managed to manipulated the poor and uneducated peasant population.


What's the point in providing sources if you'll either call them "bullshit" (because they're Marxist-Leninist) or bring up "some people say Stalin killed 30 million people so this totally unrelated person is talking about Afghanistan and is a capitalist so he's unreliable"?


You like to pick and choose which sources are credible. Why should I believe a source from he ML review if you're not going to buy a source from some of the ideological enemeis of Hoxhaism?


Rafiq here is saying "fuck you" to millions of Afghans and trying to keep up his façade of internet manliness. Still a joke. Reminds me of those fascist "national bolshevik" types who praise the DPRK to the sky. Ideology becomes secondary to attacking "liberalism."


Yup, Fuck you to millions of Afghans indeed. That's exactly what I said. Waa waa keep crying with your unscientific emotional bullshit. Reminds of me of Red Dave crying in that thread about how Trotsky was murdered.


So tell me how open protests against the Soviet occupation fared in the cities.


This was a follow up of the war.


Really? I kinda thought the Mujahidin (you know, the original organizations) had origins going back to the late 60's and early 70's. Then of course some factions appeared after the rise of Khomeini in Iran.


They didn't become extremely relevant until the mid-late 70's.


The Mujahidin existed and were a serious problem for the Afghan government before the Soviet invasion and before the US (which had given arms to them shortly before said invasion to incite the Soviets) armed them.


I'd go as far as saying that not even a year after their existence, they were being armed by Imperialist powers. The U.S. isn't living under a rock, the existence of a socialist regime in Afghanistan very much upset them.


You're the one making no class analysis.


no, YOU (:laugh:) good job.


Yes, it was the people. The workers, the peasants, the landlords, the clergy, the vast majority of every single social and economic force in the country was anti-Soviet and anti-government, in that order.


And to you, they are all a collective group of interests? Hmm.... Mussolini much?


What is "Hoxhaism" anyway? There's an internet term if I ever heard one.


Don't act like Hoxhaism doesn't exist and it's just the continuation of Soviet Marxism Leninism with Maoism and the rest being offshoots. Hoxhaism is very specific, it is an offshoot of Marxism Leninism, like the rest.


Also you could write the most eloquent text ever made in size 7000 front and I'll just skip right over that. If you're so angry you need to express it in such a way, then it's time to go to bed.


I stand correct, than. Those large font posts completely shit on everything you've said. Everyone in this thread knows that, which is why I made them very large. Because, before, you'd skip over them and they would be forgotten to the conversation. Making them large is just a way for it to be shoved down your throat, to force you to address them. And if you don't, everyone here will know you lack the ability to address them.


How was it an inter-imperialist war? Did millions of Afghans secretly sign up in the US Marines or something?


The Muj were a direct proxy of U.S., and Chinese Interests.


Yeah, while Žižek calls the London rioters "savages,"

He didn't, actually.


Hoxha noted the capitalist and chauvinist nature of Yugoslavia. While Hoxha led a party and a country, Žižek is a worthless academic who just about every leftist (I've seen the strongest critiques concerning him come from Trots) agrees basically only exists to entrap otherwise good-willed leftists and for reactionaries to buttress their "proof" that Marxism is some sort of elitist academic enterprise.

Hoxha has about zero influence on anything in modern times, while the works of Zizek are at the least very interesting and have a good amount of influence on the masses. You didn't answer my question (Anyone can criticize Yugoslavia, it's about the structural enhancement of Marxism), who has more of an influence on the modern day working class, Zizek or Hoxha?


Name one thing Žižek contributed to anything except somehow involving Lady GaGa in his... stuff.


The combination of Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism? The formula to destroy the symbolic mystification put in place by the Bourgeois class internationally? He was called the most dangerous philosopher in the west for a reason.


Considering that a number of notable parties were pro-Albania (unless you'd like to state that the PCdoB and PCMLE were/are somehow tiny), I'd say yes.


They're pretty tiny in comparison with other communist groups in the region.


... except when Soviet soldiers do it in Afghanistan, in which case it's "objectively progressive."


Everyone scroll up. I made it in large font concerning whether or not they were "Objectively Progressive". Ismail, of course, didn't respond to it. You all should be grateful I'm making them in large font, for if you didn't, you'd have to look for them.


Believe it or not, opposing imperialism does play a part in raising the consciousness of workers and peasants.


Opposing Imperialism in the belly of the beast does, yes. That doesn't mean supporting reactionary landlords does anything to do so.


You still haven't demonstrated how your defense of the Soviet occupation is qualitatively different from the defense of the American occupation. Apparently all the USA needs to do is have the present leaders of the country exchange traditional garb for suits and talk about getting rid of feudalism and it'll be "objectively progressive."


Actually, you fuck, I have. Scroll up, you piece of shit. This was fucking not even a couple scrolls up:




The U.S. Backed Islamic republic of Afghanistan is a theocratic Shit hole which more or less is on the same level of being reactionary as the Muj.



Of course, this was only a fraction of the actual post addressing the topic.

To members reading this: has Ismail not proven my point? He addressed Half of the total post (There were 2), and even the ones that he addressed he twisted and manipulated.

Members, is he not falsely accusing me things he pulled out of his ass?

[Rafiq]

Just a small comment to Ismail's post, fascism has never lead a full anti-imperialist movement, since by its own nature it is expansionist, nationalist and overall imperialist. In the few occasions in which movements that could be considered due to extreme right-wing nationalist views, but not necessarily were fascists, such as the Chetniks and Balli Kombetar, were in fact in a position to fight imperialism, they have always chosen to collaborate with imperialism in some way, such as for example, to hunt down communists.

This anti-imperialist fascists situation is pretty much an incoherent and implausible scenario

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Social_Nationalist_Party

[Ismail]

If the United States or anyone else had an interest in Albania that could be comparable to that of the Middle East, I don't think their best means of doing so would be to drop off some weapons to fake opposition members and then piss off forever.If by "drop off some weapons to fake opposition members" you mean actually have émigré anti-communists spend months organizing with American and British agents in places like West Germany, and then drop them off with the goal of trying to overthrow the government, then you'd be right.

And I said relative, just like no one particularly cared about Palestine (and from that Israel) until the 1960's.


Oh, and what's your excuse for the Invasion of Finland or Poland again? To "Stop the Fascists?". As if that isn't an Imperialist act.I like how you are trying to distract from the fact that you justify the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by bringing up irrelevant situations.

Yes, the movement of troops into Poland was to stop the fascists—specifically Hitler, whose men were moving beyond the Bug river and thus the Curzon line. With the Polish government having fled, the alternative was to allow Nazi Germany to move up to the Soviet border.

The nice thing is that eastern Poland was actually just Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Thus the Soviets were welcomed as liberators.

On the Soviet decision to intervene see: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

On Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia:

"The annexed territories did not belong to the core of the Polish state and did have an anti-Polish national liberation movement. Before the war, five million Ukrainians lived in Poland as an oppressed minority."
(Constantine Pleshakov. There Is No Freedom Without Bread. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. pp. 30-31.)

"The population of the area did not oppose the Russian troops but welcomed them with joy. Most were not Poles but Ukrainians and Byelo-Russians. U.S. Ambassador Biddle reported that the people accepted the Russians 'as doing a policing job.' Despatches told of Russian troops marching side by side with retiring Polish troops, of Ukrainian girls hanging garlands over Russian tanks."
(Anna Louise Strong. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream Publishers. 1957. p. 80.)

As for Finland, the Soviets were only interested in a government that would lease ports so that Nazi troops couldn't use said ports as a base to attack Leningrad, which was quite vulnerable otherwise. Geoffrey Roberts in his book Stalin's Wars has a good bit to say on this. At no point did the Soviets ever discuss, privately or otherwise, annexing Finland or otherwise doing anything imperialist (in the Leninist definition) towards it. The Winter War concluded with the achievement of the Soviet objective of safeguarding Leningrad. Shortly after the war an anti-war organization was set up in Finland with 35,000 members.


Communism is quite irrelevant in Portugal, actually."Is" as in always was? Or "is" as in "it's presently irrelevant, like communism just about everywhere else on earth"? Because if it's the former then you'd simply wrong. It'd be similar to calling Spanish Communism "irrelevant" in the 1950's-70's. Communists in both countries tended to be the most popular choice of the people whenever private studies were done by those governments in the period.


So basically there were Two million structurally opposed to the Ben Ali regime, 1,999,995 Islamists and five Hoxhaists.Does this mean you're going to defend Ben Ali as "objectively progressive" too? Apparently "Orthodox Marxism" à la Rafiq sure loves to wriggle around with supposedly obeying the "material conditions" and being "objectively progressive"


Just off the top of my head the CPGB.Considering that Grenzer made a post mentioning solely that party in this very thread, this must have been a very arduous task for your strange brain. In any case it is, as I said, a party of ex-Brezhnevites and "New Left" (aka Maoist and quasi-Maoist) types. I'd take five people risking their lives (whether physically or in effect via years of imprisonment) to ten-thousand do-nothing Marxists with great intellectual pretensions.


Anyway, I said that there can't exist Orthodox Marxist "Parties" as Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thinking. Most parties before Eurocommunism and new Left were heavily influenced by Orthodox Marxian thinking, most noticeably none other than the Bolshevik party.The same party that in your view was constructing capitalism?

Well at least I know why you admire DNZ so much, your ideology/"mode of thinking" is devoid of any real activity in the service of the proletariat.


Without Orthodox Marxism, Hoxhaism would have never existed in the same way...Here's a fun fact: "Orthodox Marxism" doesn't mean "Marxism in the time of Marx and Engels." Taking such a pretentious title only demonstrates your own insecurities and desire to posture yourself as some sort of holy defender of "pure" Marxism (as you define it 129 years after Marx himself died.)


I'm not familiar with many Orthodox Marxist tendencies on the Internet, actually. All of the Hoxhaist parties you mentioned are tiny and irrelevant. The fact that five internet nerds decided to form a party in real life doesn't say anything.All I can say is that countries like Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Mali and the Ivory Coast must have had pretty extensive internet services, considering that all of those parties were founded in the 70's or 80's.


Don't throw stones inside glass houses, and all that.The fact that you actually thought you'd "own" me with the preceding stuff you typed out is... just sad.


Because "Normalizing" relations basically means the U.S. and Albania get an embassy in each of their countries.It also means opening up Albania to American investments and other forms of penetration.


The U.S. had no particular interest in Albania at all. Think I'm lying? Look at Albania today. The U.S. hasn't even payed attention to it.I guess making it a part of NATO and financing the ridiculously anti-communist Democratic Party in 1991 (refusing to grant any "assistance" to the government unless said party won) means not paying attention to it.


Surly Hoxha would represent the last vestiges of defense against Imperialism and if his structure were to fall, the U.S. would for fill their interests in Albania, no? That's not what happened. No one gave a shit.All this extra gloating to your already false points just makes you look like an uninformed idiot boasting about his false takedowns... which is quite accurate.


Yet no one gave a shit about Albania.Okay, let's try the USSR.


"The spillover from the Sino-Soviet conflict into Eastern Europe was evident almost immediately. In late 1960 and early 1961 the Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha, sparked a crisis with the Soviet Union by openly aligning his country with China, a precedent that caused alarm in Moscow. Quite apart from the symbolic implications of Hoxha's move, Khrushchev had always regarded Albania as a key member of the Warsaw Pact because of 'its superb strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea.' The rift with Yugoslavia in 1948 had eliminated the only other possible outlet for the Soviet navy in the region. To ensure that Albania could serve as a full-fledged 'military base on the Mediterranean Sea for all the socialist countries,' the Soviet Union had been providing extensive equipment and training to the Albanian army and navy. In particular, the Albanian navy had received a fleet of twelve modern attack submarines, which initially were under Soviet control but were gradually being transferred to Albanian jurisdiction. Khrushchev believed that the submarines would allow Albania to pose a 'serious threat to the operation of the NATO military bloc on the Mediterranean Sea,' and thus he was dismayed to find that Soviet efforts to establish a naval bulwark on the Mediterranean might all have been for naught.

As soon as the rift with Albania emerged, the Soviet Union imposed strict economic sanctions, withdrew all Soviet technicians and military advisers, took back eight of the twelve submarines, dismantled Soviet naval facilities at the Albanian port of Vlona, and engaged in bitter polemical exchanges with the Albanian leadership. Khrushchev also ordered Soviet warships to conduct maneuvers along the Albanian coast, and he secretly encouraged pro-Moscow rivals of Hoxha to carry out a coup. The coup attempt was rebuffed, and the other means of coercion proved insufficient to get rid of Hoxha or to bring about a change of policy. In December 1961, Khrushchev broke diplomatic relations with Albania and excluded it from both the Warsaw Pact and CMEA. However, he was unwilling to undertake a full-scale invasion to bring Albania back within the Soviet orbit, not least because of the logistical problems and the likelihood of confronting stiff armed resistance."
(Carole Fink, Philipp Gassert & Detlef Junker (Ed.). 1968: The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. pp. 117-119.)

The whole "Soviet access to the Adriatic" issue was actually quite big at the time. Harry Hamm in his book Albania: China's Beachhead in Europe and William E. Griffith's Albania and the Sino-Soviet Split both noted the attention Albania received because of this.

I will now proceed to quote Hoxha, both because most consider him a fairly reliable source on these matters and because I don't care what you consider "unreliable" or not, since anything written not by someone who is an "Orthodox Marxist" or a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU is apparently unreliable.

Hoxha on Khrushchev's 1959 visit to Albania:

"He called Malinovsky, at that time minister of defence, who was always at hand:

'Look, how marvellous this is!' I heard them whisper. 'An ideal base for our submarines could be built here. These old things should be dug up and thrown into the sea (they were referring to the archaeological finds at Butrint). We can tunnel through this mountain to the other side,' and he pointed to Ksamil. 'We shall have the most ideal and most secure base in the Mediterranean. From here we can paralyze and attack everything.'

They were to repeat the same thing in Vlora a day or two later. We had come out on the verandah of the villa at Uji i Ftohtë.

'Marvellous, marvellous!' Khrushchev cried and turned to Malinovsky. I thought he was referring to the truly breath-taking landscape of our Riviera. But their mind was working in another direction: 'What a secure bay at the foot of these mountains!' they said. 'With a powerful fleet, from here we can have the whole of the Mediterranean, from Bosporus to Gibraltar, in our hands! We can control everyone.'"
(Enver Hoxha. The Khrushchevites. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1980. pp. 376-377.)


Albania had nothing to gain from either the United States or the Soviet Union.You're right, it was poised to lose its independence and its industrial development, since the USSR wanted it joined to the "international socialist division of labor" the post-Stalin leadership had cooked up. Under this plan Albania would focus its exports on cash crops and fruit. I doubt American economic policies would be much different.


That's a lie. You underestimate the Imperialist-Propaganda machine that is wielded by the United States, and China. The Muj, arguably, would not have won the War if not forces from Pakistan and weapons from U.S. and China came to their aid.They didn't win the war because of US and Chinese aid. Such aid gave them modern weaponry, but guns don't automatically equal popular support, which the Mujahidin clearly enjoyed in the majority of the country, the same majority you write off as not caring about because they were not areas inhabited by the "Marxist" PDPA and its Soviet overlords.

The Soviets couldn't beat the Mujahidin. The best they could do was conduct their own form of "Vietnamization" to make the Afghan soldiers in the pay of the government fight better and to begin a gradual withdrawal because the war was a significant strain on Soviet resources. It's not much different from the Vietcong and other popular guerrilla movements.


Ismail, you'd sacrifice class struggle and the proletariat in favor of Anti Imperialism.No, but defending imperialism (especially in its most open form in the manner of brutal occupation) is certainly a good way of ensuring that no proletarian will ever support you, because the last thing they want to hear is "suck it up, at least they're building roads for your pathetic Islamist-asslicking piece of shit motherfucking Hoxhaist Maoist Stalinist capitalist... existence."


Some users here like a year ago. There was quite a shit storm about it. December, I think it was.Then they're idiots.


Class Collaboration wasn't an occurance in Albania's National Liberation war,Really? The national liberation councils were open to anyone, so long as they fought the fascists. Ditto with the National Liberation Movement.

Of course this isn't the proper use of the term, which you seem to use for everything.


And, name me a National Liberation war, where, at the end result, with the national bourgeoisie in power, a strong communist movement grew and fought against the national bourgeoisie?The vast majority of said wars have only ever had pseudo-left forces at the helm to begin with and few actual communists. Those "communists" who did align with them were loyal to the Soviet revisionists and sought to integrate said struggles into the "world struggle" for "peaceful coexistence."


That was the prediction by Hoxha, that, in Afghanistan, should the Muj win, this would pave way for a real Leftist movement.It was? From what I recall the liberation of Afghanistan from Soviet yoke would weaken the Soviet imperialists, not that it would "pave way" for leftism in Afghanistan, although obviously not having "Marxist-Leninists" shooting at Afghan peasants and calling for glorious fraternal unity with the Soviet occupiers would assist a fair bit in that endeavor.

I will again quote from his December 1979 diary entry, at a time when non-Mujahidin forces were still notable:

"As is known, there are many insurgent movements in Afghanistan led by patriots who want neither the Soviet yoke nor the yoke of their agents, but they are described as Moslems and their anti-imperialist patriotic movement is described as an Islamic movement. This is a common label which world capitalism uses to revive religious animosities and strife and to give liberation movements the mediaeval meaning of religious wars. There is no doubt that the Afghan liberation fighters, who have risen against the yoke of imperialism, social-imperialism and the monarchy, are Moslem believers. Afghanistan is one of those countries where religion is still alive and active. However, it is not just their religion, which makes these people rise arms in hand against the occupiers of their homeland. Of course they are not Marxists, but they are patriots who want the liberation of their homeland, they are representatives of the democratic bourgeoisie. They do not want to live under the yoke of foreigners, regardless of the fact that their views are still far from those revolutionary bourgeois-democratic views, which result in deep-going reforms in the interest of their peoples.

But the struggle they are waging is of great importance, not only for Afghanistan, but also for the other peoples. It is evident that, with its intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is fulfilling its imperialist strategic plans to secure key military positions in those countries and especially to extend its imperialist domination to the heart of Asia and the Middle East. It is known that Afghanistan borders on China and Pakistan. So the Soviet Union wants to consolidate its strategic-military positions against China and pro-American or pro-British Pakistan. On the other hand, it is known that Afghanistan also borders on Iran, and indeed the Afghan insurgents present themselves as friends, well-wishers and co-fighters of Khomeini. Hence, if the Afghan insurgents triumph over the Soviets and their tools, this would be to the advantage of Khomeini....

Naturally, the two superpowers reach secret agreements over the division of spheres of influence between them, but this division also gives rise to great opposition, causes a fierce militant revolutionary reaction on the part of the masses of the people who suffer the consequences of these agreements; this situation impels the peoples to revolt against the internal and external oppression of local and world capitalism."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. pp. 523-525.)

He later noted that the USA, Pakistan and China sought to direct the struggle of the Afghan people for their own ends.


Indeed, none of the "Real" leftist movements (Hoxhaist, Maoists) would not have existed without a strong Leftist Status quo already in power. And, surly, after the destruction of the puppet state there were no Leftists in Afghanistan.Are you saying that Najibullah praying to Allah and Babral Karmal's offer of amnesty to Mujahidin forces and the return of their property were "leftist" forces?

I thought the Soviets were imperialists? I thought the Afghan government was, in your own words, a puppet state of Soviet imperialism? Where the hell does "leftism" come in anywhere near the two?


Victory for ethnic, religious minorities and women? Or victory for a class? Yes, that's right, it was a victory for the Landowners.I don't see how this government, which you seem to admit had basically no support outside the capital, was supposed to usher in some sort of glorious period of capitalist development, which seems to be your only concern here. If it is, then the Republic that overthrew the monarchy, or even the monarchy itself (which was becoming increasingly "constitutional" as time went on and, as you might know, allowed the lamest—and later slavishly pro-Soviet—faction of the PDPA, the Parcham, to have a legal political existence) would have been sufficient.


The Taliban is the Same as the Muj that were fighting the Soviets. Even the Northern Alliance were just as reactionary.Not quite, no. The Northern Alliance were certainly reactionary, but the Taliban were clearly at the fringe when it came to obscurantist sentiments.


It's about class. What was the class background of the Muj and the Soviets? Feudalist landlords and the Bourgeois class.And I ask you: what is the evidence that a regime despised by the vast majority of the population, and in any case conciliatory to said landowners especially after 1987, was worth supporting or sympathizing with in any way when it proved itself unable to exist without Soviet troops and the subsequent transfer of arms from the USSR to the Afghan armed forces. Do you seriously think that the government was going to hyper-nationalize Afghanistan and make it a bourgeois paradise? It'd need actual popularity to do that.

http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400042305


If I source that book is that okay? It specifically dealt with the Soviet state under Stalin..Are we talking about the USSR? Do you have any sources refuting the claims made in the books about Afghanistan I've mentioned?

I don't dismiss Montefiore, there's just various examples of his book being wrong. Just like I don't look at a book with a claim of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and go "OH GOD NO I CAN'T BEAR TO LOOK AT THIS ANY LONGER," but I note various disagreements with that figure from men like Getty, Thurston, etc. who use Soviet archives to make their point.

I don't go "IT'S BOURGEOIS SO FUCK IT" like you do.


I just find it Ironic that Hoxha stressed strict anti revisionism, and according to him this is what divided him with the "Revisionist" nations. When in fact, the Revisionists did much better economically.I'm pretty sure the question of socialism isn't decided on the basis of bourgeois economic figures.

They did "much better economically" by exploiting the world or, in the case of China, turning their country into a place where labor conditions are abhorrent for the vast majority and in the service of capitalists from across the world.

As Hoxha has stated:

"Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of 'three worlds', classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development."
(Enver Hoxha. Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. p. 256.)

It was Khrushchev and other Soviet revisionists who, like Tito, Deng, etc. turned "socialism" into a question of better access to consumer goods and other capitalist indicators of a "successful society."

Hence the words of Hoxha, speaking openly in front of Khrushchev, that:

"If N. Khrushchev and his followers, for one or another reason, do not like to help us, they are expecting us in vain to address ourselves to the imperialists and their allies for 'alms'. Our people have friends and comrades in the socialist countries who have not aban-doned and will not abandon them. But, regardless of this, we tell N. Khrushchev that the Albanian people and their Party of Labor will live even on grass, if need be, but they will never sell themselves for 30 pieces of silver, for they prefer to die standing and with honour rather than live with shame and knelt down."
(Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1972. p. 127.)


And the elderly who tell me Hoxha was a son of a *****? I haven't met one Albanian who praises Hoxha. Not one. You blame this on the fact that most Albanians are young, yet you don't account for the elderly. Even those who are in their 50's. A women told me how people would get maybe tea and one egg as a meal for the whole day. Who to believe, her or you?How about actual Albanians in Albania proper?

See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html

The state no longer guarantees jobs, houses, or healthcare, as it did before. In rural areas, industry and state-farm collectives have collapsed, leaving people to fend for themselves, and many government services are no longer available. In rural areas, for example, 85 percent of secondary schools have shut their doors....

Jalldyz Ymeri, a young grandmother who lives near the Daljani family, says in communist days she would not have nearly lost her 3-year-old grandson Orgito – a spiky-haired boy with angelic eyes – whom races around the family's dirt yard as she watches. A few months earlier, the boy fell seriously ill, and Ymeri had to bribe a doctor to see him.

"The medicines to cure him are very expensive," she says. "Sometimes we have to choose between food or medicine. Nobody will treat us if we don't pay."

"For us it was much better in communist times," insists Ymeri's husband, Safet. "We were obliged to go to school. The government gave us housing. We like democracy, but this is not real democracy."


Why are you under the impression that I am lonely? I'm just curious.I guess I was wrong, you apparently know plenty of old Albanian women.


Okay, so, if you want to quote a tiny segment of Engels (Which doesn't even back up anything you're saying) you have to be consistent and recognize they were living in a different time period.So when Engels supported the liberation of Poland and Ireland, were those unacceptable later on as well?

I already noted that the world was developing in a situation similar to the quote of Engels I gave than the ones where he notes the progress the colonization of India gave to its bourgeois development. I noted Lenin's work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, too.


are you denying women had more rights under the PDPA?Was RAWA? I bet women have more rights in post-Taliban Afghanistan as well than under the Taliban. Too bad those don't matter for much when you can't even enjoy them, either in the case of the Soviets occupying your country in the former or American occupation with the backing of complacent tribal leaders on the other.


If I replace "The South" with some sort of Quebec Fascist group in Canada will you stop [pointing out that I fundamentally misunderstand what national liberation means and give unfitting analogies]?Sure. If tensions in Canada ever got so bad that Anglo-Canadians began nationally oppressing their French counterparts (with guns and tanks, no less), and French national sentiment evidently shot through the roof in response, then leftists would, indeed, support the national liberation of Québec.

And there'd be no question of landlords or anything else, the main forces would be capitalists versus capitalists, with the French-speaking communists having the task of uniting the working-class of Québec for national autonomy up to self-determination if said working-class desires it.


Afghanistan is more progressive than before, now, socially, culturally, etc.?For someone who claims to be a "scientific Marxist" and a guy who, as far as he's concerned, is concerned only with class, you sure like to submerge the issue of the ratio of class forces in favor of bourgeois notions of economic development, women's rights, etc.


Do you deny the U.S. being an Imperialist force in WW2? Didn't that asshole Stalin call them progressive in doing so?You can see the first part (and the others, of course, but the first is relevant here) of Stalin's speech to the 18th Party Congress here: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html


Okay, if the U.S. invaded Canada in thirty years where Fascist Qeubec Nationalists fought against the Liberalist Canadian regime, would you support Fascists?Well lets see here, the USA is an imperialist power, Canada is a defender of imperialist interests, and Québec is a part of Canada with its own nation. I think in this case it'd be fair to character the conflict as an inter-imperialist war between two aggressive capitalist states. The working-class of the USA and Canada would be tasked with overthrowing their countries' respective governments while the people of Québec would be tasked with liberating it from Anglo-Canadian occupation.


How exactly does one qualify to be an "Oppressed Nation"? I think the concept of "The Nation" is fucking ludicrous.I was mistaken, you don't misunderstand national liberation; you misunderstand the very concept of a nation, something tons of Marxists ("Orthodox" or otherwise) have written on. Not even Luxemburg denied the existence of nations, and she was one of Lenin's strongest critics on the issue.

No wonder you suck so badly at Marxism.


False, Vietcong had the support of the majority of the population + strategic advantage. The Muj, on the other hand....... you've already mentioned that the Afghan terrain favored the Mujahidin. You've tacitly admitted that the Mujahidin enjoyed the support of the majority of the population of the country.


As the Muj committed crimes worse, or at the least equal with that of the Soviet Union. The wars of the ruling classes are most bloody, indeed. What's your point? Once you claim to be a Scientific Marxist and now you want to make an argument with emotional appeal?There's a fairly big difference. The Soviets committed their crimes from the vantage point of occupiers with superiority in just about every area (except, of course, popular support.) The abuses of Mujahidin units, like those committed by the Vietcong, Algerian resistance, etc., were qualitatively different from those of Soviet soldiers who were conscious of their role as unpopular occupiers and who tended to hate the native population.


Do you know how many supported the Fascists in Germany by 1940? Or do you need statistics?Was Nazi Germany being occupied by a foreign power and the people tracing their very existence as a nation to the victory of some sort of Nazi national liberation guerrilla campaign?

In reality the Nazis gradually lost support as WWII dragged on. By the beginning of 1945 it's safe to say the majority of the people had a pretty clear hatred of Nazism. Not to mention that the entire situation is irrelevant, of course, since you're comparing a national liberation war with Hitler manipulating bourgeois elections, coming to power, and manipulating public support from that vantage point.



The Soviet prescence in Hungary predates Khrushchev and yes, there were many crimes commited by Soviet Soldiers. Do you want me to cite that, as well?Everyone knows of the fact that various Soviet soldiers engaged in rape, etc. shortly after the war had ended. Yet it is pretty obvious that Khrushchev's "destalinization," the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy, etc. had laid the basis for the Hungarian uprising to occur. Khrushchev put an end to the uprising and used this to "teach" people about "Stalinism" and how it apparently doesn't allow the national culture of a people to be respected, and proceeded to promote "Goulash socialism" and the construction of a new party on a firmly pro-Soviet and revisionist course.


The Afghan people do not exist.The Great Soviet Encyclopedia states (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Afghans) the following: "Afghans (self-designation Pashtani, singular Pushtun; among the eastern Afghans, Pakhtani and Pukhtun, respectively), a people constituting more than half of the population of Afghanistan (more than 8 million people, according to a 1967 estimate)."

Of course your gigantic block of text immediately succeeding this is meant to show that you aren't anti-social at all; you realize that yes, there is an Afghan nation and presumably this is made up of millions of people. Yet there are times when more or less the people of a country, regardless of social and economic origins (although with variable willpower, e.g. landowners are generally less likely to fight than students), are willing to fight on the same side. That's the Marxist usage of the word "people" in matters such as national liberation wars.


The Palestinian people are divided into classes and several factions. You're going to have to be specific, as the very notion that a nation has a collective group of interests is reactionary and has origins in.. Dare I say, Fascism?I guess the Anti-Fascist National Liberation War of the Albanian People (the full title given to it by the Party of Labour) was, in fact, fascist all along.

Could have fooled me.


Hold the fuck up, are you trying to tell me that a National Bourgeoisie must retrieve class power before a Proletarian class can exist and eventually start a class struggle? This was the same excuse made by Deng, that his country needed heavy doses of Neoliberalism for a proletariat to rise and actually engage in class struggle.It was? Here I thought Deng argued that China already was "socialist" and that it could basically do anything it wanted and not have to worry much about capitalist restoration.

No, the proletariat can and has led national liberation struggles. Albania being the most obvious example in my mind, but there were also examples of this in places like the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc. in the 1917-1918 period where, when the proletariat was in a position to directly challenge the interests of any national bourgeois forces, direct struggle emerged and the national bourgeoisie put themselves in the service of a foreign imperialism.


I hope you know that the call for assistance was largely secret.Yeah, so secret nobody in Afghanistan heard it except a few guys in the capital's palace, and a few months later the Soviets came into that very palace to kill the head of state, whose predecessor had asked for the Soviets to send a few Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc. in Soviet clothing to fight alongside the Afghan army because it sucked so badly as a fighting force.

Very compelling.


Amin was largely responsible for growing disdain for the PDPA.The disdain must have lowered the view of the PDPA from the average Afghan from "hated" to "slightly more hated" (turned into "absolutely hated" after the Soviet invasion) since, again, Taraki desperately asked for Soviet assistance via secret Soviet citizens dressing up as Afghan army personnel. See: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7b69p12h&chunk.id=appd&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

Does that conversation really sound like it was made by someone not leading a party disdained by the masses?


The Soviets were losing control because of the vast unpopularity that was being created by Amin's policies. They had to invade to stop the growing infectious swarm of Islamists because of this.Yes, it was an imperialist invasion. Just don't use the excuse of any "request" made, because the man who made it was dead for quite a while by that point and it was unrepresentative in any case.


You think that's fucking credible?So the Soviets didn't pretend that Amin was a wonderful comrade who was valiantly advancing the cause of the Afghan revolution up until the day they decided to invade and off him? The Soviets didn't fly Karmal in from his exiled position?


Jesus Christ, are you trolling or not?... are you now claiming that the Soviets didn't claim they were merely "assisting" the Afghan government in accordance with prior treaties?


Is this in the early 1920's where Albanian communist parties did not exist?The Comintern existed, the communists listened to Comintern instructions. It was the Comintern which called on the Albanians to form a communist party in 1941, it was the Comintern the Albanians, upon forming the party, waited to receive a letter containing subsequent instructions. But there were bourgeois-democratic organizations besides Bashkimi which, along with it, had ties to the Comintern. The Comintern also endorsed the creation of a National Liberation Committee (called KONARE) in 1925 which was affiliated to the Comintern and was a bourgeois-democratic organization operating in exile against Ahmet Zogu's regime.


You like to pick and choose which sources are credible. Why should I believe a source from he ML review if you're not going to buy a source from some of the ideological enemeis of Hoxhaism?The ideological enemies of "Hoxhaism" which you're apparently alluding to and offering to cite are Soviet sources, I suppose. You're free to cite them.


This was a follow up of the war.Tell me how they fared.


They didn't become extremely relevant until the mid-late 70's.And it didn't take American arms to get them to organize against the unpopular government, now did it? If you'd like to attribute the very first attacks the Mujahidin inflicted on the government to having their origins in supposed American backing then feel free to provide a source.


I'd go as far as saying that not even a year after their existence, they were being armed by Imperialist powers. The U.S. isn't living under a rock, the existence of a socialist regime in Afghanistan very much upset them."Socialist regime." Also you'd be wrong, according to no less a source than Brzezinski himself, who in 1998 dropped a "bombshell" by admitting that yes, the Americans backed the Mujahidin before the Soviets invaded, but also noting (http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm) that "it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."

That was months after Taraki's desperate phone-call.


Don't act like Hoxhaism doesn't exist and it's just the continuation of Soviet Marxism Leninism with Maoism and the rest being offshoots. Hoxhaism is very specific, it is an offshoot of Marxism Leninism, like the rest.Name any distinguishing ideological features, then. Explain why no one (except Maoists who used "Hoxhaite" as a pejorative) ever used the term on a serious basis.


He didn't, actually.http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/zize-a27.shtml


You didn't answer my question (Anyone can criticize Yugoslavia, it's about the structural enhancement of Marxism), who has more of an influence on the modern day working class, Zizek or Hoxha?Neither, I think Barack Obama and Mitt Romney triumph both by leaps and bounds. Better question: whose writings are better poised to actually advance a Marxist movement in the United States?

I know what you'll answer with, you already said you find his hack writing "interesting."


The combination of Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism? The formula to destroy the symbolic mystification put in place by the Bourgeois class internationally? He was called the most dangerous philosopher in the west for a reason.lol


They're pretty tiny in comparison with other communist groups in the region.Like who?


Actually, you fuck, I have. Scroll up, you piece of shit. This was fucking not even a couple scrolls up:You called modern-day Afghanistan reactionary. Congratulations. Doesn't address what I wrote.

[Rafiq]

If by "drop off some weapons to fake opposition members" you mean actually have émigré anti-communists spend months organizing with American and British agents in places like West Germany, and then drop them off with the goal of trying to overthrow the government, then you'd be right.

In which they quite not too long after. They never gave a shit.


And I said relative, just like no one particularly cared about Palestine (and from that Israel) until the 1960's.


Palestine didn't have an official formal government which claimed to be leading the international communist struggle against global capitalism (while operating within the capitalist mode of production).


I like how you are trying to distract from the fact that you justify the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by bringing up irrelevant situations.


because the face of Soviet Imperialism has never changed, from the 1930's all the way up to 1990's.


Yes, the movement of troops into Poland was to stop the fascists—specifically Hitler, whose men were moving beyond the Bug river and thus the Curzon line. With the Polish government having fled, the alternative was to allow Nazi Germany to move up to the Soviet border.


That is, by definition, an act of Imperialism.


The nice thing is that eastern Poland was actually just Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Thus the Soviets were welcomed as liberators.



They were welcomed as Liberators by everyone except the poles themselves. You know, I'm sure many ethnic minorities who were persecuted by the Mujahadeen on the rural side welcomed the Soviets as well.


On the Soviet decision to intervene see: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html


"I let the big other think for me".

That isn't credible evidence. You have a tendency to reply to people by throwing links out of your ass and saying "Yeah, what he said".


On Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia:

"The annexed territories did not belong to the core of the Polish state and did have an anti-Polish national liberation movement. Before the war, five million Ukrainians lived in Poland as an oppressed minority."
(Constantine Pleshakov. There Is No Freedom Without Bread. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. pp. 30-31.)



And what of the actual Poles, how did they react? Furiously.


"The population of the area did not oppose the Russian troops but welcomed them with joy. Most were not Poles but Ukrainians and Byelo-Russians. U.S. Ambassador Biddle reported that the people accepted the Russians 'as doing a policing job.' Despatches told of Russian troops marching side by side with retiring Polish troops, of Ukrainian girls hanging garlands over Russian tanks."
(Anna Louise Strong. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream Publishers. 1957. p. 80.)



Thanks for proving my point.


As for Finland, the Soviets were only interested in a government that would lease ports so that Nazi troops couldn't use said ports as a base to attack Leningrad, which was quite vulnerable otherwise.

I can easily just dismiss this as apoligia for Soviet Imperialism. You can't oppose the Soviets invading Afghanistan (Because of Imperialism) and then continue to support them invade Finland.

Aren't you the peace of shit who tried to lecture me on being consistent?



Geoffrey Roberts in his book Stalin's Wars has a good bit to say on this. At no point did the Soviets ever discuss, privately or otherwise, annexing Finland or otherwise doing anything imperialist (in the Leninist definition) towards it. The Winter War concluded with the achievement of the Soviet objective of safeguarding Leningrad. Shortly after the war an anti-war organization was set up in Finland with 35,000 members.

Yeah, they didn't want to annex Poland, they just wanted to set up a puppet government there that would for fill their interests as an Imperialist superpower (hmm... Does this remind me of Afghanistan?).


"Is" as in always was? Or "is" as in "it's presently irrelevant, like communism just about everywhere else on earth"? Because if it's the former then you'd simply wrong. It'd be similar to calling Spanish Communism "irrelevant" in the 1950's-70's. Communists in both countries tended to be the most popular choice of the people whenever private studies were done by those governments in the period.


Saying something like that would require a source. That certainly isn't common sense.


Does this mean you're going to defend Ben Ali as "objectively progressive" too? Apparently "Orthodox Marxism" à la Rafiq sure loves to wriggle around with supposedly obeying the "material conditions" and being "objectively progressive"



Despite my last, I don't know, three fucking giant posts destroying this argument, Ismail continues to use it because those posts were drowned to the top of the page. If anyone is interested in seeing them, one must only scroll up. I kind of feel bad for Ismail, as the only means of argument he has is to constantly make up things about his opponents.


No, because there was no real party that actually vanguard the struggle. Most of the struggle against Ben Ali was without a party, of every day students, workers, petite bourgeoisie, etc.

Fuck you. I never said the word "Objectively progressive" Ever. Prove me wrong you fuck. I've never labeled anything that. There's a difference between calling Imperialism progressive and stating the obvious truth that the Soviets were more, how should I say, Up do date on issues like Women's rights, the right's of minorities, etc.




Considering that Grenzer made a post mentioning solely that party in this very thread, this must have been a very arduous task for your strange brain. In any case it is, as I said, a party of ex-Brezhnevites and "New Left" (aka Maoist and quasi-Maoist) types. I'd take five people risking their lives (whether physically or in effect via years of imprisonment) to ten-thousand do-nothing Marxists with great intellectual pretensions.


Every party on Earth is in some way influenced by Orthodox Marxian thought. The first people to smoothen out Marxism to collide with the proletarian movement were the Orthodox Marxists. However, very few parties are influenced by Hoxhaist thought. Hoxhaists are influenced by Orthodox Marxism (Indirectly) to some extent, yet not many are influenced by Hoxhaists.


The same party that in your view was constructing capitalism?


The Bolshevik party degenerated during the late twenties into a fully capitalist party, yes. It was no longer a proletarian based party keeping capital under control, capital devoured it. But none hte less, yes, it had origins in Orthodox Marxian thought. So what? So because members of the Bolshevik Party during the 30's understood mathematics, does that mean we should oppose mathematics?


Well at least I know why you admire DNZ so much, your ideology/"mode of thinking" is devoid of any real activity in the service of the proletariat.


And yours is? What is with this moralist bashing of intellectuals? If you are in a position to afford it (Which, you are as well, considering you post here just as often, if not more often than I do) there isn't anything wrong with being an Intellectual. This is Bourgeois-Moralism. All the Bolsheviks started out as Intellectuals, hell, Marx was a fucking intellectual.


Here's a fun fact: "Orthodox Marxism" doesn't mean "Marxism in the time of Marx and Engels." Taking such a pretentious title only demonstrates your own insecurities and desire to posture yourself as some sort of holy defender of "pure" Marxism (as you define it 129 years after Marx himself died.)


Orthodox Marxism isn't pure Marxism limited to Marx and Engels, that's classical marxism. Orthodox Marxism applied Marxism to modern times and smoothened, straightened it out. This line of thought continued on throughout the 20th century in virtually all communist parties.



All I can say is that countries like Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Mali and the Ivory Coast must have had pretty extensive internet services, considering that all of those parties were founded in the 70's or 80's.


Probably founded because both the Soviets and china refused to arm them. Today, Hoxhaism is nothing more than an internet fad.



The fact that you actually thought you'd "own" me with the preceding stuff you typed out is... just sad.


I have, you simply haven't responded to them, and if you have, you've manipulated the quotes for your own sinister purpose. Because if you were to reply to them, you'd have nothing to say. Look at the evidence, look at the size of my post compared to yours.... Do you think it's a coincidence that all of these posts are virtually the same in size every time? Because I write something large, you'd reply to half of it, and repeat process. Have you anything to say to those who are watching this thread?

I've destroyed you. Several times. Your only remnants of defense are labeling me things you pulled out of my ass and falsely accusing me of bizzare and obsucre positions in which there is no evidence as to whether I've made them. Look at the quotes in your signature. None of those members have held those positions.... You're just a sad little pile of shit who can't artilucate posts of members whose asses are not in their heads, therefore, you must label them something that only exists within the fantasist realm of Hoxhaist ideology. Quite sad, really.

I know you aren't going to reply to this because you're a coward, so I'll make it big for everyone to see.


It also means opening up Albania to American investments and other forms of penetration.


Albania is open to the United States yet it's made little to no investment. The U.S. has nothing to gain from Albania. shit head. I've pointed this out:



I guess making it a part of NATO and financing the ridiculously anti-communist Democratic Party in 1991 (refusing to grant any "assistance" to the government unless said party won) means not paying attention to it.


Yet NATO isn't stronger with Albania. And yes, the U.S. sends funds to the party yet ignores it. You know ,the two are not mutually exclusive. Virtually all the postcommunist parties were funded by the U.S.


All this extra gloating to your already false points just makes you look like an uninformed idiot boasting about his false takedowns... which is quite accurate.


You haven't responded to what I've said. The U.S. did not give a shit about Albania. Only in the Kosovo War, afterwords they said fuck you and left everyone to rot. When Hoxha left, the U.S. didn't rush in to make investments like they did in Russia.


Okay, let's try the USSR.


Let us.


"The spillover from the Sino-Soviet conflict into Eastern Europe was evident almost immediately. In late 1960 and early 1961 the Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha, sparked a crisis with the Soviet Union by openly aligning his country with China, a precedent that caused alarm in Moscow. Quite apart from the symbolic implications of Hoxha's move, Khrushchev had always regarded Albania as a key member of the Warsaw Pact because of 'its superb strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea.' The rift with Yugoslavia in 1948 had eliminated the only other possible outlet for the Soviet navy in the region. To ensure that Albania could serve as a full-fledged 'military base on the Mediterranean Sea for all the socialist countries,' the Soviet Union had been providing extensive equipment and training to the Albanian army and navy. In particular, the Albanian navy had received a fleet of twelve modern attack submarines, which initially were under Soviet control but were gradually being transferred to Albanian jurisdiction. Khrushchev believed that the submarines would allow Albania to pose a 'serious threat to the operation of the NATO military bloc on the Mediterranean Sea,' and thus he was dismayed to find that Soviet efforts to establish a naval bulwark on the Mediterranean might all have been for naught.

Yes, I've establish that the Soviets cared about Albania for a brief period of time, and when it was discovered they broke relations with China, the Soviets regarded them as fucking nutjobs and never payed attention to them again.

By the way, the only reason Albania broke relations with Moscow is because China promised them more shiny toys. Yup, the ugly materialist truth to it all. Behind all of hte ideological rhetoric, there was some kind of economic, or military benefit from Hoxha's foreign policy.

Hoxha had no problem becoming friends with the SU after Khrushchev died, it was only after he discoverd they weren't planning on suiting Albania any better that he continued to denounce their "revisionism".


As soon as the rift with Albania emerged, the Soviet Union imposed strict economic sanctions, withdrew all Soviet technicians and military advisers, took back eight of the twelve submarines, dismantled Soviet naval facilities at the Albanian port of Vlona, and engaged in bitter polemical exchanges with the Albanian leadership. Khrushchev also ordered Soviet warships to conduct maneuvers along the Albanian coast, and he secretly encouraged pro-Moscow rivals of Hoxha to carry out a coup. The coup attempt was rebuffed, and the other means of coercion proved insufficient to get rid of Hoxha or to bring about a change of policy. In December 1961, Khrushchev broke diplomatic relations with Albania and excluded it from both the Warsaw Pact and CMEA. However, he was unwilling to undertake a full-scale invasion to bring Albania back within the Soviet orbit, not least because of the logistical problems and the likelihood of confronting stiff armed resistance."
(Carole Fink, Philipp Gassert & Detlef Junker (Ed.). 1968: The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. pp. 117-119.)

Because they were replaced by Chinese...


The whole "Soviet access to the Adriatic" issue was actually quite big at the time. Harry Hamm in his book Albania: China's Beachhead in Europe and William E. Griffith's Albania and the Sino-Soviet Split both noted the attention Albania received because of this.


But after the Albanians rid themselves of China no one gave a shit, as I pointed out. These books are all about Albania being a dog of China. Before, the dogs of the soviets, after, of china, after that, of no one.


I will now proceed to quote Hoxha, both because most consider him a fairly reliable source on these matters

Who the fuck is most? Most who?



and because I don't care what you consider "unreliable" or not, since anything written not by someone who is an "Orthodox Marxist" or a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU is apparently unreliable.

No, but a third party external historian perhaps, maybe, would be more reliable than Hoxhas ramblings. Like I said, Hoxha stated he broke relations with the SU over revisionism, when in fact, it was because he had more to gain from China. He's full of shit. Are we to quote Obama on issues in Afghanistan?


Hoxha on Khrushchev's 1959 visit to Albania:

"He called Malinovsky, at that time minister of defence, who was always at hand:

'Look, how marvellous this is!' I heard them whisper. 'An ideal base for our submarines could be built here. These old things should be dug up and thrown into the sea (they were referring to the archaeological finds at Butrint). We can tunnel through this mountain to the other side,' and he pointed to Ksamil. 'We shall have the most ideal and most secure base in the Mediterranean. From here we can paralyze and attack everything.'


I highly doubt anyone said that, it was just Hoxha disillusionment "I hear voices" kind of thing. Kind of like how you "hear voices" about me supporting Soviet Imperialism when I clearly denounce it.


They were to repeat the same thing in Vlora a day or two later. We had come out on the verandah of the villa at Uji i Ftohtë.


"I hear voices"


'Marvellous, marvellous!' Khrushchev cried and turned to Malinovsky. I thought he was referring to the truly breath-taking landscape of our Riviera. But their mind was working in another direction: 'What a secure bay at the foot of these mountains!' they said. 'With a powerful fleet, from here we can have the whole of the Mediterranean, from Bosporus to Gibraltar, in our hands! We can control everyone.'"
(Enver Hoxha. The Khrushchevites. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1980. pp. 376-377.)


There isn't any evidence to support this aside from Hoxha, the disillusionment drowned nut job. Tell me again why I should believe it? Because "most" find him reliable? And by "Most" do you mean you and your band of asslickers?



You're right, it was poised to lose its independence and its industrial development, since the USSR wanted it joined to the "international socialist division of labor" the post-Stalin leadership had cooked up. Under this plan Albania would focus its exports on cash crops and fruit. I doubt American economic policies would be much different.


So it's nothing noble of "giving in" when the result is getting fucked over. If Albania did have something to gain, on the other hand, they would have imminently made relations with both these countries, as they attempted to do with the SU after Khrushchev, only to find out the people to come after him still don't give a shit.


They didn't win the war because of US and Chinese aid. Such aid gave them modern weaponry, but guns don't automatically equal popular support, which the Mujahidin clearly enjoyed in the majority of the country, the same majority you write off as not caring about because they were not areas inhabited by the "Marxist" PDPA and its Soviet overlords.


There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that without Chinese aid and U.S. aid, most noticeably their stinger missile launchers, the Muj would have lost.

The Soviets didn't need popular support to win the war. It was an imperialist proxy war.

By the way, you praise the Muj so much for their anti imperialism, yet, the Muj promised that should they seek power, they'd re create the "Islamic Calaphite" empire across the whole fucking world. What do you have to say about this?



The Soviets couldn't beat the Mujahidin. The best they could do was conduct their own form of "Vietnamization" to make the Afghan soldiers in the pay of the government fight better and to begin a gradual withdrawal because the war was a significant strain on Soviet resources. It's not much different from the Vietcong and other popular guerrilla movements.

There hasn't been a victory in Afghanistan by anyone in quite a fucking while. It's terrain is unbearable. Much like how the U.S. will get fucked just like anyone. Afghanistan is simply an impossible country ,and the fact that the Muj won isn't proof that they had popular support, regardless if they did or not.


No, but defending imperialism (especially in its most open form in the manner of brutal occupation) is certainly a good way of ensuring that no proletarian will ever support you, because the last thing they want to hear is "suck it up, at least they're building roads for your pathetic Islamist-asslicking piece of shit motherfucking Hoxhaist Maoist Stalinist capitalist... existence."


Actually, you mother fucker, I opposed the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. That doesn't change the fact taht the Muj were Feudalist Landowners while the Soviet Union were Bourgeois. The Bourgeoisie, according to Marx, are more progressive than the remnants of Feudalism. But in modern times, both are to be opposed, as we must analyze the outcome: the enslavement of the proletariat (Unless Afghanistan never sees a Proletariat).



Although, the Soviet Union was fighting against the Muj, which was an Imperialist proxy. This should tell us that both the Muj and the Soviets should be opposed as an Inter Imperialist war, despite the fact that the Soviet Union was more Progressive socially than the Muj.


Ismail dare criticize me for making these both in '5 font. Despite all of this, Ismail still accuses me of supporting and defending Imperialism.



Then they're idiots.


You forgot to address how the rest of the "National Liberation" wars were complete fuck ups.


Really? The national liberation councils were open to anyone, so long as they fought the fascists. Ditto with the National Liberation Movement.

Of course this isn't the proper use of the term, which you seem to use for everything.


Yet they had the upper hadn because they had the support of another Imperialist power: The Soviet Union.

Class Collaboration did exist, this is the proper use of the term. More and more, we see the ideological insecurity of Ismail, that the usage of mere terms is a threat to his dillusioned vision of the world.


The vast majority of said wars have only ever had pseudo-left forces at the helm to begin with and few actual communists. Those "communists" who did align with them were loyal to the Soviet revisionists and sought to integrate said struggles into the "world struggle" for "peaceful coexistence."


Are you blaming the Ideas of these groups to their downfall?
And what is being a communist to you? Agreeing with Hoxha?

Wasn't it you who said National Liberation wars are to be supported and should be successful regardless if it's communists leading the way? And now, you're saying that they failed because communists were leading the way? Under this logic, why even support the Mujaheddin, when you know it will be a disastrous failure?


I made it large because this is going to stump you and you're probably going to ignore it.

Ismail said this: Wow, just like Stalin, Hoxha, and others said it would! Yes, that's the point in national liberation wars where the communists aren't at the head.



It was? From what I recall the liberation of Afghanistan from Soviet yoke would weaken the Soviet imperialists, not that it would "pave way" for leftism in Afghanistan, although obviously not having "Marxist-Leninists" shooting at Afghan peasants and calling for glorious fraternal unity with the Soviet occupiers would assist a fair bit in that endeavor.


Ismail said this:

You've now gone from "opposing" the Soviet invasion to putting its imperialism in quotation marks. Nice strawman as well. Hoxha did not call for a "Marxist-Leninist paradise" in Afghanistan, he called for a war of national liberation against the Soviet occupiers. Only when freed from this occupation could the Afghan communists actually work on the basis of waging class struggle against the feudal forces who, thanks to the Soviet occupation, were able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan to begin with.




I will again quote from his December 1979 diary entry, at a time when non-Mujahidin forces were still notable:


As they were not. Stop trying to make it as if Hoxha is a fucking credible source.


"As is known, there are many insurgent movements in Afghanistan led by patriots who want neither the Soviet yoke nor the yoke of their agents, but they are described as Moslems and their anti-imperialist patriotic movement is described as an Islamic movement. This is a common label which world capitalism uses to revive religious animosities and strife and to give liberation movements the mediaeval meaning of religious wars. There is no doubt that the Afghan liberation fighters, who have risen against the yoke of imperialism, social-imperialism and the monarchy, are Moslem believers. Afghanistan is one of those countries where religion is still alive and active. However, it is not just their religion, which makes these people rise arms in hand against the occupiers of their homeland. Of course they are not Marxists, but they are patriots who want the liberation of their homeland, they are representatives of the democratic bourgeoisie. They do not want to live under the yoke of foreigners, regardless of the fact that their views are still far from those revolutionary bourgeois-democratic views, which result in deep-going reforms in the interest of their peoples.


Fucking idiot praising the Mujaheddin. No one knew the real character of the Muj until they actually got into power. He called them the "democratic bourgeoisie" when in fact they were fucking Feudal land lords.


But the struggle they are waging is of great importance, not only for Afghanistan, but also for the other peoples. It is evident that, with its intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is fulfilling its imperialist strategic plans to secure key military positions in those countries and especially to extend its imperialist domination to the heart of Asia and the Middle East. It is known that Afghanistan borders on China and Pakistan. So the Soviet Union wants to consolidate its strategic-military positions against China and pro-American or pro-British Pakistan. On the other hand, it is known that Afghanistan also borders on Iran, and indeed the Afghan insurgents present themselves as friends, well-wishers and co-fighters of Khomeini. Hence, if the Afghan insurgents triumph over the Soviets and their tools, this would be to the advantage of Khomeini....

Naturally, the two superpowers reach secret agreements over the division of spheres of influence between them, but this division also gives rise to great opposition, causes a fierce militant revolutionary reaction on the part of the masses of the people who suffer the consequences of these agreements; this situation impels the peoples to revolt against the internal and external oppression of local and world capitalism."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. pp. 523-525.)


And he was wrong. He fell flat on his face and ate his own shit.


He later noted that the USA, Pakistan and China sought to direct the struggle of the Afghan people for their own ends.


The struggle was started by them. It is not as if this was a major struggle and they just "intervened".


Are you saying that Najibullah praying to Allah and Babral Karmal's offer of amnesty to Mujahidin forces and the return of their property were "leftist" forces?


This was well after there was a "Leftist Status quo" and you know very well that's what I meant, you fucking scum bag.


I thought the Soviets were imperialists? I thought the Afghan government was, in your own words, a puppet state of Soviet imperialism? Where the hell does "leftism" come in anywhere near the two?


Leftism isn't inherently revolutionary or non capitalist, you know. It's called Bourgeois Leftism.


I don't see how this government, which you seem to admit had basically no support outside the capital, was supposed to usher in some sort of glorious period of capitalist development, which seems to be your only concern here. If it is, then the Republic that overthrew the monarchy, or even the monarchy itself (which was becoming increasingly "constitutional" as time went on and, as you might know, allowed the lamest—and later slavishly pro-Soviet—faction of the PDPA, the Parcham, to have a legal political existence) would have been sufficient.


This doesn't have anything to do with the class character of the Muj. "Glorious period of capitalist development" get the fuck out of here. I don't praise things and call them "Glorious" like you do, I'm not a red alert tankie.


Not quite, no. The Northern Alliance were certainly reactionary, but the Taliban were clearly at the fringe when it came to obscurantist sentiments.


So now you're supporting the Northern alliance because they're more "Progressive"? Fucking hypocrite.


And I ask you: what is the evidence that a regime despised by the vast majority of the population, and in any case conciliatory to said landowners especially after 1987, was worth supporting or sympathizing with in any way when it proved itself unable to exist without Soviet troops and the subsequent transfer of arms from the USSR to the Afghan armed forces. Do you seriously think that the government was going to hyper-nationalize Afghanistan and make it a bourgeois paradise? It'd need actual popularity to do that.


Actually, you don't need popularity to do that. Stop bringing up the late 80's. It was a lost war by then and the state had no chance. You're fucking pathetic. I am talking about the 70's and early 80's here, when, you know, there was actually a chance one side would win over the other.


http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Court-Red-Tsar/dp/1400042305

Are we talking about the USSR? Do you have any sources refuting the claims made in the books about Afghanistan I've mentioned?


Do you have any viable sources refuting the claims of The court of the Red Tsar?


I don't dismiss Montefiore, there's just various examples of his book being wrong. Just like I don't look at a book with a claim of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and go "OH GOD NO I CAN'T BEAR TO LOOK AT THIS ANY LONGER," but I note various disagreements with that figure from men like Getty, Thurston, etc. who use Soviet archives to make their point.


There's probably various examples of those same bourgeois sources being wrong, yet unlike the Hoxhaists no one gave a shit to refute them. I could ask Khad for some sources, Perhaps, perhaps...


I don't go "IT'S BOURGEOIS SO FUCK IT" like you do.


right, because Stalinists are inherently bourgeois. You say "IT'S REVISIONIST SLANDER FUCK IT".


I'm pretty sure the question of socialism isn't decided on the basis of bourgeois economic figures.


Bourgeois economic figures being measurement of living standards, wages, etc. ? :laugh: All of those countries existed within the realm of the capitalist mode of production. Including Hoxha. I call them socialist because that's the rhetoric. That is the guise of their bourgeois rule.


They did "much better economically" by exploiting the world or, in the case of China, turning their country into a place where labor conditions are abhorrent for the vast majority and in the service of capitalists from across the world.


And what makes you think Albania wouldn't do the same if they could? Fucking Idealist.


As Hoxha has stated:

"Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of 'three worlds', classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development."
(Enver Hoxha. Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. p. 256.)


Any serious Marxist recognizes the Class collaborationist shit that lurks within Maoism... But we Marxists strike the scum at all corners, we strike hoxhaism for it's Idealism and inconsistency, and we strike China for it's bourgeois romanticist class collaborationism.


It was Khrushchev and other Soviet revisionists who, like Tito, Deng, etc. turned "socialism" into a question of better access to consumer goods and other capitalist indicators of a "successful society."


They were, after all (Even under Stalin) capitalist countries, it's only natural that they would eventually adopt the rhetoric of their western counterparts.


Hence the words of Hoxha, speaking openly in front of Khrushchev, that:

"If N. Khrushchev and his followers, for one or another reason, do not like to help us, they are expecting us in vain to address ourselves to the imperialists and their allies for 'alms'. Our people have friends and comrades in the socialist countries who have not aban-doned and will not abandon them. But, regardless of this, we tell N. Khrushchev that the Albanian people and their Party of Labor will live even on grass, if need be, but they will never sell themselves for 30 pieces of silver, for they prefer to die standing and with honour rather than live with shame and knelt down."
(Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1972. p. 127.)


Does Hoxha think for you, or are you just a troll? He isn't a credible source. No Marxists take that fucker seriously.


How about actual Albanians in Albania proper?

See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html


Smells of Propaganda, I'll pass. I'm sure that scum doesn't represent people living in Albania.


I guess I was wrong, you apparently know plenty of old Albanian women.


"I guess I should just believe internet propaganda than an actual (Non opportunist, non religious) person who actually lived and breathed Albania".

You think I'll believe you instead?


So when Engels supported the liberation of Poland and Ireland, were those unacceptable later on as well?


When Bourgeois forces were progressive, it was acceptable. Lenin pointed out that the Bourgeoisie were no longer successful (WW1) so their vanguards are not to be supported (aside from the right to determination shit).


I already noted that the world was developing in a situation similar to the quote of Engels I gave than the ones where he notes the progress the colonization of India gave to its bourgeois development. I noted Lenin's work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, too.


You didn't.

Engel's position didn't apply to supporting the Muj, sorry. I don't know of any Feudal forces Marx and Engels supported.


Was RAWA? I bet women have more rights in post-Taliban Afghanistan as well than under the Taliban. Too bad those don't matter for much when you can't even enjoy them, either in the case of the Soviets occupying your country in the former or American occupation with the backing of complacent tribal leaders on the other.


Ismail believes women had more rights under the Taliban than the PDPA. Yup, he actually does.



Sure. If tensions in Canada ever got so bad that Anglo-Canadians began nationally oppressing their French counterparts (with guns and tanks, no less), and French national sentiment evidently shot through the roof in response, then leftists would, indeed, support the national liberation of Québec.


Ismail doesn't understand the meaning of a hypothetical potential scenario which could exist in maybe decades.


Would you support Fascists, than?


And there'd be no question of landlords or anything else, the main forces would be capitalists versus capitalists, with the French-speaking communists having the task of uniting the working-class of Québec for national autonomy up to self-determination if said working-class desires it.


Would you support Anti imperialist Feudalist Fascist Hindu extremists against Imperialism in India, should China invade?


For someone who claims to be a "scientific Marxist" and a guy who, as far as he's concerned, is concerned only with class, you sure like to submerge the issue of the ratio of class forces in favor of bourgeois notions of economic development, women's rights, etc.


This is an issue of class, between the bourgeoisie and the remnants of feudalism. I choose to side with none, you choose the latter in the basis of "Anti Imperialism".


You can see the first part (and the others, of course, but the first is relevant here) of Stalin's speech to the 18th Party Congress here: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html


Why can't you addres the issue? Stalinists supported the bourgeois when it suited them, they supported Imperialism (And IMperialist powers) when it suited them. Hoxha supported the SU and China until they stopped giving them shiny toys.


Well lets see here, the USA is an imperialist power, Canada is a defender of imperialist interests, and Québec is a part of Canada with its own nation. I think in this case it'd be fair to character the conflict as an inter-imperialist war between two aggressive capitalist states. The working-class of the USA and Canada would be tasked with overthrowing their countries' respective governments while the people of Québec would be tasked with liberating it from Anglo-Canadian occupation.


Since you can't understand a hypothetical analogy (Because you're a fucking idiot) respond to what I said about India. Sixty years before Afghanistan, I'm sure something so hypothetical (About Muj vs. Soviets) would have been met with "Well, for one, the Muj do not exist there, two, Soviets have no influence there, etc."

It's HYPOTHETICAL. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't falsify the message: In such a situation (Even though that situation is not present yet) Would you support Fascists against Imperialism?



I was mistaken, you don't misunderstand national liberation; you misunderstand the very concept of a nation, something tons of Marxists ("Orthodox" or otherwise) have written on. Not even Luxemburg denied the existence of nations, and she was one of Lenin's strongest critics on the issue.

Luxemburg isn't something I hold dear to my heart. I don't think the nation exists, it's something artificially created. The nation is, of course, defined as a homogeneous body of humans who share language, history, etc. Could this not be applied to the south? It could be applied to whatever the fuck you want to apply it to. The nation as a concept is a Bourgeois concept that sought to collaborate classes under the guise of "National strength" or, "National liberation ;)"


No wonder you suck so badly at Marxism.


Ismail sais other people "Suck at Marxism" when he blames the downfall of the Soviet Union, China, on the abandonment of Ideas.


Marxism doesn't put emphasis in recognizing the nation, I'm sorry. That's for Fascists and the likes of the Socialist Phlanx, you certainly have a lot in common with.



... you've already mentioned that the Afghan terrain favored the Mujahidin. You've tacitly admitted that the Mujahidin enjoyed the support of the majority of the population of the country.


But unlike the VietCong, the Muj didn't need the support of the majority of the population for victory.


There's a fairly big difference. The Soviets committed their crimes from the vantage point of occupiers with superiority in just about every area (except, of course, popular support.)

A so called scientific Marxist judges the Soviet Union because cheesy American 80's movies about the "Occupier" while real Scientific Marxists judge the Soviet Union on the basis of for filling the hunger of capital, but still oppose the Feudal Muj.


The abuses of Mujahidin units, like those committed by the Vietcong, Algerian resistance, etc., were qualitatively different from those of Soviet soldiers who were conscious of their role as unpopular occupiers and who tended to hate the native population.


Name me cases where the Vietcong and the Algerian resistance forced little girls to marry old men, where they systematically sold, raped and auctioned off little boys to perverted old scum bags. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/22/dancing-boys-of-afghanist_n_548428.html

There has not been a Soviet atrocity comparable. Even death is better.


Was Nazi Germany being occupied by a foreign power and the people tracing their very existence as a nation to the victory of some sort of Nazi national liberation guerrilla campaign?


Yes, it was, namely the United States and the Soviet Union, after WW2.

And, the point was, you justified support for x reactionary force on the basis that they had popular support. The great Bordiga did a good piece of work on how these "Democracy" myths are bullshit.

Plus, that's not a scientific analysis. You always look at the rhetoric of the scum bags "Tito said X" "Khruschev Said X" "Nazis Said X" Instead of criticizing the class background of them.

The rhetoric of the reactionaries isn't of importance, what ever struggle they deem to guise themselves under.


In reality the Nazis gradually lost support as WWII dragged on. By the beginning of 1945 it's safe to say the majority of the people had a pretty clear hatred of Nazism.

By the 90's I'm sure most Afghans hated the Taliban... So?


Not to mention that the entire situation is irrelevant, of course, since you're comparing a national liberation war with Hitler manipulating bourgeois elections, coming to power, and manipulating public support from that vantage point.


You are the one who said the Muj are to be supported because they have popular support.


So good, we've moved on. We have established that having popular support isn't grounds for supporting x force.


Everyone knows of the fact that various Soviet soldiers engaged in rape, etc. shortly after the war had ended.

Just as much as they did under Khrushchev, but go on..


Yet it is pretty obvious that Khrushchev's "destalinization," the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy, etc. had laid the basis for the Hungarian uprising to occur.

As Stalin would have done the same, go on. (The same Nagy who was shot).


Khrushchev put an end to the uprising and used this to "teach" people about "Stalinism" and how it apparently doesn't allow the national culture of a people to be respected, and proceeded to promote "Goulash socialism" and the construction of a new party on a firmly pro-Soviet and revisionist course.


Stalin would have done the same. You haven't really pointed out the difference between Khrushchev and Stalin other than some bullshit about tractors... Really, the class character of the SU was about the exact same until 1965.

The Hungarians, from a source, have hated the Soviet soldiers even under Stalin. The uprising was just a growing storm.


The Great Soviet Encyclopedia states (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Afghans) the following: "Afghans (self-designation Pashtani, singular Pushtun; among the eastern Afghans, Pakhtani and Pukhtun, respectively), a people constituting more than half of the population of Afghanistan (more than 8 million people, according to a 1967 estimate)."


What the hell makes you think I find that a reliable source, either?

You don't know what I mean when I say the "Afghan People". As in, a collective homogeneous interest that overlaps class divide. The Afghan people as an interest do not exist, as any Marxist would recognize.


Of course your gigantic block of text immediately succeeding this is meant to show that you aren't anti-social at all; you realize that yes, there is an Afghan nation and presumably this is made up of millions of people. Yet there are times when more or less the people of a country, regardless of social and economic origins (although with variable willpower, e.g. landowners are generally less likely to fight than students), are willing to fight on the same side.

Yes, it's called false conscious. When a class is acting in favor of another, it is not doing so within the realm of class conscious, it is doing so within the realm of false conscious. Meaning, the class interests existed, the "People" never existed as a collective interest, it's just one class managed to suppress the interests of another. That does not mean those interests did not exist.

of course, you probably won't reply to that.


That's the Marxist usage of the word "people" in matters such as national liberation wars.


There isn't anything Marxist about that. There is, though, a hint of Bourgeois-Stalinism (which is just another guise supporting the rule of capital).


I guess the Anti-Fascist National Liberation War of the Albanian People (the full title given to it by the Party of Labour) was, in fact, fascist all along.


If the PPSH indeed held the believe that there exists an interest based on national background that overlaps class interest than yes, they certainly had influences from Fascism.

it's no surprise the Socialist-Nationalists use the emblem of Albania (Two headed eagle or whatever). It's because Hoxhaism in nature is very, very nationalistic.

But yes, the ideological backbone of Fascim is that there exists a collective homogeneous interest in regards to "The Nation" that makes class irrelevant. The PPSH was in fact a bourgeois party, anyway ("Nation before class"). It's no surprise.


Could have fooled me.


Obviously not, your head is so far up your ass you're hopeless.


It was? Here I thought Deng argued that China already was "socialist" and that it could basically do anything it wanted and not have to worry much about capitalist restoration.


That's not exactly the justification he gave. He said that the National Bourgeoisie must have their way before a real genuine proletarian movement could arise. This was false.


No, the proletariat can and has led national liberation struggles. Albania being the most obvious example in my mind

Except that there were no Proletarians in Albania. Do you know what a Proletarian is? Albania's struggle was a petite bourgeois struggle. There can exist cases where the proletariat could fight against a Bourgeois invader based solely on their own class interest, yes, but this can never be the cases when, as you put it "Nation comes before class".


, but there were also examples of this in places like the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc. in the 1917-1918 period where, when the proletariat was in a position to directly challenge the interests of any national bourgeois forces, direct struggle emerged and the national bourgeoisie put themselves in the service of a foreign imperialism.


Except for the fact that there were no Proletariat in those countries.



Yeah, so secret nobody in Afghanistan heard it except a few guys in the capital's palace, and a few months later the Soviets came into that very palace to kill the head of state, whose predecessor had asked for the Soviets to send a few Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc. in Soviet clothing to fight alongside the Afghan army because it sucked so badly as a fighting force.


So you support factions under the guise of "Whether they are good at fighting" or not? You previously stated that in Afghanistan, the only reason the regime called assistance was to make the Afghans believe that they weren't directly being controlled by the Soviet Union. And now you're admitting it was secret, and no Afghans knew about it to start.


To quote Ismail:
Actually a puppet government would ask for assistance. The point of these governments is to bring legitimacy to the occupier.


Which one is it? Did they call assistance to bring legitimacy or did they do it in secret without any one knowing?


Very compelling.



This isn't an argument to bring legitimacy to the existence of the PDPA government. This isn't about a cage mach between the Soviet backed forces and whatever scum you support. This is about objective facts.



The disdain must have lowered the view of the PDPA from the average Afghan from "hated" to "slightly more hated" (turned into "absolutely hated" after the Soviet invasion) since, again, Taraki desperately asked for Soviet assistance via secret Soviet citizens dressing up as Afghan army personnel. See: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7b69p12h&chunk.id=appd&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

The situation for them was getting out of control for the puppet government.. Amin was fucking things up and the Muj was getting stronger by day. That's why factions within the PDPA called in for Soviet Assistance.


Does that conversation really sound like it was made by someone not leading a party disdained by the masses?


I've cited many things you've said, so now you need to cite everyone where exactly I said that the PDPA wasn't disdained.


Ismail is so dillusioned, he's hearing voices like comrade Hoxha.




Yes, it was an imperialist invasion. Just don't use the excuse of any "request" made, because the man who made it was dead for quite a while by that point and it was unrepresentative in any case.


It was an Imperialist invasion, yet it was far more complex for your tiny little Hoxhaist mind to comprehend.


So the Soviets didn't pretend that Amin was a wonderful comrade who was valiantly advancing the cause of the Afghan revolution up until the day they decided to invade and off him? The Soviets didn't fly Karmal in from his exiled position?


No, from day to day they were getting more and more dissatisfied from him, after the first day he was in power.


... are you now claiming that the Soviets didn't claim they were merely "assisting" the Afghan government in accordance with prior treaties?


They did claim that, it doesn't mean it's true.


The Comintern existed, the communists listened to Comintern instructions.

What communists? There were none.


It was the Comintern which called on the Albanians to form a communist party in 1941,

:laugh: 1941? . We all fucking know that the comintern by than was a puppet of Stalinist Bourgeois interests, nothing comparable to the actual Comintern of Lenin, etc.

You said that by the early 1920's the Comintern instructed Albanian "communists" to collaborate with other classes. I stated those communists never existed. Now you;re talking about 1941?




it was the Comintern the Albanians, upon forming the party, waited to receive a letter containing subsequent instructions. But there were bourgeois-democratic organizations besides Bashkimi which, along with it, had ties to the Comintern. The Comintern also endorsed the creation of a National Liberation Committee (called KONARE) in 1925

I've already addressed the issue of the Soviets supported Bourgeois forces, you know, maybe two or more posts ago (You were never able to respond, unsurprisingly). They were desperate. They needed friends. Lenin himself never had any illusions about it (Like supporting Kemalists, who later massacred communists with Russian weapons).



which was affiliated to the Comintern and was a bourgeois-democratic organization operating in exile against Ahmet Zogu's regime.


Which wouldn't have happened if the revolution by then, you know, wasn't degenerating because of failed revolution in Germany (1919).



The ideological enemies of "Hoxhaism" which you're apparently alluding to and offering to cite are Soviet sources, I suppose. You're free to cite them.


I am, but you will none the less dismiss them as mere propaganda and bias. Just like you dismiss the works of Stalin by Bourgeois western academics.


Tell me how they fared.


That isn't an argument. We know they lost because of Imperialist aid to the Muj. Your point?


And it didn't take American arms to get them to organize against the unpopular government, now did it? If you'd like to attribute the very first attacks the Mujahidin inflicted on the government to having their origins in supposed American backing then feel free to provide a source.


But it did take arms and Propaganda from Imperialist powers to allow that organized Muj to gain support. After the Muj became something visible to the world, the Americans were the first to arm them.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_mujahideen_control.html


"Socialist regime."

Every socialist state operated within the capitalist mode of production, and "Socialism" is what separates them from Western Liberalism, ideologically. Is this Proletarian Socialism? No, it's Bourgeois socialism. Whatever. I call these Communist states because that's what they are known as. Paul Cockshott pointed out that saying X state isn't "Socialist" without actually having real socialism to compare it with is absurd. And, since each and every state was not "real socialism" (especially Albania) than there is no use in calling them "State capitalist" or whatever.


Also you'd be wrong, according to no less a source than Brzezinski himself, who in 1998 dropped a "bombshell" by admitting that yes, the Americans backed the Mujahidin before the Soviets invaded, but also noting (http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/archive/brzezinski/1998/interview.htm) that "it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."

That's the official date, but I'm very sure they had ties to them earlier on.


That was months after Taraki's desperate phone-call.


See above.


Name any distinguishing ideological features, then. Explain why no one (except Maoists who used "Hoxhaite" as a pejorative) ever used the term on a serious basis.


Rampant Nationalism, the banning of "Beards (Banans)", plain weird fucked up policies, Anti Revisionism, are only unique to Albanian Hoxhaism. Stalin wasn't an anti revisionism, he constantly revised Marxist Leninist ideology to suit the needs of Soviet Capital. Most noticeably concepts of SIOC, how he said it was not the goal of the SU to spread revolution, deals with various Imperialist powers, the fueling the fire of Soviet Capital, etc. etc. etc.

Anti Revisionism itself is Revisionist.

Also Hoxha was a racist fuck. He called the music of Africans in the west "Jungle Music". What a piece of shit.

Everyone besides Hoxhaists uses the word Hoxhaite, and if they don't, it's when they aren't mentioning it.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/aug2011/zize-a27.shtml


Zizek:


The protesters, though underprivileged and de facto socially excluded, weren’t living on the edge of starvation. People in much worse material straits, let alone conditions of physical and ideological oppression, have been able to organise themselves into political forces with clear agendas. The fact that the rioters have no programme is therefore itself a fact to be interpreted: it tells us a great deal about our ideological-political predicament and about the kind of society we inhabit, a society which celebrates choice but in which the only available alternative to enforced democratic consensus is a blind acting out. Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst. What is the point of our celebrated freedom of choice when the only choice is between playing by the rules and (self-)destructive violence?


Zizek was saying there wasn't a revolutionary programme of the riots and that they were a spontaneous burst of anger and dissatisfaction from the System (like occupy) and therefore didn't see the revolutionary potential (Or class based). That's different from calling them savages and denouncing them all together. What he is denouncing is the hypocritical notion that we live in a system of choice when the only way to make a choice different from what we are provided is what he calls "Blinding out", rioting, destroying things, etc.

Of course, I don't fully agree with him, but it's hardly reactionary as a statement.


Neither, I think Barack Obama and Mitt Romney triumph both by leaps and bounds. Better question: whose writings are better poised to actually advance a Marxist movement in the United States?


Zizek's writings are to advance Marxian thought, not a "movement". They are not comparable. Hoxha has influenced far less than Zizek has.


I know what you'll answer with, you already said you find his hack writing "interesting."


And you're wrong. That's not what I was going to answer with. Funny, most of the predictions I've made about what you were going to do were 100% correct, while none of yours were.


lol


"Lol, dur hur I dnt undarzstand the big wordz, dear leader hoxha has made me not compute, cannot articulate, I am on the verge of self destruction so I must just say "lol" as a desperate final attempt to make sesne of non hoxhaist termzzzz".


Like who?


In Latin America, many communist movements, many movements in Spain, etc. I said region, not country. In Latin America, you had Nicaraguan movements, movements in Colombia, Peru, Chile, etc. None were Hoxhaists.

You once said that one of the contributing factors to the Sino Albanian split was China's support for Pinochet. When in fact, this was far from the case. They broke support because China's shiny new toys were no longer being imported. Albania simply no longer needed China, it was a burden.

Albania, on the other hand, praised Pinochet and said he was more progressive than the Soviet Union.


You called modern-day Afghanistan reactionary. Congratulations. Doesn't address what I wrote.

Actually, you fuck, the U.S. has what to offer to Afghanistan? The Hamid Karzai Government. Which is more or less on the same level of being reactionary as the Taliban. The Karzai govt certainly isn't more progressive in any way, socially, or via class.

[Rafiq]

I am a fortune teller. I shall predict Ismail's next post will tamper and twist my words to suit him. I will also predict Ismail's next post will not address everything I said and at Maximum, will address 2/3rds of my post, like his last one.

I also will predict his next post will contain accusations that I support Soviet Imperialism.

Also, I predict he will take my analogy in regards to India and say "There isn't a Fascist movement in India that would do such, it would not happen because I don't understand what being hypothetical means.

He will also continue to say that it's weak because it's hypothetical, and not real, when in fact, it is merely there to root out whether he'd support fascists in such a scenario.

I also predict that Ismail will ignore the real, important points I've made in my post under the guise of "Waa waa" big font.

Also, I predict that Ismail will talk more about Orthodox Marxism, of things he has no Idea in regards. He will than accuse me of calling the SU "Objectively Progressive", and make an argument against that, i.e. a straw man.

I predict Ismail will cite Hoxha at the least five times.

And finally, I predict his dog Roach will thank the post. Maybe Botsana too.

And, finally, if none of these are done, I predict it is merely because I made this very post predicting them.

[Rafiq]

Ismail, your fantasies of this thread being an ideological victory for Hoxhaism shall never be for filled.

[Ismail]

In which they quite not too long after. They never gave a shit.That's why Teme Sejko and others were executed in 1960 in a plot which involved the USA? Is that why Mehmet Shehu was denounced as a CIA agent?


That is, by definition, an act of Imperialism.Indeed, the Nazi invasion was a clear case of the imperialist ambitions of Nazi Germany.


They were welcomed as Liberators by everyone except the poles themselves.Most of whom settled there during the 20's and 30's?


You know, I'm sure many ethnic minorities who were persecuted by the Mujahadeen on the rural side welcomed the Soviets as well.Really? I was under the impression that one of the leading Mujahidin groups was Uzbek.


And what of the actual Poles, how did they react? Furiously.What's your point? Polish settlers reacted strongly against the Ukrainians and Byelorussians getting their land back. News at 8.


I can easily just dismiss this as apoligia for Soviet Imperialism. You can't oppose the Soviets invading Afghanistan (Because of Imperialism) and then continue to support them invade Finland.Except I noted that the situation in Finland had nothing to do with imperialism.


Yeah, they didn't want to annex Poland, they just wanted to set up a puppet government there that would for fill their interests as an Imperialist superpower (hmm... Does this remind me of Afghanistan?).They set up a puppet government in Poland? Perhaps you made a typo and meant to say Finland? Well no, they didn't want to set up a puppet government in Finland either. Roberts notes that the "Finnish Democratic Republic" was created because the Soviets thought it might become popular and would be willing to sign the agreements. When it was proven to be non-popular in practice, it was disbanded.


Saying something like that would require a source. That certainly isn't common sense.National Guardian, April 16, 1971 on an ODESSA study by the Spanish government


The Bolshevik party degenerated during the late twenties into a fully capitalist party, yes.No, 1950's.


All the Bolsheviks started out as Intellectuals, hell, Marx was a fucking intellectual.So was Hoxha. But so was Sejfulla Malëshova, too. The question is one of intellectualism, not being an intellectual.


Probably founded because both the Soviets and china refused to arm them.They split from pro-Soviet and Maoist parties, actually.


Albania is open to the United States yet it's made little to no investment. The U.S. has nothing to gain from Albania.Why would the U.S.A. invest in Albania? It can't gain from that. Of course Albania has helped, e.g. provided support for NATO's invasion of Kosovo.


And yes, the U.S. sends funds to the party yet ignores it. You know ,the two are not mutually exclusive. Virtually all the postcommunist parties were funded by the U.S.The Democratic Party in Albania is slavishly pro-US. Its leader, Berisha, compares Ahmadinejad with Hitler and gave Bush a hero's welcome when he visited a few years back.


When Hoxha left, the U.S. didn't rush in to make investments like they did in Russia.Well for what it's worth the Department of State occupied the Enver Hoxha Museum and turned it into a relief agency.


Yes, I've establish that the Soviets cared about Albania for a brief period of time, and when it was discovered they broke relations with China, the Soviets regarded them as fucking nutjobs and never payed attention to them again.Is that why the Soviets continued throughout the 1980's to try and "normalize" relations, played up the Soviet-Albanian Friendship Society (which went defunct in Albania after 1961), etc.?


By the way, the only reason Albania broke relations with Moscow is because China promised them more shiny toys. Yup, the ugly materialist truth to it all. Behind all of hte ideological rhetoric, there was some kind of economic, or military benefit from Hoxha's foreign policy.Really? Every source I've read noted that:

A. China couldn't provide as much to Albania;
B. Hoxha constantly accused the Chinese in his diaries of trying to economically sabotage Albania after the 60's, and of organizing a plot in the military to overthrow him in 1972-1974.


Hoxha had no problem becoming friends with the SU after Khrushchev died, it was only after he discoverd they weren't planning on suiting Albania any better that he continued to denounce their "revisionism".Wrong. Hoxha in his diaries clearly condemns the Chinese for praising the fall of Khrushchev and trying to "normalize" ties with the Brezhnevite USSR. I can provide quotes if you'd like.


Because they were replaced by Chinese...The Chinese technicians and such sent to Albania, for what it's worth, were a lot less odious to the Albanians. Soviet technicians, as James S. O'Donnell and others have noted, were actually paid a salary quite a bit higher than Hoxha himself. Chinese technicians willing to work for Albanian wages and the Albanians had more control over them.


But after the Albanians rid themselves of China no one gave a shit, as I pointed out. These books are all about Albania being a dog of China. Before, the dogs of the soviets, after, of china, after that, of no one.Yes, in the 60's and early 70's Albania was seen as a "dog" of China. But in the 80's and onwards it was made clear that the image of Albania as a "dog" of China wasn't really accurate, since from the start there were fundamental differences between the two states who, in the end, really didn't coordinate anything outside of diplomatic matters (and even then that mostly ended after 1972.)


Who the fuck is most? Most who?Jon Halliday, for one.


If Albania did have something to gain, on the other hand, they would have imminently made relations with both these countries, as they attempted to do with the SU after Khrushchev, only to find out the people to come after him still don't give a shit.Albania tried to open up ties with the USSR after Khrushchev fell? Really? Is that why Hoxha called Brezhnev a fascist and formally withdrew from the Warsaw Pact in 1968? Is that why Hoxha denounced the Chinese for trying to align with the Soviets after 1964?


The Soviets didn't need popular support to win the war. It was an imperialist proxy war.That's why the Soviets sought to gain popular support via the puppet regime, right?


By the way, you praise the Muj so much for their anti imperialism, yet, the Muj promised that should they seek power, they'd re create the "Islamic Calaphite" empire across the whole fucking world. What do you have to say about this?Nothing, because I never said the Mujahidin were anti-imperialist, just that they were, objectively, at the head of an anti-imperialist struggle because of the absence of any other significant force. That's also pretty weird, since I'm pretty sure the Mujahidin were a fairly diverse lot and you can't subscribe one single goal to them besides "we hate the Soviet Union and the godless atheists who invaded our glorious land."


I could ask Khad for some sources, Perhaps, perhaps...Yeah, he's a Brezhnevite, he'll defend the Soviet occupation under any circumstances because he has admitted that geo-politics are more important to him than anything else.


Albania, on the other hand, praised Pinochet and said he was more progressive than the Soviet Union.... no he [assuming "Albania" = Enver Hoxha] didn't. He pretty obviously denounced Pinochet and used China's friendship with him, Mobutu and others as an example of the anti-Marxist character of the "Three Worlds Theory."

I'm done. Not because you "win," but because I have no wish talking to someone who I suspect, quite frankly, has mental issues that make any debate worthless. Apologia for Soviet social-imperialism, calling Hoxha insane, praising Žižek, and a bunch of other stuff that makes it not worth talking to you. I'm confident that what I've written in previous posts is good enough to make my point in-re Afghanistan.

[Rafiq]

That's why Teme Sejko and others were executed in 1960 in a plot which involved the USA? Is that why Mehmet Shehu was denounced as a CIA agent?

It's called paranoia.


Indeed, the Nazi invasion was a clear case of the imperialist ambitions of Nazi Germany.


Yes, as well as the Soviet Union. Or is it too hard for you to grasp the fact that both were Imperialist states with Imperialist ambitions.


Most of whom settled there during the 20's and 30's?


Doesn't matter.


Really? I was under the impression that one of the leading Mujahidin groups was Uzbek.


Ethnic and Religious minorities


What's your point? Polish settlers reacted strongly against the Ukrainians and Byelorussians getting their land back. News at 8.


Poles all over Poland, no just Eastern Poland. Nice try.


Except I noted that the situation in Finland had nothing to do with imperialism.


Yes, and because you noted it means that it wasn't. Of course it was an act of Imperialism.


They set up a puppet government in Poland? Perhaps you made a typo and meant to say Finland? Well no, they didn't want to set up a puppet government in Finland either. Roberts notes that the "Finnish Democratic Republic" was created because the Soviets thought it might become popular and would be willing to sign the agreements. When it was proven to be non-popular in practice, it was disbanded.


Yes, I do mean Finland. The Finnish Democratic Republic wasn't disbanded because Lack of popularity, it was disbanded because they lost in the Imperialist war for Finland. They wanted to set up an Imperialist puppet government, much like the one in Afghanistan you criticize so strongly.


National Guardian, April 16, 1971 on an ODESSA study by the Spanish government


Yeah, actually link it.


No, 1950's.


You're a fuclking idiot. There wasn't a noticable difference in policy under Khrushchev other than some irrelivent nonsense about tractors.

By the late 1920's the Bolsheviks had established relations with several imperialist powers and opened the country up to foreign business, selling the proletariat. The existence of capital was no longer "Controlled", they were all devoured by it.


So was Hoxha. But so was Sejfulla Malëshova, too. The question is one of intellectualism, not being an intellectual.


Hoxha wasn't intellectual. He didn't contribute anything to the structural enhancement of Marxism. Hoxha was a puppet of foreign Imperialist interests.


They split from pro-Soviet and Maoist parties, actually.


Than they were irrelevant Idealists who just were "riding the wave" of all the other proxy groups and split off. When you have a strong communist movement in the third world, you tend to have these irrelevant splinter groups break off for fuck all reasons.


Why would the U.S.A. invest in Albania? It can't gain from that. Of course Albania has helped, e.g. provided support for NATO's invasion of Kosovo.


And after the Kosovo war no one gave a shit. The U.S. never had anything to gain from Albania, Hoxha or no Hoxha.


The Democratic Party in Albania is slavishly pro-US. Its leader, Berisha, compares Ahmadinejad with Hitler and gave Bush a hero's welcome when he visited a few years back.


Good job, he's just ass kissing for help, which he will never get.


Well for what it's worth the Department of State occupied the Enver Hoxha Museum and turned it into a relief agency.


...And? They didn't rush in as if "Oh yes, finally!" like they did with the rest of the "revisionist" countries.


Is that why the Soviets continued throughout the 1980's to try and "normalize" relations, played up the Soviet-Albanian Friendship Society (which went defunct in Albania after 1961), etc.?


The Soviet Union didn't have any particular interest in Albania after the Sino-Albanian split. Nice try.


Really? Every source I've read noted that:

A. China couldn't provide as much to Albania;


yet it provided more than the Soviet Union did.


B. Hoxha constantly accused the Chinese in his diaries of trying to economically sabotage Albania after the 60's, and of organizing a plot in the military to overthrow him in 1972-1974.


There's a clear difference beteween the character of the Hoxha state and Hoxha himself. This was just mere paranoia. It all traces back to Yugoslavia. When China decided to create relations with Yugoslavia this pissed off Hoxha, (And the fact that China was running dry with nothing to offer Albania).

They then broke relations, and afterwords, make up an ideological mystification to justify this, i.e. (But China and the U.S. created relations! But China is becoming increasingly revisionist!).


Wrong. Hoxha in his diaries clearly condemns the Chinese for praising the fall of Khrushchev and trying to "normalize" ties with the Brezhnevite USSR. I can provide quotes if you'd like.


That's a lie. I'm talking about the period between Khrushchev and Brezhnev, i.e. When Khrushchev was dumped, automatically Hoxha tried to normalize relations with the Soviet Union, only to find that they still had nothing to offer him, and that's when Brezhnev came to power.

In October 1964, Hoxha hailed Nikita Khrushchev's fall from power, and the Soviet Union's new leaders made overtures to Tirana. It soon became clear, however, that the new Soviet leadership had no intention of changing basic policies to suit Albania, and relations failed to improve. Tirana's propaganda continued for decades to refer to Soviet officials as "treacherous revisionists" and "traitors to communism," and in 1964 Hoxha said that Albania's terms for reconciliation were a Soviet apology to Albania and reparations for damages inflicted on the country. Soviet-Albanian relations dipped to new lows after the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, when Albania responded by officially withdrawing from the alliance.


Sino-Albanian relations declined by 1970. With the Sino-Albanian split, the Albanians began to normalized relations with the Soviet Union, as well as opening new relations to other nations.


Obviously Hoxha didn't care that China became friends with the United States, considering he created relations with West Germany, etc. He was an opportunist, just like Tito.



The Chinese technicians and such sent to Albania, for what it's worth, were a lot less odious to the Albanians. Soviet technicians, as James S. O'Donnell and others have noted, were actually paid a salary quite a bit higher than Hoxha himself. Chinese technicians willing to work for Albanian wages and the Albanians had more control over them.


Yes, that's true. The Chinese were cheaper and gave more shiny toys. That's why he broke relations with the SU in favor of China, i.e. Nothing to do with "revisionism".


Yes, in the 60's and early 70's Albania was seen as a "dog" of China. But in the 80's and onwards it was made clear that the image of Albania as a "dog" of China wasn't really accurate

Was no longer accurate. Albania was a dog, in the period it had relations with China.


, since from the start there were fundamental differences between the two states who, in the end, really didn't coordinate anything outside of diplomatic matters (and even then that mostly ended after 1972.)


China used Albania and Albania needed China. Simple as that. After China left the Albanian economy became so desperate they tried to normalize relations with anyone who could help. Not until it spun out of control into shit, that is.


Jon Halliday, for one.


So that's everyone ? No one takes Hoxha's works as a credible source besides his cult.


Albania tried to open up ties with the USSR after Khrushchev fell? Really? Is that why Hoxha called Brezhnev a fascist and formally withdrew from the Warsaw Pact in 1968? Is that why Hoxha denounced the Chinese for trying to align with the Soviets after 1964?


Khrushchev fell in 1964. It was only later on until Hoxha realized Brezhnev still didn't give a shit and withdrew as it had nothing to gain from the warsaw pact. He later justified it by calling Brezhnev a revisionist. But had Brezhnev offered something to Albania, he wouldn't have called him that.


That's why the Soviets sought to gain popular support via the puppet regime, right?


it would help, but it wasn't essential.


Nothing, because I never said the Mujahidin were anti-imperialist

Anyone who's been reading this conversation can clearly come to the conclusion that you did.


, just that they were, objectively, at the head of an anti-imperialist struggle because of the absence of any other significant force.

It wasn't an anti imperialist struggle, as it very much benefited other Imperialist powers.


That's also pretty weird, since I'm pretty sure the Mujahidin were a fairly diverse lot and you can't subscribe one single goal to them besides "we hate the Soviet Union and the godless atheists who invaded our glorious land."


All members of the Muj wanted to re-build the Islamic Calaphite empire that would stretch across all of Earth. And yes, they all fought and hated the Soviet Union because they were "godless".



Yeah, he's a Brezhnevite, he'll defend the Soviet occupation under any circumstances because he has admitted that geo-politics are more important to him than anything else.


And you're a Hoxhaist who'll just agree with everything Hoxha said regardless of whether it's inconsistent or not. You're not even a real Stalinist, if Hoxha hated Stalin, you would too.



... no he [assuming "Albania" = Enver Hoxha] didn't. He pretty obviously denounced Pinochet and used China's friendship with him, Mobutu and others as an example of the anti-Marxist character of the "Three Worlds Theory."


Hoxha clearly stated that the Soviet Union was worse than Pinochet. Hoxha didn't have any problems with China's bullshit until he broke relations for purely economic reasons.



I'm done. Not because you "win," but because I have no wish talking to someone who I suspect, quite frankly, has mental issues that make any debate worthless.

Ismail, you're not done, you're going to respond to this. I know of it. Why? You pulled this stunt so you wouldn't have to address the other 9/10ths of my post because you simply couldn't. You wanted me to respond to the content that you decided I should. Now you'll respond to this and forget about that whole other post I made, and try and make it irrelevant. You're a coward. I don't "win" because you said you aren't going to respond, I "Win" because you're going to respond to this and will never respond to the actual important posts I made above here.

It's pathetic. Feel free to respond to all of this, because, as far as I'm concerned, my job here is done, and I'm sure anyone with a head will concur with me. If you actually respond to my whole post above, you know, the other 9/10ths than I'll be glad to continue to engage in conversation with you. I just won't have it, making that post for no fucking reason.



Apologia for Soviet social-imperialism

You would not be able to actually type this up if you would have responded to my whole post above, because it would be contradictory to it.


, calling Hoxha insane,

In which every serious Marxist does.


praising Žižek

I like Zizek. He's not that worthy of praise but he's something. He's better than Hoxha (though that's not an accomplishment) at the least.


, and a bunch of other stuff that makes it not worth talking to you.

Yet you'll continue this conversation, you just didn't want to face the actual facts I presented to you.


I'm confident that what I've written in previous posts is good enough to make my point in-re Afghanistan.

Your point was simple slander and name calling, accusing me of positions in which I have nothing to do with, that of which I debunked several, several times over in large font. That's hardly making a point.

The only thing you've shown everyone here is that you're incapable of having a conversation with someone without

1. Mentioning Hoxha

2. Falsely accusing them of Ideological positions that only exist in the world of Hoxhaism

3. Failing to address at least 2/3rds of an entire post

and Finally, apologia for a Feudal and Reactionary force, the Muj, not because deep down you support them, but because Hoxha did.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since much of this thread has gone off-topic anyway:


1. There wasn't an Afghan Proletariat.

2. The struggle against the Soviet Occupiers was 100% organized by the Afghan landowners, who were furious that their land was being confiscated by the state and given to the Peasant Population.

3. There was no evidence that an single Afghan proletarian movement arose and fought against Soviet Social Imperialism. None. And if there was, I'd be the first to support it.

Your presupposion relies on the notion that there was an exploited Afghan Proletariat in the first place, and even if that was true, it also relies on the fact that there was an Organized proletarian based movement that fought against hte Soviet Union because of their level of class concision.

This argument, you fall flat on your face, Ismail.

And the landowners appealed to the mujahedeen. Ismail needs to learn some history here.


Sigh, so you don't know what Orthodox Marxism is after all. Orthodox Marxism is mostly theoretical, but, pre-war SPD and others could be classified as Orthodox Marxist. The Mensheviks, on the other hand, were Left Liberal scum bags who had nothing to do with Marxism, and if ever, only because it's in their opportunist nature.

Just a correction to both of you: the original Mensheviks (Martov, Plekhanov, etc.) also had their theoretical origins in Orthodox Marxism. It wasn't for good (however disagreeable) reason that the left Mensheviks, despite their stagism, called the Bolshevik position of a Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry "crass Jaures-ism"; the entire Marxist center condemned reform coalitions.


But it is foolish to dismiss Orthodox Marxism, contrary to Hoxhaism, which is a theoretical Joke in almost all Marxian schools of thought.

Hoxhaism is so much more focused on History than on modern strategic line, I'm afraid.

I should note that Ismail hasn't made any responses to comrade Rafiq's FYIs on Orthodox Marxism. I wonder why. :glare:

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do you mean by ex-Brezhnevites, I thought they were formerly a Trotskyist group more or less?

By academic Marxists, I assume you mean similar to the people of the Frankfurt School, who were utterly divorced from class struggle.


The CPGB was the "official" Soviet-backed party in the UK.


I think the more important thing to be considering is what the positions(in terms of their place within the party hierarchy, not ideological positions) of the current leadership were 21 years ago. I don't know the answer to that question.

You guys are confusing organizational histories here. Yesterday's big CPGB is today's left-nationalist CPB. The CPGB-PCC, on the other hand, are the Weekly Worker comrades.

[Ismail]

The Finnish Democratic Republic wasn't disbanded because Lack of popularity, it was disbanded because they lost in the Imperialist war for Finland. They wanted to set up an Imperialist puppet government, much like the one in Afghanistan you criticize so strongly.No, they wanted to set up a government that was willing to negotiate with the USSR on leased ports. They didn't think that the reactionary, pro-German government would be able to unite even "left-wing" Finns with it.

The goal was to secure Leningrad.


Yeah, actually link it.Why? Because the only source you know is Wikipedia?


You're a fuclking idiot. There wasn't a noticable difference in policy under Khrushchev other than some irrelivent nonsense about tractors.Incorrect.


By the late 1920's the Bolsheviks had established relations with several imperialist powers and opened the country up to foreign business, selling the proletariat. The existence of capital was no longer "Controlled", they were all devoured by it.That's why collectivization and the five-year plan were instituted, of course... they were "devoured" by capital.

Actually the late 20's was quite a nice time, it was when the rightists were defeated. Then again you've called industrialization and such "disastrous," because you yourself seem to sympathize with said rightists.


Hoxha wasn't intellectual. He didn't contribute anything to the structural enhancement of Marxism."Intellectual" doesn't mean "contributed to the 'structural enhancement' of Marxism according to Rafiq."


Hoxha was a puppet of foreign Imperialist interests.Last I heard he kicked them out in 1944.


Than they were irrelevant Idealists who just were "riding the wave" of all the other proxy groups and split off. When you have a strong communist movement in the third world, you tend to have these irrelevant splinter groups break off for fuck all reasons.Oh, I see, so you're taking the Soviet line. "These dogmatists are sectarians bla bla bla."


The Soviet Union didn't have any particular interest in Albania after the Sino-Albanian split. Nice try.Then why did it continue to agitate for "normalized" relations? You do realize Albania was actually fairly economically significant, right? It was one of the world's leading producers of chrome, something fairly important in weapons-making.


yet it provided more than the Soviet Union did.... by being equal, yes. Otherwise no, the Soviets gave more actual aid than the Chinese. In fact Khrushchev actually boosted aid to Albania in the 1957-1959 period (to the extent that Albania could abolishing rationing), in hopes that Hoxha would be persuaded by credits over principles.


When China decided to create relations with Yugoslavia this pissed off Hoxha, (And the fact that China was running dry with nothing to offer Albania).As opposed to Nixon's visit and the "Three Worlds Theory"? As opposed to the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution"? As opposed to when China cared more about territorial issues with the USSR than actual ideology?


That's a lie. I'm talking about the period between Khrushchev and Brezhnev, i.e. When Khrushchev was dumped, automatically Hoxha tried to normalize relations with the Soviet Union,No he didn't.


Sino-Albanian relations declined by 1970. With the Sino-Albanian split, the Albanians began to normalized relations with the Soviet Union, as well as opening new relations to other nations.That source (whatever it is, all I get on Google is Ask.com) is wrong. Relations with the USSR weren't "normalized" until 1990. Hoxha explicitly stated that the Soviets were trying to take advantage of the break with China because apparently Albania was now "alone" and "trapped," etc.


Obviously Hoxha didn't care that China became friends with the United States, considering he created relations with West Germany, etc. He was an opportunist, just like Tito.I forgot the part where Tito allowed foreign investment in his country and had millions of Albanians go to work in West Germany as migrant labor. Perhaps you can refresh my memory? Also West Germany established diplomatic relations with Albania in 1987, idiot.


After China left the Albanian economy became so desperate they tried to normalize relations with anyone who could help.Yeah, that's why the 1976 Constitution banned foreign investments and seeking credit from abroad. That's why Hoxha said that the entire country must operate on the basis of self-reliance in all fields.


But had Brezhnev offered something to Albania, he wouldn't have called him that.You're free to provide a source.


All members of the Muj wanted to re-build the Islamic Calaphite empire that would stretch across all of Earth.Even random tribal guys who thought the world revolved around their clan?


Hoxha clearly stated that the Soviet Union was worse than Pinochet.Where?

Yes, I'm still replying, but only because talking about Hoxha tends to be more interesting than hearing you defend Soviet social-imperialism in-re Afghanistan.

[Grenzer]

You guys are confusing organizational histories here. Yesterday's big CPGB is today's left-nationalist CPB. The CPGB-PCC, on the other hand, are the Weekly Worker comrades.

Why is it called the "Provisional Central Committee" anyway? I've never quite understood that.

[Rafiq]

No, they wanted to set up a government that was willing to negotiate with the USSR on leased ports. They didn't think that the reactionary, pro-German government would be able to unite even "left-wing" Finns with it.

"No, they wanted to set up a government that was willing to negotiate with the USSR on leased ports (PDPA). They didn't think that the reactionary, pro-Islamist government would be able to unite even "left-wing" Finns with it".

It's still an act of Imperialism.


The goal was to secure Leningrad.


The goal was to secure Tajikistan and Uzbekistan


Why? Because the only source you know is Wikipedia?


Which is far more credible than Hoxha's diary ideological excuses.


Incorrect.


The only thing different about Khrushchev you've stated was that he did something different with Tractors, "Rehabilitated Imre Nagy" (which you have no evidence Stalin would have done the same) and denounced Stalin (Go cry about it).

Hoxha didn't have problems with Khrushchev (or Brezhnev) until he discovered they didn't suit his interests.


That's why collectivization and the five-year plan were instituted, of course... they were "devoured" by capital.


Are you fucking kidding me? Collectivization and the fire year plan operated within the capitalist mode of production.

http://libcom.org/library/communism-is-the-material-human-community-amadeo-bordiga-today


Actually the late 20's was quite a nice time, it was when the rightists were defeated. Then again you've called industrialization and such "disastrous," because you yourself seem to sympathize with said rightists.


Which rightists were defeated? None. Russia was the fastest growing Industrializing nation in 1913 on planet Earth. It was inevitable.


"Intellectual" doesn't mean "contributed to the 'structural enhancement' of Marxism according to Rafiq."


Typo, genius, you mean "Intellectual means contributing to the structural enhancement of Marxism according to Rafiq".

Hoxha wasn't a Marxist intellectual. He was hardly a Marxist either.


Last I heard he kicked them out in 1944.


And then went on to be a dog for them later on in the early 50's.


Oh, I see, so you're taking the Soviet line. "These dogmatists are sectarians bla bla bla."


No, they were just irrelevant. You don't need to be the Soviet Union to realize that.


Then why did it continue to agitate for "normalized" relations? You do realize Albania was actually fairly economically significant, right? It was one of the world's leading producers of chrome, something fairly important in weapons-making.


They didn't, though. Not severely. And if they did, Hoxha would have came running to them as he almost did to Yugoslavia (his biggest enemy) when the Albanian economy went to shit.


... by being equal, yes. Otherwise no, the Soviets gave more actual aid than the Chinese.

Wrong, the Chinese had much more to offer and were cheaper.


In fact Khrushchev actually boosted aid to Albania in the 1957-1959 period (to the extent that Albania could abolishing rationing), in hopes that Hoxha would be persuaded by credits over principles.


More bullshit Idealism. Actually, Hoxha was already persuaded, it just so happens that in the midst of the Sino Soviet split he had more to gain from China.


As opposed to Nixon's visit and the "Three Worlds Theory"? As opposed to the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution"? As opposed to when China cared more about territorial issues with the USSR than actual ideology?


Firstly, let's get rid of the bullshit, i.e. No one cared about Ideology. First was action, Ideology morphed to adjust to it later.

And yes, the three worlds theory and the rest never had an effect on Albania's relation with China, but he did denounce the visit with the United States because this signified China was no longer isolated and didn't need Albania. Kind of like the little kid whose excluded from the ball game, if you will.


No he didn't.


Yeah, he actually did. He praised Khrushchev's downfall and hoped to normalize relations with the Soviet Union.


That source (whatever it is, all I get on Google is Ask.com) is wrong. Relations with the USSR weren't "normalized" until 1990. Hoxha explicitly stated that the Soviets were trying to take advantage of the break with China because apparently Albania was now "alone" and "trapped," etc.


It doesn't matter what Hoxha wrote in his little diary before bed time, this was the reality.


I forgot the part where Tito allowed foreign investment in his country and had millions of Albanians go to work in West Germany as migrant labor. Perhaps you can refresh my memory? Also West Germany established diplomatic relations with Albania in 1987, idiot.


Hoxha would have done the same if he could actually afford to sell migrant workers.

And yes, Hoxha established relations with Italy, France, West Germany, etc. some of which being before the late 80's. He established relations with Imperialist and reactionary states right after the sino Albanian split, you shit head.


Yeah, that's why the 1976 Constitution banned foreign investments and seeking credit from abroad. That's why Hoxha said that the entire country must operate on the basis of self-reliance in all fields.


Which is why he created diplomatic relations with Imperialist states and was so desperate at one point he wanted to go running to Tito.


You're free to provide a source.


Yeah, let me pull a source out of my ass about an Alternate history... Fucking idiot.


Even random tribal guys who thought the world revolved around their clan?


They wouldn't count as members of the Mujaheddin (then), just dogs. The Muj was a strictly Islamist organization.


Where?


"For China the Spain of Franco, the Chile of Pinochet, or the Rhodesia of Ian Smith are friends, while the 'Soviets are the most dangerous, because they pose as Marxist-Leninists'.



Yes, I'm still replying, but only because talking about Hoxha tends to be more interesting than hearing you defend Soviet social-imperialism in-re Afghanistan.

Ladies and Gentlemen, scroll up and look at my latest post besides this one. It's in large font for all to see.

Ismail, the coward, didn't want to address the Issues I presented him in the post I made before that, so he said that "He's done". He was never done. He responded to about 1/10th of the whole post, the things he wanted to respond to, the things he thought he could address. He knew, obviously, I would respond to them. And now we are having a discussion about what Ismail wants to talk about.

I might, myself, be done. It depends on what he replies this with. Probably more horse shit. It just feels good to be right, you know?

[Rafiq]

So, to make this official, I "Win" about everything, about OM, about the Muj, about Anti Revisionism. Now he wants to debate about Hoxha's foreign policy. Good, let him.

He shall loose once more.

[Rafiq]

And Ismail, while you're at it, why don't you respond to DNZ?

[Ismail]

Who cares what DNZ thinks? His criticism of Stalin was that he didn't annex the future Warsaw Pact states into the USSR, ditto with Mongolia. He's as irrelevant as you are, and as pro-Soviet too.

In any case the Hoxha debate belongs in another thread now: http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhaism-t169681/index.html?p=2403304

Also Nagy, Gomulka, and others were denounced in Stalin's time as Titoists/nationalists. It's quite obvious that they wouldn't be rehabilitated if "destalinization" hadn't occurred, considering that they were held up as examples of "Stalinist repression."

[Rafiq]

Who cares what DNZ thinks? His criticism of Stalin was that he didn't annex the future Warsaw Pact states into the USSR, ditto with Mongolia. He's as irrelevant as you are, and as pro-Soviet too.

His post had little to nothing to do with Stalin. Address it, you cowardly bastard.


In any case the Hoxha debate belongs in another thread now: http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhaism-t169681/index.html?p=2403304


uh huh


Also Nagy, Gomulka, and others were denounced in Stalin's time as Titoists/nationalists. It's quite obvious that they wouldn't be rehabilitated if "destalinization" hadn't occurred, considering that they were held up as examples of "Stalinist repression."


They would have. If you're going to blame them for the Hungarian uprising you're a fucking idiot. The uprising would have occurred regardless.

[Ismail]

His post had little to nothing to do with Stalin. Address it, you cowardly bastard.No.


They would have.Prove it.


If you're going to blame them for the Hungarian uprising you're a fucking idiot. The uprising would have occurred regardless.Hoxha noted in The Khrushchevites that the Hungarian leaders refused to listen to him. Hoxha called for the Petofi Club to be shut down and for some liberals to be shot to "teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is." The Hungarian leaders instead looked at him, as Hoxha noted, like he was insane, and just spoke about the need for "socialist legality" and such. This was not long before the uprising, of which the seeds were able to spread due to the "destalinization" drive.

[gorillafuck]

Hoxha called for the Petofi Club to be shut down and for some liberals to be shot to "teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is."Hoxha's advice: shoot some liberals

[Ismail]

Hoxha's advice: shoot some liberalsWell he couldn't express the idea of overthrowing Khrushchev, since he was responsible for those liberals emerging as "victims" of "Stalinism" to begin with.

[Amal]

Hoxha's advice: shoot some liberals
Why not? The liberals behave far more badly with communists when they are in power. They are like pests to the humanity and must be cleansed.

[Rafiq]

No.

Than you're a coward and an idiot. You not responding (but responding to me) signifies his victory (And mine, considering you gave up about the topic we were discussing). You pulled a stunt in an attempt to fragment the giant post into what you wanted to respond to, making it easier on you. Nope, you fuck.


Prove it.


You can't prove a hypothetical event (Stalin not dying) but if we use a Materialist analysis, if we look at the actions and policies Stalin upheld, in his opportunist ways, we could predict that even if these individuals were not rehabilitated, others in simliar situations would have been, and the Uprising would have occured regardless.

As a "vulgur materialist" I state that these individuals had little to nothing to do with the inevitability of the Yugoslav uprising.

Of course, someone like Grenzer has a good grasp on this kind of materialism, but I bet you're too cowardly to label him as an apologist for Revisionism as well. Or is every materialist a revisionist? Look, even in your signature attempts to give a materialist analysis of revisionism (Why did the Soviet Union collapse?)

Perhaps a re-read would be most helpful.

it also explains how Mao's productive forces theory is applied to this, which is why earlier in this thread I asserted At least Mao tried to give a materialist explanation for revisionism, unlike Hoxha.


Hoxha noted in The Khrushchevites that the Hungarian leaders refused to listen to him.

The masses were most dissatisfied and, the uprising would have occurred regardless of the compliance of the Hungarian leaders (whom were later shot).

Try again.


Hoxha called for the Petofi Club to be shut down and for some liberals to be shot to "teach them what the dictatorship of the proletariat is."

This wouldn't be a bad move if it was actually a dictatorship of the proletariat and not just a Bourgeois state draped in red.


The Hungarian leaders instead looked at him, as Hoxha noted, like he was insane, and just spoke about the need for "socialist legality" and such. This was not long before the uprising, of which the seeds were able to spread due to the "destalinization" drive.

This shit Idealist analysis was given after the uprising, much after. The final straw was the Yugoslav endorsement of it. Again, it all goes back to Yugoslavia with Hoxha. The refusal to give up Kosovo created Hoxhaism.

[Rafiq]

Well he couldn't express the idea of overthrowing Khrushchev, since he was responsible for those liberals emerging as "victims" of "Stalinism" to begin with.

Your sig link would classify you as an adherer of the Traitors thesis.

Khrushchev did what he did to feed Soviet capital. All his policies were done to do so. As were Stalin's. If feeding capital means denouncing Stalin, by all means, whether it be Khrushchev, or Molotov successing Stalin they would have done the exact same thing. Such is a principle of Historical Materialism.

Of course, a Hoxhaist like yourself would sacrifice such a core structural tenet of Marxism in order to agree with Hoxha.

[A Marxist Historian]

I am top posting, as nobody could possibly have the patience to read all the way to the end.

Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

Just the logic of "socialism in one country," one more time.

And, BTW, one of the interminable postings to this thread from Rafiq made some claims about how the Ukrainians felt about the Soviet regime. Well, the Ukraine still exists, and Ukrainians make their views felt.

Western Ukraine, which was under Poland not the Soviet Union during the 1930s, and was a fascist stomping ground during WWII, is very anti-Soviet, and western Ukrainians hate communism by and large.

Soviet Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, where the "holodomor" actually happened, is pro-Soviet and leftist, and people there have little time for Ukrainian nationalism. As they're the people who actually lived through it, they know that Hitler fascism, and the right wing Ukrainian nationalists from Western Ukraine who collaborated with it, was much, much worse. And they don't care much for the capitalism that's been shoved down their throats since the USSR collapsed.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian Communist Party is thoroughly pro-capitalist, indeed it is basically a capitalist party altogether, with lots of Ukrainian capitalists in it and little or no involvement with trade unions or workers' struggles, so it doesn't have as much weight as even the Russian equivalent does, as Ukrainian nationalism is much less popular in Eastern Ukraine than Russian nationalism has in Russia, and nationalism is the real calling card of the degenerated ex-Stalinist parties in that part of the world calling themselves "communist."

-M.H.-


The Middle East and Palestine aren't irrelevant, they're of main interest to United States and Imperialist foreign policy in modern times. Albania could never be compared in the same way.



Would you support Fascists if they were fighting against Imperialism? Which side would you consider more progressive? Communists oppose both. But which one is more socially progressive in regards to views on Women, minorities, etc. ?



Communism is irrelevant in both Tunisia and Portugal. When you say "Largest CP", that could have anywhere from two to 100 members in those countries. Nice try, shit head.



All of them are. The Tunisian and Portuguese Hoxhaist parties are just as irrelevant as the rest.



Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thought. It's not, in any way shape or form, an ideological vanguard for a mass movement. It's not comparable to hoxhaism, trotskyism, Maoism, etc. Even though none of those would exist without Orthodox Marxism.



If Hoxha "Normalized" relations with the U.S., it would make little to no difference. It still didn't have an option, it was never a large player in world politics, despite your obscure fantasies of Hoxha's Albania ever being relevant.



What's your point, exactly? That they had the option to put an embassy in the USSR and the United States? How noble of them.



The regime was only unpopular on the Rural, isolated side of Afghanistan in which the population was largely illiterate and uneducated. The Landowners took advantage of this and as a result... We know the story.



Again, the sky is blue, who cares? We are arguing on whether the Muj are to be supported.



Actually, shit head, this was probably the most significant factor, all others merely being a chain of events in response.



What kind of Populist bullshit is this? That still isn't viable justification for supporting the Muj ("Afghan people" in bullshit terms).




The Vietcong can't be compared to the fucking Muhajadeen, I'm sorry.



Many Maoists claim it was. Okay, even if it was not in Hoxhaist terms, can you name me a couple successful National Liberation wars (that INCLUDED class collaboration) that didn't end up with the oppressing class in power?



Yes yes, dismiss my whole post because I mentioned Nepal.



Actually, it's just Imperialism, because we Scientific Marxists understand the terms in a strict materialist matter, and recognize a country is Imperialist regardless if it prefers to drape itself in a red banner.



Hoxha wanted the "Afghan People" (The Muj) to be victorious over the Soviet Union. He got what he wanted. He predicted that this would pave way for real class struggle in Afghanistan and real grounds for "real communists" (Hoxhaists which don't exist) to gain the support of hte population and take over the country. You tell me, was he right? Is Afghanistan a better place without the Soviet "puppet regime"? A real Marxian such as myself would oppose both sides in the conflict, seeing that both the rule of the PDPA and modern day Afghanistan are pretty shitty. But since Hoxhaists chose to side with the Muj, they have to be consistent and identify with the result.



These are not comparable scenarios. Like I said, the Albanian PPSH cannot be compared to the Muhajadin, but the Muj can definitely be compared to several Fascist currents. The PPSH were more Progressive than the Italian Fascists, yet the Muj was extremely reactionary in comparison to the Soviet Union. That's the difference.



Okay, more Bourgeois academic works. I can cite you 100 books that are "Academic" that assert Stalin killed 30 million people. This isn't a viable source, though.



And what was end result? A shit hole. A bigger shit hole than the "revisionist" countries. As a matter of fact, revisionist countries on average did much better than Albania.



A situation emerges between Liberalist Imperialists and Fascist resistance that has support of the majority of the population. What's your answer?



When did I have illusions in regards to the Soviet motives in Afghanistan? Just because it's easy to point out that a group which forces women to marry their rapists is a tad bit less progressive than the Soviet Union.



Okay? I don't care if the majority of Afghans didn't identify with it. Also, from experience, it doesn't look like the majority of Albanians identified with their state. The mass immigration from Albania immidetly after the collapse could be a sign.



And foreign imperialism external from the Soviet Union had nothing to do with this. You seem to be under the impression that the Soviet Union was the only power that had interests in Afghanistan...



I love how you think Orthodox Marxism is some kind of Ideology or collective group of individuals who have the same opinion about everything. It's quite pathetic.



Be consistent. Want me to quote some Marx and Engels that were supporting British Imperialism in India?



No doubt. But as a women, as a religious minority, who'd you rather live under?



Oh fucking god, did you actually think it was supposed to be a deep fucking story? You totally ignored the fucking analogy. Ismail, answer me this: Conflict between Imperialist Liberalists and actual, existing Fascists. Whom do you think is more progressive? Both are to be opposed. But which one do you deem more reactionary?



Jesus fucking Christ you're a dumb one. Why do you take it so literal? It's a very simple analogy: The U.S. liberalists invade X place, X place Fascists opposing U.S. Imperialism with support of Rural population. Which one do you think, in your opinion, is more progressive? In your opinion, do you support Saddam Hussein, Gadaffi, Assad or Osama against U.S. Imperialism?



Something I pulled out of my ass, but the analogy brings up a great point. Would you support Fascists in the name of Anti Imperialism? Would you deem them as more progressive than the Liberalist-Bourgeois U.S.?



No, it just so happens that it's impossible to reach any sort of Victory in Afghanistan with such terrain, etc. when dealing with Geurrila warfare. Even if they had 20 million soldiers with them they wouldn't make a difference.



And this was after the Muj initially formed. And, I don't think there is much evidence to back up the claim that the Soviets massacred Peasants for no fucking reason, but oh well. Stalin probably did kill 30 million because he felt like it, glorious Imperialist sources told me this so it must be true.



But the Vietcong was socially progressive and the Muj were fucking disgusting Imperialist dogs. Don't you know the Muj was just a puppet of U.S.-Chinese interests in the region? Pakistani and Saudi dogs were merely part of the pack. It was an inter imperialist war. Feel free to support one end of the Imperialist spectrum of Capital.



Seems more progressive than massacring entire villages + bringing the country back 500 years back in time. The Soviet Soldiers fucked a lot of shit up in Hungary, but at least, in the end, it was better than what it was under Fascism. Why do you pick and choose? You'll deny Soviet Crimes in Hungary but assert they were made in Afghanistan. Why? Where in "Revisionist" doctrine does it say kill a bunch of fucking people for no reason"?



ML's are such good sources who aren't full of shit. :rolleyes:



Lenin didn't ever make such a point. You can't have a proletarian basis when the majority of your makeup is from Students and Peasants. Sorry.



Of course not, but they were irrelevant and basically if they did not exist it would make no difference.




Who the fuck are you arguing with? Of course it was a puppet state. The question is, who is worse, the Muj or the puppet state? Both are to be opposed. You seem to concur with Hoxha in supporting the Muj against them.

No one in the West really knew the true face of the Muj until they actually got into power. Hoxha is not an exception. He was a stupid and naive bastard.



No, but that's different from the Soviets just invading the country for no reason. Surly a full blown puppet government wouldn't even need to call in Assistance, the Soviets would just come regardless.



It is common sense. Do you deny the Muhajadeen were growing under Amin? Do you deny many in the Afghan government thought Amin was fucking crazy as hell and wanted him deposed?




You need to get out of this fantasy land where you think people take Hoxha seriously. I don't care what he has to say. He isn't a credible source.




Those sources didn't say anything about the Bolsheviks supporting Class collaboration in Albania. Like I said, Albania didn't even have a communist party in the early 20's, so your source is not to be taken seriously.



Again, read what I said about Turkey, Afghanistan, etc. during the time. Besides, theoretically, Lenin had no illusions, National Liberation in class collaboration is to be avoided.



No, becuase you're the only one spouting out the bullshit. I'm responding to everything you've said. Even in this segment alone, you've only responded to little over half of what I actually posted.


So, the fact that you wouldn't respond to a lot of my post signifies that you either concur with them or cannot respond because you're too stupid. Which means that, in such an argument, they stand unrefuted.






Not progressive, but more progressive than the Muj. The Muj was an Imperialist proxy. One Imperialist power can be more progressive than the other, that doesn't mean their over all character is progressive.



Keep arguing with a ghost



Millions of Afghans civilians were not murdered as a direct result of Soviet Bullets. The same sources you post concur with the bullshit about the red army raping the shit out of Europe in WW2. Papa Hegel's notion of totality heavily remains relevant to this.



I wasn't denying it, I just was curious. And you haven't provided a source, and it wasn't common sense, so I'd take it your just talking out of your ass.




Boo hoo let's get all emotional. Shut the fuck up. The Soviets, if anything, would have just left hte PDPA in head of state. And, as evidence shows, people who didn't "Respect" the Soviet Union, young girls, were never shot for this. I doubt it would be any different.

Look deep into yourself, you pile of shit. Do you really think that the Soviet soldiers would systemically shoot little girls for "protesting"? Sounds a lot like the Fascist propaganda in WW2 against the SU, more shock value bullshit. And yes, fuck both sides, fucking scum bag, now you're criticizing me because I'm not supporting the Muj? Little girls who just want an education have acid thrown on them, young girls taken as property as wives, fucking rape victims forced to marry their offenders, would never exist under the Soviet Union, nothing comparable, not even such reactionary atrocities would exist under the United States of America.



Except it was the U.S. who created that shit storm, who created the Muj, and, in the end, do nothing progressive for Afghanistan.



You want to lecture me on Class struggle yet you claim no classes existed in Afghanistan and that it was just "The people" verse "Soviet Union". :laugh:




But did I say I fucked supported the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Yes, you piece of shit, in the end, the proxy regime the U.S. would set up would be more progressive than the Muhajadeen it is fighting against. That is a fact. That doesn't mean being more progressive signifies support from Radicals, it just means what it means. The U.S. style of Imperialism isn't setting up progressive govt and modernizing country, it is go in, fuck things up, and leave it to rot to shit.


You're the one taking sides in the conflict, not me. I just don't have my head in my ass and won't ever dare consider support for the Muj.




The U.S. Backed Islamic republic of Afghanistan is a theocratic Shit hole which more or less is on the same level of being reactionary as the Muj.




I didn't fucking say the Soviet Union's occupation was objectivly progressive, I said it was more progressive than the fucking Muj, there is a difference, you know, you fuck.





Orthodox Marxism is more structurally organized in Ideas than Hoxhaism, calling it eclecticism is absurdity. I am not the embodiment of Orthodox Marxism, by the way.

orthodox Marxism historically had more of a basis outside of the internet than Hoxhaism. Without Orthodox Marxism, Marxism Leninism would not exist, and Marxian thinking would be very much shit. Hoxhaism on the other hand, is very much so just an internet cult.





that's not consistency, that's just being a dumbass.



yes, okay? I didn't ever say I supported the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, feel free to cite me evidence that I did.




Ismail the dumbass thinks more Progressive is the same as Objectivly Progressive in general. Hezbollah Islamist are more progressive than the Muj but both are fucking disgusting reactionary scum who are to be opposed.

Ismail is the one taking sides supporting the Muhajadeen, which is why he's accusing me of supporting the Soviet Union, to justify his own shitty reactionary position.





Your prediction is wrong. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?




That's not propaganda from me, it's an objective historical fact.

[Drosophila]

Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

I don't know much about Albania, nor am I an "apologist" for it, but I can say that this is an incredibly wrong and stupid assertion.

[Corbeau]

Since this has turned into a discussion about Albania and everything else *but* Tito and Yugoslavia, allow me to try to set the discussion back on track. I'd like to offer a different view (and a short one) on one of the aspects of it.

There are many remarks that Yugoslavia wasn't really socialist. Maybe it wasn't by definition, but didn't Marx himself write something about how a country first needs to go through a capitalist/industrialisation phase, that is, a bourgeois revolution before it can start a socialist one? In other words, in order to have a workers' state, you need to have workers first. While the reality was that in 1945. 90% of Yugoslavia was farming and agriculture, doesn't it seem more natural that the communists first tried to develop an industrial society that is a precondition for a socialist revolution?

This "socialist capitalism" that Yugoslavia is being accused of seems to me like more of a developmental phase leading to socialism and communism and is actually pretty consistent with everything the Yugoslav communists were saying. If it wasn't torn apart by the fall of the Eastern Bloc and nationalism, who knows what we may have witnessed in another 50 years...

[Ismail]

This "socialist capitalism" that Yugoslavia is being accused of seems to me like more of a developmental phase leading to socialism and communism and is actually pretty consistent with everything the Yugoslav communists were saying. If it wasn't torn apart by the fall of the Eastern Bloc and nationalism, who knows what we may have witnessed in another 50 years...Well yeah. In addition, the Chinese leadership could be right: they are gloriously advancing the productive forces in accordance with the teachings of Marx in order to pave the way for the continued development of socialism at a later date.

I consider both unlikely, since both operated/operate like capitalist states and since both bastardized/bastardize Marxism. Yugoslav sources continually claimed that the development of capitalism was making class struggle increasingly irrelevant since apparently better technology/computerization/etc. was unwittingly introducing aspects of "socialism" into capitalism. That's why Tito said things like the New Deal being a step towards "socialism." That's not a Marxist analysis, that's an analysis that found support among social-democrats, who in fact tended to adore Yugoslavia.

All Yugoslavia produced was an essentially social-democratic state with an unworkable nationalities policy (which went down in flames in large part because of the capitalist and competitive nature of the republics.)

Albania started off in most cases worse than Yugoslavia in 1945. It had no problems industrializing. It just didn't have some advantages like huge influxes of Western aid to combat Soviet influence as Yugoslavia enjoyed.



Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

Just the logic of "socialism in one country," one more time.Hoxha said that seeing the Mujahidin fight in the mountains, hide behind rocks, rapidly move from place to place, etc. reminded him of Albania's very own National Liberation War.

I don't recall him saying that Afghanistan was another glorious Muslim country fighting the Christian invaders or anything, which makes sense since in Albania religion was totally outlawed in 1967, Hoxha denounced Sharia laws on women and the practice of the veil, he himself was an atheist since childhood (his uncle influenced him in that direction), and Albania doesn't have a history of religious zealousness; it was only 70% Muslim in 1945 and a good chunk of those were of the Bektashi sect (Hoxha's parents included), considered heretical by most other Muslims and tolerant towards Christians.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Than you're a coward and an idiot.I know things can get frustrating, but cut out the personal attacks and insults - keep it political.

[Grenzer]

I
Why did Hoxha support the Mujahedeen? Simple. It's because Albania is a Moslem country, end of story.

Just the logic of "socialism in one country," one more time.

Socialism in one country is lame, but at least it beats cheering on Russian imperialism and pretending there is something revolutionary about it.

In addition, that statement betrays a profound ignorance of Hoxha's political doctrine. Hoxha was quite the anti-theist, particularly in regards to Islam. He went as far as to ban beards in Albania, in addition to the practice of Islam itself.

[khlib]

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/c5e/6f4/a57/resized/hoxha-meme-generator-hoxha-daddy-3ad7a8.jpg?1333571822.jpg

[A Marxist Historian]

Well yeah. In addition, the Chinese leadership could be right: they are gloriously advancing the productive forces in accordance with the teachings of Marx in order to pave the way for the continued development of socialism at a later date.

I consider both unlikely, since both operated/operate like capitalist states and since both bastardized/bastardize Marxism. Yugoslav sources continually claimed that the development of capitalism was making class struggle increasingly irrelevant since apparently better technology/computerization/etc. was unwittingly introducing aspects of "socialism" into capitalism. That's why Tito said things like the New Deal being a step towards "socialism." That's not a Marxist analysis, that's an analysis that found support among social-democrats, who in fact tended to adore Yugoslavia.

All Yugoslavia produced was an essentially social-democratic state with an unworkable nationalities policy (which went down in flames in large part because of the capitalist and competitive nature of the republics.)

Albania started off in most cases worse than Yugoslavia in 1945. It had no problems industrializing. It just didn't have some advantages like huge influxes of Western aid to combat Soviet influence as Yugoslavia enjoyed.

Hoxha said that seeing the Mujahidin fight in the mountains, hide behind rocks, rapidly move from place to place, etc. reminded him of Albania's very own National Liberation War.

I don't recall him saying that Afghanistan was another glorious Muslim country fighting the Christian invaders or anything, which makes sense since in Albania religion was totally outlawed in 1967, Hoxha denounced Sharia laws on women and the practice of the veil, he himself was an atheist since childhood (his uncle influenced him in that direction), and Albania doesn't have a history of religious zealousness; it was only 70% Muslim in 1945 and a good chunk of those were of the Bektashi sect (Hoxha's parents included), considered heretical by most other Muslims and tolerant towards Christians.

As for Yugoslavia, back in the 1980s, I have the advantage of having been around back then, the consensus of most random leftists was that Yugoslavia had gone capitalist under Tito's "market socialism," just as most random leftists go along with the myth that China is a capitalist country now.

But then when Yugoslavia fell apart into ethnic cleansing, the same leftists who were denouncing Yugoslavia as capitalist before were usually defending the Bosnians on the grounds that allegedly the Bosnians were continuing the Titoite tradition of ethnic harmony and workers control, vs. the murderous capitalistic Serbians.

And the leftists, the minority unfortunately, who had denounced Yugoslavia before as a capitalist country but now sided with Serbia were mostly claiming to defend Serbian "socialism," rather than just honestly defending Serbia vs. US imperialism no differently than Qaddafi's regime, or Saddam's.

Eh.

If the CCP gets overthrown and China actually does collapse into capitalism, all too possible, you'll see the same sort of thing all over again.

As for Hoxha not defending the Mujahedeen on the grounds of Islamic solidarity, of course not, he was a canny and intelligent politician. That would hardly have served him with anybody, including even the Albanian public, who would have seen that as hypocritical. Defending the Mujahedeen on whatever grounds he could cook up, however, most certainly did serve his interests as an Albanian leader.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

As for Hoxha not defending the Mujahedeen on the grounds of Islamic solidarity, of course not, he was a canny and intelligent politician. That would hardly have served him with anybody, including even the Albanian public, who would have seen that as hypocritical. Defending the Mujahedeen on whatever grounds he could cook up, however, most certainly did serve his interests as an Albanian leader.Because simply saying "the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is an imperialist act" was totally out of nowhere and took Hoxha a lot of thinking to decide on, whereas "we love our glorious Muslim brothers who are fighting the Soviets" came natural to him (even though he was not only an atheist but presided over a country which was the only one on earth to totally outlaw religious practices), right?

I don't know where "Enver Hoxha endorsed the Afghan resistance because they were Muslims" comes from.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And khlib, please don't post images with nothing to add or one-liners - this isn't chit-chat.

[A Marxist Historian]

Because simply saying "the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is an imperialist act" was totally out of nowhere and took Hoxha a lot of thinking to decide on, whereas "we love our glorious Muslim brothers who are fighting the Soviets" came natural to him (even though he was not only an atheist but presided over a country which was the only one on earth to totally outlaw religious practices), right?

I don't know where "Enver Hoxha endorsed the Afghan resistance because they were Muslims" comes from.

Because Hoxha was a smart politician, and he knew what political position would go down well with the Albanian public, and would fit in best with Albania's diplomatic alignments.

For somebody like Hoxha, Marxist principles and theories were interesting hobbies, never allowed to contradict practical politics.

He happened to be quite good at hobby-Marxism. Intelligent, wrote well, etc. etc. But he never allowed Marxist theory to interfere with whatever happened to be most politically convenient.

-M.H.-

[Ismail]

Because Hoxha was a smart politician, and he knew what political position would go down well with the Albanian public, and would fit in best with Albania's diplomatic alignments.Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? I don't see why Albanians, who after 1967 were literally not allowed to be religious, would be receptive to some Muslims fighting far away. Albanian Muslims did not have a history of religious fundamentalism, and Albanian media never mentioned that the Afghans were fighting a religious war.

I also like how you mention "diplomatic alignments." If Hoxha wanted to denounce the Soviet invasion in order to woo the West then he could have also denounced the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia as "Soviet social-imperialism" (which would be inappropriate in such a case) and instead back Pol Pot's government in exile at the UN like various bourgeois states did, but he didn't. He could have signed the Helsinki accords as well, but he didn't. He could have, you know, reestablished diplomatic ties with the USA, but he explicitly said he would never do this.

Basically Albania was doing a bad thing because it wasn't hailing the glorious "Red Army" in Afghanistan, as the Sparts you sympathize with literally did. Ergo there has to be a rationale unrelated to principles and the interests of socialism since, of course, anything other than "critical support" for Soviet social-imperialism ("gains of the Russian Revolution in Afghanistan") is aiding American imperialism, or something.

[Grenzer]

Careful, you're coming dangerously close to trashing his islamophobic, pro-imperialist thesis. Supporting the invasion is supporting Western paternalism, imperialism, and chauvinism, it's that simple.

The Afghanistan issue is a good example of why I think the doctrine of 20th century anti-imperialism is flawed. When you examine both sides, more often than not it's being bankrolled by imperialists on both ends. On one side, you have the imperialist Russians; and on the other you have reactionary Islamist fucks backed by American money. Why not just condemn both?

[Ismail]

The Afghanistan issue is a good example of why I think the doctrine of 20th century anti-imperialism is flawed. When you examine both sides, more often than not it's being bankrolled by imperialists on both ends. On one side, you have the imperialist Russians; and on the other you have reactionary Islamist fucks backed by American money. Why not just condemn both?That is what we do, while still defending the struggle of the Afghan people against the Soviet occupiers. Quite simple.

The Mujahidin taking control of the anti-imperialist national liberation struggle can be ascribed to the policies of the invaders themselves, who discredited socialism amongst the populace by their war of occupation, and by the fact that, naturally enough, the Soviet revisionists and their puppet government persecuted any left-wing forces who opposed them.

[Grenzer]

That is what we do, while still defending the struggle of the Afghan people against the Soviet occupiers. Quite simple.


Isn't this the same thing as implicitly supporting the Mujahideen? They are on the same side as American imperialism in this scenario. It seems difficult to deny that the Mujahideen coming to power(which they eventually did) would leave Afghanistan even worse off than the successful installation and defense of a Russian puppet regime.

If the historical experience has taught us anything, it seems that Afghanistan is a completely ungovernable. It is only through industrial development and the development of the proletariat that the foundation for positive change can be built, but the conditions for this seem impossible at the present time. It's made worse by the fact that the Saudi bourgeoisie use their funds to bankroll reactionary educational institutes in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan where the government's education infrastructure and budget is quite low. I think things will get worse there before they get better.

[Ismail]

The Soviet-backed puppet regime was absolutely hated outside the cities, and even there there was dissident. The Mujahidin were, for better or worse, made essentially synonymous with the national liberation struggle. Hoxha noted that the US, China and Pakistan sought to exploit said struggle for their own ends.

After 1989 Afghanistan's government was a joke. It was corrupt, it did away with any Marxist pretenses, etc. It survived as long as it did because of continued Soviet supplies and because of the loyalty of certain individuals within the armed forces who, needless to say, backed away from the government in the 1991-1992 period.

[A Marxist Historian]

Do you have any proof of this whatsoever? I don't see why Albanians, who after 1967 were literally not allowed to be religious, would be receptive to some Muslims fighting far away. Albanian Muslims did not have a history of religious fundamentalism, and Albanian media never mentioned that the Afghans were fighting a religious war.

I also like how you mention "diplomatic alignments." If Hoxha wanted to denounce the Soviet invasion in order to woo the West then he could have also denounced the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia as "Soviet social-imperialism" (which would be inappropriate in such a case) and instead back Pol Pot's government in exile at the UN like various bourgeois states did, but he didn't. He could have signed the Helsinki accords as well, but he didn't. He could have, you know, reestablished diplomatic ties with the USA, but he explicitly said he would never do this.

Basically Albania was doing a bad thing because it wasn't hailing the glorious "Red Army" in Afghanistan, as the Sparts you sympathize with literally did. Ergo there has to be a rationale unrelated to principles and the interests of socialism since, of course, anything other than "critical support" for Soviet social-imperialism ("gains of the Russian Revolution in Afghanistan") is aiding American imperialism, or something.

I think Albanians are intelligent people, intelligent enough to know that Afghanistan is an Islamic country, with or without government propaganda on the subject. And I kinda suspect that Albanians being "literally not allowed to be religious" didn't work too good, indeed one of the many reasons why Hoxha's regime collapsed with so little popular resistance.

Why didn't he back Pol Pot? Maybe because China was backing Pol Pot, and he was in the middle of a breakup with China. Or maybe because he was smart enough to realize anybody backing Pol Pot was making a serious political blunder.

As for Afghanistan, that backing the Mujahedeen was "aiding American imperialism, or something" is, well, duh, kinda obvious?

The CIA operation on behalf of the Mujahedeen was only the biggest, most expensive and largest scale operation in the CIA's entire history.

-M.H.-

[Grenzer]

The Soviet-backed puppet regime was absolutely hated outside the cities, and even there there was dissident. The Mujahidin were, for better or worse, made essentially synonymous with the national liberation struggle. Hoxha noted that the US, China and Pakistan sought to exploit said struggle for their own ends.

After 1989 Afghanistan's government was a joke. It was corrupt, it did away with any Marxist pretenses, etc. It survived as long as it did because of continued Soviet supplies and because of the loyalty of certain individuals within the armed forces who, needless to say, backed away from the government in the 1991-1992 period.


This is a good example of why I stay out of this national liberation crap. Usually both sides are just a faction of capital, but in this case it's arguable that that the Mujahideen represents something even worse than capital. I think supporting either side would be a mistake; but not only is the Mujahideen an extension of american imperialism, they are just as reactionary as fascists are. Seems like the "National Liberation" card is worse than the disease it supposed to cure. If one HAD to pick a side, purely for the sake of academic debate, then the only sane choice would be the Russians.

As it is though, the only rational choice is to tell them to all go fuck themselves and support the people of Afghanistan against their oppressors: the Islamist fuckers, American imperialism, Pakistani imperialism, Chinese imperialism(yes, even they are starting to meddle in Afghanistan), and Russian imperialism.. both in the historic case of the Russian invasion and as it stands today.

[A Marxist Historian]

That is what we do, while still defending the struggle of the Afghan people against the Soviet occupiers. Quite simple.

The Mujahidin taking control of the anti-imperialist national liberation struggle can be ascribed to the policies of the invaders themselves, who discredited socialism amongst the populace by their war of occupation, and by the fact that, naturally enough, the Soviet revisionists and their puppet government persecuted any left-wing forces who opposed them.

Now, Grenzer is an anarchist not a Marxist, so he can call the Russian invasion of Afghanistan "imperialist," since anarchism, as Marx pointed out so long long ago, is ultimately just the radical version of bourgeois liberalism.

But you claim to be a Marxist and a Leninist, so if you want to chime in with him and claim that the USSR under Brezhnev was "imperialist," you have to give us some sort of evidence that the USSR invaded to economically exploit Afghanistan or something like that.

Basically, what the war in Afghanistan started over was women's liberation. The Mujahedeen rose up in rebellion because women were being taught how to read and write, which they considered to be against Islam.

The Soviet forces in Afghanistan, just like the forces of the Russian Soviet Republic under Lenin, marched in as a liberating force, attempting to free the people of Afghanistan from age old medieval oppression just as the Red Army under Trotsky and Lenin marched into Central Asia to free the people of Turkestan, now Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc., from medieval oppression by the Mujahedeen's blood brothers and ancestors, the infamous Basmachi.

Now, this is the role they objectively played rather than necessarily being Brezhnev's motivation. But then when Lincoln invaded the South to crush the confederacy, freeing the slaves wasn't the original objective there either.

And now, as the New York Times broke down and started reporting recently, a wave of nostalgia for the Soviet occupying forces has been sweeping over Afghanistan. The Times can finally report the truth, as the New York Times wants to get out of Afghanistan, as for that matter does Obama.

"Many Afghans’ remembrance of the Soviet years is colored by this rosy nostalgia," as a Times reporter put it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/world/asia/kabuls-soviet-ruins-offer-a-reminder-of-imperial-ambitions.html

-M.H.-

[Grenzer]

Now, Grenzer is an anarchist not a Marxist, so he can call the Russian invasion of Afghanistan "imperialist," since anarchism, as Marx pointed out so long long ago, is ultimately just the radical version of bourgeois liberalism.

Interesting that Spart scum who would subordinate class struggle to support counter-productive things like pedophilia would talk about 'liberalism'. What rubbish. You prance around from thread to thread supporting any kind of imperialism done under a red banner touting "class interests"(Class interests indeed, but certainly not that of the proletariat). You're a joke and a reactionary liberal, nothing more.



But you claim to be a Marxist and a Leninist, so if you want to chime in with him and claim that the USSR under Brezhnev was "imperialist," you have to give us some sort of evidence that the USSR invaded to economically exploit Afghanistan or something like that.


So you're playing this old tripe again. Textbook definition of imperialism: "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

This is precisely what describes the relationship between Russia and Afghanistan: one of domination and subordination. You're a first world chauvinist and an advocate of racist Western paternalism, so none of this comes as a surprise that you lick the boot of bourgeois scum like Brezhnev.

You rely on absurd formalism to try to make a point, the weakest way to go about an argument; and your support for imperialism is not really convincing anyone, not even your fellow Trotskyists. When the revolution comes, you and your insignificant petit-bourgeois sect will be swept aside and crushed along with the rest of the class enemy.

Whenever there is a thread on first world chauvinism and imperialism, you can be sure that the so called "Marxist" historian will be there at the front, shilling for his bourgeois heroes. He has no understanding of Marxism, and relies instead on childish technicalities to support his reactionary agenda.

[Ismail]

And I kinda suspect that Albanians being "literally not allowed to be religious" didn't work too good, indeed one of the many reasons why Hoxha's regime collapsed with so little popular resistance.According to the work World Christianity and Marxism the anti-religious campaign worked quite well: when religious activities were made legal in 1990 people didn't know the difference between Islam and Christianity, so both communities held joint services and such. Some statistics have put the amount of Albanian agnostics at 70% or so of the population today.

And again, not every Albanian is a Muslim. Albanian nationalism was either pretty much anti-religious for all practical purposes (Pashko Vasa's call for Albanians to not let "priests and hodjas fool you, the true religion of Albanians is Albanianism") or quite liberal (the Bektashi sect, one of whose adherents was Naim Frashëri who called for Muslim and Christian Albanians to unite) to begin with.


Why didn't he back Pol Pot? Maybe because China was backing Pol Pot, and he was in the middle of a breakup with China.Yet in his diaries he clearly demonstrates his dislike for Pol Pot. Even if we factor in the fact that Vietnamese troops entered Cambodia not long after the Sino-Albanian split, in both 1964 (when the Chinese wanted the Albanians to reconcile with Brezhnev) and in 1972 (when Mao met Nixon) the CC of the PLA sent letters to its CCP counterpart criticizing both decisions. In 1976-77 (when, it should be noted, Albania was still officially pro-China) the Albanians were calling for talks between Cambodia and Vietnam on the subject of border disputes to be decided only by those two states and no on else. Instead, of course, Cambodia continued its aggressive acts, etc. China by that point, in contrast, firmly on the side of Cambodia.


Or maybe because he was smart enough to realize anybody backing Pol Pot was making a serious political blunder.Really? The USA, Britain, China and Yugoslavia backed Pol Pot without any problems, as did the vast majority of bourgeois states as the UN itself kept the Khmer Rouge ambassador at his post representing "Democratic Kampuchea in exile" all the way up to 1993.


As for Afghanistan, that backing the Mujahedeen was "aiding American imperialism, or something" is, well, duh, kinda obvious?

The CIA operation on behalf of the Mujahedeen was only the biggest, most expensive and largest scale operation in the CIA's entire history.Well yes, the Americans wanted a "Soviet Vietnam," and the Soviets were desperate enough to fall for it.

As for your NYT link, that's Kabul. You can find many people nostalgic for South Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly known as Saigon) too.

[A Marxist Historian]

Interesting that Spart scum who would subordinate class struggle to support counter-productive things like pedophilia would talk about 'liberalism'. What rubbish. You prance around from thread to thread supporting any kind of imperialism done under a red banner touting "class interests"(Class interests indeed, but certainly not that of the proletariat). You're a joke and a reactionary liberal, nothing more.



So you're playing this old tripe again. Textbook definition of imperialism: "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

This is precisely what describes the relationship between Russia and Afghanistan: one of domination and subordination. You're a first world chauvinist and an advocate of racist Western paternalism, so none of this comes as a surprise that you lick the boot of bourgeois scum like Brezhnev.

You rely on absurd formalism to try to make a point, the weakest way to go about an argument; and your support for imperialism is not really convincing anyone, not even your fellow Trotskyists. When the revolution comes, you and your insignificant petit-bourgeois sect will be swept aside and crushed along with the rest of the class enemy.

Whenever there is a thread on first world chauvinism and imperialism, you can be sure that the so called "Marxist" historian will be there at the front, shilling for his bourgeois heroes. He has no understanding of Marxism, and relies instead on childish technicalities to support his reactionary agenda.

I have no interest in replying to your off topic lying trolling and baiting.

But on the essence of the matter, I guess I prefer Lenin and Marx to Noah Webster as to the definition of imperialism.

Imperialism is now what it has always been, all the way back to Julius Caesar the first self-professed imperator and imperialist. It is when one country exploits another economically. The USSR did not exploit Afghanistan economically at all, in fact it gave Afghanistan huge amounts of economic aid, unlike the US imperialists, whose "aid programs" only enrich the warlords and do the Afghan people no good whatsoever.

In practice, the essence of your line of supporting the Mujahedeen CIA-Islamic puppets is to put Afghan women under the domination and subordination of men, and Afghanistan as a whole under the domination and subordination of US imperialism.

-M.H.-