Did Hoxha really ban beards? [Archive]

Fourth Internationalist

13th September 2013, 02:34

But that is exactly what happened in Albania. Banning beards was only one part of a massive educational campaign against religion. This only reinforces my image of you as another Revlefter who rails against Hoxha and Albania while knowing very little about either.

My point is that it shouldn't be a part of such a campaign, as I had said later in my post. (I did not say there was no such campaign, pretty much all of the Marxist-Leninist countries had them)

The people who took the time to wear beards were most likely the same people who felt strongly supportive of a religion that advocated stoning women and gays.
1) Within a country that punished those who had abortions and practiced homosexuality. :rolleyes:

2) Most people in the West are Christians, which is a religions that supports stoning those who are gay, commit sodomy, refuse to marry their rapist, etc. I'm not saying there weren't those in Albania who wanted to do that, but you don't think there is a better way of dealing with it without banning beards?

Says who? You? Again, what credibility do you have to speak on this topic?I am giving my opinion, which is what this forum is for. I don't need to have studied Albania's laws for years to think a law is silly. I haven't studied most things in that way, yet I still have opinions. I have no official schooling in economics and politics, yet I oppose capitalism.

Banning beards is no different than the unveiling campaign, except banning beards sounds silly in a Western American context, which seems to be the only one some people here can possibly think.I'm generally against unveiling campaigns (exceptions, of course, can be made).

Questionable

13th September 2013, 02:43

My point is that it shouldn't be a part of such a campaign, as I had said later in my post.You said, "Rather, an anti-religious(-extremist) propaganda campaign run by the proletarian vanguard should have been implemented," the use of "rather" implying that the anti-religious campaign should have substituted the anti-beard laws, when in reality said laws were a part of the larger campaign.

Within a country that punished those who had abortions and practiced homosexuality.Abortions were frowned upon by the majority of early communists, including those considered to be experts on the issues of womens' rights such as August Bebel. Likewise, Marx and Engels said in their private letters that they were glad they would die before homosexuality became acceptable and they were required to "pay physical tribute" to gays.

These views are, of course, archaic, and not a central principal of Marxism-Leninism.

It's also important to note that there were plenty of social services for women who had children in these countries, in stark contrast to capitalist countries where bourgeois politicians outlaw abortion while simultaneously slashing welfare budgets.

Most people in the West are Christians, which is a religions that supports stoning those who are gay, commit sodomy, refuse to marry their rapist, etc.Christianity in the Modern West has had to change with the advancement of science and technology and powerful egalitarian social movements, and these reactionary opinions are no longer held by most religious individuals. If Christianity today was as oppressive and backwards as Islam and Orthodox were in Albania, I would definitely support harsh measures against it.

I don't need to have studied Albania's laws for years to think a law is silly.Which basically means you know nothing about the historical context of Albania's laws, and are judging them from a completely different context.

Skyhilist

13th September 2013, 03:09

Questionable

13th September 2013, 03:13

I don't see how you can possibly see banning beards as an effective part of eliminating religion. Sure muslims had beards, but does anyone really predicate whether or not they can practice their religion on whether or not they have a beard?

Yes, you could discern their devotion to religion based on their beards, because it was a symbol of godliness in Albanian culture.

Also Hoxha was no less dogmatic than the religions that he banned, so...

In what sense?

Fourth Internationalist

13th September 2013, 03:31

You said, "Rather, an anti-religious(-extremist) propaganda campaign run by the proletarian vanguard should have been implemented," the use of "rather" implying that the anti-religious campaign should have substituted the anti-beard laws, when in reality said laws were a part of the larger campaign.

I'm sorry for my wording. In that later post, I said it should not be a part of such a campaign. Apologies.

Abortions were frowned upon by the majority of early communists, including those considered to be experts on the issues of womens' rights such as August Bebel. Likewise, Marx and Engels said in their private letters that they were glad they would die before homosexuality became acceptable and they were required to "pay physical tribute" to gays.

And now if they came to power and were to implement anti-gay laws, we would all be against that and not use their anti-religious laws to say they were trying to stop people from being homophobes.

Christianity in the Modern West has had to change with the advancement of science and technology and powerful egalitarian social movements, and these reactionary opinions are no longer held by most religious individuals. If Christianity today was as oppressive and backwards as Islam and Orthodox were in Albania, I would definitely support harsh measures against it.

Harsh, as in brutal and oppressive, or as in effective? Just a quote I like that I think people should consider:

"But the campaign against the backwardness of the masses in this matter of religion, must be conducted with patience and considerateness, as well as with energy and perseverance. The credulous crowd is extremely sensitive to anything which hurts its feelings. To thrust atheism upon the masses, and in conjunction therewith to interfere forcibly with religious practices and to make mock of the objects of popular reverence, would not assist but would hinder the campaign against religion. If the church were to be persecuted, it would win sympathy among the masses, for persecution would remind them of the almost forgotten days when there was an association between religion and the defence of national freedom; it would strengthen the antisemitic movement; and in general it would mobilize all the vestiges of an ideology which is already beginning to die out."

Which basically means you know nothing about the historical context of Albania's laws, and are judging them from a completely different context.

All of us who didn't experience it first-hand are doing this. There are probably those who have studied and researched the history (ie historians) more than you or anyone else here has ever and likely disagree with much of what you think about Albania (considering the general historical consensus on Albanian history isn't exactly pretty).

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

13th September 2013, 03:41

So...did Hoxha, or the working class decide this?

Is this really relevant? There really isn't a such thing as proletarian culture within capitalism, the proletariat has internalized bourgeois ideology and can not see the world through any other lease. Just because a worker expresses bourgeois views doesn't change the class nature of those views and the need to engage in class struggle against them.

Questionable

13th September 2013, 03:47

And now if they came to power and were to implement anti-gay laws, we would all be against that and not use their anti-religious laws to say they were trying to stop people from being homophobes.This is a very convoluted sentence you have constructed.

You said you were in favor of anti-religious laws that prevented people from oppressing minorities such as homosexuals and women. I pointed out that the Albanian laws did just that, therefore you should support them if you are honest about your position.

Harsh, as in brutal and oppressive, or as in effective?Effective, of course. Why would I want them to be ineffective?

Your Buhkharin quote doesn't have much validity when compared to reality. If you read about the anti-religious campaign in Russia, the wealthy and elite clergy opposed it vehemently because it robbed them of their power, while the masses had little problem with it. There was no great surge of religious activity. Quite the opposite, actually. To my knowledge, all anti-religious campaigns undertaken by the USSR were successful.

All of us who didn't experience it first-hand are doing this.All this proves is that this thread is full of people who don't really know what they're talking about.

considering the general historical consensus on Albanian history isn't exactly prettyWhat is this "general historical consensus" you're appealing to? The bourgeois intelligentsia?

Ismail

13th September 2013, 03:49

So...did Hoxha, or the working class decide this?The campaign originally started when a school spontaneously carried out anti-religious activities. What followed were mass campaigns against religion, encouraged by local party committees and egged on by Hoxha and other Party leaders. The youth went into churches and mosques and turned them into buildings of public utility instead.

I must admit ignorance of Albania particularly to do with names and naming conventions but i'd imagine that that would be incredibly difficult bordering on impossible. After centuries of religious belief various names are religiously-based even if they've become common names in that area/language. I myself have a name that's common because of religion. It's considered an 'English name' these days yet it is from Hebrew and became common because of the bible. It is religiously based despite the fact the reason my parents chose it had nothing to do with religion.

If you have any further information on this i'd be very interested in it.In 1982 a dictionary was published listing 3,000 names for parents to choose from. They included ideologically-based ones (like the unisex Marenglen and Proletar, the former standing for Marx-Engels-Lenin) and Illyrian and early Albanian pagan names which were generally based on phenomena in nature and, considering that no one was going around worshiping traditional gods, had no superstitious values attached to them. So instead of names like Kristo or Muhamed you had Agron or Gëzim.

Questionable

13th September 2013, 03:51

Marenglen

I know what I'm naming my child.

d3crypt

13th September 2013, 03:51

I love how their are so many apologists for state capitalist like Hoxha and Stalin on here. :laugh:

Ismail

13th September 2013, 04:06

As for the successful anti-religious campaign, of which banning beards only played a part, "The first public mass was celebrated November 4 [1990], in a cemetery chapel in Shkodra, by Simon Jubani, released in 1989 after twenty-six years of imprisonment. The crowd of 5,000 worshipers was made up of Catholics, few of whom could remember this central rite of the Church. Interestingly enough, there were also substantial numbers of Muslims present, most of them apparently unaware of the difference between Christianity and Islam. Here already was a sign of the [anti-religious] campaign's success." - Denis R. Janz, World Christianity and Marxism, 1998, p. 108.To add onto this, from one work noting a 1986 Western visitor to Albania: "seeing the icons and paintings in the museum replacing Korcha's Orthodox cathedral, [the visitor] asked the custodian, 'Do people come here to see these religious articles and nostalgically remember the past?' He replied confidently, 'Only the old people, but they are dying off. Soon we will have abolished religion altogether.' When reminded of the persistence of Christian faith among youth as well as old in the Soviet Union and in China, he remarked scornfully, 'Those revisionists should have done like we did, and exterminate religion once and for all.'" (Jacques, The Albanians Vol. II, 1995, pp. 563-564.)

In fact the Albanians noted that both countries' revisionist regimes promoted religion, spoke positively of "religious socialism," etc. The Albanian policy has resulted, to this day, in most Albanian youth being agnostic rather than religious.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

13th September 2013, 04:06

I love how their are so many apologists for state capitalist like Hoxha and Stalin on here. :laugh:

I'm not a Hoxhaist and I think that's pretty well known, but can you please back up these statements before you make them?

Os Cangaceiros

13th September 2013, 04:12

Well I'm willing to admit that there were probably good reasons underlying policies like this, but they really don't do any wonders to the (extremely widespread) modern view that communists want to aggressively regulate every aspect of the lives of individual people, down to the hair follicles that grow out of their faces (or, in the case of the DPRK, exactly how high one's hair can be down to the centimeter).

argeiphontes

13th September 2013, 04:22

I'm ashamed to call myself a socialist when I realize that this thread as gone for 3 pages without this:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/i-see-you-shaved-sorry-the-weight-of-manhood-was-just-too-much.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qCEehcz8RSw/TjbLyobdr_I/AAAAAAAABg4/fbgq8fJY6Gs/s1600/beardreavement1_sm.jpg

Ismail

13th September 2013, 04:26

I'm ashamed to call myself a socialist when I realize that this thread as gone for 3 pages without this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-qCEehcz8RSw/TjbLyobdr_I/AAAAAAAABg4/fbgq8fJY6Gs/s1600/beardreavement1_sm.jpg"In Europe and throughout the world there are innumerable philosophers and writers who have made a myth of the superiority of men over women. For them man is strong, warlike, courageous, and hence wiser, therefore, predestined to dominate, to lead, whereas woman, for her part, is weak, defenceless and timid by nature, therefore, she must be dominated and led. Bourgeois theoreticians like Nietzsche and Freud likewise uphold the theory that the male is active while the female is passive. This reactionary, anti-scientific theory must lead, as it did, to nazism in politics and to sadism in sexology."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 267-268.)

Remus Bleys

13th September 2013, 04:29

"In Europe and throughout the world there are innumerable philosophers and writers who have made a myth of the superiority of men over women. For them man is strong, warlike, courageous, and hence wiser, therefore, predestined to dominate, to lead, whereas woman, for her part, is weak, defenceless and timid by nature, therefore, she must be dominated and led. Bourgeois theoreticians like Nietzsche and Freud likewise uphold the theory that the male is active while the female is passive. This reactionary, anti-scientific theory must lead, as it did, to nazism in politics and to sadism in sexology."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. pp. 267-268.)
I'll give Hoxha that.

argeiphontes

13th September 2013, 04:46

Manhood doesn't have to be defined in ways detrimental to women. It's not Marx in the JPEG but it was just a joke.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

13th September 2013, 04:57

Ismail

13th September 2013, 05:02

You know, I feel like Hoxha would have made a great radical marxist feminist. Do you have any works where he deals with femminism?An Albanian collection (http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_shqip/librat/librat-eh_per_gruan.htm) of his writings from 1942-84 on the subject of women is over 700 pages in length. Obviously the vast majority of his writings in general have not been translated.

There is an English-language work though, On the Liberation of Women in Albania: Speeches Delivered to the 2nd Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania in June 1967, which contains speeches by him and Alia. I don't have it. Most of the stuff of his that was translated into English is said/written in the context of larger subjects, like his speech to the Fourth Congress of the Democratic Front that same year, so any discussion on women is of a more generalized character.

Skyhilist

13th September 2013, 05:02

Questionable, you really need to ask how Hoxha was dogmatic?

Pretty much every single person who wasn't exactly like him was shunned by him as "revisionist". I'm not going to have this argument though -- it's just not worth it.

Hoxha can be interesting if you're into history but he's pretty irrelevant for the guide because the vast majority of leftosts percieve him as delusional and paranoid and for that reason he'll never be all that relevant.

With any critical analysis it should be obvious that his actions were counterproductive. How can you build international socialism when you criticize and isolate yourself from the revolutions of everywhere else over petty disagreements. It's just stupid, really. There are t any "material conditions" that Hoxhaism would survive for more than a few decades under.

Ismail

13th September 2013, 05:08

How can you build international socialism when you criticize and isolate yourself from the revolutions of everywhere else over petty disagreements. It's just stupid, really. There are t any "material conditions" that Hoxhaism would survive for more than a few decades under.What revolutions did he oppose and "isolate" Albania from? He met with delegations of parties from across the world and in a number of cases spoke/wrote at length on the revolutionary situation in a particular region. Of course when you have the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban and other revisionists presenting themselves as "revolutionary" beacons in the world, a lot of effort is going to be spent exposing those false pretensions.

Devrim

13th September 2013, 05:27

Banning beards is no different than the unveiling campaign, except banning beards sounds silly in a Western American context, which seems to be the only one some people here can possibly think.

It doesn't sound at all silly to me. Until recently men were banned from wearing beards in Turkish universities, and women from wearing headscarves, for exactly the same reasons. Actually, it was a specific type of beard which was banned. They didn't not let you in because you hadn't shaved that morning.

Whether you think that this is a good way to go about countering the influence of religion or not, it isn't just a bizarre policy that was just invented by one crazy man, but something that has historic roots in the region. This policy was enforced in Turkey from 1998 onwards, but had been on the statute book for decades.

Devrim

Ismail

13th September 2013, 05:28

It doesn't sound at all silly to me. Until recently men were banned from wearing beards in Turkish universities, and women from wearing headscarves, for exactly the same reasons. Actually, it was a specific type of beard which was banned. They didn't not let you in because you hadn't shaved that morning.

Whether you think that this is a good way to go about countering the influence of religion or not, it isn't just a bizarre policy that was just invented by one crazy man, but something that has historic roots in the region. This policy was enforced in Turkey from 1998 onwards, but had been on the statute book for decades.

DevrimIt's worth noting that Hoxha did praise Atatürk as a progressive bourgeois statesman and stressed the man's anti-clerical activities (as well as his opposition to Albania's King Zog; he regarded the latter's self-proclaimed kingdom as an archaic absurdity.)

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th September 2013, 10:34

Banning a religion that justifies the oppression of women is not in any way silly.

All of the abrahamic religions justify the oppression of women, though. But that's besides the point, because growing a beard has very little to do with religion, and that was true even back in the time of Hoxha's Albania.

Sexism, like other reactionary aspects of capitalism, do not vanish on their own. The struggle against these elements goes hand-in-hand with the technical construction of socialism. Waging the battle against reactionary, bourgeois forms of consciousness is no different than building factories or hospitals.

So beards are 'reactionary, bourgeois forms of consciousness'. You're definitely not sounding like some crazed Stalinist now. :rolleyes:

No; humanity must change their own social conditions through revolutionary actions, and that is precisely what the Albanian Party of Labour was doing.

Beards have no role to play in social conditions. Banning people from having control over their own bodies is reactionary, not revolutionary, and has more in common with preventing women from legal and safe abortion than any revolutionary action.

I genuinely am worried for people like you. What brainwashing must have taken place, seriously, for you to come to believe that one man banning people control over their own facial hair is in any way indicative of a healthy, democratic society?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th September 2013, 10:37

Banning beards is no different than the unveiling campaign, except banning beards sounds silly in a Western American context, which seems to be the only one some people here can possibly think.

The unveiling campaign is ridiculous and discriminatory, so don't play that card.

It changes nothing, anyway. It's not an attack on religion as an institution, it's an attack on a personal display of religion, which is not the part of religion we should be attacking or denouncing. People should be free, as individuals, to worship a god or whatever if they want, it's not up to us to 'ban' that. We should focus on the bigger picture - institutionalised religion.

Devrim

13th September 2013, 11:27

The unveiling campaign is ridiculous and discriminatory, so don't play that card.

I don't think that this is necessarily true. It has to be put into its context. The laws against wearing headscarves in Turkey were very different from the laws against wearing headscarves in France. In France it is a racist campaign. In Turkey it wasn't. Too me this seems very clear. Albania at the time had a Muslim majority of about 70% of the population. The anti-beard (and I presume they had anti headscarf laws too) law was not a discriminatory campaign aimed at an oppressed majority of the population, but aimed at the majority religious group within the population, which the ruling class all came from. Enver Hoxha himself with a name like that must have come from a Muslim background. I don't think that this was in anyway a discriminatory measure.

Nor do I think that it was ridiculous just because it seems that way too you. It is a real issue to many people, and doesn't seem in anyway absurd. For example, I can remember my ex-wife reacting in complete horror when somebody from abroad asked what she would think about her fellow workers in her hospital wearing headscarves. She is somebody who considers herself to be left-wing,and is worried about Islamicisation. Who are you to dismiss people like hers' concerns as 'ridiculous'?

That said I am against headscarf bans, as I don't think that they are productive in any way in dealing with religion, and I don't think that the state has any business telling people what to wear.

However, I don't think in the context of post war Albania that this can be called 'ridiculous and discriminatory'.

Also I would just like to note that I don't think there was anything remotely socialist about the Albanian state.

Devrim

Ismail

13th September 2013, 12:18

I genuinely am worried for people like you. What brainwashing must have taken place, seriously, for you to come to believe that one man banning people control over their own facial hair is in any way indicative of a healthy, democratic society?I like how you assume that Hoxha went on the radio one day and said "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE BEARDS" or that there was no discussion of the subject within the Politburo or elsewhere. Everyone was just like "OH GOD YES HOXHA, PLEASE, JUST DON'T USE THOSE PLIERS TO MY OTHER PINKY!!!!11"

Not to mention that for someone like you who admires Castro this is an ironic claim to make, considering how highly "personal" that man's leadership style was.

Enver Hoxha himself with a name like that must have come from a Muslim background. I don't think that this was in anyway a discriminatory measure.Hoxha's family belonged to the Bektashi sect, which is prominent in Albania and was considered heretical by Sunni Muslims back when he was a youth. His uncle Hysen was an atheist (though he studied theology in İstanbul) and was responsible for Hoxha's upbringing since his father Halil worked in the USA with Hoxha's older brother Beqir. The surname Hoxha apparently came from the fact that one of his ancestors during the 15th century helped convert people to Islam on behalf of the Ottomans, hence the title (which, although you might be able to translate it more precisely, basically means Islamic priest.)

Of the three other leading Politburo members, Mehmet Shehu (whose father was a clergyman and whose surname IIRC means sheikh), Hysni Kapo and Ramiz Alia (who was in charge of cultural affairs) came from Muslim backgrounds as well.

D_Loco

13th September 2013, 12:34

I read that he banned beards to combat islam. But marx engels and lenin all had beards. Stlin had a moustache.
How can he be antirevisionist if he banned the fashion style of his idols?

yeah even che guevara has a beard among of them only chairman mao has the cleanest face but i don't know their is no significant with that

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th September 2013, 12:41

I like how you assume that Hoxha went on the radio one day and said "THOU SHALT NOT HAVE BEARDS" or that there was no discussion of the subject within the Politburo or elsewhere. Everyone was just like "OH GOD YES HOXHA, PLEASE, JUST DON'T USE THOSE PLIERS TO MY OTHER PINKY!!!!11"

That's not really the thrust of what I was saying.

Not to mention that for someone like you who admires Castro this is an ironic claim to make, considering how highly "personal" that man's leadership style was.

Don't you have some reports to write, or something, comrade card index?

Questionable

13th September 2013, 13:10

All of the abrahamic religions justify the oppression of women, though.

As I've said, there's a big difference between the liberalized Christianity that exists in modern America, where the reactionary elements are downplayed, versus countries like Albania which institutionalized discrimination.

But that's besides the point, because growing a beard has very little to do with religion, and that was true even back in the time of Hoxha's Albania.

Can you substantiate that claim? Because it is contradictory to evidence that growing a beard was a religious statement, similar to wearing a cross.

So beards are 'reactionary, bourgeois forms of consciousness'. You're definitely not sounding like some crazed Stalinist now.

I never said beards themselves were inherently reactionary (And I think you know that), but that within the cultural context of Albania at the time, they symbolized support for reactionary ideology.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand about this. Icons have different meanings when placed into different cultural contexts. In a place that oppresses Muslims like France, wearing a veil can be seen as a symbol of resistance, whereas in Sharia Law countries like Afghanistan, it is a symbol of sexist oppression.

I genuinely am worried for people like you. What brainwashing must have taken place, seriously, for you to come to believe that one man banning people control over their own facial hair is in any way indicative of a healthy, democratic society?

As Ismail noted, the anti-religious campaign began at a grassroots level, and was officially endorsed by the Party after it had already begun. Furthermore, it was made law by the Presidium, which Hoxha was only a part of.

It changes nothing, anyway.

It evidently changed very much, as Albania went from being a country where the subjugation of women was culturally acceptable to a place where women comprised about 40% of the workforce and the old religious customs were forgotten by most.

Devrim

13th September 2013, 13:22

hence the title (which, although you might be able to translate it more precisely, basically means Islamic priest.)

The word 'Hoca' (the Turkish 'c' is soft like the Albanian 'dj') can mean that. It can also mean teacher or Master. You here it a lot in modern Turkish with a possessive suffix ('hocam', or my teacher/master), and it is a respectful term of address for older people.

Devrim

Nakidana

13th September 2013, 13:40

Nor do I think that it was ridiculous just because it seems that way too you. It is a real issue to many people, and doesn't seem in anyway absurd. For example, I can remember my ex-wife reacting in complete horror when somebody from abroad asked what she would think about her fellow workers in her hospital wearing headscarves. She is somebody who considers herself to be left-wing,and is worried about Islamicisation. Who are you to dismiss people like hers' concerns as 'ridiculous'?

Because they are ridiculous. I've seen lots of students, workers, hospital workers, physicians etc wearing the headscarf around here and there's never been a problem. Likewise I don't believe letting students in Turkey wear a headscarf will turn Turkey into a theocratic state.

Banning beards and headscarves is not a productive way of countering Islamism. It's just stupid.

Devrim

13th September 2013, 14:06

Likewise I don't believe letting students in Turkey wear a headscarf will turn Turkey into a theocratic state.

As I said:

That said I am against headscarf bans, as I don't think that they are productive in any way in dealing with religion, and I don't think that the state has any business telling people what to wear.

Because they are ridiculous. I've seen lots of students, workers, hospital workers, physicians etc wearing the headscarf around here and there's never been a problem.

I don't know where 'around here' is, but the context we are talking about is that of Turkey. I never agreed with the headscarf ban. However, there are lots of people, in particular working class women working in the state-sector, who are strongly in favour of it. Many people feel that it is one of the things standing between them, and being turned into a country like Iran, where women are forced to cover up. I don't think that they are right, but in a country, which has had an Islamicist party in government for over a decade now, and where, there is obvious creeping Islamicisation, to dismiss people's concerns as 'ridiculous' seems a bit patronising to me.

Devrim

Sam_b

13th September 2013, 14:06

Fun thread, this. I just wanted to pull up posts like these:

But, but...dictator!!

I love how their are so many apologists for state capitalist like Hoxha and Stalin on here

I'm ashamed to call myself a socialist when I realize that this thread as gone for 3 pages without this: insert image macro

as the sort of posts that are neither allowed or welcome in the Learning forum. For users who are unsure, please read this announcement here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stricter-rules-learning-t182305/index.html). This is a polite heads-up to all of you, and rather than hand out a bunch of infractions I'd like to make sure everyone is on the same page. Any more nonsense and I will have to hand them out though.

Now, carry on.

Hit The North

13th September 2013, 15:20

as the sort of posts that are neither allowed or welcome in the Learning forum. For users who are unsure, please read this announcement here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stricter-rules-learning-t182305/index.html). This is a polite heads-up to all of you, and rather than hand out a bunch of infractions I'd like to make sure everyone is on the same page. Any more nonsense and I will have to hand them out though.

Now, carry on.

Moving it to Chit Chat would be a good idea, then the topic could be explored in its full absurdity (if it hasn't already).

Questionable

13th September 2013, 15:52

Banning beards and headscarves is not a productive way of countering Islamism. It's just stupid.

Then can you explain why it did work?

There's a lot of people here talking about how banning symbols of religion does nothing to actually curb religion, but when you point out that religion actually did vanish in Albania (And the USSR for as long as they maintained their anti-religious campaigns), they say nothing.

If it doesn't work, then it stands to reason that it...wouldn't have worked!

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th September 2013, 15:59

[QUOTE=Questionable;2663074]Then can you explain why it did work?

How much of Albania is currently non-religious, and how much of Albania is currently Islamic? It may have repressed the existence of outward shows of religion and the various religious institutions for the short-run, but it's clearly failed in changing people's attitudes to religion in the long-run.

Sam_b

13th September 2013, 17:17

Moving it to Chit Chat would be a good idea, then the topic could be explored in its full absurdity (if it hasn't already).

I see the point, but I don't particularly want to move it to Chit-Chat, I think there's remnants of an interesting topic here, although it sounds absurd. Namely what some users have been bringing up is a lot wider, for instance the role of religion in Albanian society and the rule of the state under Hoxha. It's a well-trodden path on Revleft, sure, but some users here who've made posts more than one-liners have brought up some interesting thoughts.

Rather than just make this a boring mod post, I thought I'd briefly bring up a small point from earlier on in page two:

I'm not surprised that most of the anti-Hoxha users in this thread have no clue about the culture of Slavic and Islamic nations and seem to think Hoxha awoke one morning and said "Hey all, let's ban beards!" Ignorance enjoys company.

For me it's pretty ironic that someone talks about the ignorance surrounding "culture of Slavic nations" and then treats Slavic Europe as some sort of identifiable, homogenous mass when it comes to the issues of religion and identity. The most obvious point is that it would be incorrect to label Albania as 'Slavic', unless we're going all the bay back to the origins of where Albanian likely came from linguistically (and this is up for debate, as it can be argued that the Albanians originated from anywhere between Eastern Serbia and Romania). Loan words attributed from Slavic origin comes from the hostility between both sides which occurred very early on historically speaking.

Pedantry aside, what I believe Questionable is referencing here is more the Eastern and Southern Slavic Orthodox Christianity influence, which, due to its proximity to Albania, had to an extent some influence. However, Albanian Orthodoxy is one of the newer Orthodox Christianities, at least in an organisational sense. The issue I have is that it is historically and culturally unhelpful to merely paint this as a 'Slavic' picture, as it ignores the Western Slavic context which is Catholic and has little to no Orthodox influences at all.

Remus Bleys

13th September 2013, 17:30

As I've said, there's a big difference between the liberalized Christianity that exists in modern America, where the reactionary elements are downplayed, versus countries like Albania which institutionalized discrimination.Then why didn't he just do to religion what the West did, rather than banning it and anything connected to it?

Questionable

13th September 2013, 19:09

[QUOTE]

How much of Albania is currently non-religious, and how much of Albania is currently Islamic? It may have repressed the existence of outward shows of religion and the various religious institutions for the short-run, but it's clearly failed in changing people's attitudes to religion in the long-run.

As Ismail noted, a significant portion of Albania's youth identifies as agnostic rather than Islamic, and when the socialist regime fell, many religious individuals couldn't even remember their old customs.

But it's no surprise that the old reactionary ways would return once socialism fell, thus losing all the progress made. Capitalism and oppression go hand-in-hand, after all.

Then why didn't he just do to religion what the West did, rather than banning it and anything connected to it?

Nothing was "done" to Western religion. It evolved in accordance with both the growth of science and technology, and the presence of strong social movements such as feminism. All of these factors forced organized religion to adapt or be swept aside.

But it's important to note that religious oppression was never institutionalized in America quite the same way it was in Albania, nor did it ever really have such a reactionary, feudal form.

Ismail

13th September 2013, 21:54

For those wondering why Hoxha decided to completely struggle against religion, it's worth noting that "throughout the history of [the Albanian] people, religion has been an alienating and dividing force. And since religion was continually on the side of the occupiers and enemies, it is understandable that nationalistic sentiment was often at its very core antireligious." (Janz, World Christianity and Marxism, 1998, p. 99.) Before independence in 1912 there was a poem by Pashko Vasa, one of the leading members of the Albanian national movement, that went like so:

"Wake up, ye Albanians, wake up
And get united in a single faith.
Priests and Hodjas are trying to fool you
So as to keep you divided and enslaved.
Let not Mosques and Churches keep you apart.
The true religion of the Albanian is Albanianism!"
(Jacques, The Albanians Vol. II, 1995, p. 546.)

Bourgeois historian Peter R. Prifti noted that, "Prior to Albania's independence from the Turks in 1912, religious services were conducted in three different languages: Arabic for Moslem Albanians, Greek for the Orthodox, and Latin for the Catholics. Furthermore, since the Turks identified nationality with religion, Moslem Albanians came to be called Turks, the Orthodox were called Greeks, while the Catholics were regarded as Latins. Religion thus became a source of discord and division within the Albanian society and a great obstacle to national unity and the struggle for independence." He also noted how unlike the rest of the Balkans religion actually harmed the national movement rather than help foster it. (Socialist Albania since 1944, 1978, p. 158.) Furthermore, "In this attack, the Stalinist leaders in Tiranë were apparently helped by a number of circumstances, more or less peculiar to Albania, including the historical friction between religion and Albanian nationalism, a largely uneducated clergy, the identification of religion with the backwardness of the country, and the fact that Albanians have never been a deeply religious people." (Ibid. p. 165.)

In the Catholic north, with its tribal societies, the idea of raising the status of women (a status which was easily the worst in Europe) was denounced as communistic. Hoxha traced hostility to raising the status of women not only to tribal backwardness but also the legitimacy which religion gave to such repression. Thus Hoxha noted: "Just as the bourgeoisie had made the worker into its proletarian, so had the savage ancient canons of the Sheriat, the Church, feudalism and bourgeoisie, reduced woman to the proletarian of man." (Selected Works Vol. II, 1975, p. 445.)

The anti-religious campaign coincided with a campaign to significantly improve the lot of women in life. Thus as one bourgeois work notes, "An old Albanian proverb says that 'a woman must work harder than a donkey for the latter feeds on grass while a woman lives on bread.' The prevalence of this degrading view of women is due to Christianity and Islam. Hoxha made his argument for this thesis in a remarkable speech to the Central Committee of the PLA in 1967. Here he cited the fierce misogynist John Chrysostom and the somewhat milder Thomas Aquinas to show how sexism is deeply embedded in the Christian tradition. He cited as well the ancient code of Albanian tribal law, which the Church supported, allowing husbands to beat their wives and demanding that wives kneel in obeisance to their husbands. Religion gives divine sanction to such backward customs, denying the equality and dignity of women." (Janz, World Christianity and Marxism, pp. 105-106.)

Furthermore, "If Hoxha understood Albania to be the vanguard of Stalinism in the world, it is clear why in his view this society must also take the lead in the struggle against religion. This theme, which echoes through all of Hoxha's writings, receives special emphasis in his 1967 Report on the Role and Tasks of the Democratic Front for the Complete Triumph of Socialism in Albania... Hoxha cannot disguise the fact that for him, another factor makes the elimination of religion even more urgent: religion must be eliminated because it stands in the way of modernization. The backward customs and oppressive prejudices that stifle development, especially among the peasantry, have religious foundations. To uproot them would be a giant step toward social, economic, and cultural advancement." (Ibid. p. 105.) The Albanian struggle against religion was, for a time, given prominence in its propaganda as an example of Albania going in one direction (the further revolutionization of society) while the revisionists went in another (collaboration with religion.)

And the idea that Hoxha thought banning beards or even simply outlawing religion would make everything alright and it'd just die out on its own is incorrect. Into the 80's various publications spoke of the need to continue to combat religion, and as late as 1989 Nexhmije Hoxha, who headed the Democratic Front after Enver's death, stated that it "has always been in the front lines to free the people from the chains of religion and the savage laws of the unwritten code of the mountains. But this does not mean that we have eradicated all traces of patriarchal, conservative and religious rule." (Mozjes, Religious Liberty in Eastern Europe and the USSR, 1992, p. 129.) In the 90's she declared, "Enver and I only wanted Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Catholics to live peaceably side by side. And we were right. We wanted everyone to feel they were just Albanians. And see what is happening now in the Balkans as the result of religious and ethnic conflicts. History will prove us right. Capitalist propaganda described us as backward and introverted. On the contrary, you will come to realise that ours was a modern vision." (Orizio, Talk of the Devil, 2002, p. 102.)

As Hoxha said in 1973 at a meeting of the Party's Central Committee:

"Was not the crushing blow dealt to religious dogma, that ancient plague, that poisonous black spider, in our country the most heroic, the most daring, the wisest, the most well-considered and most skilful act? Was the abolition of the power of religion, along with its apparatus and personnel, an insignificant, conservative act? That was a centuries-old, spiritual and material structure. Our Party and people destroyed this structure within a few decades, but the fight to eradicate this cancer from the mentality of the people is still far from ended. A cure for cancer has not yet been discovered, but for religion it has been, and if a struggle is waged in this direction, consistently and with conviction, the cure will no longer take centuries but a few decades, a few generations. The fight against religious ideology is closely connected with the fight against imperialism and revisionism, with the fight for socialism and communism."
(O'Donnell, A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha, 1999, p. 143.)

Popular Front of Judea

13th September 2013, 22:59

His uncle Hysen was an atheist (though he studied theology in İstanbul) and was responsible for Hoxha's upbringing since his father Halil worked in the USA with Hoxha's older brother Beqir.

There's the beginning of an alternate history scenario: What if Hoxha had immigrated to the United States? I can see him as say an autocratic president of a Steelworkers local -- who had real problems with hippies. :)

Ismail

13th September 2013, 23:00

There's the beginning of an alternate history scenario: What if Hoxha had immigrated to the United States? I can see him as say an autocratic president of a Steelworkers local -- who had real problems with hippies. :)"Why should we turn our country into an inn with doors flung open to pigs and sows, to people with pants on or no pants at all, to the hirsute, long-haired hippies to supplant with their wild orgies the graceful dances of the Albanian people?"
(Enver Hoxha, quoted in Miranda Vickers & James Pettifer. Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity. New York, NY: New York University Press. 2000. p. 119.)

"The enemies describe the People's Republic of Albania as a country closed to foreigners. There is a part of truth and a part of slander in this assertion. Yes, the People's Republic of Albania is closed to enemies, to spies, to hippies and hooligans, but it is open to friends, Marxist or non-Marxist, to revolutionaries and progressive democrats, to honest tourists and all those who, irrespective of their political viewpoints, come to our country... without any intention of interfering in our internal affairs and carrying out subservice work. And such men and women flock by the thousands every year to our country, and return satisfied to their countries to speak with sympathy of the Albanian reality."
(Enver Hoxha. It is in the Party-People-State Power Unity That our Strength Lies. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1970. p. 40.)

:D

Questionable

13th September 2013, 23:03

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 14:42

"Why should we turn our country into an inn with doors flung open to pigs and sows, to people with pants on or no pants at all, to the hirsute, long-haired hippies to supplant with their wild orgies the graceful dances of the Albanian people?"
(Enver Hoxha, quoted in Miranda Vickers & James Pettifer. Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity. New York, NY: New York University Press. 2000. p. 119.)

"The enemies describe the People's Republic of Albania as a country closed to foreigners. There is a part of truth and a part of slander in this assertion. Yes, the People's Republic of Albania is closed to enemies, to spies, to hippies and hooligans, but it is open to friends, Marxist or non-Marxist, to revolutionaries and progressive democrats, to honest tourists and all those who, irrespective of their political viewpoints, come to our country... without any intention of interfering in our internal affairs and carrying out subservice work. And such men and women flock by the thousands every year to our country, and return satisfied to their countries to speak with sympathy of the Albanian reality."
(Enver Hoxha. It is in the Party-People-State Power Unity That our Strength Lies. Tirana: Naim Frashëri Publishing House. 1970. p. 40.)

:D

So - progressive non-Marxist Democrats (babblespeak for 'anyone who supports our geopolitical situation') are fine to enter, but if any working class Albanian tries to leave, they shoot them/imprison them?

Sounds legit.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 15:42

So - progressive non-Marxist Democrats (babblespeak for 'anyone who supports our geopolitical situation') are fine to enterAs with Stalin, Hoxha is bad no matter what he does: if he allows nobody in he's "isolationist" and evil, if he allows non-communist professors and other travelers of good-will to enter in order to learn about the country's history, culture, and recent socio-economic achievements he's somehow accused of being an opportunist, even though every work which mentions the subject notes that Albania never sought to cultivate a profitable tourist industry.

Also FYI Lenin encouraged foreign businessmen to visit Soviet Russia so that they could invest in its industries. I doubt you'd find grounds to complain about that.

but if any working class Albanian tries to leave, they shoot them/imprison them?I'd say Albania did pretty good in this regard, considering that there was no attempt at a mass exodus under Hoxha, whereas as a member of the Albanian embassy in Cuba noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm) to visiting Americans (who took notes) in 1968: "the lack of political education, and also the lack of a real planned economy, with a five-year plan so that people can see where all their work goes and when it will bring results, leads a lot of people not to understand and be willing to cope with the shortages, so that many people, including poor people, leave for Miami."

Furthermore, Article 65 of the 1976 Constitution noted that, "The right of sanctuary in the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is granted to foreign citizens who are persecuted on account of their activity in favour of the revolution and socialism, of democracy and national liberation, or the progress of science and culture." A number of foreign communists resided in Albania on such a basis.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 16:39

Devrim

14th September 2013, 16:50

Why this thread is 5 pages long alludes me. Outside a couple nutters on the internet (who would be looked at as insane if they ever spouted their nonsense while trying to do actual political work) does anyone seriously think that the state determining what type of facial hair you can grow is a good idea?

Considering that it was the policy of the Turkish state until fairly recently, and at the time that this law was being done away with* there were massive pro-secular demonstrations, the largest attracting about 3,000,000 people, I would imagine that some people do.

It is about secularism, and responses to it. There is another thread at the moment about the banning of religious symbols in Quebec. What is wrong with this discussion

Devrim

*Of course this was not the only issue.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 16:59

Considering that it was the policy of the Turkish state until fairly recently, and at the time that this law was being done away with* there were massive pro-secular demonstrations, the largest attracting about 3,000,000 people, I would imagine that some people do.

It is about secularism, and responses to it. There is another thread at the moment about the banning of religious symbols in Quebec. What is wrong with this discussion

Devrim

*Of course this was not the only issue.

You can bring up examples of this 'secular tactic' being implemented by bourgeois states, but I don't see how that's exactly relevant. Sure this is something also employed recently by Quebec and its as absurd there as it was under 'socialist' Albania. However those examples aren't exactly pertinent to the discussion, since we're discussing the actions of a supposed socialist state. Putting aside the fact that this 'tactic' is completely ineffective (and as 'Marxists' the Albanian communists and those supporting this action in here should know better), any socialist state that wants to enforce me to wear my hair/beard/whatever (thereby taking
away my bodily autonomy) can go fuck itself, it's that simple and is really the only acceptable response for a communist to make to such an absurd law.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 17:07

However those examples aren't exactly pertinent to the discussion, since we're discussing the actions of a supposed socialist state.The examples are relevant insofar as banning beards is considered on here to be a totally random act without precedent in history and carried out by a crazed madman.

any socialist state that wants to enforce me to wear my hair/beard/whatever (thereby takin away my bodily autonomy) can go fuck itself, it's that simple.I think you're taking your new username a little too seriously.

Outside a couple nutters on the internet (who would be looked at as insane if they ever spouted their nonsense while trying to do actual political work) does anyone seriously think that the state determining what type of facial hair you can grow is a good idea?Apparently people from all walks of life in various countries, from statesmen to workers. Obviously in places like the USA or UK the chance of such policies being enacted is nil, whereas in tribal/feudal countries where beards were closely associated with specific occupations the significance of banning them is obviously different. Keep in mind that together with a gun, many Albanian tribesmen considered beards the epitome of "manliness" and it was considered a grave insult to shave a beard (a similar situation existed in regard to Peter the Great's anti-beard measures, which were likewise meant to enforce a more modern society.)

This isn't a case of a conservative government trying to make everyone look clean-cut, it's the case of a revolutionary government trying to get rid of backwards cultural practices. The fact you interpret it through modern lenses just demonstrates once again your ignorance of Albanian society.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 17:16

The examples are relevant insofar as banning beards is considered to be a totally random act without precedent in history and carried out by a crazed madman.

Show me where I have said as such, please, with a quote. If not then this is yet another sad attempt at Ismail to muddy the waters during an exchange to throw around unfounded accusations.

I think you're taking your new username a little too seriously.

Please spare me the attempts at humor.

Apparently people from all walks of life in various countries, from statesmen to workers. Obviously in places like the USA or UK the chance of such policies being enacted is nil, whereas in tribal/feudal countries where beards were closely associated with specific occupations the significance of banning them is obviously different.

Sure, the significance is obviously different, but that's not what this is about, this is ultimately an issue of personal freedom and bodily autonomy (and no this isn't fetishizing individuality). I'll break it down for you again, as long as an individual doesn't harm anyone else, then they should be left free to do with their body, as one sees fit. Again this doesn't even begin to touch on the anti-Marxist nature of the mindset which would spawn such a law.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 17:19

I'll break it down for you again, as long as an individual doesn't harm anyone else, then they should be left free to do with their body, as one sees fit. Again this doesn't even begin to touch on the anti-Marxist nature of the mindset which would spawn such a law.I'm sure public meetings of workers and peasants being held in which Orthodox priests and Imams had their beards shaved off and were humiliated as a way of discrediting religion and traditional culture is totally like telling some random guy in Britain to shave his beard because the government doesn't like it.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 17:20

This isn't a case of a conservative government trying to make everyone look clean-cut, it's the case of a revolutionary government trying to get rid of backwards cultural practices. The fact you interpret it through modern lenses just demonstrates once again your ignorance of Albanian society.

Seriously Ismail, once again who are you talking about? Where have I said anything about this law being enacted by a 'conservative government trying to make everyone look clean cut'? If you can't stick to hat I say in my post, instead of throwing up straw man after staw man, then I'm not going to converse with you.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 17:23

Seriously Ismail, once again who are you talking about? Where have I said anything about this law being enacted by a 'conservative government trying to make everyone look clean cut'?You keep on going on about "personal freedom and bodily autonomy" which makes little sense in the context of the prohibition of beards in Albania, which was precisely meant to increase the scope of personal freedom by unchaining people from religious and tribal dogma. Orthodox priests and Imams don't wear beards because they feel like it, they do it because it is part of their religion. Likewise tribal elders have beards to signify their status.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 17:25

As with Stalin, Hoxha is bad no matter what he does: if he allows nobody in he's "isolationist" and evil, if he allows non-communist professors and other travelers of good-will to enter in order to learn about the country's history, culture, and recent socio-economic achievements he's somehow accused of being an opportunist, even though every work which mentions the subject notes that Albania never sought to cultivate a profitable tourist industry.

I'm not accusing Hoxha of being an opportunist in this situation. I have no problems with anyone entering or leaving a country.

Also FYI Lenin encouraged foreign businessmen to visit Soviet Russia so that they could invest in its industries. I doubt you'd find grounds to complain about that.

I find plenty of grounds to complain about Lenin and, specifically, his New Economic Policy. It was a sham - the Bolshevik Party managing capital in the 1920s, under the guise of it being a necessary stage towards socialism, is one of the most embarrassing and disgusting periods of '20th century Socialism' I can think of, perhaps only beaten by that which followed in the 1930s.

I'd say Albania did pretty good in this regard, considering that there was no attempt at a mass exodus under Hoxha, whereas as a member of the Albanian embassy in Cuba noted (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm) to visiting Americans (who took notes) in 1968: "the lack of political education, and also the lack of a real planned economy, with a five-year plan so that people can see where all their work goes and when it will bring results, leads a lot of people not to understand and be willing to cope with the shortages, so that many people, including poor people, leave for Miami."

I wouldn't really judge success in this regard as the amount of people wanting to leave or not. The point is the means, not the ends. It is profoundly wrong for any country - particularly a tiny, backwards country that can't have exactly been home to fantastic living standards - to attempt to stop its own people from leaving, when they have committed no crime.

I would add also, I found it particularly disturbing when in Cuba that they actually had a policeman or two watching over the beaches, presumably in case anybody tried to leave by water. The urge to leave a poor country like Cuba for the richest country in the world must be great when, on a clear day, Florida is so close as to be within clear sight of the beaches of Havana Province.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 17:27

I find plenty of grounds to complain about Lenin and, specifically, his New Economic Policy. It was a sham - the Bolshevik Party managing capital in the 1920s, under the guise of it being a necessary stage towards socialism, is one of the most embarrassing and disgusting periods of '20th century Socialism' I can think of, perhaps only beaten by that which followed in the 1930s.This just demonstrates your faulty understanding of the period and makes it even harder for me to take you seriously.

I wouldn't really judge success in this regard as the amount of people wanting to leave or not. The point is the means, not the ends. It is profoundly wrong for any country - particularly a tiny, backwards country that can't have exactly been home to fantastic living standards - to attempt to stop its own people from leaving, when they have committed no crime.On this subject and its historical context see my post here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2640592&postcount=45

Audeamus

14th September 2013, 18:21

Sure, the significance is obviously different, but that's not what this is about, this is ultimately an issue of personal freedom and bodily autonomy (and no this isn't fetishizing individuality). I'll break it down for you again, as long as an individual doesn't harm anyone else, then they should be left free to do with their body, as one sees fit.

If, after Mr.Populi's revolution, I would like to break out my white robes and hood and march around town with some of my fellow bedsheet enthusiasts, would that be cool? What is the harm in that after all? Sure this is an expression of reactionary ideology that we all agree is completely unacceptable and needs to be done away with, but it certainly doesn't meet the criteria of the harm principle.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 18:31

[QUOTE=Ismail;2663467]This just demonstrates your faulty understanding of the period and makes it even harder for me to take you seriously.

How so? The Bolshevik Party in the 1920s managed a period of capitalism. Fact or fiction?

On this subject and its historical context see my post here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2640592&postcount=45

I take issue with the reference to early British capitalism. There was migration in England, but it was more intra-national migration. From the 17th century or so, ex-peasants moved into new towns and cities. The agricultural revolution both produced many labour-saving techniques, and increased productivity substantially. This resulted in both:

a) a lack of jobs in the countryside, and
b) the ability to support - in terms of food resources - a larger population in new towns and cities.

The movement of agricultural labourers (probably a better term than ex-peasant, since peasant has been noted (Schofield, 2003) to be as all-encompassing a term as Christian, or layman) into the cities created a vast army of both workers, and a contingent reserve army of labourers.

I'm not as knowledgeable on international migration away from Britain, but I was under the impression that those who emigrated from Britain weren't workers, but those looking to take account of Britain's position as the chief imperial economy of the time, backed by the mercantile economic policies of early capitalism, which allowed for significant legitimate social and economic exploitation of those in the colonies by rent-seekers, emigrating from Britain.

That is a (fascinating) topic for another time, though. I agree that the 'right to emigration' is something of a falsity and perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. The 'freedom of movement', though, as a wider, more all-encompassing freedom, is one which should be universal and strictly enforced. The 20th century saw the greatest advance in the ability of people to move around the world as they wish, for whatever purpose, and it's criminal that some countries did, and still do, restrict the ability of people to move freely. Especially when said leaders who are restricting the mobility of their own workers often pay no attention to the same rules themselves.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 18:49

How so? The Bolshevik Party in the 1920s managed a period of capitalism. Fact or fiction?As Martin Nicolaus in his work Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR noted (http://marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html):

Lenin's clarity and frankness about the significance of NEP testified to the fact that throughout this limited and temporary restoration of capitalism in the USSR, the proletariat remained the ruling class. The state capitalism that the NEP temporarily fostered was not the state capitalism found in bourgeois economics texts, in which the bourgeois holders of economic power collectively subordinate the state and state property to their interests. On the contrary, the proletarian political power subjected the bourgeoisie to its interests. No matter how great the freedom given to the bourgeoisie in economic matters, the proletarian power always kept the reins in its own hands and loosened or tightened them in accordance with its own economic and political policies.

The NEP period of Soviet history comprised three broad phases: the retreat in the direction of capitalism, the consolidation and the new offensive toward socialism. All three phases, and not only the retreat, formed part of the NEP design. Taken as a whole, NEP was the policy of transforming the capitalist (and even precapitalist) economic foundation of the USSR into a socialist foundation; it was the policy of laying "the economic foundation for the political gains of the Soviet state" (CW, Vol. 33, p. 73); it was the policy of transition during the period when "capitalism has been smashed but socialism has not yet been built." (CW, Vol. 30, p. 513) As Lenin said in one of his last speeches, in November 1922, "NEP Russia will become socialist Russia." (CW, Vol. 33, p. 443)

It was Lenin himself, in March 1922, who called a halt to the "retreat" that was the first phase of NEP. It fell to his successors to decide how to consolidate, and when and how to pass on to the general offensive against the capitalist elements.

In all respects the easiest part of the battle during the second and third phases of NEP was the elimination of the private merchants and small manufacturers from the scene. From the mid-1920s on, the share of the country's total trade in the hands of private companies declined, while the share of the state increased. By 1932, the hated private traders, who were called NEPmen, were all but gone. In manufacturing, where about one-eighth of the country's workers in 1923 were employed by private enterprise, the private share had been reduced in 1932 to less than 1 percent. (See the periodic reports of the Soviet State Planning Commission, presented at party congresses by Stalin, [Works, Vols. 12 and 13] and the modern revisionist Outline History of the Soviet Working Class by Y. S. Borisova et. al., Moscow 1973.)

The gradual liquidation of foreign investments and leases presented few problems, as these never amounted to any significant proportion of output. Few capitalists had accepted Lenin's offer to invest in the proletarian state.

More difficult and protracted was the struggle to reverse the capitalist measures introduced in the state industrial sector during the first phase of NEP. Necessity dictated progress here: the managers of the state industrial trusts quickly used their freedom to jack up prices beyond the point where the peasant and worker masses could afford to pay. In 1923 and 1924, the state cracked down on its trusts, imposing first a rigid credit control and then price controls that severely limited the managements' freedom of action. In the spring of 1924, the first serious start was made to design a comprehensive long-term economic plan for all branches of nationalized industry; meanwhile the socialist planning principle made gradual headway on a patchwork, branch-by-branch basis. (See E. H. Carr, The Interregnum, Pelican Books 1969.) By 1927, Stalin was able to report that the state now "has every possibility of directing nationalized industry in a planned way, as a single industrial enterprise," (Works, Vol. 10, p. 309); and in 1929, the capitalist relations in the state sector had been so far suppressed that this possibility, with the adoption of the first five-year plan, became -- at least in approximation -- for the first time a reality.

The 20th century saw the greatest advance in the ability of people to move around the world as they wish, for whatever purpose, and it's criminal that some countries did, and still do, restrict the ability of people to move freely. Especially when said leaders who are restricting the mobility of their own workers often pay no attention to the same rules themselves. Hoxha never left Albania after 1960.

TaylorS

14th September 2013, 19:16

Given the symbolism of long beards in Islamic culture, I don't think banning beards in that situation is a bad thing. The banning of religious names, though, is a bit over the top.

It's worth noting that Hoxha did praise Atatürk as a progressive bourgeois statesman and stressed the man's anti-clerical activities (as well as his opposition to Albania's King Zog; he regarded the latter's self-proclaimed kingdom as an archaic absurdity.)

King Zog sounds like the name of a villain in a fantasy novel! :laugh:

Ismail

14th September 2013, 19:24

King Zog sounds like the name of a villain in a fantasy novel! :laugh:From Jason Tome's King Zog: Self-Made Monarch of Albania:

"It was not until February 1924 that deputies gathered to elect a new Government. Zogu had succeeded in striking a deal and anticipated a majority of twenty or so. Shortly after half-past-two, he left his office on the ground floor to go up to the parliamentary chamber for the start of proceedings. He was just on the turn of the stairs, when a young man appeared at the top and shot him. After two or three rounds, the pistol jammed and the assassin turned and ran.

Though wounded, Zogu simply drew his revolver and carried on. The deputies, who had instantly fallen silent, turned to see the double-doors of the chamber thrown open as the Prime Minister staggered in. 'He looked deathly pale,' related Ekrem Vlora, 'but he held himself straight, pulled himself together, smiled even, went confidently to the Government bench, and sat down in one of the armchairs set aide for the secretaries.'

Then fresh rounds sounded in the lobby. Some deputies dived beneath their desks while others started pushing and shouting and waving their guns. The assassin had in fact locked himself in the lavatory, where he was singing patriotic songs and firing through the door. Ringed by supporters, Zogu summoned up strength to call out, 'Gentlemen, this is not the first time in the world that such a thing has happened in a parliament. I ask my friends to leave it alone and deal with it afterwards.'"

Of course Zog was also a reactionary who repressed any progressive political tendency and reduced Albania to an Italian neo-colony, but yeah.

Then there was Fan Noli, his opponent who was backed by the few Albanian communists (and whom the would-be assassin was probably aligned with.) From the same work:

"His Grace Fan S. Noli, Bishop of Durrës, leader of the Democratic Party, League of Nations delegate, Bachelor of Arts, biographer of Skanderbeg, translator of Stendhal, Maupassant, and Molière, liturgist, composer, and orator. A stocky Tosk [southern Albanian] with a big beard jutting above his clerical collar, Bishop Noli had been an actor in Athens, a schoolmaster in Egypt, a lumberman in Buffalo, a canning-factory worker in New York, a cinema organist in Boston, and a student at Harvard before settling in Albania in 1921 at the age of thirty-nine. He was Orthodox purely in the confessional sense, and even that was questionable. Ordained a deacon by the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA with himself as its sole priest. Privately, meanwhile, he claimed to be a Nietzschean and, at various times, labeled Christianity a capitalist instrument of enslavement and stated that the whole truth was in Omar Khayyam... Some fanciful critics even alleged that he wore an artificial beard in order to look more episcopal."

Probably the most amusing thing he did was, after becoming leader in the bourgeois-democratic revolution of June 1924, he went to the League of Nations (which he had hitherto thought would solve all humanity's problems) and asked for assistance. He kept on having demands put on him and he said this in response:

"But do tell me, Mr. Secretary-General, why you refuse to give Albania a loan to enable her to get on her feet. We need only 300,000,000 gold francs. Too much, you say. Well, I am going to climb down elegantly to the modest sum of 200,000,000 gold francs. You are shaking your head, Well, I am willing to negotiate for a smaller sum, say 100,000,000 gold francs. I beg your pardon? Do you mean to say that you have never met me in your life, and that you would not lend me a penny? . . . Perhaps the Secretary-General meant to say that he is unwilling to negotiate a loan with a revolutionary Government without a Parliament like that presided over by my reverend humility. But do you know what a parliament is? A Parliament is a hall where heartless politicians meet to vivisect their own race, a hall full of poison gas, of asphyxiating gas, of tear-producing gas, of laughter-producing gas, of tango-producing gas, and of all the other gases with which the last war was fought to end all wars. But since you insist, we are willing to have new elections, and to convoke that pest, that calamity, that abominable superstition, the Parliament after, say, two, or rather three, years of paternal government. Will you then Mr. Secretary-General, after three years, give me the loan of 400,000,000 gold francs which we agreed upon a few minutes ago? You say 'No' again? I knew it."

The British, Yugoslavs, etc. quickly declared his government a "threat" to the Balkans and "Bolshevist"-inspired. Zogu, then exiled in Yugoslavia, assembled together an army with support from the Yugoslav monarchy and with elements from the forces of Wrangel and marched onto the Albanian capital in December that year, overthrowing Noli's government.

During the socialist period Zog was predictably denounced and Noli was upheld as the example of a progressive bourgeois democrat who opposed feudalism.

Questionable

14th September 2013, 20:06

King Zog sounds like the name of a villain in a fantasy novel!

Kneel before Zog?

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 20:22

If, after Mr.Populi's revolution, I would like to break out my white robes and hood and march around town with some of my fellow bedsheet enthusiasts, would that be cool? What is the harm in that after all? Sure this is an expression of reactionary ideology that we all agree is completely unacceptable and needs to be done away with, but it certainly doesn't meet the criteria of the harm principle.

You are really missing the point. First off after any revolution (although I must say that I'm flattered you think it will be 'my' revolution) the KKK will have become obsolete, a relic of the past, so if you mean will people be allowed to walk around attempting to organize the KKK, of course not, since class antagonisms won't exist and the formation of the KKK would be an example of class divisions. So already the premise of your post, showcases a fundamental misunderstanding in your conception of socialism and revolution. Regardless the nutters can engage in whatever mental gymnastics they wish to justify the state having the ability to tell me how long I'm allowed to grow the hair on my face; its quite amusing.

Questionable

14th September 2013, 20:25

First off after any revolution (although I must say that I'm flattered you think it will be 'my' revolution) the KKK will have become obsolete, a relic of the past, so if you mean will people be allowed to walk around attempting to organize the KKK, of course not, since class antagonisms won't exist and the formation of the KKK would be an example of class divisions.

Then you must no doubt lend your approval to the Soviet revisionists, who also insisted that class antagonisms completely vanished after the revolution, thus denying the need to fight against internal bourgeois influence.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 20:33

Then you must no doubt lend your approval to the Soviet revisionists, who also insisted that class antagonisms completely vanished after the revolution, thus denying the need to fight against internal bourgeois influence.

This is a political difference, irrelevant to the actual discussion. Some believe that class antagonisms continue on under socialism, others refer to socialism as a stateless and classless society. Your pathetic attempt here to liken me and my political convictions to the soviet revisionists though is quite obvious; seems you've been picking up polemical tactics from Ismail, consciously or not.

Also have some rep.

Questionable

14th September 2013, 20:37

This is a political difference, irrelevant to the actual discussion. Some believe that class antagonisms continue on under socialism, others use refer to socialism as a stateless and classless society. Your pathetic attempt here to liken me and my political convictions to the soviet revisionists though is quite obvious; seems you've been picking up polemical tactics from Ismail, consciously or not.

I see not how this is either irrelevant or pathetic. You believe that class struggle ceases completely under socialism, which puts you in the same camp as the Soviet revisionists, who called the belief that class struggle continued under socialism a dogmatic mistake on Stalin's part.

It's interesting to note how the ideals of many anti-Soviet communists - such as the Trotskyist call for a multi-party system -was put into practice by revisionists.

Per Levy

14th September 2013, 20:42

yeah hoxhas party banned beards, long hair for males and hoxha called jazz "jungle music". they also build many bunkers for the lols.

It's interesting to note how the ideals of many anti-Soviet communists - such as the Trotskyist call for a multi-party system

it is interesting to note that the gdr, while being a soviet puppet, had a multi-party system with christ-democrats, pro peasant party and so on, all while stalin was still allive and swinging.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 20:47

I see not how this is either irrelevant or pathetic.

Its both irrelvant, due to the fact that we aren't discussing whatever similarities you view between my political convictions and those of the soviet revisionists but rather the merits of a ban on beards in Albania under Hoxha, and pathetic, since its merely an attempt at distracting from the issue at hand (an inane, anti-Marxist law) and an example of a logical fallacy, whereby you attempt to discredit the opinions I've expressed in this thread, by discrediting me through the unfair and incomplete comparison to the 'soviet revisionists.'

You believe that class struggle ceases completely under socialism, which puts you in the same camp as the Soviet revisionists, who called the belief that class struggle continued under socialism a dogmatic mistake on Stalin's part.

Yes I do, I consider socialism to be both stateless and classless, as did Marx and Engels. Yet would you consider that a valid argument for criticizing their political convictoins? Of course not and neither is it when directed at me. Its a rather sad polemical tactic.

It's interesting to note how the ideals of many anti-Soviet communists - such as the Trotskyist call for a multi-party system -was put into practice by revisionists.

Then go start a thread about it. I'd be more then happy to come post in it, when I'm off work and have access to a computer and can type up a proper response.

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 20:48

yeah hoxhas party banned beards, long hair for males and hoxha called jazz "jungle music". they also build many bunkers for the lols

Haha I forgot about that little racist gem of his.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 20:51

it is interesting to note that the gdr, while being a soviet puppet, had a multi-party system with christ-democrats, pro peasant party and so on, all while stalin was still allive and swinging.The GDR when Stalin was alive did not claim to have constructed a socialist society. It was understood that with the construction of socialism the basis for other parties would cease to exist. As usual, the Soviet revisionists changed this and pretty much acted as if other parties (which, as Stalin noted, represent different social classes) lasted until communism.

Soviet Russia obviously had a multi-party system from 1917-1922, both bourgeois and Soviet authors point this out. And of course Soviet Russia had not constructed socialism at that point either.

Questionable

14th September 2013, 20:59

Its both irrelvant, due to the fact that we aren't discussing whatever similarities you view between my political convictions and those of the soviet revisionists but rather the merits of a ban on beards in Albania under Hoxha,

The continuation of class struggle under socialism is, arguably, one of the main foundations of Marxism-Leninism, thus an attack on that aspect can be considered part of a great attack on Albania and Stalin-era Russia, since many of their policies were influenced by the ideal that class struggle still happened in socialist societies. So no, I do not think it is so irrelevant, although it is not explicitly related to the anti-religious laws of Albania, there are plenty of posts here which aren't yet are still related to Marxism-Leninism in general, so I don't see the complaint.

Yes I do, I consider socialism to be both stateless and classless, as did Marx and Engels. Yet would you consider that a valid argument for criticizing their political convictoins?

Marx and Engels were not alive to see the USSR exist, and thus when analyzing the mechanics of an existing socialist society, the teachings of Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha, who all oversaw the construction of socialism, are more valuable in that area, rather than dogmatically clinging to Marx and Engels to disprove the existence of socialist societies, as if they were fortune tellers rather than scientists.

Of course not and neither is it when directed at me.

It is because you live in an era that has already witnessed the rise and fall of a socialist civilization, and you have that knowledge at your disposal whereas Marx and Engels did not.

Haha I forgot about that little racist gem of his.

My god, the leader of a country that abolished racism and sexism and other forms of oppression called jazz music "jungle music." Time to abandon my politics and convert to Kautskyism!

In all seriousness, I'm sure you'll agree Hoxha calling jazz music "jungle music" is little more racist than you calling Albania a "shithole," right?

Ismail

14th September 2013, 21:05

Hoxha didn't actually refer to jazz as "jungle music." That would quite obviously be racist. This is the actual quote:

"Our social opinion quite rightly strongly condemned such degenerate 'importations' as long hair, extravagant dress, screaming jungle music, coarse language, shameless behaviour and so on. If the influences and manifestations of the bourgeois-revisionist way of life are not nipped in the bud, they open the way to the corruption and degeneration of people which are so dangerous to the cause of socialism."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. IV. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1982. p. 836.)

Obviously jazz doesn't involve "screaming," so he was evidently talking about rock music, which was promoted in the revisionist countries but not in Albania.

Remus Bleys

14th September 2013, 21:07

yeah hoxhas party banned beards, long hair for maledid he really ban long hair for men? So much for "combatting/abolishing sexism"

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 21:13

Obviously jazz doesn't involve "screaming," so he was evidently talking about rock music, which was promoted in the revisionist countries but not in Albania.

Have you never heard of screaming trumpets?

You are quite clearly talking out of your arse here. Anybody with an ounce of understanding of music would get the 'screaming jungle music' connotation. It was a racist statement.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 21:13

did he really ban long hair for men? So much for "combatting/abolishing sexism"Maybe, if it wasn't for stuff like this: "In order to enable women to take a more active part in political and social life, the conservative stands of some backward husands who, especially in the countryside, prevented women from going to meetings and conferences, or participating in sports, artistic, cultural and other activities were sternly criticized. At popular conventions, women, young and old, raised their powerful voice against their black past and regressive elements and demanded the implementation of the instructions of the Party to the letter. The letters of the women and girls of the Highlands to Enver Hoxha in which they told him that, while working for the construction of the Rrogozhina-Fier railway, they had discarded their heavy clothes and dressed like the other volunteers and they trimmed their hair, which was formerly considered a disgrace to women, and promised that when they returned to their villages they would fight for the socialist way of life, had a wide response in the public opinion."
(Omari, Luan and Stefanaq Pollo. The History of the Socialist Construction of Albania. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1988. pp. 260-261.)

The Albanians denounced the Soviet revisionists for bringing back into currency chauvinist positions towards women. Thus, in Problems of the Struggle for the Complete Emancipation of Women (1975, pages 112-114) we read, among other Soviet revisionist "explanations" for an increasingly anti-women policy, that: "Third, the Khrushchevite revisionists say that the main task of woman is to rear children and take care of herself since she is a delicate creature, a symbol of beauty destined to be an 'ornament' for man or a means to fulfil his desires. In connection with such a treatment of the problem of woman, the candidate of the philosophical sciences, I.M. Kitchemova, wrote [in 1968]: 'The present woman is not only a worker, or a social activist. She is a housekeeper, a mother and a woman as well. The husband, it should be said among others, does not remain indifferent towards the mood of his wife returning from work; does he find her delighting, fresh, nice, quiet or ill-humoured and tired? This is the origin of the opinion often expressed by men, that it is better for the family if women would work only a little or not at all.' As may be seen, we have to do here with those bourgeois concepts which treat women as a means to give birth to and assure the continuity of the species on one hand, and as a 'creature of luxury' for the use of men, on the other.

Fourth, the Khrushchevite revisionists link the question of the exemption of women from production work with the fact that the Soviet economy no longer stands in need of women's productive forces. In connection with this, the 'Nedelya' magazine, reporting the comments of a participant in an interview organized by its editorial board, emphasized: 'As may be seen, during the first decade, our country demanded that participation of women in production. Today, however, this necessity does not exist.' Treating the problem of women in this way is anti-Marxist. This is an anti-scientific stand viewing the problem of woman from the narrow positions of economism, of the family needs to ensure incomes for subsistence. Thus, the Khrushchevite revisionists view the participation of women in production merely from the angle of economic interest, they vulgarize it and do not see in it the social significance of the complete emancipation of women and of the establishment of social equality between man and woman...

Contrary to the Khrushchevite revisionist views, Marxism-Leninism teaches us that, after the overthrowing of the exploiting order of things and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the decisive factor for women's emancipation for her growing role in society and for the establishment of actual equality between men and women, is the labor factor, the broad participation of the masses of women in social production and in political and social activity."

Have you never heard of screaming trumpets?

You are quite clearly talking out of your arse here. Anybody with an ounce of understanding of music would get the 'screaming jungle music' connotation. It was a racist statement.I still say it referred to rock music, which would go along with the comments about coarse language, the fact that rock music involves actual screaming, etc. Again, it is important to note that the Soviet revisionists promoted these cultural activities, as part of their "détente" with US imperialism and their support for the strengthening of the new bourgeois intelligentsia in the USSR, which in turn served the interests of the Soviet revisionists.

Brutus

14th September 2013, 21:20

I know that 9mm supports a one party system, to clarify that matter.

Actually, Marx referred to the upper and lower stages of communism/ socialism. Contrary to popular belief, Lenin didn't say socialism was the first stage of communism in The State and Revolution, but said that it was commonly referred to as socialism. So to say that Marx and Engels used socialism and communism as synonyms is correct, but to say both claimed that communism and socialism are stateless is incorrect.

Remus Bleys

14th September 2013, 21:22

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 21:25

I still say it referred to rock music, which would go along with the comments about coarse language, involves actual screaming, etc. Again, it is important to note that the Soviet revisionists promoted these cultural activities, as part of their "détente" with US imperialism and their support for the strengthening of the new bourgeois intelligentsia in the USSR, which in turn served the interests of the Soviet revisionists.

You're not really basing this on anything.

He could easily have been referring to the likes of Miles Davis and Frank Zappa, or the Cubans, in a moment of racist expression against jazz.

That would seem far more likely. There is no logic in calling rock music 'jungle music', when jungle is a term that had already been applied to jazz before.

But I know you won't accept that Enver could possibly have had a racist moment, regardless of the evidence staring you in the face.

Brutus

14th September 2013, 21:27

The hair style thing reminds me of Let Us Trim Our Hair in Accordance With the Socialist Lifestyle. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_trim_our_hair_in_accordance_with_the_sociali st_lifestyle)

Questionable

14th September 2013, 21:32

I know that 9mm supports a one party system, to clarify that matter.

I'm aware of that too. My reference to the Trotskyists wasn't aimed at him, I was simply noting something interesting.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 21:33

Do you agree with his sentiment there?He's condemning the importation of capitalist culture as he saw it. Obviously capitalist culture should be opposed. Just as you can't separate the anti-beard campaign from the social role of beards in Albania at that time, you can't separate the phenomena Hoxha spoke of from the fact that they were used as a tool by the West in its fight against socialism (case in point: there are a number of works on how the CIA tried to use jazz musicians for anti-communist purposes.) The Soviet revisionists and their allies in Eastern Europe did not seek to create new forms of culture, but merely to appropriate Western culture, which was dramatically shown in the case of Dean Reed, who mostly covered popular American songs while extolling revisionism.

Again, to quote Hoxha: "Of what fight against bourgeois ideology can the Soviet revisionists speak while revisionism is nothing else by a manifestation of the bourgeois ideology in theory and practice, while egoism and individualism, the running after money and other material benefits are thriving in the Soviet Union, while careerseeking and bureaucratism, technocratism, economism and intellectualism are developing, while villas, motor-cars and beautiful women have become the supreme ideal of men, while literature and art attack socialism, everything revolutionary, and advocate pacifism and bourgeois humanism, the empty and dissolute living of people thinking only of themselves, while hundreds of thousands of western tourists that visit the Soviet Union every year, spread the bourgeois ideology and way of life there, while western films cover the screens of the Soviet cinema halls, while the American orchestras and jazz bands and those of the other capitalist countries have become the favorite orchestras of the youth, and while parades of western fashions are in vogue in the Soviet Union? If until yesterday the various manifestations of bourgeois ideology could be called remnants of the past, today bourgeois ideology has become a component part of the capitalist superstructure which rests on the state capitalist foundation which has now been established in the Soviet Union." (The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, 1972, pp. 508-509.)

Remus Bleys

14th September 2013, 21:46

He's condemning the importation of capitalist culture as he saw it. Obviously capitalist culture should be opposed. Just as you can't separate the anti-beard campaign from the social role of beards in Albania at that time, you can't separate the phenomena Hoxha spoke of from the fact that they were used as a tool by the West in its fight against socialism (case in point: there are a number of works on how the CIA tried to use jazz musicians for anti-communist purposes.) The Soviet revisionists and their allies in Eastern Europe did not seek to create new forms of culture, but merely to appropriate Western culture, which was dramatically shown in the case of Dean Reed, who mostly covered popular American songs while extolling revisionism.

Again, to quote Hoxha: "Of what fight against bourgeois ideology can the Soviet revisionists speak while revisionism is nothing else by a manifestation of the bourgeois ideology in theory and practice, while egoism and individualism, the running after money and other material benefits are thriving in the Soviet Union, while careerseeking and bureaucratism, technocratism, economism and intellectualism are developing, while villas, motor-cars and beautiful women have become the supreme ideal of men, while literature and art attack socialism, everything revolutionary, and advocate pacifism and bourgeois humanism, the empty and dissolute living of people thinking only of themselves, while hundreds of thousands of western tourists that visit the Soviet Union every year, spread the bourgeois ideology and way of life there, while western films cover the screens of the Soviet cinema halls, while the American orchestras and jazz bands and those of the other capitalist countries have become the favorite orchestras of the youth, and while parades of western fashions are in vogue in the Soviet Union? If until yesterday the various manifestations of bourgeois ideology could be called remnants of the past, today bourgeois ideology has become a component part of the capitalist superstructure which rests on the state capitalist foundation which has now been established in the Soviet Union." (The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, 1972, pp. 508-509.)

So, you do agree that jazz/rock, long hair, and swear words are inherentl capitalist? That's all I can get from this. Instead of yes or no you block quote so I am a bit confused.

As an aside, how were gays and trans treated under feminist Albania?

Art Vandelay

14th September 2013, 21:56

The continuation of class struggle under socialism is, arguably, one of the main foundations of Marxism-Leninism, thus an attack on that aspect can be considered part of a great attack on Albania and Stalin-era Russia, since many of their policies were influenced by the ideal that class struggle still happened in socialist societies. So no, I do not think it is so irrelevant, although it is not explicitly related to the anti-religious laws of Albania, there are plenty of posts here which aren't yet are still related to Marxism-Leninism in general, so I don't see the complaint.

You don't see the complaint? You have laid out rather well the issue at hand. This thread is not about the merits of 'socialist' Albania, nor is it about whether or not class struggle exists under socialism, or whether or not Stalin and Hoxha contined on the line of Marx and Lenin; it's about something specific: state control of the length one is permitted to grow their facial hair. You continually attempting to make this discussion about something else is rather representative of the inane and absurd law you are defending.

Marx and Engels were not alive to see the USSR exist, and thus when analyzing the mechanics of an existing socialist society, the teachings of Lenin, Stalin, and Hoxha, who all oversaw the construction of socialism, are more valuable in that area, rather than dogmatically clinging to Marx and Engels to disprove the existence of socialist societies, as if they were fortune tellers rather than scientists.

I don't dogmatically cling to anything, however if you wish to continue to be a pedantic Hoxhaist and accuse anyone who dismisses Hoxha of dogmatism, then continue to enjoy your lack of fruitful discourse with anyone outside your little internet Hoxha cult.

My god, the leader of a country that abolished racism and sexism and other forms of oppression called jazz music "jungle music." Time to abandon my politics and convert to Kautskyism!

So now Alabania abolished both racism and sexism? But wait a minute you just said that class antagonisms continue to exist under socialism? Surely racism an sexism can't be abolished in a society where class antagonisms exist? So which one is it?

P.s. I'm not a 'kaut.'

In all seriousness, I'm sure you'll agree Hoxha calling jazz music "jungle music" is little more racist than you calling Albania a "shithole," right?

Does your ass ever get jealous of the shit that comes from your mouth? No, calling a country a shithole isn't racist. Do you even know what racism is? Even Ismail didn't have the gull to stretch my claim into an accusation of racism. The only way you could argue this is by referencing Albanians as slavs I suppose, but that claim was already debunked once in this thread. And somehow this is equivalent to Hoxha calling jazz 'jungle music' do you understand how delusional you sound?

Ismail

14th September 2013, 21:59

As an aside, how were gays and trans treated under feminist Albania?The Albanian penal code stated that, "Unnatural sexual relations of a man with a woman or of a woman with a woman do not constitute a criminal offence and are not proscribed." Thus technically neither "sodomy" nor lesbianism were illegal under the law. Of course when one thinks "sodomy" they almost always associate it with homosexual relations between males.

In Albania, homosexual relations between males were illegal. As Bill Bland described (http://ml-review.ca/aml/Albania/ALBANIANLIFE/No441989.htm) it: "Since... Albanian law prohibits such sexual deviation only by men, it is clear that this penal legislation has the purpose of protecting women from degradation. From the fact that Albanian law prohibits male homosexuality only, it could be argued that it is discriminatory in favour of women. In fact, however, Albanian law makes a number of such positive discriminations, on the grounds that, as a result of the centuries-old socially inferior position of women, certain positive discriminations are for the time being necessary in 'order to bring about genuine equality between the sexes."

The only remotely "transgender" activities in Albania were the cases of "sworn virgins," who, when the male head of the household died, swore an oath of celibacy and dressed up as men while carrying out patriarchal duties within the family. As one New York Times piece notes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/world/europe/23iht-virgins.4.13927949.html?pagewanted=all),

Had she been born in Albania today, says the 78-year-old sworn virgin, who made an oath of celibacy in return for the right to live and rule her family as a man, she would choose womanhood.

"Back then, it was better to be a man because, before, a woman and an animal were considered the same thing," says Keqi, who has a bellowing baritone voice, sits with her legs open wide like a man and relishes downing shots of Raki and smoking cigarettes. "Now, Albanian women have equal rights with men and are even more powerful, and I think today it would be fun to be a woman."So yeah, obviously this was a backwards practice and it was phased out under socialism. I've never heard of any case of transgenderism in Albania the way we know of it nowadays.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:02

Hoxha never left Albania after 1960.

And why would Hoxha want to leave Albania? As you can see in this sickening video, he was living a lifestyle of relative leisure and comfort while his lesser "comrades" toiled and contracted diseases in factories named after him.

Between persecuting gays and bearded men, it's a wonder he found this time to swim. I guess that's why all those power plants and factories were named after him! Prisons, too? It would be fitting! Some socialist!!

POK6ONpkGsA

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:04

And why would Hoxha want to leave Albania? As you can see in this sickening video, he was living a lifestyle of relative leisure and comfort while his lesser "comrades" toiled and contracted diseases in factories named after him?

He always found time to swim between persecuting gays and bearded men. Some socialist!!The irony in your statement is assuming that Albanians had no leisure time, when in fact leisure for workers was obligatory by law. Case in point, a Scandinavian visitor to Albania (as recorded in his book Albania Defiant, pp. 14-15):

At Dhermi we bathe. We've come from Vlora and have passed through the mountains. The Ionian Sea is as blue as can be, its waters are clear, its beaches lovely. We'd have nothing against staying on here.

"Impossible. It's forbidden."

"But the season hasn't started yet. There's plenty of room."

"Comrades, it's forbidden."

"Lots of things are forbidden here in Albania."

"Not at all. Dhermi is the trade unions' bathing resort. Only trade union members are allowed to come here. Because this is the best beach in Albania. No foreigners and no bureaucrats."

"Make an exception. There's plenty of room, isn't there?"

"If we make an exception for one, we'll have to make an exception for two. If we make an exception for two, then we'll have to make an exception for four. If we make an exception for eight, we'll have to make an exception for sixteen, and then thirty-two, sixty-four, a hundred and twenty-eight, two hundred and fifty-six, five hundred and twelve, one thousand and twenty-four, two thousand and forty-eight, four thousand and ninety-six, eight thousand one hundred and ninety-two, sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty-four, thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight, sixty-five thousand ... "

"But I was only asking whether we could stay here for the night."

"Sixty-five thousand five hundred and thirty-six, one hundred and thirty-one thousand and seventy-two. No, you can't stay the night here. We've made a decision of principle. It applies to everyone. Only trade union members who are in production, right in production, can live here. We make no exceptions for anyone. A member of the central committee tried to stop the night here, but we didn't make an exception. Tourists and bureaucrats can bathe at Durres or Saranda. Dhermi is for the workers."

"Oh come—surely there's some point in between no exceptions at all and one hundred and thirty-one thousand and seventy-two exceptions!"

"There are no points in between. Look at the revisionist countries. Look at their bathing resorts. We've learned from the way things have turned out there. They're not going to turn out that way here. You begin with one exception, and in the end there are only exceptions and no workers...

Khrushchev came here and had a look. 'Don't spoil the landscape with industries,' he said. 'Let's have a socialist division of labor. We'll industrialize ourselves, and you can grow lemons. Then we'll come here to you and swim.' But then our government said, 'Comrade Khrushchev, we've no intention of becoming a spa for Soviet functionaries. We've in mind to follow Comrade Stalin's advice and industrialize our country.'"So yeah Albanians not only had the possibility, but also the right, to swim and enjoy beach activities. The only other significant activity I see in that video is Hoxha using a string to fish, which I hope you're not going to consider a privileged act as well.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 22:04

Questionable

14th September 2013, 22:05

You don't see the complaint? You have laid out rather well the issue at hand. This thread is not about the merits of 'socialist' Albania, nor is it about whether or not class struggle exists under socialism, or whether or not Stalin and Hoxha contined on the line of Marx and Lenin; it's about something specific: state control of the length one is permitted to grow their facial hair. You continually attempting to make this discussion Anouilh something else is rather representative of the inane and absurd law you are defending.

Firstly, I've contributed many posts on the subject of the anti-religious laws within this thread. Secondly, since the anti-religious laws are connected to the broader subject of class struggle under socialism, I don't see why I can't discuss the latter here.

So now Alabania abolished both racism and sexism? But wait a minute you just said that class antagonisms continue to exist under socialism? Surely racism an sexism can't be abolished in a society where class antagonisms exist? So which one is it?

Well obviously these struggles don't go on for eternity. They can be won by the revolutionary working-class.

No, calling a country a shithole isn't racist.

Then neither is calling a genre of music "jungle music."

For the record, I don't actually think you were being racist when you called Albania a shithole, although it was a very juvenile and chauvinistic thing to say. However, I do think it's a bit hypocritical for you to complain so much about how it wasn't a chauvinist remark, and then pounce on Hoxha for racism when given the smallest window of opportunity.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:09

The irony in your statement is assuming that Albanians had no leisure time, when in fact leisure for workers was obligatory by law. Case in point, a Scandinavian visitor to Albania (as recorded in his book Albania Defiant, pp. 14-15):
So yeah Albanians not only had the possibility, but also the right, to swim and enjoy beach activities.

Oh, sure! And next in Ismail's exhibit is testimony from an imprisoned bearded gay man caught listening to "jungle music" describing how thankful he was that Hoxha reformed his morals!

That will be followed by readings from the Book of Mormon! Thanks for your in-depth research, Ismail!!

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:10

Oh, sure! And next in Ismail's exhibit is testimony from an imprisoned bearded gay man caught listening to "jungle music" describing how thankful he was that Hoxha reformed his morals!I just directly contradicted your attempt to portray Hoxha as the subject of lavish privileges and you reply by discussing the hypothetical situation of the sole member of Albania's bear subculture during the socialist period.

Remus Bleys

14th September 2013, 22:11

Claiming sodomy and lesbianism "Unnatural" and forbids male gay sex. And you pass that off as positivediscrimination for women seems like an odd thing to do, instead of going "yeah he was wrong"
And I was talking about things such as hormonal therapy, sex change, or cross dressing. A country that regulates male hair length is unlikely to allow that.

So, yeah, in this regard, it does appear hoxha is conservative, and it troubles me you haven't condemned that.

I'm interested more in thissworn virgin thing. Was this pre-hoxha? Was it forced?

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:17

I'm interested more in thissworn virgin thing. Was this pre-hoxha? Was it forced?There is a whole book on the subject, Women Who Become Men. The author noted (p. 57) that, "the reasons for the female-to-male cross gender role taken on by the women I have interviewed in Albania (and also those in the surrounding regions), have less to do with the individual than the social, economic and cultural situation into which they are born. Early records refer predominantly to this as the only acceptable alternative to not marrying the man to whom a woman was betrothed. Another strong reason to encourage the change of gender is in order to be eligible to become a family head and a legal heir an essential role to be filled in every household. Lack of a son of sufficient age and integrity (representing honour for a family) may bring shame... In Albania, it is the importance of upholding honour which frequently leads to a bloodfeud. In order to cross the boundary from a woman's world to a male domain, it is necessary to change sex socially: this is done by dressing as a man and socially engaging in activities limited to men."

And yes it was pre-Hoxha, it was a practice based on the centuries-old traditional laws of the Albanian highlands, the same laws which permitted a man to kill his wife if he disobeyed her. Likewise if the celibacy oath was broken the sworn virgin was put to death under tribal norms.

Audeamus

14th September 2013, 22:19

You are really missing the point. First off after any revolution (although I must say that I'm flattered you think it will be 'my' revolution) the KKK will have become obsolete, a relic of the past, so if you mean will people be allowed to walk around attempting to organize the KKK, of course not, since class antagonisms won't exist and the formation of the KKK would be an example of class divisions. So already the premise of your post, showcases a fundamental misunderstanding in your conception of socialism and revolution. Regardless the nutters can engage in whatever mental gymnastics they wish to justify the state having the ability to tell me how long I'm allowed to grow the hair on my face; its quite amusing.

What an incredible revolution this would be, annihilating all vestiges of capitalism in one fell swoop. It is completely out of touch with reality, however. Unless you are willing upon toppling the bourgeois state, to slaughter all people who retain racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other vestigial attitudes of capitalism the kind of struggle you are railing against is entirely necessary. Something you seem to agree with deep down as you admit that people would NOT be allowed to use their bodily sovereignty to wear something like KKK robes or SS uniforms etc.

Brutus

14th September 2013, 22:20

And why would Hoxha want to leave Albania? As you can see in this sickening video, he was living a lifestyle of relative leisure and comfort while his lesser "comrades" toiled and contracted diseases in factories named after him.

Between persecuting gays and bearded men, it's a wonder he found this time to swim. I guess that's why all those power plants and factories were named after him! Prisons, too? It would be fitting! Some socialist!!

POK6ONpkGsA

Wow, Hoxha swam and walked in forests- how privileged he was! At least pick valid criticisms, like Bill Bland is just being a Hoxha-apologist (not to assume that Hoxha had total control over everything in Albania) instead of condemning the illegal status of homosexuality.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:24

I just directly contradicted your attempt to portray Hoxha as the subject of lavish privileges and you reply by discussing the hypothetical situation of the sole member of Albania's bear subculture during the socialist period.

You have a strange idea of contradiction. Not surprising in light of your status as the Queen Bee of Stalinist cultists on this forum!!

Your posts in this thread are the same as your posts in every thread. Somebody points out what a mentally deranged person you are, and you block-quote Hoxha's press secretary explaining that mental illness has been abolished in Albania. Both completely off topic and, even if it weren't, totally unbelievable as a source of information.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:26

You have a strange idea of contradiction. Not surprising in light of your status as the Queen Bee of Stalinist cultists on this forum!!"The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." (Hoxha, Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 234-235.)

Questionable

14th September 2013, 22:28

Obviously no Marxist-Leninist group upholds anti-homosexuality these days. The reason you don't hear us going on about how horrible it was is because we prefer to view it through the prism of historical materialism, rather than taking the liberal stance that Stalin and Hoxha were being evil and oppressive.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:30

"The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." (Hoxha, Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 234-235.)

Case in point, weirdo. You have a million blockquotes that amount to a million variations on the same statement: "Revisionists say bad things about Hoxha. Don't believe them because they are revisionists!" Typical cultist language and mentality.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:32

Case in point, weirdo. You have a million blockquotes that amount to a million variations on the same statement: "Revisionists say bad things about Hoxha. Don't believe them because they are revisionists!" Typical cultist language and mentality.As Hoxha noted (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/stalin/intro.htm), "What slander did the external enemies not invent, especially against Joseph Stalin, the continuer of the work of Marx and Lenin, the talented leader of the Soviet Union, whom they accused of being a bloody tyrant, and murderer... All these slanders were remarkable for their cynicism. No, Stalin was no tyrant, no despot. He was a man of principle, he was just, modest and very kindly and considerate towards people, the cadres, and his colleagues. That is why his Party, the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the entire world proletariat loved him so much. This is how millions of communists and outstanding personalities, revolutionaries and progressive people throughout the world knew Stalin."

And in that same work, talking about Hungary, "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."

Questionable

14th September 2013, 22:32

Can a mod just tell this Bea Arthur fellow to buzz off already? She does the same thing in every thread, she calls Ismail derogatory terms while putting up no real counter-argument herself. Se's nothing more than a common troll, and a drain on the quality of discussion.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

14th September 2013, 22:33

For the record, I don't actually think you were being racist when you called Albania a shithole, although it was a very juvenile and chauvinistic thing to say. However, I do think it's a bit hypocritical for you to complain so much about how it wasn't a chauvinist remark, and then pounce on Hoxha for racism when given the smallest window of opportunity.

Sorry, what?

Communists are meant to be for a stateless society, so how can calling any country a shithole, least of all the poorest country in Europe, be 'chauvinistic'?

Secondly, it's laughable that you can even compare calling a country a 'shithole' to a blatantly racist remark.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:34

Can a mod just tell this Bea Arthur fellow to buzz off already? He does the same thing in every thread, he calls Ismail derogatory terms while putting up no real counter-argument himself. He's nothing more than a common troll, and a drain on the quality of discussion.

I am a woman. In view of the profoundly disturbing history of sexism inflicted on the world by Stalinist cultists, I am surprised you are having a difficult time making this distinction. Questionable!

There is no argument to be had with somebody who just repeats over and over again, "Hoxha said this and you're wrong because you disagree!" It's just sexist drivel by somebody enamored with male images of authority. Your attempt to call the revleft police when called out on your cultism is another example!!

synthesis

14th September 2013, 22:34

Case in point, weirdo. You have a million blockquotes that amount to a million variations on the same statement: "Revisionists say bad things about Hoxha. Don't believe them because they are revisionists!" Typical cultist language and mentality.

Do you ever plan to contribute anything interesting or useful to this discussion?

Questionable

14th September 2013, 22:40

Communists are meant to be for a stateless society, so how can calling any country a shithole, least of all the poorest country in Europe, be 'chauvinistic'?

Communists are for a stateless society, so it's acceptable for us to make derogatory remarks about certain nations? Wow, that's the first time I've ever encountered that mode of thought.

Secondly, it's laughable that you can even compare calling a country a 'shithole' to a blatantly racist remark.

It may not be explicitly racist, but it comes from the same place of elitism as calling a black neighborhood a "shithole" would.

Actually, a better example would be if I called a female opponent a "dumb whore." I'm not sexist and would only be using the term as an insult to her, but I think we would all agree that is is inappropriate and unproductive, much like 9mm's original remark on Albania was.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:41

Do you ever plan to contribute anything interesting or useful to this discussion?

You mean like a ten-line blockquote from Hoxha about revisionists? Ok, here's one.

In order to carry through their anti-Marxist, anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary line, they stand in need of allies. And where could they find better allies than among the revisionist elements in the various parties and among the Titoite clique in Jugoslavia? Therefore, N. Khrushchev and his group succeeded, through 'putsch-es' and plots, deceiving some and compromising others, under the guise of fighting "the cult of the individual" in bringing to power and placing at the head of certain communist and workers' parties revisionist elements of their choice while, on the other hand, they rehabilitated Tito's renegade clique and joined up with them completely. Thus, the united revisionist front came into being. This was the first step.

There. How was that? This quote clearly demonstrates it is okay to ban beards, rock music, and homosexual behavior because Hoxha was an anti-revisionist macho warrior!

As Enver Hoxha explains in the Book of Common(ist) Prayer:

Present-day social-democracy is a direct follower of the traitorous 2nd International. It has inherited all the ideological luggage, organization and tactics of the parties of the 2nd International. The social-democrats began their betrayal by getting away from the basic teachings of Marxism-Leninism, which they proclaim as out-dated and inexpedient, by renouncing the class struggle and replacing it with the "theory" of harmony and reconciliation of classes, by negating the revolution and replacing it with reforms within the capitalist order, by giving up the revolutionary way and replacing it with "peaceful", "democratic" and parliamentary method, by denying the indispensability of breaking up the old bourgeois state machinery and accepting the capitalist state as a means to cross over to socialism, by withholding their assent to the dictatorship of the proletariat and replacing it with "pure and general democracy", by departing from proletarian internationalism and going so far the other way as to plunge into positions of the national-chauvinists, to open union with the imperialist bourgeoisie.

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:46

You mean like a ten-line blockquote from Hoxha about revisionists? Ok, here's one.

There. How was that? This quote clearly demonstrates it is okay to ban beards, rock music, and homosexual behavior because Hoxha was an anti-revisionist macho warrior!

As Enver Hoxha explains in the Book of Common(ist) Prayer:Wanna know what's funny, Bea Arthur? Look on top of the page (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/revisionists.htm) you took those quotes from; who transcribed that work. :D

And it was by hand, too. A few years later some handy Russian guys uploaded the whole book online: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/Archive/the_party_of_labor_of_albania_in_battle_with_moder n_revisionism.pdf

synthesis

14th September 2013, 22:48

You mean like a ten-line blockquote from Hoxha about revisionists? Ok, here's one.

There. How was that? This quote clearly demonstrates it is okay to ban beards, rock music, and homosexual behavior because Hoxha was an anti-revisionist macho warrior!

As Enver Hoxha explains in the Book of Common(ist) Prayer:

I think you might be the only person left in this thread who doesn't recognize that the ban on beards was related to the association of beards with the religious elites in Albania, not cultural importations from the West.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 22:53

I think you might be the only person left in this thread who doesn't recognize that the ban on beards was related to the association of beards with the religious elites in Albania, not cultural importations from the West.

You mean religious elites who are engaged in a systematic political struggle ... in a socialist country, of course! To defend socialism against all the internal class enemies! Because socialism is an instrument of coercion rather than a state of liberation after the struggle has ended!

I'm sure the Tirana state publishing house, staffed by proletarians working their fingers to nubs as Hoxha swims in his xhlorinated pool behind his country villa, has some brilliant works by his Male Eminence emphasizing the relevance of this new understanding of socialism! Maybe you should check them out, synthesis!!

Ismail

14th September 2013, 22:58

Because socialism is an instrument of coercion rather than a state of liberation after the struggle has ended!Well according to the Soviet revisionists, the class struggle ceases to exist under socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat gives way to the "state of the whole people." In doing this, of course, they attacked Stalin who pointed out that class struggle continues til the victory of communism.

Remus Bleys

14th September 2013, 22:58

What was the punishment for beards? Or did I miss that?

Ismail

14th September 2013, 23:00

What was the punishment for beards? Or did I miss that?You'd get them shaved off. Unless you were a total recluse from society it's not like you'd be in a position to grow a beard anyway.

Bea Arthur

14th September 2013, 23:01

Well according to the Soviet revisionists, the class struggle ceases to exist under socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat gives way to the "state of the whole people." In doing this, of course, they attacked Stalin who pointed out that class struggle continues til the victory of communism.

For the 9 millionth time, we get it. People who disagree with you are wrong because they are revisionists. Hoxha said so.

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 01:25

Firstly, I've contributed many posts on the subject of the anti-religious laws within this thread. Secondly, since the anti-religious laws are connected to the broader subject of class struggle under socialism, I don't see why I can't discuss the latter here.

You may very well have 'contributed many posts on the subject of anti-religious laws' in this thread, but you haven't with me. During our exchange you've used every opportunity to skirt the issues and drag the conversation off topic.

Then neither is calling a genre of music "jungle music."

Are you that dense? Its actually somewhat sad, cause I can remember having a conversation with Judas about you saying you were much too intelligent for your politics. Sadly however I think I might have been mistaken.

If you can't see the difference between calling a country a shit hole (which I'll set the record straight about further below) and calling Jazz (a genre of music pioneered and predominantly played, at that time, by African Americans), 'Jungle Music,' then you're a lost cause. If you honestly can't see the difference, then I don't know what to say. But seriously, take a step back and analyze the comments, you just seem like its something you won't let go, despite facing overwhelming evidence contrary to your opinion.

For the record, I don't actually think you were being racist when you called Albania a shithole,

Of course not; Albanians aren't a race.

although it was a very juvenile

Fair enough.

and chauvinistic thing to say. However, I do think it's a bit hypocritical for you to complain so much about how it wasn't a chauvinist remark, and then pounce on Hoxha for racism when given the smallest window of opportunity.

It wasn't chauvinistic in the slightest, but then again you're quite clearly talking out of your ass. Do you even remember the thread in question? It must have been over 6 months ago. I made the statement that Albania was a shit hole, Ismail and another Hoxha fan boy called me Chauvinistic. When asked to clarify by others, I stated that my comment stemmed from the fact that Albania was nothing other then a capitalist country, which like all other capitalist countries are shit holes. Practically everyone else in the thread, minus Ismail and his side kick, jumped to my defense cause it was quite clear Ismail's accusation was not only in line with his MO, but also absurd. You running around here repeating his nonsense is ridiculous.

Now I can't believe I'm actually going to do this, but might as well end this discussion once and for all (I don't expect Questionable or Ismail to stop posting, dogmatism cannot be beat by logic) but perhaps some others will see the anti-Marxist nature of such a conception of the end of Religion. To understand religion from a Marxist standpoint, you can't begin with Marx's famous statement that 'religion is the opium of the people' because it needs to be placed in his overarching theory of historical materialism. Marx believed that if people were convinced that their suffering in the material world was temporary, eventually leading to salvation in the spiritual world, then they would be less likely to seek the source of their suffering in the material world (class society). This is how religion, as a historical phenomenon, was necessitated by ruling class ideologies throughout history. It has been one of the more consistent and influential aspect of the social superstructure throughout history. For religion to disappear, class society would need to be abolished, since religion is ideologically necessitated by class society. Religion can perhaps be best understood as something which will whither away over time, somewhat like the state, as the need for it vanishes, as humanity liberated from class society, no longer needs comforting fairy tales. The idea of the state implementing a ban on beards, in efforts to combat religion, simply shows not only an anti-Marxist analysis of the ideological phenomenon which is religion, but also an incredibly idealist paradigm. And the fact that one could uphold such an analysis, while claiming to be a Marxist, just shows that they haven't come close to understanding or being able to use, the Marxist method.

Ismail

15th September 2013, 01:35

It wasn't chauvinistic in the slightest, but then again you're quite clearly talking out of your ass. Do you even remember the thread in question? It must have been over 6 months ago. I made the statement that Albania was a shit hole, Ismail and another Hoxha fan boy called me Chauvinistic. When asked to clarify by others, I stated that my comment stemmed from the fact that Albania was nothing other then a capitalist country, which like all other capitalist countries are shit holes.You only "clarified" that you referred to every capitalist country as a "shithole" when I brought up your usage of the word against Albania.

I have never seen someone refer to, say, the USA or UK as a "shithole country." Anyone can understand that this would constitute an insult against said country. If you can actually give me an example of you using the word "shithole" against another country (since you evidently have an idiosyncratic definition of it) then I would not mind. But I doubt you can.

The rest of your post is just adopting a reformist position towards religion, again no different from the Soviet revisionists. The prohibition on beards struck a blow at the Orthodox and Islamic clergy, as well as tribal elders. No one ever claimed that prohibiting beards would actually get rid of religion, which is the most ridiculous strawman you could possibly create.

synthesis

15th September 2013, 01:40

Because socialism is an instrument of coercion rather than a state of liberation after the struggle has ended!

Socialism, in the Marxist senseof the mode of production following capitalism, is an instrument of coercion, in that every state contains an element of coercion; socialism is the dominance of the proletariat as a class. What Marxist theoretician believes that class struggle ends with socialism? Communism is the absence of classes and the state. (Keep in mind that I, personally, am not a Hoxhaist or a Maoist or even a Trotskyist or any sort of substitutionist.)

But all this is getting to be incredibly off-topic; I'm really not sure why you seem to be so determined to derail this thread.

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 01:46

You only "clarified" that you referred to every capitalist country as a "shithole" when I brought up your usage of the word against Albania.

Correct, I clarified my position after getting a ridiculous accusation against me.

I have never seen someone refer to, say, the USA or UK as a "shithole country." Anyone can understand that this would constitute an insult against said country. If you can actually give me an example of you using the word "shithole" against another country (since you evidently have an idiosyncratic definition of it) then I would not mind. But I doubt you can.

Yes I remember you asked me to do so at the time, to wade through every single one of what would have been 1200+ posts of mine, to find one where I called another country a shit hole. It was ridiculous to expect me to do so, just to disprove a nutter on the internet. Regardless it wasn't like I lost much sleep over the accusation, no one really took it seriously. In response I asked you to wade through every single one of my 1200+ posts to find a single post I had made expressing chauvinistic sentiments, prior to the one in question. You obviously refused (1) for the same reason I refused and (2) cause you wouldn't of found a single instance.

Ismail

15th September 2013, 01:48

Yes I remember you asked me to do so at the time, to wade through every single one of what would have been 1200+ posts of mine, to find one where I called another country a shit hole. It was ridiculous to expect me to do so, just disprove a nutter on the internet. Regardless it wasn't like I lost much sleep over the accusation, no one really took it seriously. In response I asked you to wade through every single one of my 1200+ posts to find a single post I had made expressing chauvinistic sentiments, prior to the one in question. You obviously refused (1) for the same reason I refused and (2) cause you wouldn't of found a single instance.One would think "look up the times you used the term 'shithole'" would be a much more specific and thus substantially easier request than "look up every time I used chauvinist language to describe a country poorer than mine."

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 01:51

No one ever claimed that prohibiting beards would actually get rid of religion, which is the most ridiculous strawman you could possibly create.

The examples are relevant insofar as banning beards is considered on here to be a totally random act without precedent in history and carried out by a crazed madman.

This isn't a case of a conservative government trying to make everyone look clean-cut, it's the case of a revolutionary government trying to get rid of backwards cultural practices. The fact you interpret it through modern lenses just demonstrates once again your ignorance of Albanian society.

And Ismail at it yet again. 3 examples (there are probably more), from only the past few pages, of attributing things to me that I have never said. Its why its impossible to debate with you, cause you argue against strawmen that conveniently fit into your pre determined narrative. I'll tell you what, you don't have to look through all my posts on the forum to find an instance of chauvinism, just look through this thread and find were I made these claims you've attributed to me.

Edit: Here is the post in question. Dear god look at my raving chauvinism! Where I specifically say that 'Albania was a state-capitalist shit hole.'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2499535&postcount=55

TaylorS

15th September 2013, 02:09

Maybe, if it wasn't for stuff like this: "In order to enable women to take a more active part in political and social life, the conservative stands of some backward husands who, especially in the countryside, prevented women from going to meetings and conferences, or participating in sports, artistic, cultural and other activities were sternly criticized. At popular conventions, women, young and old, raised their powerful voice against their black past and regressive elements and demanded the implementation of the instructions of the Party to the letter. The letters of the women and girls of the Highlands to Enver Hoxha in which they told him that, while working for the construction of the Rrogozhina-Fier railway, they had discarded their heavy clothes and dressed like the other volunteers and they trimmed their hair, which was formerly considered a disgrace to women, and promised that when they returned to their villages they would fight for the socialist way of life, had a wide response in the public opinion."
(Omari, Luan and Stefanaq Pollo. The History of the Socialist Construction of Albania. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1988. pp. 260-261.)

The Albanians denounced the Soviet revisionists for bringing back into currency chauvinist positions towards women. Thus, in Problems of the Struggle for the Complete Emancipation of Women (1975, pages 112-114) we read, among other Soviet revisionist "explanations" for an increasingly anti-women policy, that: "Third, the Khrushchevite revisionists say that the main task of woman is to rear children and take care of herself since she is a delicate creature, a symbol of beauty destined to be an 'ornament' for man or a means to fulfil his desires. In connection with such a treatment of the problem of woman, the candidate of the philosophical sciences, I.M. Kitchemova, wrote [in 1968]: 'The present woman is not only a worker, or a social activist. She is a housekeeper, a mother and a woman as well. The husband, it should be said among others, does not remain indifferent towards the mood of his wife returning from work; does he find her delighting, fresh, nice, quiet or ill-humoured and tired? This is the origin of the opinion often expressed by men, that it is better for the family if women would work only a little or not at all.' As may be seen, we have to do here with those bourgeois concepts which treat women as a means to give birth to and assure the continuity of the species on one hand, and as a 'creature of luxury' for the use of men, on the other.

Fourth, the Khrushchevite revisionists link the question of the exemption of women from production work with the fact that the Soviet economy no longer stands in need of women's productive forces. In connection with this, the 'Nedelya' magazine, reporting the comments of a participant in an interview organized by its editorial board, emphasized: 'As may be seen, during the first decade, our country demanded that participation of women in production. Today, however, this necessity does not exist.' Treating the problem of women in this way is anti-Marxist. This is an anti-scientific stand viewing the problem of woman from the narrow positions of economism, of the family needs to ensure incomes for subsistence. Thus, the Khrushchevite revisionists view the participation of women in production merely from the angle of economic interest, they vulgarize it and do not see in it the social significance of the complete emancipation of women and of the establishment of social equality between man and woman...

Contrary to the Khrushchevite revisionist views, Marxism-Leninism teaches us that, after the overthrowing of the exploiting order of things and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the decisive factor for women's emancipation for her growing role in society and for the establishment of actual equality between men and women, is the labor factor, the broad participation of the masses of women in social production and in political and social activity."

I still say it referred to rock music, which would go along with the comments about coarse language, the fact that rock music involves actual screaming, etc. Again, it is important to note that the Soviet revisionists promoted these cultural activities, as part of their "détente" with US imperialism and their support for the strengthening of the new bourgeois intelligentsia in the USSR, which in turn served the interests of the Soviet revisionists.

Wow, I didn't know the USSR had such a regression when it comes to sexual equality, that is rather sad. No wonder patriarchal machismo has emerged so easily in Russia following the USSR's collapse.

Questionable

15th September 2013, 02:14

You may very well have 'contributed many posts on the subject of anti-religious laws' in this thread, but you haven't with me. During our exchange you've used every opportunity to skirt the issues and drag the conversation off topic.Can you clarify what you mean here? We weren't speaking directly until you said something about how reactionary forces would vanish instantly after the revolution. I may not have directly addressed your particular post calling the anti-religious laws ridiculous, but I made many attacking to concept, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say I'm avoiding the topic. I haven't avoided anything.

Its actually somewhat sad, cause I can remember having a conversation with Judas about you saying you were much too intelligent for your politics. Sadly however I think I might have been mistaken.Yes, I recall many Anti-Stalinists used to pat me on the head back when I was unsure of my politics and often avoided speaking on the subject of Marxism-Leninism. Now that I'm more sure of my position, everybody hates me. I take it as a compliment, really.

To understand religion from a Marxist standpoint, you can't begin with Marx's famous statement that 'religion is the opium of the people' because it needs to be placed in his overarching theory of historical materialism.The "opium of the people" quote was Marx speaking of how religion affects the working-class, not examining religion as an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, there are other far more militant quotes where Marx does indeed call for the abolition of religion, such as this:

"Of course, in periods when the political state comes violently into being out of civil society and when human self-liberation attempts to realize itself in the form of human self-liberation, the state can and must proceed to the abolition of religion, to the destruction of religion; but only in the same way as it proceeds to the abolition of private property (by imposing a maximum, by confiscation, by progressive taxation) and abolition of life (by the guillotine)."

Source (apologies for the length, if anyone knows a way to shorten it please tell me): http://books.google.com/books?id=PVsJWvUVANcC&pg=PT200&lpg=PT200&dq=%22must+proceed+to+the+abolition+of+religion%22&source=bl&ots=6AvG2PwhA5&sig=g67RJUgxgw_HP8EHwvWhLYOcU0o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kwc1Usu2JZHE4APE8IDIBA&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22must%20proceed%20to%20the%20abolition%20of%20 religion%22&f=false

For religion to disappear, class society would need to be abolished, since religion is ideologically necessitated by class society. Religion can perhaps be best understood as something which will whither away over time, somewhat like the state, as the need for it vanishes, as humanity liberated from class society, no longer needs comforting fairy tales.Again, this analysis makes sense of we only view religion's role as a "comforting fairy tale" rather than a social force which is actively oppresses the masses. High-ranking clergy and tribal elders are just as much a real threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat (and socialism) as the bourgeoisie, and they need to be dealt with on the way toward communism. Your position seems to suggest that the only real enemy is the established bourgeoisie, and that once that is dealt with, all other antagonisms and the lingering ideologies of the bourgeoisie will melt away without any active effort on the progressive proletariat. Socialism and communism are not things that appear overnight, they are things to be constructed, and abolishing religion is no less a step toward them than electrifying a nation is.

By the way, since a lot of people here seem to think the anti-religious laws were forced on Albania by an iron-fisted Hoxha, what are your thoughts on it actually being a spontaneous campaign begun by students that was later legitimized by the Presidium?

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 03:10

Can you clarify what you mean here? We weren't speaking directly until you said something about how reactionary forces would vanish instantly after the revolution. I may not have directly addressed your particular post calling the anti-religious laws ridiculous, but I made many attacking to concept, so I don't know what you're talking about when you say I'm avoiding the topic. I haven't avoided anything.

If I said that reactionary forces would vanish immediately after the revolution then I worded something poorly, although I don't remember saying that. I did, however say that reactionary forces would disappear with the establishment of socialism, which I conceive as both stateess and classless. This also begs the question how does one define the 'revolution' itself? Is the revolution the moment when the means of production and state power are seized by the proletariat? I don't think so, the revolution is an ongoing process which ends with the final withering away of the state and the establishment of socialism. Until then all that exists is a global tug of war, between the forces of capital and the proletariat, which manifests itself in the dotp. Regardless what I meant when saying you continually have been skirting the issue, is that you continually bring up things (your conception of socialism, your belief that Hoxha and Stalin oversaw the construction of socialist society, so therefor their opinion are of extreme importance) which are not only highly irrelevant to discussing the merits of this particular ban, but also highly contestable political convictions. I don't see how you expect to have any sort of productive discourse with anyone outside of your particular tendency, if you constantly drag the conversation into areas where no consensus will be reached and aren't directly related to the discussion at hand.

Yes, I recall many Anti-Stalinists used to pat me on the head back when I was unsure of my politics and often avoided speaking on the subject of Marxism-Leninism. Now that I'm more sure of my position, everybody hates me. I take it as a compliment, really.

I never used to 'pat you on the head' nor do I 'hate' you now. You're just putting forth a fabrication about a past comment of mine and upholding a fundamentally idealist analysis, both are things that I'll address.

The "opium of the people" quote was Marx speaking of how religion affects the working-class, not examining religion as an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie.

Really? First off I never stated it was exclusively a 'ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie,' such would be a narrow approach, I stated that it has historically been an important aspect of ruling class ideology and social superstructure. Secondly, do you really think those two aren't linked? That in the modern context, religion being an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie, bears no relation to the ways it affects working-class people. Of course it does and it takes a serious misreading of Marx and fundamental misunderstanding of Marxist dialectics, to assume that his analysis of how religion affected working class people, played no part in his understanding of religion as an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie. Capitalism serves Marx as his jumping off point for analysis on all the interrelated aspects of the capitalist mode of production; his further understanding of an individual aspect and its relations with other aspects of capitalist society, lead to a re-evaluation of the totality of the capitalist mode of production.

Furthermore, there are other far more militant quotes where Marx does indeed call for the abolition of religion, such as this:

"Of course, in periods when the political state comes violently into being out of civil society and when human self-liberation attempts to realize itself in the form of human self-liberation, the state can and must proceed to the abolition of religion, to the destruction of religion; but only in the same way as it proceeds to the abolition of private property (by imposing a maximum, by confiscation, by progressive taxation) and abolition of life (by the guillotine)."

You rip this quote from its historical context; Marx wrote this when the overthrow of monarchies was on the political agenda of the day. To post this quote and somehow think that validates your support of a ban on beards in Albania in the later half of the 20th century, is laughable.

Again, this analysis makes sense of we only view religion's role as a "comforting fairy tale" rather than a social force which is actively oppresses the masses.

But this isn't my position at all. Simply because I've highlighted the fact that one way religion serves the ruling class is as a 'comforting fairy tale' to distract people from the source of their suffering in the material world, in no way means I think that is the totality of its ideological influence, in fact I've been stressing the nature of its pervasiveness.

High-ranking clergy and tribal elders are just as much a real threat to the dictatorship of the proletariat (and socialism) as the bourgeoisie, and they need to be dealt with on the way toward communism. Your position seems to suggest that the only real enemy is the established bourgeoisie, and that once that is dealt with, all other antagonisms and the lingering ideologies of the bourgeoisie will melt away without any active effort on the progressive proletariat. Socialism and communism are not things that appear overnight, they are things to be constructed, and abolishing religion is no less a step toward them than electrifying a nation is.

I believe I clarified this above, but once again is a topic no conclusion will be met, you consider socialism to have class antagonisms, whereas I conceive of it as classless and stateless. Regardless, I believe I made it clear above my thoughts on the nature of the dotp.

By the way, since a lot of people here seem to think the anti-religious laws were forced on Albania by an iron-fisted Hoxha, what are your thoughts on it actually being a spontaneous campaign begun by students that was later legitimized by the Presidium?

I never once stated that Hoxha was an iron fisted dictator. I criticized a ban on beards, I wouldn't care if Marx himself had written his opus on the need to ban beards to combat religion, its dumb. Devout Muslims who have their beards shaven off don't stop being Muslims, they become bitter beardless Muslims.

Remus Bleys

15th September 2013, 03:18

The cultural revolution was started by students. Yet hoxha derided it. So, what's your point (to all those who note it was started by students)?

Ismail

15th September 2013, 03:24

The cultural revolution was started by students. Yet hoxha derided it. So, what's your point (to all those who note it was started by students)?The point is that the campaign against religion did not start through administrative decree, but was a grassroots campaign that gained the support of the Party, which subsequently gave it leadership and extended it across the country.

Comparing it with China's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" is nonsensical. In fact Hoxha wrote in his diary in 1966, "Can the question of religious belief be eradicated simply by closing some Catholic churches, as the students are doing, or by replacing the icons in churches with busts and portraits of Mao?!! Of course not. Religious belief in China must be a major problem, which cannot be solved with these measures." (Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 255.) The Albanians launched a major propaganda campaign against religion, and they outlawed the very practice of being a clergyman, thus completely depriving religion of its foremost propagandists.

Remus Bleys

15th September 2013, 03:28

Remus Bleys

15th September 2013, 03:30

This still doesn't answer the question. The cultural revolution started as a student thing, but we don't accept it. So why do we accept hoxha because students supported it?

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 03:33

See, Ismail, here is a problem you do. When Hoxha is criticized, you simply quote Hoxha, when in reality, hoxha is obviously bias towards himself (we all are) so that doesn't hold up.

Yyou can't just call a criticism of hoxha nonsensical and have your only backing be a hoxha quote.

Actually this is an unfair criticism of Ismail. I mean normally, this criticism would be spot on, but in this case its unwarranted. Ismail wasn't simply alluding to Hoxha's approval of a ban on beards as the sole source of its merit, but also the fact that it was supported and began as a grass roots movement; which for all I know could be false, but Ismail tends to be a good source on the topic (and no Ismail I don't want a quote elaborating). Regardless, as I said, it wouldn't of matter if the idea came from Marx himself, its still silly.

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 03:34

This still doesn't answer the question. The cultural revolution started as a student thing, but we don't accept it. So why do we accept hoxha because students supported it?

Ah never mind the post above, this is a fair criticism.

Questionable

15th September 2013, 03:49

I did, however say that reactionary forces would disappear with the establishment of socialism, which I conceive as both stateess and classless.

Which I pointed out was the exact same position taken by the Soviet revisionists, albeit they conceived a "state of the whole people" rather than it being stateless, but they still denied the need to fight against reactionary influence on the basis of it being "classless," therefore it was impossible for reactionary influence to even exist. So are you willing to admit they were correct in that regard?

I don't think so, the revolution is an ongoing process which ends with the final withering away of the state and the establishment of socialism. Until then all that exists is a global tug of war, between the forces of capital and the proletariat, which manifests itself in the dotp.

I see nothing disagreeable with this, except that I view socialism as achievable while capitalism still exists in some locations, and that it can be achieved in the form of a socialist state.

First off I never stated it was exclusively a 'ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie,' such would be a narrow approach, I stated that it has historically been an important aspect of ruling class ideology and social superstructure.

I never accused you of calling it exclusively that. I don't know where you're getting such things from. I said Marx was speaking about the effects that religion had on the masses, and not religion as a dynamic tool of oppression utilized by the bourgeoisie. Although he certainly understood the latter, he was not speaking of it in that instance.

Secondly, do you really think those two aren't linked? That in the modern context, religion being an ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie, bears no relation to the ways it affects working-class people.

I never made that claim, I said that Marx was analyzing the effects of religious consciousness specifically in regards to the working-class, that it is their opium in a world that oppresses them. Why would the ruling-class need an opium?

You rip this quote from its historical context; Marx wrote this when the overthrow of monarchies was on the political agenda of the day.

It shows that he was not as hostile to the abolition of religion as you insisted he was.

Furthermore, Albania actually had a monarchy ruled by King Zog prior to the revolution, so this quote can be considered even more applicable in that instance.

But this isn't my position at all. Simply because I've highlighted the fact that one way religion serves the ruling class is as a 'comforting fairy tale' to distract people from the source of their suffering in the material world, in no way means I think that is the totality of its ideological influence, in fact I've been stressing the nature of its pervasiveness.

In your last post, you claimed that religion was inherently a part of class society, therefore it could not be abolished until class antagonisms themselves had been fully abolished, thus it was futile to for the proletariat to implement anti-religious laws. You argued that it would "wither away over time" and the ideological struggle against it was unnecessary. I argued that religious consciousness persists as a bourgeois remnant, and has to be struggled against even after the establishment of socialism.

I never once stated that Hoxha was an iron fisted dictator.

Which is why I said "a lot of people here" instead of "you."

I criticized a ban on beards, I wouldn't care if Marx himself had written his opus on the need to ban beards to combat religion, its dumb.

Then it sounds like you have more of an emotional vendetta against it, and thus any attempt to use reason on the subject (such as placing the ban within its proper historical context) will be lost on you.

Devout Muslims who have their beards shaven off don't stop being Muslims, they become bitter beardless Muslims.

Except Islamic influence was severely curbed in Albania to the point of practical non-existence, so the anti-religious laws must have served their purpose well.

The cultural revolution was started by students. Yet hoxha derided it. So, what's your point (to all those who note it was started by students)?

Because the Cultural Revolution was, in reality, a way for Mao to subvert the authority of the Party, and place students and military units at the head of the vanguard rather than the working-class.

I have work tomorrow so any further responses from me will have to wait until tomorrow afternoon.

human strike

15th September 2013, 03:50

It evidently changed very much, as Albania went from being a country where the subjugation of women was culturally acceptable to a place where women comprised about 40% of the workforce and the old religious customs were forgotten by most.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Women gained this limited liberation through greater entry into and greater importance in the labour market, not because of anti-religious legislation. We see this across the Eastern Bloc following the decimation of WWII. Whereas in Western Europe and North America where women returned to domestic labour and traditionally female labour roles, in Eastern Europe the market demanded that women remain largely doing the same kind of work as they were during the war. The consequences for women's economic independence from husbands are obvious. Arguably Hitler was just as much to thank for this as Hoxha.

Ismail

15th September 2013, 03:57

This still doesn't answer the question. The cultural revolution started as a student thing, but we don't accept it. So why do we accept hoxha because students supported it?The "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" was, as Hoxha noted, a putsch on an all-China scale. Mao used the students and army against the working-class.

The anti-religious movement in Albania began with the youth, but the youth was carefully guided by the Party. Excerpts from an Albanian article (in Studime Historike No. 4, 1981) note the following:

"At the end of 1965 and during 1966 quite a number of youth organizations undertook a series of drives against religious hearths - churches, mosques, teqes, religious land holdings, etc. On May 14, 1966, the youth organization shut down the mosque in the village of Xibrakë in the locality of Belshi (Elbasan). A day later, the youth organization shut down the mosque in the village of Mynqan in the locality of Cërrik... On August 17, certain cooperativists of Shënkolli advised the priest in the parish office of Breg Matë in the district of Lezhë that the people did not want any confirmation rites, and that word should be sent to the Bishop not to come to perform the customary ceremonies. During 1966 the youth also shut down places of worship in many other districts in the country...

On the other hand, the organs of local government, in an action expressing the will and wishes of the workers, made a series of proposals to high government agencies...

The Executive Committee of the People's Council in the district of Shkodër, in an action expressing the demands of the people of this district, alerted the Council of Ministers to the need to make a series of changes in the statue of the catholic church in Albania... the committee proposed the deletion from the statue of provisions regarding the publication of religious magazines and other materials....

The movement was born and developed from below, and encompassed a broad front, including cities and villages, and all segments of the population. The movement was accompanied by direct frontal blows. The Party directed with care this movement from below. Of great help in this connection were the materials of the Fifth Party Congress [held in November 1966], and the teachings of comrade Enver Hoxha in the letter of February 27, 1967, entitled 'On the Struggle Against Religion, and Religious Preconceptions and Customs,' which was addressed to district party committees. Those important documents carried guidelines for waging as just and error-free and successful a struggle against religion, religious preconceptions, and backward customs as was possible....

In the context of the revolutionary movement against religion, the initiative of the 'Naim Frashëri' school in the city of Durrës holds a special place. The reason is that this initiative was the best organized... Seeing the positive results of the movement, the district party at once set out to share the experience that had been gained. Accordingly, seminars were held with secretaries of youth organizations in the schools, in work centers, in villages, with the councils of the front in the precincts, and with presidents of trade unions. All of this added to the net results. The youth thus became the Party's agitators in intensifying the movement against religion.

The initiative had repercussions also outside the district of Durrës, becoming thus a powerful revolutionary movement in the whole country. In the wave of the drives by the youth of this school, youth in all the other districts began a wide-ranging campaign of criticism and self-criticism, under the slogan, 'Let us set our own house in order, and help others at the same time.' By means of wall posters distributed in classes, schools, work sections and enterprises, pious students were criticized. Everywhere battle encampments were set up against religion...

These initiatives, which originated from below, were given powerful support from above, including Party committees and organizations at the base level, as well as the organizations of the masses. Party committees frequently sent youth from work centers and from schools to the villages and precincts. The work was coordinated in such a matter that youth from the plains who worked in cooperatives in the highlands carried out broad propaganda work in favor of scientific atheism in general, as well as helped the youth of the villages in those zones in the struggle against religious hearths.

[....]

As a result of these initiatives, within the short span of a few months, the first blow was dealt to the hearths of the religious ideology. With the exception of a few churches or mosques of architectural or historical value, all churches, mosques, teqes, mausoleums, religious land holdings, etc., were shut down throughout the country."

This is a bit different from the "bombard the headquarters" rhetoric of Mao, which instructed students to go against the party and to have command over it, thus rendering it impotent as competing student militias dictated policy rather than any conscious vanguard.

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 03:59

You're putting the cart before the horse. Women gained this limited liberation through greater entry into and greater importance in the labour market, not because of anti-religious legislation. We see this across the Eastern Bloc following the decimation of WWII. Whereas in Western Europe and North America where women returned to domestic labour and traditionally female labour roles, in Eastern Europe the market demanded that women remain largely doing the same kind of work as they were during the war. The consequences for women's economic independence from husbands are obvious. Arguably Hitler was just as much to thank for this as Hoxha.

On top of this, the relation between women's liberation and a bump in economic activity is quite clear. The fastest way to economically vitalize a society is precisely the emancipation of women (at least to the extremely narrow extent they can be under liberal capitalism).

Questionable

15th September 2013, 04:00

Women gained this limited liberation through greater entry into and greater importance in the labour market, not because of anti-religious legislation.

Which went hand-in-hand with the elimination of misogynist customs, as many Eastern European countries barred women from entry into the labor force, either officially through the state or unofficially through cultural custom.

We see this across the Eastern Bloc following the decimation of WWII.

Yes, thanks to the policies implemented by Communist Parties during Stalin's time as general-secretary, women became a greater part of every country's labor force. This phenomenon declined with the rise of revisionism, who began re-embracing old myths of "national identity" that demanded women stay out of manual labor.

Whereas in Western Europe and North America where women returned to domestic labour and traditionally female labour roles, in Eastern Europe the market demanded that women remain largely doing the same kind of work as they were during the war.

This is factually untrue. Soviet Poland is an example of a nation where the party began listening to the reactionary fears among male workers that the presence of women in the labor force was a threat to their prestige (a fear borne by old traditional customs), and began upholding the policy that Polish women were meant to be homemakers.

Remus Bleys

15th September 2013, 04:19

The "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" was, as Hoxha noted, a putsch on an all-China scale. Mao used the students and army against the working-class.

The anti-religious movement in Albania began with the youth, but the youth was carefully guided by the Party. Excerpts from an Albanian article (in Studime Historike No. 4, 1981) note the following:

"At the end of 1965 and during 1966 quite a number of youth organizations undertook a series of drives against religious hearths - churches, mosques, teqes, religious land holdings, etc. On May 14, 1966, the youth organization shut down the mosque in the village of Xibrakë in the locality of Belshi (Elbasan). A day later, the youth organization shut down the mosque in the village of Mynqan in the locality of Cërrik... On August 17, certain cooperativists of Shënkolli advised the priest in the parish office of Breg Matë in the district of Lezhë that the people did not want any confirmation rites, and that word should be sent to the Bishop not to come to perform the customary ceremonies. During 1966 the youth also shut down places of worship in many other districts in the country...

On the other hand, the organs of local government, in an action expressing the will and wishes of the workers, made a series of proposals to high government agencies...

The Executive Committee of the People's Council in the district of Shkodër, in an action expressing the demands of the people of this district, alerted the Council of Ministers to the need to make a series of changes in the statue of the catholic church in Albania... the committee proposed the deletion from the statue of provisions regarding the publication of religious magazines and other materials....

The movement was born and developed from below, and encompassed a broad front, including cities and villages, and all segments of the population. The movement was accompanied by direct frontal blows. The Party directed with care this movement from below. Of great help in this connection were the materials of the Fifth Party Congress [held in November 1966], and the teachings of comrade Enver Hoxha in the letter of February 27, 1967, entitled 'On the Struggle Against Religion, and Religious Preconceptions and Customs,' which was addressed to district party committees. Those important documents carried guidelines for waging as just and error-free and successful a struggle against religion, religious preconceptions, and backward customs as was possible....

In the context of the revolutionary movement against religion, the initiative of the 'Naim Frashëri' school in the city of Durrës holds a special place. The reason is that this initiative was the best organized... Seeing the positive results of the movement, the district party at once set out to share the experience that had been gained. Accordingly, seminars were held with secretaries of youth organizations in the schools, in work centers, in villages, with the councils of the front in the precincts, and with presidents of trade unions. All of this added to the net results. The youth thus became the Party's agitators in intensifying the movement against religion.

The initiative had repercussions also outside the district of Durrës, becoming thus a powerful revolutionary movement in the whole country. In the wave of the drives by the youth of this school, youth in all the other districts began a wide-ranging campaign of criticism and self-criticism, under the slogan, 'Let us set our own house in order, and help others at the same time.' By means of wall posters distributed in classes, schools, work sections and enterprises, pious students were criticized. Everywhere battle encampments were set up against religion...

These initiatives, which originated from below, were given powerful support from above, including Party committees and organizations at the base level, as well as the organizations of the masses. Party committees frequently sent youth from work centers and from schools to the villages and precincts. The work was coordinated in such a matter that youth from the plains who worked in cooperatives in the highlands carried out broad propaganda work in favor of scientific atheism in general, as well as helped the youth of the villages in those zones in the struggle against religious hearths.

[....]

As a result of these initiatives, within the short span of a few months, the first blow was dealt to the hearths of the religious ideology. With the exception of a few churches or mosques of architectural or historical value, all churches, mosques, teqes, mausoleums, religious land holdings, etc., were shut down throughout the country."

This is a bit different from the "bombard the headquarters" rhetoric of Mao, which instructed students to go against the party and to have command over it, thus rendering it impotent as competing student militias dictated policy rather than any conscious vanguard. again, you make the mistake of posting propaganda (or something obviously biased towards the albanian government at the time).

what percent of the working class were the students? Why should a movement be started by them and accepted into the party be considered a movement of the proletariat if the students weren't proletariat enough to rule the party? Unless you don't think the vanguard should be run by the workers - in which case, you and hoxha both would have lost the limited credibility as someone remotely left, so I hope that isn't the case.

Brutus

15th September 2013, 08:52

I have never seen someone refer to, say, the USA or UK as a "shithole country."
The UK is a shithole; it's run by Etonian pricks who are more occupied with lining their coffers than doing anything useful. I'm sure the US is in a similar state too, as are all bourgeois democracies. Albania, however, was a repressive shithole. Sure, it became industrialised, agriculturally self-sufficient, exported electricity, etc. but 1 in 3 people had been questioned by the Sigurimi; at elections there were two ballot boxes and an official standing next to them. Put your ballot in the box that doesn't stand for "Enver Hoxha, progress and the Albanian People" and you can expect a visit from the secret police.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th September 2013, 09:29

Communists are for a stateless society, so it's acceptable for us to make derogatory remarks about certain nations? Wow, that's the first time I've ever encountered that mode of thought.

You would have NO problem if someone called the US a shithole, would you? You're just butthurt because someone is calling your precious Albanian paradise a shithole. Get over it.

It may not be explicitly racist, but it comes from the same place of elitism as calling a black neighborhood a "shithole" would.

This is just bullshit. If a place is a shithole, it's a shithole. It's not racist to point that out. Calling jazz music 'jungle music' and saying it has no place in a country - now that is racist. But obviously you'll dogmatically refuse to ever admit that.

Actually, a better example would be if I called a female opponent a "dumb whore." I'm not sexist and would only be using the term as an insult to her, but I think we would all agree that is is inappropriate and unproductive, much like 9mm's original remark on Albania was.

It's really, really, pathetic that you're belittling anti-racist and anti-sexist actions by trying make them comparable to calling a country a shithole, all in the name of what? Defending your precious historic, irrelevant little regime?

It's really, really fucking juvenile. Just get over your own dogma.

Questionable

15th September 2013, 10:00

You would have NO problem if someone called the US a shithole, would you?

No because the US is the world center of capitalism and imperialism whereas Albania was a tiny progressive country that stood against all sorts of revisionism and imperialism.

But obviously you'll dogmatically refuse to ever admit that.

Because I find it disagreeable, and I don't see all this complaining about what I say being "bullshit" as a valid defense of the notion.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th September 2013, 10:26

Because I find it disagreeable, and I don't see all this complaining about what I say being "bullshit" as a valid defense of the notion.

Haha, talk about needing to check your privilege!

You find something dis-agreeable, so you try and put it on the same level as calling someone a 'whore', or being racist. Fuck you!

Questionable

15th September 2013, 13:12

This exchange is fruitless and boring compared to other dialogue we have going on in this thread, like women's rights in Eastern Europe or the role of class struggle in a socialist society, so for the sake of clarity I will lay out my position only once more.

You find something dis-agreeable, so you try and put it on the same level as calling someone a 'whore', or being racist. Fuck you!

You're making a fundamental misinterpretation of my position. It is not on the same level as calling someone a whore because I disagree with it, I disagree with it because it is one the same level as calling someone a whore.

No, I do not think 9mm is some kind of secret klansman. Yes, I do think he let a chauvinist remark slip in the heat of the moment. Yes, I do think it is similar to calling a female opponent a 'whore' in the heat of the moment. Perfectly progressive people have done such things before.

I also find it hypocritical that Hoxha's "jungle music" comment is 100%, irrevocable proof that the man was a disgusting racist which can only be denied if one is a dogmatist, while 9mm is completely innocent of anything when he called Albania a shithole.

No, I do not think Hoxha, a man who spent the early part of his life liberating his country from an extreme racist regime, and the later half battling cultural backwardness in said country, was a racist. Given what we know of him, it simply makes no sense. Hoxha was not one to hold back when giving his opinions, and if he was racist against blacks, I'm sure we would have seen a lot more of it in his personal diaries than vague terms about "jungle music," which could mean just about anything. Personally, I interpret "jungle" as being synonymous with something Hoxha deems uncivilized, rather than it being racially charged. But again, since the term is so nebulous, it's no wonder that all the people who read it simply assign their own meaning to it.

The real reason people cling to the "jungle music" remark is the same reason that they taunt Hoxha for having bunkers constructed. It allows them to say "pfft, racist" and dismiss him arbitrarily, rather than doing a critical analysis of him.

We can assume that Hoxha, a man who fought against Nazism and headed a regime that was undeniably progressive in its social policies, whether you view it as truly socialist or not, was actually racist against blacks because of a single comment in his diaries, or we can assume that he was ideologically consistent throughout his life, and that it was not a racially charged comment at all.

I find the latter to be much more believable.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th September 2013, 14:00

[QUOTE=Questionable;2663885]
You're making a fundamental misinterpretation of my position. It is not on the same level as calling someone a whore because I disagree with it, I disagree with it because it is one the same level as calling someone a whore.

Well, if you really think that calling the most backwards country in Europe that nobody really gives a shit about a shithole is comparable to one of the most insulting aspects of sexism, then I really think you should have a think about what sort of role you could ever play in terms of women's liberation and the feminist movement in general.

I also find it hypocritical that Hoxha's "jungle music" comment is 100%, irrevocable proof that the man was a disgusting racist which can only be denied if one is a dogmatist, while 9mm is completely innocent of anything when he called Albania a shithole.

Nobody is calling Hoxha a disgusting racist. That you interpret it as such shows just how defensive you are getting. Rather, Hoxha made a remark - a written remark, so not just spur of the moment - that has clear racial connotations. It doesn't make him an horrendous person or a racist, just as Marx probably wasn't a racist despite his sometimes disparaging remarks about jews and other races.

If you were just able to accept that Hoxha was very much out of line in making the comment, I think we could all move on. But the fact that you cling so pathetically to any defence you can muster, when the evidence is clear for all to see, shows that you are dogmatically defensive of Hoxha the person and clearly cannot accept ANY criticism of the man.

No, I do not think Hoxha, a man who spent the early part of his life liberating his country from an extreme racist regime, and the later half battling cultural backwardness in said country, was a racist. Given what we know of him, it simply makes no sense. Hoxha was not one to hold back when giving his opinions, and if he was racist against blacks, I'm sure we would have seen a lot more of it in his personal diaries than vague terms about "jungle music," which could mean just about anything. Personally, I interpret "jungle" as being synonymous with something Hoxha deems uncivilized, rather than it being racially charged. But again, since the term is so nebulous, it's no wonder that all the people who read it simply assign their own meaning to it.

^^^And here you prove my point.

The real reason people cling to the "jungle music" remark is the same reason that they taunt Hoxha for having bunkers constructed. It allows them to say "pfft, racist" and dismiss him arbitrarily, rather than doing a critical analysis of him.

As I said above, it's more because of your reaction. I wouldn't dismiss anyone as racist based on that remark, and i'm putting on record that, going by the 'jungle music' comment, we cannot just brand him a racist. But, equally, the remark was a racist one, and i'm not going to let anyone - be it you or anybody else - just allow such things to slip by. Even if Hoxha wasn't a racist, such a remark deserves to be condemned.

We can assume that Hoxha, a man who fought against Nazism and headed a regime that was undeniably progressive in its social policies, whether you view it as truly socialist or not, was actually racist against blacks because of a single comment in his diaries, or we can assume that he was ideologically consistent throughout his life, and that it was not a racially charged comment at all.

Whether he 'was' a racist isn't the main point i'm trying to make (I feel as though i'm repeating myself now). The point is that the remark was un-acceptable, in any context, and if you really weren't such a dogmatist, you'd be able to just say, "yep, Hoxha was wrong on this occasion". But you can't, so it's no wonder that people will infer shit about you - and those who follow Hoxha - from that.

Art Vandelay

15th September 2013, 15:01

Which I pointed out was the exact same position taken by the Soviet revisionists, albeit they conceived a "state of the whole people" rather than it being stateless, but they still denied the need to fight against reactionary influence on the basis of it being "classless," therefore it was impossible for reactionary influence to even exist. So are you willing to admit they were correct in that regard?

No because they were analyzing the USSR post 53', which I in no way consider 'classless.' How could classes have been abolished in the confines of a state? Its a ridiculous claim and has nothing to do with my position. Which is why you continually bringing up this supposed comparison between myself and the 'soviet revisionists' is unwarranted. Regardless I only take 'the exact same position taken by the soviet revisionists' in as much as Marx and Engels do.

I see nothing disagreeable with this, except that I view socialism as achievable while capitalism still exists in some locations, and that it can be achieved in the form of a socialist state.

Fair enough, that's an ideological difference which needn't be discussed here.

I never accused you of calling it exclusively that. I don't know where you're getting such things from. I said Marx was speaking about the effects that religion had on the masses, and not religion as a dynamic tool of oppression utilized by the bourgeoisie. Although he certainly understood the latter, he was not speaking of it in that instance.

You didn't accuse me of that, but it seemed to be rather implicit in the comment I was responding to. Regardless, if your in agreement that Marx's analysis of capitalism's effects on the working class is intrinsically linked to its use as a ideological weapon of the bourgeoisie, then what was the point in raising your objection in the first place?

It shows that he was not as hostile to the abolition of religion as you insisted he was.

I never said he was hostile to the abolition of religion? How on earth would you infer such a thing? Of course he was in favor of abolishing it, he just had a more nuanced approach to the topic.

Furthermore, Albania actually had a monarchy ruled by King Zog prior to the revolution, so this quote can be considered even more applicable in that instance.

Hardly, again, the political landscape was entirely different in Marx's day. There may have been a king before the revolution, but that hardly justifies ripping a Marx quote from its historical context.

In your last post, you claimed that religion was inherently a part of class society, therefore it could not be abolished until class antagonisms themselves had been fully abolished, thus it was futile to for the proletariat to implement anti-religious laws. You argued that it would "wither away over time" and the ideological struggle against it was unnecessary. I argued that religious consciousness persists as a bourgeois remnant, and has to be struggled against even after the establishment of socialism.

Show me where I say such a thing? Its like I'm talking with Ismail again. I never once said that there will be no need for ideological struggle against religion, my conception of such is just much different. Marxists should be for secularism, not state atheism. Ideological struggle against religion won't be through inane state laws on beards, but rather through polemical discourse.

Then it sounds like you have more of an emotional vendetta against it, and thus any attempt to use reason on the subject (such as placing the ban within its proper historical context) will be lost on you.

The irony is palpable, when you consider that its quite clear the only people here with an emotional attachment to this subject in any way, is yourself and Ismail.

Except Islamic influence was severely curbed in Albania to the point of practical non-existence, so the anti-religious laws must have served their purpose well.

Can I have some statistics or a source supporting this that doesn't stem from Hoxha's press secretary.

Questionable

15th September 2013, 15:24

If you were just able to accept that Hoxha was very much out of line in making the comment, I think we could all move on. But the fact that you cling so pathetically to any defence you can muster, when the evidence is clear for all to see, shows that you are dogmatically defensive of Hoxha the person and clearly cannot accept ANY criticism of the man

I'm not accepting the criticism because it makes no sense given everything else we know about Hoxha.

And here you prove my point.

I must admit my feelings are a little hurt by that, Boss. I think my statements on Hoxha being an ardent anti-racist throughout his life deserve some consideration here, and aren't just the words of a dogmatist. If I was being dogmatic, I wouldn't even bother addressing what you say. But I attempted to make what I think is a fair analysis of the supposed racial comment in the context of Hoxha's broader life, and I think dismissing it out-of-hand like this is a bit uncalled for.

My point is that Hoxha, a man who was nothing else if not vocal about his opinions, must have been acting completely out-of-character if his remark was indeed a racial one. Therefore, I'm casting doubt upon the idea.

Even if Hoxha wasn't a racist, such a remark deserves to be condemned.

This relies on the assumption that it was indeed a racist remark.

The point is that the remark was un-acceptable, in any context, and if you really weren't such a dogmatist, you'd be able to just say, "yep, Hoxha was wrong on this occasion".

I won't say he's wrong because I don't believe that, and I think I've made a fairly decent argument against the notion that deserves more than being labeled dogmatism.

But you can't, so it's no wonder that people will infer shit about you - and those who follow Hoxha - from that.

" I know that the gentlemen in the enemy camp may think of me however they like. I consider it beneath me to try to change the minds of these gentlemen." :grin:

@9mm: I am still at work and will write a response to your post sometime in the later afternoon. I only have enough time on my lunch break to respond to one at the moment.

Ismail

15th September 2013, 16:05

Well, if you really think that calling the most backwards country in Europe that nobody really gives a shit about a shithole is comparable toI'd say making a borderline racist comment is comparable to making a borderline sexist comment, certainly. The fact you use a term like "nobody really gives a shit about [it]" is in itself indicative of your attitude, one which is contrary to internationalism, shows off conservative ignorance, and which implies that other societies can simply be blown off as backwards brown people, not worth taking into consideration.

what percent of the working class were the students? Why should a movement be started by them and accepted into the party be considered a movement of the proletariat if the students weren't proletariat enough to rule the party? Unless you don't think the vanguard should be run by the workers - in which case, you and hoxha both would have lost the limited credibility as someone remotely left, so I hope that isn't the case.This just shows how much of an imbecile you are, hiding behind "workerist" rhetoric. Both Lenin and Stalin pointed out that the youth would play an important role in society. That the youth can be at the head of initiatives against backward customs and beliefs is not in any way indicative of the idea that the workers do not lead society, anymore than the idea that when women (organizing as women through their own mass organization) took the initiative against patriarchal customs and beliefs they were somehow supplanting the working-class.

As for the numbers of students of working-class background, I can't find definite statistics (I glanced at a few books of mine), although obviously it'd be quite large considering the massive expansion in the amount of students in the country from 1944 to 1985, introduction of compulsory schooling at lower levels, etc.

again, you make the mistake of posting propaganda (or something obviously biased towards the albanian government at the time).One which you've not actually contradicted.

synthesis

15th September 2013, 16:51

I'd be the first to call a native English speaker out on using a term like "jungle music," but is it possible that this was something lost in translation? I mean, it could still definitely be racist - and I'm pretty sure it is, don't get me wrong - but countries without any real black population often aren't that sensitive to racism against black people, especially the relatively undeveloped countries, and it could be a more generally used term in day-to-day Albanian life, which would still be completely racist but wouldn't reflect as much on Hoxha as a person. All these Marxist-Leninist dictators had at least a little reactionary baggage.

Ismail

15th September 2013, 17:04

I'd be the first to call a native English speaker out on using a term like "jungle music," but is it possible that this was something lost in translation?For what it's worth, the original in Albanian is "të britmave të muzikës së xhunglës" (per Volume 51 of his works, p. 314.) so "screaming/noisy jungle music" is an accurate translation. I still think the fact he's speaking about it alongside long hair, "coarse language," bad manners, etc. is meant to be an attack on rock music though.

synthesis

15th September 2013, 17:13

Well, then why would he call it "screaming jungle music"? Why not just "screaming/noisy music"?

Ismail

15th September 2013, 17:21

Well, then why would he call it "screaming jungle music"? Why not just "screaming/noisy music"?Probably to connect it to being uncultured and without merit. Evidently it's not the most culturally-sensitive thing a man could say.

I wonder how many people would consider a statement like this to be racist:

"From what we know, reading the 'theories' of Castro and others like him on the party, the armed struggle, the role of the peasantry and the confidence which the party should have in it, we see that all these 'theories' of theirs are not Marxist at all. In reading Che Guevara's notebook which was published in Cuba we ask the question: what sort of Marxist can live as a savage in the Sierra and organize the work in secrecy from the masses, in whom he has no confidence?" (Speeches, Conversations and Articles: 1969-1970, p. 208.)

Vladimir Innit Lenin

15th September 2013, 18:07

Probably to connect it to being uncultured and without merit. Evidently it's not the most culturally-sensitive thing a man could say.

Ah, it only took 10 pages. ;)

I wonder how many people would consider a statement like this to be racist:

"From what we know, reading the 'theories' of Castro and others like him on the party, the armed struggle, the role of the peasantry and the confidence which the party should have in it, we see that all these 'theories' of theirs are not Marxist at all. In reading Che Guevara's notebook which was published in Cuba we ask the question: what sort of Marxist can live as a savage in the Sierra and organize the work in secrecy from the masses, in whom he has no confidence?" (Speeches, Conversations and Articles: 1969-1970, p. 208.)

I wouldn't really say that's racist. There's nothing wrong with describing the way the Castros and their tiny band of acolytes lived in the Sierra Maestra 'savage', because to all intents and purposes I believe it was. And there's no point trying to say that's in any way racist, because it's just a description of the truth, so fair enough.

The 'jungle music' thing, however, is racist in connotation (as you seem to be accepting), because jazz - and even rock music - is/was not backwards, or savage, and there is no reason to call it jungle music other than it being a pretty culturally insensitive exclamation, as you seem to acknowledge. Therein lies the difference to me.

synthesis

16th September 2013, 12:04

I think Ismail is saying that it's "jungle music" because it's screaming/noisy, not that it's screaming and noisy because it's jungle music. (Compared to, say, Albanian folk music or classical music or whatever kind of square shit Hoxha was into.) I don't agree with that but I think that's the only way you could argue that that statement by Hoxha wasn't racist.

Ismail

16th September 2013, 17:00

As far as Hoxha's musical preferences went, he did indeed enjoy folk songs and classical music. "Songs like the one entitled 'For You, My Homeland', composed by Pjetër Gaci and interpreted by the People's Artist Mentor Xhemali, will remain immortal in the treasury of our new art. This song is a hymn to our socialist Homeland, to our unconquerable people and Party. It was born at the difficult moments of the revisionist blockade, and is permeated by a lofty revolutionary and optimistic spirit. If not every day, at least every two or three days, in moments of joy or difficulty, I like to listen to it on my tape recorder and it always moves me and inspires me to work." (Selected Works Vol. IV, pp. 912-913.)

The song in question, from a 1989 broadcast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRuThHEwWLE

Popular Front of Judea

16th September 2013, 17:44

I have the suspicion that if Hoxha had emigrated to the US he would have been a Lawrence Welk fan ...

t8tdmaEhMHE

A.J.

16th September 2013, 18:08

Ismail

16th September 2013, 18:31

So beards were associated with certain backward and reactionary aspects of Albanian society?

Makes sense to prohibit the sporting of facial hair until such time as the cultural and social conditions that gave rise to such backwardness had been eliminated i.e. when socialism had been constructed

What's the big deal here?:confused:It's worth noting that whereas in the 60's and 70's foreigners with beards were required to shave them at the border, this practice ended in 1983. The automatic identification of beards with social status in Albanian society was obviously in decline.

Remus Bleys

16th September 2013, 18:40

Remus Bleys

16th September 2013, 18:40

A.J.

16th September 2013, 19:04

Have you not been reading the thread? The entire point was a discussion on if this was effective, marxist, or just plain ridiculous.

I've been skimming through it.

Remus Bleys

16th September 2013, 21:22

The rest of your post is just adopting a reformist position towards religion, again no different from the Soviet revisionists. The prohibition on beards struck a blow at the Orthodox and Islamic clergy, as well as tribal elders. No one ever claimed that prohibiting beards would actually get rid of religion, which is the most ridiculous strawman you could possibly create.I'm curious Ismail. How exactly do you and Hoxha explain Stalin's lightening up towards religion towards the end of his life?
Or do you both just flat out deny it?

Nuke Israel

16th September 2013, 21:23

If beards were a sign of patriarchy and sexism, and they had pictures of Engels and Marx with beards on them, wouldn't that give the impression that Communism is therefore a patriarchal thing, as people with a beard were patriarchs?
Not really. The cultural context is what matters. I don't think people thought Marx and Engels were tribal leaders or religious personnel or something.

Ismail

16th September 2013, 22:39

If beards were a sign of patriarchy and sexism, and they had pictures of Engels and Marx with beards on them, wouldn't that give the impression that Communism is therefore a patriarchal thing, as people with a beard were patriarchs?Ismail Qemali, Albania's first President, of whom in the socialist period various movies were made and pictures/portraits/busts easily viewable in various places and works, had a beard and was shown as such. Of course he wasn't a tribal leader nor clergyman (in fact he was generally opposed by both.)

I'm curious Ismail. How exactly do you and Hoxha explain Stalin's lightening up towards religion towards the end of his life?
Or do you both just flat out deny it?In With Stalin Hoxha recalled a 1949 conversation with the man, a part of it which goes as follows:

During the talk with Stalin I pointed out to him the stand of the clergy, especially the Catholic clergy in Albania, our position in relation to it, and asked how he judged our stand.

"The Vatican is a centre of reaction," Comrade Stalin told me among other things, "it is a tool in the service of capital and world reaction, which supports this international organization of subversion and espionage. It is a fact that many Catholic priests and missionaries of the Vatican are old-hands at espionage on a world scale. Imperialism has tried and is still trying to realize its aims by means of them." Then he told me of what had happened once in Yalta with Roosevelt, with the representative of the American Catholic Church and others.

During the talk with Roosevelt, Churchill and others on problems of the anti-Hitlerite war, they had said: "We must no longer fight the Pope in Rome. What have you against him that you attack him?!"

"I have nothing against him," Stalin had replied.

"Then, let us make the Pope our ally," they had said, "let us admit him to the coalition of the great allies."

"All right," Stalin had said, "but the anti-fascist alliance is an alliance to wipe out fascism and nazism. As you know, gentlemen, this war is waged with soldiers, artillery, machine-guns, tanks, aircraft. If the Pope or you can tell us what armies, artillery, machine-guns tanks and other weapons of war he possesses, let him become our ally. We don't need an ally for talk and incense."

After that, they had made no further mention of the question of the Pope and the Vatican.

"Were there Catholic priests in Albania who betrayed the people?" Comrade Stalin asked me then.

"Yes" I told him. "Indeed the heads of the Catholic Church made common cause with the nazi-fascist foreign invaders right from the start, placed themselves completely in their service and did everything within their power to disrupt our National Liberation War and perpetuate the foreign domination."

"What did you do with them?"

"After the victory," I told him, "we arrested them and put them on trial and they received the punishment they deserved."

"You have done well," he said.

"But were there others who maintained a good stand?" he asked.

"Yes," I replied, "especially clergymen of the Orthodox and Moslem religion."

"What have you done with them?" he asked me.

"We have kept them close to us. In its First Resolution our Party called on all the masses, including the clergymen, to unite for the sake of the great national cause, in the great war for freedom and independence. Many of them joined us, threw themselves into the war and made a valuable contribution to the liberation of the Homeland. After Liberation they embraced the policy of our Party and continued the work for the reconstruction of the country. We have always valued and honoured such clergymen, and some of them have now been elected deputies to the People's Assembly or promoted to senior ranks in our army. In another case, a former clergyman linked himself so closely with the National Liberation Movement and the Party that in the course of the war he saw the futility of the religious dogma, abandoned his religion, embraced the communist ideology and thanks to his struggle, work and conviction we have admitted him to the ranks of the Party."

"Very good, " Stalin said to me. "What more could I add? If you are clear about the fact that religion is opium for the people and that the Vatican is a centre of obscurantism, espionage and subversion against the cause of the peoples, then you know that you should act precisely as you have done."

"You should never put the struggle against the clergy, who carry out espionage and disruptive activities, on the religious plane," Stalin said, "but always on the political plane. The clergy must obey the laws of the state, because these laws express the will of the working class and the working people. You must make the people quite clear about these laws and the hostility of the reactionary clergymen so that even that part of the population which believes in religion will clearly see that, under the guise of religion, the clergymen carry out activities hostile to the Homeland and the people themselves. Hence the people, convinced through facts and arguments, together with the Government, should struggle against the hostile clergy. You should isolate and condemn only those clergymen who do not obey the Government and commit grave crimes against the state. But, I insist, the people must be convinced about the crimes of these clergymen, and should also be convinced about the futility of the religious ideology and the evils that result from it."The reference Hoxha made to a clergyman who gave up his religion and joined the Party was Baba Faja, who I wrote a short article about not long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Faja_Martaneshi

Remus Bleys

16th September 2013, 22:47

Ismail Qemali, Albania's first President, of whom in the socialist period various movies were made and pictures/portraits/busts easily viewable in various places and works, had a beard and was shown as such. Of course he wasn't a tribal leader nor clergyman (in fact he was generally opposed by both.)

In With Stalin Hoxha recalled a 1949 conversation with the man, a part of it which goes as follows:
The reference Hoxha made to a clergyman who gave up his religion and joined the Party was Baba Faja, who I wrote a short article about not long ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Faja_Martaneshi
Oh look more irrelevance that just implies even Stalin thought the banning of Religion might have gone to far.

Ismail

16th September 2013, 22:51

Oh look more irrelevance that just implies even Stalin thought the banning of Religion might have gone to far.You asked what I or Hoxha thought about Stalin's "softening" towards religion in the USSR. I pointed out that, as Hoxha noted in his memoirs, Stalin had no problems getting rid of collaborators among the ranks of the clergy and opposing religious obscurantism in Albania.

It's worth noting that bourgeois works point out how even in the 40's the Albanian treatment of the clergy was exceptional in terms of measures used, including various public trials among other things. But bourgeois authors likewise note that religion in Eastern Europe was a lot worse off in general in the 40's-50's than it was post-56.

Remus Bleys

16th September 2013, 22:55

You asked what I or Hoxha thought about Stalin's "softening" towards religion in the USSR. I pointed out that, as Hoxha noted in his memoirs, Stalin had no problems getting rid of collaborators among the ranks of the clergy and opposing religious obscurantism in Albania.

It's worth noting that bourgeois works point out how even in the 40's the Albanian treatment of the clergy was exceptionally firm, many were executed in public trials among other things.Actions speak louder than words Ismail.
Joseph Stalin had reintroduced many religious privileges, and had allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to pick a new patriarch in a way to reenforce nationalism to help fight in WW2.

I also don't give a damn how firm Albania was with its clergy, why would that matter in this discussion? Its not worth noting, you just like to point it out to show how much you know about Albania.

Is there anything Stalin or Hoxha did that you disagree with (apart from matters concerning abortion or homosexuality)?

Ismail

16th September 2013, 23:00

Actions speak louder than words Ismail.
Joseph Stalin had reintroduced many religious privileges, and had allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to pick a new patriarch in a way to reenforce nationalism to help fight in WW2.And? I fail to see how that changed Stalin's view of religion or the necessity of combating it under more favorable conditions, anymore than NEP meant that Lenin "saw the error of his ways" (as some ridiculous bourgeois works allege) and embraced a market economy for forever.

I also don't give a damn how firm Albania was with its clergy, why would that matter in this discussion?Presumably one would expect Stalin to "rein" Hoxha in, like he did with some other leaders on other subjects.

Is there anything Stalin or Hoxha did that you disagree with (apart from matters concerning abortion or homosexuality)?I'll just quote my reply from the Stalin thread:

Ismail, can you identify a single political position you disagree with Stalin about? Your answer requires only one sentence. No block quotes please.I'll just quote Bill Bland, whose position on Stalin I share:

You could always say that Stalin could have done more, could have done this, could have shot this person beforehand. But I would be unwilling to criticise Stalin at all, because I feel that Stalin stands head and shoulders above all of us, all existing communists as far as his line was concerned... of course one could point out mistakes that Stalin made, but Stalin being a living person and not a divinely inspired person, must have made some mistakes, but I can’t find any. I have read the whole of his works and I can find nothing today even after all this hindsight that is available to us now, there is nothing he said, definitely said, that is inaccurate now. Therefore I think Stalin was a model, as Lenin was, for a correct Marxist-Leninist way of life.Hoxha likewise noted in 1957 that, "On the main issues, in defending the interests of the working class and the Marxist-Leninist theory, in the struggle against imperialism and other enemies of socialism, Stalin made no mistakes, but was and remains an example." (Selected Works Vol. II, p. 690.)

Remus Bleys

16th September 2013, 23:03

On the main issues, in defending the interests of the working class and the Marxist-Leninist theory, in the struggle against imperialism and other enemies of socialism, Stalin made no mistakes, but was and remains an example.

Fuck this I'm done.

Ismail

16th September 2013, 23:07

Fuck this I'm done.When Hoxha visited China in 1956 Mao went on and on about how Stalin made "mistakes" towards Yugoslavia and on various other subjects. Hoxha, quite naturally, was annoyed throughout the meeting since Mao was evidently using these attacks on Stalin to justify the right-wing course of the 8th Congress of the CPC being held at the time. Hoxha wrote in his diary at the time how absurd Mao's "advice" at that meeting was.

Practically anyone who spoke about the "mistakes" of Stalin was trying to justify their own revisionist theses, whether they be Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceaușescu, Castro, the Soviet revisionists, etc. In Mao's case he went on about Stalin's "dogmatism" and "administrative methods" in solving problems, which of course Mao replaced with his right-wing economic and philosophical theories, not to mention his "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution."

EdvardK

18th September 2013, 18:22

As far as Hoxha's musical preferences went, he did indeed enjoy folk songs and classical music.
That is not very communist of him, enjoying the burgeoise music from the past, glorifying the aristocrats! How do you respond to that?? Maybe with a hoxha quote?

Thirsty Crow

18th September 2013, 18:35

That is not very communist of him, enjoying the burgeoise music from the past, glorifying the aristocrats! How do you respond to that?? Maybe with a hoxha quote?
The usual Stalinist line, most clearly expressed by Lukacs for instance, is that the so called high bourgeois culture represents a valuable legacy upon which the culture of socialism, distinct of course from the former, might be built.
This is immediately apparent in theoretical discussions on the literature of socialist realism, especially in its relation to bourgeois critical realism (e.g. for Lukacs, Thomas Mann), the historical novel (Scott), classical realist novel (Balzac, Russian realists).

Os Cangaceiros

18th September 2013, 18:48

^it's interesting, I was recently reading the wiki article on Arno Breker (a Nazi sculptor who Hitler really liked) and it said that after WW2 Stalin offered him a job, basically. I've often found the artistic forms of "totalitarian states" to be kind of interesting and disturbing in how similar they are sometimes.

Os Cangaceiros

18th September 2013, 18:53

(Although maybe that phenomenon is not what you're referring to)

Thirsty Crow

18th September 2013, 19:28

(Although maybe that phenomenon is not what you're referring to)
I don't think it is. EdvardK made a mistaken assumption that Stalinism in general should in one way or another condemn the whole of pre-socialist cultural legacy (in Hoxha's case, statements about classical music and the aristocracy). This does not follow from the basic premises employed by Stalinist thinkers on culture (and one can go further than that, and conclude that this is in opposition to the philosophical dogma of DiaMat as well).

But yes, you're quite right in noticing that artistic procedures and forms between the so called totalitarian states have a lot in common. I think this cannot be divorced from the fact that, contrary to popular opinion on totalitarianism, these states were compelled to mobilize their respective populations for their respective projects, which were grandiose, so to speak (industrialization and "socialist" primitive accumulation, and German industrial advance, combined with growing consumption, Drang nach Ost and expansionism and so on).

Hit The North

18th September 2013, 20:16

Originally Posted by Ismail http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2664384#post2664384)
As far as Hoxha's musical preferences went, he did indeed enjoy folk songs and classical music. That is not very communist of him, enjoying the burgeoise music from the past, glorifying the aristocrats! How do you respond to that?? Maybe with a hoxha quote?

It has to be admitted that Hoxha's preferences in this regard are no different from the preferences of Frankfurt School theorists like Adorno and Horkheimer, both of whom despised popular mass culture and characterized it as degraded and alienated compared to the high point of bourgeois culture in the 18th and 19th Centuries. Also, although the aristocracy of Europe were major patrons of classical music, the composers and musicians tended to be the children of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie.

Ismail

18th September 2013, 21:44

That is not very communist of him, enjoying the burgeoise music from the past, glorifying the aristocrats! How do you respond to that?? Maybe with a hoxha quote?I'll respond this time with a Lenin quote (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/08.htm): "Marxism has won its historic significance as the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat because, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch, it has, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought and culture. Only further work on this basis and in this direction, inspired by the practical experience of the proletarian dictatorship as the final stage in the struggle against every form of exploitation, can be recognised as the development of a genuine proletarian culture."

Only an imbecile would think that the works of Schiller, Lord Byron (Hoxha's favorite poet BTW), Mozart, Shakespeare and so on deserve to be thrown in the trash because they "aren't proletarian." That's a caricature of culture under socialism.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

18th September 2013, 22:22

Only an imbecile would think that the works of Schiller, Lord Byron (Hoxha's favorite poet BTW), Mozart, Shakespeare and so on deserve to be thrown in the trash because they "aren't proletarian." That's a caricature of culture under socialism.

You say this, but I somehow feel that if the great musicians, artists and poets you mention were the preserve of leaders you weren't so taken with, your attitude would be different.

And, tbh, i'm not sure that what was said was in fact much of a caricature of socialist realism in the 20th century 'socialist' states.

EdvardK

18th September 2013, 22:31

Only an imbecile would think that ...
I don't think you should be so harsh to yourself. But then again, you do label people who you disagree with with lots of derogatory terms, so it might be suitable for you afterall.

Ismail

18th September 2013, 22:52

You say this, but I somehow feel that if the great musicians, artists and poets you mention were the preserve of leaders you weren't so taken with, your attitude would be different.Not really. Most of the writers and artists of past epochs praised under socialism had a pretty clearly progressive basis for their activities, directed against feudalism or national oppression. Themes such as universal brotherhood, liberty and democracy, etc. permeated many of their works, themes which the proletariat carried forward and sought to make a reality, as opposed to these themes remaining in the hands of the bourgeoisie who, after carrying out their historical mission, hollowed them out or even attacked them as "dangerous" in light of the growing working-class movement.

Remus Bleys

19th September 2013, 05:59

liberty

Were talking about hoxhaist albania. I fail to see how this is relevant.

Ismail

19th September 2013, 22:25

Were talking about hoxhaist albania. I fail to see how this is relevant.Har-de-har.

Invader Zim

20th September 2013, 11:30

Har-de-har.

Well, given this is a thread about a regime that banned people from not shaving....

Sea

20th September 2013, 21:59

I mean, you can deviate from marxism all you want.
You can claim that banning beards curbs islam, or that banning religion constitutionally is more effective than focusing on the material conditions that cause religion and just let religion be there. You can even call Che Guevara an anarchist, or Mao Zedong a racist.

But, then you have forfeited the right to claim to be an "anti"-revisionist "marxist"

Whatever the hell that means.The role of the proletarian state is to combat any and all bourgeois remains. Your argument about "focusing on material conditions" (as if that's an alternative!) in this case can be extended to anything and everything that the proletarian state might combat, until you are left with utter utopianism. Nevermind the fact that one can't simply do away with undesirable material conditions in one pocket of the world (eg. Albania). Unless, of course, you're suggesting we follow the path of upper-stage-communism-in-one-country.

Your conception of "material conditions" says to me that you need to do a lot more learning about how capitalist society reproduces itself.

Ismail

20th September 2013, 23:24

I also like how claiming Maoism has racist elements in it or that Che's conception of class struggle has more in common with anarchism than Marxism-Leninism somehow made Hoxha a revisionist.

Remus Bleys

21st September 2013, 00:44

I also like how claiming Maoism has racist elements in it or that Che's conception of class struggle has more in common with anarchism than Marxism-Leninism somehow made Hoxha a revisionist.

No, but it does make him an idiot.

Ismail

21st September 2013, 01:16

No, but it does make him an idiot.What does Che's "foco" theory have in common with the works of Lenin? Where is the vanguard of the working-class?

Also the charge of racism and chauvinism lobbied against Mao and his ideology are hardly unique to Hoxha, In fact, the RCPUSA back in the 70's attacked him on such grounds, in regards to his work Imperialism and the Revolution: "In this same section Hoxha raises the puzzling remark that Mao’s four volumes 'are carefully arranged in such a way that they do not present an exact picture of the real situations that developed in China' but dares not offer one shred of evidence to back up this contention. The reason that Hoxha does not care to pursue this argument is that the source is in none other than the Soviet press. See, for example, [M. Altaisty, V. Georgigev, The Philosophical Views of Mao Tsetung: A Critical Analysis (Moscow, 1971).] This same article also includes many of Hoxha's other slanders against Mao such as 'racism' and so on. Similarly, Hoxha raises a hue and cry that 'The congress of the party, its highest collective organ, has not been convened regularly,' putting form over content and reminding one more of a bourgeois parliamentarian than a communist." Innumerable Soviet revisionist polemicists can be reduced to "idiots" using this line of reasoning, because they attack one of your heroes.

RedHal

24th September 2013, 03:00

So beards were associated with certain backward and reactionary aspects of Albanian society?

Makes sense to prohibit the sporting of facial hair until such time as the cultural and social conditions that gave rise to such backwardness had been eliminated i.e. when socialism had been constructed

What's the big deal here?:confused:

Yeah at first it sounds really silly from a modern western viewpoint, but if you consider the deep religious backwardness that was Albania, banning beards as part of a campaign against the religious power structure doesn't sound all that silly. The important question is how much of this ban was supported by the revolutionary masses.

Ismail

24th September 2013, 09:10

The important question is how much of this ban was supported by the revolutionary masses.For what it's worth I've never actually come across claims that banning beards was unpopular. Prohibiting religion along with Western music and fashion, the bunker campaign and the whole "oppressive communist regime" thing (the Sigurimi, labor camps, etc.) all had complaints from people, but otherwise it seems the vast majority of Albanians were clean-shaven and do not mention the subject post-1991.

As an aside Julian Amery, a reactionary British officer sent to Albania during the war, wrote in his 1948 work Sons of the Eagle that (pg. 110), "Moustaches were de rigueur, though Abas Kupi [an anti-communist tribal leader favored by the British] was clean-shaven; but only priests or bandits grew beards. Shaving, however, was most often a weekly affair and a sufficiently rare occasion to warrant the valedictory greeting of 'Meschnett' - an equivalent of 'God bless you' - to the shaver."

Art Vandelay

24th September 2013, 09:30

What does Che's "foco" theory have in common with the works of Lenin? Where is the vanguard of the working-class?

Not that I am a supporter of focoism or anything, but its quite clear where the tentative link between Che's focoism, which was developed through praxis in 50's Cuba, exists with the caricature of Lenin's conception of the vanguard being a minority party (which was widely held at that time). Che's focoist theory in no way neglected the primary role of the proletariat seizing state power, he merely conceived of a different role to be played by the vanguard, in the class struggle. Che's premise was that in countries where governments were despised by their population, a guerrilla warfare could be the ingredient needed to spark social turmoil, ultimately coinciding with the seizure of state power by a simultaneous general strike and military victory. He didn't advocate coup's. I mean there are plenty of principled criticisms to be made of focoism, but don't pretend like he just pulled it out of his ass either. Hoxha himself came to power through a national liberation struggle.

Devrim

24th September 2013, 09:50

but only priests or bandits grew beards.

I presume that the beard ban only effected those sort of beards. When there was a beard ban in Turkish universities it didn't effect people with a lot of stubble.

Shaving, however, was most often a weekly affair and a sufficiently rare occasion to warrant the valedictory greeting of 'Meschnett' - an equivalent of 'God bless you' - to the shaver."

This sounds a bit strange to me. Turkish, and I would imagine that Albania was quiet influenced by Turkish culture, has polite phrases to say to people in almost every situation (including after having a shower or a haircut). I would imagine that this thing in Albanian is something similar, and is done because people are polite, not because they don't shave so often though a would imagine people would shave a little less than in the West anyway.

Devrim

Ismail

24th September 2013, 12:17

This sounds a bit strange to me. Turkish, and I would imagine that Albania was quiet influenced by Turkish culture, has polite phrases to say to people in almost every situation (including after having a shower or a haircut). I would imagine that this thing in Albanian is something similar, and is done because people are polite, not because they don't shave so often though a would imagine people would shave a little less than in the West anyway.Amery wasn't an expert on Albanian customs, so his observations should be treated with a bit of skepticism. The British did have at their disposal two experts, though, the first being Edith Durham (who disliked Britain's self-interested foreign policy towards occupied Albania and was considered a nuisance by the government, ergo she played no official role during the war) and Margaret Hasluck (who had close links with figures in King Zog's time and who on behalf of British intelligence instructed various officers on the basics of Albanian culture and language before they were deployed into Albania.)

Not that I am a supporter of focoism or anything, but its quite clear where the tentative link between Che's focoism, which was developed through praxis in 50's Cuba, exists with the caricature of Lenin's conception of the vanguard being a minority party (which was widely held at that time).Then as a caricature it has no more in common with Leninism than one-party regimes in various countries of the third world where elitist, petty-bourgeois conceptions of "vanguards" reigned supreme.

Che's focoist theory in no way neglected the primary role of the proletariat seizing state power, he merely conceived of a different role to be played by the vanguard, in the class struggle. Che's premise was that in countries where governments were despised by their population, a guerrilla warfare could be the ingredient needed to spark social turmoil, ultimately coinciding with the seizure of state power by a simultaneous general strike and military victory. He didn't advocate coup's.Castro's guerrillas had no connection with the Cuban working-class movement, much less a leading role within it. The idea that a bunch of men in the mountains can "inspire" workers to overthrow the government fundamentally misunderstands the whole conception of revolutionary process.

For a critique of focoism see: http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm

Hoxha himself came to power through a national liberation struggle.And the struggle was led by an actual vanguard, the Communist Party of Albania, which created armed forces, mass organizations, and actual state power throughout the war. The army, which was actually organized as such, encompassed 70,000 partisans by November 1944 in a population of 1 million, as opposed to a few hundred in Castro's forces in a population of about 5 million.

Geiseric

24th September 2013, 21:20

Amery wasn't an expert on Albanian customs, so his observations should be treated with a bit of skepticism. The British did have at their disposal two experts, though, the first being Edith Durham (who disliked Britain's self-interested foreign policy towards occupied Albania and was considered a nuisance by the government, ergo she played no official role during the war) and Margaret Hasluck (who had close links with figures in King Zog's time and who on behalf of British intelligence instructed various officers on the basics of Albanian culture and language before they were deployed into Albania.)

Then as a caricature it has no more in common with Leninism than one-party regimes in various countries of the third world where elitist, petty-bourgeois conceptions of "vanguards" reigned supreme.

Castro's guerrillas had no connection with the Cuban working-class movement, much less a leading role within it. The idea that a bunch of men in the mountains can "inspire" workers to overthrow the government fundamentally misunderstands the whole conception of revolutionary process.

For a critique of focoism see: http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm

And the struggle was led by an actual vanguard, the Communist Party of Albania, which created armed forces, mass organizations, and actual state power throughout the war. The army, which was actually organized as such, encompassed 70,000 partisans by November 1944 in a population of 1 million, as opposed to a few hundred in Castro's forces in a population of about 5 million.

So you reject the marxist notion that the working class itself has to take power? Do you also reject that there was anybody who opposed Hoxha from the left, as opposed to rejecting him from a pro capitalist point of view?

Questionable

24th September 2013, 22:31

So you reject the marxist notion that the working class itself has to take power?

This is a pretty bizarre question to ask Ismail after he was done directly criticizing a theory which denied the revolutionary role of the working class in favor for a group of romanticized guerillas.

Do you also reject that there was anybody who opposed Hoxha from the left, as opposed to rejecting him from a pro capitalist point of view?

There could have certainly been ultra-left criticisms of Hoxha, but the majority of groups that opposed him were left-in-form, right-in-action.

Ismail

25th September 2013, 00:34

Do you also reject that there was anybody who opposed Hoxha from the left, as opposed to rejecting him from a pro capitalist point of view?Of those who attacked the CPA's wartime policy "from the left," they could be divided into the two following categories:

1. Fascism was developing the economy of Albania and creating a sizable working-class, ergo it was wrong to oppose it completely. Thus anti-fascist action for the time being had to be carried on within the apparatuses built up by the occupation authorities.
2. The resistance should proclaim "soviet power" as opposed to the power of national liberation councils.

Proponents of the former course later joined the Balli Kombëtar (the anti-communist "resistance" movement) after the CPA's partisan campaign was obviously scoring successes and gaining solid ground. As for the latter, it was an empty, dogmatic demand that did not resonate with the workers.

Ceallach_the_Witch

25th September 2013, 00:44

But did the state provide free razors?

Ismail

27th September 2013, 06:35

Since this thread is basically reduced to amusement, here are two quotes from David Smiley's Albanian Assignment, a British officer sent into occupied Albania.

pages 59-60: "we had to step over each other if we wanted to move around. In the middle of the night I heard shouts and awoke to see two people fighting in the centre of the room; pulling my pistol from under my pillow I aimed it at them, wondering which one to shoot, until I recognized that they were McLean and Williamson... It turned out that Williamson had got up to go outside to relieve himself and had stepped on McLean by mistake. McLean was at that moment having a nightmare in which he thought that the Italian Air Force deserter [stationed with the officers] was a double agent and had been sent to murder us."

Pages 56-57: "I got along well with Hoxha, even though he was inclined to bluster and lose his temper at our endless meetings. I took delight in teasing him about his politics, and the more Communist propaganda he aimed at me, the more right-wing, capitalist and imperialist I became. Once we were standing in front of a war map of the world while he lectured me on how he would like to see the world after the war - Communist, of course, all over. Turning to me he said, 'How do you like to see the world, Monsieur le Capitaine?'; to which I replied, 'I too would like to see this map painted red all over, but not the sort of red you mean.'"

And one bit from [I]Illyrian Venture, the memoir of another officer sent to occupied Albania, page 74: "Mico [a member of the partisans] had been in Spain, fighting for the Communists, and had been flung into jail in Tirana by the Italians when they annexed his country. But Mico, with some other stout hearts, had tunnelled under the big prison wall and gone into the mountains to join the partisans. He was very suspicious of us and kept asking why the Allies had sent Royalists to help them instead of Socialists or Communists, the Royalist misunderstanding having arisen because of our regiments—Royal Ulster Rifles, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers. To try to explain the standing of Household Cavalry, Irish Guards and Coldstream Guards only increased the confusion."

There were actually quite a few memoirs of British officers sent into Albania. I'll be obtaining another one in the near future, by Peter Kemp. Hoxha also his own memoir of the period, The Anglo-American Threat to Albania, which offered his own views on these very officers. Example, page 61: "I asked Bill McLean to sit down and offered him my tin of tobacco to roll a cigarette, although I knew that he did not smoke, and never touched our raki. He was continually munching chocolate, which the aircraft dropped him along with his personal supplies. Perfidious Albion had aircraft for such things, but when it came to dropping weapons to us who were fighting fascism, aircraft were not available!"

Kingfish

29th September 2013, 12:51

These are quite entertaining, do you have anymore/ is there a thread that deals with anecdotes from other left personalities ?

Ismail

29th September 2013, 18:38

Hoxha recalled an April 1957 visit to the USSR wherein he was asked to address a rally of 4000-5000 workers at a Leningrad machine-building plant. The following occurred (The Khrushchevites, 1984, pp. 359-361):

I told them about the struggle of our people and Party against imperialist and revisionist enemies. These enemies were real, had names, had engaged in concrete activities against us. I had to speak openly to the workers, although this was not going to please Khrushchev. At the first reception he had given us his «orientation» on the question of Yugoslavia. But neither I nor my comrades would had a clear conscience if we had not spoken out, therefore in my speech I told the workers that the Yugoslav leaders were anti-Marxists and chauvinists, that they had done hostile work, etc.

The workers listened to me attentively and cheered with great enthusiasm. However, after the meeting, Pospyelov said to me:

«I think we should tidy up the part about Yugoslavia a little, because it seems to me a bit too hard-hitting.»

«There is nothing exaggerated,» I said.

«Tomorrow your speech will be published in the press, said Pospyelov. «The Yugoslavs will be very angry with us.»

«It's my speech. You are in order,» I said to him.

«Comrade Enver, you must understand us,» insisted Pospyelov. «Tito says that it is we who incite you to speak openly against them like this. We must soften that a bit.»

This dialogue took place in one of the rooms of the «Kirov» Opera Theatre in Leningrad. It was time for the performance to begin, the people were waiting for us to enter the hall.

«Let us postpone this discussion till after the performance,» I said. «Time is getting on.»

«We'll postpone the beginning of the performance,» he insisted, «I'll tell the comrades.»

We argued a bit and in the end we reached a «compromise»; the word «enemy» would be replaced with «anti-Marxist».

The revisionists were jumping for joy as if they had gained the heavens. After a little reflection, Kozlov wanted another «concession»:

«'Anti-Marxist' does not sound too good either,» he said, «how about if we alter it to 'non-Marxist'.»

«All right, then,» I said in an ironical tone. «Do as you wish!»

«Let us go out to the foyer of the theatre,» Kozlov then proposed, and we circled once or twice among the people, so that Kozlov could greet them. Meanwhile the others went to make the «correction» and Ramiz accompanied them. However, when Ramiz returned, he told me that they had removed all I had said about the Yugoslavs. I instructed him to tell them that we insisted on our opinions, but Khrushchev's men replied:

«It is impossible to make any change now, because we would have to inform the comrades at the top again in order to do such a thing!»