What did Hoxha add to Marxism?

[Comrade Jacob]

I've just always wondered...Ismail?

[d3crypt]

Nothing, hoxha sucks.
Sincerely, CommunistMetalhead
Cuz fuck Stalin, Trotsky, Moa, Hoxha, and most of all Avakian.

[Comrade Jacob]

Nothing, hoxha sucks.
Sincerely, CommunistMetalhead
Cuz fuck Stalin, Trotsky, Moa, Hoxha, and most of all Avakian.

Congratulations you are now hated by most leftists.

[Thirsty Crow]

Congratulations you are now hated by most leftists.
S/he's in great peril.

To answer, bunkers. Marxism is born anew.

[Questionable]

If you want an answer specifically from Ismail, you're better off asking him directly via PM or his user wall, instead of starting a thread which will most likely do nothing but attract trolls.

[Comrade Jacob]

If you want an answer specifically from Ismail, you're better off asking him directly via PM or his user wall, instead of starting a thread which will most likely do nothing but attract trolls.

That was not my intention, I was just expecting for Ismail to jump on it.

[Malesori]

IMHO Hoxha's contribution ot Marxism-Leninism is precisely not what he added, but that he did not "take away". He never succombed to revisionist or betraying the course laid by Stalin. He was the last of the orthodox Communists

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

'orthodox communists'? stalin wasn't an 'orthodox' communist, if we assume marxism to be the basis for communist theory.

you could call hoxha an orthodox stalinist or marxist-leninist.

[Art Vandelay]

IMHO Hoxha's contribution ot Marxism-Leninism is precisely not what he added, but that he did not "take away". He never succombed to revisionist or betraying the course laid by Stalin. He was the last of the orthodox Communists

Stalin was not an 'orthodox Marxist,' the orthodox Marxists, were those associated with the 2nd international, following the death of Marx and Engels (Bebel, Kautsky, Plekhanov, etc). But yes, Hoxha did not contribute anything new to Marxist theory, those who uphold his line to not do so because he developed a new qualitative stage of Marxist thought, but rather that he (in their estimation) properly continued the 'anti-revisionist' line of Stalin.

[Sea]

Among other things, Hoxha applied the Marxist methods of analysis to the predatory powers of his own time. He also tracked with stunning accuracy the revisionist course being taken by the USSR, Yugoslavia, China, etc. and how it lead to their eventual all-out embrace of capitalism. This is an extremely valuable contribution, as it shows the continuing validity of these methods.
IMHO Hoxha's contribution ot Marxism-Leninism is precisely not what he added, but that he did not "take away". He never succombed to revisionist or betraying the course laid by Stalin. He was the last of the orthodox Communists
First two sentences, pretty much. But beyond that you can take your notions of orthodoxy and put them in your pooper.

[Hit The North]

Hoxha's main contribution to Marxism is probably Ismail.

[Sea]

I have a strong feeling some of the Hoxha Heads here would disagree, but maybe not. To my jaundiced Trotskyist eye, his contributions are similar to Mao, Tito's, Kim Il Sung's as the nationalist/Stalinist leader of a deformed workers' state. Each has their own flavor. Each led peasant based armies of partisans that fought against their own bourgeoisie. Mao is probably the most significant if only because of the size and strategic importance of China. But when I speak of contributions, none of these are contributions to Marxism. They were, none of them, Marxists -- according to my reading of Marx, anyway.Your reading of Marx? What about your reading of Hoxha? I think that would be the deciding factor.

[Malesori]

I did not mean the specific school of "orthodox marxism" ala Luckas, I was talking more generically in the manner of real-existing Marxism-Leninism...mea culpa for any ambigious language on my part

[Malesori]

Hoxha does not so much seek to create a new school of Marxism within the context of socialist political thought, but rather strives to defend the traditional Marxist-Leninist posture which he sees as quickly giving way to what he called the “capitalist-revisionist encirclement”. In my opinion the distinct marks of “Hoxhaism” would be: 1. the belief in proletarian internationalism while respecting each nation’s right to self-determination within a Communist context, 2. a belief in absolute atheism for the truly Communist state (Albania being the first and only officially atheist state in the world which was proclaimed in 1967- ironically Hoxha was the son of a Mullah), 3. a militant anti-revisionism, with a conviction of the inevitability of Communism based on Marxism-Leninism as a genuine science of the working-class and revolution. 4. a firm adherence to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and a belief in revolutionary armed struggle as the only means of bringing about lasting socialism, whilstabhorring so-called “peaceful coexistence” with Lenin’s insight that “capital seeks only domination, not freedom”. The revolutionary slogan of the Party of Labor of Albania is apt to define what Hoxhaist Communism is: “To build socialism holding a pickaxe in one hand and a rifle in the other”.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Among other things, Hoxha applied the Marxist methods of analysis to the predatory powers of his own time.
That's the point of Marxism. How is this a significant achievement in its own right?

[Red_Banner]

I've just always wondered...Ismail?

He didn't add anything.


He was a joke.

[Skyhilist]

What did he add to Marxism? Way too many of these scattered everywhere...
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1042604/thumbs/o-ALBANIA-BUNKERS-facebook.jpg

[Red_Banner]

One bunker per child.

[Red_Banner]

They also are used as submarines. :laugh:

http://uncoveringtheworld.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/bunkers-albania-132-1.jpg

[Ocean Seal]

Nothing, hoxha sucks.
Sincerely, CommunistMetalhead
Cuz fuck Stalin, Trotsky, Moa, Hoxha, and most of all Avakian.

Wow I'm glad we have such helpful posters on this forum.

That being said, most would agree that Hoxha didn't really add anything to Marxist theory. He was a politician more than an ideolouge. He was more concerned with deviations to Stalinism than anything else, and was often critical of Mao and Khrushchev for his perception of their lack of commitment to a collectivized economy and for their foreign policy.

[reb]

The infallibility of humans.

[Skyhilist]

The only religious dogma not banned by Hoxha was orthodox Stalinism.
So there's that.

[Ismail]

Enver Hoxha was the leader of the Communist Party (Party of Labour after 1948) of Albania, which established the dictatorship of the proletariat through the country in the course of a national liberation war. After the 50's Albania was the only country to have been genuinely constructing a socialist society. This alone gives it value as it sought against various odds to carry out the construction of socialism in the main, which it did, and to do it in the conditions of a small country.

In international affairs Hoxha exposed the nationalist and right-wing deviations of the Titoites and the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban and other modern revisionists who betrayed the cause of socialism and established state-capitalist regimes, misleading countless parties through their calls for reformism, "focoism," "protracted people's war," "non-alignment," the "non-capitalist path of development," and so on. For this the Yugoslavs, Soviets, Chinese and of course the West tried to overthrow the state of affairs in Albania, and failed.

I have written two articles on Albania's efforts against Soviet and Chinese revisionism:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Albanian_split
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split

[Sea]

They also are used as submarines. :laugh:
Always bringing up bunkers when talking about Hoxha is a really cheap shot but I have to admit that made me laugh.
The only religious dogma not banned by Hoxha was orthodox Stalinism.
So there's that.It's very strange how it suddenly becomes fashionable to speak of religion and/or revisionism against the "dogmas" of revolution as if those were good things once a leader who you have a personal problem with becomes involved.
That's the point of Marxism. How is this a significant achievement in its own right?That's really a poor point -- it's not like Hoxha specifically did nothing but pointing out the obvious. If theoreticians were always judged how you judge Hoxha, you might as well add Lenin and (pre-renegade) Plekhanov or Kautsky to the list of non-contributers! Whether you appreciate their works or not, it's patently absurd to say that they contributed nothing. Same goes for Hoxha.

[Ismail]

IMHO Hoxha's contribution ot Marxism-Leninism is precisely not what he added, but that he did not "take away". He never succombed to revisionist or betraying the course laid by Stalin.This is basically what makes him as a person (as opposed to Albania's overall socialist construction) stand out. After Stalin died the revisionists went wild with their "national roads": Chinese, Korean, Hungarian, Polish, Cuban, Romanian, etc., which both the Yugoslavs and the Soviet revisionists encouraged. Every single one of these roads constituted right-wing deviations: the metaphysical basis of Juche, decollectivization in Poland with over 80% of its agriculture staying in private hands, Romania denouncing (as the Yugoslavs did) the supposedly "artificial" division of states into progressive and reactionary categories (thus allowing for things like Ceaușescu maintaining fraternal party-to-party relations between the PCR and Mobutu's MPR), etc.

The Albanians actually did pursue the creative implementation of Marxism-Leninism in the material conditions of their country, refusing to declare the theories of Lenin and Stalin and the course of socialist construction under them somehow "outdated" or conveniently "unsuitable" for Albanian conditions. He incurred the wrath of imperialism and social-imperialism for this, which I'd say is a pretty good indication of his successes when you look at those attacking him.

Although your claim in another post that Hoxha was the son of a mullah is incorrect, every bourgeois source claims his father was either a cloth merchant or a landowner.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

That's really a poor point -- it's not like Hoxha specifically did nothing but pointing out the obvious. If theoreticians were always judged how you judge Hoxha, you might as well add Lenin and (pre-renegade) Plekhanov or Kautsky to the list of non-contributers! Whether you appreciate their works or not, it's patently absurd to say that they contributed nothing. Same goes for Hoxha.
I made the point in relation to the person I was quoting, who listed Hoxha's first great virtue as the fact that he applied Marxist analysis to the conditions around him. The point is that this isn't an achievement in itself, it is merely the basic tenant of Marxism and Marxists do this all the time. Analyzing the objective conditions around us through Marxist lenses isn't measured as achievement but rather, a vital function of Marxism itself.

I'm not a Leninist but comparing Lenin to Hoxha based on theory is absurd. Lenin was a theoretician, Hoxha didn't actually contribute anything to Marxist theory. Lenin's theory of the state has been (regrettably or otherwise, depending on your viewpoint) one of the most significant contributions to Marxist theory and has shaped the outcome of many practical applications of Marxism. Hoxha has not made a contribution any more than he led Albania which is merely a political contribution. At best, Hoxha's contribution can be understood as a place in the political legacy of 'communism'.

[Ismail]

For the record Albanian materials never presented Hoxha as a world-renown theorist or anything like that, which again obviously stands in contrast to the likes of Mao or Kim Il Sung with their nationalist schemes of supplanting Marxism-Leninism, Tito with his "Non-Aligned Movement," etc.

In fact the contents of a 1983 conference (http://www.scribd.com/doc/164273378/Scientific-Conference-on-the-Marxist-Leninist-Theoretical-Thinking-of-the-Party-of-Labour-of-Albania-and-Comrade-Enver-Hoxha) on the Party of Labour and Enver Hoxha's theoretical views are confined to Albania-specific subjects; those that specifically mention Hoxha read as follows: "The PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha on the Party and its leading role," "The ideological and cultural revolution in the work of the Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha," "The teachings of the Party and Comrade Enver Hoxha on the liberation of the country and the defence of the socialist Homeland," and "The struggle of the PLA and Comrade Enver Hoxha against modern revisionism." The other speeches likewise deal with Albania's foreign policy, the economy, the dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle, and the Albanian revolution and socialist construction. The most they say is that fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties can learn from Albania's experiences, just as they can learn from the experience of the USSR under Lenin and Stalin.

There was another conference, this time fully dedicated to Hoxha's work, after he died in 1985. As far as I know the contents remained focused on Albania.

[Malesori]

Ismail: He was the son of a mullah (who was also a cloth merchant). I am at work right now, but will send you the reference when I get home tonight.

[Malesori]

Ismail:

The reference is in one of the two books for the East European Monograph series (which I have at home and will cite), it is either in

Albanian Stalinism by Arshi Pipa
or
A Coming of Age: Albania Under Enver Hoxha by James S O'donnell

[Gold Against The Soul]

He added to Stalin's theory of Socialism in one country with his own theory of 'Socialism in one small and extremely isolated country'. This was of course a glorious success. Albania became one of the wealthiest countries in the world by becoming the foremost exporter of gun turrets.

[Sea]

I made the point in relation to the person I was quoting, who listed Hoxha's first great virtue as the fact that he applied Marxist analysis to the conditions around him. The point is that this isn't an achievement in itself, it is merely the basic tenant of Marxism and Marxists do this all the time. Analyzing the objective conditions around us through Marxist lenses isn't measured as achievement but rather, a vital function of Marxism itself.

I'm not a Leninist but comparing Lenin to Hoxha based on theory is absurd. Lenin was a theoretician, Hoxha didn't actually contribute anything to Marxist theory. Lenin's theory of the state has been (regrettably or otherwise, depending on your viewpoint) one of the most significant contributions to Marxist theory and has shaped the outcome of many practical applications of Marxism. Hoxha has not made a contribution any more than he led Albania which is merely a political contribution. At best, Hoxha's contribution can be understood as a place in the political legacy of 'communism'.Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed Hoxha was some great theorist. I was going to edit that post last night and add that it's odd to judge someone for something they didn't try to achieve but Ismail pretty much said that already. The point remains that (again I hate to use the example of Lenin for something as petty as this squabble) it's crazy to say anyone, from Lenin down to a random non-party non-member who reads Marx in their spare time, is a non-contributor simply because they applied Marxian analysis correctly "and nothing more", if you don't consider the outcome of the application. In The State and Revolution, Lenin even goes out of his way to point out to the reader that what he's saying shouldn't exactly be a shocking revelation to anyone familiar with Marx and Engels! Is this work now to be considered a non-contribution on that account? Of course not.

To apply Marxist analysis to the conditions of the world, when the bulk of the Marxist movement is confused and led astray by pseudo-Marxian and revisionist analysis, in a way that defends Marxism against these deviations, is most certainly a contribution.

[Ismail]

This was of course a glorious success. Albania became one of the wealthiest countries in the world...Well, as Hoxha said in response to Khrushchev's absurd claim that the West was "paying 30 pieces of silver" for the Albanians to denounce him, "the Albanian people and their Party of Labour will even live on grass if need be, but they will never sell themselves 'for 30 pieces of silver' ... They would rather die honourably on their feet than live in shame on their knees."

Once Khrushchev fell from power the Soviet revisionists posed as "friends" of Albania and called on it to rejoin the "socialist community of nations," claiming that its efforts to construct socialism would be much easier through such a road. Hoxha, of course, exposed such demagogy. Likewise when the Sino-Albanian split occurred the Soviets once more appealed to Hoxha to restore ties with themselves, and when Hoxha died the Soviets sent a letter of "condolences" which the Albanians publicly denounced and turned back. The USA also looked into reestablishing diplomatic relations with Albania in the early 70's. Hoxha stated various times that his country would never restore ties with the USA and USSR, for such relations could never be on an equal basis.

Albania was given a bad hand and made the best of it, becoming an inspiration in the process.

Albania certainly became a far better country by the 80's than it had been in the 30's and 40's, though. Malaria and illiteracy wiped out, a life expectancy raised from 38 to 71, from hardly any lights to the total electrification of the country, etc. Albania was the poorest country in Europe from 1912 onwards. What was achieved under Hoxha is acknowledged by just about every single bourgeois account, while the deterioration of the situation after 1991 is likewise recognized.

@Malesori, O'Donnell does not refer to his father as having been a mullah. Pipa notes that both his father and his uncle (who was an atheist) were called "mullahs" as an honorific title. The title in this context signified an educated man, as Nexhmije Hoxha notes in her memoirs.

[reb]

This is basically what makes him as a person (as opposed to Albania's overall socialist construction) stand out. After Stalin died the revisionists went wild with their "national roads": Chinese, Korean, Hungarian, Polish, Cuban, Romanian, etc., which both the Yugoslavs and the Soviet revisionists encouraged. Every single one of these roads constituted right-wing deviations: the metaphysical basis of Juche, decollectivization in Poland with over 80% of its agriculture staying in private hands, Romania denouncing (as the Yugoslavs did) the supposedly "artificial" division of states into progressive and reactionary categories (thus allowing for things like Ceaușescu maintaining fraternal party-to-party relations between the PCR and Mobutu's MPR), etc.

You're sounding as idealist as a trot.

[Ismail]

You're sounding as idealist as a trot.I don't see why you're mentioning me, since the subject is Hoxha, who obviously did oppose such revisionist positions in the course of actual struggle, as the leader of a country rather than as someone making a post on an online forum.

How about actually explaining what made the Albanian position "idealist"?

[reb]

I don't see why you're mentioning me, since the subject is Hoxha, who obviously did oppose such revisionist positions in the course of actual struggle, as the leader of a country rather than as someone making a post on an online forum.

How about actually explaining what made the Albanian position "idealist"?

Do you not have an opinion yourself? I'm assuming that you also believe in this Hoxha nonsense. You declared that superstructural changes make changes in the economic base, that is if we assume that any of these countries had superseded the capitalist mode of production. This is the exact same idealism that trots display when they are describing that other disease of Leninism, the workers' state where who is in charge dictates in what direction society travels.

[Ismail]

You declared that superstructural changes make changes in the economic base,Of course. Socialism entails the conscious planning of society, obviously the superstructure is going to impact the economic base. To deny this, just as to deny the continuation of class struggle under socialism, was a hallmark of the Soviet revisionists, and is not coincidentally also a hallmark of Trotskyism.

And I don't see how declaring that the Soviet Union under the revisionists was a supposedly "degenerated workers' state," with no imperialist foreign policy, is the same as declaring it a state that had restored capitalism and become a rival imperialist superpower to the USA.