Hoxhaism

[sithsaber]

What is it? Is it a serious tendency or something like juchism that is be mocked and reviled?

(I remember mentions of a great flame war over this topic. Now sit back and watch the show)

[Bostana]

It's nothing Like Juche in any way.

Hoxhaism is simply Marxism-Leninism only with it following more Hoxha Socialist programs. But there is no such thing as Hoxhaism.

I am sure you will get an expert opnion on this from Ismail.

[Lobotomy]

I too would like to know what specific theoretical contributions Hoxha made to marxism-leninism, if any.

[Geiseric]

It's Stalinism that happened in Albania.

[Ostrinski]

I think Hoxha's only theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism was that any theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism is bad.

[Red Rabbit]

Form my understanding, it's a form of Marxism-Leninism that puts much focus on opposing "revisionism".

(Maoism is considered a form of revisionism by Hoxhaists)

[Roach]

I too would like to know what specific theoretical contributions Hoxha made to marxism-leninism, if any.

He didn't, Hoxhaism doesn't really exists, in most places the term Hoxhaist is a slander. Most people who uphold him to some extent consider him simply as a defender of Marxism-Leninism and someone who fought against revisionism and kept a prinicipled marxist-leninist party line.

[Per Levy]

revisionist bs that claims to be super hardcore anti-revisionist.


I am sure you will get an expert opnion on this from Ismail.

yeah im sure ismael will show us how "jungle music" is not racial slur but a critique of "bourgeois music". besides that he will probaly quote half of hoxhas works and diarys.

[Roach]

yeah im sure ismael will show us how "jungle music" is not racial slur but a critique of "bourgeois music".

Because Hoxha, an Albanian, was completely well-versed in North-American racial slurs.

[Per Levy]

He didn't, Hoxhaism doesn't really exists, in most places the term Hoxhaist is a slander. Most people who uphold him to some extent consider him simply as a defender of Marxism-Leninism and someone who fought against revisionism and kept a prinicipled marxist-leninist party line.

so thats why your tendency is enver hoxha and what about the many hoxhaists we have on this forum? did you tel them that their tendency is actually a slander?

[Bostana]

(Maoism is considered a form of revisionism by Hoxhaists)

It's kinda stupid

[Roach]

so thats why your tendency is enver hoxha and what about the many hoxhaists we have on this forum? did you tel them that their tendency is actually a slander?

Yes :rolleyes:

No party has ever called itself a ''hoxhaist'' party, besides some obscure german organisation. If you ask any ''hoxhaist'' in this site they will vehemently agree with me. The term was simply used in revleft to diferentiate pro-Albania MLs from other self-styled MLs.

Most so-called hoxhaist organisations call themselves Marxist-Leninists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist%E2%80%93Lenini st_Parties_and_Organizations_(Unity_%26_Struggle

[sithsaber]

Could someone tell me some actual doctrinal beliefs of hoxhaism and actions of the hoxhist regime? You people are telling me what hoxhism isn't not what hoxhaism is.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

"Hoxhaism" is just anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism. Nothing special.

[Per Levy]

actions of the hoxhist regime

didnt they killed lots and lots of gay people?


Because Hoxha, an Albanian, was completely well-versed in North-American racial slurs.

just saying, i live in germany and here "dschungel musik" is also a racist term, actually i never heard of "jungle music" in a non racist eay, except for a 90s music style that was/is called jungle music.

[Roach]

There are some good books about Hoxha and Albania on this site and in many languages: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/enver_hoxha_books_on_foreign_languages.htm

There is also his marxists.org archive:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works-index.htm

And of course there is the Enver Hoxha group here on revleft.

[norwegianwood90]

Hoxhaism is essentially the upholding of Marxism-Leninism and Joseph Stalin, and the opposition to all else as "revisionist." Hoxhaism, then, is not a distinct theoretical system, but simply support for another ideology.

[Zealot]

Let the cliche bunker jokes begin.

[Per Levy]

Let the cliche bunker jokes begin.

well you started it now no one can stop them.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

What is it? Is it a serious tendency or something like juchism that is be mocked and reviled?

(I remember mentions of a great flame war over this topic. Now sit back and watch the show)
I think it's pretty obvious this thread was created as a troll thread.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I think it's pretty obvious this thread was created as a troll thread.

Lol. I was thinking the same thing.

[Bostana]

Wait,
everybody get ready for the endless "He built Bunkers" crap.

[Per Levy]

Wait,
everybody get ready for the endless "He built Bunkers" crap.

you're some posts to late for that joke buddy, exoprism beat you to it.

[Roach]

this thread has served its purpuse as a failed troll attempt, why dont we let it die now?

[sithsaber]

this thread has served its purpuse as a failed troll attempt, why dont we let it die now?

To wikipedia i go.

[Per Levy]

this thread has served its purpuse as a failed troll attempt, why dont we let it die now?

cause no one has posted cute animal pictures yet

[Bostana]

you're some posts to late for that joke buddy, exoprism beat you to it.

Damn

[Red Rabbit]

cause no one has posted cute animal pictures yet

Does this count?

http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/memes-lenin-cat1.jpg

[sithsaber]

With that i bid you adieu.

[Bronco]

Let the cliche bunker jokes begin.


Wait,
everybody get ready for the endless "He built Bunkers" crap.

Funny thing is you two are the only ones who've even mentioned them

[Roach]

Funny thing is you two are the only ones who've even mentioned them

Why dont we let those bunker jokes die too?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

http://www.albaniancorner.com/store/images/enveri%20350%20l.JPG
You are beautiful, in every single way. . .

Watch this video:
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=30wkRB7nap4

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Lol, that's a big picture.

[sithsaber]

Lol, that's a big picture.

How do you even do that?

[Искра]

It's kind of phatetic that you guys can't even explain your own positions (i.e. you can't tell what Hoxhaism is)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It's kind of phatetic that you guys can't even explain your own positions (i.e. you can't tell what Hoxhaism is)


We did, so go away. It is just anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism.

[sithsaber]

We did, so go away. It is just anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism.

She (or he?) means putting it in laymen terms Most proletariat don't have degrees in political theory

[Ismail]

It's kind of phatetic that you guys can't even explain your own positions (i.e. you can't tell what Hoxhaism is)Because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as "Hoxhaism." Unlike Tito, or Deng, or Kim Il Sung, or Mao, or Che, etc. Hoxha never claimed to be some sort of glorious innovator of Marxism-Leninism who valiantly pushed forward a theory that rendered outdated all that preceded it and which just happened to justify liberalism or the abandonment of Marxism in general.

Ironically, Grenzer actually managed to scan a 1983 book entitled Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha, and this is what Ramiz Alia (who chaired the conference) states (p. 18):

"Socialist Albania and the Party of Labour of Albania, with Comrade Enver Hoxha at the head, are honoured and respected everywhere in the world for their principled and uncompromising ideological struggle against modern revisionism and all its trends and manifestations.

This struggle is not only a glorious epic which will remain unforgettable in the history of the world communist movement, but also a whole experience rich in lessons of great theoretical and practical value. By defending Marxism-Leninism against revisionist attacks, the Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha have shown the vitality of its teachings, the ability of the scientific doctrine of the proletariat to give an answer to all the problems of current world development and the class struggle on a world scale. With great convincing strength and a strong logic they have refuted the claims of the bourgeois and revisionist ideologists that Marxism-Leninism has become obsolete, that it must be abandoned, etc. In their great struggle against modern revisionism, our Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha have defended the teachings of Marxism-Leninism on the revolution, the stand towards imperialism and opportunism, the construction of socialism, etc. and have enriched them with new ideas and arguments from the practice of our time."

Arshi Pipa, an Albanian anti-communist who fled to the West in the 50's, of course endorsed "non-dogmatic" phenomena like the rise of Gorby and so on, and said that, "Hoxha was so insignificant as a theoretician of Marxism that his 'teachings' did not even invite elaboration by his devotees, who have been merely uncritically parrotting him." (Albanian Stalinism, 1990, p. 140.) Considering that the "teachings" of Mao, Kim Il Sung, Tito, Gorbachev, Ceaușescu and what have you leave much to be desired, I don't think this is a criticism.

[Искра]

We did, so go away. It is just anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism.

"Anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism" means nothing. You should explain some positions and gave historical context. That's how you explain certain ideologies (or wanna be ideologies). When somebody ask me what is left communism I don't replay: Marxism, I replay with political positions. But, to explain what is "anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism", you'll have to know what Marxism-Leninism is in the first place and I doubt that you know that, cause you haven't probably never read Stalin or Lenin and whole your politics comes from playing Red Alert.

[Zealot]

Funny thing is you two are the only ones who've even mentioned them

Because I knew if I mentioned it people might not bother. The last thread we had about "Hoxhaism" ended up being trashed after degenerating into stupid bunker jokes.

[Ismail]

Kontra, are you claiming my politics come from playing Red Alert?

Another bit from the book, page 22, by Foto Çami: "The immortal doctrine of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, which our Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha have defended with ardour, carried out in practice, developed and further enriched, underlies all the activity of our Party. They have always seen and treated this theory not as a dogma, not as an abstract and illuminist theory, but as a guide to action, as a weapon for struggle, as a great force for the revolutionary transformation of society. There is nothing dogmatic and narrow, nothing sectarian and liberal in the activity of our Party. The slanders of our enemies are refuted by life itself, by the entire practice of the revolution and socialism in Albania."

[Искра]

Because I knew if I mentioned it people might not bother. The last thread we had about "Hoxhaism" ended up being trashed after degenerating into stupid bunker jokes.
It's not our problem that you have no politics so you have to cry about "bunker jokes".

[Bostana]

cause you haven't probably never read Stalin or Lenin.

What you just said there is so stupid.

It's like telling Trots they don't read Trotsky.
Let me tell you who is reading Stalin not you. You probably never even read Stalin nor Lenin. Especially Stalin. The only thing you know about Stalin is what people have told you about him.
Like Glenn Beck explaining to people what Communism is. They don't even read it themselves

Ismail has learned more about Hoxha then anyone hear. He probably know more about Hoxha then Hoxha himself.
I am sure his knowledge is far to great for a cheap ass video game

[Искра]

Kontra, are you claiming my politics come from playing Red Alert?Did I quote you or talked to you in any way? No. I know that you with your Hoxha fetish should at least know what was he talking about, so I was refering to one of the tankies here, which can't even explain what Marxism-Leninism is, which is why you have 3 pages discussion with only one try to explain what Hoxhaism is (and that one is youres).

[Искра]

You probably never even read Stalin nor Lenin. Especially Stalin. The only thing you know about Stalin is what people have told you about him. I don't base my political positions on others peoples oppinions. I've actually read at least 10 Stalin texts (which were published in one big book) cause I wrote a text about Stalin's revisionism of Marxism and Marx's Capital for my collage. Also, I'm quite familiar with Lenin's tough as I've spend 4 months reading just him.

Now, I can write here what are basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and what does "Hoaxhism" means related to that... but too me it's funnier to observe how you and your little tankies can't replay to that, how you can't wrote a 5 sentence post about basics principles of ideology you defend and all you can do is to replay to me "no YOU didn't".

[Ismail]

"Hoxhaism" doesn't exist. No one outside the internet calls themselves a "Hoxhaist." There are many people who would gladly consider themselves fond of Hoxha and who would concur with his views on modern revisionism, and if one were to look at old theoretical journals of parties aligned or formerly aligned with the Party of Labour of Albania (notably the PCdoB which has such archives online) they would see that they reprinted various Zëri i Popullit articles and Enver Hoxha speeches, translating them into their native languages.

But they only referred to themselves as Marxist-Leninists. The only time "Hoxhaist" was used was as an insult hurled by Maoists ("Hoxhaite") and so on.

As an example, 1980's KPD/ML material in-re Albania:

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/03759910_400.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/03759920_400.jpg

And Hoxha meeting with Ernst Aust, head of said party:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/ea_eh_beratung_mit_paa_1974.jpg

[Per Levy]

What you just said there is so stupid.

It's like telling Trots they don't read Trotsky.
Let me tell you who is reading Stalin not you. You probably never even read Stalin nor Lenin. Especially Stalin. The only thing you know about Stalin is what people have told you about him.
Like Glenn Beck explaining to people what Communism is. They don't even read it themselves.

this is really funny coming form a person who thought(and maybe still does?) communism, real communism that is, was established in the 20th century in russia.

[Bostana]

I don't base my political positions on others peoples oppinions. I've actually read at least 10 Stalin texts (which were published in one big book)
What book might that be? And what did you find wrong with what Stalin said?


Now, I can write here what are basic principles of Marxism-Leninism and what does "Hoaxhism" means related to that... but too me it's funnier to observe how you and your little tankies can't replay to that, how you can't wrote a 5 sentence post about basics principles of ideology you defend and all you can do is to replay to me "no YOU didn't".

Okay so you haven't even read anything on this thread yet than have you?

Comrade Commissar, Roach, and I have tried to explain what Hoxhaism is. (Even thought it doesn't even exist)
In fact mine was the first post

[Ismail]

This thread is about Hoxha and "Hoxhaism," not Stalin. I'll split the thread if it turns into a debate about Kontra's views of Stalin.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

"Anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism" means nothing. You should explain some positions and gave historical context. That's how you explain certain ideologies (or wanna be ideologies). When somebody ask me what is left communism I don't replay: Marxism, I replay with political positions. But, to explain what is "anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism", you'll have to know what Marxism-Leninism is in the first place and I doubt that you know that, cause you haven't probably never read Stalin or Lenin and whole your politics comes from playing Red Alert.

Fuck you. Go flame somewhere else. Why do I have to explain an ideology that almost everyone on this website has a basic idea of? I do not want to write that long, considering I am only writing from my iPhone.

[Искра]

What book might that be? And what did you find wrong with what Stalin said?

http://www.hrvatskauljudba.hr/web-ducan/components/com_virtuemart/shop_image/product/cdf98451dcb4f0f5d87b3d4f9a099182.jpg

Basically, he said that basic law of capitalism is not profit, but maxium profit, cause there can be profit in socialism. That there is law of value in socialism as long as comodity production and wendge labour ;) and a lot of other stuff which I can't give a fuck to discuss.


Okay so you haven't even read anything on this thread yet than have you?I did - unfortunetly.


Comrade Commissar, Roach, and I have tried to explain what Hoxhaism is. (Even thought it doesn't even exist)
In fact mine was the first postAnd you haven't explain a thing. You just repeated all that big words with no meaning. Like "anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism".

[Искра]

Fuck you. Go flame somewhere else. Why do I have to explain an ideology that almost everyone on this website has a basic idea of? I do not want to write that long, considering I am only writing from my iPhone.
This is not a flaming.

I pretty much doubt that people know exactly what Marxism-Leninism is. Or Hoaxhism for that matter. People have idea, or better to say - a romantic idea, of what Soviet Union was...

And also it's quite stupid that you can't explain positions. For example, we do that on every left communist thread. Anarchists do that also. Why can't you? That's what discussions are all about - content, not paroles.

[Bostana]

Basically, he said that basic law of capitalism is not profit, but maxium profit, cause there can be profit in socialism. That there is law of value in socialism as long as comodity production and wendge labour ;) and a lot of other stuff which I can't give a fuck to discuss.

Off topic question-What language is that book in?


I did - unfortunetly.
And you haven't explain a thing. You just repeated all that big words with no meaning. Like "anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism".

I have never even mentioned the word revisionist on this thread till now. Where in my comment did you get the word revisionist?

Do I need to read it to you?

[Ismail]

Off topic question-What language is that book in?I'm pretty sure that's Croatian.

Maybe Kontra can one day report back on how this book is. :p

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

Zlatar also wrote a two-volume thing titled "Albania in the Era of Enver Hoxha" or something like that (in Croatian, of course.)

[Искра]

Off topic question-What language is that book in?Croatian. It was published in SR Croatia in 70's or 80's - can't remember. Editor was and still is a Stalinist. Translation of name is "Questions of Leninism" (or I could translate it "Foundations of Leninism", after Stalin's text which basicaly explains what ML is), but book is actually a compilation of most important Stalin's work.

[Искра]

Zlatar also wrote a two-volume thing titled "Albania in the Era of Enver Hoxha" or something like that (in Croatian, of course.)He also wrote a book about Ante Pavelić...

http://www.superknjizara.hr/index.php?page=autor&idautor=14468

Book is really... kind of... pro-Pavelić.

[Ismail]

He also wrote a book about Ante Pavelić...

http://www.superknjizara.hr/index.php?page=autor&idautor=14468Ian Grey wrote positive books about Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, and Joseph Stalin. :D


Book is really... kind of... pro-Pavelić.I doubt his books on Hoxha are praising him to the sky or anything. Would be interesting to see it, though, since most Yugoslav things about Hoxha were quite negative but I've never seen full-length books on him.* Plus it was written in the 80's so I doubt he'd be shouting "GLORIOUS PAVELIĆ SAVIOR OF CROATIA RNNNGHHH" out of nowhere.

[Bostana]

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


Love that pose

[Bostana]

Croatian

I'm pretty sure that's Croatian.

I need to learn Croation

[Искра]

I doubt his books on Hoxha are praising him to the sky or anything. Would be interesting to see it, though, since most Yugoslav things about Hoxha were seemingly quite negative but I've never seen full-length books on him.* Plus it was written in the 80's so I doubt he'd be shouting "GLORIOUS PAVELIĆ SAVIOR OF CROATIA RNNNGHHH" out of nowhere.I didn't imply that he was "shouthing" that... I've just remembered his name, cause I've read his books on Pavelić. I doubt that he has politics at all... tbh.

[Grenzer]

Hoxhaism is basically an ideology which states that Marxism-Leninism is the political positions held by Joseph Stalin(and Marx, Engels, & Lenin, they claim) and that all 20th century communist leaders other than Hoxha did not follow the line of Stalin and as a result were anti-communists who pretended to uphold Marx, Engels, and Lenin. It's not really that complicated.

What I find funny is that 9/10 people who claim to be Hoxhaists can't resist the temptation to also kiss the asses of people like Ho Chi Minh and Castro who under anti-revisionism would be considered anti-communists and opportunists for the most part. There are probably only a few people on the board who could be said to legitimately uphold the line of Stalin and Hoxha.. notably Ismail. I wonder what ever happened to The Man, he seemed like a pretty hardcore Hoxhaist.

I have been helping Ismail track down some of the few remaining publications by the Hoxhaist regime under the 8 Nëntori publisher which are now in the public domain, but remain elusive. So far I have The People's Revolution in Albania and the Question of State Power and Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha. They should be available on enverhoxha.ru and/or enver-hoxha.net in the coming days.

The one about the revolution is particularly interesting and I think even the people that don't consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists would enjoy reading it. The other is interesting, but I don't mind reading material from other ideologies(as long as it's not that "Going Rogue" or "The Audacity of Hope" shit or whatever).

[sithsaber]

Hoxhaism is basically an ideology which states that Marxism-Leninism is the political positions held by Joseph Stalin(and Marx, Engels, & Lenin, they claim) and that all 20th century communist leaders other than Hoxha did not follow the line of Stalin and as a result were anti-communists who pretended to uphold Marx, Engels, and Lenin. It's not really that complicated.

What I find funny is that 9/10 people who claim to be Hoxhaists can't resist the temptation to also kiss the asses of people like Ho Chi Minh and Castro who under anti-revisionism would be considered anti-communists and opportunists for the most part. There are probably only a few people on the board who could be said to legitimately uphold the line of Stalin and Hoxha.. notably Ismail. I wonder what ever happened to The Man, he seemed like a pretty hardcore Hoxhaist.

I have been helping Ismail track down some of the few remaining publications by the Hoxhaist regime under the 8 Nëntori publisher which are now in the public domain, but remain elusive. So far I have The People's Revolution in Albania and the Question of State Power and Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha. They should be available on enverhoxha.ru and/or enver-hoxha.net in the coming days.

The one about the revolution is particularly interesting and I think even the people that don't consider themselves to be Marxist-Leninists would enjoy reading it. The other is interesting, but I don't mind reading material from other ideologies(as long as it's not that "Going Rogue" or "The Audacity of Hope" shit or whatever).


Finally. Although this answer was more or less given 6 times, this guy presented it in a detailed and non repetitive manner. You people should think of revleft as less of a chat room and more as practice for spreading propaganda amongst the populace We bow before you

[Grenzer]

Finally. Although this answer was more or less given 6 times, this guy presented it in a detailed and non repetitive manner. You people should think of revleft as less of a chat room and more as practice for spreading propaganda amongst the populace We bow before you

Don't give me too much credit.

The people that are fans of Stalin tend to have no idea what the fuck they are talking about most of the time, so it's not like they can be blamed for not being able to explain or even know what their ideology is(unless you think that people should actually know what their political positions are and be able to explain them. This is the internet, after all).

That said, I am not a fan of the ideology; but if someone asks what a given thing is, then I don't see the trouble in just plainly stating what it is without having to interject an opinion.

[Ismail]

I have been helping Ismail track down some of the few remaining publications by the Hoxhaist regime under the 8 Nëntori publisher which are now in the public domain, but remain elusive. So far I have The People's Revolution in Albania and the Question of State Power and Scientific Conference on the Marxist-Leninist Theoretical Thinking of the Party of Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver Hoxha. They should be available on enverhoxha.ru and/or enver-hoxha.net in the coming days.Actually probably here: http://archive.250x.com/pla.html
Or here: http://archive.250x.com/albania.html

enverhoxha.ru only allows stuff uploaded by themselves, same with enver-hoxha.net. All three websites coordinate their activities though.

Grenzer knows a guy who might be able to obtain Portrait of Albania as well, a 500-page reference book written in 1982 which contains an overview of Albanian history, information on the environment, politics, economy, society, and so on.

[Goblin]

Marxism-Leninism without bananas

[Ismail]

Marxism-Leninism without bananasBananas were sold in Albania.

[Omsk]

Can we at least skip the ridiculous "Bunkers/beards/bananas" part?

[Искра]

Can we at least skip the ridiculous "Bunkers/beards/bananas" part?Do you write anything except petitions for better discusions?

[Omsk]

Yes,i write many things,mainly about history,and the better part of my posts (80% at least,probably) is in either history or learning,or politics.

But if you think it's perfectly all right to write about bananas and,bunkers,and beards in relation to Albania or Hoxha in a thread in the learning section,it's fine if you ask me,just don't whine how the forum is getting worse.

[sithsaber]

Yes,i write many things,mainly about history,and the better part of my posts (80% at least,probably) is in either history or learning,or politics.

But if you think it's perfectly all right to write about bananas and,bunkers,and beards in relation to Albania or Hoxha in a thread in the learning section,it's fine if you ask me,just don't whine how the forum is getting worse.

Why are bananas relevant to this?

[Bostana]

Why are bananas relevant to this?

They're is a stupid rumour saying Hoxha banned bananas from Albania. Which is stupid because they were sold their.
But unfortunately that's the only argument they have so they bring it up constantly instead of staying on topic

[The Young Pioneer]

Hoxha banned bananas from Albania.

Say that five times fast.



Also- Whether OP is a troll or not, I appreciate the question because tbh I didn't really know what is or isn't Hoxhaism. I've been reading the Ismail/Rafiq debates for a while now and have to say it's interesting because both seem informed and intelligent in the position they're defending. At the same time, though, they're always debating deeper aspects of it so I never really got a feel for a basic Hoxhaist definition there. So Huzzah, Grenzer. :thumbup1:

[Omsk]

There is no basic definition of Hoxhaism,because it's an empty rhetoric term,like the term : "Stalinist" used to 'mark out' Marxists-Leninists,on the basic that they are not critical on Enver Hoxha,or in other cases,if a ML thinks that Enver Hoxha was a consistent ML and a follower of the works of Marx,Engels,and Lenin. (And Stalin,as Enver Hoxha was.) It's mostly used by what consistent ortodox ML's call revisionists (Those who revise the original Marxist-Leninist ideology.) ,in an attempt to discredit people,and to link them with 'hero-worship' . The fact is,the only thing the revisionists are doing that way (and with using the term: "Stalinists") is just showing their poor understanding of marxism,because most of the ML's who support Enver Hoxha aren't his supporters because he had an interesting haircut,but because they see his program and his work,as correct,and non-revisionist. You should not concentrate on strict definitions,or on tendencies,but on theory,and history.

[Geiseric]

I could see the term ML being respectable before the Bureaucracy fucking up the U.S.S.R. however the inclination to do things like deny the purges and uphold a "Great Man," theory of Stalin and Hoxha make it hard not to call you guys "Stalinist," "Hoxhaist," especially since the term "Trotskyism," was created as more or less a slur by Stalin's opposition.

[Omsk]

The only "Great Man" theorists i see frequently are the ones who are constantly trying to force the view that Stalin destroyed the USSR,or that somehow,a single individual can shape the flow of history,or that a single individual (Stalin) can alter the course of history.



things like deny the purges


No serious Marxist-Leninist is denying that the purges happened.



make it hard not to call you guys "Stalinist," "Hoxhaist,"


That's the problem with some 'Marxists' - you base your view on a number of historically related views,not actual theory,which is Marxism-Leninism,and not "Stalinism" (Because,"Stalinism" - does not exist.)

[Grenzer]

As other people have mentioned in the past, I don't see vanilla Marxism-Leninism by itself as being a coherent ideology. It was originally created by Stalin, yet we have seen dozens of states describe themselves as Marxist-Leninist oftentimes with a few vague characteristics in common:

1. State ownership of the means of production(incompatible with workers' ownership(i.e. socialization) of the means of production), and even this is usually not complete in places such as Cuba
2. Dictatorship by a small ruling elite

Other than that, Marxism-Leninism is defined as meaning whatever the hell the dictator of said country wants it to be. I think Maoism tries to build upon it a bit, but in many ways Maoism remains incoherent as a comprehensive ideology. When you add the "anti-revisionist"(Works of Enver Hoxha) to Marxism-Leninism, I think only then does it become anything approaching a coherent and comprehensive ideology. Hoxha was an intelligent man and a decent writer, certainly much more so than Mao or Stalin. Obviously I am not a Hoxhaist, but I think there is some value to be found in Hoxha's works. Mao, on the other hand, basically wrote a bunch of meaningless prose; but there are some interesting things even in his works.

Getting REALLY sick of hearing absolutely meaningless drivel like "Revolution is not a dinner party"(no shit :rolleyes:), thankfully there don't really seem to be many Maoists here.

[Per Levy]

thankfully there don't really seem to be many Maoists here.

ah you missed the majority of them by 6 or 7 month(taking your register date). some of them were really a vile bunch.

[Omsk]

Most of the 'important' (ie those who posted a lot and participated in various discussions.) were banned in a thread you guys probably don't remember,the thread was about the capture of Berlin in 1945 and some events that happened after the siege.In short,a huge number of members were banned in that thread,including the better part of the Maoists.(While the other either left,or 'retreated' to their own user group,and now they post exclusively in the user group,while some post various information regarding the struggle in India (The current main Maoist field of influence.)

[sithsaber]

ah you missed the majority of them by 6 or 7 month(taking your register date). some of them were really a vile bunch.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum

[Rooster]

Most of the 'important' (ie those who posted a lot and participated in various discussions.) were banned in a thread you guys probably don't remember,the thread was about the capture of Berlin in 1945 and some events that happened after the siege.In short,a huge number of members were banned in that thread,including the better part of the Maoists.(While the other either left,or 'retreated' to their own user group,and now they post exclusively in the user group,while some post various information regarding the struggle in India (The current main Maoist field of influence.)

The events that you neglect to mention was the mass rapes that occurred and the Maoists that got banned were the ones that were rape apologists. And if I remember rightly, it wasn't just that tendency that was guilty.

[Grenzer]

The events that you neglect to mention was the mass rapes that occurred and the Maoists that got banned were the ones that were rape apologists. And if I remember rightly, it wasn't just that tendency that was guilty.

I remember that, but I don't recall Maoists being involved. The thing I didn't get is how it could somehow be considered Stalin's responsibility.

Maoists do seem to have some weird opinions.. particularly the third worldist sort. I mean I get the People's war and all that shit, but why do they have to advocate it in literally every scenario. It doesn't make sense outside of under industrialized countries. It's also worth saying that "New Democracy" sucks. How do you expect to reach socialism through a government where the bourgeoisie still have a powerful governing role?

From my understanding Hoxha led peasant guerillas during World War 2 yet he never fetsihized them to the point of "Global People's war!"

[Omsk]

The events that you neglect to mention was the mass rapes that occurred and the Maoists that got banned were the ones that were rape apologists. And if I remember rightly, it wasn't just that tendency that was guilty.


I like how you discretely tried to insinuate that there was another 'group' (tendency) that made some controversial posts and took the Soviet side in that debate.Too bad that i don't really remember that any members that adhere to an ideology you obviously mentioned,actually talked about the events the same way as the Maoists did.However,it might have escaped me,but this is a fantastic example of demagogy,and an attempt to alude that somehow,the majority of the members who consider themselves to be a part of the ideological group you mentioned,were in fact,completely supportive of the positions of the Maoists,which they were not. I must say,this was one of your better episodes.You should not generalize,because the opinion of one or two people does not count as the single,unified,stance of the entire political group these members are a part of.There was no conscensus regarding the debate,no 'single stance or opinion' - in fact,i don't remember,but i think a lot of the members who posted in there,that were defending the one side,were actually Maoists.

[Rooster]

I like how you discretely tried to insinuate that there was another 'group' (tendency)

I wouldn't say that I was being discrete about it.


Too bad that i don't really remember that any members that adhere to an ideology you obviously mentioned,actually talked about the events the same way as the Maoists did.

Ha, you must be kidding me, surely. Take a look at the thread. http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-red-army-t155381/index.html


However,it might have escaped me,but this is a fantastic example of demagogy,and an attempt to alude that somehow,the majority of the members who consider themselves to be a part of the ideological group you mentioned,were in fact,completely supportive of the positions of the Maoists,which they were not.

I find it amazing that you just described it as "the capture of Berlin in 1945 and some events that happened after the siege" instead of being banned for being rape apologists.


I must say,this was one of your better episodes.You should not generalize,because the opinion of one or two people does not count as the single,unified,stance of the entire political group these members are a part of.There was no conscensus regarding the debate,no 'single stance or opinion' - in fact,i don't remember,but i think a lot of the members who posted in there,that were defending the one side,were actually Maoists.

I seem to believe that the majority of the people being banned were from the two tendencies, maoist and stalinist. It's not my fault that that's the statistics.

[Omsk]

I wouldn't say that I was being discrete about it.

No,but you probably were uncertain wether you should be open and blunt with your original message,or to try and be discrete.



Ha, you must be kidding me, surely. Take a look at the thread. http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-red-ar...381/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-red-army-t155381/index.html)



As you can see,the members who were banned for various posts in the topic are not ML's in the majority.There were also some dubious ML's in the thread..


I find it amazing that you just described it as "the capture of Berlin in 1945 and some events that happened after the siege" instead of being banned for being rape apologists.


Why?That was the subject of the thread,and they were banned because they tried to justify some acts.



I seem to believe that the majority of the people being banned were from the two tendencies, maoist and stalinist. It's not my fault that that's the statistics.




Which "Stalinists" were banned?I know the two Maoists got banned (plus some more) ,and another user,but i still don't see how the ML's were in the majority.Plus,it's pointless,because this is close to an attempt to attack an entire tendency based on a couple of opinions of some members.

[Ismail]

Thread is about Hoxha, not how Maoists do or do not apologize for rape.

[Rafiq]

Bananas weren't allowed in Albania until the late 1980's

Ismail said "Bananas were sold in Albania", yeah, only after the very late 1980's

So yes, Bananas were sold in Albania for maybe four years under the PPSH.

http://data.mongabay.com/commodities/category/2-Trade/8-Crops+and+Livestock+Products/486-Bananas/61-Import+Quantity/3-Albania

So yes, it is Marxism Leninism without Bananas.

One must wonder why they were banned before then... Hmm... Maybe to stop nutricious revisionism?

The allowance of bananas in Albania was a revisionist conspiracy created by Tito.

[Rafiq]

From wiki

"He banned bananas, beards, bright colors"

Bright colors too? To stop colorful revisionism, of course.

Hoxha was a fucking wackjob. Mentally unstable and disturbed.

[Rafiq]

He didn't, Hoxhaism doesn't really exists, in most places the term Hoxhaist is a slander. Most people who uphold him to some extent consider him simply as a defender of Marxism-Leninism and someone who fought against revisionism and kept a prinicipled marxist-leninist party line.

Keeping an anti revisionist line is antitherical to Marxism Leninism. What seperates Hoxha from Orthodox Stalinism was his unhealthy anti revisionism, going so far as adopting an Idealist mode of thought to defend it.

Stalin himself was a revisionist, he was inconsistant. He constantly had to revise his ideology to justify the actions of the status quo.

Hoxha, of course, was also an inconsistant ML.

[Rafiq]

Because Hoxha, an Albanian, was completely well-versed in North-American racial slurs.

It was a common colonialist racial slur across the western world. The usage of "Jungle" against Africans existed in other places, you know.

[Ismail]

Ismail said "Bananas were sold in Albania", yeah, only after the very late 1980's

So yes, Bananas were sold in Albania for maybe four years under the PPSH.

http://data.mongabay.com/commodities/category/2-Trade/8-Crops+and+Livestock+Products/486-Bananas/61-Import+Quantity/3-AlbaniaAll that tells us is that Albania didn't import bananas.

That has nothing to do with bananas which were locally grown. I can attest to the fact that bananas were not "banned," just rare. Sources from the 1950's-80's do occasionally discuss bananas. I've talked to people who visited Albania in the 70's and 80's (as in when Hoxha was alive), bananas weren't banned, they just weren't for sale because Albania had more important things to do like trying to achieve self-sufficiency in grain (accomplished in 1976) and other essential foodstuffs.


Bright colors too? To stop colorful revisionism, of course.

Hoxha was a fucking wackjob. Mentally unstable and disturbed."Bright colors" doesn't even make sense.

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/albania2.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/480483245_7aeef50e6c.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/Dikur3.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/2766900714_9653c19823.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/2846117865_b96b5da38c.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/Shkip_19.jpg

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/16242096sw3.png

http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc207/MrdieII/2766900610_0a4a4d728c.jpg

Doesn't look colorless to me.

Of course now you'll go to no ends to show how Hoxha was "crazy," the shittiest argument to ever use against political opponents.

[Rafiq]

Than these colors were Hoxhas revisionist days. Colors are very revisionist. The likes of Khrushchev, Tito and friends adhered to endorsing them

[Ismail]

Than these colors were Hoxhas revisionist days. Colors are very revisionist. The likes of Khrushchev, Tito and friends adhered to endorsing themHar-de-har.

On a semi-related note, an English-language 1980's Albanian film on Hoxha's life, an excerpt on 1960 and the split with the USSR:
l9CBysWzkdkSeems to have color, no? (And before you ask, yes, there were similar films about Hoxha in color in Albanian as well.)

[Roach]

Hoxha also banned flowers, laughter and friendship.


What I find funny is that 9/10 people who claim to be Hoxhaists can't resist the temptation to also kiss the asses of people like Ho Chi Minh and Castro who under anti-revisionism would be considered anti-communists and opportunists for the most part. There are probably only a few people on the board who could be said to legitimately uphold the line of Stalin and Hoxha.. notably Ismail. I wonder what ever happened to The Man, he seemed like a pretty hardcore Hoxhaist.

Not every Marxist-Leninist here in this site is a ''hoxhaist'', and recently there has been a great influx of younger MLs still on the learning and assimilation proccess, so I see no point in discrediting their lack of experience to make some snobbish commentary about the lack of principles in the so-called ''hoxhaist'' revleft community.

[Omsk]

What I find funny is that 9/10 people who claim to be Hoxhaists can't resist the temptation to also kiss the asses of people like Ho Chi Minh and Castro who under anti-revisionism would be considered anti-communists and opportunists for the most part. There are probably only a few people on the board who could be said to legitimately uphold the line of Stalin and Hoxha.. notably Ismail. I wonder what ever happened to The Man, he seemed like a pretty hardcore Hoxhaist.

I would not call myself a "Hoxhaist" (Empty term,like "Stalinism") ,but an ortodox ML.And i doubt there are people on this board who claim to be "Hoxhaists".


Not every Marxist-Leninist here in this site is a ''hoxhaist'', and recently there has been a great influx of younger MLs still on the learning and assimilation proccess, so I see no point in discrediting their lack of experience to make some snobbish commentary about the lack of principles in the so-called ''hoxhaist'' revleft community.


This is true,there have been at least a dozen new ML's who are sometimes defending various figures,(These 'figures' are sometimes revisionists,from our perspective.)
but you can't and should not really blame them.(Except the ones who are "critical" of Stalin.)

It might be surprising,but the ML's share some things in common,while they also have many differences,for an example,there are some ML's who defend Ho Chi Minh,well,some,like me,regard him as a revisionist,but still,an important figuter against the hegemony of imperialist powers in Asia.

The 'older' (whatever that means) ML's usually have similar opinions,while the 'newer' ones sometimes go into different un-ortodox grounds,but that is normal,because opinions must be formed alone.

For an example,when i first joined the forum,i was a "ML" but i had many theoretical 'mistakes' ,and i was not certain about some things,my politics were on glass legs,and now,since time has passed,they are quite solid.

[Tim Cornelis]

All that tells us is that Albania didn't import bananas.

That has nothing to do with bananas which were locally grown. I can attest to the fact that bananas were not "banned," just rare. Sources from the 1950's-80's do occasionally discuss bananas. I've talked to people who visited Albania in the 70's and 80's (as in when Hoxha was alive), bananas weren't banned, they just weren't for sale because Albania had more important things to do like trying to achieve self-sufficiency in grain (accomplished in 1976) and other essential foodstuffs.


I can't believe I'm doing this, but.... Albania produced zero bananas from 1961 till 1986.

http://data.mongabay.com/commodities/include/chart-data.php?page_title=Import+Quantity+of+Bananas+%7B %7B+in+Albania+-+1961-2008&category_id=2&category_name=Trade&subcategory_id=8&subcategory_name=Crops%20and%20Livestock%20Product s&item_id=486&item_name=Bananas&element_id=61&element_name=Import%20Quantity&country_id=3&country_name=Albania

In 1987 Albania imported bananas for the first time.

Here are the numbers of bananas produced in Somalia:

http://s16.postimage.org/ibim25fsj/somaliabanana.png

Here's the number of bananas produced in Spain:

http://s18.postimage.org/95w0jorbb/spainbanana.png

And here's the number of bananas grown in Albania:

http://s13.postimage.org/o30cqbw2d/albaniabanana.png

Albania grew zero bananas, imported zero bananas but somehow it did have bananas.

[Ismail]

Since I doubt any book or article I physically possess is going to say "as with all countries, you won't be shot/arrested if you are found within the general vicinity of a banana in Albania," I went to Google Books.

"We saw Himarë, where they grow bananas..." - Quadrant Vol. 29, an Australian discussing a visit to Albania circa 1960.

"One can pick bananas on the way to the ski slopes and pass..." - some British traveler, Country Life, Vol. 149, 1971.

"Down below, they are tying up the young shoots of the bananas." - Curtain Calls (I know of this book, a guy travels to Albania and a bunch of other countries in the mid-70's), p. 57.

There's no evidence bananas were banned except as part of some throwaway comment in a 1996 business magazine which also made the patently false claim that "bright colors" were banned as well.

Maybe Rafiq can go ask all the Albanians he knows if they knew anyone tortured for having a banana, or if they themselves huddled around late at night talking of the glory that is the banana.


Albania grew zero bananas, imported zero bananas but somehow it did have bananas.Because I'm sure statistics from a random website on a poor country not known for bananas in any way (and with a government that was rather selective about the economic data it gave out for 45 years) is going to record the creation of a negligible amount of them, right?

[Rafiq]

Har-de-har.

On a semi-related note, an English-language 1980's Albanian film on Hoxha's life, an excerpt on 1960 and the split with the USSR:
l9CBysWzkdkSeems to have color, no? (And before you ask, yes, there were similar films about Hoxha in color in Albanian as well.)

Yes the 1980's revisionist days where color and bananas were allowed

[Ismail]

Yes the 1980's revisionist days where color and bananas were allowed... I can't tell if you're actually being serious or making a joke at this point. Color TV was introduced in the early 70's.

Again, ask the Albanians you know about any of this. I'm pretty sure they'll look at you oddly if you ask "DID HOXHA BAN BRIGHT COLORS AND BANANAS!?"

[Drosophila]

We should ask The Amazing Atheist (http://www.youtube.com/user/theamazingatheist). He has a lot of knowledge on bananas (http://youtu.be/uu1EmF-nsBA).

[Bostana]

From wiki

O well as long as it's from Wikipedia it must be true
:D

[Roach]

I would not call myself a "Hoxhaist" (Empty term,like "Stalinism") ,but an ortodox ML.And i doubt there are people on this board who claim to be "Hoxhaists".

Don't expect him to give a fuck about what you think or say, marxist-leninists are all dumb kids who can't express themselves and need mature ultra-lefts to do all the work. You are simply beneath them.


This is true,there have been at least a dozen new ML's who are sometimes defending various figures,(These 'figures' are sometimes revisionists,from our perspective.)
but you can't and should not really blame them.(Except the ones who are "critical" of Stalin.)

Those national-liberation leaders, particulary Ho Chi Minh have a huge emotional appeal, and despite being mostly servile to the USSR, their struggles were certainly legitimate.


It might be surprising,but the ML's share some things in common,while they also have many differences,for an example,there are some ML's who defend Ho Chi Minh,well,some,like me,regard him as a revisionist,but still,an important figuter against the hegemony of imperialist powers in Asia.

He was a revisionist, there is no real discussion beyond that, no real ML that supposedly follows the line of the Albanian Party of Labour could disagree with this. But that doesn't make the Vietnamese liberation war any less significant, much less throwing all the Vietnamese struggle for national liberation and its legacy because the Vietnamese Communist Party later adopted a capitulationist line to the USSR. Ho Chi Minh praised the XX congress of the CSUP as an advance in the struggle against personality cults and spoke well of peaceful coexistence amongst other things: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1956/08/03.htm


The 'older' (whatever that means)
It was supposed to mean more experienced and learned,not really related to ones age.


ML's usually have similar opinions,while the 'newer' ones sometimes go into different un-ortodox grounds,but that is normal,because opinions must be formed alone.
Of course.


For an example,when i first joined the forum,i was a "ML" but i had many theoretical 'mistakes' ,and i was not certain about some things,my politics were on glass legs,and now,since time has passed,they are quite solid.
Same with me

[Rafiq]

O well as long as it's from Wikipedia it must be true
:D

It may very well be bullshit, but it's definitively more credible than Hoxha's diaries.

[Rafiq]

Roach, wanna address my post?

[Roach]

Actually no, it is just the usual sophistry under some vulgarized marxism. Perhaps when I grown enough patience. I don't actually desire to be drawn to some black-hole of a thread like you did with Ismail, where the arguments dont count anymore and it becomes more of a stubborness competition.

[Ismail]

It may very well be bullshit, but it's definitively more credible than Hoxha's diaries.Hoxha's two-volume Reflections on China has been cited by various books (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=Hoxha+%22Reflections+on+China%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1978&num=10). Claims of Hoxha being a crazed madman who banned bananas and bright colors are things I simply cannot find anywhere.

[Omsk]

Those national-liberation leaders, particulary Ho Chi Minh have a huge emotional appeal, and despite being mostly servile to the USSR, their struggles were certainly legitimate.

Their struggles were indeed legitimate,but their theoretical stances and opinions regarding various historical points and modern problematic of the strategic fight for the liberation from oppressors,is from the ML perspective,unacceptable.They also were among the first to abandon the line set by people before them,in a stunning display of opportunism.This is also true for the most of the East Bloc leaders,who gladly 'denounced' the Soviet leadership of the period before Nikita.Although,it can be said that they were a product of their time,and the complete destruction of the state of affairs which came rather fast,and was brutal.

The rest of your post,I agree with,he was a revisionist,and that is undeniable.His stance on the congress is also quite disappointing.

[Grenzer]

Hoxhaism is not an empty term, unless you are willing to make the claim that every person who embraces Stalinism also by default obsesses over Hoxha's diaries. It's a very specific and rare tendency, and it's only the Hoxhaists that claim otherwise.

It's also interesting that some "can't blame" revisionists like Ho Chi Minh for denouncing Stalin and falling in with the Krushchevite line. They were merely bowing before the material conditions, they can hardly be blamed for that; yet it doesn't make them anything other than bourgeois. This more so than anything else is the core of what Marxism-Leninism is: constant revision of its own principles in accordance to the material conditions. Stalin was the first who revised the ideas of Lenin and established the idea of Marxism-Leninism. Later Marxist-Leninists like Kim Il-Sung and Fidel Castro followed the same doctrine and brought it to its logical conclusion: revision of 'socialism' until they are firmly on the road to liberal capitalism. Anti-revisionism is at its core a utopian and idealist conception because it fails to realize that it is the material conditions which cause "revision" rather than being a matter of desire or will. You can no more combat the idea of revisionism than you can stop the setting of the sun. The only rational policy is to pursue a plan in which the conditions under which revisionism occur don't exist; and even then, if the material conditions fuck you over, then you're fucked. No amount of ideological purity is going to change that.

I've always found it ironic that Stalinists consider themselves to be dialectical materialists yet insist on a doctrine of theoretical rigidity which assumes static material conditions.

[Rafiq]

Hoxha's two-volume Reflections on China has been cited by various books (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=Hoxha+%22Reflections+on+China%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1978&num=10). Claims of Hoxha being a crazed madman who banned bananas and bright colors are things I simply cannot find anywhere.

Obviously he didn't ban those things, but he was a paranoid fucking madman for other reasons, namely for his anti revisionism (which never existed under Stalin or Lenin, and no, the feud with Kautsky has nothing to do with Hoxha's anti revisionism, which isn't about defending Marxian mode of thinking from Idealism but defending an Idealist mode of thought prevalent under Stalin).

Plus, most of the times he's cited is when it's being used against him.

[Rafiq]

Hoxhaism is not an empty term, unless you are willing to make the claim that every person who embraces Stalinism also by default obsesses over Hoxha's diaries. It's a very specific and rare tendency, and it's only the Hoxhaists that claim otherwise.

It's also interesting that some "can't blame" revisionists like Ho Chi Minh for denouncing Stalin and falling in with the Krushchevite line. They were merely bowing before the material conditions, they can hardly be blamed for that; yet it doesn't make them anything other than bourgeois. This more so than anything else is the core of what Marxism-Leninism is: constant revision of its own principles in accordance to the material conditions. Stalin was the first who revised the ideas of Lenin and established the idea of Marxism-Leninism. Later Marxist-Leninists like Kim Il-Sung and Fidel Castro followed the same doctrine and brought it to its logical conclusion: revision of 'socialism' until they are firmly on the road to liberal capitalism. Anti-revisionism is at its core a utopian and idealist conception because it fails to realize that it is the material conditions which cause "revision" rather than being a matter of desire or will. You can no more combat the idea of revisionism than you can stop the setting of the sun. The only rational policy is to pursue a plan in which the conditions under which revisionism occur don't exist; and even then, if the material conditions fuck you over, then you're fucked. No amount of ideological purity is going to change that.

I've always found it ironic that Stalinists consider themselves to be dialectical materialists yet insist on a doctrine of theoretical rigidity which assumes static material conditions.


Ismail will not criticze you for supporting Khrushchev and Ho Chi Minh because you said they were responding to Material conditions

[Rafiq]

Actually no, it is just the usual sophistry under some vulgarized marxism. Perhaps when I grown enough patience. I don't actually desire to be drawn to some black-hole of a thread like you did with Ismail, where the arguments dont count anymore and it becomes more of a stubborness competition.

Perhaps arguments don't count to you and your buddy, considering he only responded to aproxmenetly at the most 2/3rds of the entire posts.

[Roach]

Perhaps arguments don't count to you and your buddy, considering he only responded to aproxmenetly at the most 2/3rds of the entire posts.

Nope, because your posts, like this one, have a minimal political content, being replaced by personnal challenges, provocantions, slandering and unsourced historical claims used to ridicule rather than prove a point.

[Rafiq]

Nope, because your posts, like this one, have a minimal political content, being replaced by personnal challenges, provocantions, slandering and unsourced historical claims used to ridicule rather than prove a point.

They don't have the political content that you and Ismail could respond to, yes, that's obvious.

You're confused is all. I don't fit as a stereotypical supervillian in your Hoxhaist dream world, so it's no wonder you'd label my posts with this. .

If anything, Ismail's posts fall into that definition, except he sources Historical Claims all with Hoxha's diary.

[Omsk]

Hoxhaism is not an empty term, unless you are willing to make the claim that every person who embraces Stalinism also by default obsesses over Hoxha's diaries. It's a very specific and rare tendency, and it's only the Hoxhaists that claim otherwise.

Well,you are free to ask Ismail,or me,or,for an example,Roach,for any fundamentally theoretical advances and own theories of Hoxha,and if I am not mistaken,the answer will be that there aren't enough for Hoxhaism to be considered a separate political ideology,and that Enver Hoxha himself just tried to follow Marxism-Leninism,and not to come up with his own theories,and that he never considered himself a "Hoxhaist" - But a Marxist-Leninist.If some contemporary organizations call themselves "Hoxhaist" that is more due to their own mistakes.


It's also interesting that some "can't blame" revisionists like Ho Chi Minh for denouncing Stalin and falling in with the Krushchevite line.

No,you misread my post,I was speaking about newer members that follow the ideology of Marxism Leninism,and at the same time,defend revisionists like Ho Chi Minh,what I wanted to say is that it would be snobbish to attack them,and that you can't really blame them,they are on ideologically "shaky legs" .


And,while I do 'insist' on ideological correctness and a firm tactical approach,as defined by many people years ago,it is obvious that the socialist society will somehow adapt,to the current conditions,but some principles and main guiding ideas and theories that represent the core of any action,will not be changed.

[sithsaber]

8649
...................

[Bostana]

It may very well be bullshit, but it's definitively more credible than Hoxha's diaries.

Yes random people who you don't know righting about a man is more believable then it comming fro mthe man himself
:D

[Roach]

You're confused is all. I don't fit as a stereotypical supervillian in your Hoxhaist dream world, so it's no wonder you'd label my posts with this. .
I am sure that thats how you would want to be portrayed isn't it? Actually I consider you a pretty insecure boy. So please, intelectually inferiorising someone doesn't make you any better.

[Geiseric]

Wasn't he anti intellectual and anti anything non stalinist? I can't see how that's healthy.

[Bostana]

Wasn't he anti intellectual and anti anything non stalinist? I can't see how that's healthy.

Neither is flaming
hint hint wink wink nudge nudge

[Geiseric]

This thread was a joke so far, I was just following suit.

[Ismail]

Wasn't he anti intellectual and anti anything non stalinist? I can't see how that's healthy.No, he wasn't anti-intellectual. He himself came from an intellectual background (his uncle was actually educated enough to be, basically, an atheist, and his father was called "mullah," which in Albanian meant an educated man) and he spoke various times on the role of the progressive intelligentsia.

He was widely known as Eastern Europe's only intellectual head of state. E.g. the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/18/books/the-truest-believer.html) in 1987:

''YOU spat on me; no one can talk to you,'' Nikita Khrushchev raged at Enver

Hoxha after the Albanian ruler humiliated him by breaking with Moscow during a Communist summit in 1960. Over the next quarter century, no other head of government did get to speak to the stubborn former schoolteacher who for 40 years proclaimed his tiny Balkan Ruritania the world's only true Marxist-Leninist state. And he never again set foot outside Albania. Yet Hoxha, who died in 1985, was one of the most verbose statesmen of modern times and pressed more than 50 volumes of opinions, diaries and dogma on his long-suffering people, the poorest in Europe.

Jon Halliday, who is also the author of ''A Political History of Japanese Capitalism,'' has done Hoxha a favor by editing some of his six volumes of memoirs down to digestible proportions, thus giving us a fascinating glimpse of life at the top of in-ternational Communism through the eyes of one of its most intelligent leaders.
Obviously he didn't ban those things,Obviously. Too bad you seemed pretty intent that he did until you realized how totally wrong you were.


but he was a paranoid fucking madman for other reasons, namely for his anti revisionismSo he's a madman for standing up to Khrushchev and his attempts to economically isolate Albania until it "destalinized"? There's a collection of archival documents the Albanians released in the mid-70's which demonstrate the principled stand they took: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_albania_challenges_khrushchev_revision ism.pdf

(It's worth noting that, after 1991, it was confirmed that these documents were authentic)

Also:

"Khrushchev remarked [at the International Meeting of Communist Parties in Moscow, 1960] that he 'could reach a better understanding with Harold Macmillan than with the Albanians.' To which Hoxha retorted: 'That you can come to terms with Macmillan, Eisenhower, Kennedy and their stooge, Tito, is a personal talent of yours which no one envies.' ... And Mehmet Shehu to Khrushchev's question as to whether they had any criticisms at all to make of Stalin announced: 'Yes, not getting rid of you!'" (William Ash, Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People, p. 201.)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I think two seperate threads should be made from this thread: one where left communists attack Marxist-Leninists (oh wait, that's every fucking thread) and one where ultra-leftists are explained what Marxism-Leninism is, even though they claim they know more about our ideology than us, because apparently we get our beliefs from Red Alert, a game I have never even played and have no interest in playing. The OP's question should have been answered in only one post. Hoxha never added any significant ideas to Marxism-Leninism, he only defended the ideology from the capitalist and imperialist revisions of the likes of Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and (eventually) Mao. That is why we call him "anti-revisionist." End of story. No need for statistics on the Albanian import of bananas or psychological analyses of Hoxha himself.

[CommieTroll]

Hoxha's two-volume Reflections on China has been cited by various books (https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=Hoxha+%22Reflections+on+China%22&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1978&num=10). Claims of Hoxha being a crazed madman who banned bananas and bright colors are things I simply cannot find anywhere.

Funnily enough, you'd expect to hear claims like those from right-wingers.

[Rafiq]

I am sure that thats how you would want to be portrayed isn't it? Actually I consider you a pretty insecure boy. So please, intelectually inferiorising someone doesn't make you any better.

Of course not, but I would imagine you and Ismail are confused as to what you should classify me as.

I don't fall into a catagory within the constraint of the Hoxhaist fantasy land (Which isn't surprising why Ismail would call me a Juche-Titoist-Dengoid revisionist).

Why do you consider me as an insecure boy, Roach? Ideologically, you can't classify me anything, and that's why you dismiss my posts as having a lack of political content, i.e. It doesn't have the political content that you're used to, that you understand.

[Rafiq]

Too bad you seemed pretty intent that he did until you realized how totally wrong you were.

Too bad it was a joke, you shit head.



So he's a madman for standing up to Khrushchev and his attempts to economically isolate Albania until it "destalinized"?

Hoxha never gave a shit about that, he only broke relations because the Chinese were cheaper and offered more. He couldn't have the best of both worlds so he tagged along with China.



(It's worth noting that, after 1991, it was confirmed that these documents were authentic)


Yes, they were authentic in that some asshole actually wrote them.


Also:

"Khrushchev remarked [at the International Meeting of Communist Parties in Moscow, 1960] that he 'could reach a better understanding with Harold Macmillan than with the Albanians.' To which Hoxha retorted: 'That you can come to terms with Macmillan, Eisenhower, Kennedy and their stooge, Tito, is a personal talent of yours which no one envies.' ... And Mehmet Shehu to Khrushchev's question as to whether they had any criticisms at all to make of Stalin announced: 'Yes, not getting rid of you!'" (William Ash, Pickaxe and Rifle: The Story of the Albanian People, p. 201.)



Yeah, I wonder when that was written, you know, probably after Hoxha broke relations with him. He breaks relations with countries and then creates some sort of fucking justification for it.

Just like how he opened relations with West Germany...

[Bostana]

This thread was a joke so far, I was just following suit.

if it is a joke then stop derailing it

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Too bad it was a joke, you shit head.

LOLOLOLOL





Hoxha never gave a shit about that, he only broke relations because the Chinese were cheaper and offered more. He couldn't have the best of both worlds so he tagged along with China.

Yeah, because the new, barely industrialized nation was going to offer more than the older, more advanced, and more industrialized nation. Do you even think before you post? Show some statistics please if you think my assertion is incorrect.

[Rafiq]

LOLOLOLOL






Yeah, because the new, barely industrialized nation was going to offer more than the older, more advanced, and more industrialized nation. Do you even think before you post? Show some statistics please if you think my assertion is incorrect.

Didn't matter, China offered cheap labor, and it was ripe for industrialization, apparently to him "bound for success".

And, by the way, you don't need statistics for that.

[Ismail]

*It was a joke*Someone should have told Goti. As it stands, it was an unfunny joke told in a strikingly non-joking manner.


Hoxha never gave a shit about that, he only broke relations because the Chinese were cheaper and offered more. He couldn't have the best of both worlds so he tagged along with China.James S. O'Donnell and various other authors have noted that Chinese aid was less in quantity and quality than Soviet aid. The Chinese also treated Albania equally in terms like technicians, pay, interest-free loans, etc., at least until the early 70's when they wanted Albania to endorse the "Three Worlds Theory," Nixon's visit to Beijing, etc. Not to mention that Hoxha constantly accused the Chinese in his diary of not sending enough aid, whereas his criticism of Khrushchev was that he was trying to bring tons of aid into Albania to show how "selfless" the Soviet Union was, while at the same time doing things like withholding grain supplies during a period of near-famine conditions.


Yeah, I wonder when that was written, you know, probably after Hoxha broke relations with him.So what? Hoxha himself spoke in 1960, when relations, officially, were all well and good. In case you didn't notice, William Ash (the author of the book) was not an Albanian functionary.

Of course Hoxha had doubts as early as 1953, as noted in The Khrushchevites. But since you don't trust his memoirs, how about this quite early diary entry?

"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.)


Just like how he opened relations with West Germany...It's pretty idealist to believe in ghosts, you know. Albania established diplomatic relations with West Germany in 1987.

[Grenzer]

Ismail will not criticze you for supporting Khrushchev and Ho Chi Minh because you said they were responding to Material conditions

I wasn't supporting Khrushchev. I was just saying that his actions were determined by the material conditions instead of his beliefs. He just didn't wake up one day and decide to enact "destalinization" because he hated Stalin and was secretly a revisionist. What I was criticizing are the people who say that Khrushchev and Ho didn't choose to be revisionists, and because of that they should be admired and respected(which is dumb). Stalin, Khrushchev, Ho.. it doesn't matter which of them, as they were all bourgeois so their class interests necessarily led to liberalization. The ultimate fallacy of of anti-revisionism is its failure to realize this, and its belief that proper material conditions can be substituted with idealism. It's pointless to hate Khrushchev because of his actions when it's more important to take note of the material conditions which led to them to begin with.

If I recall, you have been accused of supporting Kim Il-Sung for pointing out the same thing.

[Ismail]

It's pointless to hate Khrushchev because of his actions when it's more important to take note of the material conditions which led to them to begin with.Why not hate Khrushchev? He was the one who attacked Stalin, who endorsed the destruction of economic planning in any real sense, who pursued a social-imperialist foreign policy line, and who endorsed revisionism in the world communist movement with his version of "peaceful coexistence," the claim that socialism could be achieved "peacefully" in Western Europe, etc. He didn't unilaterally do these things, but he was at the head of them.

No one is oblivious to the fact that Khrushchev and others represented the bureaucracy and managerial strata who wanted decentralization of enterprises and an end to class struggle both internally and externally.

[NewLeft]

Why not hate Khrushchev? He was the one who attacked Stalin, who endorsed the destruction of economic planning in any real sense, who pursued a social-imperialist foreign policy line, and who endorsed revisionism in the world communist movement with his version of "peaceful coexistence," the claim that socialism could be achieved "peacefully" in Western Europe, etc. He didn't unilaterally do these things, but he was at the head of them.
Not to derail the thread, but this is the whole 'Peaceful Road to Socialism' thing?

[Grenzer]

Why not hate Khrushchev? He was the one who attacked Stalin, who endorsed the destruction of economic planning in any real sense, who pursued a social-imperialist foreign policy line, and who endorsed revisionism in the world communist movement with his version of "peaceful coexistence," the claim that socialism could be achieved "peacefully" in Western Europe, etc. He didn't unilaterally do these things, but he was at the head of them.

No one is oblivious to the fact that Khrushchev and others represented the bureaucracy and managerial strata who wanted decentralization of enterprises and an end to class struggle both internally and externally.

What do you mean by attacked Stalin?

I think as Marxists we should realize the material conditions which led Khrushchev to make the decisions he did in the first place, as those are the true cause; not his motives or ideals. Though of course Khrushchev probably was a revisionist long before Stalin's death, maybe as far back as the 1920's, which is when the ideological decay of the Soviet Union was in full swing in my opinion. International revolution had failed to take off, so there was nothing that could have been done to prevent it in my opinion other than preparing for international proletarian revolution once again; something which the party leadership was unable to do given their solidifying status in the ranks of the bourgeoisie.

As you know, I am no fan of Stalin, but from the observations I've made without having had time to do an in depth study, the purges may have been absolutely necessary to avoid a Deng-like restoration of liberal capitalism in the Soviet Union; but the damage had already been done. Perhaps socialism could exist in one country, but only for a brief period of time(no more than several years at most); though it's hard to say given that even by the zenith of the DOTP(if one thinks that it was ever established at all), the revolution had not yet surpassed capital. Lenin realized this as you know, and his conception of state capitalism was designed to be a transitory phase towards socialism. With the proletariat in a small minority, they were going on borrowed time as they would inevitably be pushed into opposition by the sheer numerical advantage of the peasants. From that perspective, I believe that the ideological degeneration of the Bosheviks began as soon as the Revolution did, though it would not have a qualitative change until somewhat later. They were going on borrowed time, and only the spread of revolution to more industrialized countries like Germany where the conditions for the political ascendency of the proletariat wee more ripe could have reversed the flow of degeneration and counter-revolution in Russia. No doubt by the late 1920's it was too late, and the upper echelons of the party had already become the new bourgeoisie.. so essentially nothing could be done other than an attempt to slow the tide of encroaching liberalism, which is what I think Stalin attempted to do.

However, from this perspective the Soviet Union was already a bourgeois state so Stalin's struggle against liberalism(relative to his own) was essentially pointless as he was bourgeois himself, and only a new proletarian revolution could set things right.

Briefly, that's just my take on it, and I hope that by studying more in depth material I can take a more nuanced view. Sucks Bordiga's analysis has never been translated to English.

[Ismail]

Not to derail the thread, but this is the whole 'Peaceful Road to Socialism' thing?No, Khrushchev said that the main foreign policy line of all socialist states was "peaceful coexistence." The term can be traced back to Lenin's foreign policy. Under Lenin and Stalin it meant that states with different social systems could coexist and trade on the basis of non-intervention in each other's affairs. The difference is that whereas under Lenin and Stalin this was recognized as just one part of the revolutionary foreign policy of the government, which stood in solidarity with all communist and progressive forces against imperialism, under Khrushchev and onwards this became the "main line" and the struggle for socialism was subordinated to the interests of maintaining said "peace" between the USA and USSR.

Here's a good read: http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm


What do you mean by attacked Stalin?Khrushchev's "Secret Speech," and his subsequent attacks on the machine-tractor stations as showing Stalin's "distrust" of the peasantry, attacks on Stalin's "dogma" in economic affairs, etc.

[Grenzer]

Not to derail the thread, but this is the whole 'Peaceful Road to Socialism' thing?

"Peaceful Coexistence" is the idea that somehow the final victory of socialism could be achieved without the complete destruction of capitalism from the world.

[Omsk]

What I was criticizing are the people who say that Khrushchev and Ho didn't choose to be revisionists, and because of that they should be admired and respected(which is dumb

You are writing in a generalized sense,and your posts are quite contradictory,because at one point you blame people (you didn't specify which people) for supporting Nikita and Minh,and you criticize them for being lenient toward the revisionists,and on the other hand,you say that they were acting out of the influence of the material conditions,and not their own believes,which is only partially true,because some things,or to say,most things which Nikita did,were because of his own hatred toward Stalin,or came from the concealed circles in the Kremlin,who were still ideological,even after the original ideological downfall that occurred after the best individuals were purged by Nikita.

And another,thing,you are saying that Stalin was a bourgeois,and that he was acting out of his own class interests,which just isn't true.If he acted against someone,it was the layers which controlled,and against them he fought the most.

[Rafiq]

I wasn't supporting Khrushchev. I was just saying that his actions were determined by the material conditions instead of his beliefs. He just didn't wake up one day and decide to enact "destalinization" because he hated Stalin and was secretly a revisionist. What I was criticizing are the people who say that Khrushchev and Ho didn't choose to be revisionists, and because of that they should be admired and respected(which is dumb). Stalin, Khrushchev, Ho.. it doesn't matter which of them, as they were all bourgeois so their class interests necessarily led to liberalization. The ultimate fallacy of of anti-revisionism is its failure to realize this, and its belief that proper material conditions can be substituted with idealism. It's pointless to hate Khrushchev because of his actions when it's more important to take note of the material conditions which led to them to begin with.

If I recall, you have been accused of supporting Kim Il-Sung for pointing out the same thing.

It was a typo, my bad. I meant *Ismail will NOW accuse you of supporting Khrushchev and Ho chi minh.

Sorry, man.

Also, ill respond to this and the tito thread when i get to a computer

[Ismail]

It'd be nice if you actually used sources (as in, articles and books, not Wikipedia or something you found via Google within seconds of searching.) Since this is Albania and I'd consider myself reasonably well versed in its history, I'd response with physically-owned sources of my own.

[Bright Banana Beard]

There is always time and place for terrible joke but this is learning place.

Chit-chat is not so far from few clicks. You can go ahead and post how we are anti-bananabread without any claims and still get approved from revlefters.

[Rafiq]

Someone should have told Goti. As it stands, it was an unfunny joke told in a strikingly non-joking manner.

The Banana part was to demonstrate that the Albanian Paradise's economy was so weak they could not even afford to produce bananas.


James S. O'Donnell and various other authors have noted that Chinese aid was less in quantity and quality than Soviet aid.

Yet, it was much cheaper.


The Chinese also treated Albania equally in terms like technicians, pay, interest-free loans, etc., at least until the early 70's when they wanted Albania to endorse the "Three Worlds Theory," Nixon's visit to Beijing, etc

Hoxha's criticism of the Three Worlds theory came after he took action against them.

As for Nixon, he only got pissy because, yes, it traces back to Yugoslavia. With China and The U.S. forming relations, China wouldn't need Yugoslavia as a puppet state any more.


. Not to mention that Hoxha constantly accused the Chinese in his diary of not sending enough aid, whereas his criticism of Khrushchev was that he was trying to bring tons of aid into Albania to show how "selfless" the Soviet Union was,

The only reason he got pissed at Khrushchev was... Bud dum bum, yes, Soviet-Yugoslav relations strengthening. And what he wrote in his little diary about China reflects fuck all of actual relations with China, sorry.

We're materialists. We don't care about Hoxha on an individual level. We don't care if he liked eating babies or if he was a saint. We care about him as what he presented himself as: The representative of a bourgeois state.


while at the same time doing things like withholding grain supplies during a period of near-famine conditions.


Which he didn't seem to have a problem with until the SU and Yugoslavia got close.


So what? Hoxha himself spoke in 1960, when relations, officially, were all well and good. In case you didn't notice, William Ash (the author of the book) was not an Albanian functionary.


Hoxha spoke in 1960? Bullshit.


Of course Hoxha had doubts as early as 1953, as noted in The Khrushchevites. But since you don't trust his memoirs, how about this quite early diary entry?


If I didn't trust his memoirs, what makes you think I'd trust his little diary?


"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.


Who hated Tito, and wasn't willing to open up to him, so it would seem at the time.


I understood the position of Khrushchev and his other companions against Stalin and his glorious acts

Like breaking relations with Yugoslavia.


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.


The point where they'd start cosing up to Tito.


I shudder when I think how much the Titoites and Yugoslavs will rejoice when they get this report in their hands,

Fix'd


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.


Ah, so I was right all along. It all comes back to Yugoslavia.


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


More crying about Khrushchev one step closer to Tito.


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.)


Uh huh, 1955-1957, the periods (Especially Hungarian uprising) in which Yugoslav-Soviet relations were getting better.


It's pretty idealist to believe in ghosts, you know. Albania established diplomatic relations with West Germany in 1987.


And what of Italy, of France, etc.? Or would you like to deny that as well? When China was gone, he became friends with all sorts of bastards, from Africa to Europe.

[Rafiq]

It'd be nice if you actually used sources (as in, articles and books, not Wikipedia or something you found via Google within seconds of searching.) Since this is Albania and I'd consider myself reasonably well versed in its history, I'd response with physically-owned sources of my own.

I don't need to source these. It's quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about Albanian history that I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. If I was I'd make much better propaganda.

[The Young Pioneer]

I don't need to source these. It's quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about Albanian history that I'm not pulling anything out of my ass. If I was I'd make much better propaganda.

Wasn't this thread made to answer basic questions for people who don't know much about Hoxhaism (and by that, to some degree, Albanian history)? I had no clue about any of this until I began reading, and rather enjoy the sourcing that's going on here, more would be appreciated. :)

[Bright Banana Beard]

Rafiq, I would LOVE to see those source, please. Otherwise, how can I know you aren't pulling out shits of your ass?

[Rafiq]

It's understandable. I'll post sources when I can, atm i'm at tapatalk.

[Ismail]

The Banana part was to demonstrate that the Albanian Paradise's economy was so weak they could not even afford to produce bananas.It could afford to be the world's first country to achieve complete electrification 15 years before schedule (Biberaj, Albania: A Socialist Maverick, Pollo and Puto, The History of Albania, etc.) and to attain self-sufficiency in grain a few years after that. I think those are better achievements to strive for compared to "we grow bananas." I bet it didn't grow papaya either, because why would it grow random foods largely alien to the diet of Albanians and under probably unfavorable climatic conditions?


Yet, it was much cheaper.Okay, and? Soviet aid was higher in quality and quantity, was far easier to obtain (you forget that the Chinese took months to ship aid from around the Cape of Good Hope into the Mediterranean, they could rarely fly supplies to Albania), and it was coupled with much aid from the Eastern Bloc in general.

Again, Albania was initially treated much more equally by the Chinese. I don't see how this is somehow indicative of anything.


Hoxha's criticism of the Three Worlds theory came after he took action against them.His earliest public criticism was in 1976 with his unsigned article "The Theory and Practice of the Revolution." It was so effective that Hua Guofeng actually wrote a reply (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/theory-3-worlds/index.htm) (which, like Hoxha's article not mentioning China by name, didn't mention Albania by name either), trying to justify it as some glorious contribution to Marxism-Leninism. Before this, of course, Hoxha had sent a letter to the Central Committee of the CPC in 1972 which explicitly stated that Albania did not agree with Nixon's visit to China.


The only reason he got pissed at Khrushchev was... Bud dum bum, yes, Soviet-Yugoslav relations strengthening. And what he wrote in his little diary about China reflects fuck all of actual relations with China, sorry.What about when Khrushchev refrained from giving aid to alleviate near-famine conditions? What about when Khrushchev called for Albania to become the "garden of the socialist bloc"? What about when Khrushchev called Hoxha a "Stalinist" and openly attacked him, calling for his overthrow by the "genuine communists" of Albania? There are various other examples of the Soviets trying to undermine the government because of its insubordination to the USSR. (O'Donnell A Coming of Age, Vickers, The Albanians: A Modern History, etc.)


Which he didn't seem to have a problem with until the SU and Yugoslavia got close.Actually this was a few years after Khrushchev rehabilitated Tito. In fact Hoxha stated that, unlike Khrushchev, Stalin did not do such things.

To quote O'Donnell, p. 51:

An interesting sidebar to the issue of Khrushchev's tardy decision to provide only a small amount of grain to Albania at this time is a comparison to Stalin's handling a similar situation on an earlier occasion. Enver Hoxha waxed nostalgically about Stalin who never would let the Albanian people starve. Hoxha remembered:

In 1945, when our people were threatened with starvation, comrade Stalin ordered the ships loaded with grain destined for the Soviet people, who also were in dire need of food at that time, and sent the grain at once to the Albanian people. Whereas, the present Soviet leaders permit themselves these ugly deeds.


Hoxha spoke in 1960? Bullshit.... what do you think his speech to the international meeting of communist and workers' parties in November 1960 was? Every account of that speech included that Khrushchev was infuriated at being attacked publicly in front of hundreds of delegates. For instance Khrushchev was reported to have said, "You have poured dung over me. Comrade Hoxha. One day you yourself will have to wash it off!" (Jacques, The Albanians Vol. II, p. 477.) Miranda Vickers noted that the Chinese delegation to the meeting was actually embarrassed at Hoxha being so open with his attack, whereas the pro-Soviet parties promptly accused Hoxha of "gangsterism," "sectarianism," etc.


If I didn't trust his memoirs, what makes you think I'd trust his little diary?Because his memoirs are him writing about past events 20, 30 or 40 years after the fact whereas his diary was, you know, actually written at the time of said events?

As for your comments on the entry itself, obviously the question of Yugoslavia was important to Albania. After all, Tito had tried to annex the country in the 1944-1948 period and had worked to destabilize it afterwards. It also isn't surprising that every revisionist winded up praising Tito sooner or later. Hoxha didn't hide the fact that Yugoslavia was a barometer of sorts for revisionism: if you praised it, chances are you were not a good Marxist. Are you denying that the split with the USSR had any ideological component? Ramiz Alia, in various interviews conducted after 1991, has stated that Hoxha really did see himself as struggling against Soviet revisionism and that Albania engaged in "naïve" practices as a result of this commitment to ideology.


And what of Italy, of France, etc.? Or would you like to deny that as well?Relations with France were established in December 1945, Italy I think a few years later (I can easily check this if you want a date.) Also "deny that as well" implies that your original claim that Hoxha opened up relations with West Germany in 1987 was true, even though he was dead.

What's your point? Hoxha is damned if he "isolates" Albania, and he's damned for promoting trade with countries willing to deal equally with it. The Bolsheviks under Lenin and Stalin were significantly more accommodating to foreign trade than the Albanians ever were.


When China was gone, he became friends with all sorts of bastards, from Africa to Europe.Name them. Considering that China allying with Pinochet, Mobutu, etc. was one of Hoxha's main criticisms, that seems a bit strange.

The only countries Albania seemed to have diplomatic relations with beyond mere trading stuff in the early 80's were Vietnam (the Party of Labour and the CPV had party-to-party ties), the People's Republic of Kampuchea (it was Vietnamese-backed and overthrew Pol Pot, so yeah), Iran (Hoxha publicly defended it against Iraq), Burkina Faso (Sankara had a few pro-Albanian guys in his government) and the DPRK (I think sparse party-to-party ties existed.) In both The Khrushchevites and Reflections on China he openly attacks Kim Il Sung as a revisionist, while in Reflections on the Middle East he says, among other things, that Iranian communists should have no illusions about the "reforms" of the clergy.

[redguarddude]

Hoxhism, at least in the 1970's was sort of like Maoism, but without the "Three Worlds Theory." One of the main groups of this tendency, the Marxist Leninist Party, broke with this trend, late 1980's, and also broke with Stalinism. The MLP dissolved in 1993.

[Ismail]

Hoxhism, at least in the 1970's was sort of like Maoism, but without the "Three Worlds Theory." One of the main groups of this tendency, the Marxist Leninist Party, broke with this trend, late 1980's, and also broke with Stalinism. The MLP dissolved in 1993.I don't know why you had to resurrect a year-old thread for this, but alright then.

And no, you're wrong; it wasn't "sort of like Maoism," the Albanians did not uphold the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," they did not subscribe to Mao's "two-line struggle" within a party, did not agree with "protracted people's war," and they opposed various other aspects of Maoism.

Also I doubt you can call the MLPUSA "one of the main [pro-Albanian] groups" since it never actually had ties to the PLA. The most influential was probably the CPC-ML which not only had full contact with the PLA but also helped form pro-Albanian parties elsewhere in the world. The PCdoB, KPD/ML, PCMLE and so on were also recognized by the PLA and in terms of influence within their own countries were more significant than the MLPUSA.

[redguarddude]

"I don't know why you had to resurrect a year-old thread for this, but alright then."

Why? Can't dance and it's too wet to plow. Forgot to add, that modern day Hoxhism is dominated by grumpy old men.

[Ismail]

Forgot to add, that modern day Hoxhism is dominated by grumpy old men.As opposed to what? Not like Alan Woods or what have you are young.

[Geiseric]

Albanias biggest problem was that it wasn't in Yugoslavia, who also liberated themselves from Fascism, and relations between the two countries would of been good for everybody.

[Brutus]

I'm pretty sure Albania started exporting electricity to Yugoslavia.

[Ismail]

Albanias biggest problem was that it wasn't in Yugoslavia, who also liberated themselves from Fascism, and relations between the two countries would of been good for everybody.Yugoslavia treated Albania like a neo-colony in 1944-48, so no.


I'm pretty sure Albania started exporting electricity to Yugoslavia.Yes, Albania went from having an insignificant amount of electrical production in 1944 to achieving complete electrification and being able to export it to Yugoslavia by the 70's. Furthermore, Kosovo was the poorest region of Yugoslavia and both illiteracy and blood feuds continued to pose a problem there, whereas both problems had been done away with in Albania proper.

[Geiseric]

Yugoslavia treated Albania like a neo-colony in 1944-48, so no.

Yes, Albania went from having an insignificant amount of electrical production in 1944 to achieving complete electrification and being able to export it to Yugoslavia by the 70's. Furthermore, Kosovo was the poorest region of Yugoslavia and both illiteracy and blood feuds continued to pose a problem there, whereas both problems had been done away with in Albania proper.

Seeing as yugoslavia was a coalition of different ethnicities who were themselves colonized, I doubt that's true. If croats or slovaks did individually, I could see that happening, however that wasn't the case. Albania chose relations with the fSU who was massacring revolutionaries all through eastern europe over Yugoslavia which was, despite what you might say, a progressive state seeing as it unified the region, which was formerly split up between the great powers. Albania wouldn't of needed the bunkers if the Yugoslav army was ready to defend it.

[Ismail]

Seeing as yugoslavia was a coalition of different ethnicities who were themselves colonized, I doubt that's true.Nako Spiru was forced to commit suicide after pointing out that Yugoslavia's relations with Albania were exploitative and thus incurring the wrath of Koçi Xoxe, the Yugoslav's puppet in the country and head of the security services.


Albania chose relations with the fSU who was massacring revolutionaries all through eastern europeThe Titoites killed various Marxist-Leninists, such as Andrija Hebrang. Yugoslavia itself became a darling of the West, which praised its "non-aligned" and "non-dogmatic socialism" while it accepted Western military and economic aid which kept it afloat. And it was the Khrushchevite revisionists who rehabilitated, with the good graces of Tito, all those "revolutionaries" who had been aligned with Titoism.


over Yugoslavia which was, despite what you might say, a progressive state seeing as it unified the region, which was formerly split up between the great powers.As Stalin said (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/stalin/meet3.htm) to Hoxha in 1949: "We must not leave any way for the Titoite enemy to accuse us later of allegedly waging our fight to break up the Yugoslav Federation. This is a delicate moment and needs very careful handling, because by saying, 'See, they want to break up Yugoslavia,' Tito not only gathers reaction around him, but also tries to win the patriotic elements over to his side."

As time went on the Federation's unity was fractious; various disputes between the Republics plagued it from the 70's onwards, it repressed any signs of a movement for self-determination in Kosovo, it became indebted to US imperialism (which meant subordination to one of the two superpowers) and broke apart owing to the anti-Marxist national and capitalist policies pursued by Tito and his successors.


Albania wouldn't of needed the bunkers if the Yugoslav army was ready to defend it.Hoxha actually said that if the Soviet social-imperialists invaded Yugoslavia the Albanians would gladly send troops over to defend the latter. Albania's defense, however, was its own responsibility. The Chinese revisionists likewise tried to get Albania to enter into a pact with Romania and Yugoslavia, latter more or less "guaranteeing" Albania. Hoxha fully opposed this attempt because he knew what the implications of it were.

[StalinBad]

hoxha was a hypocrite was he not? Didn't he follow Stalinism? There's enough hypocrisy already.

Oh, I'd also like to know, was Josip Broz Tito a 'Patriot' before a Communist? I'm trying to learn more about Tito. From my understanding a great man, but I am firmly against Nationalism so if someone can inform me on Tito's thoughts on Nationalism that would be great, thanks.

[Ismail]

hoxha was a hypocrite was he not? Didn't he follow Stalinism? There's enough hypocrisy already.I don't see what makes him hypocritical. He'd be hypocritical not to uphold Stalin, considering that he declared to Khrushchev and Co. in 1960 that whoever fails to uphold him is a coward and renegade.

[StalinBad]

I don't see what makes him hypocritical. He'd be hypocritical not to uphold Stalin, considering that he declared to Khrushchev and Co. in 1960 that whoever fails to uphold him is a coward and renegade.

I don't see what is so great about Stalinism, Socialism in one Country is Nationalist rubbish.

Isn't it true that Stalin betrayed Lenin and Marx and Trotsky?

Please inform me, did Stalin ever do anything great, except the fact that the Red Army defeated the Nazis while he was in power?

You'll have to excuse me, Ismail, I am new to the Socialist world at age 14, I am very easily swayed so you could try to convince me to become a Stalinist.

[Ismail]

I don't see what is so great about Stalinism, Socialism in one Country is Nationalist rubbish.

Isn't it true that Stalin betrayed Lenin and Marx and Trotsky?

Please inform me, did Stalin ever do anything great, except the fact that the Red Army defeated the Nazis while he was in power?

You'll have to excuse me, Ismail, I am new to the Socialist world at age 14, I am very easily swayed so you could try to convince me to become a Stalinist.I'm only going to discuss Hoxha in this thread. With that in mind, the Soviet revisionist clique (i.e. Khrushchev and Co., and their successors) held that Stalin "violated socialist legality" and that Lenin had wanted to get rid of him. The Soviet revisionists concocted such claims because they sought to restore capitalism in the USSR under "socialist" phraseology. They rehabilitated the Tito clique, sought to sabotage revolutionary movements, and transformed the Soviet Union into an imperialist superpower vying for world domination vis-à-vis US imperialism.

Stalin presided over the construction of socialism in the USSR, successfully defeated the Trotskyists and Bukharinist factions, and extended the socialist camp to encompass just about half the world. The Soviet revisionists couldn't deny all this completely, so they simply made a thousand claims that Stalin was "sectarian," etc.

My signature contains links concerning Soviet revisionism. You can find sufficient information there. The Albanians denounced the Soviet revisionists and continued upholding the work of Stalin.

Also FYI Tito also adhered to "socialism in one country." Except unlike Stalin, Tito preached "different roads to socialism," and in fact turned it into a nationalist doctrine.

[StalinBad]

I'm only going to discuss Hoxha in this thread. With that in mind, the Soviet revisionist clique (i.e. Khrushchev and Co., and their successors) held that Stalin "violated socialist legality" and that Lenin had wanted to get rid of him. The Soviet revisionists concocted such claims because they sought to restore capitalism in the USSR under "socialist" phraseology. They rehabilitated the Tito clique, sought to sabotage revolutionary movements, and transformed the Soviet Union into an imperialist superpower vying for world domination vis-à-vis US imperialism.

Stalin presided over the construction of socialism in the USSR, successfully defeated the Trotskyists and Bukharinist factions, and extended the socialist camp to encompass just about half the world. The Soviet revisionists couldn't deny all this completely, so they simply made a thousand claims that Stalin was "sectarian," etc.

My signature contains links concerning Soviet revisionism. You can find sufficient information there. The Albanians denounced the Soviet revisionists and continued upholding the work of Stalin.

Also FYI Tito also adhered to "socialism in one country." Except unlike Stalin, Tito preached "different roads to socialism," and in fact turned it into a nationalist doctrine.

I'll take a look at them. But Stalin DID violate socialist legality did he not? Lenin wanted him out before he died and Marx wouldn't have liked Stalin, would he have?

A reason I am anti-Stalin is because Lenin was LGBT friendly and Stalin made it illegal to not be heterosexual after Lenin's death. I myself am bi-sexual (sorry to get personal but I don't want people to think im just a guy who supports LGBT rights, I actually am LGBT)

[Ismail]

On Lenin's "testament" see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=4808

Again this thread is about Hoxha so it'd be nice if it could stay on the subject. If you have any questions about Hoxha or Albania, ask away.

[Old Bolshie]

A reason I am anti-Stalin is because Lenin was LGBT friendly and Stalin made it illegal to not be heterosexual after Lenin's death. I myself am bi-sexual (sorry to get personal but I don't want people to think im just a guy who supports LGBT rights, I actually am LGBT)

Sorry to disappoint you but Lenin's position on homosexuality was indentical to Stalin's one. The criminalization of homosexuality was not abolished because Lenin was LGBT friendly but simply because all the Tsarist laws (which included the criminalization of homosexuality) were abolished by the Bolsheviks.

[Red_Banner]

Here's what according to Clara Zetkin that Lenin said about sexuality:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm