Hoxha: A Maoist Perspective

[Mauve Osprey]

Recently, I have learned of Albanian leader Enver Hoxha. I noticed that he seemed closer to Stalin than Mao. What is the general perspective of Hoxha from Maoists? Was he revisionist? I am quite confused and this is my first time hearing about him.

[Ismail]

The MIM back in the 90's said (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/wyl/hoxha.html) the following:

Hoxhaites uphold Albanian socialism and the leader of the Albanian Communist Party, Enver Hoxha. The line between "Hoxhaites" and "Stalinists" is blurring in recent years, as is their separation from Castro and Kim.

Hoxha claimed public unity with Mao until the latter's death in 1976. Throughout the 1960s and till Mao's death, Hoxha referred to China as undergoing "socialist construction" and he referred to Mao as a "Marxist-Leninist." After Mao died and Albania lost its aid from China, Hoxha attacked Mao's legacy that he used to uphold. In 1979, Hoxha publicly criticized the Cultural Revolution(1966-1976). Instead of "Marxist-Leninist" as Hoxha earlier called Mao, Hoxha said that Mao was a "progressive figure" and "nationalist."

Hoxha said it was impossible for a bourgeoisie to exist in the party unless the party was revisionist and tolerated the bourgeoisie; hence he opposed Mao's theses and the reason for a Cultural Revolution, which Albania never had. In practice, Hoxha's own hand-picked successor Ramiz Alia restored open, traditional capitalism in Albania; yet, Hoxhaites have still failed to draw any correct scientific conclusions about who was correct: Mao or Hoxha. They fail to say, "yes, look at Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Alia: they were all inside parties alleging to be communist, so how can we deny Mao's thesis about a bourgeoisie in the party?" It can still be said that Hoxhaites talk about class struggle under socialism, but without a bourgeoisie!And from another, more liberal (http://massline.org/Dictionary/H.htm) Maoist:

For both nationalist and ideological reasons Hoxha opposed Tito and Yugoslavia, and thus sided with Stalin and the Soviet Union against them. Hoxha was thus presumed by many to be an anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist, though the form of the supposed dictatorship of the proletariat in Albania was highly undemocratic for the working class as well as the bourgeoisie and society was not truly advanced in the direction of communism.

Hoxha and Albania sided with China in the Sino-Soviet Split. However, after Mao’s death (and especially from 1978 on) Hoxha began defaming Mao along with the actual capitalist-roaders in China. Both Hoxha’s theorizing and his actual leadership of Albania were quite erroneous, and not many years after his death the regime he led collapsed.The LLCO, when it's not ranting against "first world" workers as being bourgeois exploiters, managed to provide (http://llco.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/LL4.pdf) a Maoist overview of Hoxha as well:

Enver Hoxha (October 16th, 1908 to April 11th, 1985) was, at least for a time, a communist and anti-fascist fighter. Hoxha was one of the seven members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Albania, later named the “Albanian Party of Labour,” founded in 1941. When the Nazis and their allies occupied and controlled Albania, Hoxha and his party fought for national liberation against the fascists. Hoxha fought as a partisan against the Nazis and their allies throughout World War 2. Unlike “people’s democracies” of Eastern Europe, Albania was not directly liberated by the Soviet forces, but rather by the partisans. Hoxha and his party came to lead Albania after World War 2. Hoxha modeled Albania on the Stalin-era Soviet Union. When Khrushchev openly broke with Stalin, Hoxha, like Mao, broke with the Soviets. Hoxha also criticized Soviet attempts to make Albania a dependent colony. Like Mao, Hoxha exposed the rise of Soviet social imperialism, revisionism, and capitalist restoration. Unlike Mao, the critique by Hoxha and his followers remained superficial. Instead of analyzing the material reasons for the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, Hoxha and his followers said the problem was that the Soviets had deviated from Stalin and failed to purge more people. Thus the answer, in the view of the Hoxhaists, was eternal return to Stalin and more purges. Hoxhaists see the world through the police paradigm. The Hoxhaist answer to counter-revolution is to elevate a dogmatized form of Stalin-era Marxist Leninism to the level of religion. They are stuck in the past. By contrast, the Maoists began to look at the question scientifically. Rather than returning to the past, the Maoists of that era looked forward. They advocated class struggle, continuing the revolution, mass line and cultural revolution. The Maoists expanded the science of revolution. When Mao was alive, Hoxha allied with the Maoists. However, it was an alliance of convenience against the Soviet imperialists more than one of ideological unity. When he received aid from the Chinese, he opportunistically embraced them. After the revisionists in China began cutting support to Albania, Hoxha revealed that he thought the Maoists had been revisionists all along. After Hoxha’s death, Albania quickly began reversing its Stalin era policies. It began to integrate back into global capitalism.

Without constant innovation and revolution, capitalism is restored. Hoxha’s regime, even though part of or allied with the socialist bloc, did not show any dynamism. And once the Maoists had elevated the science, those who did not go forward with them became retrograde from the standpoint of reaching communism. If you are not going to communism, you can only be leading back to capitalism or other reactionary social systems. Hoxha’s regime stayed true to a course that had already been shown not to lead to communism on its own. He did not innovate as the Maoists did. At one point, Hoxha and his movement can be seen as proletarian, when they are pushing forward against the Nazis and when they are going forward. At a certain point though, we can see the regime as simply representing popular classes, but not proletarian-led nor communist-led, of Europe’s poorer areas, resisting both the Western and Soviet imperialists, but not really advancing to communism.Maoist critiques of Hoxha's stand on China and "Mao Zedong Thought":
* http://www.bannedthought.net/SriLanka/Sanmugathasan/HoxhaRefuted.htm
* http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-5/rcp-hoxha/index.htm

[Mauve Osprey]

Thank you for those last texts. Overall, I agree with the Maoist critique. The 2 main problems with Hoxha seem to be that he overreacts to the Cultural Revolution and denies all of what was accomplished in China and smothers Mao's legacy. Also, Hoxha seems to follow Stalin way too closely, rather than accepting him critically. We should remember what Mao said, Stalin was 70% right and 30% wrong. While I do find Hoxha interesting, it seems that he denied Mao's theoretical additions of Marxism-Leninism and tries to attack Maoism. It seems to me that he was indeed revisionist and seemed to be opportunistic when he attacked Mao and China.

[Ismail]

And now I shall retort.


The 2 main problems with Hoxha seem to be that he overreacts to the Cultural Revolution and denies all of what was accomplished in China and smothers Mao's legacy.The issue here is what, exactly, was accomplished during the "GPCR" other than Mao's consolidation of power.

Did Mao struggle against the right-wing of his party? Well, Liu Shaoqi winded up dead, but Deng Xiaoping was eventually rehabilitated under Mao's watch. Lin Biao was built up as Mao's successor to the extent that one of the few party congresses in Chinese history convened and literally declared him Mao's successor in the event of the former's death or resignation. This same Lin then attempted, according to the Chinese, to initiate a pro-Soviet putsch but failed in this endeavor and died when his plane crashed over Mongolian territory as he attempted to flee.

Mao certainly did not struggle against the right-wing of his party in the 50's during the "Hundred Flowers" period, and in fact the entire economic policy pursued by Mao, even largely throughout the "GPCR," was consistently right-wing and conciliatory towards the bourgeoisie. See for instance: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/chinecon.htm

Then, of course, Mao unveiled his "Three Worlds Theory" (and sent the rehabilitated Deng to the UN to formally announce it), which was clearly a right-wing "theory" devoid of Marxist analysis and aimed to unite China with US imperialism economically and politically. Zaire, Pinochet's Chile, Shah-led Iran, and other viciously anti-communist states became some of the largest recipients of Chinese aid.

The "GPCR" certainly did not prevent the right-wing of the party from triumphing pretty much immediately after Mao died, and in large part this is because Mao relied on the army and "revolutionary" students (who doubled as a second army) against the party, the working-class, peasantry and against any factions he considered unreliable. The Maoists declared that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" not as an observation about certain situations but as literal policy and objective truth, with Lin declaring at one point that "Marxism" regards the army is the main component of the state.

The "GPCR" brought economic chaos to China and practically liquidated the activity of the CCP. I fail to see how that is in any way progressive, much less socialist.


Also, Hoxha seems to follow Stalin way too closely, rather than accepting him critically. We should remember what Mao said, Stalin was 70% right and 30% wrong.In the first place it is worth pointing out what Mao considered "wrong" about Stalin. In short, his "criticisms" of him were on a right-wing basis, just as the Soviet revisionists "criticisms" of him were. Stalin distrusted Mao and saw him as a potential Tito-type figure, something Hoxha considered a correct observation. Mao, in fact, was on good terms with Khrushchev up until disputes emerged between them on great-power lines.

As for Hoxha and the Albanian Communists following "Stalin way too closely," this is a strange remark. The Albanians did learn from the Soviet experience and sought to avoid the rise of revisionism and its backers such as bureaucracy. In contrast to Soviet wage policies which emphasized material over moral incentive, Albania winded up with the most egalitarian wage structure in the world in an effort to always place moral incentives before material ones. Various other anti-bureaucratic measures were enacted which, of course, did not enjoy lasting impact.

Albanian materials routinely stressed that the Albanian Communists were constructing socialism on the basis of a creative application of Marxism-Leninism to the concrete conditions of their country. What the Albanians did not do was selectively discard this or that aspect of Marxist analysis deemed "unacceptable" for nationalist or opportunist reasons as the Maoists, Soviet revisionists, and others did.


It seems to me that he was indeed revisionist and seemed to be opportunistic when he attacked Mao and China.Throughout the 60's and 70's the Central Committee of the Party of Labour sent letters to its Chinese counterpart criticizing the fixation the Chinese had on border disputes with the USSR and the meeting between Mao and Nixon, among other things. Both bourgeois and communist analysts noted from the early 70's onwards a deterioration in relations between Albania and China, with Hoxha denouncing the "Three Worlds Theory" and some other Maoist theories. Even as early as the 60's Hoxha was stressing the need for the leading role of the party in the revolutionization of the country and further development of socialism, at a time when Mao was calling for "bombarding the headquarters" and liquidating the party's role. What Maoists do is see Albanian materials carry out routine diplomatic protocols and declare that Hoxha was an "opportunist" for supposedly denouncing Mao and China after such protocols had been carried out in the past.

But this is pretty dishonest. In 1959, for example, Khrushchev visited Albania and, in public, praised Hoxha and the Albanian leadership as Marxist-Leninists, while Hoxha returned the favor. In private, however, both leaders were already attacking each other and within less than a year Khrushchev was seeking to overthrow Hoxha and exert economic pressure on the country. Mao and Khrushchev likewise praised each other before the split between those two countries widened, but we note Mao's support for Khrushchev not on the basis of such routine greetings, but on the basis of concrete policies.

Then, of course, there's the fact that Mao publicly praised Hoxha just as Hoxha praised Mao. Mao wrote to Hoxha on the occasion of the latter's 60th birthday in 1968 that, "You are the founder of the glorious Albanian Party of Labour and the great leader of the heroic Albanian people. The transformation of Albania from a poor and backward country into an advance and staunch socialist country is closely linked with your correct leadership. You have creatively integrated the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Albanian revolution. You have led the Albanian people in establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat through self-reliance, in carrying out the revolutionisation movement in a sustained and deep-going way and in waging tit-for-tat struggles against imperialism headed by U.S. imperialism, modern revisionism headed by Soviet revisionism, and all reaction. You have made outstanding contributions to the cause of the world proletarian revolution and to the enrichment and development of Marxism-Leninism. Comrade Enver Hoxha, your glorious record has proved that you are really worthy to be called a great heroic fighter of Marxism-Leninism."

[ind_com]

The following is from an interview of Gonzalo:


EL DIARIO: Chairman, do you think there are socialist countries in the world today?


CHAIRMAN GONZALO: Frankly no, I don't think so. There are those who believe, for example, that Albania is a socialist country. I'd say to those who believe that Albania is socialist that they should study carefully, for example, the documents of the VIIIth Congress of the Party of Labor of Albania. That would be a good thing to study, because it says there that the center of world reaction is U.S. imperialism. And Soviet imperialism? What happened to the two enemies we have to fight? It was always just words. With Hoxha himself it was just words because he always wrote more about fighting Yankee imperialism than social-imperialism.


The same Congress also said that humanity has never been closer to its extinction than now. They repeat this just like the others, which is no mere coincidence. But what do they propose that we do? Concretely, expose imperialism. That is not the solution. Exposing imperialism will not stop a world war. The solution is to make revolution by carrying out people's war.


And if one looks at everything that is said there about the serious economic problems they have,one can see quite clearly the road that Albania has taken. However, it was not Ramiz Alia, the present leader, who chose this road, but Hoxha himself, who in 1978, in a speech before the electorate, stated that in Albania there were no antagonistic classes. We know very well what that means, because this question has been thoroughly explained by Chairman Mao Tsetung. And if we add to this his deceitful attacks on Chairman Mao, on the development of Marxism, what is he but a revisionist? Therefore Albania is not socialist.
If we look at Vietnam, the road it is following is that of an instrument of the Soviet Union that today clamors for imperialist aid with an economy in crisis and ruin. So much blood, for what? It's because there, there was Ho Chi Minh, a centrist, as can be seen in his famous testament, where he says he regrets seeing conflict within the International Communist Movement, when the question was which side he would take in the struggle between Marxism and revisionism. A communist has but one solution, to stand on the side of Marxism. Ho Chi Minh never did. Later came Le Duan, a rotten revisionist. Hence, the present situation in Vietnam.


This is why I hold that there are no socialist countries today. All this makes one reflect seriously, and come to understand the problem of restoration and counter-restoration. It's not a question that calls for lamenting or whining, as some try to promote. The point is to confront reality and understand it. And we can understand it if we grasp the question of restoration and counter-restoration that Lenin himself had put forward and that Chairman Mao masterfully developed. Historically, no new class has established itself in power all at once. Power was seized and lost, reseized and lost again until, in the midst of great contests and struggles, that class was able to win and hold Power. The same thing is happening with the proletariat. But we've been left with great lessons, including in socialist construction. And so it has been a monumental experience.
In the final analysis, it is a historical process, and what we must be concerned about is how to prevent the restoration of capitalism. And every revolution that is in progress must think, as we've been taught, about the long years ahead, the long years to come, and be confident that the process of development for the proletariat in seizing Power and establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat and defending it and leading the revolution has already been defined. There have already been great historical milestones achieved in this process, and so the prospects are that our class, learning its lessons, will seize Power and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the world, and the proletariat will not be overthrown anymore, but will continue along this road of transformation until the State is brought to an end when we enter communism.



http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/docs_en/interv.htm

[Ismail]

That would be a good thing to study, because it says there that the center of world reaction is U.S. imperialism. And Soviet imperialism? What happened to the two enemies we have to fight? It was always just words.This is absurd. To begin with, the Albanian position on both the USA and USSR was that they would never re-establish diplomatic relations with them. Throughout the 70's the Soviets offered to re-establish such relations, with Hoxha consistently refusing to do so. Likewise when Hoxha died and the Soviet Government sent a letter of "condolences," the Albanian Government openly rejected it. That's very far from being "just words." Not to mention that the Albanians denounced the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in no way modified their line on Soviet social-imperialism from the 60's onwards.

Guzmán ("Gonzalo") seems to recognize this by saying that, "With Hoxha himself it was just words because he always wrote more about fighting Yankee imperialism than social-imperialism." In other words Hoxha was on the same ground as the Chinese in the 60's, who likewise noted the aggressive nature of US imperialism and its premier position in the world as the most powerful of all the world's imperialisms. He ceased being on common ground when the Chinese turned around and began to ally with US imperialism against Soviet social-imperialism.

By noting that American capital was and is "the greatest and most insatiable plunderer of the assets and toil of the peoples that history has ever known" and that its imperialism is clearly stronger than both its allies and its Soviet rivals Hoxha at the same time noted that "the hegemonic and expansionist policy for the establishment of world domination, the adventurous course for the preparation and incitement of war also characterize Soviet social-imperialism," and that "the policy of the Soviet Union has gradually assumed a pronounced militarist character which is expressed in the use of military force to realize its expansionist aims... The policy of the Soviet Union has assumed the same aggressive, expansionist, war-mongering features as those of the United States of America." (Hoxha at the 8th Congress, Selected Works Vol. VI, 1987, pp. 378-381.)

One can thus see that the Albanians in no way "covered" for Soviet social-imperialism, but in fact refuted the absurd Chinese thesis that American imperialism was on the "defensive," was "weakened," which was the backbone of the "Three Worlds Theory" and its justification for an alliance with said imperialism.


The same Congress also said that humanity has never been closer to its extinction than now. They repeat this just like the others, which is no mere coincidence.Communists are, in general, against wars. Lenin and Stalin repeatedly emphasized the efforts of the working-class of all countries to combat the threat of war.

What separates these calls from Soviet revisionism is the latter's insistence that world wars were no longer inevitable under capitalism, and the opportunist views that stemmed from such a viewpoint. The Chinese themselves put out a good work on this subject: http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/peaceful.htm


But what do they propose that we do? Concretely, expose imperialism. That is not the solution. Exposing imperialism will not stop a world war. The solution is to make revolution by carrying out people's war.Which was precisely what Hoxha argued at the 8th Congress. "The development of events will show whether imperialism will be able to lead the world to a new catastrophe or whether the peoples will prevent the war and save mankind. In this situation, the peoples' war and the revolution are on the agenda, not only as aspirations and immediate tasks for liberation from capitalist oppression and the imperialist yoke, but also as historical necessities to defeat the warmongering plans of imperialism and avert a new general war." (Ibid. p. 375.) As in the 60's and 70's he denounced the efforts of American imperialism and Soviet social-imperialism to call for "peace" with one-another, noting that these efforts were demagogic and an effort between the superpowers to obtain a clear-cut division of spheres of influence across the world, efforts which necessarily failed and only led to an increase in inter-imperialist rivalry. This was a stand dramatically different from that of the "peace movements" in the West and East which called for collaboration between the two superpowers.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

My knowledge of Hoxhaism and Albania is rather limited. Though in my view, the two biggest theoretical problems when grappling with the thought of Hoxha and the project of Albanian socialism are at the very beginning and the very end of it. As the Maoist critiques here say, Hoxha's hand-picked successor restored capitalism, without much of a fight from anyone. How could this happen, if Albanian socialism was as strong and vibrant as Hoxhaists like to believe?

The second problem is a harder conundrum, if you go by strict rules laid down by Lenin on the National Question and its relationship to the communist project. Exactly why did Albanian communists react so strongly against union into the Yugoslav federation? I fail to see how Albania needed its own separate state and separate party, as the Balkan People were all Oppressed Nations.

Then again, perhaps the two questions aren't as unrelated as one might think, given the essentially reactionary terrorist tendencies of many Albanian nationalist organizations, like the KLA.

The most sympathetic book dealing with Albania I am aware of is A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha by James S. O'Donnell, who I believe is some business man involved in fruit. It's a very fair, objective, and sympathetic look, that doesn't try to force any particular interpretation of events on The Little Socialist Nation That Could.

[Ismail]

As the Maoist critiques here say, Hoxha's hand-picked successor restored capitalism, without much of a fight from anyone. How could this happen, if Albanian socialism was as strong and vibrant as Hoxhaists like to believe?The combination of the continued existence of bureaucracy, the still low political level of the people, increasing economic hardships in the late 80's (at one point they couldn't mine anymore since no country was willing to barter Albanian goods for dynamite), and the trend of capitulation on the part of Alia and Co. (similar to Khrushchev, though the Albanian "hardliners" à la Brezhnev were in no position to exert a more "aggressive" revisionism) all contributed.

In 1989 the Albanians began reversing their position on East German and Cuban revisionism, declaring the former to have been "socialist" all along and the latter as likewise defending its "socialism." In January and April 1990 Alia announced various economic reforms which were less dramatic than Gorbachev's but nonetheless enjoying much of the same capitalist content as Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's. Alia did criticize those calling for a multi-party system, noting that its imposition in Eastern Europe led only to demagogy, the revival of fascist parties, etc. on the part of the political scene of those states, but in October that same year he was forced to concede following protests by University students who advocated reactionary political demands under the direction of Sali Berisha.

The Party of Labour claimed to uphold Hoxha all the way into its 10th Party Congress in June 1991. Even afterwards the Socialist Party of Albania still defined itself as having a "Marxist-Leninist" tendency within it as late as 1996, which was helpful in getting the support of left-wing elements who mistakenly held that the SPA was thus something else than a bourgeois party.


The second problem is a harder conundrum, if you go by strict rules laid down by Lenin on the National Question and its relationship to the communist project. Exactly why did Albanians react so strongly against union into the Yugoslav federation? I fail to see how Albania needed its own separate state and separate party, as the Baltic People were all Oppressed Nations.They reacted so strongly against it because Yugoslavia was treating Albania as a neo-colony, killing off members of its leadership, and trying to isolate it from contact with the Soviet Union and the other People's Democracies. Hoxha during the war (as he himself notes in his memoirs) did not reject in principle the idea of a Balkan Federation, but he certainly had no admiration for the Yugoslav conception and what they were attempting to do with it, and had even less reason to be fond of outright joining Yugoslavia (as Tito and Co. were pushing for) which had historically oppressed the Albanian people within its borders.


Then again, perhaps the two questions aren't as unrelated as one might think, given the essentially reactionary terrorist tendencies of many Albanian nationalist organizations, like the KLA.Except the Yugoslavs claimed that once Albania entered the Federation they would give Kosovo to it. Since the Italian and Nazi German occupiers had already "liberated" Kosovo and given it to a quisling Albanian administration during the war, similar "liberation" wasn't too appealing as a prospect. The fact that the Yugoslavs were already treating Kosovar Albanians as "bandits" and repressing them well into the 50's did not sit well with the Albanian Government either.


The most sympathetic book dealing with Albania I am aware of is A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha by James S. O'Donnell, who I believe is some business man involved in fruit. It's very fair, objective, and sympathetic look, that doesn't try to force any particular interpretation of events on The Little Socialist Nation That Could.It is a good book, yes.

[Mauve Osprey]

In the first place it is worth pointing out what Mao considered "wrong" about Stalin. In short, his "criticisms" of him were on a right-wing basis, just as the Soviet revisionists "criticisms" of him were. Stalin distrusted Mao and saw him as a potential Tito-type figure, something Hoxha considered a correct observation. Mao, in fact, was on good terms with Khrushchev up until disputes emerged between them on great-power lines.

How is Mao even comparable to Tito? Tito was completely Anti-Stalin and anti-Marxism-Leninism. Tito went off and created his own theories that were borderline Trotskyite. Mao on the other hand improved ML theory and corrected some of the mistakes made by Stalin. Also, Mao was against Khrushchev and Soviet Social-Imperialism even before these "power disputes." I would like to now how he was on good terms with Khrushchev

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Then, of course, Mao unveiled his "Three Worlds Theory" (and sent the rehabilitated Deng to the UN to formally announce it), which was clearly a right-wing "theory" devoid of Marxist analysis and aimed to unite China with US imperialism economically and politically. Zaire, Pinochet's Chile, Shah-led Iran, and other viciously anti-communist states became some of the largest recipients of Chinese aid.This is comparable, in my opinion, to how Hoxhaists to this day will defend CIA agents like Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA, along with CIA scum like Meles Zenawi and the TPLF.

It should be noted that when the US government wants to make up fake "Marxist-Leninist" organizations, they always pretend to be Hoxhaists.

To quote the New York Times:


Although his forays outside the United States were confined to Canada, Mr. Burton said, "There was some talk of my going to Europe and also going to Albania. The bureau would have let me go to Albania. They wanted me to go."

He was in the process of securing an invitation to visit the tiny Communist country, he said, when be decided to break off his relationship with the bureau.

Mr. Burton said he was once asked by an F.B.I. superior whether he would "like to go to Mexico, walk into the Chinese embassy and say that you’ve got this organization in Tampa and that you want to work with the Chinese."

Mr. Burton then headed a, sham "revolutionary" group in Tampa, called the "Red Star Cadre," that, he said, had been set up as a front for his F.B.I. work. He said he told the inquiring agent that he would not "insult the Chinese by trying to pull something that stupid on them."

During the Canadian trips, he recalled, his instructions were: to develop contacts with members of the Canadian Communist party's pro-Chinese wing, and to report to the F.B.I. on their activities, including any signs that the organization was passing funds from China to Maoist groups in the United States.

http://www.mltranslations.org/us/fbi021675.htm

Also note how 'Hoxhaists' all supported the attempted right-wing police coup against Correa in Ecuador in 2010.

[Ismail]

This is comparable, in my opinion, to how Hoxhaists to this day will defend CIA agents like Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA, along with CIA scum like Meles Zenawi and the TPLF.Which is weird since I distinctly recall Hoxha in Imperialism and the Revolution denouncing both the MPLA and UNITA and saying that the war in Angola had nothing positive for its people, with both American imperialism (and its South African proxies) and Soviet social-imperialism (and its Angolan and Cuban proxies) fighting for control over the country.

Also Zenawi had zero connections to the West up until he was on the verge of power in 1990-1991. As one source notes:

"After the defeat at Shire, the Derg abandoned all of Tigray to the rebels, and the EPRDF's expanding guerrilla alliance started the military and political manoeuvres that would end in the takeover of Addis Ababa two years later. The Soviet bloc was close to casting Mengistu adrift. No belated acts of liberalization would save him. For his part Meles Zenawi, barely known outside Tigray, began introducing himself to a wider world.

An early encounter with the western press led to an observation that has dogged him ever since. He told an interviewer at the end of 1989 that the Soviet Union and other eastern bloc countries had never been truly socialist and added, 'The nearest any country comes to being socialist as far as we are concerned is Albania.' As Meles set off in 1990 on his first venture to the United States, his aspiration to the mantle of Enver Hoxha and to run Ethiopia on Albanian lines did not inspire much confidence.

In Washington he met the veteran Ethiopia-watcher Paul Henze. Henze was as impressed by Meles as many foreigners have been in the years since, and he made detailed notes after two long conversations. Meles had to deal first with the Albanian connection. 'I have never been to Albania,' Meles told Henze. 'We do not have any Albanian contacts. We are not trying to imitate in Tigray anything the Albanians have done.'

Meles was equally keen to reject the Marxist tag. 'We are not a Marxist-Leninist movement,' he said. 'We do have Marxists in our movement. I acknowledge that. I myself was a convinced Marxist when I was a student at [Addis Ababa University] in the early 1970s, and our movement was inspired by Marxism. But we learned that Marxism was not a good formula for resistance to the Derg and our fight for the future of Ethiopia.'

As the EPRDF moved out of the countryside to take over the towns and the cities, it emerged into a post-communist world, and a rapid political make-over was needed. 'When we entered Addis Ababa, the whole Marxist-Leninist structure was being disgraced,' said General Tsadkan. 'We had to rationalize in terms of the existing political order . . . capitalism had become the order of the day. If we continued with our socialist ideas, we could only continue to breed poverty.'"
(Peter Gill. Famine and Foreigners: Ethiopia Since Live Aid. New York: Oxford University Press. 2010. pp. 74-75.)

As far as Zenawi claiming he had no contacts with Albania, this was correct. The Party of Labour never had any relations with his organization, which shrouded its Marxist-Leninist ideology to begin with.


To quote the New York Times:There are two problems here:

1. Mr. Burton was employed as an agent of the FBI in 1972 and broke off ties with it before the Sino-Albanian split.
2. He formed his "Red Star Cadre" and was asked to consider going to Albania at a time when Albania and China were still formally friendly to each-other. His goal was to get information on China. This is akin to the fake Maoist party (http://www.mltranslations.org/US/mlpn2.htm) the Dutch intelligence service set up, which had its leader visit Albania at a time when it was seen as a pro-Chinese country.

Consequently he was not involved in any pro-Albanian tendency, which did not actually exist at the time (it only began in 1976, a year after that NYT article was written, with Hoxha's report to the 7th Congress of the PLA.) To further undermine your argument it only needs to be noted that the Albanians refused to establish any ties with American Marxist-Leninist organizations or parties, citing fears of CIA infiltration.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Which is weird since I distinctly recall Hoxha in Imperialism and the Revolution denouncing both the MPLA and UNITA and saying that the war in Angola had nothing positive for its peopleYeah, Hoxha was quite the flip-flopper...


As far as Zenawi claiming he had no contacts with Albania, this was correct. The Party of Labour never had any relations with his organization.That is the one saving grace of most of Hoxha's political errors; it usually only amounted to lip-service to US imperialism. Hoxhaism as an ideology leaves a lot to be desired, but I think people genuinely interested in communism should be supportive of the Albanian socialist project, despite the hysterical zig-zags of Hoxha's line on international issues which The Little Socialist Nation That Could had no real control over.

[Ismail]

Yeah, Hoxha was quite the flip-flopper...The Albanians never endorsed either the MPLA or UNITA in the civil/proxy war. Consequently there was nothing to "flip-flop" over.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

Speaking of the Balkan People, Trotskyists tend not to take any interest in these affairs, despite the fact that the pre-Bolshevik Trotsky's most formative political experiences were during his years as a journalist covering the Balkan Wars. A good book on the topic is The War Correspondence of Leon Trotsky: The Balkan Wars 1912-1913. Most biographers, in my opinion, tend to overlook this experience on the political development of the Trotsky. It should be read in light of the pre-1917 political disagreements Trotsky had with Lenin, and Trotsky's own (mistaken) insistence on the slogan of the "United States of Europe."

[Ismail]

Speaking of the Balkan People, Trotskyists tend not to take any interest in these affairs, despite the fact that the pre-Bolshevik Trotsky's most formative political experiences was during his years as a journalist covering the Balkan Wars. A good book on the topic is The War Correspondence of Leon Trotsky: The Balkan Wars 1912-1913. Most biographers, in my opinion, tend to overlook this experience on the political development of the Trotsky. It should be read in light of the pre-1917 political disagreements Trotsky had with Lenin, and Trotsky's own (mistaken) insistence on the slogan of the "United States of Europe."Trotsky's war correspondence, incidentally, has been cited in a number of Western books on Albania and Kosovo since he recounted Serbian atrocities against the Albanians.

[Labor Aristocrat Killer]

The Albanians never endorsed either the MPLA or UNITA in the civil/proxy war. Consequently there was nothing to "flip-flop" over.

So Hoxha didn't take the line of China on this issue, like he slavishly did on every question before Mao died? lol

[Ismail]

So Hoxha didn't take the line of China on this issue, like they slavishly did on every question before Mao died? lolHe did not, yes. Just like he took the view that Vietnam and Democratic Kampuchea should peacefully solve any border issues between themselves to the exclusion of outside forces, whereas the Chinese were taking the side of Pol Pot's aggressive attacks on Vietnam. Accordingly in 1979 Hoxha had no problem denouncing Pol Pot and praising the Vietnamese for their defeat of his Chinese-backed regime. Let us not forget that the Albanians were already differing with the Chinese for some years on American imperialism, Yugoslavia and Romania, the issue of the Sino-Soviet border dispute, etc.

It's funny how you have Maoists saying Hoxha was objectively serving Soviet social-imperialism and Brezhnevites saying he was objectively serving American imperialism.

[Mauve Osprey]

Beat back the dogmato-revisionist attack on Mao Tsetung Thought[/SIZE]"]Hoxha cannot explain the rise of Khrushchevite revisionism because he refuses to recognize that the contradictions in the international communist movement did not emerge with Khrushchev’s coup, but only exploded then. And so, Hoxha’s “great contribution” lies in negating the real advances that have been made in the last twenty years in the struggle against revisionism and insisting that every wrong formulation, every error, and the ideological basis for these errors, be enshrined as holy writ, and that everyone who refuses to go along be condemned as a heretic.

Hoxha's great Dogmatism was another problem I forgot to point out. He seemed to believe that we should just go back to the days of Stalin and do everything the way he did. In doing this Hoxha took an anti-peasant stance and almost seems to deny the mistakes that brought about Revisionism and the Bureaucracy that developed under Khrushchev.


Beat back the dogmato-revisionist attack on Mao Tsetung Thought[/SIZE]"]Unfortunately 1927 was not the last time in the history of the Chinese Revolution that the Comintern gave poor advice to the Chinese communists. We have already pointed out that the Wang Ming line, which Hoxha so stubbornly defends long after it has been proven to be wrong, was to varying degrees supported by the Comintern and perhaps by Stalin as well. From 1935 onward, during the period of the war against Japan, Wang Ming generally proposed a capitulationist line, and once again had the support of the Comintern in doing so. Wang Ming called for a “united government of national defense” in direct opposition to Mao’s call for a “people’s republic” and for a united front against Japan. Wang Ming at this time supported Chiang Kai-shek’s condition for unity with the Communists–namely that Chiang be given control over the Red Army. Of course Mao vigorously fought–and defeated–this.

[Ismail]

Hoxha cannot explain the rise of Khrushchevite revisionism because he refuses to recognize that the contradictions in the international communist movement did not emerge with Khrushchev’s coup, but only exploded then.Hoxha did note that the rise of revisionism came from the existence of bureaucracy, commandism, and other social and political ills which existed due to the backwardness of Soviet society among other things. This idea that Mao masterfully uncovered the secret of revisionism while Hoxha just stared at a picture of Stalin really hard for 30 years is ridiculous.


And so, Hoxha’s “great contribution” lies in negating the real advances that have been made in the last twenty years in the struggle against revisionismConsidering that Albania launched the first public attacks on revisionism while the Chinese were adopting conciliatory stands and trying to make nice with the Soviet revisionists (even as late as 1969), this is rather amusing.


and insisting that every wrong formulation, every error, and the ideological basis for these errors, be enshrined as holy writ, and that everyone who refuses to go along be condemned as a heretic.Again, this is assuming that the "GPCR" was some sort of glorious advance of socialism rather than an anti-Marxist spectacle and period of anarchy which saw Mao try to consolidate his positions within the state, party and army bureaucracies through all sorts of intrigues, relying on the army and fanatically pro-Mao students while the working-class was pushed to the sidelines.

The formulations of Maoism constitute right-wing deviations from Marxism-Leninism, sometimes disguised with "left" phraseology.