Communism in Albania?

[NorwegianCommunist]

The sacrifices of our people were very great. Out of a population of one million, 28,000 were killed, 12,600 wounded, 10,000 were made political prisoners in Italy and Germany, and 35,000 made to do forced labour, of ground; all the communications, all the ports, mines and electric power installations were destroyed, our agriculture and livestock were plundered, and our entire national economy was wrecked.
—Enver Hoxha

Did he mean by this, that communism in Albania didn't work?
Anybody who can help me with this? =)

[Искра]

He is refering to post-WW2 Albania and how much it was fucked by war. And then he came and saved poor Albanian people from jaws of capitalism.

[Blanquist]

Its a way those regimes justified the poverty of the people. If somethings backward in 'socialist' Albania its only because of how much the country suffered in WWII.

And they claim success by referring to war time statistics.

[Brosip Tito]

I'd take anything said my Enver Hoxha with a full shaker of salt. He was a bureaucrat, and proponent of totalitarian capitalism.

[Ismail]

I'd take anything said my Enver Hoxha with a full shaker of salt.Except it's true. James S. O'Donnell, Peter R. Prifti, and just about every other Western anti-communist author who has written on Albania noted that, in relative terms, Albania suffered the most in wartime damages.

You seriously need a "full shaker of salt" because Hoxha claimed that Albania suffered horribly from fascist occupation? Do you think fascist occupation was a good thing? If Hoxha said the sky was blue are you going to question that as well?


He was a bureaucratHe wasn't a "bureaucrat" when he said those words to the Paris Peace Conference in 1946. At that time he was known abroad as Colonel-General Enver Hoxha. Before the war he was a communist involved in propagating the ideology amongst students.

Your post is really ridiculous, in all honesty. Do you even know the context in which he was saying this? It wasn't "lol look how awesome I am," it was when the Greek Government called for the "liberation" of southern Albania, claimed that Albania was at war with Greece (because the quisling government installed in 1939 declared war alongside Italy when it invaded Greece), and when the Allied Powers (except the USSR) were thus unwilling to regard Albania as a fellow anti-fascist country able to get reparations, just because from 1939-1944 it was led by fascist puppets despite the fact it had an active anti-fascist partisan resistance movement. Eventually Hoxha was allowed to attend, but only to give a speech on behalf of Albania, not as a full participant in the conference.

You can see his speech in full here: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1946/08/21.htm


And then he came and saved poor Albanian people from jaws of capitalism.Wrong, as is usual for you. He never mentioned anything of the sort in his speech. I don't think the Paris Peace Conference would have cared much for him attacking capitalism.


Its a way those regimes justified the poverty of the people.Really? Is that why the History of the Party of Labour of Albania says that the economy of the 1910s-30's was a mixture of feudal and nascent capitalist elements and was horrendously backwards, something every author in the history of Europe would agree with? Some right-wingers like Nikolaos A. Stavrou claimed that Albania didn't even have a bourgeoisie in the 1910's and 20's.


If somethings backward in 'socialist' Albania its only because of how much the country suffered in WWII.Is that why Hoxha denounced the Kanun, a set of tribal laws that originates in the medieval ages and which held sway over all northern Albania? Is that why Hoxha denounced religion and called for its eradication from 1966 onwards? I seem to recall Hoxha blasting patriarchy and citing Thomas Aquinas as a proponent of it, not Mussolini or Göbbels.

You do realize Albania was the poorest country in Europe at the time of its independence in 1912, right? Over 90% of the population was illiterate. The life expectancy was about 35. At the time of independence the working-class of Albania, by the Party of Labour's own calculations, totaled around 150 persons. By 1938 this number rose to 7,500 in a population of 1 million. The Party didn't need to recourse to World War II in terms of backwardness, especially since WWII is usually portrayed as a good time in regards to overcoming backwardness since, you know, the Party encouraged the women and youth to fight, established national liberation councils to serve as the basis of the new people's state power, etc. Albanian historians portrayed that time as economically ruinous (for reasons which should be obvious), but socially educative and uplifting.

Albania quickly recuperated from war damages by the 1950's. By 1948 it was already overcoming 1938 production statistics in some areas.


And they claim success by referring to war time statistics.Wrong. Albanian statisticians routinely referred to the year 1938, not 1944, for comparing subsequent economic progress. Not only does Prifti note this, but so does The History of the Socialist Construction of Albania, the aforementioned PLA history, and every other "official" book published by the Albanian government during the socialist period.

In conclusion you're full of shit, and so is everyone else who replied in this thread and who knew nothing of the context of that quote, which wasn't made for propaganda, but was made because the West decided that Albania wasn't an allied anti-fascist country, but a defeated fascist state.

[Drosophila]

I'd take anything said my Enver Hoxha with a full shaker of salt. He was a bureaucrat, and proponent of totalitarian capitalism.

Aint it fun to use bourgeois terminology

[GoddessCleoLover]

If we are being honest and real, wouldn't we be compelled to admit that during the Enver Hoxha years that Albania was a country whose political culture was extremely authoritarian and based upon the personal virtues of Enver Hoxha? The leading role in Albanian society lay not with its working people, rather authority had been assumed entirely by the Albanian Party of Labor. Furthermore, within the APL there existed strict obedience to the authority of Enver Hoxha rather than a culture of party democracy, although to be fair to the APL none of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties allowed much internal party democracy.

[Ismail]

If we are being honest and real, wouldn't we be compelled to admit that during the Enver Hoxha years that Albania was a country whose political culture was extremely authoritarian and based upon the personal virtues of Enver Hoxha? The leading role in Albanian society lay not with its working people, rather authority had been assumed entirely by the Albanian Party of Labor.Various means were used to involve the working-class in the administration of enterprises throughout the 1960's and early 70's. They didn't dramatically differ from the 1930's USSR (wall posters allowing workers to denounce factory managers and such, worker-led inspections, etc.) but certainly the goal was to make workers far more conscious of their abilities compared to the USSR or in the rest of Eastern Europe during the 1950's-80's, and the work Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: The Case of Albania notes that these practices went further than other East European states. To give some examples the control workers had over economic plans was a bit stronger; they were given more options and their input was sought more highly. Anti-bureaucratic campaigns also began to involve as many office workers and state officials in temporary physical production work for a set time each year, to make sure they wouldn't develop bureaucratic attitudes, etc. It didn't result in too much and by the mid-70's, as Anton Logoreci notes in his book on Albania, bureaucracy actually grew from the setbacks it suffered in the late 60's with the elimination of various ministries, etc.


Furthermore, within the APL there existed strict obedience to the authority of Enver Hoxha rather than a culture of party democracy, although to be fair to the APL none of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties allowed much internal party democracy.That depends. Obviously the character of Hoxha was important, but I think it was lesser than that of Mao, who turned the entire state apparatus into something subservient to him and his personality during the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," something which Hoxha criticized very much.

The persons which opposed the line of the Party were clearly to the right of it throughout the 1940's-70's. In 1944-1948 there was Koçi Xoxe and Co., who wanted to merge Albania with Yugoslavia and to turn the country into a neo-colony beforehand. In the 50's there was Bedri Spahiu, Tuk Jakova, Liri Gega and so on who wanted to restore relations with Yugoslavia, support the post-1953 Soviet economic reforms and later back the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU. In 1960 there were Liri Belishova and Koço Tashko who were backed by the Soviets (neither were shot, they were simply expelled; the former is still alive and an ardent anti-communist), and then in the 70's there were military and economic types who wanted to follow China's pro-US policies and emulate Yugoslav "self-management."

[Ostrinski]

Tbh I think Hoxha was pretty attractive I don't know what the hell you all are talking about

[Seth]

I think Hoxha's leadership was a good thing for Albania overall. It made important gains in all areas and wasn't a puppet of anyone.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Somehow I can't envision Enver Hoxha's Albania as "libertarian socialism". I don't want to harp on the issue of Enver Hoxha, but that era in history is finished, and I don't see any mass base for its revival. We have to come up with something new and appeal for the working class. Continuing to cling to old and discredited models will only prevent us from gaining the support of the working class. Anyone who doubts me can go out and talk to workers about Stalin or Mao, but they won't get anywhere as that is a closed chapter as far as workers are concerned.

[Ismail]

Somehow I can't envision Enver Hoxha's Albania as "libertarian socialism".I'm pretty sure one can still consider Hoxha a progressive personality regardless of one's views on Marxism-Leninism or on the character of the state he led. I've met a number of non-Leninists who regard Hoxha as playing a positive role in-re building up a proletarian class in Albania, combating feudal ideology and what have you but not actually building a socialist society. They see him similarly to how Hoxha saw Mao: a progressive revolutionary democrat.

[Prometeo liberado]

The Hoxha baiting is becoming as played out and schoolyard-ish as all hell. If you can't argue your point without the same mindless go-to crap such as "authoritarian" or "I'd take anything said my Enver Hoxha with a full shaker of salt" or "albania was a shit hole and I wouldn't have lived there" or the personal attacks then please stay in chit-chat. And "being fair" to the APL by saying "none of the Marxist-Leninist vanguard parties allowed much internal party democracy." is childish backhanded nonsense. This isn't a forum to try and act cute.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am extremely serious about the importance of a democratic as opposed to authoritarian model of socialism, having been a worker both unionized and non-unionized for many years. Actual flesh-and-blood workers realize that they are exploited under the capitalist mode of production, but they also realize that the actually existing socialist societies basically failed to meet its promises to workers. We have to develop new revolutionary models that are completely different from those of the Comintern if we want to have any hope of re-connecting with the working class rather than just exchanging posts on the internet with fellow Marxian intellectuals.

[Rooster]

Various means were used to involve the working-class in the administration of enterprises throughout the 1960's and early 70's.

And vola, "to involve the working class". In the 1960s and 70s no less!So, so much for socialism and all hail the victorious vanguard party and thank them for involving the working-class.


They didn't dramatically differ from the 1930's USSR (wall posters allowing workers to denounce factory managers and such, worker-led inspections, etc.) but certainly the goal was to make workers far more conscious of their abilities compared to the USSR or in the rest of Eastern Europe during the 1950's-80's, and the work Stalinist Economic Strategy in Practice: The Case of Albania notes that these practices went further than other East European states.Eh? 30s USSR? You mean when there was a famine or do you mean the part where there was draconian labour discipline? With people being sent to court for not being able to turn up to work because they don't have child care or if they are too ill? Awesome democracy, comrade.


To give some examples the control workers had over economic plans was a bit stronger; they were given more options and their input was sought more highly. Anti-bureaucratic campaigns also began to involve as many office workers and state officials in temporary physical production work for a set time each year, to make sure they wouldn't develop bureaucratic attitudes, etc. It didn't result in too much and by the mid-70's, as Anton Logoreci notes in his book on Albania, bureaucracy actually grew from the setbacks it suffered in the late 60's with the elimination of various ministries, etc.Read it here, folks. Patronising horse shit. No worker control of the economy, just seeking for worker input. Unfortunately, the workers appeared to be unwilling or unable to co-operate, so it's the workers fault that bureaucracy grew up? :O

[Ismail]

And vola, to involve the working class. In the 1960s and 70s. So, so much for socialism and all hail the victorious vanguard party and thank them for involving the working-class.Obviously the working-class played a leading role through the work of the Democratic Front, the Labour Youth Union, the trade unions, and so on. Yet by the 1960's bureaucracy had become an issue and backward sentiments obviously existed amongst many workers who still held onto religious, provincial and all-around unscientific viewpoints.

The goal of the Ideological and Cultural Revolution was to prevent the bureaucracy from limiting the further revolutionization of the country, of social and economic life, and to deepen the consciousness of the broad masses of the Albanian people.


Eh? 30s USSR? You mean when there was a famineYou mean among the peasantry? You've said in another topic that if a peasantry exists in a country then it can't ever possibly be socialist, so yeah, not seeing the relevance to the proletariat here. For what it's worth, though, famine was averted in Albania thanks to collectivization and work to modernize agricultural implements.


or do you mean the part where there was draconian labour discipline? With people being sent to court for not being able to turn up to work because they don't have child care or if they are too ill? Awesome democracy, comrade.You just complained about famine. Now you complain about "draconian labour discipline." I know you don't like Lenin but I think he would concur with anyone else who'd note that democracy does not extend to refusing to do socially necessary work.

And don't worry, Albania had some of the best child care legislation in the world.


Read it here, folks. Patronising horse shit. No worker control of the economy, just seeking for worker input. Unfortunately, the workers appeared to be unwilling or unable to co-operate, so it's the workers fault that bureaucracy grew up? :ONo, it was because the workers lacked the consciousness and education necessary to actually assume direct control. The goal was to continuously raise their consciousness and ability to participate. Of course to you "workers' democracy" is a simplistic and Titoite concept. It doesn't mention anything about what that "control" actually goes toward or what it is in the service of.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Who decided that the workers lacked the consciousness and education to directly assume control? Who would decide whether the workers of North America, Europe, Asia, South America etcetera would or would no possess the requisite levels of consciousness and education? I am not attempting to bait anyone, merely point out that by placing some entity in a position to make this decision to disempower the working class is to plant a seed that can destroy the material conditions necessary for socialism and communism. What has always appealed to me about Marx was his uncompromising insistence on working class rule. IMO party rule is no substitute.

[Ismail]

Who decided that the workers lacked the consciousness and education to directly assume control? Who would decide whether the workers of North America, Europe, Asia, South America etcetera would or would no possess the requisite levels of consciousness and education? I am not attempting to bait anyone, merely point out that by placing some entity in a position to make this decision to disempower the working class is to plant a seed that can destroy the material conditions necessary for socialism and communism. What has always appealed to me about Marx was his uncompromising insistence on working class rule. IMO party rule is no substitute.I'm pretty sure that the victory of proletarian revolution in other countries, which Lenin and Stalin noted was a precondition for the final victory of socialism, would have obviously sped up the process of actually involving the working-class in progressively more direct control of the means of production, not to mention would solve various issues like a stagnant economy due to lack of sufficient spare parts and other more modern materials and technology, etc.

For instance Stalin, who opposed revisionism and attacked right-wing theoreticians in his book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., also sought to replace commodity-money relations in favor of products-exchange in the countryside: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm

Of course after his death his book was denounced as "left-deviationist" by the CPSU and his products-exchange proposals were abandoned. In 1957 the machine-tractor states were disbanded (something Stalin explicitly argued against and which the revisionists argued demonstrated Stalin's "mistrust" of the peasantry) and thus commodity relations prospered in the countryside.

In Albania there was a campaign to completely end private plots in the collectives in the early 80's, but peasant resistance put a stop to this. That would have been a step for the better in the countryside, would it not? There were also attempts to increase the amount of higher-type cooperatives, which were an intermediate position between the property of the group (aka collectives) and the property of the whole people (aka state agriculture.)

[GoddessCleoLover]

Interesting post with a number of issues that deserve being reflected upon. Am not really satisfied that internationalization necessarily resolves the contradiction between between the DoP and party rule, but am glad that you seem to recognize that such a contradiction is an issue.