Stalin, Che and Hoxha - split from Kim Il Sung thread

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Also Che viewed Stalin in a positive light, so... yeah.

When did he? I have only heard lukewarm quotes taken from his early years.If anything he admired Mao more for his siding with china during the split (though that isn't a definitive colleration).

[Ballyfornia]

When did he? I have only heard lukewarm quotes taken from his early years.If anything he admired Mao more for his siding with china during the split (though that isn't a definitive colleration).

If i recall correctly he said something like slaying all the capitalists under Stalins name, He placed a wreath on Stalin's grave. Plus when he first became revolutionary he signed letters under "Stalin II".

I also remember something that he wrote somewhere that the USSR would return to capitalism because of its revisionist policies, that could be seen as pro Stalin or maybe just anti Khrushchev.

[Ismail]

Che Guevara, it should be noted, probably liked Stalin to the end but certainly wasn't consistent in being a Marxist-Leninist.

Hoxha in 1969 to Ecuadorian communists (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm):

Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism. The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.

We cannot say that Che Guevara and his comrades were cowards. No, by no means! On the contrary, they were brave people. There are also bourgeois who are brave men. But the only truly great heroes and really brave proletarian revolutionaries are those who proceed from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles and put all their physical and mental energies at the service of the world proletariat for the liberation of the peoples from the yolk of the imperialists, feudal lords and others...

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism....

The authors of the theory that the "starter motor" sets the "big motor" in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up "wild" isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did.

This trend brings the theses of the armed uprising into disrepute. What great damage it causes the revolution! With the killing of Guevara, the masses of common people, contaminated by the influences of these anarchist views, will think: "Now there is no one else to lead us, to liberate us!" Or perhaps a group of people with another Guevara will be set up again to take to the mountains to make the "revolution," and the masses, who expect a great deal from these individuals and are burning to fight the bourgeoisie, may be deceived into following them. And what will happen? Something that is clear to us. Since these people are not the vanguard of the working class, since they are not guided by the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninism, they will encounter misunderstanding among the broad masses and sooner or later they will fail, but at the same time the genuine struggle will be discredited, because the masses will regard armed struggle with distrust. We must prepare the masses politically and ideologically, and convince them through their own practical experience. That is why we say that this inhibiting, reactionary theory about the revolution that is being spread in Latin America is the offspring of modern revisionism and must be unmasked by the Marxist-Leninists.There is a Marxist-Leninist analysis of Cuba which (among other things) does note the growing distrust the Soviet revisionists had towards Che: http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm

[manic expression]

Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were.
Which is funny, since Hoxha's rise to power was as an armed guerrilla. Eventually, history showed that Hoxha opposed whomever wasn't him, but at least he supported everyone else.

[Ismail]

Which is funny, since Hoxha's rise to power was as an armed guerrilla.No it wasn't. Hoxha was among a number of communists who formed the Communist Party of Albania in 1941. Before that Hoxha was an organizer and leading figure of a communist cell in the capital (operating on behalf of the Korçë Group, one of the three groups which later comprised the CPA).

The CPA organized itself as a vanguard party. In 1942 it formed the National Liberation Movement with itself at the head. In 1943 it formed a regular army. Throughout the national liberation war it built the foundations of the new state power via national liberation councils. The struggle for national liberation wasn't carried out by a few "heroic" guerrillas but by divisions and battalions of an organized army led by a vanguard.

[manic expression]

In 1943 it formed a regular army. Throughout the national liberation war it built the foundations of the new state power via national liberation councils.
Which means they were doing what the Cuban Revolutionaries were doing in the 50's and 60's. Sorry, but the only reason Hoxha criticized Che is because Che wasn't Hoxha.

[Ismail]

Which means they were doing what the Cuban Revolutionaries were doing in the 50's and 60's.

Hoxha's equation:

Partisans = good
Guerrillas = bad

:rolleyes:Probably because there's a qualitative difference between isolated guerrillas and partisans which were led by a conscious Marxist-Leninist vanguard aimed at destroying the state apparatus and replacing it with a new one from the get-go.

Keep in mind that Hoxha wasn't denouncing guerrillas as inherently reactionary and unable to affect change (the CPA did, after all, start out with urban-based guerrilla units in 1941 and 1942), but that Che Guevara's "foco" method, which was done without a vanguard and with a reliance on "direct action" over a much more balanced method, could only end up isolating the guerrillas from the masses and invited distortions to the Marxist-Leninist line.

From The National Conference of Studies on the Anti-fascist National Liberation War of the Albanian People: "But while creating the guerrilla units, the Party always had in mind higher forms of the armed struggle - partisan units. 'The comrades should not have a shallow grasp of the question of guerrillas', it instructed, 'Wherever possible partisan units should be formed... without waiting for another directive for the formation of the units.' The formation of the units was linked, first of all, with the creation of the bases of the Party and of the National Liberation War in the countryside." (pg. 75) Furthermore, in contrast to the guerrillas under "foco," in which the "heroes" go from place to place attaining their victories as a grouping of individuals, "Among the many lessons [learned during the war], the first lesson is the sound, undivided, and effective leadership of the Party. This leadership is the main source of the heroism and revolutionary self-sacrifice of the Albanian people against the occupiers and traitors, and of their historic victory in this war. It is the principal factor in the extent, depth, and grandeur of the people's general uprising in the Anti-fascist War. The very creation and organization of the [Albanian National Liberation Army] as a regular revolutionary army, and every victory and success attained by the ANLA over the occupation armies and the reactionary forces, has its roots in the correct Marxist-Leninist line of the Party and in its wise leadership." (p. 96)

Here's a good critique of Che's "foco" views: http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm

[manic expression]

Probably because there's a qualitative difference between isolated guerrillas and partisans which were led by a conscious Marxist-Leninist vanguard aimed at destroying the state apparatus and replacing it with a new one from the get-go.
"Isolated guerrillas"? The M26J had cells in the cities who played a vital role before, during and after the armed struggle. The Revolution would have most likely been impossible without that urban presence.


Keep in mind that Hoxha wasn't denouncing guerrillas as inherently reactionary and unable to affect change (the CPA did, after all, start out with urban-based guerrilla units in 1941 and 1942), but that Che Guevara's "foco" method, which was done without a vanguard and with a reliance on "direct action" over a much more balanced method, could only end up isolating the guerrillas from the masses and invited distortions to the Marxist-Leninist line.
Calling for balance is not the same thing as denouncing a fallen revolutionary because his struggle wasn't balanced enough. Further, Che's method wasn't nearly as "isolated" as Hoxha seemed to want to believe.

[Ismail]

"Isolated guerrillas"? The M26J had cells in the cities who played a vital role before, during and after the armed struggle.What character did these cells have?

In 1943, for instance, Hoxha spoke of the units waging war in the following terms: "This war is being waged by guerrilla units, and partisan and volunteer units. The role of the partisan units is colossal. One of the sources they draw on is the members of the Party. The communists are in the front rank, but a unit should include as many men and women of the people and nationalists as possible; it is not an army of the Party, but of the people. There is a cell and a political commissar in a unit, but this does not mean that the partisan unit should remain a unit of cadres. In the unit communists fight not only with the rifles but also with the pen, through agitation, propaganda and conferences. The unit mobilizes the population, mobilizes the peasants and defends their interests." (Selected Works Vol. I, pp. 107-108.)

Thus in Albania the cells were cells of the Party, with its Marxist-Leninist ideology and with democratic centralism. In addition to this, as the November 1941 resolution (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/albparty.htm) on the founding of the CPA notes, "Through actions (sabotage), strikes, demonstrations, etc., prepare the people politically and military for the armed general uprising, including in the struggle all the patriotic and anti-fascist forces." The struggle was to assume a many-sided character and would conclude in a general uprising with all sorts of preparations not only on a military but also a political basis conducted beforehand.


The Revolution would have most likely been impossible without that urban presence.Of course the urban presence is vital. As the History of the Party of Labor of Albania (1971 ed.) notes, "The uprising found its inspiration and began in the cities. As it extended and strengthened, the center of gravity passed to the countryside. The village became the main base of the uprising and the peasantry its main force. At the same time, the uprising was being extended and deepened in the cities, too. The countryside was liberated first, and this served as the starting point for the liberation of the cities and the whole country. However, right to the end the city remained the inspirer and leader of the whole uprising." (p. 662)


Further, Che's method wasn't nearly as "isolated" as Hoxha seemed to want to believe.In the aforementioned History of the PLA it is noted that, "At the time when the General Staff was formed [in March 1943], the ANLA was made up of about 10,000 fighters organized in permanent partizan detachments. Approximately twice as many volunteers served in the units of villages, towns and regions of both liberated and occupied areas." (p. 157) It was here that the stage was set for the general uprising the CPA had first spoken of in November 1941.

This sounds quite unlike the adventures of Fidel, Che and Co.

[manic expression]

What character did these cells have?
I'm not sure precisely what you mean by what character. They were working-class organizations that were engaging in strikes and other actions against imperialist forces.


In 1943, for instance, Hoxha spoke of the units waging war in the following terms:
I don't see how this is any different from what Che did. He involved a great deal of political education and agitation in armed struggle.


Thus in Albania the cells were cells of the Party, with its Marxist-Leninist ideology and with democratic centralism.
And yet Hoxha admits that his army was not of the party.


Of course the urban presence is vital.


This sounds quite unlike the adventures of Fidel, Che and Co.
Is it?

Sweig demonstrates the connection between the M267 and the working-class and civil society and shows that the initiative for the failed general strike of April 1958, came from the urban underground as the culmination of months of work within the labour movement.

Sweig explains the failure of the general strike, how it crippled the M267, which had 200 of its workers’ militants gunned down in Havana alone, and that it resulted in a change of revolutionary tactics. As the movement against Batista grew throughout 1957 and 1958, repression and brutality by the regime in the cities, where its repressive apparatus was concentrated, made revolutionary work far more dangerous and difficult for the urban M267 than life with the Rebel Army.

This (http://www.revolutionarycommunist.org/index.php/reviews/283-cuban-revolution-the-urban-underground--frfi-169-oct--nov-2002-.html) shows us how the Cuban Revolution involved all parts of the laboring classes, not just a bunch of guys in the jungle.

[Ismail]

I'm not sure precisely what you mean by what character. They were working-class organizations that were engaging in strikes and other actions against imperialist forces.How were they working-class organizations? Who organized them?


I don't see how this is any different from what Che did. He involved a great deal of political education and agitation in armed struggle.Yet that political education was not carried out through the vanguard, which in Albania was able to comprehensively carry out such education to the whole populace through the National Liberation Front.


And yet Hoxha admits that his army was not of the party.Yet Hoxha spoke in that same year to regional committees of the Party and noted that "it is essential for you to set up party organizations in the army, and for the party members to be the leaders who give this army fire and vitality." (Selected Works Vol. I, p. 241) Plus as the Conference work I have previously cited noted, the Party formed the Army, not the other way around. That the Army was of the people meant it sought to unite the people in armed struggle through the National Liberation Front. It still had political commissars and other elements ensuring the Party's leadership and control.

[manic expression]

How were they working-class organizations? Who organized them?
The M26J was heavily involved with them (the famous interview with Fidel in the jungle required a strong and coordinated urban resistance integrated with the guerrilla forces...which they were), as well as other groups, but the fact that the strike was one of the most important weapons in their arsenal underscores their working-class base.

By the way, Jaime Suchlicki, an historian on the subject, actually argued that the urban component of the Revolution was even more decisive than the guerrilla activities.


Yet that political education was not carried out through the vanguard, which in Albania was able to comprehensively carry out such education to the whole populace through the National Liberation Front.The vanguard was carrying it out...the vanguard being class-conscious revolutionaries organized as revolutionaries.


Yet Hoxha spoke in that same year to regional committees of the Party and noted that "it is essential for you to set up party organizations in the army, and for the party members to be the leaders who give this army fire and vitality." (Selected Works Vol. I, p. 241) Plus as the Conference work I have previously cited noted, the Party formed the Army, not the other way around. That the Army was of the people meant it sought to unite the people in armed struggle through the National Liberation Front. It still had political commissars and other elements ensuring the Party's leadership and control.So the army was not so much different from the Cuban Revolutionaries after all. What is the basis of the criticism if Hoxha's own armies were not purely communist in all manners and aspects?

Lastly, I think it is quite sad that Hoxha felt the need to condemn a fallen revolutionary over such questions. Disagreements on the specific manner of irregular warfare is in no way grounds for such a statement. Even taking your arguments at face value I don't think they come close to justifying what Hoxha said about Che.

[Ismail]

The M26J was heavily involved with them (the famous interview with Fidel in the jungle required a strong and coordinated urban resistance integrated with the guerrilla forces...which they were), as well as other groups, but the fact that the strike was one of the most important weapons in their arsenal underscores their working-class base.Obviously their struggle resonated among workers, yet the struggle was first and foremost one conducted in ways hardly different from those of bourgeois revolutionaries. There was no vanguard, there was no question of doing away with the exploitative state power (until, under the direction of the Soviet revisionists, the Cubans "discovered" this question later on), and the cult of the guerrilla retained an undue position in the affairs of the state, somewhat similar to the cult of the military in the DPRK. Batista was a hated figure, even the Americans wanted to get rid of him near the end. That's why said Americans looked favorably to Castro at first.

Hoxha did mention that, "We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists."


The vanguard was carrying it out...the vanguard being class-conscious revolutionaries organized as revolutionaries.Yet Castro emerged at first as a man avowedly not a communist who stated that the revolution was colored "green," the color of the rebel army, rather than red.


So the army was not so much different from the Cuban Revolutionaries after all. What is the basis of the criticism if Hoxha's own armies were not purely communist in all manners and aspects?They were actually organized as an Army, not as guerrillas. They were actually led by a vanguard party which was both on the offensive against the occupiers and their quislings and on the defensive in defense of the national liberation councils, which were the basis for the future people's state power. The Army was at all times in reach of the Party and was its creation. As one can see (and you haven't disputed this) the partisan struggle was qualitatively different from that of Che's "foco" views.

[manic expression]

Obviously their struggle resonated among workers, yet the struggle was first and foremost one conducted in ways hardly different from those of bourgeois revolutionaries. There was no vanguard, there was no question of doing away with the exploitative state power (until, under the direction of the Soviet revisionists, the Cubans "discovered" this question later on), and the cult of the guerrilla retained an undue position in the affairs of the state, somewhat similar to the cult of the military in the DPRK. Batista was a hated figure, even the Americans wanted to get rid of him near the end. That's why said Americans looked favorably to Castro at first.
There is always a vanguard in working-class movements, and soon after the collapse of Batista's regime the founding of the PCC gave that vanguard a disciplined, conscious form.

The "cult of the guerrilla"...well, it's natural to reflect history in new ways. Eisenstein portrayed the storming of the Winter Palace as something 100x more violent than it actually was (according to some stories, more people were hurt in the filming of the movie than were in the actual "battle"). Should we condemn the USSR as "cultist" because of this? Hardly.

On Batista, well, it's a bit more complicated than that. The US felt he was becoming a liability because of his rampant corruption and all-around lack of competence. They started to consider other options and when Batista's military proved incapable of winning a decisive victory they cut their losses. If we were to compare it to any other figure Chiang Kai Shek would probably be the best bet.


Hoxha did mention that, "We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists."
And why not? Hoxha, here, is taking a certain application of an ideology and substituting it for the ideology itself. All Marxist-Leninists understand that revolutions are not "one size fits all", so why is Hoxha expecting the Cuban Revolution to look like the Russian? After all, Hoxha's rise to power involved very much the same dynamics, and certainly did not follow the course of the October Revolution. So again, what are the grounds for condemnation?


Yet Castro emerged at first as a man avowedly not a communist who stated that the revolution was colored "green," the color of the rebel army, rather than red.
That's how he outsmarted imperialism and brought the Revolution to victory. Anyway, revolutions are not defined by what they are called, do you not agree? The Paris Commune did not call itself communist, either, and yet we rightly hold it as a central example of working-class revolution.


They were actually organized as an Army, not as guerrillas. They were actually led by a vanguard party which was both on the offensive against the occupiers and their quislings and on the defensive in defense of the national liberation councils, which were the basis for the future people's state power. The Army was at all times in reach of the Party and was its creation. As one can see (and you haven't disputed this) the partisan struggle was qualitatively different from that of Che's "foco" views.
The difference between an army and guerrillas is simply in the name. The two are interchangeable.

In Cuba, the army and the political organization were one...which is more than you can say for Hoxha's activities (since the army was not the party's). So again, I see no grounds for such condemnation.

[Ismail]

There is always a vanguard in working-class movements, and soon after the collapse of Batista's regime the founding of the PCC gave that vanguard a disciplined, conscious form.The PCC was founded 1965. That's not exactly "soon."


The "cult of the guerrilla"...well, it's natural to reflect history in new ways. Eisenstein portrayed the storming of the Winter Palace as something 100x more violent than it actually was (according to some stories, more people were hurt in the filming of the movie than were in the actual "battle"). Should we condemn the USSR as "cultist" because of this? Hardly.Except in this case making a fetish out of guerrillas, as a work I linked (http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm) noted, means to undermine the role of the vanguard party, the masses, and overrates the influence of military affairs in the everyday managing of the state. The violence involved in storming the Winter Palace has nothing to do with that.


All Marxist-Leninists understand that revolutions are not "one size fits all", so why is Hoxha expecting the Cuban Revolution to look like the Russian?He isn't, nor did he ever claim that "one size fits all." In 1981 he noted, "Of course, as Lenin said, socialism will look different and will have its own special features in different countries as a result of the differing socio-economic conditions, the way in which the revolution is carried out, the traditions, the international circumstances, etc. But the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." (Selected Works Vol. VI, p. 447)


After all, Hoxha's rise to power involved very much the same dynamics, and certainly did not follow the course of the October Revolution. So again, what are the grounds for condemnation?I've already noted how the Albanian revolution was quite unlike that of the Cuban revolution. By the closing months of the national liberation war the partisans were 70,000 men strong and both a provisional government and the national liberation councils which it was based upon made their mark across the whole country, all this being led by a vanguard party.


The Paris Commune did not call itself communist, either, and yet we rightly hold it as a central example of working-class revolution.Yet it was not socialist, as Marx noted.


The difference between an army and guerrillas is simply in the name. The two are interchangeable.That's ridiculous. The Albanian National Liberation Army was fully organized, had a clear leadership, and was led by the Marxist-Leninist vanguard. It had full coordination of activities and a national character.


In Cuba, the army and the political organization were one...which is more than you can say for Hoxha's activities (since the army was not the party's). So again, I see no grounds for such condemnation.The "political organization" in this case were a few guerrilla fighters posing as a vanguard.

Again, you're taking Hoxha's quote on the relationship between the Army and the Party to mean something it doesn't. Bourgeois historian Peter R. Prifti in his work Socialist Albania since 1944 notes that "Party directives specified that, while political commissars and their deputies had to be Party members, it was preferable that military commanders did not hold Party membership... such a policy enabled the Party to maintain firm control over the army." (p. 16) The Army was a part of the National Liberation Front, which aimed to unite all Albanians willing to fight the fascist enemy and its collaborators. Hoxha was political commissar of the Army's General Staff and became its Commander-in-Chief in October 1944. At this same time Hoxha was Secretary-General of the Party and head of the National Liberation Front.

[manic expression]

The PCC was founded 1965. That's not exactly "soon."
The foundations were laid long before then, and the vanguard had been carrying out socialist construction as soon as Batista fell.


Except in this case making a fetish out of guerrillas, as a work I linked (http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm) noted, means to undermine the role of the vanguard party, the masses, and overrates the influence of military affairs in the everyday managing of the state. The violence involved in storming the Winter Palace has nothing to do with that.
I wouldn't at all call it a "fetish". Glorification? OK, I'll grant you that, but we glorify the heroes of the working-class struggle and it's only right we do so.


He isn't, nor did he ever claim that "one size fits all." In 1981 he noted, "Of course, as Lenin said, socialism will look different and will have its own special features in different countries as a result of the differing socio-economic conditions, the way in which the revolution is carried out, the traditions, the international circumstances, etc. But the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." (Selected Works Vol. VI, p. 447)
Well said. I only wish he had applied this wisdom to the issue at hand.


I've already noted how the Albanian revolution was quite unlike that of the Cuban revolution. By the closing months of the national liberation war the partisans were 70,000 men strong and both a provisional government and the national liberation councils which it was based upon made their mark across the whole country, all this being led by a vanguard party.
Not exactly the same of course, but in terms of direction this is not unlike Cuba. The M26J had grown by leaps and bounds towards the end of the conflict, and it had a presence virtually everywhere in the country when Batista fell.


Yet it was not socialist, as Marx noted.
And yet he did not condemn it.


That's ridiculous. The Albanian National Liberation Army was fully organized, had a clear leadership, and was led by the Marxist-Leninist vanguard. It had full coordination of activities and a national character.
You misunderstand my point. I was saying that the term "guerrilla" is not mutually exclusive with that of "army". So-called guerrillas can form a perfectly valid army by all measures we know of judging an army (discipline, chain of command, uniforms, adherence to the laws of war, etc.)...so in this case the distinction goes only so far as the label.


The "political organization" in this case were a few guerrilla fighters posing as a vanguard.
It was far more than that, both in numbers and in its role. It was not posing as a vanguard, it was acting as a vanguard, which is the important thing.


Again, you're taking Hoxha's quote on the relationship between the Army and the Party to mean something it doesn't. Bourgeois historian Peter R. Prifti in his work Socialist Albania since 1944 notes that "Party directives specified that, while political commissars and their deputies had to be Party members, it was preferable that military commanders did not hold Party membership... such a policy enabled the Party to maintain firm control over the army." (p. 16) The Army was a part of the National Liberation Front, which aimed to unite all Albanians willing to fight the fascist enemy and its collaborators. Hoxha was political commissar of the Army's General Staff and became its Commander-in-Chief in October 1944. At this same time Hoxha was Secretary-General of the Party and head of the National Liberation Front.
OK...so the army was part of a larger front, and the vanguard was only one part of that...do I have that right?

[Ismail]

The foundations were laid long before then, and the vanguard had been carrying out socialist construction as soon as Batista fell.No, it pursued bourgeois nationalist aims. These aims happened to conflict with US imperialism.


And yet he did not condemn it.The Commune didn't pretend to be socialist and there was not much to "condemn" in any case.


You misunderstand my point. I was saying that the term "guerrilla" is not mutually exclusive with that of "army". So-called guerrillas can form a perfectly valid army by all measures we know of judging an army (discipline, chain of command, uniforms, adherence to the laws of war, etc.)...so in this case the distinction goes only so far as the label.Yet the Albanian communists treated guerrillas as something that would make way for an actual organized partisan army. Guevara did not.


OK...so the army was part of a larger front, and the vanguard was only one part of that...do I have that right?No, there were no other political forces in the Front. The Front did welcome the formation of other anti-fascist parties, but none actually formed. There were different social strata in the Front, but they weren't organized outside of the working-class and the peasantry, which had the Communist Party as their vanguard.

[manic expression]

No, it pursued bourgeois nationalist aims. These aims happened to conflict with US imperialism.
The bourgeoisie was chased out of the country.


The Commune didn't pretend to be socialist and there was not much to "condemn" in any case.
And from where does this judgment arise? If we're denouncing revolutionaries for not doing exactly what someone else thinks they should have done, then have at it.


Yet the Albanian communists treated guerrillas as something that would make way for an actual organized partisan army. Guevara did not.
Again, the difference between "guerrillas" and "an actual organized partisan army" is in the name and little else.


No, there were no other political forces in the Front. The Front did welcome the formation of other anti-fascist parties, but none actually formed. There were different social strata in the Front, but they weren't organized outside of the working-class and the peasantry, which had the Communist Party as their vanguard.
Which is another way of saying that the army was not fully identified with the political organization...as it was in Cuba.

[Ismail]

And from where does this judgment arise?Marx: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm) "Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."


Which is another way of saying that the army was not fully identified with the political organization...as it was in Cuba.Well if we're going to go down this road I'd like to note that in Cuba the "political organization" (read: a bunch of guerrillas) leading everything was avowedly non-communist and operated, again, as bourgeois nationalists, whereas in Albania the National Liberation Front and its Army were founded, organized and led by a communist party.

When you say:

The bourgeoisie was chased out of the country.That sounds quite close to the claims of "proletarian bonapartism" or whatever that the Grantites/IMT people talk about, which makes every country from Libya to Burma "ruled" by the proletariat in some way. The Marxist-Leninist work on Cuba I've linked to (http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm) a few posts back noted that the view of the Cuban Revolution from the actual Soviet-backed Popular Socialist Party of Cuba, was that:

"Power has passed into the hands of the 'Movement of July 26', led by Fidel Castro . . . with the national and petty bourgoisie playing the leading role". (Theses of the Executive Committee of the Popular Socialist Party of Cuba, in: 'World Marxist Review', Volume 2, No. 4 (April 1959); p. 68).

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Cmon, Ismail, you're missing the point. We're talking proletarian revolution vs. peasant armies overthrowing disintegrating regimes. You (and I guess your buddy Hoxha) are really cutting the pie when you make a sharp distinction between "partisans" and "guerillas." Of course, I support these actions that overthrow capitalism. But what you get, at best, is some kind of Stalinized nationalist bureaucratic regime. As in Albiania (and Yugoslavia, N. Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam. . . etc.).

I have no idea how Hoxha's writings impress in Albanian, but in these English translations, hoooooo boy, they are stilted.

[Ismail]

Cmon, Ismail, you're missing the point. We're talking proletarian revolution vs. peasant armies overthrowing disintegrating regimes.I fail to see how what happened in Cuba was a "proletarian revolution." It was a bourgeois-democratic revolution which transformed itself into state-capitalism by the late 60's as the country went from being a neo-colony of American imperialism to becoming a neo-colony of Soviet social-imperialism.

On peasant armies, it is worth noting Hoxha's critiques against Mao's reliance on the peasantry as the "main force" in constructing socialism (from Imperialism and the Revolution, pp. 423-425):

Experience shows that the peasantry can play its revolutionary role only if it acts in alliance with the proletariat and under its leadership. This was proved in our country during the National Liberation War. The Albanian peasantry was the main force of our revolution, however it was the working class, despite its very small numbers, which led the peasantry, because the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the ideology of the proletariat, embodied in the Communist Party, today the Party of Labour, the vanguard of the working class, was the leadership of the revolution. That is why we triumphed not only in the National Liberation War. but also in the construction of socialism.

Despite the innumerable difficulties we encountered on our road we scored success one after another. We achieved these successes, in the first place, because the Party thoroughly mastered the essence of the theory of Marx and Lenin, understood what the revolution was, who was making it and who had to lead it, understood that at the head of the working class, in alliance with the peasantry, there had to be a party of the Leninist type. The communists understood that this party must not be communist only in name but had to be a party which would apply the Marxist-Leninist theory of the revolution and party building in the concrete conditions of our country, which would begin the work for the creation of the new socialist society, following the example of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union of the time of Lenin and Stalin. This stand gave our Party the victory, gave the country the great political, economic and military strength it has today. Had we acted differently, had we not consistently applied these principles of our great theory, socialism could not have been built in a small country surrounded by enemies, as ours is....

The negation by «Mao Tsetung thought» of the leading role of the proletariat was precisely one of the causes that the Chinese revolution remained a bourgeois-democratic revolution and did not develop into a socialist revolution. In his article «New Democracy», Mao Tsetung preached that after the triumph of the revolution in China a regime would be established which would be based on the alliance of the «democratic classes», in which, besides the peasantry and the proletariat, he also included the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. «Just as everyone should share what food there is,» he writes, «so there should be no monopoly of power by a single party, group or class». This idea has also been reflected in the national flag of the People's Republic of China, with four stars which represent four classes: the working class, the peasantry, the urban petty-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie.Not to mention that, unlike Mao's CCP, the CPA was organized by urban intellectuals and proletarians and its initial cadre had a decade or two of experience in organizing proletarians (such as via trade unions) and promoting communism in the country. Mao, as Hoxha notes in his work, denies the hegemonic role of the proletariat and its vanguard and, as he later notes, denies even the hegemonic role of Marxism-Leninism itself.

There was also the fact that the CCP from its very start had racialist and "Oriental" outlooks which were amplified under Mao to produce a sort of "Asian Communism." As Hoxha notes: "In these conditions, with those concepts the CCP could never be a Marxist-Leninist party. The philosophy which guided it was idealist bourgeois, retrograde, because China itself, its society despite its democratic bourgeois revolution, has remained a closed society, with old beliefs and mentality dominated by mysticism and by philosophical and organisational state principles archaic in essence but which have allegedly evolved superficially. We can see this in the construction and form of the state, in the development of the economy, in the way the education and cultural system has been built, in the organisation of the army, etc. Everything bore the specific Chinese seal, from ideological literature down to the slogans." (1978 letter to Hysni Kapo in Letra të zgjedhura Vol. I, p. 396.) In this same letter Hoxha noted, "The ideological, political and organisational principles of the CCP and Mao Zedong are principles of a pronounced pragmatic philosophy with clear aims of transforming the 'eternal' China into a superpower to dominate the world." He further referred to Mao as, "an idealist dreamer and visionary, without general culture (except that of Chinese antiquity) [who has] followed the course of the history of mankind as [a] most xenophobic dilettante."

Yet Hoxha concluded his letter in hopeful spirits: "Terrible storms have and will pass over the Chinese people, but the day will come when, even there the theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin will triumph. The present and coming generations of China will understand and will say: 'The Party of Labour of Albania opened our eyes, it acted correctly, it exposed Mao Zedong thought because it loved the Chinese proletarian revolution, because it wanted to dispel the destructive myths created in China, which hindered the happiness of this great people, who want to live in genuine socialism.'"

[Renegade Saint]

There are parties that consider themselves supportive in the main of Enver Hoxha in countries like Ecuador and Tunisia, where they have seats in their respective countries' legislatures. The PCdoB was/is a significant communist party which abandoned its pro-Albania line in the early 90's, but is just one example of the fact that there were plenty of parties adhering to the Albanian line in the 70's and 80's.

In fact, speaking in terms of influence, pro-Hoxha parties were probably more influential than Trotskyist ones in the 1980's. Trotskyists had entryism into Labour in the UK, whereas pro-Hoxha parties had an armed presence in countries like Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and in the 70's Brazil. There was also a pro-Albanian party in Nicaragua which had two seats in its legislature during the Sandinista period. In addition both Burkina Faso and Mali had significant pro-Hoxha movements, the former splitting over whether or not to support Thomas Sankara and the latter being involved in student and worker unrest against the military regime of Moussa Traoré.

The significance of the pro-Albanian movement worldwide was as such that even bourgeois nationalists toyed with it. Sinn Féin passed a resolution in the mid-80's calling Albania a model socialist country, and in the late 80's Meles Zenawi (then a guerrilla leader against the Mengistu regime) said the same. Of course both quickly pretended they never said those things soon after, but it still demonstrates the influence.
Well, this isn't the 80's.

But now I'm derailing the thread too...

[manic expression]

So I was browsing this and found some interesting points I missed. I hope people will forgive me for replying so late, but I was away and didn't see the response until now.


Marx: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_02_22.htm) "Perhaps you will point to the Paris Commune; but apart from the fact that this was merely the rising of a town under exceptional conditions, the majority of the Commune was in no sense socialist, nor could it be."
Right, because cities can't be socialist in and of themselves. It doesn't mean the ideology and direction of the thing was un-socialist.


(read: a bunch of guerrillas)
Which is what Hoxha's group was.


leading everything was avowedly non-communist
Entirely untrue. Raul and Che were avowedly communist and Fidel never came out as a communist because it would have been suicide, and foolishly unnecessary suicide at that.

Are you going to condemn the October Revolution because Lenin called himself a "social democrat"? I think not.


That sounds quite close to the claims of "proletarian bonapartism" or whatever that the Grantites/IMT people talk about, which makes every country from Libya to Burma "ruled" by the proletariat in some way. The Marxist-Leninist work on Cuba I've linked to (http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm) a few posts back noted that the view of the Cuban Revolution from the actual Soviet-backed Popular Socialist Party of Cuba, was that:
That same party would later merge to help create the PCC. Their actions speak far louder than that cursory analysis. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the ideology you're trying to tie it with, it has everything to do with what happened: the workers took control of their workplaces and communities and expropriated the expropriators. You object to this because, well, apparently, they involved "guerrillas" and not "partisans"...as if synonyms are now ideologically incompatible.

[Ismail]

Are you going to condemn the October Revolution because Lenin called himself a "social democrat"? I think not.This is ridiculous. Lenin didn't hide his ideology, nor did the Bolsheviks. Although by 1917 "Social-Democratic" had already begun to signify rightist and revisionist trends within international socialism (hence why the 7th Congress of the Party in March 1918 changed the name) comparing this to Fidel Castro emerging after victory and saying that both capitalism and communism exploit men and that the revolution was not red but green is just wrong.

[manic expression]

This is ridiculous. Lenin didn't hide his ideology, nor did the Bolsheviks. Although by 1917 "Social-Democratic" had already begun to signify rightist and revisionist trends within international socialism (hence why the 7th Congress of the Party in March 1918 changed the name) comparing this to Fidel Castro emerging after victory and saying that both capitalism and communism exploit men and that the revolution was not red but green is just wrong.
Do you deny that it would have been practically suicidal for Fidel to declare himself a communist in 1957?

[Ismail]

Do you deny that it would have been practically suicidal for Fidel to declare himself a communist in 1957?Attacking communism is a fair bit different. His guerrilla group acted, again, like a bourgeois rebel army.

Anyway I've already noted that Fidel Castro did not oversee a proletarian revolution. His revolution was a bourgeois-democratic one, the forces he promoted across the world were pro-Soviet bourgeois democrats (FSLN, MPLA, etc.), and his country was and is state-capitalist and transitioning ever gradually onto open market capitalism under the command of the "avowedly communist" Raúl.

[manic expression]

Attacking communism is a fair bit different. His guerrilla group acted, again, like a bourgeois rebel army.
"Attacking communism"? I feel that actions speak louder than words.

And you have no support for that claim on your conception of the "guerrilla (or partisan) group". They were not like a "bourgeois rebel army" at all, and once again their actions in expropriating the expropriators shows us this.

[Cheung Mo]

There are parties that consider themselves supportive in the main of Enver Hoxha in countries like Ecuador and Tunisia, where they have seats in their respective countries' legislatures. The PCdoB was/is a significant communist party which abandoned its pro-Albania line in the early 90's, but is just one example of the fact that there were plenty of parties adhering to the Albanian line in the 70's and 80's.

In fact, speaking in terms of influence, pro-Hoxha parties were probably more influential than Trotskyist ones in the 1980's. Trotskyists had entryism into Labour in the UK, whereas pro-Hoxha parties had an armed presence in countries like Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and in the 70's Brazil. There was also a pro-Albanian party in Nicaragua which had two seats in its legislature during the Sandinista period. In addition both Burkina Faso and Mali had significant pro-Hoxha movements, the former splitting over whether or not to support Thomas Sankara and the latter being involved in student and worker unrest against the military regime of Moussa Traoré.

The significance of the pro-Albanian movement worldwide was as such that even bourgeois nationalists toyed with it. Sinn Féin passed a resolution in the mid-80's calling Albania a model socialist country, and in the late 80's Meles Zenawi (then a guerrilla leader against the Mengistu regime) said the same. Of course both quickly pretended they never said those things soon after, but it still demonstrates the influence.

Venezuela? Bandero Roja is not a leftist organisations. Leftists have no right to oppose Chavez unless they are even more steadfast in denouncing the pro-imperialist opposition.

[Ismail]

Venezuela? Bandero Roja is not a leftist organisations. Leftists have no right to oppose Chavez unless they are even more steadfast in denouncing the pro-imperialist opposition.Bandero Roja was a leftist organization. It didn't just spring up one day in 2002 or whatever to denounce Chávez as a "social-fascist." It used to advocate armed insurrection in the 70's and 80's and was pro-Albania. Now it's Maoist and was expelled from the ICMLPO years ago on charges of being CIA-infiltrated.

Your line of "no one can oppose Chávez" is ridiculous though. Chávez is a populist and a national bourgeois, nothing more.

[Cheung Mo]

Bandero Roja was a leftist organization. It didn't just spring up one day in 2002 or whatever to denounce Chávez as a "social-fascist." It used to advocate armed insurrection in the 70's and 80's and was pro-Albania. Now it's Maoist and was expelled from the ICMLPO years ago on charges of being CIA-infiltrated.

Your line of "no one can oppose Chávez" is ridiculous though. Chávez is a populist and a national bourgeois, nothing more.

I never said that no one can oppose Chavez. That's ridiculous. What I said that it's hypocritical to oppose Chavez if you're going to back a rightist opposition as an alternative. It'd be like a socialist backing Romney because Obama's a tool of the plutocracy. Similarly, I'm not going to support Stephen Harper because I'm dissatisfied with the NDP.

[Ismail]

I never said that no one can oppose Chavez. That's ridiculous. What I said that it's hypocritical to oppose Chavez if you're going to back a rightist opposition as an alternative. It'd be like a socialist backing Romney because Obama's a tool of the plutocracy. Similarly, I'm not going to support Stephen Harper because I'm dissatisfied with the NDP.You are correct.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

'Yet the Albanian communists treated guerrillas as something that would make way for an actual organized partisan army. Guevara did not.'

I'm pretty sure that Guevara said in one of his writings that 'the aim of every guerilla army should be to develop into a professional army. I understand the point your making Ismail but its all too similar to he ultra-orthodox trotskyists who dismiss the Chinese revolution because of the way Mao mobilised the peasantry.