Hoxha [Archive]

Omsk

16th April 2012, 21:23

I really didn't think this thread would turn into a festival of inflantile 'leftists' who base their knowledge on a number of posts on an internet forum.It's really great,you people make me proud every single day.

But lets ignore these laughable people.

Here is a basic web 'library' for you to look into:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works-index.htm

This is an interesting and relevant quote,which contains some of his views on the USSR during the revisionist period.

[HOXHA STATED On the occasion of the centenary of the birth of great Marxist-Leninist Joseph Stalin]
All this villainy emerged soon after the death, or to be more precise, after the murder of Stalin. I say after the murder of Stalin, because Mikoyan himself told me and Mehmet Shehu that they, together with Khrushchev and their associates, had decided to carry out a “pokushenie”, i.e., to make an attempt on Stalin's life, but later, as Mikoyan told us, they gave up this plan. It is a known fact that the Khrushchevites could hardly wait for Stalin to die. The circumstances of his death are not clear.
An unsolved enigma in this direction is the question of the “white smocks”, the trial conducted against the Kremlin doctors, who, as long as Stalin was alive were accused of having attempted to kill many leaders of the Soviet Union. After Stalin's death these doctors were rehabilitated and no more was said about this question! But why was this question hushed up?! Was the criminal activity of these doctors proved at the time of the trial, or not? The question of the doctors was hushed up, because had it been investigated later, had it been gone into thoroughly, it would have brought to light a great deal of dirty linen, many crimes and plots that the concealed revisionists, with Khrushchev and Mikoyan at the head, had been perpetrating. This could be the explanation also for the sudden deaths within a very short time, of Gottwald, Bierut, Foster, Dimitrov and some others, all from curable illnesses, about which I have written in my unpublished memoirs, “The Khrushchevites and Us”. This could prove to be the true reason for the sudden death of Stalin, too. In order to attain their vile aims and to carry out their plans for the struggle against Marxism-Leninism and socialism, Khrushchev and his group liquidated many of the main leaders of the Comintern, one after the other, by silent and mysterious methods. Apart from others, they also attacked and discredited Rakosi, dismissed him from his post and interned him deep in the interior of the steppes of Russia, in this way. In the “secret” report delivered at their 20th Congress, Nikita Khrushchev and his associates threw mud at Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and tried to defile him in the filthiest manner, resorting to the most cynical Trotskyite methods. After compromising some of the cadres of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Khrushchevites exploited them thoroughly and then kicked them out and liquidated them as anti-party elements. The Khrushchevites headed by Khrushchev, who condemned the cult of Stalin in order to cover up their subsequent crimes against the Soviet Union and socialism raised the cult of Khrushchev sky-high. Those top functionaries of the party and Soviet state attributed to Stalin the brutality, cunning perfidy and baseness of character, the imprisonments and murders which they themselves practised and which were second nature to them. As long as Stalin was alive it was precisely they who sang hymns of praise to him in order to cover up their careerism, and their underhand aims and actions. In 1949 Krushchev described Stalin as the “leader and teacher of genius”, and said that “the name of Comrade Stalin is the banner of all the victories of the Soviet people, the banner of the struggle of the working people the world over”. Mikoyan described the Works of Stalin as a “new, higher historical stage of Leninism”. Kosygin said, “We owe all our victories and successes, to the great Stalin”, etc., etc. While after his death they behaved quite differently. It was the Khrushchevites who strangled the voice of the party, strangled the voice of the working class and filled the concentration camps with patriots; it was they who released the dregs of treachery from prison, the Trotskyites and all the enemies, whom time and the facts had proved and have proved again now with their struggle as dissidents to be opponents of socialism and agents in the service of foreign capitalist enemies. It is the Khrushchovites who, in conspiratorial and mysterious ways, tried and condemned not only the Soviet revolutionaries but also many persons from other countries.

Khrushchev, Mikoyan and Suslov first defended the conspirator Imre Nagy, and then condemned and executed him secretly somewhere in Rumania! Who gave them the right to act in that way with a foreign citizen? Although he was a conspirator, he should have been subject only to trial in his own country and not to any foreign law, court or punishment. Stalin never did such things.

No, Stalin never acted in that way. He conducted public trials against the traitors to the party and Soviet state. The party and the Soviet peoples were told openly of the crimes they had committed. You never find in Stalin's actions such Mafia-like methods as you find in the actions of the Soviet revisionist chiefs. The Soviet revisionists have used and are still using such methods against one another in their struggle for power, just as in every capitalist country. Khrushchev seized power through a putsch, and Brezhnev toppled him from the throne with a putsch.

Brezhnev and company got rid of Khrushchev to protect the revisionist policy and ideology from the discredit and exposure resulting from his crazy behaviour and actions and embarrassing buffoonery. He did not in any way reject Khrushchevism, the reports and decisions of the 20th and 22nd Congresses in which Khrushchevisrn is embodied. Brezhnev showed himself to be so ungrateful to Khrushchev, whom he had previously lauded so high, that he could not even find a hole in the wall of the Kremlin to put his ashes when he died!

Stalin was not at all what the enemies of communism accused and accuse him of being. On the contrary, he was just and a man of principle. He knew how to help and combat those who made mistakes, knew now to support, encourage and point out the special merits of those who served Marxism-Leninism loyally, as the occasion required. The question of Rokossovsky and that of Zhukov are now well known. When Rokossovsky and Zhukov made mistakes they were criticized and discharged from their posts. But they were not cast off as incorrigible. On the contrary, they were, warmly assisted and the moment it was considered that these cadres had corrected themselves, Stalin elevated them to responsible positions promoted them to marshals and at the time of the Great Patriotic War charged them with extremely important duties on the main fronts of the war against the Hitlerite invaders. Only a leader who had a clear concept of and applied Marxist-Leninist justice in evaluating the work of people, with their good points and errors, could have acted as Stalin did.

Following Stalin's death, Marshal Zhukov became a tool of Nikita Khrushchev and his group; he supported the treacherous activity of Khrushchev against the Soviet Union, the Bolshevik Party and Stalin. Eventually, Nikita Khrushchev tossed Zhukov away like a squeezed lemon. He did the same with Rokossovsky and many other main cadres. Many Soviet communists were deceived by the demagogy of the Khrushchevite revisionist group and thought that after Stalin's death the Soviet Union would become a real paradise, as the revisionist traitors started to trumpet. They declared with great pomp that in 1980 communism would be established in the Soviet Union!! But what happened? The opposite, and it could not be otherwise.
Khrushchev himself admitted to us that Stalin had said to them that they would sell out the Soviet Union to imperialism. And this is what happened in fact. What he said has proved true.

Any person who assesses Stalin's work as a whole can understand that the genius and communist spirit of this outstanding personality are rare in the modern world.
Hoxha, Enver. With Stalin: Memoirs. Tirana: 8 N‘ntori Pub. House, 1979.

Basically,his more famous works were:

The Khruschevites,Theory and Practice of the Revolution, Imperialism and the Revolution, Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - Capitalist Theory and Practice, The Marxist-Leninist Movement and the World Crisis of Capitalism, Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism (Read this,as it shows the real problem of Eurocommunism,which is on the rise.)

There are also his memoirs and diaries,but they are not common to find in actual libraries,so the web will be your comrade there.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

16th April 2012, 21:30

Some of you guys act like babies. "Bananas! Bunkers! Bright colors! Stalin! Ismail! Ahhhhhhhhh!" Grow the fuck up. Also, don't make Albania threads. They degenerate into useless conversations about the things I listed above. Next time, just PM Ismail and that will be the end of it.

Ismail

16th April 2012, 22:58

Enver Hoxha was the leader of Albania, yes. He was a founding member of the Communist Party of Albania (renamed Party of Labour in 1948 at its First Congress), led the partisans in the National Liberation War against fascist occupation, and sought to construct socialism. Along the way he found it necessary to condemn revisionism since he, being a consistent communist, didn't like it. Thus he opposed Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao, the Eurocommunists (the PCI, PCF and PCE of the 1970's onwards who embraced reformism), and was in opposition also to Juche, to Pol Pot, to Castro, and basically anyone who sought to create nationalist deviations from Marxism-Leninism. He did not claim to be some sort of "innovator" of Marxism, unlike just about every other 'socialist' leader. He considered himself to be following the line of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, creatively applying Marxism-Leninism to the objective conditions of Albania.

He had a fairly interesting life and he did good things.

You can find some of his works here: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/enver_hoxha_books_on_foreign_languages.htm
and here: http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books.htm

Ostrinski

16th April 2012, 23:03

bunkers > bananas

Ismail

17th April 2012, 02:19

As a related note, Hoxha is basically considered to have been one of the most intellectually-minded communist leaders. He read Plato, Hume, Descartes, Kant, etc., he praised Molière and Liszt, he performed well academically, he knew various languages, read the Western press daily, and had random interests for a communist leader like archaeology and religious history (e.g. Muhammad and the early Caliphate.) Ramadan Marmullaku in his book Albania and the Albanians called him an "intellectual par excellence," James S. O'Donnell calls him the best-read head of state in Eastern Europe, Jon Halliday calls Hoxha "far too intelligent" compared to other Eastern Bloc leaders and some have compared him in this area to Ho Chi Minh, who also received a good education. Stalin and Molotov were actually suspicious of Hoxha at first because they thought he was uncommonly cultured (plus he had no links to the Comintern unlike Dimitrov, Ulbricht, Tito, and some other communist leaders post-WWII.)

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

17th April 2012, 08:26

Along the way he found it necessary to condemn revisionism since he, being a consistent communist, didn't like it. Thus he opposed Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Mao, the Eurocommunists (the PCI, PCF and PCE of the 1970's onwards who embraced reformism), and was in opposition also to Juche, to Pol Pot, to Castro, and basically anyone who sought to create nationalist deviations from Marxism-Leninism.
He had a fairly interesting life and he did good things.

What was the exact reason he was against Mao & Castro, I can understand why he was opposed to Juche and Pol Pot but not why he was against Mao & Castro.

Ismail

17th April 2012, 08:46

Mao led a bourgeois-democratic revolution, but posed as a Marxist-Leninist. In reality his Marxism was eclectic, he sought to transform China into a world power and promoted class collaboration at home and abroad. His "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" alienated the working-class from the CCP and was carried out in a way alien to actual Marxist-Leninists.

Castro, too, led a bourgeois-democratic revolution, and was openly anti-communist until the Americans viewed him as a threat to their imperial interests. Suddenly he became a "Marxist-Leninist" and slavishly followed the line of Soviet revisionism and social-imperialism to the very end. As was the case in China, Cuba's economy was built on a state-capitalist formation.

Hoxha's 1978 work Imperialism and the Revolution (http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm) deals with Mao and Maoism in its second part.

Art Vandelay

17th April 2012, 09:11

Ismail

17th April 2012, 09:22

I do not know a lot about economics, so I would be curious to know what you think the economic differences were between the USSR and say Cuba; or Albania and the USSR which made one socialist and the other state capitalist.Sure thing. See the links in my signature, specifically Bill Bland's "Open Letter" and "The Economics of Revisionism" before that. On Cuban state-capitalism the PLP had an interesting article entitled "Cuba's State-Capitalist Society: Castro's Phoney Communism" back in the 80's. PM me your email and I'll send it to you.

On China: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/chinecon.htm

Rooster

17th April 2012, 16:29

I've gone over that Economics of Revisionism and that open letter. They're both terrible documents that explain nothing, throw up a priori statements with no backing, are self contradictory and display quite a bit of distortion in the process. And that was just with the Economics of Revisionism.

I'm kinda ill so bare with me but the whole article is trash. For instance:

In the late 1920's and early 1930's industrial production was entirely taken over by the workers' state. And, after a period of intense class struggle in the countryside the class of rich peasants was abolished, and the poor and middle peasants, guided by the workers, organised themselves into collective farms. The collectivisation made possible the rapid industrialisation of the Soviet Union in the 1930's. It was also under the dictatorship of the proletariat, a means of guiding the peasant masses towards socialism. However, exchange between the public sector of the economy and the collectives continued to be commodity exchangeYeah, they organised themselves into collectives! The article doesn't really give any reasons for anything. It says that collectivisation made possible rapid industrialisation but doesn't say how or why. It also says bluntly with no justification that it was the DotP.

It also strangely contradicts itself. For instance it quotes both Engels and Lenin:

"The seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer." Engels
"Socialism, as is known, means the abolition of the commodity economy." LeninSaying clearly that socialism is the end of commodity production. It then goes on to say just a little later on that commodity production still existed in socialism.

For a certain period in the development of socialism, commodity production and circulation could play a positive role provided that the dictatorship of the proletariatThis also gives away the level of thought that this person has. It says the usual line that socialism is the dotp and it also has commodity production. It has the balls to go on to say later

The idea that capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production, and that socialism involves the abolition of the commodity economy, now becomes one of "Stalin's errors".Even though Stalin clearly said that there is commodity production in socialism in 1952.

"...at the present time the collective farms will not recognise any other economic relation with the town except the commodity relation - exchange through purchase and sale... commodity production and trade are as much a necessity with us today as they were, say, thirty years ago, when Lenin spoke of the necessity of developing trade to the utmost." StalinI know, I know, the squirmy stalinist excuse will be that commodity production is not in the highest phase as the article states, but commodity production under their own admission still existed as did commodity relations.

It complains that the revisionists say that socialism is the highest stage of commodity production. It also complains that the revisionists trade with the capitalist countries and accept the world market, even though it ignores that the "socialised" industrial production trades with the commodities of the collectivised farms. While just previously it said that there was in effect, two world markets. One in the socialist camp the other in the capitalist.

Oh man, under "what is socialism?" we have this:

What do we mean when we say that a country is a socialist country? Essentially we mean that in it labour is the dominant aspect of the contradiction between labour and capital. We do not mean that this contradiction has been eliminated. It exists, but labour has the upper hand. The state represents the interests of labour instead of the interests of capital.This is where I gave up. The article equates the lower phase of communism to the stalinist socialism, to the dotp and to commodity production (and capitalism). The whole thing is contradictory and relies on the complete belief that the USSR was socialist with no back up or reasoning why. It also gives no real reason why the economic mode of production under the revisionists was any different in principle from it under Stalin.

Man, I just look at it ant it says things like

It has always been held by Marxists that socialism would abolish the division of labour - another of "Stalin's errors" dating back to Marx and EngelsMarx and Engels never said anywhere about the abolition of the division of labour. They objected to what they called the natural division of labour in favour of one of free association.

Ismail

17th April 2012, 20:51

Yeah, they organised themselves into collectives! The article doesn't really give any reasons for anything. It says that collectivisation made possible rapid industrialisation but doesn't say how or why. It also says bluntly with no justification that it was the DotP.It made possible rapid industrialization because it aimed to mechanize agricultural labor and increase food output, something quite difficult when one is talking about a bunch of archaic individual farms that could barely provide for themselves. It also allowed the state to focus on industrialization, whereas before that the rural market would see things like price raises by kulaks during food shortages in the cities, which forced the government to pay extra for food, etc.

I know, I know, the squirmy stalinist excuse will be that commodity production is not in the highest phase as the article states, but commodity production under their own admission still existed as did commodity relations.Of course it did. What's your point? The difference is that Stalin recognized this as an impediment, the Soviet revisionists did not. Stalin proposed replacing commodity exchange in the countryside with products-exchange, and explicitly opposed disbanding the machine-tractor stations which limited commodity circulation in the countryside (and which were disbanded in 1957 under Khrushchev, who argued that they demonstrated Stalin's "distrust" of the peasantry.)

It also complains that the revisionists trade with the capitalist countries and accept the world market, even though it ignores that the "socialised" industrial production trades with the commodities of the collectivised farms.See above.

On products-exchange see: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm

Grenzer

17th April 2012, 21:01

Of course it did. What's your point? The difference is that Stalin recognized this as an impediment, the Soviet revisionists did not. Stalin proposed replacing commodity exchange in the countryside with products-exchange, and explicitly opposed disbanding the machine-tractor stations which limited commodity circulation in the countryside (and which were disbanded in 1957 under Khrushchev, who argued that they demonstrated Stalin's "distrust" of the peasantry.)

I think Rooster's point is that, on a qualitative level, a system in which generalised commodity production and generalised wage labor are the rule cannot by definition be considered socialism. Perhaps a dictatorship of the proletariat with a state capitalist economy building socialism, but not a socialist society. Simply recognizing that the existance of generalised commodity production is bad doesn't make it any closer to socialism, that's rooster's point.

Ismail

17th April 2012, 21:07

Stalin addressed the issue; see the second chapter, "Commodity Production Under Socialism," in his work: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/EPS52.html

In any case this thread is about Hoxha, not Stalin, commodities, or what have you. I'll probably split the thread if more posts are made in-re those subjects.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

17th April 2012, 21:21

Has Hoxha written anything on Yugoslavia or Tito?

Ismail

17th April 2012, 21:42

Has Hoxha written anything on Yugoslavia or Tito?Yes, Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - A Capitalist Theory and Practice. You can find it in the enverhoxha.ru link I provided in my first post in this thread. It's also contained within Volume V of his Selected Works which can also be downloaded there.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

17th April 2012, 21:57

Has Hoxha written anything on Yugoslavia or Tito?

Almost every single thing he wrote had the words "Tito," "Khrushchev," and "revisionist" all in the same sentence about 100 times. He really did not like Tito's revisionist ideas, such as self-management, peaceful co-existance on steroids, market socialism, and federalism. Here's a fun thing to do. Go to any Enver Hoxha archive like this one (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works-index.htm), click on any of his works, click CTRL+F, type in "Tito", and see how many times that word is used. This one (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/nov1960.htm) (Reject the Revisionist Theses of the XX Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Anti-Marxist Stand of Krushchev's Group! Uphold Marxism-Leninism!) had 79 mentions of the word Tito. It was not even about Tito. But, seeing that Comrade Enver Hoxha was correct in his analysis of Tito and revisionism, I do not want to shit on his memory too much.

If you want a really good work by him, here is something directly about Tito and the revisionist history/path of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia: Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - Capitalist Theory and Practice (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm). Pretty good for communists who think, "OMG, WORKERS MANAGED EVERYTHING! TITO WAS THE BOMB!"

Vyacheslav Brolotov

17th April 2012, 21:59

Yes, Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - A Capitalist Theory and Practice. You can find it in the enverhoxha.ru link I provided in my first post in this thread. It's also contained within Volume V of his Selected Works which can also be downloaded there.

Oops, I was typing while you wrote that down. Yeah, same work.

Also, RedRebel, I would suggest reading everything Hoxha wrote about revisionism. The most important things he had to say about Tito and his influence on other revisionists can be found in those works.

Omsk

17th April 2012, 22:04

RedRebel you should know that Hoxha and Tito were quite the rivals.Their alliance,'friendship' and links to the Comintern and Stalin were pretty strong,until the split happened.You should also note that Yugoslavia and Albania were the only Peoples Democracies which were in complete communist controll,after wwII,where a single vanguard communist party was in controll.The De-facto split between the CCCP and allied states,and Yugoslavia happened in 1948,when the quasi-right-wing cliqe around Tito showed their ulterior intensions and became openly hostile to the CCCP.

During the Informbiro period,Tito purged around 100.000 people,mostly "Stalinists" ,and "Anti-Partyists" .The 1948 events were a hard blow against Marxism-Leninism in the Balkans,and the CPY,which was one of the strongest parties,now remained in chaos,led by a wrong circle of men.Those who had their chance,either escaped to the CCCP or Albania,alternatively Romania,or tried to fight back,but the Yugoslav secret police tried to make sure no "traitors" would escape with their lives.

I am reading a book about the 1948 events and the "Stalinists" who were arrested and jailed,tortured,and i will try to write down the best parts,so i can post them here.

If you are interested,ask me anything about the CCCP-Tito split,that's my focus.

Rooster

18th April 2012, 15:02

Considering that the article refers to the economy of revisionism and hoxha is an anti-revisionist and that as communists, we deal mainly in economy and commodity production then i see no reason why the thread should be split. I'll deal with this later when i'm not on a phone. But to be brief, there is no great difference in the economic modes of production between the two apart from some idelogical positions nor with capitalist relations in general.

Brosip Tito

18th April 2012, 15:15

Hoxha was all for ending the exploitation of bunkers, and creating a dictatorship of the bunkers.

Bunkers, under Hoxha, was the biggest class, population-wise. Therefore, his revolution was not bunker in nature, but he soon turned the nation into a Bunkerist paradise.

Sadly, he could not complete his Bunkers in one nation, and failed to eliminate the other classes in society. The dictatorship of the bunkers fell.

I still shed a tear for every bunker that lost hope the day Hoxha died...

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

18th April 2012, 15:52

The bunker jokes ended a page ago.

Brosip Tito

18th April 2012, 20:08

The bunker jokes ended a page ago.
I am being quite serious.

Grenzer

18th April 2012, 20:23

The bunker jokes are really stupid, to be honest.

The defense of Albania was a very serious concern for the regime, and when put into historical perspective, it makes sense.

Before Albania was formed around World War I, there was much talk over whether there should even be an Albania at all. Many countries would have preferred simply to partition it up. In the end, Albania did get its sovereignty, but some countries like Greece did take slices of its territory for themselves. The Greek fascination with annexing parts of Albania is a recurring theme over the next few decades; and then of course there was the Italian interest in annexing Albania, which they had attempted during the course of World War II.

By the end of World War II, the Albanian Marxist-Leninists were in control of the country, and the prospect of an independent Albania in the Soviet bloc was most displeasing to the West, so Britain and America backed Greece's attempt to try to swallow up parts of Albania, once again. Albania became allied with Yugoslavia, which put an end to Greece's designs on Albania. However, Yugoslavia began using its increasing political and economic influence within Albania to start purging the Albanian CP of those party members who would fight for a free Albania, and began replacing them with Tito's cronies. The eventual goal was the Yugoslavian annexation of Albania. The only thing that saved Albania was Yugoslavia's timely de facto expulsion for the Comintern by Stalin.

From this time onwards, Yugoslavia remained hostile to Albania, but Stalin's support ensured that Tito was powerless to threaten Albania. After Stalin's death, Khrushchev pursued a policy of rapprochement with Tito, which treated Albania once again. As time passed, Khrushchev became increasingly hostile towards Albania and in 1959 or 1960, there was a coup attempted by a Soviet trained Albanian officer. Albania was once again surrounded by hostile imperialists intent on dominating it and carving it up. It was Albania's alliance with China that proved to be pretty timely, and this alliance had begun in 1956 or so.

So in all, Albania has pretty much been surrounded by imperialists hell bent on fucking it over since the country's creation. I'm not really sure what's so amusing about it attempting to ensure its defense. Just sayin'.

I'm not a Hoxhaist or anything, and I know a lot of left communists are a fan of the whole "Everything is the 'left of capital' therefore fascism, social-democracy, liberalism, stalinism, and trotskyism are all identical so we don't need to make a critical analysis" thing, but I think that's dumb. When you do examine the conditions, the decision was justified by the conditions and the regime's internal logic, so saying that Hoxha "was insane" or "delusional" can not really be justified.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

18th April 2012, 20:44

Bunkers, under Hoxha, was the biggest class, population-wise.

Nope. There were about 700,000 bunkers built during the socialist era. That was about one bunker for every 4 citizens. There were still way more proletarians and peasants than bunkers, so shut up.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

18th April 2012, 20:47

From Wikipedia about the use of Albanian bunkers ever since the fall of the Socialist People's Republic:

A few briefly saw use in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s but their most common use now is said to be as a convenient place for young Albanians to lose their virginity.

:laugh:

Rafiq

18th April 2012, 21:15

Just another agent of capital draped in red. Move along.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

18th April 2012, 21:17

Just another agent of capital draped in red. Move along.

Care to explain?

Vyacheslav Brolotov

18th April 2012, 21:38

Just another agent of capital draped in red. Move along.

Ha, you and your cult of ultra-leftist losers have no proof to back up your bullshit claims. :lol:

You just did that to get thanks from tons of people.

Caj

18th April 2012, 21:52

Ha, you and your cult of ultra-leftist losers have no proof to back up your bullshit claims. :lol:

You just did that to get thanks from tons of people.

Is everybody who disagrees with you an "ultra-leftist"?

Grenzer

18th April 2012, 21:55

Ha, you and your cult of ultra-leftist losers have no proof to back up your bullshit claims. :lol:

You just did that to get thanks from tons of people.

First of all, Rafiq isn't an ultra-leftist. He is against the fetishization of spontaneity, and is for a one party state. He's more of a genuine Marxist and Leninist than most Trotskyists and Stalinists here by a long shot.

Secondly, the so called "ultra-leftists" have the Stalinists outnumbered more than two-to-one on this subject.

Thirdly, generalised wage labor and commodity production were the rule in Albania, the Soviet Union, and all the other places which claimed to be socialist. They utilized the capitalist mode of production and never surpassed capital. They were ordinary bourgeois dictatorships which used red rhetoric and social-democratic policies.

Among other things, socialism requires the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elimination of markets and the implementation of a planned economy, and the elimination of private property, generalised wage labour, and generalised commodity production. Under Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Russia briefly met the first of these conditions. No state has ever come close to having met all of them.

Rooster

18th April 2012, 22:06

Under Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Russia briefly met the first of these conditions.of them.

I think it's worth pointing out that this happened rather independently from the actions of the Bolsheviks and was a result of the general collapse of the economy.

Ismail

18th April 2012, 22:47

As a note, in the late 70's and early 80's there was an attempt in Albania to completely eliminate private plots in the collectives (that was basically the last outpost of private property), but it started to result in peasants slaughtering cattle and such, and food production was thus threatened, so they stopped as a tactical retreat thing (although after 1986 it was effectively stopped for good.)

The Albanian government had the goal of, within decades pretty much, transforming all the collectives into "property of the entire people," that is, state farms, whereas in neighboring countries collectives were either disbanded (Poland) or liberalized (everywhere else.)

Not to mention that taxes were abolished in 1968 and price controls were absolute (the prices for many goods were unchanged from the 1950's-1990), not allowed to be used as "levers" unlike Soviet revisionist economics. Not to mention that the 1976 Constitution outlawed the seeking of foreign credit, the establishment of joint enterprises with capitalist or revisionist states, and made international trade based on the concept of exchanging goods (i.e. barter.)

Rafiq

18th April 2012, 23:34

Ha, you and your cult of ultra-leftist losers have no proof to back up your bullshit claims. :lol:

You just did that to get thanks from tons of people.

Actually, if anything I was expecting several Neg Reps as majority of users in this thread are Marxist Leninists.

My point was, anyway, Hoxha isn't special, and the very act of trying to rehabilitate him as something relevant if anything aids to the obscure fantasy that is Hoxhaist Ideology.

Ismail

18th April 2012, 23:43

As opposed to "Orthodox Marxism" which is finding a resurgence... on the internet. And some guys who obsess over Žižek.

Also you weren't saying that just a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago Hoxha was evil and crazy and insane and delusional and banned bananas. Now he "isn't special."

There's no need to rehabilitate him. DNZ, meanwhile, is trying to rehabilitate Kautsky and Lasalle.

Vyacheslav Brolotov

18th April 2012, 23:46

Oh no! Here we go again. LOL

Art Vandelay

19th April 2012, 00:02

I think this is a legitimate thing to bring up and something I have never really seen properly addressed. If I am not mistaken, M-L's or Hoxahists, believe that Stalin and Hoxha were correctly implementing socialism and things only went down hill when revisionist policies were adopted?

Ismail

19th April 2012, 00:07

If I am not mistaken, M-L's or Hoxahists, believe that Stalin and Hoxha were correctly implementing socialism and things only went down hill when revisionist policies were adopted?Yes. From the 1950's onwards socialist construction was no longer pursued in the USSR and, by extension, in most of the Eastern Bloc states (excepting Albania, which irritated the Soviets), and from the 1960's a process of capitalist restoration began. At that point only proletarian revolution was the solution.

Art Vandelay

19th April 2012, 00:19

Yes. From the 1950's onwards socialist construction was no longer pursued in the USSR and, by extension, in most of the Eastern Bloc states (excepting Albania, which irritated the Soviets), and from the 1960's a process of capitalist restoration began. At that point only proletarian revolution was the solution.

Two further questions:

a) So the success of the revolution relies upon purging non-genuine socialists from the party?

b) How can that be considered a materialist analysis? It sounds like a great man
theory of history to me.

Ismail

19th April 2012, 00:27

a) So the success of the revolution relies upon purging non-genuine socialists from the party?No. Of course in the USSR and Albania that was conducted, but that is not sufficient. It doesn't account for revisionists who are outwardly loyal and who only promote reactionary policies when the coast is clear for them to do so. Khrushchev, after all, was one of the foremost promoters of the cult of personality around Stalin when he was alive, as was Ramiz Alia around Hoxha.

It sounds like a great man theory of history to me.It isn't, otherwise Stalin wouldn't have had to combat revisionist trends with his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. The problem of bureaucracy, of education, etc. extended from Lenin's day. When Stalin died it is a fact that revisionists rose up, that Khrushchev denounced the "cult of the individual" and Stalin's supposed "dogmatism" in economic and international affairs, etc. Revisionist forces which were kept in check under Stalin were allowed to roam free; Marxist-Leninists were expelled from the Party as "anti-party elements."

Stalin could not somehow destroy the basis for revisionism all by himself. He tried, of course. He stressed near the end of his life some anti-bureaucratic measures, some measures of improving propaganda work amongst the masses, and of course he wrote on economics. But that was not sufficient.

Rooster

19th April 2012, 00:34

It made possible rapid industrialization because it aimed to mechanize agricultural labor and increase food output, something quite difficult when one is talking about a bunch of archaic individual farms that could barely provide for themselves. It also allowed the state to focus on industrialization, whereas before that the rural market would see things like price raises by kulaks during food shortages in the cities, which forced the government to pay extra for food, etc.

I see that you ignored the concept of socialist primitive accumulation. How exactly does one turn a peasant into a proletariat? Besides, you probably intentionally missed the point I was making that peasants didn't spontaneously collectivise themselves (as it's clearly against their class interests). Kulaks this, kulaks that, they're just rich peasants. Never the less, exchange between the public sector, presumably the socialist, continued to be one of commodity exchange between the collective farms.

Of course it did. What's your point?

Did you not read where it contradicted itself? Also, why is it okay for commodity exchange to happen within a nation but not without?

The difference is that Stalin recognized this as an impediment, the Soviet revisionists did not. Stalin proposed replacing commodity exchange in the countryside with products-exchange, and explicitly opposed disbanding the machine-tractor stations which limited commodity circulation in the countryside (and which were disbanded in 1957 under Khrushchev, who argued that they demonstrated Stalin's "distrust" of the peasantry.)

Commodity production still existed in the USSR and Albania. How can you not understand that this is contrary to what socialism is? Why are you also not saying anything about where the article states the the lower phase of communism is the stalinist idea of socialism, which is their idea of the Dotp? I don't really care who said what.

See above.

On products-exchange see: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm

Are you serious about that text? It opens with:

One of the greatest of Comrade Stalin’s scientific discoveries contained in his new work of genius, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.

Yeah, that's going to be a great exposition on economics. I'll read it in a bit and laugh it at. I can tell as it says, straight faced no less that:

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 recorded the fact that socialism in the main had been constructed.

A fact, huh?

Ug, this is going to be a chore. It's the same old reformist social democracy crap that Stalinists usually spit out:

The CPSU (b) thereafter began to consider the tasks of the completion of the advance to a classless socialist society and the gradual establishment of communism. .

Incidentally, what about this division of labour that Marx and Engels talks about?

Art Vandelay

19th April 2012, 00:35

No. Of course in the USSR and Albania that was conducted, but that is not sufficient. It doesn't account for revisionists who are outwardly loyal and who only promote reactionary policies when the coast is clear for them to do so. Khrushchev, after all, was one of the foremost promoters of the cult of personality around Stalin when he was alive, as was Ramiz Alia around Hoxha.

It isn't, otherwise Stalin wouldn't have had to combat revisionist trends with his work Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. The problem of bureaucracy, of education, etc. extended from Lenin's day. When Stalin died it is a fact that revisionists rose up, that Khrushchev denounced the "cult of the individual" and Stalin's supposed "dogmatism" in economic and international affairs, etc. Revisionist forces which were kept in check under Stalin were allowed to roam free; Marxist-Leninists were expelled from the Party as "anti-party elements."

Stalin could not somehow destroy the basis for revisionism all by himself. He tried, of course. He stressed near the end of his life some anti-bureaucratic measures, some measures of improving propaganda work amongst the masses, and of course he wrote on economics. But that was not sufficient.

So then what needs to be done to assure that this will not happen again? How does a party propose to keep out all revisionist elements? To me it seems impossible, which is why power needs to be destroyed not seized.

Ismail

19th April 2012, 00:38

How exactly does one turn a peasant into a proletariat?By turning their property into the property of the whole people; by making their income come not from their land, but from their work.

Besides, you probably intentionally missed the point I was making that peasants didn't spontaneously collectivise themselves (as it's clearly against their class interests). Kulaks this, kulaks that, they're just rich peasants. Never the less, exchange between the public sector, presumably the socialist, continued to be one of commodity exchange between the collective farms.There were various instances of peasants voluntarily joining collectives. And yes, kulaks were rich peasants. What's your point? The Bolsheviks separated the peasantry into poor, middle, and rich strata, each of which had their own differences in how they viewed the state and each other.

And again, Stalin did call for the gradual abolition of commodity exchange in the countryside.

Commodity production still existed in the USSR and Albania. How can you not understand that this is contrary to what socialism is? Why are you also not saying anything about where the article states the the lower phase of communism is the stalinist idea of socialism, which is their idea of the Dotp? I don't really care who said what.What is the "Stalinist idea of socialism"? There is only the scientific conception of socialism, as was carried forward by Lenin and Stalin.

Stalin outlined the role of commodity production in socialism. Lenin outlined its role to an extent as well.

Yeah, that's going to be a great exposition on economics.Why wouldn't it be? It was a Soviet text written in 1953. Of course it's going to have kind words for Stalin.

So then what needs to be done to assure that this will not happen again? How does a party propose to keep out all revisionist elements? To me it seems impossible, which is why power needs to be destroyed not seized.The question, of course, is related to education and the active involvement of workers in the state apparatus. In both the USSR and Albania at different times progress was made in both directions, but obviously not to a sufficient extent, largely in part due to the cultural and economic backwardness prevalent in both states.

Rooster

19th April 2012, 00:57

By turning their property into the property of the whole people; by making their income come not from their land, but from their work.

Yeah, that's how you make a proletariat, obviously. Nothing about dispossessing them.

There were various instances of peasants voluntarily joining collectives. And yes, kulaks were rich peasants. What's your point? The Bolsheviks separated the peasantry into poor, middle, and rich strata, each of which had their own differences in how they viewed the state and each other.

Various instances, okay, but on the whole it was one of forced expropriation. The separation of the peasant class into different strata was wrong. It doesn't matter how they viewed it. A peasant is a peasant with their own class interests. They on the whole did not collectivise themselves. The article is wrong.

And again, Stalin did call for the gradual abolition of commodity exchange in the countryside.

While at the same time calling it socialist? Yeah, reformism at it's best.

What is the "Stalinist idea of socialism"? There is only the scientific conception of socialism, as was carried forward by Lenin and Stalin.

Oh fuck off. Haha. Look, where does Marx say that the lowest form of communism is the Dotp?

Stalin outlined the role of commodity production in socialism. Lenin outlined its role to an extent as well.

Yeah, where Lenin said that socialism is the abolition of commodity production, but where Engels says that the seizure of the means of production by society puts an end to commodity production, and therewith to the domination of the product over the producer. So even with collectivised farms there still existed commodity production?

Why wouldn't it be? It was a Soviet text written in 1953. Of course it's going to have kind words for Stalin.

I'll read it in depth later and have a good laugh at all the rhetoric in it. Of course it will have kind words for Stalin, haha :lol:

And why are you missing so much from my previous posts? What about the soviet constitution of 1936 where it said that education would be free but a fee years later education fees were introduced? Or where it says that socialism consists of more than one class (or any classes)? Where does it say this anywhere in the works of marx and engels? You're putting up a pretty piss poor defence here of your soviet economics.

Die Neue Zeit

19th April 2012, 03:15

As opposed to "Orthodox Marxism" which is finding a resurgence... on the internet.

The resurgence is due to the common lack of durable strategy shared by Hoxhaists, Maoists, Trotskyists, etc.

There's no need to rehabilitate him. DNZ, meanwhile, is trying to rehabilitate Kautsky and Lasalle.

And with good reason. :)

Ismail

19th April 2012, 03:24

Oh fuck off. Haha. Look, where does Marx say that the lowest form of communism is the Dotp?Nowhere? Where do Lenin and Stalin say that?

So even with collectivised farms there still existed commodity production?Yes. I don't get your point here.

What about the soviet constitution of 1936 where it said that education would be free but a fee years later education fees were introduced?Give proof of this.

Or where it says that socialism consists of more than one class (or any classes)? Where does it say this anywhere in the works of marx and engels?"We have achieved only the first, the lower phase, of communism. Even this first phase of communism, socialism, is far from being completed, it is built only in the rough.

In our country the parasitic classes, i.e., all and sundry capitalists and little capitalists, have been liquidated. Thanks to this, the exploitation of man by man has been abolished. This is not only a gigantic step forward in the lives of the peoples of our country, but also a gigantic step forward along the road of emancipation of the whole of mankind.

We, however, have not fully carried out the task of abolishing classes, although the working class of the U.S.S.R. which is in power is no longer a proletariat in the strict sense of the word, and the peasantry, the great bulk of which has joined the collective farms, is no longer the old peasantry.

Both the two classes which exist in the U.S.S.R. are building socialism and come within the system of socialist economy. But although both are in the same system of socialist economy, the working class in its work is bound up with state socialist property (the property of the whole people), while the collective farm peasantry is bound up with cooperative and collective farm property which belongs to individual collective farms and to collective-farm and cooperative associations. This connection with different forms of socialist property primarily determines the different position of these classes. This also determine the somewhat different paths of further development of each of them.

What is common in the development of these two classes is that both are developing in the direction of communism. As this proceeds the difference in their class positions will be gradually obliterated until here too the last remnants of class distinctions finally disappear.

We cannot but realize that this is a long road."
(V.M. Molotov. The Constitution of Socialism: Speech Delivered at the Extraordinary Eighth Congress of Soviets of the U.S.S.R., November 29, 1936. Co-operative Publishing Society of Workers in the U.S.S.R.: Moscow. 1937. pp. 28-29.)

I was unaware Engels lived to see 1917, let alone the 1930's. Thus there are no words from him concerning this.

You're putting up a pretty piss poor defence here of your soviet economics.Do you really think I care much about arguing about economics with a guy who says that there's no real difference between Marxism and anarchism?

Die Neue Zeit

19th April 2012, 03:24

Thirdly, generalised wage labor and commodity production were the rule in Albania, the Soviet Union, and all the other places which claimed to be socialist. They utilized the capitalist mode of production and never surpassed capital. They were ordinary bourgeois dictatorships which used red rhetoric and social-democratic policies.

Among other things, socialism requires the dictatorship of the proletariat, the elimination of markets and the implementation of a planned economy, and the elimination of private property, generalised wage labour, and generalised commodity production. Under Lenin and the Bolsheviks, Russia briefly met the first of these conditions. No state has ever come close to having met all of them.

First, there are good grounds, comrade, for disagreeing with portions of what you said, most notably the usage of the word "capitalist."

Second, wage labour isn't by itself. It is part and parcel of generalized commodity production. Unlike markets, wage labour is firmly tied into GCP.

Third, it is the lower phase of the communist mode of production, to be way more accurate, that requires the last four of the five elements you mentioned (since the DOTP will have been passe).

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

19th April 2012, 03:44

Rafiq

20th April 2012, 00:20

As opposed to "Orthodox Marxism" which is finding a resurgence... on the internet. And some guys who obsess over Žižek.

Yeah, Orthodox Marxism is irrelevant, Lenin was Irrelevant, as well, I guess. Too bad any serious Marxist in the early period of the 20th century was an Orthodox Marxist. How many massive scale movements (Similiar to the Bolsheviks and the Pre war SPD) were Hoxhite?

And, yes, I "Obsess" over Zizek because I think sometimes he's useful. You're spot on.

In truth, Ismail, you rely on the notion that everyone has someone to obsess over. This is far from the case, actually, it is only you who has an obsession with an Individual, Hoxha. Not many other people do. It's understandable you'd accuse me of obsessing over him when you cannot even conceive the very concept of just a tad upholding partially someone's works without obsessing over them. Really, it's quite sad.

Also you weren't saying that just a few weeks ago. A few weeks ago Hoxha was evil and crazy and insane and delusional and banned bananas. Now he "isn't special."

Why does him being a delusional, crazy motherfucker somehow conflict with him not being special? Kim Il Sung was similar in nature, so was alot of the other leaders of sociailst countries. Hoxha wasn't special at all.

There's no need to rehabilitate him.

He was only relevant in Albania at the time. So yes, you're rehabilitating a dead Ideology and a Man whom no one cares about, the very bringing up of his name in positive ways continuously counts as rehabilitation.

What, do you think Hoxha is this all powerful and influential Man who does not require any rehabilitation to praise? As if his concepts and works were not thrown down the shitter some twenty years ago.

DNZ, meanwhile, is trying to rehabilitate Kautsky and Lasalle.

Perhaps, maybe, because Pre War Kautsky was the "Pope" Of Marxism while Lasalle had a tremendous amount of influence on the working class of his area. Maybe, just maybe, some of those individuals had concepts worthy of speculating and maybe, just maybe rehabilitating.

Hoxha, on the other hand, assured the basis for any ideological view he had was a direct connection with his grudge for Tito. That really sums it up. All of Hoxha's views are about hating Tito and Yugoslavia, that is what separates him from the rest of the bunch. Just like Kim Il Sungs unhealthy cult of personality (Which, to some extent did exist in Albania too, with Hoxha) separated him. They were all fucked up little shit heads in their own, very special ways.

So, with this collective of fuck ups, he was not special, so I say to all, move along, just another bastard draped in Red while kissing the ass of capital.

Ismail

20th April 2012, 10:02

Yeah, Orthodox Marxism is irrelevant, Lenin was Irrelevant, as well, I guess. Too bad any serious Marxist in the early period of the 20th century was an Orthodox Marxist. How many massive scale movements (Similiar to the Bolsheviks and the Pre war SPD) were Hoxhite?How many "Orthodox Marxists" launched revolutions? I'll make it more challenging: Lenin, who you'd call an "Orthodox Marxist," is excluded from this criteria.

You aren't an "Orthodox Marxist." Unless you were born circa 1850-1900 and spent the period of 1916-2011 frozen in time, you're an eclectic using a dumb term ("Orthodox" belongs to religious usage) also used by certain dumb people in general.

Why does him being a delusional, crazy motherfucker somehow conflict with him not being special? Kim Il Sung was similar in nature, so was alot of the other leaders of sociailst countries. Hoxha wasn't special at all.Neither Hoxha nor Kim Il Sung nor "alot (sic.) of the other leaders of socialist countries" were "crazy motherfucker(s)." I don't know what makes Hoxha delusional or crazy, maybe you can enlighten me?

He was only relevant in Albania at the time. So yes, you're rehabilitating a dead Ideology and a Man whom no one cares about, the very bringing up of his name in positive ways continuously counts as rehabilitation.How many people care about Kautsky? Name a Kautskyist party that did anything for the working-class in the 20th century ("pre-war SPD," which quickly became pro-war SPD, doesn't count.)

What, do you think Hoxha is this all powerful and influential Man who does not require any rehabilitation to praise? As if his concepts and works were not thrown down the shitter some twenty years ago.Kautsky was "thrown down the shitter" over 50 years ago when the SPD formally disconnected itself from Marxism. Again, what's your point? Using this logic Marxism as an ideology was "thrown down the shitter" in 1991, unless you think the ordinary worker cares one bit about Žižek or Kautsky or any prominent Marxist including Marx and Engels themselves (and yes, the worker cares little for Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Hoxha or Mao at the present moment as well.)

Perhaps, maybe, because Pre War Kautsky was the "Pope" Of Marxism while Lasalle had a tremendous amount of influence on the working class of his area.So what? Workers in Sweden were pretty much firmly behind Swedish social-democracy all the way into the 90's. To this day many workers in China think that the CCP somehow represents their interests.

Maybe, just maybe, some of those individuals had concepts worthy of speculating and maybe, just maybe rehabilitating.Rehabilitating from what? That which was opportunist was unmasked by Lenin, Luxemburg and other revolutionaries.

Hoxha, on the other hand, assured the basis for any ideological view he had was a direct connection with his grudge for Tito. That really sums it up. All of Hoxha's views are about hating Tito and Yugoslavia, that is what separates him from the rest of the bunch.Which is why he vowed to defend Yugoslavia from a Soviet invasion from 1968 onwards. Which is why Hoxha welcomed the prospect of good trade relations with Yugoslavia in the 70's and in fact Yugoslavia became its biggest trading partner by the early 80's.

Of course he opposed Titoism quite strongly, and he certainly had good reasons rooted in material conditions as well as ideology, like the fact that Tito tried to annex Albania and probably would have had Hoxha shot. Or the fact that Yugoslavia endorsed attempts to overthrow Hoxha in the late 40's and early 50's. Unless you'd like to praise Tito, I don't see why firmly opposing Titoism (which China did too until the 70's, FYI) is apparently something that no one except Hoxha could contemplate doing, as if the Cominform didn't identify Titoism as a renegade and revisionist trend within the international communist movement.

So, with this collective of fuck ups, he was not special, so I say to all, move along, just another bastard draped in Red while kissing the ass of capital.As opposed to Kautsky, who almost literally did kiss the ass of German capital and endorse the participation of the working-class in inter-imperialist butchery. Feel free to tell me what imperialist wars Hoxha endorsed, or how capital entered Albania under his administration.

Brosip Tito

20th April 2012, 13:52

How many "Orthodox Marxists" launched revolutions? I'll make it more challenging: Lenin, who you'd call an "Orthodox Marxist," is excluded from this criteria.Spartacus League.

You aren't an "Orthodox Marxist." Unless you were born circa 1850-1900 and spent the period of 1916-2011 frozen in time, you're an eclectic using a dumb term ("Orthodox" belongs to religious usage) also used by certain dumb people in general.Orthodox doesn't "belong" to any specific set of ideas, be it religion, or political theory. It's a word.

It is outdated, however, that's for sure.

Neither Hoxha nor Kim Il Sung nor "alot (sic.) of the other leaders of socialist countries" were "crazy motherfucker(s)." I don't know what makes Hoxha delusional or crazy, maybe you can enlighten me?Bananas, beards. The shit doesn't fall far from the bat. That, and he was a capitalist dictator.

How many people care about Kautsky? Name a Kautskyist party that did anything for the working-class in the 20th century ("pre-war SPD," which quickly became pro-war SPD, doesn't count.)Kautskyist nowadays are just as revisionist as he is. The number of parties, or revolutions, doesn't credit a set of ideas or theories as correct.

However, taking into account his pre-revisionist days, when he was very influential on Lenin and many others, shouldn't be disregarded altogether, even if Lenin eventually disowned Kautsky, of course. (but it took until 1914 for him to do it, due to his not getting involved in german politics, and focusing on russia at the time. He didn't witness the "fight" against Kautsky's revisionism, and kept his views from many years before.)

On October 27, 1914, Lenin wrote to A. Shlyapnikov: “I hate and despise Kautsky now more than anyone, with his vile, dirty, self-satisfied hypocrisy ... Rosa Luxemburg was right when she wrote, long ago, that Kautsky has the ‘subservience of a theoretician’ – servility, in plainer language, servility to the majority of the party, to opportunism”

So what? Workers in Sweden were pretty much firmly behind Swedish social-democracy all the way into the 90's. To this day many workers in China think that the CCP somehow represents their interests.As all capitalist workers believe that capitalism (or what they may think they have -- be it communism or socialism) represents their interests.

Kautsky had a lot of influence on Lenin, and others, before he showed his revisionist stripes.

Also, a small point, it doesn't matter how many revolutions a tendency has had. That makes no fucking sense, because tendencies don't have revolutions, people do.

Tendencies can be the guiding force of policy and theory in a revolution, and whether or not said revolution will be successful in the long run.

If you want to give credit to ideas based on how many revolutions they "led", then we must take into account all liberal revolutions such as the American, Libyan, etc. Surely, they have more credit than all the variants of Marxism now, because liberal-bourgeois-democracy has had the most revolutions so far!

Ismail

20th April 2012, 14:01

Orthodox doesn't "belong" to any specific set of ideas, be it religion, or political theory. It's a word.Then one should apply it as such, not name oneself an "orthodox Marxist" or label anyone living in the past 80 years or so as one.

Bananas, beards. The shit doesn't fall far from the bat.What about bananas?

Beards were banned because they were associated either with tribal elders or senior religious figures in Islam and Orthodox (see? a proper usage of the word) Christianity. I don't see how that's "batshit." Beards weren't a fashion statement in Albanian society, they were an indication of social status. Not like they airbrushed Marx's beard out of portraits or anything.

So you have no evidence he was insane. Which is nice, because he, again, was considered one of Eastern Europe's smartest and astute leaders.

The number of parties, or revolutions, doesn't credit a set of ideas or theories as correct.Quite right. This is why talking about how the international pro-Albanian tendency was "thrown down the shitter" is irrelevant.

Kautsky had a lot of influence on Lenin, and others, before he showed his revisionist stripes.Yes, and? Moses Hess had a lot of influence on Marx before Marx realized that a lot of Hess' views expressed utopian and unscientific sentiments. How many "Hessians" exist today? Lenin and every other Marxist took what was good about Kautsky and denounced what was bad about him. Unless you think that Marxism is in some sort of theoretical crisis for some reason, I don't see the need to invent ideologies with cackhanded "theories" backing them.

Also, a small point, it doesn't matter how many revolutions a tendency has had. That makes no fucking sense, because tendencies don't have revolutions, people do.I concur, see above.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

20th April 2012, 14:37

Ismail, can you tell me how Hoxha, or his party, came to power in Albania?

Ismail

20th April 2012, 15:41

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

20th April 2012, 16:01

And after his dead, what happened to the leadership, was it like the SU and taken over by revisionists?

Ismail

20th April 2012, 16:11

Ramiz Alia, Adil Çarçani and other leading leading figures within the Party of Labour after Hoxha's death pursued a course to the right of Hoxha in domestic and international affairs. In 1988 Çarçani reversed the Albanian position on the GDR and called it "socialist," and in January 1990 Alia proposed a halfway mixture between Khrushchevite and Gorbachev-esque economic "reforms," which deepened as the months passed. In 1992 Alia, Çarçani and others emerged as open social-democrats. So yes, as was the case in the USSR, revisionism overtook the leading ranks of the Party. "Hardliners" were removed from any positions of influence in the 1989-1991 period.

Alfonso Cano

20th April 2012, 16:19

Beards were banned because they were associated either with tribal elders or senior religious figures in Islam and Orthodox (see? a proper usage of the word) Christianity. I don't see how that's "batshit." Beards weren't a fashion statement in Albanian society, they were an indication of social status. Not like they airbrushed Marx's beard out of portraits or anything.

It should be also mentioned that many other regimes during human history had negative views on the beards, seeing it as a sign of backwardness and primitivism. Yet, none of them was considered insane. Peter the Great, for example, also totally banned beards in Russia, yet he is still considered one of the greatest Russians.

The same goes with bunkers. When France was threatened with German invasion, they built the famous Maginot line, at a incredible cost and in time when many French people were unemployed, homelless and living in poverty due to Great Depression. Yet, somehow France qualifies as a "democracy" and its leaders are considered sane. On the other hand, Albania which was threatened by Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy, Great Britain and NATO is forbidden to build a complex of defensive bunkers, despite the dangers the country faced, and its leader is considered a "crazy dictator", despite leading a country that eliminated unemployment, homelessness and having the most egalitarian wage gap in the world and its bunkers actually being effective national defence (country was never attacked), unlike the French Maginot line which was the most useless thing ever made.

Omsk

20th April 2012, 17:31

This all is exactly what threads such as this one come down to,because people would rather skip reading about the actual events in Yugoslavia and Albania post 1944 (I included the year 1944 because it is the year when the Nazi war-machine de-facto lost it's strenght and focus on the Balkans,going north to defend the Reich itself,while the fight in the Balkans,was left to the Axis controlled regimes of home-traitors,like the various Yugoslav nationalist movements,and various Balkan nationalist units.) and get the criticism related to people such as Hoxha to - he banned beards! (No,he did not ban short beards,but religion related beards,which were common to Ortodox Christian,and Islamic religious figures,and these figures were notorious in the period because of their open hostility toward the revolutionaries and their support for the nationalists,the same thing was going on in Yugoslavia,although as far as i know it got less atention.)

However,as much as some people seem to enjoy talking about trivial subjects such as beards or some other outright slander,i'd rather spend my time writing about the fates of the 16.312 people who were imprisoned in the Yugoslav camp Goli Otok for being Marxists-Leninists,of which,12 actually took part in the October Revolution,36 were fighters from the Spanish Civil War,268 were members of the party even before WWII,1673 who had some of the highest rewards for service and for the fight against the Nazi invader,some 2300 officers.

Some of you may insist that this has little to do with Enver Hoxha,but believe me,the 1948 events were a part of the bigger picture,which had a lot to do with Stalin,Tito and Hoxha.

Brosip Tito

20th April 2012, 21:38

Then one should apply it as such, not name oneself an "orthodox Marxist" or label anyone living in the past 80 years or so as one.It's a word that can be applied where appropriate, including Marxism -- altohugh I don't see a point in referring to ones self as an orthodox Marxist. Orthodox means:

(of a person or their views, esp. religious or political ones) Conforming to what is accepted as right or true: "orthodox Hindus".
(of a person) Not independent-minded; unoriginal: "a relatively orthodox artist".

What about bananas?
Amongst the random shit he banned.

Beards were banned because they were associated either with tribal elders or senior religious figures in Islam and Orthodox (see? a proper usage of the word) Christianity. I don't see how that's "batshit." Beards weren't a fashion statement in Albanian society, they were an indication of social status. Not like they airbrushed Marx's beard out of portraits or anything.That's a reason to be opposed to beards, not to ban them.

So you have no evidence he was insane. Which is nice, because he, again, was considered one of Eastern Europe's smartest and astute leaders.No evidence he was sane either. Burden of proof, of course, is on me. But, banning bananas, and whatnot is pretty cooky.

Quite right. This is why talking about how the international pro-Albanian tendency was "thrown down the shitter" is irrelevant.
Quite.

Yes, and? Moses Hess had a lot of influence on Marx before Marx realized that a lot of Hess' views expressed utopian and unscientific sentiments. How many "Hessians" exist today? Lenin and every other Marxist took what was good about Kautsky and denounced what was bad about him. Unless you think that Marxism is in some sort of theoretical crisis for some reason, I don't see the need to invent ideologies with cackhanded "theories" backing them.
It doesn't totally disregard Kautsky's thought and ideas prior to his revision and opportunism. That's my point.

Rooster

20th April 2012, 21:50

You should be asking what kind of input or decision the workers had in production, Order Reigns.

Alfonso Cano

20th April 2012, 23:23

Amongst the random shit he banned.

Conservativism is a phenomenon that is present among quite a few people, even among the Communists. For instance; if you read Engels, you will find several places at which he makes homophobic comments. Does that disqualifies him as one of the founders of Marxism? The same goes for Hoxha. A few excesses don't reduce or negate his contributions which were enormous. It is quite easy to sit behind a computer and play a perfect revolutionary with no faults and quite the other to actually do something yourself, which ultra-leftists never had. How about you make a revolution and then we can all gather around you and criticize you for your shortcomings as you do with Hoxha. :)

That's a reason to be opposed to beards, not to ban them.

So, Peter the Great was a lunatic because he banned beards? :confused:

No evidence he was sane either.

Insane persons cannot eliminate illiteracy, unemployment, woman oppression, build nationwide healthcare system, achieve some of the fastest industrial growth rates with their mental state. So, basically, Hoxha is mad for achieving that, but what about Sali Berisha, the guy who managed to totally ruin his country to the point he needed foreign intervention in 1997 to keep himself in power? I suppose he is totally OK considering that, after all, Albanians today have BAAAAAAAAAAAANANAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

This could be described as a new theoretical contribution of Comrade Order Reigns in the field Marxism-Leninism. Comrade Order Reigns starting from his high theoretical knowledge of classical Marxism demolishes old misconceptions that such things as worker's control, central planinng and public ownership constitute a socialist society and makes a fundamental breakthrough in realizing that BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANANAS are decisive factor in the sucessfull construction of socialism. In this way Comrade Order Reigns shows the real reasons for fall of so-called "socialist countries like USSR and Albania, clearly and brilliantly demonstrating that lack of nutritive values held in bananas led to the growth of revisionism within party ranks and to the gradual abolishment of socialism. Comrade Order Reigns thus debunks Marxist theory, and thus Marxism itself, that working class is the main revolutionary force, clearly showing that the higher concentration of bananas in a given country, the higher are the chances for sucessfull revolution. Thus, Marxism-Leninism-Bananaism, as the highest theoretical stage of Marxism states that the only real socialist country in the world is glorious People's Socialist Soviet Democratic Worker's Republic of Equador, led by glorious Comrade Rafael Correa, which boldly and valiantly builds socialism, relying not on workers, but on country's vast banana plantations which promise that a country will have a solid economical base for the construction of socialism, unlike Albanian revisionist, Xohxaist, Stalinist traitors which failed to adequately supply their workers with bananas.

LONG LIVE THE GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S SOCIALIST SOVIET DEMOCRATIC WORKER'S REPUBLIC OF EQUADOR!

LONG LIVE THE GLORIOUS COMRADE RAFAEL CORREA!

LONG LIVE THE GLORIOUS MARXISM-LENINISM-BANANAISM!

LONG LIVE BANANAS!

BANANAS HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS, THEY HAVE A WORLD TO WIN!

BANANAS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

Mass Grave Aesthetics

21st April 2012, 00:23

The phrase Banana republic comes to mind.
I fail to see how speculations on Hoxha´s sanity are relevant. Politicians ban stuff all the time without having mental health problems.

Drosophila

21st April 2012, 01:55

Can someone actually show a reference to the banned bananas thing? It's not even funny anymore. (actually now that I think about it it was never funny)

Ismail

21st April 2012, 02:45

Amongst the random shit he banned.Nope. Bananas weren't banned. Even Rafiq basically admitted this when he made the original claim.

That's a reason to be opposed to beards, not to ban them.Imams and priests had to shave their beards (as well as not being allowed to be imams/priests anymore, of course.) The government wasn't opposed to beards, it was opposed to religion. Long beards were a sign of religious status. In Albanian movies and theater actors did have beards to portray people like Ismail Qemali and other historical figures.

Rafiq

21st April 2012, 18:18

How many "Orthodox Marxists" launched revolutions? I'll make it more challenging: Lenin, who you'd call an "Orthodox Marxist," is excluded from this criteria.

German revolution of 1919.

By the way, your little "Liberation of Albania" on behalf of the PPSH wasn't a revolution.

You aren't an "Orthodox Marxist." Unless you were born circa 1850-1900 and spent the period of 1916-2011 frozen in time,

This is because you don't know what Orthodox Marxism is. Orthodox Marxists do exist today, namely the CPGB.

you're an eclectic

I'm an eclectic when you're an inconsistent Marxist Leninist who, for one, supports the suppression of the Hungarian uprising but denounces the suppression of Czechoslovkia because "Social Imperialism". Fucking idiot, you dare accuse me of being an eclectic?

using a dumb term ("Orthodox" belongs to religious usage)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orthodox

or·tho·dox [awr-thuh-doks] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2.
of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3.
customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4.
sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5.
conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.

The First Three are the usage of the term.

also used by certain dumb people in general.

What are you, in fucking third grade?

Neither Hoxha nor Kim Il Sung nor "alot (sic.) of the other leaders of socialist countries" were "crazy motherfucker(s)."

A crazy person would say so.

I don't know what makes Hoxha delusional or crazy, maybe you can enlighten me?

Anti Revisionism. Enough said. He accused everyone of being a revisionist. You even suggested, at one point, that I was engaging in a revisionist conspiracy with several users.

How many people care about Kautsky? Name a Kautskyist party that did anything for the working-class in the 20th century ("pre-war SPD," which quickly became pro-war SPD, doesn't count.)

Kautsky, pre war, was the pope of Marxism. Every Communist Party on Earth was influenced by him in at least a certain way. Hoxha, on the Other hand, influenced not even a handful of parties, none of which were relevant, or proletarian in nature, at that.

Kautsky was "thrown down the shitter" over 50 years ago when the SPD formally disconnected itself from Marxism.

is that why all currents of Marxian thought (even Marxism Leninism) still are heavily influenced by him? Marxism as it exists today would not be the same without him.

Again, what's your point? Using this logic Marxism as an ideology

Marxism is not an Ideology, it's a science.

was "thrown down the shitter" in 1991,

Yet almost all forms of Western Schools of thought, today, developed in Response to Marxism. Marxism is not dead, and never was. It is one of the most inflectional modes of thought in existence today. Academically, Marxism is stronger than it was in a long time.

unless you think the ordinary worker cares one bit about Žižek or Kautsky

How many Workers care about Marx or Engels? That is not the point. The point is there relevance toward Marxism.

or any prominent Marxist including Marx and Engels themselves (and yes, the worker cares little for Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Hoxha or Mao at the present moment as well.)

The Works of all of those individuals (excluding Hoxha) today re held up very high in vast numbers of Academic and Intellectual circles. Hoxha, on the other hand, many do not even know of.

So what? Workers in Sweden were pretty much firmly behind Swedish social-democracy all the way into the 90's.

Did Social Democratic parties claim to be the glorious vanguard of proletarian socialist revolution? Did they even operate on such a basis?

To this day many workers in China think that the CCP somehow represents their interests.

That is false consciousness, you know, something Marxists know of. Workers with Lassalle was not, as Lassalle did not serve a class other than the proletariat, something even Marx and Engels acknowledged.

Rehabilitating from what? That which was opportunist was unmasked by Lenin, Luxemburg and other revolutionaries.

Yet Pre War Kautsky remains more relevant than ever to all of them.

Which is why he vowed to defend Yugoslavia from a Soviet invasion from 1968 onwards

He was inconsistent. Big surprise.

. Which is why Hoxha welcomed the prospect of good trade relations with Yugoslavia in the 70's and in fact Yugoslavia became its biggest trading partner by the early 80's.

Because Albania became economically desperate, they would have made relations with anyone who had anything to offer.

Of course he opposed Titoism quite strongly, and he certainly had good reasons rooted in material conditions as well as ideology,

He hated Titoism because he wanted Kosovo. That's all, really.

like the fact that Tito tried to annex Albania and probably would have had Hoxha shot.

Yes, we know.

Or the fact that Yugoslavia endorsed attempts to overthrow Hoxha in the late 40's and early 50's.

Point?

Unless you'd like to praise Tito, I don't see why firmly opposing Titoism (which China did too until the 70's, FYI) is apparently something that no one except Hoxha could contemplate doing,

I strongly oppose Titoism, but not for reasons dependent on Bourgeois modes of thought.

as if the Cominform didn't identify Titoism as a renegade and revisionist trend within the international communist movement.

Who gives a fuck about them?

As opposed to Kautsky, who almost literally did kiss the ass of German capital and endorse the participation of the working-class in inter-imperialist butchery.

People change, who cares? Pre War Kautsky was an entirely different man. Hoxha was always the same.

Feel free to tell me what imperialist wars Hoxha endorsed, or how capital entered Albania under his administration.

Other users addressed this, Albania did operate within the realm of the capitalist mode of production, this is a given objective fact.

Rafiq

21st April 2012, 19:26

Nope. Bananas weren't banned. Even Rafiq basically admitted this when he made the original claim.

No, you despicable rodent, I never made this as a "Claim". Indeed, it was a joke, though apparently making Jokes against dear leader is far beyond Ismail's capacity to articulate them being jokes themselves.

A Marxist Historian

21st April 2012, 19:47

How many "Orthodox Marxists" launched revolutions? I'll make it more challenging: Lenin, who you'd call an "Orthodox Marxist," is excluded from this criteria...

Spartacus League...

Did the Spartacus League launch the German Revolution in 1918? Not really, though Karl Liebknecht personally played a considerable role.

It was the sailors of the German fleet who launched the revolution, pretty spontaneously. Their rebellion was not organized by the Spartacus League, though when it snowballed nationally revolutionaries naturally stepped to the fore, especially Liebknecht in Berlin.

In fact, the primary impulsion for the German Revolution of 1918, which was first and foremost a rebellion against World War I, was the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which successfully took Russia out of the World War (Brst-Litovsk), and which also was first and foremost a rebellion against World War I.

Initially all the German left was involved, including even the mainline German Social Democrats. Funding by Soviet ambassador Karl Radek definitely helped too. When it came out on the floor of the German Parliament that he had been even funding Noske and Scheidemann's Social Democrats in the months leading up to the revolution, there was a major parliamentary scandal.

Lenin, by the way, was not too thrilled about this either, he saw this as a serious mistake on Radek's part.

And, when the German Communist Party gets founded a couple of months later, Karl and Rosa are accepted as its leaders, as the most highly respected revolutionaries in Germany, but it is not in any sense a "Luxemburgist" or anti-Lenin "orthodox Marxist" party.

Some of Luxemburg's criticisms of Lenin she herself had abandoned, notably her previous belief, which she explicitly rejected in public, that a Constituent Assembly not Soviets was the proper form of workers rule. And this concept is the heart of anti-Lenin "orthodox Marxism" or "Luxemburgism."

Others, in particular her opposition to giving land to the peasantry and her opposition to national self-determination, she maintained to her dying day. But few people support that these days, except for some "left coms."

Indeed, the dominant political force in the German Communist Party, initially, were the "leftcoms." Thus, the KPD boycotted the German elections, over Karl and Rosa's opposition, which turned out to be a big mistake.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

21st April 2012, 20:02

...
However,as much as some people seem to enjoy talking about trivial subjects such as beards or some other outright slander,i'd rather spend my time writing about the fates of the 16.312 people who were imprisoned in the Yugoslav camp Goli Otok for being Marxists-Leninists,of which,12 actually took part in the October Revolution,36 were fighters from the Spanish Civil War,268 were members of the party even before WWII,1673 who had some of the highest rewards for service and for the fight against the Nazi invader,some 2300 officers.

Some of you may insist that this has little to do with Enver Hoxha,but believe me,the 1948 events were a part of the bigger picture,which had a lot to do with Stalin,Tito and Hoxha.

The Yugoslav Trotskyists did not by and large make it to 1948, Tito had killed them earlier. Though I am sure there were a fair number of Trotskyists in Goli Otok too, whom I suspect Omsk cares little for the fate of.

The Yugoslav Communist party, which included the entire old Serbian Socialist Party, the only old Socialist Party which went over to the Comintern in its overwhelming majority, at first was a mass party with a large representation in the first Yugoslav parliament. It collapsed in the 1920s when a royal dictatorship was established, as most of its old leaders had no idea of how to function in the absence of political democracy. And a real communist party was built out of the wreckage in the underground.

But all of its leaders, most of whom were in exile in the USSR, were murdered either by the Yugoslav monarchy or by Stalin in the 1930s, and the actual executioner, or rather the guy who picked out who should be executed, was a young, previously unheard of minor figure in the party named Tito.

The most well known these days of the Yugoslav party leaders before the Great Purges was Anton Ciliga, who was a Trotskyist, spent several years in the gulag, escaped, managed to make it out of the Soviet Union, and then split with Trotsky and became a "left com."

-M.H.-

Omsk

21st April 2012, 20:05

The Yugoslav Trotskyists did not by and large make it to 1948, Tito had killed them earlier. Though I am sure there were a fair number of Trotskyists in Goli Otok too, whom I suspect Omsk cares little for the fate of.

I was not talking about the Yugoslav Trotskyists,as they have been marginalized long before 1948.

Most of them were either removed in the Spanish Civil War or in the events before WWII.

A Marxist Historian

21st April 2012, 20:11

In April 1939 Albania was invaded by Fascist Italy. Organized resistance was sparse and was largely confined to a few tribal figures in the north, notably Myslim Peza. In November 1941 the Communist Party of Albania was founded and led what was known as the Anti-Fascist National Liberation War, setting up national liberation councils in liberated areas. In September 1942 it held a conference to form the National Liberation Movement (later renamed the National Liberation Front) which united all anti-fascist forces under the leadership of the CPA. In October 1944 the Democratic Government of Albania was established as a provisional government in opposition to what was now Nazi German occupation, and on November 29, 1944 Albania was proclaimed liberated. Albania was the only country in Eastern Europe to liberate itself without Soviet assistance.

Hoxha had been one of the leading individuals in founding the CPA and served as its de facto leader, formally becoming General Secretary in March 1943. He also headed the work of the National Liberation Movement and its armed detachments.

That's a brief account from the top of my head.

What made the Albanian Revolution possible was the collapse of Mussolini's Italy, creating a vacuum.

The Nazis never were really able to take over Albania, for one reason and one reason only. Because Tito was tying down an entire German army corps and was in the way, cutting German supply lines into Albania. Hoxhas' Albanian Revolution was essentially a minor side consequence of the much more important and genuine Yugoslav Revolution led by Tito.

Albania should have been incorporated into Yugoslavia, which would have helped solve the Albanian national question, by uniting Albania and Kosovo and perhaps a chunk of Macedonia into one entity. (And maybe the then Albanian-majority northwesternmost sliver of Greece too, if Stalin and later Tito had not betrayed the Greek partisans into British hands).

Hoxha's opposition to this was essentially petty-bourgeois nationalism, plus of course fear for his life, as doubtless Tito would have executed him, just as he executed Trotskyists and orthodox Stalinists. Given Hoxha's own fondness for executing anyone in the Albanian party who disagreed with him, I see no great reason for revolutionaries to sympathize with him at this point on this score.

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

21st April 2012, 20:13

I was not talking about the Yugoslav Trotskyists,as they have been marginalized long before 1948.

Most of them were either removed in the Spanish Civil War or in the events before WWII.

"Removed" is a nice euphemism.

Some did survive into the late '40s and were rounded up, imprisoned and executed. I have seen articles about them.

-M.H.-

NorwegianCommunist

21st April 2012, 20:14

What is all this about Bananas and Hoxha?
Fifth time since I joined RevLeft that somebody mentions "banana" in a Albani/Hoxha thread x)

Rafiq

21st April 2012, 20:20

Did the Spartacus League launch the German Revolution in 1918? Not really, though Karl Liebknecht personally played a considerable role.

It was the sailors of the German fleet who launched the revolution, pretty spontaneously. Their rebellion was not organized by the Spartacus League, though when it snowballed nationally revolutionaries naturally stepped to the fore, especially Liebknecht in Berlin.

In fact, the primary impulsion for the German Revolution of 1918, which was first and foremost a rebellion against World War I, was the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which successfully took Russia out of the World War (Brst-Litovsk), and which also was first and foremost a rebellion against World War I.

Initially all the German left was involved, including even the mainline German Social Democrats. Funding by Soviet ambassador Karl Radek definitely helped too. When it came out on the floor of the German Parliament that he had been even funding Noske and Scheidemann's Social Democrats in the months leading up to the revolution, there was a major parliamentary scandal.

Lenin, by the way, was not too thrilled about this either, he saw this as a serious mistake on Radek's part.

And, when the German Communist Party gets founded a couple of months later, Karl and Rosa are accepted as its leaders, as the most highly respected revolutionaries in Germany, but it is not in any sense a "Luxemburgist" or anti-Lenin "orthodox Marxist" party.

Some of Luxemburg's criticisms of Lenin she herself had abandoned, notably her previous belief, which she explicitly rejected in public, that a Constituent Assembly not Soviets was the proper form of workers rule. And this concept is the heart of anti-Lenin "orthodox Marxism" or "Luxemburgism."

Others, in particular her opposition to giving land to the peasantry and her opposition to national self-determination, she maintained to her dying day. But few people support that these days, except for some "left coms."

Indeed, the dominant political force in the German Communist Party, initially, were the "leftcoms." Thus, the KPD boycotted the German elections, over Karl and Rosa's opposition, which turned out to be a big mistake.

-M.H.-

It was, the Orthodox Marxism pre war Kautskyanksm. Of course not the anti Lenin Pro War Kautsky.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Drosophila

21st April 2012, 20:21

Hoxha, on the other hand, many do not even know of.

There was even a fictional novel written about Hoxha called Biografi which was praised by many anti-communists. So yeah, many people do not know of him, but that doesn't mean that no one does.

Ismail

21st April 2012, 23:16

By the way, your little "Liberation of Albania" on behalf of the PPSH wasn't a revolution.Really? I guess the entire social order destroyed itself during the war totally independently of the National Liberation Movement and Communist Party then. I like how "liberation" is put in quotation marks as well, since apparently it wasn't liberated from fascism and nazism, but was merely opening up its doors to something worse: STALIN!

Orthodox Marxists do exist today, namely the CPGB.So do some fairly pro-Hoxha parties, one of which has representation in the Ecuadorian legislature. What's your point?

I'm an eclectic when you're an inconsistent Marxist Leninist who, for one, supports the suppression of the Hungarian uprising but denounces the suppression of Czechoslovkia because "Social Imperialism". Fucking idiot, you dare accuse me of being an eclectic?Actually that was the position of Hoxha, and he didn't support the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by Khrushchevite revisionism, which had originally instigated it by the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy and other "victims" of "Stalinism." He simply noted the uprising's objectively counter-revolutionary nature, considering it a counter-revolution within the Khrushchevite counter-revolution. Khrushchev preserved revisionist counter-revolution against open capitalism which would sever Hungary from the sphere of nascent Soviet social-imperialism. For Hoxha's views on Hungary and Czechoslovakia see: http://marx2mao.com/Other/WCRC68.html

He accused everyone of being a revisionist.Because Tito, Marchais, Berlinguer, Brezhnev, Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro are great examples of good Marxist theorists, right?

Kautsky, pre war, was the pope of Marxism. Every Communist Party on Earth was influenced by him in at least a certain way. Hoxha, on the Other hand, influenced not even a handful of parties, none of which were relevant, or proletarian in nature, at that.Influenced "not even a handful of parties"? Well here's the thing, those parties he did influence were influenced less than 40 years ago. Kautsky was the "Pope of Marxism" 100 years ago. I'll mention some of these parties even though you'll just arbitrarily write them off as "non-proletarian" (the SPD was a wonderful proletarian party, too bad it endorsed inter-imperialist war I guess) anyway.

PCdoB, Brazil's largest communist party. PCMLE, Ecuador's largest communist party. The Malian Party of Labour, led student struggles against the Traoré regime in the 1980's. MAP-ML, a notable communist party in Nicaragua whose followers fought alongside the FSLN against Somoza. And while it doesn't really count since they weren't open with it, the leadership of the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front was pro-Albanian and that organization, of course, winded up at the gates of the capital in 1991. If you can't at least say that the PCdoB and PCMLE have/had a proletarian basis, then you can pretty much write off every communist party of any stripe in Latin America.

is that why all currents of Marxian thought (even Marxism Leninism) still are heavily influenced by him? Marxism as it exists today would not be the same without him.Marxism as it exists today would not be the same with Moses Hess' influence on Marx. Or Hegel's influence. Or the influence of all sorts of random people. Lenin was influenced in part by Russian revolutionary traditions as well. What's your point?

Marxism is not an Ideology, it's a science.It's both.

Yet almost all forms of Western Schools of thought, today, developed in Response to Marxism. Marxism is not dead, and never was. It is one of the most inflectional modes of thought in existence today. Academically, Marxism is stronger than it was in a long time.Great, now tell me how it goes outside of academia.

Yes, Marxism isn't dead, but saying that "X ideology was thrown down the shitter" in 1991 is pretty irrelevant and not to mention a bit pathetic, since it seems to imply that you're taking an ideology that apparently has nothing to do with anything after 1916 just to shield yourself from ones that did.

How many Workers care about Marx or Engels? That is not the point. The point is there relevance toward Marxism.And that doesn't matter one bit when the average worker conflates "Marxism" with Obama or Cornell West. Or Žižek influencing Lady Gaga.

The Works of all of those individuals (excluding Hoxha) today re held up very high in vast numbers of Academic and Intellectual circles. Hoxha, on the other hand, many do not even know of.See above.

Did Social Democratic parties claim to be the glorious vanguard of proletarian socialist revolution? Did they even operate on such a basis?Didn't Kautsky attack Lenin for promoting vanguardism?

He was inconsistent. Big surprise.Well gee, when you say that Hoxha's entire foreign policy and ideology were warped by the existence of Yugosalvia and his antipathy towards it, and then I note that Albania vowed to defend Yugoslavia with guns in a war against Soviet social-imperialism, try putting up a more convincing argument, preferably one that isn't wrong.

Because Albania became economically desperate, they would have made relations with anyone who had anything to offer.So are you saying the USA, USSR and China had nothing to offer Albania?

He hated Titoism because he wanted Kosovo. That's all, really.That's why he deported Kosovar Albanians who fled Yugoslavia in the 60's and 70's, of course. It's also why many Albanians to this day call him a "traitor" to the Albanian nation because he never made Kosovo a focus of his foreign policy. Meanwhile Tito organized anti-communist Albanian émigrés in the early 50's in Kosovo to incite the overthrow of Hoxha's government.

Point?... Albania had a legitimate reason to be concerned about Yugoslavia?

Who gives a fuck about them?... are you saying the Cominform was not as influential as the glorious 1940's-50's Kautskyist world revolutionary movement?

People change, who cares? Pre War Kautsky was an entirely different man. Hoxha was always the same.So I guess people don't change much at all. Except opportunists, that is.

Other users addressed this, Albania did operate within the realm of the capitalist mode of production, this is a given objective fact.Let's hear how he was an "agent of capital" then when joint ventures were outlawed and the seeking of credits from abroad was made illegal.

What made the Albanian Revolution possible was the collapse of Mussolini's Italy, creating a vacuum.This is ignoring that national liberation councils had already been set up well before Italian troops were replaced by their Nazi counterparts.

The Nazis never were really able to take over Albania, for one reason and one reason only. Because Tito was tying down an entire German army corps and was in the way, cutting German supply lines into Albania.The Soviet revisionists claimed that Albanians could do nothing without the Soviet advance towards Berlin either. I don't see your point. Life would have been pretty hard for the Yugoslavs without the Soviet assistance both objectively (aforementioned drive to Berlin) and subjectively (its important assistance in liberating Belgrade and, with Bulgarian troops, Kosovo.)

Hoxhas' Albanian Revolution was essentially a minor side consequence of the much more important and genuine Yugoslav Revolution led by Tito.What made Tito's revolution "genuine" and Albania's revolution not "genuine"? Bernd J. Fischer noted in his work Albania at War that Albania's revolution was even more indigenous than Yugoslavia's.

Albania should have been incorporated into Yugoslavia, which would have helped solve the Albanian national question, by uniting Albania and Kosovo and perhaps a chunk of Macedonia into one entity.Albania was turned into a neo-colony against the wishes of its population, and from 1945-1948 (actually into the 1950's and early 60's) the Yugoslav Government, which wanted to "solve" the Albanian national question via the annexation of Albania, treated Kosovo as enemy territory and carried out massacres and forced emigration against Albanians there.

Hoxha's opposition to this was essentially petty-bourgeois nationalism,Hoxha spoke favorably of a Balkan communist federation during the war. He was not so fond of Yugoslav attempts to dominate Albania and Bulgaria within the context of a "federation."

Given Hoxha's own fondness for executing anyone in the Albanian party who disagreed with him, I see no great reason for revolutionaries to sympathize with him at this point on this score.Sejfulla Malëshova, Liri Belishova, Koço Tashko, Bedri Spahiu and others were not shot. In fact Spahiu lived after 1991 and talked about how terrible communism was, and Belishova is apparently still alive and talked about how Hoxha was very much like Hitler and was influenced by Satan. Also that communism is terrible, too. So we have learned from this that the people Hoxha had shot probably weren't worth writing home about either.

BTW, your claim that you were merely joking about claiming that bananas were banned from Albania is also known as taking an ass-saving measure, but sure, pretend it was just a joke.

Pretty Flaco

21st April 2012, 23:47

is hoxha pronounced "hocksa" or "hoaxa"?

Drosophila

21st April 2012, 23:54

is hoxha pronounced "hocksa" or "hoaxa"?

Neither. It's pronounced "Hoja."

Grenzer

22nd April 2012, 00:17

More like Hoe-Jah. I had always thought it was Hoax-Hah for a while.

Stadtsmasher

22nd April 2012, 01:11

Ismail

22nd April 2012, 04:02

To what extent if any is there an active Hoxaist movement within the country of his origination (Albania)?

It seems to me that they might be ready to give communism another go, as Europe shudders and faces the crumbling of late capitalism.In the countryside there is some nostalgia for socialist times. In the cities it's much less so, mainly because the government is incredibly anti-communist (and strongly pro-USA) and distorts the socialist period to portray it as one where Enver Hoxha was a homosexual and agent of Slavic ideology (Communism) who became a crony of Tito and conspired to keep Kosovo severed from the Albanian motherland to maintain his own personal power. Then the 1948-1985 period is just Hoxha being evil and killing people connected to his "social circle" à la Stalin.

It doesn't help that the vast majority of Albanians are very young and most remember the late 80's if they remember anything, which was not a fun period to live in since the economy was receding due to lack of foreign trade and increasingly outdated industrial machine parts, etc.

As a note, xh in Albanian is one letter and is pronounced j (as in jam.) You can see it pronounced here:
K6yFQDIE9vM

So yes, Ho-jah.

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

23rd April 2012, 00:31

Why was Hoxha so much against Mao and Maoism and what are the reasons he said it was revisionist?

Vyacheslav Brolotov

23rd April 2012, 00:36

Why was Hoxha so much against Mao and Maoism and what are the reasons he said it was revisionist?

http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/chinese-revisionism/

Good questions, comrade!

Grenzer

23rd April 2012, 00:52

Why was Hoxha so much against Mao and Maoism and what are the reasons he said it was revisionist?

China never had a proletarian revolution. The Chinese revolution was a movement headed by the petit-bourgeoisie and dissatisfied bourgeoisie which co-opted the peasantry. They never eliminated private property(25% of the means of production were privately owned at the peak of the "revolution"), and needless to say, never eliminated the bourgeoisie. The rapid ideological degeneration of the Chinese revolution was due to the fact that bourgeois had prominent positions in the party, and they simply purged the radical petit-bourgeois elements out of the party.

Hoxha was vaguely aware of the non-proletarian character of the Chinese revolution from the beginning, but over time it became more obvious and undeniable that China had been a bourgeois dictatorship the whole time.

Bostana

23rd April 2012, 00:56

Why was Hoxha so much against Mao and Maoism and what are the reasons he said it was revisionist?

Actually a funny story.

I'm going to try and not loose a lot of my internet Comrades here. But I need to tell you about the relationship of not only Hoxha and Mao but the two Countries as well.

In Albania's Third Five Year Plan, China promised a loan of $125 million to build twenty-five chemical, electrical and metallurgical plants called for under the Plan. However, the nation had a difficult transition period, because Chinese technicians were of a lower quality than Soviet ones and the distance between the two nations, plus the poor relations Albania had with its neighbors, further complicated matters. Unlike Yugoslavia or the U.S.S.R., China had the least influence economically on Albania during Hoxha's leadership. The previous fifteen years (1946–1961) had at least 50% of the economy under foreign commerce

By the time the 1976 Constitution prohibited foreign debt, aid and investments, Albania had basically become self-sufficient although it was lacking in modern technology. Ideologically, Hoxha found Mao's initial views to be in line with basic Marxism-Leninsm.The two got a long fairly well, they both were critical of Yugoslavia and both condemned Nikita Khrushchev's Revisionism. Aid given from China was interest-free and did not have to be repaid until Albania could afford to do so. China never intervened in what Albania's economic output should be, and Chinese technicians worked for the same wages as Albanian workers.

And thanks to Enver Hoxha and Albania's help, The People's Republic of China was able to gain a seat in the U.N. Not the best example but still shows that the two countries supported eachother.

Thanks to China's support, Albania became the second largest producer of chromium in the world, which was considered an important export for Albania.

A quote from the Treaty:

Both [Albania and China] hold that the relations between socialist countries are international relations of a new type. Relations between socialist countries, big or small, economically more developed or less developed, must be based on the principles of complete equality, respect for territorial sovereignty and independence, and non-interference in each other's internal affairs, and must also be based on the principles of mutual assistance in accordance with proletarian internationalism. It is necessary to oppose great-nation chauvinism and national egoism in relations between socialist countries. It is absolutely impermissible to impose the will of one country upon another, or to impair the independence, sovereignty and interests of the people, of a fraternal country on the pretext of 'aid' or 'international division of labour.'But what set the two countries apart was when China entered a cultural revolution. When they did this they had to cut some of the ties with other countries so they can modernize their country. i.e. Farmers would be able to use Tractors instead of Oxen.

Hoxha loved China ad China loved Hoxha and when Richard Nixon visited China Hoxha sent this letter:

We trust you will understand the reason for the delay in our reply. This was because your decision came as a surprise to us and was taken without any preliminary consultation between us on this question, so that we would be able to express and thrash out our opinions. This, we think, could have been useful, because preliminary consultations, between close friends, determined co-fighters against imperialism and revisionism, are useful and necessary, and especially so, when steps which, in our opinion, have a major international effect and repercussion are taken. ...Considering the Communist Party of China as a sister party and our closest co-fighter, we have never hidden our views from it. That is why on this major problem which you put before us, we inform you that we consider your decision to receive Nixon in Beijing as incorrect and undesirable, and we do not approve or support it. It will also be our opinion that Nixon's announced visit to China will not be understood or approved of by the peoples, the revolutionaries and the communists of different countries.

Of course as the world was on the brink of a third world war. Nixon visiting China to talk peace was important was as important for Albania as it was for China. However I do see why Hoxha is upset, letting an extreme anti-Communist in your Nation makes me sick too.

Zhou Enlai cut off most ties with Albania. Which caused the two coutnries to go separate ways.

This is where the demonization of Mao began for Hoxha. Which I don't understand what Zhou Enlai had to do with Mao or Maoism. Assuming Ismail will respond I do hope you will answer what Zhou Enlai had to do with Mao?

Grenzer

23rd April 2012, 01:09

Hoxha loved China ad China loved Hoxha and when Richard Nixon visited China Hoxha sent this letter:

Of course as the world was on the brink of a third world war. Nixon visiting China to talk peace was important was as important for Albania as it was for China. However I do see why Hoxha is upset, letting an extreme anti-Communist in your Nation makes me sick too.

Zhou Enlai cut off most ties with Albania. Which caused the two coutnries to go separate ways.

This is where the demonization of Mao began for Hoxha. Which I don't understand what Zhou Enlai had to do with Mao or Maoism. Assuming Ismail will respond I do hope you will answer what Zhou Enlai had to do with Mao?

The problem here is that you are confusing realpolitik for genuine positions. The truth is that in private the Albanians were severely criticizing China starting in 1956(at the same moment their relationship began, in fact; at least that was Hoxha's position). The Albanian regime kept quiet because they wanted China's aid, not because they liked them.

China started taking incredibly right-wing positions in the 1970's, when the criticisms were no longer censored or kept hidden. Mao even began supporting blatantly anti-communist murderers like Augusto Pinochet. Hoxha probably knew that his criticisms would result in the end of the relationship between China and Albania, but he didn't care. By this point, even Gorbachev is looking good in comparison to Mao's politics.

Brosip Tito

23rd April 2012, 02:16

Did the Spartacus League launch the German Revolution in 1918? Not really, though Karl Liebknecht personally played a considerable role.As if the Sparts played little to no role in it, Fuck off.

It was the sailors of the German fleet who launched the revolution, pretty spontaneously. Their rebellion was not organized by the Spartacus League, though when it snowballed nationally revolutionaries naturally stepped to the fore, especially Liebknecht in Berlin.As per Luxemburg's idea of Spontaneity's role in revolution.

In fact, the primary impulsion for the German Revolution of 1918, which was first and foremost a rebellion against World War I, was the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which successfully took Russia out of the World War (Brst-Litovsk), and which also was first and foremost a rebellion against World War I.Which was supported, WHOLE HEARTEDLY, by the sparts and Luxemburg.

And, when the German Communist Party gets founded a couple of months later, Karl and Rosa are accepted as its leaders, as the most highly respected revolutionaries in Germany, but it is not in any sense a "Luxemburgist" or anti-Lenin "orthodox Marxist" party.Where, in the blue fucking hell, do you get to call Luxemburg "anti-Lenin"? It's quite clear you've never read anything written by her. Disagreeing with policies and certain things, did not make her "anti-Lenin" or "anti-bolshevik", it made her independent.

Some of Luxemburg's criticisms of Lenin she herself had abandoned, notably her previous belief, which she explicitly rejected in public, that a Constituent Assembly not Soviets was the proper form of workers rule. And this concept is the heart of anti-Lenin "orthodox Marxism" or "Luxemburgism."What, prey tell, aside from the constituent assembly, did she abandon? One again, not anti-lenin, for fuck sakes.

Others, in particular her opposition to giving land to the peasantry and her opposition to national self-determination, she maintained to her dying day. But few people support that these days, except for some "left coms."I'm no left com, but I support them. The land/peasantry idea, proved CORRECT, as rich land owning peasants were opposed to socialism. Her idea of the national question isn't opposing national liberation, but, as Marx and Engels did, take each situation case by case.

Seriously, only idiots think every national liberation struggle is good, and is a "right" of these peoples. Marx certainly opposed it in cases.

Indeed, the dominant political force in the German Communist Party, initially, were the "leftcoms." Thus, the KPD boycotted the German elections, over Karl and Rosa's opposition, which turned out to be a big mistake.

-M.H.-
GCP =/= KPD by the way. GCP didn't exist til the 60s.

Bostana

23rd April 2012, 02:20

China started taking incredibly right-wing positions in the 1970's, when the criticisms were no longer censored or kept hidden. Mao even began supporting blatantly anti-communist murderers like Augusto Pinochet. Hoxha probably knew that his criticisms would result in the end of the relationship between China and Albania, but he didn't care. By this point, even Gorbachev is looking good in comparison to Mao's politics.

When did Mao back this murderer named Augusto Pinochet? Do you mind if I ask for a quote? Honestly I have never heard of this guy.

Again, Hoxha said that Mao was a true follower of Marxism-Leninism when the did meet and Hoxha was supportive of Mao and China. Also Again the 1970's is when reformists like Deng Xiaoping took charge and corrupted China, people who Mao knew were Revisionist. Mao led the effort to purge Deng from the party twice during the cultural revolution. He was despised by other Maoists in the party but Mao himself was convinced by Zhou Enlai to let Deng back into the party. From there, Deng was able to weasel his way into power thanks to a few different details.

Art Vandelay

23rd April 2012, 02:25

When did Mao back this murderer named Augusto Pinochet? Do you mind if I ask for a quote? Honestly I have never heard of this guy.

Again, Hoxha said that Mao was a true follower of Marxism-Leninism when the did meet and Hoxha was supportive of Mao and China. Also Again the 1970's is when reformists like Deng Xiaoping took charge and corrupted China, people who Mao knew were Revisionist. Mao led the effort to purge Deng from the party twice during the cultural revolution. He was despised by other Maoists in the party but Mao himself was convinced by Zhou Enlai to let Deng back into the party. From there, Deng was able to weasel his way into power thanks to a few different details.

Pinochet came to power in Chile through a U.S. back military coup. Man murdered thousands of radicals, the true number may not be known, including some of my distant relatives through marriage. Maoist China, while Mao was in power, was one of (if not the first) to recognize the new leadership of Chile. Not surprising to see Mao engage in class collaboration when his entire ideology is based on class collaboration.

Grenzer

23rd April 2012, 02:40

When did Mao back this murderer named Augusto Pinochet? Do you mind if I ask for a quote? Honestly I have never heard of this guy.

Mao backed Pinochet as soon as he came to power in 1973. In fact Chile was the second western state to extend recognition to the PRC. Mao was eager enough to recognize Pinochet's coup as the being the legitimate form of government at the same time as the United States in fact.

Augusto Pinochet was a quasi-fascist who murdered the democratically elected Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, and instituted a reactionary regime through a coup. Pinochet's regime had tens of thousands of leftists murdered in cold blood, communists and social-democrats alike.

This document seems to cover Maoist China's more-than-friendly relationship with the Pinochet regime in good detail.

https://www6.miami.edu/hemispheric-policy/Final_Draft_Formatted-Navia.pdf

After the coup, China's trade with Chile nearly doubles. A coincidence?

Ismail

23rd April 2012, 04:19

"For China the Spain of Franco, the Chile of Pinochet, or the Rhodesia of Ian Smith are friends, while the 'Soviets are the most dangerous, because they pose as Marxist-Leninists'. This is not a principled stand."
(Enver Hoxha. Reflections on China Vol. II. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. p. 129.)

He mentions China's alliances with Pinochet, Mobutu, and various other reactionaries probably like 500+ times in various diary entries, so yeah. At the 7th Congress of the PLA in 1976 by contrast Hoxha said that Albania would never establish diplomatic or trade relations with what it considered fascist states (Israel, South Africa, Rhodesia, Spain, Chile, etc.)

Rafiq

23rd April 2012, 04:27

Really? I guess the entire social order destroyed itself during the war totally independently of the National Liberation Movement and Communist Party then. I like how "liberation" is put in quotation marks as well, since apparently it wasn't liberated from fascism and nazism, but was merely opening up its doors to something worse: STALIN!

The Capitalist mode of production was retained, that is for sure. It certainly wasn't worse (I've never made such an accusation, but many here I'm sure are accustomed to knowing of how Ismail pulls things out of his ass).

So do some fairly pro-Hoxha parties, one of which has representation in the Ecuadorian legislature. What's your point?

And has Hoxha influenced virtually ever Marxian current up to date? I claimed Orthodox Marxism was relevant because it had an influence on ever Marxian current and changed Marxism completely. You then said it had no relevance today. I cited the CPGB.

So, you have some Hoxhaist parties, with no relevance to Marxism, and we have some Orthodox Marxist parties, in which Orthodox Marxism influenced every Marxist party and changed Marxism forever.

I'd say Orthodox Marxism is relevant, and not Hoxhaism.

Actually that was the position of Hoxha, and he didn't support the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by Khrushchevite revisionism, which had originally instigated it by the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy and other "victims" of "Stalinism."

Yes, he wanted the Soviet Imperialists to be tougher on Hungary, we know.

He simply noted the uprising's objectively counter-revolutionary nature,

He didn't note it as an Imperialist act, though. And if he did, then by definition they were an Anti imperialist force, no?

considering it a counter-revolution within the Khrushchevite counter-revolution.

And how is this different from the Prague spring? Hoxha's opportunistic policy change, of course.

Khrushchev preserved revisionist counter-revolution against open capitalism which would sever Hungary from the sphere of nascent Soviet social-imperialism. For Hoxha's views on Hungary and Czechoslovakia see: http://marx2mao.com/Other/WCRC68.html

I already know his views on Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Had the Prague spring taken place in 1950's, he would have called it "Counter revolutionary in nature" and not Anti Imperialist.

Because Tito, Marchais, Berlinguer, Brezhnev, Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro are great examples of good Marxist theorists, right?

They were no more of Revisionists (in regards to Marxism in general) than he was. They were just as much of Marxist Leninists as he was, as well.

of course, they are all scum. But this has fuck all to do with "Revisionism".

Influenced "not even a handful of parties"? Well here's the thing, those parties he did influence were influenced less than 40 years ago. Kautsky was the "Pope of Marxism" 100 years ago.

Yet today, every Marxian current is still influenced by Kautsky. Plus, Kautsky influenced actual proletarian parties

(Inb4 BUT WW1 SPD WAS COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY! Even though EVERYONE already knows this!)

I'll mention some of these parties even though you'll just arbitrarily write them off as "non-proletarian" (the SPD was a wonderful proletarian party, too bad it endorsed inter-imperialist war I guess)

It was a Proletarian Party, and the support of the inter Imperialist war was an internal betrayal, not a continuation of it's structure. And you are excluding the Bolshevik Party, and just about every other actual communist party to exist afterwards.

PCdoB, Brazil's largest communist party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Brazil

From 1976-1979. Today, it isn't a "Hoxhaist" Party.

PCMLE, Ecuador's largest communist party.

This was a split from the Ecuadorian Communist Party in regards to China, and since the Soviet Union for them was not an option, they chose Hoxha. Good job.

The Malian Party of Labour, led student struggles against the Traoré regime in the 1980's.

That's like me citing Ismail and his Hoxhaist friends hitching a ride with the PSL in some demonstration. Again, they were just riding the current of another leftist faction.

MAP-ML, a notable communist party in Nicaragua whose followers fought alongside the FSLN against Somoza.

Notable my ass.

And while it doesn't really count since they weren't open with it, the leadership of the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front was pro-Albanian and that organization, of course, winded up at the gates of the capital in 1991.

At least you're honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigrayan_People's_Liberation_Front

Just opportunists...

If you can't at least say that the PCdoB and PCMLE have/had a proletarian basis, then you can pretty much write off every communist party of any stripe in Latin America.

That's true, virtually none (excluding the ones that exist in the urban areas, hardly as popular as rural communist parties) had a proletarian basis.

The difference was, of course, that maybe two or three communist parties in Latin America were Hoxhaite. Out of hundreds. Wow.

Marxism as it exists today would not be the same with Moses Hess' influence on Marx. Or Hegel's influence. Or the influence of all sorts of random people. Lenin was influenced in part by Russian revolutionary traditions as well. What's your point?

I would never consider Hegel as irrelevant, or Moses Hess (Who really didn't have much of an influence). Hegel was certainly more relevant than Hoxha (though Kautsky was a Marxist and Hegel was not, the comparisons are really bankrupt).

the difference, anyway, with Kautsky, was that he totally reinvented Marxism was we know it today, and created the formula in which the party is structured.

It's both.

No, it's not. Communism is an Ideology, not Marxism. Or, are the actual upholding of Darwin's works (NOT social darwinism) constitute as an Ideology as well?

Great, now tell me how it goes outside of academia.

Not good for anyone, really. Especially the Hoxhaites (Why the hell am I even recognizing them as a faction?).

Yes, Marxism isn't dead, but saying that "X ideology was thrown down the shitter" in 1991 is pretty irrelevant

Marxism Leninism is not the same as Marxism, it is an ideological embodiment of the interests of, say "Red Capital". So it is an Ideology, a reflection of the modes of production in several countries (which is why it has several variants).

When these countries collapsed on themselves, so did their ideologies. Some concepts can be useful, but collectivilly they are dead ("Consistant" Marxism Leninism).

and not to mention a bit pathetic, since it seems to imply that you're taking an ideology that apparently has nothing to do with anything after 1916 just to shield yourself from ones that did.

And that doesn't matter one bit when the average worker conflates "Marxism" with Obama or Cornell West. Or Žižek influencing Lady Gaga.

That doesn't make any sense. I don't see how Lady Gaga amounts to the working class.

It's pretty obvious Zizek has outwardly Marxist tendencies.

Didn't Kautsky attack Lenin for promoting vanguardism?

Yes, postwar Kautsky did, who was something entirely different from the Pope of Marxism.

Well gee, when you say that Hoxha's entire foreign policy and ideology were warped by the existence of Yugosalvia and his antipathy towards it, and then I note that Albania vowed to defend Yugoslavia with guns in a war against Soviet social-imperialism,

Albania's policy slowly mutated into just a big cluster fuck.

try putting up a more convincing argument, preferably one that isn't wrong.

It isn't wrong, this is the basis of Albania's foreign policy from day 1, regardless of how it mutated.

So are you saying the USA, USSR and China had nothing to offer Albania?

They didn't want Albania. The U.S. had no interest there, China went with Yugoslavia, and the S.U. didn't care, despite it's "Friendship society" probably consistent of three bored Soviet officials.

That's why he deported Kosovar Albanians who fled Yugoslavia in the 60's and 70's,

That's just a reflection of the Paranoid state of Albania (that they may be spies).

of course. It's also why many Albanians to this day call him a "traitor" to the Albanian nation because he never made Kosovo a focus of his foreign policy.

he did, and, part of the mutation, eventually gave up.

Meanwhile Tito organized anti-communist Albanian émigrés in the early 50's in Kosovo to incite the overthrow of Hoxha's government.

Yeah, we know Tito didn't like Hoxha, and then stopped giving a shit afterwards... Point?

... Albania had a legitimate reason to be concerned about Yugoslavia?

Well fuck, of course it did, no one is saying otherwise. I'm sure the Japanese had legitimate reason to be concerned about the U.S., though, this has fuck all to due with whether they are to be supported or not, especially while at the same time claiming to be building Marxist thought.

... are you saying the Cominform was not as influential as the glorious 1940's-50's Kautskyist world revolutionary movement?

The Cominform was Bourgeois in nature. The Nazis were more influential than the Edelweiss Pirates yet at least the latter had revolutionary qualities.

So I guess people don't change much at all. Except opportunists, that is.

What? People always change, better a person who used to be useful and later became shit than a person who always was shit, no?

Let's hear how he was an "agent of capital" then when joint ventures were outlawed and the seeking of credits from abroad was made illegal.

The capitalist mode of production was retained, the existence of capital, retained, and capitalist relations, retained. Other users here have pointed this out and I'd hate to have to parrot them.

The rest of this was directed towards TMH, though I'd love to respond to them, but am unfortunately out of time.

*Oops, nvm, he had one last bit directed towards me:

BTW, your claim that you were merely joking about claiming that bananas were banned from Albania is also known as taking an ass-saving measure, but sure, pretend it was just a joke.

How can I prove otherwise? For anyone interested, go back to the thread and look at my post. It was clearly a joke. Everyone saw it was a Joke except you and your Hoxhaist buddies.

Art Vandelay

23rd April 2012, 04:36

A legitimate question: How do Maoists even attempt to justify China's relations and support for borderline fascists?

Ismail

23rd April 2012, 04:47

And has Hoxha influenced virtually ever Marxian current up to date? I claimed Orthodox Marxism was relevant because it had an influence on ever Marxian current and changed Marxism completely. You then said it had no relevance today. I cited the CPGB.

So, you have some Hoxhaist parties, with no relevance to Marxism, and we have some Orthodox Marxist parties, in which Orthodox Marxism influenced every Marxist party and changed Marxism forever.This is a ridiculous and metaphysical argument. It's like capitalists who claim that they are loyal to the traditions of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson just because they say so.

You and nobody else are "orthodox Marxists." It's the lamest sort of grandstanding to make some artificial and "pure" connection between yourself, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels.

Yes, he wanted the Soviet Imperialists to be tougher on Hungary, we know.Actually he didn't. He wanted the Hungarian communists to be tougher on counter-revolution and revisionism. He explicitly warned them about this, but the Hungarians retorted that they must respect "socialist legality" and how Stalin was a bad man. Hoxha, for instance, was certainly against the execution of Imre Nagy by a Soviet court instead of a Hungarian one. He was certainly against the invasion's effect of liquidating the communist party there and replacing it with a wholly revisionist one.

He didn't note it as an Imperialist act, though. And if he did, then by definition they were an Anti imperialist force, no?No? Most Hungarians didn't participate in the uprising.

And how is this different from the Prague spring? Hoxha's opportunistic policy change, of course.Considering that Hoxha was writing after 1961 I don't see what "opportunistic policy change" has to do with it. In both cases the Soviet revisionists praised and ensured the rise of both Nagy and Dubček only to depose them later on when they threatened Soviet social-imperialist interests.

I already know his views on Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Had the Prague spring taken place in 1950's, he would have called it "Counter revolutionary in nature" and not Anti Imperialist.You do realize he called Dubček a counter-revolutionary as well, right?

They were no more of Revisionists (in regards to Marxism in general) than he was. They were just as much of Marxist Leninists as he was, as well.The Soviet revisionists and their allies negated the works of Stalin, bastardized scientific socialism, denied the proletarian revolution and restored capitalism. This is a fact.

(Inb4 BUT WW1 SPD WAS COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY! Even though EVERYONE already knows this!)Of course everyone knows this. It's also why no one cares about Kautsky anymore, he "influenced" everything that came after it must like Moses Hess "influenced" every Marxist.

From 1976-1979. Today, it isn't a "Hoxhaist" Party.1976-1991 or so, rather. And of course it isn't a "Hoxhaist" party today, much like the SPD isn't Marxist, what's your point?

This was a split from the Ecuadorian Communist Party in regards to China, and since the Soviet Union for them was not an option, they chose Hoxha. Good job.Thanks. What was your point again?

No, it's not. Communism is an Ideology, not Marxism. Or, are the actual upholding of Darwin's works (NOT social darwinism) constitute as an Ideology as well?This is semantics. No one raises the banner of Darwin and calls for Darwinian revolutions and the seizure of political power on the basis of evolutionary principles or whatever.

Obviously when it comes to the ideological realm Marxism and Communism are basically synonymous as political ideologies.

Not good for anyone, really. Especially the Hoxhaites (Why the hell am I even recognizing them as a faction?).I dunno, we don't call ourselves "Hoxhaists," whereas Maoists call us "Hoxhaites."

That doesn't make any sense. I don't see how Lady Gaga amounts to the working class.She doesn't, but to the average worker such ties just confirm to them that Marxism is some sort of elitist academic exercise of no relevance to them.

It's pretty obvious Zizek has outwardly Marxist tendencies.Who cares?

They didn't want Albania. The U.S. had no interest there, China went with Yugoslavia, and the S.U. didn't care, despite it's "Friendship society" probably consistent of three bored Soviet officials.Wrong, the USA saw the departure of Albania from the Warsaw Pact as a positive development for American imperialism and sought to exploit it. Albania refused to be exploited.

That's just a reflection of the Paranoid state of Albania (that they may be spies).Yet there's no evidence that Albania concretely backed any Kosovar Albanian group until the late 80's, after Hoxha was dead. Again, a lot of right-wing Kosovar Albanians consider Hoxha a "traitor." So much for your claim that Hoxha only wanted Kosovo.

Yeah, we know Tito didn't like Hoxha, and then stopped giving a shit afterwards... Point?Well what's your point? You said that Albania's foreign policy was based on whatever Yugoslavia was doing. I noted that wasn't true.

Alfonso Cano

23rd April 2012, 23:13

A legitimate question: How do Maoists even attempt to justify China's relations and support for borderline fascists?

They justify it by claiming that Soviet Union was "social-imperialist" country that has lost all its revolutionary credentials and has become even worst than capitalism itself. Thus, if it is even worst than capitalism, it is acceptable to ally with ultra-reactionaries like Pinochet and Franco, because they were lesser evil. That was the "logic" beyond China's foreign policy.

Should I even try to explain its logical fallacies?

Ismail

24th April 2012, 06:07

No, because obviously a lot of people disagreed with the "Three Worlds Theory," to the extent that the RCPUSA and other pro-Gang of Four groups had to pretend that Mao was in opposition to it all along and that somehow a major foreign policy pronouncement could occur without Mao's approval.

Plus, you know, the analysis of social-imperialism and state-capitalism was shared by the PLA as well. The difference is that PLA noted the reactionary, opportunistic and right-wing character of the "Three Worlds Theory," but also noted that even in the 60's Chinese foreign policy was built on China trying to become a "great power," of effectively submerging ideology to territorial demands, etc. At the 6th Congress of the PLA in 1971 Hoxha said that one cannot oppose imperialism by relying on another, rival imperialism.

Rafiq

24th April 2012, 20:56

This is a ridiculous and metaphysical argument. It's like capitalists who claim that they are loyal to the traditions of Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson just because they say so.

No, it's nothing like that. Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson didn't create capitalists or capitalism, or the structure in which they operate.

Orthodox Marxism, on the other hand, gave birth to a new form of Marxism in which the worker's movement and Marx merged.

You and nobody else are "orthodox Marxists."

Well a lot of the CPGB, several users on this website, and many others.

It's the lamest sort of grandstanding to make some artificial and "pure" connection between yourself, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels.

You fucking moron, that's Classical Marxism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-classical-vs-t161893/index.html?t=161893

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Marxism

Orthodox Marxism destroyed "Pure" Marx and Engels Marxism. It sought to "Smoothen out" Marxism. Fucking idiot....

Actually he didn't. He wanted the Hungarian communists to be tougher on counter-revolution and revisionism.

Obviously Hoxha didn't put his position on Hungary based on non existent anti revisionists.

He explicitly warned them about this, but the Hungarians retorted that they must respect "socialist legality" and how Stalin was a bad man. Hoxha, for instance, was certainly against the execution of Imre Nagy by a Soviet court instead of a Hungarian one.

Hoxha wanted Nagy killed under Stalin, whether it be a Hungarian or Soviet court.

He was certainly against the invasion's effect of liquidating the communist party there and replacing it with a wholly revisionist one.

You, before, hand, asserted that the Hungarian Uprising "Communists" were counter revolutionary in nature, and now you say he opposed the deposing of this "Counter revolutionary party within a counter revolution"?

No? Most Hungarians didn't participate in the uprising.

Most Afghans didn't join the Muj (regardless of where their support was). Most Hungarians supported the uprising.

Considering that Hoxha was writing after 1961 I don't see what "opportunistic policy change" has to do with it. In both cases the Soviet revisionists praised and ensured the rise of both Nagy and Dubček only to depose them later on when they threatened Soviet social-imperialist interests.

Too bad Hoxha didn't refer to the invasion of Hungary as social imperialist and supported it.

You do realize he called Dubček a counter-revolutionary as well, right?

But he called the Czech resistance anti imperialist.

The Soviet revisionists and their allies negated the works of Stalin, bastardized scientific socialism, denied the proletarian revolution and restored capitalism. This is a fact.

You are missing the bigger picture. The negation of Stalin's works, the "Bastardization of Scientific Socialism" (Of which Stalin had already successfully assured, as did Hoxha with his absurd Revisionism theory) the denying of the proletarian revolution (Though at the least they were being honest, I suppose, considering Stalin recognized it, at the same time morphing it's character into the interests of his Party) and the restoration of Liberalism (The capitalist mode of production was never surpassed in the Soviet Union) were all an inevitability, the Soviet Union was doomed the day the revolution failed to spread to the Industrialized countries.

Christ, have I not been over this thousands of times already? Most of hte time that I have, you've simply ignored it.

Facts are before Ideas, and Matter is before thought. The Soviet Mode of Production and rule of capial preceeded "Revisionism". Like I said, you should not blame the morals of the capitalist, instead blame the structure in which a capitalist is allowed to express his so called immorality.

In this same sense, Khrushchev's "Revisionism" (Which was really just the denouncing of Stalin) was a direct result of social relations in place, and dare I say, a direct result of Material conditions. It was not Khrushchev who understood them, and therefore responded to them, no, Material conditions controlled him, in the sense where there was no choice, or the very existence of the USSR was at stake.

Just as the Trotskyists are full of shit when they say "Oh, had Lenin lived just a few years longer, everything would be different!". The point is that with the retention of the same social order, had Stalin even lived fifty years longer, virtually almost all of the same policies would have been the same (Though not completely, of course). He would have had to adopt the same Liberal reforms as the rest of the bunch. The Soviet Economy was a pathetic disaster, regardless of who was "In power".

Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a means of abandoning the Pre WWII mode of organization throughout the USSR, that the economy was in danger, and that something new had to arise, in order to abandon the mistakes of hte past. In truth, under Khrushchev, his policies generated higher standards of living in the USSR. It's because non isolated capitalism (In an already industrialized country) works much more efficiently than Isolated Socialism (Which cannot even get passed the capitalist mode of production) in a country. China is our "shining example".

The Capitalist knows fuck all about what material conditions are, yet he responds to them.

The point is this: Material conditions are the conditions which are generated directly by the mode of production, in which the production takes place and then the state (in capitalism) responds with laws, with policy, etc.

Material conditions are not "The situation".

It is not a "Choice" to respond to them. All thoughts, Ideas, or theoretical works are done in direct response to them, as a reflection. By no means do "Material conditions" mean exactly "The situation" in a country. Because of this idiotic misintereration, you've accused me of being a Nazi Apoligist, a Juche Apoligist, etc. Because you're a moron who has not the slightest grasp of the Materialist conception of history. But then again, this is hardly surprising, considering you're a self proclaimed "Anti Revisionist" Marxist Leninist in the 21st century.

Of course everyone knows this. It's also why no one cares about Kautsky anymore,

So because of Kautsky's actions later in his life, all of his works rot to shit before then, even if they are antithetical to his Change? You sound like a Moralist scum bag.

On this kind of moronic mentality, Zhukov should be eternally hated and erased from your history books because Stalin got pissed at him in the early 50's.

he "influenced" everything that came after it must like Moses Hess "influenced" every Marxist.

Why the fuck do you keep mentioning Moses Hess? Moses Hess barely influenced Marx, while Kautsky radically changed the Structural Character of virtually almost all currents of Marxism. Someone like Hess wasn't required for Marxism to exist.

1976-1991 or so, rather.

Wrong. They gave fuck all about Hoxha after 1979

And of course it isn't a "Hoxhaist" party today, much like the SPD isn't Marxist, what's your point?

Here we go, in circles once more... (Fucking moron)

The point is every current of Marxism today, or rather, in any other time after the early 1900's, was at one point influenced by Orthodox Marxism. The influence of Orthodox Marxism thrives in all currents of Marxism, while Hoxhaism has rotten into shit, without not even a tad bit of influence on Marxism all together. That was the point. Orthodox Marxism claims the soul of almost every party after the Bolsheviks (Including the Hoxhaites) no matter how vulgurist they are. Hoxhaism does fuck all to influence anything, you know why? Because it was a theoretical piece of shit, just as Socialist Albania was an economic hole of shit.

Thanks. What was your point again?

It was more an act of desperation than a conversion or enlightenment to the "All glorious Shining light of Hoxhaite Marxism Leninism". Really, they were just counting on support from any socialist country. With the Sino Albanian Split at hand, why not choose Hoxha? This doesn't have anything to do with a theoretical influence on Marxism, or Marxism in general.

This is semantics. No one raises the banner of Darwin and calls for Darwinian revolutions and the seizure of political power on the basis of evolutionary principles or whatever.

So only Ideology can do this? No one raises the banner of Marx or calls for a Marxist revoluition on the basis of Marxian scientific principles, they raise the banner of Socialism/Communism and call for a Socialist revolution on the basis of radical leftist revolutionary principles.

The people who do that are Morons. The Bolsheviks never did it, either. Perhaps on the basis of "Marxian scientific principles", but only because Marxism is a social science that deals specifically with the various social relations that humans have not just with the mode of production, but with each other. The military uses scientific principles of motion and even genetic engineering that relates to Darwin, though that hardly constitutes Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin's works as "Ideology" (And yes, to some extent Zizek is full of shit on this, but only right in the sense that they have may been operating with ideology, but this ideology did not consume their works).

Obviously when it comes to the ideological realm Marxism and Communism are basically synonymous as political ideologies.

What? :laugh:

This is laughable. It just goes to show your categorization as Hoxhaism as some kind of Ideological lord with "Marxism and Communism" being tools to for fill it's desire.

Marxism isn't a political ideology. Members of the ruling class who want to stop revolution at all costs can be Marxists, and even in many cases it serves them better to do so. Soros got rich off of just a few Marxian economic principles. You're a moron. Anyone can be a Marxist and have almost any mere political view and class position. Fascism, by the way, isn't really consitute as a mere political view because it is an Ideology.

I dunno, we don't call ourselves "Hoxhaists," whereas Maoists call us "Hoxhaites."

My point is Hoxhaists are not even relevant enough in the field of Marxist thought to even be recognized as existent. Neither are any "Anti revisionist Marxist Leninists" Besides Maoism, which is in most cases a joke.

She doesn't, but to the average worker such ties just confirm to them that Marxism is some sort of elitist academic exercise of no relevance to them.

It is a science. Though, after all, the point of Orthodox Marxism was to get rid of this barrier and forge merger of the Worker's Movement and Marxism. This was a direct quote from Kautsky. How Ironic. Before him, Marxism was just an "Elitist academic exercise".

Who cares?

You claimed he did not.

Wrong, the USA saw the departure of Albania from the Warsaw Pact as a positive development for American imperialism and sought to exploit it. Albania refused to be exploited.

And Albania left the Warsaw pact as soon as it aligned itself with China in the sixties. At this point the U.S. didn't give a shit. Albania was never in a position to be exploited by American Imperialism without the deposing of the PPSH. Not because the PPSH would object, but because the Americans would. They wanted to retain their class power.

Yet there's no evidence that Albania concretely backed any Kosovar Albanian group until the late 80's,

What the fuck? How is that in any way a response to this:

That's just a reflection of the Paranoid state of Albania (that they may be spies).

Not once did I say Albania backed any Kosovar Albanian group. What a shit straw man.

You said that Hoxha deported Kosavar groups, I said it was because the state was paranoid, and then you responded by saying:

"Ah ha! There is no evidence to say Albania concretely backed any Kosovar Albanian group!"

...(?)

after Hoxha was dead. Again, a lot of right-wing Kosovar Albanians consider Hoxha a "traitor." So much for your claim that Hoxha only wanted Kosovo.

He did only want Kosovo, but by the 80's that was a lost cause.

Well what's your point? You said that Albania's foreign policy was based on whatever Yugoslavia was doing. I noted that wasn't true.

I said that was the base of it's foreign policy from day 1. It mutated into something entirely different.

Rafiq

24th April 2012, 20:57

Ismail, why do you pick and choose what part of my post you like to respond to? Why don't you respond to the whole thing?

Die Neue Zeit

25th April 2012, 04:26

Orthodox Marxism, on the other hand, gave birth to a new form of Marxism in which the worker's movement and Marx merged.

Well a lot of the CPGB, several users on this website, and many others.

You fucking moron, that's Classical Marxism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-classical-vs-t161893/index.html?t=161893

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Marxism

Orthodox Marxism destroyed "Pure" Marx and Engels Marxism. It sought to "Smoothen out" Marxism. Fucking idiot....

Well said.

Why the fuck do you keep mentioning Moses Hess? Moses Hess barely influenced Marx, while Kautsky radically changed the Structural Character of virtually almost all currents of Marxism. Someone like Hess wasn't required for Marxism to exist.

I think Ismail and you might have had a better "debate" if he likened Kautsky's influence on Lenin to Hegel's influence. It's too bad he went for some strawman.

The point is every current of Marxism today, or rather, in any other time after the early 1900's, was at one point influenced by Orthodox Marxism. The influence of Orthodox Marxism thrives in all currents of Marxism, while Hoxhaism has rotten into shit, without not even a tad bit of influence on Marxism all together. That was the point. Orthodox Marxism claims the soul of almost every party after the Bolsheviks (Including the Hoxhaites) no matter how vulgurist they are.

[...]

Though, after all, the point of Orthodox Marxism was to get rid of this barrier and forge merger of the Worker's Movement and Marxism. This was a direct quote from Kautsky. How Ironic. Before him, Marxism was just an "Elitist academic exercise".

To be more accurate, comrade, both classical and orthodox Marxism strove for "the merger of socialism and the worker movement," though these days the revolutionary merger of Marxism and the worker-class movement is a more accurate goal.

Ismail needs to re-read the Short Course itself to evaluate the Orthodox Marxist influence on Stalin himself, in those sections he personally wrote.

A Marxist Historian

25th April 2012, 07:19

It was, the Orthodox Marxism pre war Kautskyanksm. Of course not the anti Lenin Pro War Kautsky.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Hm? How did that renegade Kautsky get into this discussion?

Nobody in the KPD like Kautsky At All.

And Rosa Luxemburg had been fighting Kautsky for 20 years, longer than Lenin in fact. Lenin at a distance had illusions until WWI broke out that Kautsky was a revolutionary. Rosa, seeing him close at hand, knew better.

If Kautskyism is Orthodox Marxism, then it is fair to say that nobody, but nobody, in Rosa Luxemburg's Spartacusbund was an Orthodox Marxist.

Which is even true formally, as Rosa didn't follow Marx on everything, and Karl Liebknecht certainly never thought of himself as an "orthodox Marxist."

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

25th April 2012, 07:37

As if the Sparts played little to no role in it, Fuck off.

As per Luxemburg's idea of Spontaneity's role in revolution.

Which was supported, WHOLE HEARTEDLY, by the sparts and Luxemburg.

Where, in the blue fucking hell, do you get to call Luxemburg "anti-Lenin"? It's quite clear you've never read anything written by her. Disagreeing with policies and certain things, did not make her "anti-Lenin" or "anti-bolshevik", it made her independent.

What, prey tell, aside from the constituent assembly, did she abandon? One again, not anti-lenin, for fuck sakes.

I'm no left com, but I support them. The land/peasantry idea, proved CORRECT, as rich land owning peasants were opposed to socialism. Her idea of the national question isn't opposing national liberation, but, as Marx and Engels did, take each situation case by case.

Seriously, only idiots think every national liberation struggle is good, and is a "right" of these peoples. Marx certainly opposed it in cases.

GCP =/= KPD by the way. GCP didn't exist til the 60s.

Ah yes, crazed froth-at-the-mouth polemic at its best. Of course the Spartacusbund played a big role in the German Revolution. But it didn't lead it, didn't start it, wasn't the dominant force in it, and never claimed otherwise. Rosa Luxemburg & Karl Liebknecht are no doubt rolling in their graves about this sort of "defense."

I am not calling Rosa Luxemburg an anti-Leninist or anti-Bolshevik, not at all. It is the latter-day "Luxemburgists" like yourself who are anti-Leninist and anti-Bolshevik, following the model of the guy who invented "Luxemburgism," Paul Levi, on his way back into the German Social Democracy.

Who or what is the "GCP"?

And trying to deny that Rosa Luxemburg opposed national self-determination is absurd and an insult to Luxemburg.

Her opposition to giving land to the peasants, and opposition to letting oppressed nationalities in Europe get their independence if they wanted it, was no doubt well meant, but was disastrous in practice, especially in the Hungarian Revolution, which followed the Rosa Luxemburg line, one of the reasons it collapsed, as peasants and minority nationalities revolted against it.

Ismail

25th April 2012, 09:00

Well a lot of the CPGB, several users on this website, and many others.I like how the CPGB is more relevant than parties which braved reactionary military dictatorships and actually had not-insignificant amounts of proletarians backing them.

Who cares about the CPGB? It (re?)formed during the crisis of Soviet revisionism.

You fucking moron, that's Classical Marxism Why should I care what you define as "orthodox" and "classical" Marxism? In fact, I care very much less now that you actually separate the two.

Orthodox Marxism destroyed "Pure" Marx and Engels Marxism. It sought to "Smoothen out" Marxism. Fucking idiot....I see. Perhaps you can direct me to some works on how Marxism was made "smooth" through the power of "Orthodox Marxism"? I'd be quite interested. Only thing you have to do is pick a date sometime in the last 100 years and before the year 2000, that way I know you're not pulling an ideology out of your anus.

Hoxha wanted Nagy killed under Stalin, whether it be a Hungarian or Soviet court.Yes, and? Hoxha made clear why it was best for Nagy to be shot by a Hungarian court, not a Soviet court.

You, before, hand, asserted that the Hungarian Uprising "Communists" were counter revolutionary in nature, and now you say he opposed the deposing of this "Counter revolutionary party within a counter revolution"?You could actually read Hoxha when it comes to the subject. He notes that the CP in Hungary had weak links with the working-class but that Rákosi and others denounced as "Stalinists" were, in fact, not bad Marxist-Leninists. The Khrushchevites promoted counter-revolution and the restoration of capitalism. When this resulted in a form of revisionism which "creatively" called for Hungary joining the orbit of US imperialism Khrushchev intervened and liquidated the old CP, creating one which would be totally loyal to the Soviets. Thus out of the Hungarian uprising, which was also a counter-revolution, came the counter-revolution within it, which produced "Goulash socialism" ("market socialism.")

Most Afghans didn't join the Muj (regardless of where their support was). Most Hungarians supported the uprising.Irrelevant and no.

Too bad Hoxha didn't refer to the invasion of Hungary as social imperialist and supported it.I see. Care to provide a source? He was very obviously critical of the Soviet response considering that it, you know, liquidated the old CP and reinforced Khrushchevism.

But he called the Czech resistance anti imperialist.He did? Where?

In this same sense, Khrushchev's "Revisionism" (Which was really just the denouncing of Stalin) was a direct result of social relations in place, and dare I say, a direct result of Material conditions. It was not Khrushchev who understood them, and therefore responded to them, no, Material conditions controlled him, in the sense where there was no choice, or the very existence of the USSR was at stake.Yes, if Khrushchev didn't denounce Stalin and argue that he planned his military operations on a globe of the world, the USSR would have exploded. By undermining the economy by gradually introducing the anarchy of the market, Khrushchev was merely "responding" to material conditions to save the USSR. That's great.

In truth, under Khrushchev, his policies generated higher standards of living in the USSR.That's totally independent of the Soviet industrialization efforts in the 30's and 40's, right? I guess living standards rose under Deng because of similar magic.

But then again, this is hardly surprising, considering you're a self proclaimed "Anti Revisionist" Marxist Leninist in the 21st century.Nice remark, you are clearly a "21st century socialist"

So because of Kautsky's actions later in his life, all of his works rot to shit before then, even if they are antithetical to his Change? You sound like a Moralist scum bag.No, I just recall that what good Kautsky did was taken up by Lenin and others and... that's it.

On this kind of moronic mentality, Zhukov should be eternally hated and erased from your history books because Stalin got pissed at him in the early 50's.Well he did help Khrushchev by basically threatening to coup the Party if the "Anti-Party Group" took power. I don't see what that has to do with anything though.

Hoxhaism does fuck all to influence anything, you know why? Because it was a theoretical piece of shit, just as Socialist Albania was an economic hole of shit.Great chauvinism, there.

My point is Hoxhaists are not even relevant enough in the field of Marxist thought to even be recognized as existent.Probably because they're just called "Stalinists." No one claims that "Hoxhaism" exists, because it doesn't; it's Marxism-Leninism.

And Albania left the Warsaw pact as soon as it aligned itself with China in the sixties.Actually it didn't, it left it in 1968 when Czechoslovakia was invaded. It de facto ceased to participate after 1961, though, but during that interim period did state it was willing to rejoin its work if the Soviets apologized for their economic and political warfare against Albania and the Warsaw Pact countries were willing to deal equally with it.

At this point the U.S. didn't give a shit. Albania was never in a position to be exploited by American Imperialism without the deposing of the PPSH. Not because the PPSH would object, but because the Americans would. They wanted to retain their class power.So you admit that Albania wasn't exploited by American imperialism. Okay, so whose "ass" did Hoxha kiss in-re capital?

You said that Hoxha deported Kosavar groups, I said it was because the state was paranoid, and then you responded by saying:

"Ah ha! There is no evidence to say Albania concretely backed any Kosovar Albanian group!"

...(?)... yes, because generally supporting them means you... support them. Hoxha did not diss the struggle of the Kosovar Albanians, which the Comintern onwards recognized as a just struggle for national self-determination. But he never sought to destabilize Yugoslavia through them.

He did only want Kosovo, but by the 80's that was a lost cause.Actually Mehmet Shehu and Hoxha did discuss the possibility of invading Yugoslavia in 1981, during the student riots, when Yugoslav-Albanian ties became quite bad. Hoxha was apparently against it, though. Also Ramiz Alia actually started giving more support to Kosovar Albanian groups in the late 80's.

And yeah, it's pretty normal for Albanians to want Kosovo since... it's Albanian and all and both the Comintern and the Yugoslav CP (until like 1943) called for its reunion with Albania.

Rafiq

26th April 2012, 20:59

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2428873&postcount=44

bad ideas actualised by alcohol

2nd May 2012, 13:13

What was Hoxha's stand on gay-rights and women-rights and did he write about it?

Ismail

2nd May 2012, 16:55

What was Hoxha's stand on gay-rights and women-rights and did he write about it?The former no, homosexuality was seen through a class lens, so male homosexuality was associated with either tribal, patriarchal rule or simply a sign of the "degeneracy" of capitalism. "Unnatural sexual relations" between a man and a woman (i.e. sodomy) and between women were legal according to the Albanian penal code.

Albania under Hoxha saw significant gains in women's rights, and in fact it was the focus of a major campaign during the late 60's and early 70's. James S. O'Donnell in his book A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha has a chapter which includes a section on women's rights. Many other books on Albanian history during the socialist period note advances in women's rights as well.

As for what Hoxha wrote about it, most of it is rather simple, e.g. the need to affirm that love is a positive trait and not a "degenerate" trait, etc. It should be noted that Albania was one of the most backwards societies economically and socially, customary law allowed for a man to beat his wife and shame her in a village by removing her clothing and carting her about if she was disloyal. Most Albanian women had no concept even of seas because they either almost never left their house or only went to a local marketplace.

Brosip Tito

2nd May 2012, 16:59

Ah yes, crazed froth-at-the-mouth polemic at its best. Of course the Spartacusbund played a big role in the German Revolution. But it didn't lead it, didn't start it, wasn't the dominant force in it, and never claimed otherwise. Rosa Luxemburg & Karl Liebknecht are no doubt rolling in their graves about this sort of "defense."I'm not claiming that it "started it".

Not claiming that they "lead it".

Not claiming they were the "dominant force" in it, although, could you tell me which organizational body was?

I'm just countering your initial claim that it wasn't the sparts, but Liebknecht who played an important role (of course he did, but so did the rest of the sparts)

I am not calling Rosa Luxemburg an anti-Leninist or anti-Bolshevik, not at all. It is the latter-day "Luxemburgists" like yourself who are anti-Leninist and anti-Bolshevik, following the model of the guy who invented "Luxemburgism," Paul Levi, on his way back into the German Social Democracy.Do explain how I am anti-leninist, please. I don't even know who Paul Levi is.

I became a Luxemburgist through reading her works, Paul Frolichs biography, Tony Cliff's piece on her, and coming to my own conclusions.

I've spent so much time in threads, and other forums, telling left comms and anarchsits to keep their hands off of Luxemburg, and pointing out that she was a pro-bolshevik, pro-Leninist with disagreements on policy and organization.

Who or what is the "GCP"?German Communsit party. Whom you referred to in the initial post I responded to.

"Indeed, the dominant political force in the German Communist Party, initially, were the "leftcoms." Thus, the KPD boycotted the German elections, over Karl and Rosa's opposition, which turned out to be a big mistake.

-M.H.- "

And trying to deny that Rosa Luxemburg opposed national self-determination is absurd and an insult to Luxemburg.Unlike you, I've read "The National Question" in it's entirety.

Luxemburg opposed the right of national self-determination. She was known to follow the line of marx, analyzing each individual situation, and supporting some natonal-liberation struggles, whilst opposing others.

Try reading some Luxemburg at some point. Here's a link to The National Question (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1909/national-question/index.htm).

Her opposition to giving land to the peasants, and opposition to letting oppressed nationalities in Europe get their independence if they wanted it, was no doubt well meant, but was disastrous in practice, especially in the Hungarian Revolution, which followed the Rosa Luxemburg line, one of the reasons it collapsed, as peasants and minority nationalities revolted against it.Explain to me her line in regards to the agrarian question. I'm sure you can tell me what it was.

Also, wrong again on her "opposition" to letting oppressed nationalities get their "independence". See above point.

Try harder.