any kimists/hoxhaists here? - can anyone explain these ideol

[red head]

i'm interested in kimism/hoxhaism but i can't find many resources for it online. its interesting to me that there's a political belief system almost completely opposite to mine and yet still falling into the category "communist". can anyone inform/explain it or give me some resources where i could read about it?

[Moskitto]

http://www.geocities.com/redencyclopedia

gives definitions of all the communist ideologies and terminologies used.

KIMISM: Form of extremely right-wing ideology based partially on Maoism. It is based on the theories of Kim Il Sung (1912-1994), the former ruler of North Korea. While Maoism only calls for nationalism, Kimist ideology calls for complete and extreme isolationism. Nothing is allowed within or without the country's fortified borders because of their fear of "revisionist" Communists and capitalist nations. If it's possible, the government sought by Kimism is even more totalitarian than that of Maoism. In Kim Il Sungist North Korea, isolation is so important that even if Korean people desparately need outside help, the government makes sure that they do not receive it. Kimist governments are also sometimes referred to as "Hoxhaist". The Hoxhaist regime existed in Albania from 1944-1985 under dictator Enver Hoxha (1908-1985). In America, the long-standing Kimist/Hoxhaist political party was the former Marxist-Leninist Party (which broke up into smaller groups about 10 years ago). Today, the group which most fits the Kimist definition is the totalitarian Progressive Labor Party.

the main problem with finding resources is that all the resources don't mention that there are different forms of the left instead catorgorize them all as "Communist" therefore "Evil" and never tell you anything about what they believe.

[Jurhael]

Jesus Christ...I cannot believe that people could possibly buy into Kimism...

[Moskitto]

Kiminism is good in that it eliminates the problem of the world being dominated by capitalism, but it sort of takes the easy way out by isolating itself from the rest of the world rather than trying to change the rest of the world. A bit like locking yourself at home rather than sorting out a problem at work or school. And it's imposible to seperate yourself from capitalism because you would still be affected by pollution and stuff.
And totalitarian governments are bad which Is why I'm a council communist.

[red head]

i think extreme isolation has appeal on the right and left. it also has appeal in rich nations like the US, where it can be argued that poorer nations are draging us down, or in poor nations where it can be argued that rich nations are pushing them down. i totally disagree with it, but i can see the the arguement for it. i consider myself a council communist too, which i see as about the exact opposite of kimism, which is why i was interested in it.

[kevolution]

A council communist? Please explain... democratic socialist?

[red head]

council communism as i understand it, is almost like a republic form of communism. under this system, the nation would be divided into small districts, who will decide the most efficient way to get all the work done. that way, it will be easier to monitor the amount of work everyone does, so money (or the communist equivelant), food, and material goods can be distributed accordingly. representatives would be sent to a national convention to make any higher decisions. i've never read anything by luxemburg, and i don't know if i got all of that right, but that's what makes sense to me currently.

[Moskitto]

Most Communists who aren't Maoists/Stalinists/Kiminists would consider themselves Council Communists.

And that's basicly what it is red head.

[ComradeFubar]

fuck thats one opresive ideology...not something marx would aporve of.

[Guest1]

Wow, I've learnt something new. Obviously, I'mn for the less oppressive alternatives.

[red head]

kimism and stalinism have been on my mind lately. i've learned that enver hoxha and others like him aided revolutions in other countries, so they weren't completely isolated. and maybe isolation would work in an industrialized society. north korea has few resources, so with the soviet union gone and bulgaria and albania no longer communist, its hard to get supplies. the US on the other hand has many resources, and could probably survive completely on its own. it might be even better in a place like brazil, with an extreme amount of resources but very poor people. i'd also like to know how popular people like kim were with their people, how they helped their people and economy, how they helped or hurt the quality of life in their country, how minorities were treated, etc. its hard to find unbiased resources though.

[Karo Chevez]

Isolationism is a dire form of extremism,consider an infant isolated from its mothers breast,the infant dies.
So it is in all forms of isolationism,one loses touch with
the outside world and thereby doesnt contribute to an
ideology by which to reform the world,from lack of social
contact both the individual and the world as a whole
suffers from the exchange of ideas.There are cases in
which extreme measures must be taken but these are
generally one time actions which are improvised in order
to assist in the transfer of one set of policies to a more
progressive form,or as can be witnessed in revolutionary
justice wherein enemies of the people must be made to
pay for their actions against the revolutionary party.
So it is that these measures must be taken but cannot
be allowed to continue with unrestrained ferocity in that
such actions would ultimately lead to counter-revolution
and the dissolution of much needed solidarity,this has
been the sad condition of previous communist states in
that they began with humane intentions,had to execute
policies and actions by which to stablize their authority,
yet they continued these extreme measures insomuch
that their governments became harsh and oppressive,a
truly democratic form of government carried out by those
espousing pure socialism would take precautions to ensure that the extremism which is employed at first to
establish the authority of the new government will not
exceed the bounds of propriety and insure tranquility.-Karo

[kevolution]

No revolution can exist in isolation, it simply cannot be done. While it is true that 'Communist' states have and do exist in isolation, the form of these states has been invariably a 'deformed' workers' state. Of course it is possible for a capitalist state to exist in some form of isolation also, but they also requires the movemnet of international capital and investment etc to keep their economies alive. But I digress, back to Socialist isolation.
The reason for the emergence of these deformed workers state, and the bureaucratic elite (NOT a 'New Class' as Cliffists would maintain) that controled them, was the isolation of these revolutions, From USSR, to China to Cuba to Nicaragua. It all boils down to the mistakes made by Stalin durnig his reign. His incorrect policies as regards the international revolution, China, Germany, Spain etc, ensured that the Russian Revolution remained isolated from its inception, and the bureaucratic elite were able to rise within the CPSU. With the expulsion of Trotsky in 1927, this process was unstoppable, due to the objective historical conditions. After the elite had established themselves, all following revolutions descended into bureaucratism because they followed the path of the CPSU and Stalin. As Lenin (I think) once said: "Incorrect theory leads to incorrect practice." And so it was that flawed workers states emerged in the 20th century.
But for Socialism to be anything, it must first and foremost be international. Marx, Lenin and Trotsky all recognised this, Stalin on the other hand implemented the false policy of Socialism in One Country - a total contradiction in Marxist terms. This policy prevented the spread of Revolution throughout Europe, especially in Germany. Had an industrialised contry 'come over' in the early years of the revolution, it presents a totally changed international landscape, and therefore a change in the objective circumstances in which the Russian Revolution found itself. However incorrect policies ensured that this did not occur and saw the rise of German fascism.
Really, if you are interested in Kimism/Hoxhaism as an alternative, please forget it! You should read Leon Trotsky's The Permanent Revolution and The Revolution Betrayed, as he expains it better than I can at present. However, if you are interested in a simply historical view, then I'm afraid I can't help, not knowing all that much about these regimes.
Yours Internationally,
C, Dearg