Enver Hoxha

[VRKrovin]

Comrades,


I am interested to hear the views of you all on comrade Enver Hoxha, the faithful continer of the cause of Lenin and Stalin. He fought against the restoration of capitalism in the USSR, against bourgeois Titoist ideology, and defended his nation against the Soviet and Chinese imperialists. He clearly exposed Khrushchev's counter-revolution in the USSR, Mao's rejection of Leninist norms, Tito's wholly capitalistic and opportunistic ideology and actions, and why eurocommunism is anti-communism. He is an undervalued and misunderstood comrade in the Marxist-Leninist movement. I have seen so much slander against good comrades like JV Stalin, I am sure similar slander will be hurled now at comrade Enver Hoxha. But I am interested in hearing your thoughts nonetheless.

[Jiub]

I heard he built quite an economy out of nothing, but he was authoritarian too. And I believe staying too long on power makes you make bad decisions.

[emokid08]

How can we let people who worship or even admire Hoxa on here? He's just another tyrannical dictator! A bloodsucking parasite that once again tarnishes our movement and stains us with the label of authoritarian.

People like Stalin,Mao,Lenin, Castro, Pot,Hoxa, the Ils, and the like are why it makes it so easy to defeat leftists in the forum and arena of discussion!

We need to stop worshipping these monsters, and ask ourselves: what really is the liberatory movement here? Try Anarchism

Anarchist Resources (http://www.anarchism.ws)

:banner: :star: :AO: :A: :redstar:

[EwokUtopia]

He did pragmatic things which aided Albania, especially during the struggle against fascism, but his authoritarian stance on many things also lead to the sufferings of many of the Shqip people. He was a pragmatic isolationist authoritarian, and although he took power when somebody like that was needed, he retained those qualities all throughout the regime, and left Albania in a rather large mess.

[Janus]

Last thread on Hoxha.

Hoxha (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44638&hl=Hoxha)

[VRKrovin]

He did pragmatic things which aided Albania, especially during the struggle against fascism, but his authoritarian stance on many things also lead to the sufferings of many of the Shqip people.

SHQIP refers to the LANGUAGE, not the people. The adjective for that is SHQIPTAR. But I got what you meant.


Krovin

[VRKrovin]

We need to stop worshipping these monsters, and ask ourselves: what really is the liberatory movement here? Try Anarchism

The kropotkinists lost in Russia, and elsewhere, and they will always continue to lose. Only the Bolshevik ideology provides the means for victory. This has been proven by history. When you want to grow up and become a real revolutionary, take the kid gloves off and join us, son.


Krovin

[karmaradical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:27 AM

We need to stop worshipping these monsters, and ask ourselves: what really is the liberatory movement here? Try Anarchism

The kropotkinists lost in Russia, and elsewhere, and they will always continue to lose. Only the Bolshevik ideology provides the means for victory. This has been proven by history. When you want to grow up and become a real revolutionary, take the kid gloves off and join us, son.


Krovin
Yes of course the bolshevik way won! I mean look at modern history! Oh wait...the leninists arnt around anymore...and communism has aquired a reputation similar to satan's...hmmm.


How about this? Why dont YOU take off the kids gloves, and try real marxism?

[chimx]

bolshevism provides the means for victory? what victory? to set up a failed socialist government that collapsed under its own weight, while in the process killing countless workers and peasants?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

How can we let people who worship or even admire Hoxa on here? He's just another tyrannical dictator! A bloodsucking parasite that once again tarnishes our movement and stains us with the label of authoritarian.

People like Stalin,Mao,Lenin, Castro, Pot,Hoxa, the Ils, and the like are why it makes it so easy to defeat leftists in the forum and arena of discussion!

We need to stop worshipping these monsters, and ask ourselves: what really is the liberatory movement here? Try Anarchism

Anarchist Resources


Didn't you used to belong to the PLP?

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 03:45 AM
Yes of course the bolshevik way won! I mean look at modern history! Oh wait...
That's a whole lot better than nothing.


the leninists arnt around anymore...
We're at least as much around as you are, son. If we "aren't around anymore", then neither are you, because last time I checked, the amount of anarchists wasn't much higher(unless you count every circle-a jerker who listens to punk, but really knows nothing of politics), and the "libertarian marxists" amount to exactly zero.


and communism has aquired a reputation similar to satan's...hmmm.
Because the bourgeoisie would never slander communism if other guys were in charge, right? Hmm, maybe they really wouldn't, considering that a "socialist" state that doesn't make any effort to liquidate the bourgeoisie would not be much of a threat to them.


Didn't you used to belong to the PLP?
He did. Then he saw the light. ;)

[emokid08]

Didn't you used to belong to the PLP?


I used to, but I came to my senses.

:D

[Messiah]

Hoxha was a joke. He spent more time building pillboxes (that faced inwards--now why would that be in such a free and wonderful country?) than doing anything constructive for his people. Considering how close Albania and Yugoslavia could have been, even with the disagreements they had, it's really a shame. Tito massively elevated the living standards of Yugoslavia, Hoxha just shut his country off from all sources (even supposed allies). He was more interested in ideological squabbles between totaltiarian states than communism.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] Sep 20 2006, 07:13 AM
Hoxha was a joke. He spent more time building pillboxes (that faced inwards--now why would that be in such a free and wonderful country?) than doing anything constructive for his people.

Is this "observation" something you picked up from a book devoted to anti-communist mud-slinging of the Albanian revolution, or did you actually see these "inwards pillboxes" in Albania first-hand? Besides, the Albanian government built pillboxes because of the constant threat from NATO and the capitalist encirclement.


Considering how close Albania and Yugoslavia could have been, even with the disagreements they had, it's really a shame.

What's really a shame is the fact that the Titoite deviation was allowed to manage the Yugoslavian republic for so long, deviating from the principles of internationalism and instead supporting Western imperialism. The Khrushchevite revisionists of the USSR and Eastern Europe and the Dengist revisionists of China also supported the Titoites, since all of these anti-communist factions wanted "peaceful co-existence" with the West. The Albanians were right not to be forced to submit under the domination of the Titoites.

By the way, here is a bit of information on how close Marshal Tito was with the United States government. It comes from a book titled "Keeping Tito Afloat" by Lorraine M. Lees, and the quote is on page 140. I quote:

"In the rather warm letter he sent to Tito...[President] Eisenhower praised Tito's 'wisdom and statesmanship'... Because of the 'close association and cooperation in the economic and military fields' then in existence between Yugoslavia and the United States, and the larger issues 'weighing on the free world of which our countries are a part,' Eisenhower felt able to call upon Tito 'in this friendly fashion.' "

That explains why Albania had to build up its defenses. It also explains how treacherous the Titoites were. A "socialist country" enjoying "friendly" support from the United States government? Hilarious!


Tito massively elevated the living standards of Yugoslavia, Hoxha just shut his country off from all sources (even supposed allies).

The Titoites maintained some private property relations and in fact some in the West considered Yugoslavia to be the first "market-socialist" country. The country also enjoyed strong support from the United States and the West in trade relations to boost its economy, a relationship that no imperialist country would share with a socialist country.

The Albanians did not shut their country off from the outside sources. It was the outside sources who cut off ties with Albania. Besides the Western imperialists- who naturally would rather see a socialist country fall apart instead of trade with it- the Khrushchevites expected the Albanians to reform their economy to meet the demands of the USSR rather than mutually cooperate as had been the case in the time of Stalin, where socialist countries respected each other's sovereignty. The Dengists, sacrificing the principles of internationalism for the "world market" in the 1970s decided to cut off Albania as well. I wouldn't blame Hoxha or the Albanian revolution for losing support, but rather the West for trying to destroy Albanian socialism and the revisionists who abandoned the principles of internationalism and fraternal socialist cooperation.


He was more interested in ideological squabbles between totaltiarian states than communism.

A communist is supposed to be interested in "ideological squabbles." If we do not compare theoretical ideas with practical revolutionary activity, how can we lead and raise the consciousness of the working class and peasantry for the revolution? To participate in such activity is to fight for communism!

[VRKrovin]

Comrade Criticize,

I was going to launch into a similar defense as yours, but you beat me to the punch. One should not try to reinvent the wheel. All I can say is, well said!


Rroftë udhëheqësi i madh i proletariatit shqiptar shoku Enver Hoxha!
Rroftë Partia e Punës e Shqipërisë!
Rroftë Republika Popullore Socialiste e Shqipërisë!

[GX.]

I actually agree with "criticizeeverythingalways" analysis. And do any of you honestly think you could have done any better? Could you have run the economy better? Could you have open and democratic elections without the US running a proxy candidate? Seriously, whenever you criticize Albania for their backwarness and economic underdevelopment, you're really just criticizing imperialism.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 11:13 AM
Considering how close Albania and Yugoslavia could have been, even with the disagreements they had, it's really a shame.
Hmm, yes, Tito wanted to be really "close" to Albania. "Close" as in, making a puppet state out of it. Now why would Hoxha have a problem with that?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:00 PM
How can we let people who worship or even admire Hoxa on here? He's just another tyrannical dictator! A bloodsucking parasite that once again tarnishes our movement and stains us with the label of authoritarian.

People like Stalin,Mao,Lenin, Castro, Pot,Hoxa, the Ils, and the like are why it makes it so easy to defeat leftists in the forum and arena of discussion!

We need to stop worshipping these monsters, and ask ourselves: what really is the liberatory movement here? Try Anarchism

Anarchist Resources (http://www.anarchism.ws)

:banner: :star: :AO: :A: :redstar:
:lol: ya anarchism. The most successful and respected ideology ever! one that accomplished so much and had so many revolutions. The ideology that is sooo realistic...

[VRKrovin]

Some uneducated idiots tend to mistake healthy respect for 'worship'. Get a dictionary and look up the terms 'respect' and 'worship'. They're two different things. Noone on here is worshipping anyone (in fact, I am an atheist). If you want to win, study the tactics of winners, not losers. Anarchism is bunk.


Krovin

[chimx]

i'll make sure to ask putin and yeltsin all about the tactics of the victorious bolshevik party next time i see them.

[karmaradical]

Matthijs




That's a whole lot better than nothing.

I dont know, sometimes nothingness sounds better than state capitalism.


Because the bourgeoisie would never slander communism if other guys were in charge, right?

The question is, who else would be in charge? And if they were in charge, would the bourgeoisie exist to slander them?

But back to the point of hoxha...


We're at least as much around as you are, son. If we "aren't around anymore", then neither are you, because last time I checked, the amount of anarchists wasn't much higher(unless you count every circle-a jerker who listens to punk, but really knows nothing of politics), and the "libertarian marxists" amount to exactly zero.

When it comes to the leninists and the non-leninists, You are right. Both movements have about a grain of salt on their hands. However one movement must create banners saying "We wont Kill you this time", and other has to make some saying "This time our communes will last longer than 9 months"

But that still makes leninism a loser as well.

CriticizeEverythingAlways


I wouldn't blame Hoxha or the Albanian revolution for losing support, but rather the West for trying to destroy Albanian socialism and the revisionists who abandoned the principles of internationalism and fraternal socialist cooperation.


When exactly was Hoxha planning on entering socialism? When were the workers going to be able to control the means of production, as actual Marxism dictates? And when exactly was there fraternal socialist cooperation?

What infuriates me about this very often seen discussion, is that if leftists oppose the marxist-leninist structures, they are instantly branded with the title of "anarchist", who is automatically silly. This so called, silly ideology, is simply the result of a series of failures that were caused by the tactics of Marxist Leninists.

Leninists had 80 years to reach socialism, and in that goal they failed, and the Albanian Party of Labour is another facet of that failure. I mean Christ, Albania wasnt even a real "dictatorship of the proletariat" (if you consider 1-party rule dictatorship of the proletariat). The majority of the APL's upper order were made of intellectuals, who werent actually from the working class.

Its very reasonable to see a widespread rejection of Enver Hoxha along with the folks of his type. A perfect example is this statement.


A communist is supposed to be interested in "ideological squabbles." If we do not compare theoretical ideas with practical revolutionary activity, how can we lead and raise the consciousness of the working class and peasantry for the revolution? To participate in such activity is to fight for communism!

To participate in such activity is not to fight for communism. To participate in such discussion is, in the end, to debate, and thats it. It could give you some tips, but if you were at a hieght of power such as Hoxha, you need to above tips.

To fight for communism is to build unions, and worker organizations, where workers actually have control. And that is once again at the base of this entire argument. Albania was shit, because Albania wasnt socialist, and had a dictatorship. Red flags, Communist Parties, and Leninist rhetoric dont make a country socialist.

[emokid08]

First off, we shouldn't even be respecting Enver Hoxa! He just another example of one of the tyrannical dictatorial regimes that plagued Eastern Europe during the cold war. He accomplished so little that his failures and brutal repression obscenely overshadow any so called success or progress he supposedly had.

And while we're at keeping tabs of successful ideologies......
USSR-Leninism-Slaughterhouse
PRC-Maoism-Repressive Beauracracy
N Korea- Starving peasants-Stalinist
Dem Kampuchea-STalinist- mass murder
Albania-Leninism- Brutal Opression and abysmal living conditions

Should I keep going?

Spain 1936
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain)
Blackened Flag (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/inter_pol.html)
REvolution In Spain (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spaindx.html)
Anarchism In Action (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_intro.html)
Spain's Rebel Cry (http://www.spain-holidays-advisor.com/BarcelonaSpainsRebelCity.html)

and that's just Spain.......
Not including the movements in France, Italy, Ireland, etc etc

:star: :AO: :A:

[VRKrovin]

First off, kid, the bourgeoisie effectively seized power around 1953 after the death of the great comrade JV Stalin. So that was the end of Leninism in the USSR. Despite all the odds, comrade Enver Hoxha kept his country independent and marching onward towards communism. Your vile slander of him belies your total lack of understanding on these issues. You need to put down the kropotkinist propaganda and find out the real truth. Anarchists have their heads up their ass and will say anything to get people to join their kid-gloves 'revolutionary' circles. When have anarchists EVER made a revolution? Bolsheviks led several revolutions and liberation wars around the world, that were successful. What's your track record? OK then, thats what I thought. So shut the fuck up. :lol:


Krovin

[Patchd]

First off, kid, the bourgeoisie effectively seized power around 1953 after the death of the great comrade JV Stalin.

Damn that peasant bourgeoise Kruschev. :lol:


Enver Hoxha kept his country independent and marching onward towards communism.

Yes, Hoxha kept HIS state independant, but he did not make it communist or socialist for that matter and did not try to do so.


put down the kropotkinist propaganda and find out the real truth. Anarchists have their heads up their ass and will say anything to get people to join their kid-gloves 'revolutionary' circles.

:lol: :lol: I'm criticising Hoxha, does that make me an anarchist?


Bolsheviks led several revolutions and liberation wars around the world

The Bolsheviks led one successful revolution that was later turned to shit by Stalin, and liberation wars? Liberation from bourgoeise control maybe, only for the workers to then be oppressed by a bureaucratic elitist regime.


What's your track record? OK then, thats what I thought.

You didn't even give him time to answer back. :lol: :lol: :lol: , mayber YOU should shut the fuck up.

[Enragé]

The only revolutions bolsheviks LED (yes, LED, completely disregarding the principle that THE WORKING CLASS SHOULD FREE ITSELF) ended up in slaughter, in state-capitalism, and the death of the revolution and the disillusionment of millions upon millions good comrades.

As for anarchist-ish revolutions
Spain 1936
Mexico, Chiapas, 1994

The first was crushed, stabbed in the back, by stalinists, whereas the second still endures today

[Leo]

As for anarchist-ish revolutions
Spain 1936
Mexico, Chiapas, 1994

The first was crushed, stabbed in the back, by stalinists, whereas the second still endures today

I hate to be the one who will tell this (well - no I don't actually :P ), but the Zapatista movement is just a nationalist - reformist movement and has nothing else to offer either the communist or the anarchist movement.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54799

I'd check out the anarchists in Ukraine during the russian revolution if you are looking for an example of anarchist-ish movements.

[emokid08]

First off, kid, the bourgeoisie effectively seized power around 1953 after the death of the great comrade JV Stalin. So that was the end of Leninism in the USSR. Despite all the odds, comrade Enver Hoxha kept his country independent and marching onward towards communism. Your vile slander of him belies your total lack of understanding on these issues. You need to put down the kropotkinist propaganda and find out the real truth. Anarchists have their heads up their ass and will say anything to get people to join their kid-gloves 'revolutionary' circles. When have anarchists EVER made a revolution? Bolsheviks led several revolutions and liberation wars around the world, that were successful. What's your track record? OK then, thats what I thought. So shut the fuck up.

:D
:P
:lol:
<_<

The only thing that ever reigned in the Soviet Union was totalitarian dictatorship. Come to think of it, that’s the only thing that has ever ruled any of the so-called worker’s republics or people’s states. If one cannot come to terms with the fact that Lenin and Stalin were brutal dictators that were megalomaniac at best, then one is either ignorant-or-choosing to deny reality. The reality of the USSR was that it was a slaughterhouse-perhaps even rivaling the gas chambers of the National Socialist Third Reich. Things were hardly any better in China. Things are abysmal in North Korea today. It has taken years for Eastern Europe to try and recover from Stalinism-but Crony & Gangster Capitalism sure make any kind of recovery difficult. The former leaders of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania were all ruthless bloodsucking parasites. They were named “little Stalins” by their own people&#33;

As to the supposed “successful” Bolshy Revolutions- yeah, right&#33; Those former Communist nations sure are worker’s paradises now, huh? Let’s all leave our homes right now and immigrate to the Socialist Utopia of China or North Korea? I doubt that if given the opportunity that any one who is sane and loves Liberty or Freedom would actually accept the offer to move to those oppressive dictatorships or totalitarian wastelands.

I’m a member of Rev Left because I’m a believer in Freedom, Equality, and Liberty. That is why I’m an Anarcho-Syndicalist. I refuse to follow the “Great Ledaer” or “Great Helmsman” off the cliff. I’m no lemur. I’m a believer in justice,- what happened in all of the former Communist nations wasn’t justice or liberation. It was a small group of elite parasites replacing another group of small elite parasites. Anarchism is the only ideology that is truly liberating. Truly freeing. Anarchism is the only ideology that will actually deliver freedom. Anarchism is the only ideology that will actually put us in control of our economy.


:AO: :A: :star: :A: :AO:

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 21 2006, 08:15 PM

As for anarchist-ish revolutions
Spain 1936
Mexico, Chiapas, 1994

The first was crushed, stabbed in the back, by stalinists, whereas the second still endures today

I hate to be the one who will tell this (well - no I don&#39;t actually :P ), but the Zapatista movement is just a nationalist - reformist movement and has nothing else to offer either the communist or the anarchist movement.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54799

I&#39;d check out the anarchists in Ukraine during the russian revolution if you are looking for an example of anarchist-ish movements.
they have direct democracy, autonomy, anti-capitalist, grassroots etc

they qualify

I dont know alot about Makhno and i heard some rumors he was a real prick, so i didnt use that example.

[Jiub]

I’m a believer in justice,- what happened in all of the former Communist nations wasn’t justice or liberation.

What&#39;s a communist nation?

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:13 PM
First off, kid, the bourgeoisie effectively seized power around 1953 after the death of the great comrade JV Stalin. So that was the end of Leninism in the USSR.

Krovin
Is that the bourgeosie that was put in place by Stalin after he&#39;d slaughtered the original bolsheviks?

As for Hoxha, he was one of the twentieth century&#39;s great prison guards.

[The Author]

I see this thread degenerated into yet another debate about the validity of Anarchism. Perhaps it&#39;s because the Anarchists could not offer any rebuttals of substance about Enver Hoxha and Albania except for the usual "Leninism lasted for 80 years, and you guys lost." The Trotskyites say almost the same, except they substitute the word "Leninist" for "Stalinist"- despite the fact that "Stalinism" is "Leninism." Then I hear about the "degenerate party vanguard" argument and that the workers need no party, spontaneity is the rule. But as history has proven, spontaneity has almost always resulted in defeat. When you hear Bush in his speech comparing Bin Laden to Lenin and he cites Lenin&#39;s "What is to be Done?" that should make one wonder: if the imperialists are attacking the guidelines needed to create a well-organized working class organization, perhaps we should be paying attention to those guidelines and learning from them?

I see "criticisms" about Albania just like I have seen "criticisms" about Cuba and other socialist countries. I see a lot of words about the Albanian revolution about how there was supposedly:

--the lack of worker&#39;s democracy
--bureaucratic degeneration
--a tyrannical dictatorship
--there was no socialism or communism existing in the country

I see a major problem with these so-called "criticisms." I sincerely doubt that anybody here who made these comments has traveled to Albania, interviewed workers who lived in the country, and learn what the Albanian people as a whole thought about the revolution. Instead people here rely on mostly second-hand information- which could have come from a communist or it could have come from an anti-communist- and they take it for granted that this information is solid "fact." Because of this defect, I am critical of these "criticisms." I am not convinced by these arguments, because such arguments are lacking in factual substance. This is a serious problem which affects the leftist movement as a whole: on too many occasions the potential revolutionaries take the bourgeois conception of world history and world revolution for granted and they do not criticize this conception and they do not maintain an open mind.

[chimx]

general criticisms of the leninist derivation:

The soviet model was a fascade of representative worker democracy. while the original 1917 russian soviet model left many socialists of all colors throughout the world with high hopes of an egalitarian institutions for real worker power, lenin (and by extension stalin, khruschev, brezhnev, andropov, etc.) successfully contorted the system along his own ideology of democratic centralism. state power was divided between the soviet and the party. while the soviet provided the illusion of democracy, policy was decided upon by the party via the soviet.

for example, formally, from lower level soviets and up the chain of command, the executive branch of the soviet was elected by the soviet and was thus accoutable to it, but in reality the soviet merely ratified the choice for the executive branch which had already been made by the party authorities.

and at the higher levels of the individual union republics and all-union central government existed a central soviet known as the supreme soviet which created laws. its executve branch, known as the council of ministers operated similarly to a cabinet of parliamentary governmen, with its chairman essential the prime minister. while this individual was powerful, his power never matched the power of the head of the party within the soviet model.

even at this level, the fascade of democracy often made itself clear--while the soviets held the illusion of full state power, they had no real policy-making power considering that the supreme soviet only met TWICE per year for a handful of days. This time was generally spent merely approving motions passed to it by the leadership and the party itself.

the two bodies that really directed government were the party and the executive branch, the latter of whom was created by the former. I fail to see how worker control and worker democracy is at all a possibility with such a model which advocates indirect participation in government and is governed by professional beauracrats.

direct criticism of hoxha:
his pillboxes, mentioned earlier, were as much a tool for external security as they were for internal coersion. many were directed towards communities, not their borders, to suppress any potential internal movement to change the political reality of albania.

this political reality was devoid of demoratic worker representation, but a puppet fascade for party despotism, much like its soviet counterpart.

more importantly, the regime failed to improve the quality of life for workers and peasants in albania, forcing people to live in pre-ww1 conditions. poverty became rampant, as did hunger, due to its backwards agrarian model.

[Leo]

they have direct democracy, autonomy, anti-capitalist, grassroots etc

Nah, I don&#39;t they have autonomy or that grassroots thing, considering that their militants organize in a militant way. They certainly want to give that grassroots image, but they aren&#39;t an organization anarchists should look up into.

As for anti-capitalism, no they are not anti-capitalists. They for the national capital.

I mean they are nationalists and reformists, therefore they are anti-working class. Don&#39;t get sucked up into their rhetoric.


I dont know alot about Makhno and i heard some rumors he was a real prick, so i didnt use that example.

He might have been personally, I don&#39;t know, but the movement of ukrainian peasants he was involed in was a class movement.

[Enragé]

Nah, I don&#39;t they have autonomy or that grassroots thing, considering that their militants organize in a militant way.

The EZLN itself, no, you&#39;re right about that, but the civilian structure in the zapatista areas which is protected by the EZLN, that is autonomous, and grassroots.


As for anti-capitalism, no they are not anti-capitalists. They for the national capital.

I&#39;ve read most of their communiques etc, they are most definately anti-capitalist.
Their only problem is that they are not clear enough about what there should be instead of capitalism, though if you look at the zapatista areas and if you read between the lines of what they say, it most likely is something along the lines of autonomy, grassroots democracy, and collectivism.

[Leo]

The EZLN itself, no, you&#39;re right about that, but the civilian structure in the zapatista areas which is protected by the EZLN, that is autonomous, and grassroots.

This doesn&#39;t make any sense. EZLN is a hierachical militant nationalist organization, and you should know that organizations like that don&#39;t protect grassroots movements just because they are good people.


I&#39;ve read most of their communiques etc, they are most definately anti-capitalist.

It seems to me that you haven&#39;t actually. Especially the “6th Communique”.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54799

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How was Albania under Hoxha ruled by the workers and peasants?

[Enragé]

This doesn&#39;t make any sense. EZLN is a hierachical militant nationalist organization, and you should know that organizations like that don&#39;t protect grassroots movements just because they are good people.

How the hell are they nationalist?
Just because they stand up for the indigenous, who indeed have been oppressed alot?

And yes they have hierarchy, but so did the CNT-militias.
Face it, military units have hierarchy, thats most effective. Its best if you have alot of democracy, as much as possible, in it as well, but you&#39;re never going to root it out completely.

Not because they are good people, but because they are in the end controlled by the grassroots councils.


It seems to me that you haven&#39;t actually. Especially the “6th Communique”.


I read the sixth some time ago.


This is not because the EZLN considers the capitalist system uses these institutions (such as the parties) and its tools (such as the electoral process) in order to reinforce its domination. Rather these parties, and therefore the electoral process in which these participate, are seen as not carrying out their true role. That is to say, it would be enough to put other parties in their place in order to change the nature of the mechanisms of bourgeois rule.


This makes no sense.
If they thought that, they would simply tell people to vote for some new party, or enter politics as the "Zapatista Party" or something.

also

"Communique&#39; from the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee - General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation
Mexico

November 20, 2005

To the People of Mexico:
To the Peoples of the World:
Brothers and Sisters, Compañeros and Compañeras:

The CCRI-CG of the EZLN speaks its word:

(...)

Eighth - A new stage of civil zapatismo is beginning. We will now be making - along with those persons who demonstrate, through attitude and work, that they so want to - a new political zapatista organization, civil and peaceful, anti-capitalist and of the left, which will not fight for power and which will strive to build a new way of doing politics. The same destination towards which we have been going by parallel paths up until now.

(...)
Democracy&#33;
Liberty&#33;
Justice&#33;

From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast

By the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee - General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos"

Mexico, November of 2005




In the same way, the role that the EZLN plays as the promoter of the “Other Campaign” reinforces the idea that, faced with capitalism, democracy is the only road to take.

they are trying to build an organisation, from below, to the left, which is anti-capitalist.
What else do you want them to do?
Charge head on, fully armed to Mexico DF and get shot?

[Leo]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)How the hell are they nationalist?[/b]

Oh, dear... You know nothing about them do you?

Zapatistas sing the Mexican national anthem in every one of their meetings, they carry the national flag incredibly proudly.

http://www.colorado.edu/StudentGroups/MEChA/zapatistas.gif


Originally posted by EZLN+ Third Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, January 1995--> (EZLN &#064; Third Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, January 1995) "Today, we repeat: OUR STRUGGLE IS NATIONAL" [/b]

Also, the parts you didn&#39;t post here of the “6th Communique” call for:


Originally posted by 6th Communique
“...a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty, through intransigent opposition to the privatisation of electrical energy, oil, water and natural resources.”

And it continues by saying:


6th [email protected]
“And they also say they are going to privatise, or rather sell to foreigners, the businesses that the State once used to help the people&#39;s welfare.”

As you&#39;ve noticed, their objection to ‘selling to foreigners’ seems to be the main point of disagreement. Of course if all the owners were ‘good Mexican capitalists’ they would obviously continue to ‘use these businesses to help the peoples welfare’.


NewKindOfSoldier
And yes they have hierarchy, but so did the CNT-militias.

And the CNT sold out.


Not because they are good people, but because they are in the end controlled by the grassroots councils.

Of course they are not controlled by by grassroots stuff, do you actually think that Zapatistas would let go of organizations which they themselves set up? Can you show me a single example of a time those grassroots assemblies disagreed with the Zapatista leadership?


they are trying to build an organisation, from below, to the left, which is anti-capitalist.

It&#39;s not from below and its not anti-capitalist.

[Enragé]

Oh, dear... You know nothing about them do you?

Zapatistas sing the Mexican national anthem in every one of their meetings, they carry the national flag incredibly proudly.


who cares.

I think it has something to do with the mexican revolution, not sure though.

They have stated multiple times that the fight is a global fight, a "world war"

(...)And then we began speaking with other Indian peoples of Mexico and their organizations, and we made an agreement with them that we were going to struggle together for the same thing, for the recognition of indigenous rights and culture. Now we were also being helped by many people from all over the world and by persons who were well respected and whose word was quite great because they were great intellectuals, artists and scientists from Mexico and from all over the world. And we also held international encuentros. In other words, we joined together to talk with persons from America and from Asia and from Europe and from Africa and from Oceania, and we learned of their struggles and their ways, and we said they were "intergalactic" encuentros, just to be silly and because we had also invited those from other planets, but it appeared as if they had not come, or perhaps they did come, but they did not make it clear.

(...)And, similarly, everywhere there are more compañeros and compañas who are learning to relate to persons from other parts of Mexico and of the world,. They are learning to respect and to demand respect. They are learning that there are many worlds, and that everyone has their place, their time and their way, and therefore there must be mutual respect between everyone.

(...)That is why we Zapatistas say that neoliberal globalization is a war of conquest of the entire world, a world war, a war being waged by capitalism for global domination.

(...)And we want to tell the people of Cuba, who have now been on their path of resistance for many years, that you are not alone, and we do not agree with the blockade they are imposing, and we are going to see how to send you something, even if it is maize, for your resistance. And we want to tell the North American people that we know that the bad governments which you have and which spread harm throughout the world is one thing - and those North Americans who struggle in their country, and who are in solidarity with the struggles of other countries, are a very different thing. And we want to tell the Mapuche brothers and sisters in Chile that we are watching and learning from your struggles. And to the Venezuelans, we see how well you are defending your sovereignty, your nation&#39;s right to decide where it is going. And to the indigenous brothers and sisters of Ecuador and Bolivia, we say you are giving a good lesson in history to all of Latin America, because now you are indeed putting a halt to neoliberal globalization. And to the piqueteros and to the young people of Argentina, we want to tell you that, that we love you. And to those in Uruguay who want a better country, we admire you. And to those who are sin tierra in Brazil, that we respect you. And to all the young people of Latin America, that what you are doing is good, and you give us great hope.

And we want to tell the brothers and sisters of Social Europe, that which is dignified and rebel, that you are not alone. That your great movements against the neoliberal wars bring us joy. That we are attentively watching your forms of organization and your methods of struggle so that we can perhaps learn something. That we are considering how we can help you in your struggles, and we are not going to send euro because then they will be devalued because of the European Union mess. But perhaps we will send you crafts and coffee so you can market them and help you some in the tasks of your struggle. And perhaps we might also send you some pozol, which gives much strength in the resistance, but who knows if we will send it to you, because pozol is more our way, and what if it were to hurt your bellies and weaken your struggles and the neoliberals defeat you.





Also, the parts you didn&#39;t post here of the “6th Communique” call for:


QUOTE (6th Communique)
“...a full and coordinated defence of national sovereignty, through intransigent opposition to the privatisation of electrical energy, oil, water and natural resources.”


[quote]

So?
Its defending it from the imperialist USA, which becomes clear if you look at the wider context.

(...)Not to make agreements from above to be imposed below, but to make accords to go together to listen and to organize outrage. Not to raise movements which are later negotiated behind the backs of those who made them, but to always take into account the opinions of those participating. Not to seek gifts, positions, advantages, public positions, from the Power or those who aspire to it, but to go beyond the election calendar. Not to try to resolve from above the problems of our Nation, but to build FROM BELOW AND FOR BELOW an alternative to neoliberal destruction, an alternative of the left for Mexico.

Yes to reciprocal respect for the autonomy and independence of organizations, for their methods of struggle, for their ways of organizing, for their internal decision making processes, for their legitimate representations. And yes to a clear commitment for joint and coordinated defense of national sovereignty, with intransigent opposition to privatization attempts of electricity, oil, water and natural resources.

In other words, we are inviting the unregistered political and social organizations of the left, and those persons who lay claim to the left and who do not belong to registered political parties, to meet with us, at the time, place and manner in which we shall propose at the proper time, to organize a national campaign, visiting all possible corners of our Patria, in order to listen to and organize the word of our people. It is like a campaign, then, but very otherly, because it is not electoral.



Whats wrong with that?

[quote]QUOTE (6th Communique)
“And they also say they are going to privatise, or rather sell to foreigners, the businesses that the State once used to help the people&#39;s welfare.”


"And they also say they are going to privatize - sell to foreigners - the companies held by the State to help the well-being of the people. Because the companies don&#39;t work well and they need to be modernized, and it would be better to sell them. But, instead of improving, the social rights which were won in the revolution of 1910 now make one sad...and courageous"

so


As you&#39;ve noticed, their objection to ‘selling to foreigners’ seems to be the main point of disagreement. Of course if all the owners were ‘good Mexican capitalists’ they would obviously continue to ‘use these businesses to help the peoples welfare’.

thats not true
especially if you look at what they say in other parts of the text;

(...)Now we are going to explain to you how we, the Zapatistas, see what is going on in the world. We see that capitalism is the strongest right now. Capitalism is a social system, a way in which a society goes about organizing things and people, and who has and who has not, and who gives orders and who obeys. In capitalism, there are some people who have money, or capital, and factories and stores and fields and many things, and there are others who have nothing but their strength and knowledge in order to work. In capitalism, those who have money and things give the orders, and those who only have their ability to work obey.

Then capitalism means that there a few who have great wealth, but they did not win a prize, or find a treasure, or inherited from a parent. They obtained that wealth, rather, by exploiting the work of the many. So capitalism is based on the exploitation of the workers, which means they exploit the workers and take out all the profits they can. This is done unjustly, because they do not pay the worker what his work is worth. Instead they give him a salary that only allows him to eat a little and to rest for a bit, and the next day he goes back to work in exploitation, whether in the countryside or in the city.

And capitalism also makes its wealth from plunder, or theft, because they take what they want from others, land, for example, and natural resources. So capitalism is a system where the robbers are free and they are admired and used as examples.


Nowhere do they say "if only we had capitalism without foreigners, it wouldnt be exploitation, it wouldnt be a bad thing"


And the CNT sold out.

So?

what does that have anything to do with the limited form of hierarchy within the CNT militias? The problem was the hierarchy imposed upon all the CNT militias.



Of course they are not controlled by by grassroots stuff, do you actually think that Zapatistas would let go of organizations which they themselves set up? Can you show me a single example of a time those grassroots assemblies disagreed with the Zapatista leadership?

Can you give me an example where the EZLN said "Fuck YOU&#33;" to the councils they helped set up?


It&#39;s not from below and its not anti-capitalist.

(...)but to build FROM BELOW AND FOR BELOW an alternative to neoliberal destruction, an alternative of the left for Mexico.


(all texts were taken from the sixth declaration of the selva lacandona, as translated by irlandesa, to be found here (http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/SixthDeclaration.html))

[Messiah]

I&#39;m not going to bother to reply to the idol worshippers because I&#39;m so tired of their shtick with Stalin, Mao and now apperently Hoxha. For the record, I&#39;m actually from the Balkans so I knew the kind of dump Hoxha left Albania in, and the standard of living that Yugoslavia had compared to their southern neighbor.

And even if I wasn&#39;t, attacking someone for not having been somewhere and then claiming they can&#39;t possibly know what it was REALLY like is grade A bullshit. It&#39;s called an education, and reading, and information -- what 90% of our knowledge is based on in this world. Unlike some of you apparent globe trotting socialites, we don&#39;t have the funds to visit every country on this Earth that has been touched by the glorious hand of tyranny, disguised as Marxism. But we don&#39;t need to, fortunatley, because their crimes reek all the way across the ocean, rest assured.

That having been said:


Hmm, yes, Tito wanted to be really "close" to Albania. "Close" as in, making a puppet state out of it. Now why would Hoxha have a problem with that?

Hahaha, this coming from the biggest Stalinist I&#39;ve ever met in my life. Please, get real. Tito certainly wanted to bring Albania into the fold, but at least he reserved his efforts to diplomacy, unlike our good friends in Moscow. The irony is sickening to hear this coming from you. :rolleyes:

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] Sep 24 2006, 10:36 AM
I&#39;m not going to bother to reply to the idol worshippers because I&#39;m so tired of their shtick with Stalin, Mao and now apperently Hoxha.

What makes you think I or others believe in the cult of personality? I, as a Marxist, most certainly do not. Just because I maintain a positive opinion on the above three Communists, does not make me an idol worshipper. You have made a claim that has not been based on fact, here.


I&#39;m actually from the Balkans so I knew the kind of dump Hoxha left Albania in, and the standard of living that Yugoslavia had compared to their southern neighbor.

Yugoslavia enjoyed trade with the West and later onwards the Soviet Union, and as a result could satisy most of the needs of its population. As I said earlier, the imperialists decided to cut off Albania so that socialism would suffer and people would lose confidence in the revolution, and grow attracted to counterrevolutionary ideas. Blaming the Albanian revolution alone for the problems in Albania is a serious mistake and is a simplistic explanation of why there were hardships in that country. History has shown that imperialism is noted for subduing less developed countries, and especially socialist countries through warfare, ideological subversion, and economic embargo.


And even if I wasn&#39;t, attacking someone for not having been somewhere and then claiming they can&#39;t possibly know what it was REALLY like is grade A bullshit.

It&#39;s not an attack, it&#39;s a criticism of how people take information for granted and should keep an open mind, and relying on what people as a whole thought about the past, not just what you read in books. Of course not everyone can travel around the world. But does that mean we should take for granted the writings of those who have? No.


It&#39;s called an education, and reading, and information -- what 90% of our knowledge is based on in this world.

It&#39;s subject to criticism. Don&#39;t you remember what Marx said about criticism, and the need to criticize everything? Again, you need to keep an open mind and think, learn, study Marxist theory, see what happened in practice, and then see what is correct and what is not. An attitude of cynicism is the last thing a Marxist or any progressive leftist should maintain.


Unlike some of you apparent globe trotting socialites, we don&#39;t have the funds to visit every country on this Earth that has been touched by the glorious hand of tyranny, disguised as Marxism.

What makes you think I am a "globe trotting socialite"? This is another bold statement you have said about me and others which is not supported by fact. Usually, it is wise not to make such bold assertions without facts.

Define "tyranny, disguised as Marxism."

Since you use the derogatory term "Stalinist," one may infer that every socialist country in the world since October 1917 is a "tyranny." But is this a satisfactory definition? What about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Could this be categorized as a "tyranny"? What is the dictatorship of the proletariat then? What about authority?


Hahaha, this coming from the biggest Stalinist I&#39;ve ever met in my life. Please, get real. Tito certainly wanted to bring Albania into the fold, but at least he reserved his efforts to diplomacy, unlike our good friends in Moscow. The irony is sickening to hear this coming from you.

Diplomatic?

You call the actions by a country referred to in the West as "part of the free world" (which enjoyed strong trade relations with the imperialist West and the Brezhnevite revisionists of the East), and which maintained the capitalist relations of production, diplomatic?

How do we know the actions of the Titoites were diplomatic?

[karmaradical]

OOO someone definitley needs to split this topic&#33; How the fuck did we get to Zapatistas?

I thought we were talking about the possibly sexually repressed Enver Hoxha, and listening to the "rejections of second hand criticisms" from Marxist-Leninists who dont beleive in anything &#39;bourgois&#39;?

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:13 AM
... the bourgeoisie effectively seized power around 1953 ...
I&#39;m not going to get into the silly semantics about whether or not Kruschev was "bourgeois" or not, because it is more or less irrelevant. Even if we accept that he and those who supported him were bourgeois, the question that begs to be answered is: Seized power from whom?

It was not the proletariat. They had been expropriated from political power at least two decades before, in 1931, when the USSR state cut itself loose from the Soviets, abolished wage equalization and the right of recall, and began to put into practice what was eventually codified in the 1936 Constitution. From that time on, the proletariat was not the ruling class. It was the petty bourgeoisie. This act resolved the de facto dual power situation that existed in the USSR since 1919, when the government restored large sections of the tsarist state bureaucracy to its former role and gave them the protected position of "specialist".

This final political counterrevolution also brought the state into alignment with the economy, which had, for more than a decade, been stripped from the working class. The abolition of direct workers&#39; control of production and restoration of one-person management in 1920 restored bourgeois relations to the means of production -- minus the bourgeoisie itself. The "boss" was now the state, with state Commissariats acting as a board of directors, and the petty-bourgeois managers returning to their pre-1917 role ... now with Communist Party membership cards in hand.

All of these acts from 1919-1920 were carried out with the full support of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and most of the rest of the Bolshevik Party. Proletarian communists like Gavril Myasnikov organized and fought against this petty-bourgeois degeneration, including organizing their own communist party to fight against this.

Miles

[Leo]

NewKindOfSoldier,

When you start replying everything I told with answers like; "so", "who cares", "what&#39;s wrong with that", it shows me that the debate is pretty much over and you have ideological connections which makes it impossible for you to even criticize the Zapatistas. The amount of anarchists and autonomists who had fallen in love with that Stalinist Marcos is really sad.


Miles,

That was a good post :)

[Enragé]

"so?" and "who cares" because it was irrelevant, it doesnt prove anything. And it wasnt the only thing i said, look at the post.

I provided you with sources which clearly state that the zapatistas are (among other things)
- left
- anti-capitalist
- not nationalist in the way of "my people is better than all the rest"
- anti-imperialist
- not apologetic of the homegrown bourgeoisie

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:41 PM
The only revolutions bolsheviks LED (yes, LED, completely disregarding the principle that THE WORKING CLASS SHOULD FREE ITSELF) ended up in slaughter, in state-capitalism, and the death of the revolution and the disillusionment of millions upon millions good comrades.

As for anarchist-ish revolutions
Spain 1936
Mexico, Chiapas, 1994

The first was crushed, stabbed in the back, by stalinists, whereas the second still endures today
umm...actually bolshevik-leninist Russia (Until Lenin&#39; death) was the farthest advancement towards communism ever. The workers were in control through soviets, and living conditions for the proletariat were improving despite how war ravished the USSR was.

Oh and btw, POUM was trotskyist so Spain doesn&#39;t count.

[Leo]

actually bolshevik-leninist Russia (Until Lenin&#39; death) was the farthest advancement towards communism ever. The workers were in control through soviets...

It seems to me that you don&#39;t know much about Soviet Russia. Workers control of the means of production was over in 1918, latest.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+Sep 26 2006, 01:40 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ Sep 26 2006, 01:40 AM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 06:41 PM
The only revolutions bolsheviks LED (yes, LED, completely disregarding the principle that THE WORKING CLASS SHOULD FREE ITSELF) ended up in slaughter, in state-capitalism, and the death of the revolution and the disillusionment of millions upon millions good comrades.

As for anarchist-ish revolutions
Spain 1936
Mexico, Chiapas, 1994

The first was crushed, stabbed in the back, by stalinists, whereas the second still endures today
umm...actually bolshevik-leninist Russia (Until Lenin&#39; death) was the farthest advancement towards communism ever. The workers were in control through soviets, and living conditions for the proletariat were improving despite how war ravished the USSR was.

Oh and btw, POUM was trotskyist so Spain doesn&#39;t count. [/b]
what Leo said

and POUM was just a minor party and didnt have anything to do with the actual setting up of the communes (I like the POUM though)

[Leo]

Oh and btw, POUM was trotskyist so Spain doesn&#39;t count.


and POUM was just a minor party and didnt have anything to do with the actual setting up of the communes (I like the POUM though)

I like POUM too :) However, it was not Trotskyist, as it was a direct split from Trotsky and it moved left.

The most notable group in the Spanish Revolution was The Friend of Durruti.

[Enragé]

yeh (:

Friends of durruti were cool, but they were way too fuckin small as far as i know.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:18 AM
Some uneducated idiots tend to mistake healthy respect for &#39;worship&#39;. Get a dictionary and look up the terms &#39;respect&#39; and &#39;worship&#39;. They&#39;re two different things. Noone on here is worshipping anyone (in fact, I am an atheist). If you want to win, study the tactics of winners, not losers. Anarchism is bunk.


Krovin
Good point Comrade&#33; :hammer: It is good that some people here are still fighting for the only revolutionary ideology that has led workers to power: Marxism. :marx: :engles:

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Stalinists frighten me

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:45 PM
Stalinists frighten me
Then go back to your commune, hippy&#33; :lol:

Still scared?

http://homepage.eircom.net/~manics/Images/Stalin.jpg

[chimx]

no:

http://www.nationalprojects.com/cityclub/cc-030303-stalin.jpg

[RNK]

Things would be a lot easier if everyone realized that Marxism and prosperity don&#39;t go hand-in-hand very easily, if at all... forcefully removing the crutches of capitalism from the market inevitably leads to a slight (or massive) degredation of quality of life, the degree of which depends on how successful or unsuccessful the Revolution is. But that is okay -- I would gladly give up my stupidly expensive computer, high-speed internet, cellphones, fast cars, escalators, and every other toy capitalism has brought for us, in return for what Communism offers.

[Zeruzo]

Err, why do you think that?

[Prairie Fire]

Hello? Are we even talking about Hoxha anymore?

We are talking about Anarcho-Syndicalist, the Spanish civil war,
The Zapatistas....

This thread is about Enver Hoxha. You want to talk about Zapatistas, start another thread.

My take on Hoxha: Is Albania a shit hole now? Yes.
Did Hoxha make it that way? No.
Did Hoxha actually improve things in Albania. Yes.

I mean, to say that Hoxhas Albania was backwards ignores the fact that Albania was backwards BEFORE Hoxha. I don&#39;t think there has ever been a time in recorded human history when Albania has been the technological/cultural pinnacle of the human race (No offense to Albanians.). Of course Albania had a LOT of catching up to do, and they were only at it for under a century. At least under Hoxha, things were getting BETTER, and any dogmatic Anarcho-Syndicalist who can&#39;t admit that is a fool.

No one on this entire thread has considered the practicallity of the work that the Labour Party of Albania had to accomplish. Who the hell had ever built factories in Albania before Hoxha? Which Albanian leader had ever tried to electrify the country? Who had ever built schools and spread literacy before Communism in Albania? Albania had none of these things when Hoxha came to power, and they don&#39;t have any of these things anymore. Even the most pure anarchist can look at Albania now, look at the social chaos, poverty and resistance to the new government, and see that Hoxha was right.

All of these Anarchists, Trotskyists,Kruschevites, etc , criticize Hoxha from what they know about him from fucking Wikipedia and purely from a basis of dogmatic rigidity.

Not to get off topic and fuel the fire, but I would like to see an anarchist revolution
somewhere. This way I could dcriticize it bit-for-bit, the way you guys do with the many, various Marxist-Leninist revolutions. That is the main reason Anarchism is hard to criticize: It&#39;s still in the theoretical stage( And always will be). Spare me your bragging about a couple of dip-shit communes during the spanish civil war, and don&#39;t even try to claim the Zapatistas. Say what you will about Marxism-Leninism, but we produce results. We produce something tangible.

Sorry for ranting about anarchism, but somehow it isn&#39;t out of character, even though this thread is about ENVER HOXHA.