enver hoxha

[black magick hustla]

What is so admirable about the man to such an extent that there are people who call themselves Hoxhaists?

From the little I have read about him, it seemed he didnt have any redeemable features (stalinist bureacracy industralized the USSR and defeated fascism). However under Hoxha rule, apparently there wasn't much industralization, and instead there were 600 000 bunkers pointing toward the villages.

[Vargha Poralli]

Probably he worshiped Stalin fervently and became an enemy of Tito and Khrushchev. Stalin worshippers who are not comfortable with certain theories of Mao label themselves as "Hohxaists".

[Wanted Man]

How can you expect any serious response to this thread, when both your posts are entirely composed of strawmen? :wacko:

[Hiero]

When describing Hoxha's ideology you need to compare it too Mao. Hoxha was marxist-leninist who didn't acknowledge the errors of Stalin's leadership, and that the revisionism of Krushchev was not a conclusion to conditions during Stalin's time. Maoist on the other hand acknowledge the error of Stalin relying on bureaucracy to strengthen socialism.

Mao went with the cultural revolution to create mass mobilization to defeat revisionism. Hoxha was a more tradional Stalinist and continued with a strong bureaucracy that relied on purges from the top, rather then purges from the bottom.

Both Mao and Hoxha are reaction to Krushchev's revisionism and how they would deal with it.

I don't know anything about Marmont's claims. There was considerable industrialisation. Albania created alot of bunkers during the World War and after, I don't know why they would be pointed at towns. They probally surrounded towns, but it would be illogical to have them facing the towns. Most likely this is an anti-communist lie, or anti Albanian lie maybe from Yugoslavia even. Some people (like Marmont) will believe anything. It seems like the common lie that the Communist leaders trapped people within their own country.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:41 am
How can you expect any serious response to this thread, when both your posts are entirely composed of strawmen? :wacko:
ok pretend that the last sentence in my post didnt exist.

what was so cool about hoxha.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Marmot+January 25, 2007 11:20 pm--> (Marmot @ January 25, 2007 11:20 pm)
[email protected] 25, 2007 06:41 am
How can you expect any serious response to this thread, when both your posts are entirely composed of strawmen? :wacko:
ok pretend that the last sentence in my post didnt exist.

what was so cool about hoxha. [/b]

Why do you think there were 600 000 bunkers pointed towards Albanian villages? I guess you got the info from the Wikepedia arictle. As it states:


Despite his grandstanding, it appeared that Hoxha's major legacy was a complex of over 600,000 one-man concrete bunkers across a country of 3 million inhabitants, to act as look-outs and gun emplacements, pointed against towns and villages just as often as they were outside of them. The paranoid nature of Hoxha's character, who was beset by fears of American invasion just as much as internal revolution, was apparent in the design.

There are condradictions in that statement. The first is if they are pointed at towns, then how can they act as look out for external invasion? Seconldy, no 3rd world country should ever be called paranoid because they fear US invasion. A little bit of history would make anyone wise enough to release US invasion is a great possibility unless you defend yourself.

The statement just satisfies Westerners imaginations of Communist countries. Fullfiling the idea that if a country defends against imperialist invasion they must be paraniod and secondly that Communist countries use their military primarily as and opressive use on their own citizens.

This statement really pisses me off, it shows a lack of proper investigation. Surely the logical answer to the bunkers is they were built during and shortly after World War 2. After this period, everone in Europe feared land invasion from their enemies.

[Honggweilo]

and instead there were 600 000 bunkers pointing toward the villages. those bunkers where also pointed against tito's yugoslavia, which also served some american interests. if you want to do a bit more research, why dont you PM the Hoxaists on this forum?

How can you expect any serious response to this thread, when both your posts are entirely composed of strawmen?"
Word.

[chimx]

There are condradictions [sic] in that statement. The first is if they are pointed at towns, then how can they act as look out for external invasion? Seconldy [sic], no 3rd world country should ever be called paranoid because they fear US invasion.

You misread the quotation sir. Let's review the part in question. The article states, "pointed against towns and villages just as often as they were outside of them." What the article is trying to convey is that some were most certainly used as defensive bunkers against foreign invasion, as you said. However, a certain amount of them (or roughly half, as the article claims) point towards cities. This is why the article claims the Hoxha regime was one of paranoia, because it feared internal revolt as much as external invasion. The paranoia is not related to the United States.

Here is a Hoxha "pill box" that is pointed towards a city:
http://miqesia.dk/erfaring/billeder/bunker.jpg

Here are some that don't point towards a city:
http://www.km.bayern.de/blz/report/04_04/images/2_clip_image006.jpg

[Brownfist]

The reason that people support Hoxha is because they believe Hoxha and Albania represented the only country in the world that was not revisionist. Hoxha was one of the few countries in the world, along with China, that condemned Kruschevite revisionism during the Sino-Soviet split. Within the Hoxhaite camp there are two tendencies: 1) that actually supported Mao, but post-Cultural Revolution and especially post-Deng Xiaoping sided with Hoxha in the Sino-Albanian split of 1978 citing that the roots of revisionism was in Maoism itself; 2) never supported Mao (eg. Communist League of Britain) that argued that Mao was a left revisionist, and that Hoxha was representative of an uninterrupted anti-revisionist tendency (Hoxha had met with Stalin several times).

I don't know very many people who actually cite the works of Hoxha, although a professor of mine did recommend that I read some of his work, rather they tend to cite Stalin quite heavily and tend to have an uncritical admiration and following of Stalin. There are currently two-three tendencies within the Hoxhaite camp around the world: 1) International Committee of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity and Struggle) (quite active, and has numerous member parties); 2) Communist International (Marxist-Leninist) (tiny, almost defunct); Comintern(ML) (tiny, almost defunct or already defunct).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:01 pm

There are condradictions in that statement. The first is if they are pointed at towns, then how can they act as look out for external invasion? Seconldy, no 3rd world country should ever be called paranoid because they fear US invasion. A little bit of history would make anyone wise enough to release US invasion is a great possibility unless you defend yourself.


Read chimx's post.

sorry for being to eager to typr HEY 600 000 bunkers and press the submit button. it was my fault and i apologize (i know wikipedia is not the most faithful source).

however still any of you havent replied to my question. what is so admirable about hoxha? his anti-revisionism?

half of you have just said HEY STRAWMEN and you weren't consturctive enough to point why they where strawmen and why i was wrong.

thanks

[Hiero]

http://miqesia.dk/erfaring/billeder/bunker.jpg

Are they gaurding against zombies?

New buildings and places would have been built around bunkers. That bunker is clearly not in use and seems to outdate the cemetry. After the counter revolution in Albanian to many western reporters it would seem that many bunkers were built facing towns. Though without plans and documents it is not possible to make conclusions.

All thoose bunkers look to be from WW2.


however still any of you havent replied to my question. what is so admirable about hoxha? his anti-revisionism?

Who says there is something admirable? Do you want to be convinced he is? You are showing a very negative attitude, do you just want a fight? I am not sure there are many Hoxhaist on the board.

[Honggweilo]

Are they gaurding against zombies?
:lol:


Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:17 am
Who says there is something admirable? Do you want to be convinced he is? You are showing a very negative attitude, do you just want a fight? I am not sure there are many Hoxhaist on the board.
RavenBlade appears to be, but i'm not sure.

[chimx]

Are they gaurding against zombies?

New buildings and places would have been built around bunkers. That bunker is clearly not in use and seems to outdate the cemetry. After the counter revolution in Albanian to many western reporters it would seem that many bunkers were built facing towns. Though without plans and documents it is not possible to make conclusions.

All thoose bunkers look to be from WW2.

Its certainly possible. I just got those bunkers from a google image search, with very few results. I wouldn't take the wikipedia entry at face value. It seems like the author of the article got his information from the following books:

Albania in Occupation and War, Owen S. Pearson, I.B. Tauris, London 2006.
Albanian Stalinism, Pipa, Arshi, Boulder: East European Monographs, 1990.

So perhaps that would be a good place to start. The wiki article also notes that most of the bunkers have since been removed, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case for the bunkers facing cities. In the google search, I did find photos of construction crews tearing down old Hoxha pill boxes.

[Brownfist]

I think that people should desist from being fascinated by the absurd or the grotesque like the pill box bunkers, but rather should understand what is the role that Albania played within the history of the anti-revisionist left. This could be in the context of his debates with Kruschev, and the subsequent polemics between Hoxha and the PRC from 1971-1978. I don't know how many Hoxhaites there are on this board besides RavenBlade. I was wondering whether someone could elaborate upon the role of the New Zealand communists, some of whom now constitute the Communist Party of Aotearoa, who were one of the few non-Asian/African parties to side with the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet split, and then subsequently split within themselves between Maoists and Hoxhaites.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

The pillboxes were open on both sides from what I've heard and were built during and immediatly after WWII, by the time Albania opened up they weren't really at all in use.

As for Hoxha, he represented resistance to both Soviet and American imperialism post 50s. He allied with the PRC throughout the Socialist Education Movement, yet broke with them at the start of the GPCR

[Brownfist]

Left Henry,
Enver Hoxha did not break with the PRC at the beginning of the GPCR. Rather, the tensions between the PRC and Enver Hoxha started in 1972 due to the Nixon visit to the PRC in the same year. This was further exacerbated by the joint statement from the meetings between Nixon and Mao. In 1976 Hoxha criticized the PRC in 1976 for its new leadership (which most Maoists do as well) and its pragmatic policies towards the US and Europe. The break finally occurred in 1978 when the PRC stopped assistance programs to Albania.

[Prairie Fire]

Heiro:

Hoxha was marxist-leninist who didn't acknowledge the errors of Stalin's leadership, and that the revisionism of Krushchev was not a conclusion to conditions during Stalin's time. Maoist on the other hand acknowledge the error of Stalin relying on bureaucracy to strengthen socialism.

This is not the major difference. With Hoxha, I think the major distinguishing difference was his opposition to both Imperialism and Social Imperialism ( I think social-Imperialism might be his discovery as well, although Maoists may use it too.), and his self suffiency policy. Because of this, Hoxahism is sometimes hyphenated with the theory of Kim Il Sung. While there are some similarities, Songun upholds the military as the class guiding their revolution, while Hoxha maintianed that it was the proletatriat that was the class for change.



Mao went with the cultural revolution to create mass mobilization to defeat revisionism. Hoxha was a more tradional Stalinist and continued with a strong bureaucracy that relied on purges from the top, rather then purges from the bottom.

Albania had a cultural revolution too. Read up. And quit labelling,please . I've said it before, "Stalinist" is a slur.


Marmot:

what was so cool about hoxha.

Read up, and see for yourself. Theoretically, he opposed the development of Imperialism and Social imperialism. He upheld an anti-revisionist line, opposed warsaw pact imperialism, and really vocalized the disgust of many communists with the cold war, and the soviet/chinese intervention in many countries revolutions. All of this, in addition to his industrialization of Albania, and his socio-economic model. Hoxha is "cool", the same reason Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin are cool.

Brownfist:


don't know very many people who actually cite the works of Hoxha, although a professor of mine did recommend that I read some of his work, rather they tend to cite Stalin quite heavily and tend to have an uncritical admiration and following of Stalin

I cite Hoxha quite regularly. And yes, I also cite Stalin.

Marmot:

however still any of you havent replied to my question. what is so admirable about hoxha? his anti-revisionism?


Well, if you want to look at the man himself, He was fired for refusing to join the fascist party, started organizing a small commie group in the back of a tobbaco store, and lead a revolution. This is a man who could have had such an easy life just by joining the fascist government (like many of his peers), but instead roughed it in the mounatins with the partisans, shooting at Italians and Germans.

He also took a principaled stand on Marxism-Leninism, and he was one of the few socialist leaders to not interfere in other nations revolutions.

A lot of the good points have allready been covered, which is good.


I don't know anything about Marmont's claims. There was considerable industrialisation. Albania created alot of bunkers during the World War and after, I don't know why they would be pointed at towns. They probally surrounded towns, but it would be illogical to have them facing the towns. Most likely this is an anti-communist lie, or anti Albanian lie maybe from Yugoslavia even. Some people (like Marmont) will believe anything. It seems like the common lie that the Communist leaders trapped people within their own country.


This statement really pisses me off, it shows a lack of proper investigation. Surely the logical answer to the bunkers is they were built during and shortly after World War 2. After this period, everone in Europe feared land invasion from their enemies.


Are they gaurding against zombies?

New buildings and places would have been built around bunkers. That bunker is clearly not in use and seems to outdate the cemetry. After the counter revolution in Albanian to many western reporters it would seem that many bunkers were built facing towns. Though without plans and documents it is not possible to make conclusions.

All thoose bunkers look to be from WW2.


Its certainly possible. I just got those bunkers from a google image search, with very few results. I wouldn't take the wikipedia entry at face value.


ddxt301:


QUOTE (Hiero @ January 26, 2007 11:17 am)
Who says there is something admirable? Do you want to be convinced he is? You are showing a very negative attitude, do you just want a fight? I am not sure there are many Hoxhaist on the board.


RavenBlade appears to be, but i'm not sure.

Damn straight. Kudos on putting one of my posts in your signature. That is awesome. :D


if you want to do a bit more research, why dont you PM the Hoxaists on this forum?

Feel free. I'm listening.

Brownfist:

I don't know how many Hoxhaites there are on this board besides RavenBlade.

Yeah, I'd be interested to find out too.

If you want to know some things, PM me, or read some of Hoxhas works:
"Imperialism and Revolution", "The Kruschevites", "The Titoites", "With Stalin",
"The Super Powers", "Euro-Communism is anti-communism", "The anglo-american threat to Albania", "reflections on the middle east."

[Brownfist]

Enver Hoxha did not coin the term "social imperialism". Indeed the term was used by the PRC, after the break with the USSR, to describe USSR interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. It was indeed a term that was used by Hoxha, which is not remarkable since he was allied with the PRC in 1978 and did share their criticisms of Soviet Revisionism.

The term Stalinist, was coined by Trotskyists (which itself is a slur), and most people who uphold Stalin, Mao or Hoxha do not use it. I know that there are some people in India who prefer to be called Stalinists and do not like to be called Hoxhaites. However, even they would prefer to be simply called, "Marxist-Leninists".

In my experience, Hoxhaites tend to cite Hoxha rarely. Most of the Hoxhaite journals I have read there is very little mention of him, except in relationship to an uninterrupted Marxist-Leninist anti-revisionist legacy. Also, Hoxha tends to be mentioned more regularly in relationship to the grouping of parties around this ideological line, than by the parties themselves. However, these are just my observations of the Hoxhaite camps. The journals that I am thinking of are Alliance-ML, Unity and Struggle, Revolutionary Democracy and some of the smaller American publications.

[Prairie Fire]

Enver Hoxha did not coin the term "social imperialism". Indeed the term was used by the PRC, after the break with the USSR, to describe USSR interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia. It was indeed a term that was used by Hoxha, which is not remarkable since he was allied with the PRC in 1978 and did share their criticisms of Soviet Revisionism.

I wasn't sure... I knew Maoists used the word too.



The term Stalinist, was coined by Trotskyists (which itself is a slur),

Trotskyist isn't a slur, because the followers of Trotsky use this word to describe themselves. It is also accurate, because a lot of trots see Trotsky as a seperate school of thought from Lenin. Followers of Stalin, on the other hand, do not see Stalin as a seperate school of thought from Lenin, but rather an interpreter of Leninism, hence forth most of us do not call ourselves "Stalinists".


In my experience, Hoxhaites tend to cite Hoxha rarely. Most of the Hoxhaite journals I have read there is very little mention of him, except in relationship to an uninterrupted Marxist-Leninist anti-revisionist legacy. Also, Hoxha tends to be mentioned more regularly in relationship to the grouping of parties around this ideological line, than by the parties themselves. However, these are just my observations of the Hoxhaite camps. The journals that I am thinking of are Alliance-ML, Unity and Struggle, Revolutionary Democracy and some of the smaller American publications.

In a way, this is testament to some of the greatest features about Hoxha. While the USSR, China, and indeed the communist parties of much of the world encouraged a groupie mentality and dependancy in fraternal communist organizations, Hoxha did nothing of the sort. My party has a long history of supporting Albania and the line of the Labour Party of Albania, and our leader even met Enver Hoxha. Still, we did not, and do not, have pictures of Hoxha on our walls. Hoxha respected the independance and soveriegnty of our organization.
The Labour party of Albania respected the fraternal parties and organizations of the world who shared their line, encouraging them to be revolutionary and grow, but not rendering them impotent sattelitle organizations, bowing in the direction of Tirana.

Actually, I've noticed that Alliance ML mentions Hoxha pretty heavily.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Brownfist+ January 30, 2007, 10:32 pm--> (Brownfist @ January 30, 2007, 10:32 pm) Enver Hoxha did not coin the term "social imperialism". Indeed the term was used by the PRC, after the break with the USSR, to describe USSR interventions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia.[/b]

The term "social imperialism" was first used by Lenin:


"Fabian imperialism" and "social-imperialism" are one and the same thing: socialism in words, imperialism in deeds, the growth of opportunism into imperialism. This has now become, during the war of 1914-18 and since, a universal fact. The failure to understand it shows the great blindness of the Berne yellow International, and is its great crime. Opportunism, or reformism, inevitably had to grow into a phenomenon of world-wide importance, socialist-imperialism, or social-chauvinism, because imperialism brought to the fore a handful of very rich, advanced nations, engaged in plundering the whole world, and thereby enabled the bourgeoisie of those countries, out of their monopolist superprofits (imperialism is monopoly capitalism), to bribe the upper strata of the working class.

From THE TASKS OF THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TTI19.html)

The term first described the sell-out, opportunist nature of the Second International. After the Khrushchevite deviation first carried out in practice at the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU, the term was applied to the new conditions present in the revisionist U.S.S.R. mainly since the 1950s and later in revisionist China starting in the main from the late 1970s.


[email protected] January 26, 2007 07:17 am
I am not sure there are many Hoxhaist on the board.

Although I might fit in the definition of "Hoxhaist," I always like to think of myself as a Marxist-Leninist. I mainly support Hoxha's ideas and I do find his writings to be of great interest. But I also am keen to study Mao's writings, the writings of the Kims, some of Ho Chi Minh's writings, and Che's and Fidel's writings as well. I've even read some of the revisionist writings of some of the Anarchists, Trotsky, Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Ceausescu, Deng, and Gorbachev to understand the nature of the revisionist school of thought in contradiction to the Marxist-Leninist school.

[chimx]

Although I might fit in the definition of "Hoxhaist," I always like to think of myself as a Marxist-Leninist. I mainly support Hoxha's ideas and I do find his writings to be of great interest. But I also am keen to study Mao's writings, the writings of the Kims, some of Ho Chi Minh's writings, and Che's and Fidel's writings as well. I've even read some of the revisionist writings of some of the Anarchists, Trotsky, Tito, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Ceausescu, Deng, and Gorbachev to understand the nature of the revisionist school of thought in contradiction to the Marxist-Leninist school.

Do you ever read Marx and Lenin? Maybe that would allow you to understand another contradiction.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

i haven't seen this many Marxist-Leninists on revleft since the Little Red Book discussion group lol.


Left Henry,
Enver Hoxha did not break with the PRC at the beginning of the GPCR. Rather, the tensions between the PRC and Enver Hoxha started in 1972 due to the Nixon visit to the PRC in the same year. This was further exacerbated by the joint statement from the meetings between Nixon and Mao. In 1976 Hoxha criticized the PRC in 1976 for its new leadership (which most Maoists do as well) and its pragmatic policies towards the US and Europe. The break finally occurred in 1978 when the PRC stopped assistance programs to Albania.


Oh then I'm probably thinking of North Korea...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

DPRK never broke relations with the PRC.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 01, 2007 04:50 am
DPRK never broke relations with the PRC.
yeah it turns out I'm confusing it with the side that the DPRK took during the Sino-Soviet Split.


Kim initially sided with the Chinese but never severed his relations with the Soviets. When the Cultural Revolution broke out in China after 1966, Kim veered back to the Soviet side.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung#L..._of_North_Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il_Sung#Leader_of_North_Korea)

The article is shit but its wikipedia.

[Krasnaya]

How useful would pillboxes pointing towards a city be against an insurgency?


Stalin relying on bureaucracy to strengthen socialism.


This is misleading. Stalin only relied on bureaucracy during the industrialization process, where the economy was simple (compared to a modern consumerist economy) but still needed a massive bureaucracy to tackle the massive amounts of planning required. After industrialization, Stalin beleived that the soviet union had entered a new stage of socialism, where the bureacracy was harmful. The economy become modern and complex, and either needed youthful and motivated leadership or automated by technology. Of course the technology was not available at the moment, Stalin saw that the soviet unions leadership was exhibiting the typical characteristics of an oligarchy (incompetence). Stalins solution was to introduce contested elections and relegate the communist party to agitation alone (and to remove it completely from government and election process). He suggested this to the central committee many times, each time he was ignored by almost everyone, the CC instead decided to focus on the search for enemies. He even whent so far as to create a constitution guaranteeing contested elections and equal political rights to all. This was put to a stop by the CC. Stalin even asked to be allowed to step down as general secretary of the communist party, because he thought that his "personality" was protecting the CC from criticism, and that him stepping down would create a more competitive political environment in the communist party. However this request was refused by the CC.

In the end, Stalin was assassinated, presumably by the bureaucracy. If the reason behind his assassination is not clear, try reading the first paragraph over again.

Beria, Stalins successor was in power for only a short while. Beria, like Stalin, beleived that the soviet union needed contested elections and equal political rights for all. Beria attempted this, but did not acheive it. He was removed from office, Kruschev replaced him.

First, it should be understood that Kruschev was a part of the bureaucracy which opposed Stalin. During Krushevs reign, he criticised Stalin greatly. I wont go into the criticisms themselves, I am going to bed soon. I beleive he was also involved in removing Beria from power. And if I remember correctly, he was involved in spreading rumors of Beria having raped young girls and having skeletons buried in his backyard. Beria may have been convicted of this, I dont remember Berias story as well as Stalins. Anyways, Is it not curious that those members of the central committee who supported democracy in the soviet union but failed at acheiving it ended up with the worst reputations?

Anyways, Im off to bed...

[Brownfist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 07:50 pm

The term Stalinist, was coined by Trotskyists (which itself is a slur),

Trotskyist isn't a slur, because the followers of Trotsky use this word to describe themselves. It is also accurate, because a lot of trots see Trotsky as a seperate school of thought from Lenin. Followers of Stalin, on the other hand, do not see Stalin as a seperate school of thought from Lenin, but rather an interpreter of Leninism, hence forth most of us do not call ourselves "Stalinists".


In my experience, Hoxhaites tend to cite Hoxha rarely. Most of the Hoxhaite journals I have read there is very little mention of him, except in relationship to an uninterrupted Marxist-Leninist anti-revisionist legacy. Also, Hoxha tends to be mentioned more regularly in relationship to the grouping of parties around this ideological line, than by the parties themselves. However, these are just my observations of the Hoxhaite camps. The journals that I am thinking of are Alliance-ML, Unity and Struggle, Revolutionary Democracy and some of the smaller American publications.

In a way, this is testament to some of the greatest features about Hoxha. While the USSR, China, and indeed the communist parties of much of the world encouraged a groupie mentality and dependancy in fraternal communist organizations, Hoxha did nothing of the sort. My party has a long history of supporting Albania and the line of the Labour Party of Albania, and our leader even met Enver Hoxha. Still, we did not, and do not, have pictures of Hoxha on our walls. Hoxha respected the independance and soveriegnty of our organization.
The Labour party of Albania respected the fraternal parties and organizations of the world who shared their line, encouraging them to be revolutionary and grow, but not rendering them impotent sattelitle organizations, bowing in the direction of Tirana.

Actually, I've noticed that Alliance ML mentions Hoxha pretty heavily.
Well actually the appropriation of the term "Trotskyist" and "Trotskyite" are where the differences lie. I do not know of any Trotskyist formation that does not align itself with Lenin, and differentiates its school from that of Lenin. I think that you would need to substantiate this claim because I do not know of any grouping that does this, rather much like the Maoist and Hoxhaite groups, they claim an uninterrupted Marxist tradition as well. As for your point on Stalin, I take that point.

RavenBlade if you do not mind me asking, which party are you part of? It is indeed true that the Alliance-ML does heavily cite Hoxha, however, I would hardly call them a functioning organization or party. I mean their mother party, the Communist League of Britain, from what I understand has become an empty shell of what it was, and has become marginal to the near extent of extinct. The only real Hoxhaite grouping that still has some activity is called the ICMPLO(Unity and Struggle). A very good journal that is affiliated to that is entitled Revolutionary Democracy (I know the editor) and they hardly cite Hoxha. Rather, they cite Lenin and Stalin heavily, and have some very detailed debates about key points in that period. Also, there are some very good debates between Moni Guha (who is the leader of a small Hoxhaite faction in India), Vijay Singh of Revolutionary Democracy, and Hari Kumar of the Alliance-ML. I would recommend that you read those debates because they are completely fascinating.

[Prairie Fire]

Well actually the appropriation of the term "Trotskyist" and "Trotskyite" are where the differences lie. I do not know of any Trotskyist formation that does not align itself with Lenin, and differentiates its school from that of Lenin. I think that you would need to substantiate this claim because I do not know of any grouping that does this, rather much like the Maoist and Hoxhaite groups, they claim an uninterrupted Marxist tradition as well. As for your point on Stalin, I take that point.

One of my Trot comrades explained to me that the modern Trotskyist movement
(or at least some of them), while still regarding Lenin, uphold Trotskys contributions with much more esteem, and recognize that his contributions are distinct from Lenin's. I would akin this to Maoists, who still uphold Marx and Lenin, but see Mao's contributions as distinct.

Even if this anecdote does not represent the whole, I find it interesting that modern Trotskyists cling to Lenin at all. Here is a quote from a letter by Trotsky:


The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay." (Trotsky's letter to Chkeidze, 1913).

I totally agree with my Trot comrade: Trotsky is a seperate school of thought from Lenin. In my mind, that's the problem :lol: .


I sent you a PM about my party affiliations

[Louis Pio]

Hmm dunno to me it seems comparing Lenin and Trotsky's stand during the actual revolution than the years before would give a better idea as to the compability of their "ideas".
Or maybe it's just me, after all a revolution doesn't really test ideas or what?....

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:28 am
How useful would pillboxes pointing towards a city be against an insurgency?


Stalin relying on bureaucracy to strengthen socialism.


This is misleading. Stalin only relied on bureaucracy during the industrialization process, where the economy was simple (compared to a modern consumerist economy) but still needed a massive bureaucracy to tackle the massive amounts of planning required. After industrialization, Stalin beleived that the soviet union had entered a new stage of socialism, where the bureacracy was harmful. The economy become modern and complex, and either needed youthful and motivated leadership or automated by technology. Of course the technology was not available at the moment, Stalin saw that the soviet unions leadership was exhibiting the typical characteristics of an oligarchy (incompetence). Stalins solution was to introduce contested elections and relegate the communist party to agitation alone (and to remove it completely from government and election process). He suggested this to the central committee many times, each time he was ignored by almost everyone, the CC instead decided to focus on the search for enemies. He even whent so far as to create a constitution guaranteeing contested elections and equal political rights to all. This was put to a stop by the CC. Stalin even asked to be allowed to step down as general secretary of the communist party, because he thought that his "personality" was protecting the CC from criticism, and that him stepping down would create a more competitive political environment in the communist party. However this request was refused by the CC.

In the end, Stalin was assassinated, presumably by the bureaucracy. If the reason behind his assassination is not clear, try reading the first paragraph over again.

Beria, Stalins successor was in power for only a short while. Beria, like Stalin, beleived that the soviet union needed contested elections and equal political rights for all. Beria attempted this, but did not acheive it. He was removed from office, Kruschev replaced him.

First, it should be understood that Kruschev was a part of the bureaucracy which opposed Stalin. During Krushevs reign, he criticised Stalin greatly. I wont go into the criticisms themselves, I am going to bed soon. I beleive he was also involved in removing Beria from power. And if I remember correctly, he was involved in spreading rumors of Beria having raped young girls and having skeletons buried in his backyard. Beria may have been convicted of this, I dont remember Berias story as well as Stalins. Anyways, Is it not curious that those members of the central committee who supported democracy in the soviet union but failed at acheiving it ended up with the worst reputations?

Anyways, Im off to bed...
Very good comrade, I can tell that you are a true Marxist-Leninist. Such information regarding Stalin's fight against burecracy and his democratic reforms is important to combat reactionary lies, where'ever Trotskyist, Revisionist or Captilaist.

[RedGeorge]

A bit off-topic, but can someone tell me how to pronounce Hoxha?

[Leo]

It is pronounced "Hoja" or "Hoca".

And he was a capitalist to the core.

[Louis Pio]

Ok I think your starting to make words like capitalist and bourgios loose all meaning Leo.
While am no fan of Hoxa I think it would be interesting to hear how his relations to the means of production made him capitalist.

[Prairie Fire]

Leo:

It is pronounced "Hoja" or "Hoca".

And he was a capitalist to the core.

Speak your piece; I'm listening.

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:56 am
Leo:

It is pronounced "Hoja" or "Hoca".

And he was a capitalist to the core.

Speak your piece; I'm listening.
When Fidel Castro dies I wonder what kind of lies and crap will be written about him in the Captalist history books?

The sad thing is that many leftists will beleive the lies that have been written like they have done, with Stalin, Mao, Hoxa and some cases even Lenin and they will say crap, ''Oh no Fidel wasn't a real socialist, he was a tyrant, captalist or Fascist ect''.

[Leo]

Ok I think your starting to make words like capitalist and bourgios loose all meaning Leo.
While am no fan of Hoxa I think it would be interesting to hear how his relations to the means of production made him capitalist.

Do you not recognize state capital as capital?


Speak your piece; I'm listening.

Very simple, there is the bureaucratic bosses ordering the workers what to do, means of production are not controlled by the workers but by those bureaucratic bosses. Those bosses live in relative comfort to the working class, they take enough for their luxurious pleasures. The rest goes to investments, to capital, they try to develop and strengthen their capitalist economy. This is a capitalist model that works very well at the beginning for the full proletarianization of agriculture and for developing heavy capitalist industry, yet after a while as the capitalist system develops, as the economy grows, the need for private capitalists and the need for opening to the world market emerges, yet as we live in a period where capitalism is decedent, therefore internal contradictions between the institutions and the core of capitalism exists (i.e the contradiction of the nation state with the world market), this becomes a harmful process for capitalist development. There are two ways out for the bourgeoisie, the first one is destroying the old paradigm (which is what happened in the Eastern Block, including Albania) and trying to ignore and in the long run peacefully abolish the old paradigm (China and Cuba).


When Fidel Castro dies I wonder what kind of lies and crap will be written about him in the Captalist history books?

The sad thing is that many leftists will beleive the lies that have been written like they have done, with Stalin, Mao, Hoxa and some cases even Lenin and they will say crap, ''Oh no Fidel wasn't a real socialist, he was a tyrant, captalist or Fascist ect''.

Yeah smart kid, I'm sure the capitalist history books will tell ya that Hoxha was a capitalist. Are you sure you have a brain?

As for Castro, the same kind of shit, capitalist.

[Honggweilo]

Yeah smart kid, I'm sure the capitalist history books will tell ya that Hoxha was a capitalist. Are you sure you have a brain?

As for Castro, the same kind of shit, capitalist.
This left communist crap makes you inherently anti-communist, spare us the state capitalist rethoric please and add something usefull. I wonder what you don't see as capitalist, any socialist transition would be capitalist in your eyes. capital does not equal capitalism as capital is a term for production and property.

Left communism continues to be a disease..

[Leo]

This left communist crap makes you inherently anti-communist, spare us the state capitalist rethoric please and add something usefull.

Oh, did the truth hurt you my little cappie-Stalin kiddie? Did I offend your mighty religion and your dear god?

Get a brain, you desperately need it...


I wonder what you don't see as capitalist, any socialist transition would be capitalist in your eyes.

No, capitalism is capitalist in my eyes, it is a world system... and what did your "socialist transition" reach? Capitalism with private capitalists. Good job, mission accomplished!


Left communism continues to be a disease..

Stalinism continues to be capitalism.

[Honggweilo]

Oh, did the truth hurt you my little cappie-Stalin kiddie? Did I offend your mighty religion and your dear god?

Get a brain, you desperately need it...
Ah yes, bitter generalisation.. like every non-left commie is a capitalist and every ML'ist is a Stalin Kiddy. Your truth doesnt hurt me, its anoying at best. Get a life, mr. all sceptical eye of armchair socialism.


No, capitalism is capitalist in my eyes, it is a world system... and what did your "socialist transition" reach? Capitalism with private capitalists. Good job, mission accomplished! What did left communists accomplish? thats right, creation of cynical old farts.


Stalinism continues to be capitalism.
Left communism continues to be an inrellevant factor in world politics, except for being used as petit-bourgeois sockpuppet rethoric.

Go chew some smelly old pancakes

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2774/strawmenqr0.jpg

[Leo]

like every non-left commie is a capitalist

No, but every Stalinist is a capitalist.


and every ML'ist is a Stalin Kiddy.

Meh, there's also those Trotskyists, they are ML'ists too. Of course, to you only Stalinists are real ML'ists, because, oh dear, those evil Trotskyists are counter-revolutionaries.


Get a life, mr. all sceptical eye of armchair socialism.

Oh fuck of you reactionary bastard, I organize under conditions you can't even imagine.


What did left communists accomplish?

What did Stalinism accomplish? That's right, the murder of thousands of workers and modern capitalist states.


Left communism continues to be an inrellevant factor in world politics

Stalinism was relevant within bourgeois politics, now it is just a very minor factor, again, only in bourgeois politics.

[Prairie Fire]

Leo:

Okay, in order to make an intelligent argument, one would need to understand where you are coming from.

Do you believe that there has EVER been a Socialist state (let alone a communist one). Would you say that the USSR was a socialist state at any poin tin it's own development? What do you uphold as an example of socialist construction in it's true form?


No, but every Stalinist is a capitalist.

Through bullshit labelling like "Stalinist", and juvenile assertions like this, you start to discredit your stance. <_<


Meh, there&#39;s also those Trotskyists, they are ML&#39;ists too. Of course, to you only Stalinists are real ML&#39;ists, because, oh dear, those evil Trotskyists are counter-revolutionaries

You seem to identify with the Trotskyist interpretation more than the anti-revisionist one, so perhaps I will reply with a trotskyist analysis:

I have many Trot comrades and, for better or for worse, they will recognize that Albania, china, and even the USSR under Stalin, were not "capitalist" states. While they may refer to them as "degenerated workers states", they recognize that there was still a system of collective ownership in place, and that there was a socialist socio-economic system in place in these nations.


Oh fuck of you reactionary bastard, I organize under conditions you can&#39;t even imagine.

:D " shut up, I&#39;m more revolutionary then you&#33; No you arn&#39;t, no you arn&#39;t&#33; La la la, I can&#39;t hear you" Seriously Leo, you&#39;re fucking embarrasing yourself.


What did Stalinism accomplish? That&#39;s right, the murder of thousands of workers and modern capitalist states.

If I were you, I would have left that part out. Assertions like this are an obvious indicator of political naivity. You have a right to an opinion, but like every anti-stalin donkey-raper before you, I ask you to present a source.


Oh, did the truth hurt you my little cappie-Stalin kiddie? Did I offend your mighty religion and your dear god?

Get a brain, you desperately need it...

Leo... How old are you? That&#39;s a rhetorical question, but still?


Yeah smart kid, I&#39;m sure the capitalist history books will tell ya that Hoxha was a capitalist. Are you sure you have a brain?


Actually, that was a pretty good point that grove street made.



As for Castro, the same kind of shit, capitalist.

Any Martiano&#39;s/ Castroistas want to get that one?

ddxt301:


Go chew some smelly old pancakes

:D Something about non-standard insults that makes them so much better.

[Leo]

Alright, first I&#39;ll play your elementary school games, then I&#39;ll start on again with the economics.


Through bullshit labelling like "Stalinist", and juvenile assertions like this, you start to discredit your stance.

Well, ok, are you a Stalinist? Do you think that Stalin was a communist or socialist?

As for my stance, no one actually replied my creditable stance but tried to go on insults because I insulted their gods, so I am the last person to worry about stance here.


" shut up, I&#39;m more revolutionary then you&#33; No you arn&#39;t, no you arn&#39;t&#33; La la la, I can&#39;t hear you" Seriously Leo, you&#39;re fucking embarrasing yourself.

I am doing militant work in a place where it is dangerous and hard, and I am quite serious about this, so I don&#39;t really enjoy it when some petty-bourgeois Stalinist kid from his safe and luxurious villa calls me an armchair socialist.


You seem to identify with the Trotskyist interpretation more

No I don&#39;t, I was just proving a point.


If I were you, I would have left that part out. Assertions like this are an obvious indicator of political naivity.

Are you denying that workers got killed under Stalinism by the state? Then I would doubt your sincerity or I would think that you are the one who is naive.


Do you believe that there has EVER been a Socialist state (let alone a communist one).

I don&#39;t look at "socialist states", this is a meaningless term. If what you mean is Keynesian, then there were quite a lot of Keynesian states and they were all, quite obviously capitalist. If you mean in the traditional "Marxist-Leninist" sense, I have to tell you that it is not really "Marxist" but rather Leninist as Marx never used to term "socialist". Dictatorship of the proletariat is the first stage of communism, and it is not called socialism by Marx.


Would you say that the USSR was a socialist state at any poin tin it&#39;s own development?

I wouldn&#39;t call it a socialist state, but workers did take power in Russia, although they lost it very soon. Probably I would say from 1917 to 1918-1919, but 1921 is the latest date: when you go shoot striking workers, you are not a workers anything anymore.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As for Castro, the same kind of shit, capitalist.

Really?

Is he:

1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

??

No, he&#39;s none of the above. Sorry, you lose.

[chimx]

Very simple, there is the bureaucratic bosses ordering the workers what to do, means of production are not controlled by the workers but by those bureaucratic bosses. Those bosses live in relative comfort to the working class, they take enough for their luxurious pleasures. The rest goes to investments, to capital, they try to develop and strengthen their capitalist economy. This is a capitalist model that works very well at the beginning for the full proletarianization of agriculture and for developing heavy capitalist industry, yet after a while as the capitalist system develops, as the economy grows, the need for private capitalists and the need for opening to the world market emerges, yet as we live in a period where capitalism is decedent, therefore internal contradictions between the institutions and the core of capitalism exists (i.e the contradiction of the nation state with the world market), this becomes a harmful process for capitalist development. There are two ways out for the bourgeoisie, the first one is destroying the old paradigm (which is what happened in the Eastern Block, including Albania) and trying to ignore and in the long run peacefully abolish the old paradigm (China and Cuba).

[Honggweilo]

Thx for refuting almost every piece of that post RB :D

Anyway some additions

I am doing militant work in a place where it is dangerous and hard, and I am quite serious about this, so I don&#39;t really enjoy it when some petty-bourgeois Stalinist kid from his safe and luxurious villa calls me an armchair socialist.

You would like that stereotype wouldnt you :D. I didnt try and question your political commitment or your activism, i just attacked your lame rethoric. But presuming you are from Turkey, you don&#39;t have it any less hard then the hard working "stalinists", kurds, maoists, trots and anarchists there in the mids of the class struggle

You started insulting peoples intelligence by stating their lack of a brain. After that you start lame labeling by calling me a Stalin kiddy. And when i throw back the crap you slung at me you get all hyped up about how i apperently misjudged your "revolutionairy cappacity" and "workingclass credentials". I called you a armchair socialist because you have the rethoric of one.. "same shit, capitalist", And your only backing up of that statement is the centralisation of capital.

I have a working class background, i am a worker, i am politcally active and participate in (student)union work, and my family fled from fascist repression in Portugal. I live in a small appartment and my living on a student minimumwage to pay for my study. Again your bitter generalisation surpasses yourself <_<. Seeing the western workingclass as "petit bourgeois" is itself reactionary. But i guess you hoped me to be a 15 year old wasting his boring upperclass puberty on a internet forum, pretending to be a rebel.


As for my stance, no one actually replied my creditable stance but tried to go on insults because I insulted their gods, so I am the last person to worry about stance here.

Yes, me and the secret stalinist theocratic society have declared a jihad on you just for insulting our god of steel.

I didnt even brought the word Stalin up, i was critizing your attack on Castro&#33; But hey, there&#39;s always room for more definitions of the word Stalinist in your dictionairy apperantly :rolleyes:


I don&#39;t look at "socialist states", this is a meaningless term. If what you mean is Keynesian, then there were quite a lot of Keynesian states and they were all, quite obviously capitalist. If you mean in the traditional "Marxist-Leninist" sense, I have to tell you that it is not really "Marxist" but rather Leninist as Marx never used to term "socialist". Dictatorship of the proletariat is the first stage of communism, and it is not called socialism by Marx.

How sectarian.. do you also take marx his homophobia and anti-semitism litteraly? Marx urged for people to supplement his work. Historical Materialism isnt a static philosophy


Are you denying that workers got killed under Stalinism by the state? Then I would doubt your sincerity or I would think that you are the one who is naive.

Why do you fill in the awnsers yourself when you are asking a question? Undeniablely innocents suffered during his rule, like under any, but reallity isnt a utopia, especially not under the first atempt of actualy building up a workers state. But one apperenlty can&#39;t support ellements in a historic perspective and build on the achievements. But this is not the place for discussing "Stalins Crimes" or the question if the USSR was a workers state, there are pinned topics for that.


Alright, first I&#39;ll play your elementary school games, then I&#39;ll start on again with the economics.

I didnt see any economics in your last post


Originally posted by RavenBlade
You seem to identify with the Trotskyist interpretation more than the anti-revisionist one, so perhaps I will reply with a trotskyist analysis:

I have many Trot comrades and, for better or for worse, they will recognize that Albania, china, and even the USSR under Stalin, were not "capitalist" states. While they may refer to them as "degenerated workers states", they recognize that there was still a system of collective ownership in place, and that there was a socialist socio-economic system in place in these nations.

The concept of a degenarate workers state is an trotskist concept i dont agree with but certainly respect as a opinion, which also some trot comrades hold :P. In contradiction to Leo&#39;s "same shit, capitalism" theory, it has a more profound basis.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 09:43 pm

As for Castro, the same kind of shit, capitalist.

Really?

Is he:

1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

??

No, he&#39;s none of the above. Sorry, you lose.
Abstract but yet punctive, good one CdL :D

[Leo]

a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.

Obviously he is&#33;


a very wealthy person.

Obviously he is&#33;


an advocate of capitalism.

What statesman advocate has usually very little to do with what they do.

[Prairie Fire]

Okay, First of all, need I remind you, we were talking about Enver Hoxha.

Now, to answer previous posts.

Leo:



Well, ok, are you a Stalinist? Do you think that Stalin was a communist or socialist?

As for my stance, no one actually replied my creditable stance but tried to go on insults because I insulted their gods, so I am the last person to worry about stance here.

i&#39;m a Marxist-Leninist. I&#39;m an anti-revisionist. "Stalinist" Is a political slur, used in apejorative context against followers of Stalin, and to demonise any persyn from any political orientation. It has no positive context.

I specificall yasked you about your stance, and quit trying to paint all of those who are favourable of Stalin as the typical "personality cultists" stereotype. This is the typical of capitlaists and those who carry their line.


I am doing militant work in a place where it is dangerous and hard, and I am quite serious about this, so I don&#39;t really enjoy it when some petty-bourgeois Stalinist kid from his safe and luxurious villa calls me an armchair socialist.

And we enjoy it when you call us "Stalinsts", "Petty Bourgois" and insinuate that we are overprivilaged? As the saying goes, "Do on to others".If you don&#39;t want to be insulted, quit insulting people.



Are you denying that workers got killed under Stalinism by the state? Then I would doubt your sincerity or I would think that you are the one who is naive.

Your definition of "Worker" is vague. Juts because someone is working class, doesn&#39;t automatically make them a revolutionary. In fact, a large number of the working class are quite reactionary. Also, take into context the overwhelming amount of propaganda that taints the image of Stalin.


don&#39;t look at "socialist states", this is a meaningless term. If what you mean is Keynesian, then there were quite a lot of Keynesian states and they were all, quite obviously capitalist.

Explain your position of how, exactly, the economic system of the USSR was Keynesian?


If you mean in the traditional "Marxist-Leninist" sense, I have to tell you that it is not really "Marxist" but rather Leninist as Marx never used to term "socialist". Dictatorship of the proletariat is the first stage of communism, and it is not called socialism by Marx.

Bullshit. Marx Used the term many times in the past (Manifesto fo the Communist party comes to mind.). What a ridiculous claim.


I wouldn&#39;t call it a socialist state, but workers did take power in Russia, although they lost it very soon. Probably I would say from 1917 to 1918-1919, but 1921 is the latest date: when you go shoot striking workers, you are not a workers anything anymore.

And from 1917-1921, it was still a STATE, wether you would like to admit that as part of your dogma or not. And, might I add, that it was Lenin and the bolshevik party that won the revolution, and lead the working class to power. As for "shooting striking workers", show me some sources.


QUOTE
a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.



Obviously he is&#33;

How should I even reply to that? Should I say "Obviously he is not&#33;"?
Is that the direction that this thread is heading in? Getting to the point of "Is Not" "Is too&#33;" 3 year old bullshit, devoid of analysis? You are saying that Stalin as an individual had capital invested in buisness enterpirses? Explain and cite sources.


QUOTE
a very wealthy person.



Obviously he is&#33;

Read this article The "cult of the individual" (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm). It provides an alternative look at Stalins lifestyle.


QUOTE
an advocate of capitalism.



What statesman advocate has usually very little to do with what they do.

That&#39;s a bullshit cop-out, to avoid admitting that the evidence doesn&#39;t support your point of view.

Over all, your asertion that "Obviously" all allegations against Stalin are true, is a commentary on the effects of capitalist media sources on your world outlook. Seriously though,that was a pretty weak rebuttle.

ddxt301:


Yes, me and the secret stalinist theocratic society have declared a jihad on you just for insulting our god of steel.

:D Praise the mighty god of Steel&#33; Death to the infidels&#33; :D


I didnt even brought the word Stalin up, i was critizing your attack on Castro&#33; But hey, there&#39;s always room for more definitions of the word Stalinist in your dictionairy apperantly

Very rarely are anti-revisionists the ones to bring up Stalin in the conversation. Oiutside of rev-left, that name rarely comes up in conversations. Only when we have to defedn ourselves, do we even mention Stalin. It is strange that the anti-Stalin forces hate Stalin with every bone in thei rbody... And yet, they talk about him more than we do.


How sectarian.. do you also take marx his homophobia and anti-semitism litteraly

Antisemitism? Is it even possible to be an anti-semitic Jew? I read the "Jewish Question", and that wasn&#39;t what I got out of it.


The concept of a degenarate workers state is an trotskist concept i dont agree with but certainly respect as a opinion, which also some trot comrades hold . In contradiction to Leo&#39;s "same shit, capitalism" theory, it has a more profound basis.

I&#39;m not saying that it&#39;s MY opinion. I&#39;m only saying I respect it more than I respect total dismissal of all socialist states.

[Andy Bowden]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2007 08:29 am

a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.

Obviously he is&#33;

So obviously you will be able to provide details of the business enterprises Fidel Castro, personally, has extensive capital in?

The only evidence I ever heard for this was from that Forbes piece on Castro which worked on the basis that all state industries in Cuba were Castro&#39;s personal property

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2007 08:29 am

a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.

Obviously he is&#33;


a very wealthy person.

Obviously he is&#33;


an advocate of capitalism.

What statesman advocate has usually very little to do with what they do.
This is typical trendy lefty circular logic and unsubstantiated slander.

Interesting that once again, Leo the only political forces outside your own Peoples front of judea that agree with your conclusions are the Right. :lol:

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by PRC&#045;[email protected] 11, 2007 04:50 pm
Interesting that once again, Leo the only political forces outside your own Peoples front of judea that agree with your conclusions are the Right. :lol:
Splitters&#33;

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Ronnie James Dio+February 11, 2007 05:08 pm--> (Ronnie James Dio &#064; February 11, 2007 05:08 pm)
PRC&#045;[email protected] 11, 2007 04:50 pm
Interesting that once again, Leo the only political forces outside your own Peoples front of judea that agree with your conclusions are the Right. :lol:
Splitters&#33; [/b]
I thought we where the splitters? :lol:


I&#39;m not saying that it&#39;s MY opinion. I&#39;m only saying I respect it more than I respect total dismissal of all socialist states.Well i didnt say it was your opinion, i was giving my opinion on the ones who hold that opinion. Actually i agree with your opinion



Antisemitism? Is it even possible to be an anti-semitic Jew? I read the "Jewish Question", and that wasn&#39;t what I got out of it
It was rethorical, i didnt say it was MY opinion :lol:. I know it was aimed at zionists and jewish capitalist, although ht sometimes had a bit of generalization of the jewish stereotype. Anyway i dont see marx as an anti-semetic, although some on the board do.

[fogao]

One of my Albanian friends wrote to me recently: "Enver Hoxha was a gift from planet earth which by mistake finished at the stupid Ballkan".


My opinion is that Envr was one of the greatest revolutionaries of all times of the history. He acted in so extremely difficult circumstances that you can&#39;t possibly even imagine it. But you surely can exploit his experence.

In 1941 , during Italian fascist oupation, he formed a revolutionary party and a partisan (guerilla, but regular) army. With that army he liberated Albania till 1944, pushing out the forcers of Ltaly and nazi Germany (70 000 enemy soldiers were eliminated during this fight).

In 1944 he took the power in Albania demolished by war, and in the same time Albania extremely backward: average life expectancy of 38 years, 95 % of illiterace, almost no cultural indtitutions, hospitals and schools, a very small industry in hands of foreign companies.

And after more than 40 years when he died in 1985, he left Albania with educated population, with healthcare and education free for all, with significant industry, hydro power plants, etc.

Albania, a very small country, had to defend and arm itself in the same time, because of the hostile position of neighbouring Greece and Yugoslavia.
In 1948 Enver broke relations with Yogoslavia, which tried to incorporate Albania, in 1961 Enver broke with USSR, which treated this country as a colony: Enver pushed Russians from the flllet base in the city of Vlora (the only Russian base in Mediteranean sea) and in 1968, when Russians invaded Chechoslovakia, Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Treaty. Then Albania maintained relations with China, but not in the position of a servant but aparetner and in 1978 these realtions were limitated. But Albania was not "isol;ted" as claimed enemies - it maintained relations with 100 countries of the world.

Enver had to carry the revolutiuon in extremely difficult situation. He banned the chadors (covering the faces of muslim women in Albnia) and banned "vendetta" - the tradition of tribal bloody revenge. Now, after liquidation of socialism, both these backward traditions are present in Albania again...

In the same time Enver was am outstanding Marxist thinker and active politician who confronted ideas ith real life. He wrote plenty of books of theory and memoirs.

All material memories of Enver were demolished last years, but people remember him and still love him: both in Albania and Kosova.

Here you can read (in English) the momoirs of his son, Ilir Hoxha, about the persecutions which were directed againbst the Hoxha family after liquidating of socialism. Albanian reaction had no mercy:

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/compass/compass/com13604.html



Some very interesting links to videos of Enver Hoxha an socialist Albania of his times:

crowd singing Enver Hoxha tungtjeta:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyu_kB2zpe4


Enver in public in Gjirokastra:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D1co9uIvAM





1 of May in Tirana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiQXh91sfDc

youth congress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVS8fCc541I




speach of Enver about Kosova:
part1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLAamTyU0c...related&search=

part2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6nWNN48Rn0...related&search=



part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSF1XORn0gk...related&search=





funeral of Enver 1985:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvbJX0yUb5E


today&#39;s comunist demonstration in Tirana:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvf24UvNA0Y



and clips with revolutionary songs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J241Jb5hl9Y...9F3C45&index=11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsSfPCivOZs...A9F3C45&index=0



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi6Is0C1Pmw...A9F3C45&index=7


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrIk4Z1qREM...A9F3C45&index=8

[Prairie Fire]

Very well put,fogao. Couldn&#39;t have said it better myself.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I feel more and more that I&#39;m acquiring Hoxhaite leanings. RavenBlade, got any reccomendations of his work or about Albania under his rule? One disagreement however that I have with his politics was the denouciation of Mao in 1978 that I&#39;ve heard about alot.

[Prairie Fire]

Tough call... You are still a Maoist, so some of his works you may not find very flattering towards Chairman Mao. I am still in the process of translating a copy of "revolution and imperialism" into english, but a big part of it is denouncing Chinese social-imperialism, and the Maoist "Theory of three worlds.", so I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s up your alley.

some of the works that we can agree on would include "The Kruschevites", "The Titoites", "With Stalin". "the Superpowers", "The anglo-american threat to Albania",
"Euro-communism is anti-communism" are all good reads too.



One disagreement however that I have with his politics was the denouciation of Mao in 1978 that I&#39;ve heard about alot.

:D No worries. We were all Maoists once. I still have my red book.

[Brownfist]

Ravenblade,
As I mentioned earlier not all Hoxhaites were Maoists once. As I have mentioned, the Bill Blandists very clear distanced themselves from Maoism in 1967, and were never Maoists because they felt that Maoism was left revisionism. Similarly, the comrades from Revolutionary Democracy were never Maoists. I think that this division, although not very important, does have implications. I was wondering what comrades thought about Hoxha&#39;s denunication of two-line struggle. I have never been able to get straight answers from Hoxhaites about revisionism in Albania, and why they were unable to avoid revisionism there, especially since Hoxha denounced two-line struggle.

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by RavenBlade
"Euro-communism is anti-communism" are all good reads too.
Do you know how i can my hands on a english copy? I can seem to find one.

denouncing Chinese social-imperialism, and the Maoist "Theory of three worlds."
Personally, as an independent anti-revisionist, reject the theory of the three world but i have my doubts on the theory of chinese social imperialism (while i somewhat agree on most aquisations against revisionist social imperialism). RB can you give me some insight on "chinese social imperialism" from a hoxaist view?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

@ Ravenblade


No worries. We were all Maoists once. I still have my red book.

Well, I started out more of a Hoxhaist, but now I&#39;ve drifted closer to Maoism. So your rule doesn&#39;t apply to me. :D

But having said that, I know a lot of comrades in my own country who went from Maoists to Hoxhaites.

Personally, I feel that there&#39;s a lot that both Chairman Mao and Comrade Hoxha had to contribute to our movement, so I go somewhere in between Hoxhaism and Maoism.

I fear that some Hoxhaist policies might lead to right-opportunism, but at the same time, I recoil from some of the left-revisionism which I find among some Maoist comrades.

Whatever, I&#39;m glad that I never drifted into left-communist childishness.

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by ddxt301+February 15, 2007 09:52 am--> (ddxt301 @ February 15, 2007 09:52 am)
RavenBlade
"Euro-communism is anti-communism" are all good reads too.
Do you know how i can my hands on a english copy? I can seem to find one. [/b]
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...roco/env2-1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm)

As for the "Chinese social imperialism", I think it mostly refers to China&#39;s foreign affairs activities in Mao&#39;s last years and after his death, namely the invasion of Vietnam, the support of anti-Soviet regimes in Africa, Nixon&#39;s visit to China, etc., which seemed to put the priority on competition with the USSR, rather than a genuine interest in national liberation in the "third world".

[Honggweilo]

Originally posted by Ronnie James Dio+February 15, 2007 11:39 am--> (Ronnie James Dio &#064; February 15, 2007 11:39 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:52 am

RavenBlade
"Euro-communism is anti-communism" are all good reads too.
Do you know how i can my hands on a english copy? I can seem to find one.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...roco/env2-1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm)

As for the "Chinese social imperialism", I think it mostly refers to China&#39;s foreign affairs activities in Mao&#39;s last years and after his death, namely the invasion of Vietnam, the support of anti-Soviet regimes in Africa, Nixon&#39;s visit to China, etc., which seemed to put the priority on competition with the USSR, rather than a genuine interest in national liberation in the "third world". [/b]
Ah.. i cant belive i missed that :P , from that kind of perspective i fully agree. Especially concering on fighting social-imperialism with social-imperialism and even class betrail ("normalisation" of relationships with the US, trade agreements with pinochet, invasion of Viet Nam, support of UNITA ect.).

At first i thought he meant something in the trend of liberation and annexing of fuedal Tibet.

Anyway thx for the link, but i already knew the book was available on marxist.org. I was kinda hoping for a tip on where to buy the real life book :rolleyes:


Whatever, I&#39;m glad that I never drifted into left-communist childishness. Haleluja... ehm i mean kudos :rolleyes:

[Prairie Fire]

Brownfist:

I didn&#39;t mean all Hoxhaists were Maoists once, I was just generalizing. I know that myself, and most of my Comrades were. Well, maybe thats not quite true. We never accepted the two line struggle within the party, or the theory of three worlds. Yes, Bill Blands bunch weren&#39;t, but they were in Britain. New Democracy, by the same token, is Indian, no?

As for your question about two line struggle, you may have to elaborate. I would like to provide a straight answer, but maybe I am not the best persyn to ask.

As near as I can figure, the two line struggle concept negates democratic-centralism. How can there be two lines within a party? All members of the party vote, the decision of the majority is adopted, and all must comply. This is the Marxist-Leninist method.


ddxt301:

Most of my books come from online stores, and used bookstores. For Hoxha, unfortunately, I would suggest Amazon.com. The problem is, most of his works are considered oddities and collectors items (they are out of print), so they are obscenely priced.


). RB can you give me some insight on "chinese social imperialism" from a hoxaist view?

Sorry I didn&#39;t reply sooner. I think Ronnie nailed it. In Revolution and Imperialism, Hoxha talks a lot about the Chinese leadership, spreading notions that between the United States and the USSR, the US was the lesser of two evils, and collaborating with them against the soviet Union. There is also Chinas meddling in other nations, both militarily and economically.



At first i thought he meant something in the trend of liberation and annexing of fuedal Tibet.

I don&#39;t think Hoxha ever looked at Tibet as an annexation. Then again, I could be wrong. I know I don&#39;t.


Spirit of Spartacus:


Well, I started out more of a Hoxhaist, but now I&#39;ve drifted closer to Maoism. So your rule doesn&#39;t apply to me.

It goes both ways.The two ideologies can be quite similar, more so than any other two communist trends.



Personally, I feel that there&#39;s a lot that both Chairman Mao and Comrade Hoxha had to contribute to our movement, so I go somewhere in between Hoxhaism and Maoism.

I don&#39;t completely reject Mao... I still have many of his works, and there is a lot of wisdom in it.


I fear that some Hoxhaist policies might lead to right-opportunism,
:D Hoxha says the same thing about Maoism in "Revolution and Imperialism".
How is Hoxhaism right oppurtunist?


Whatever, I&#39;m glad that I never drifted into left-communist childishness.

as ddxt301 said, "Hallelujah"&#33; He he, Leo are you reading this, you left-communist bastard? :D

[fogao]

Newly redesigned website of Enver Hoxha with videos in English:
http://www.enver-hoxha.com

[Leo]

Whatever, I&#39;m glad that I never drifted into left-communist childishness.

Whatever, I&#39;m glad that I never drifted into murderous Hoxhaist capitalism.

[Leo]

Well, I know... Thanks for proving my point :P

[Brownfist]

Well one of the Hoxhaite arguments, from the non-Bill Blandist bunch in Canada and England, has been that the reason that there was modern revisionism in China was because two-line struggle was not adequate to deal with modern revisionism, and they disregarded the two-line struggle model. Thus, I would like to know how do Hoxhaites then want to combat revisionism? And, if two-line struggle was an appropriate answer and Stalin-Hoxha had it right then why was there modern revisionism in Albania?

[Prairie Fire]

Hoxha died in 1985. His successor, Ramiz Alia, was a reformist, and He was succeeded by the un-democratic coup of Sali Berisha.

As in china with the gang of four, Nexhmije Hoxha was put in front of a showtrial, accused of misappropriating the sum of 300&#036;, and imprisoned.

As with the downfall of socialism in most countries, socialism in Albania was defeated form the inside by way of reform and coup.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:02 am
Tough call... You are still a Maoist, so some of his works you may not find very flattering towards Chairman Mao. I am still in the process of translating a copy of "revolution and imperialism" into english, but a big part of it is denouncing Chinese social-imperialism, and the Maoist "Theory of three worlds.", so I don&#39;t know if it&#39;s up your alley.

some of the works that we can agree on would include "The Kruschevites", "The Titoites", "With Stalin". "the Superpowers", "The anglo-american threat to Albania",
"Euro-communism is anti-communism" are all good reads too.



One disagreement however that I have with his politics was the denouciation of Mao in 1978 that I&#39;ve heard about alot.

:D No worries. We were all Maoists once. I still have my red book.
haha thanks, I&#39;ll check those out. i&#39;ll also check out some of his anti-mao shit I guess. Do you know of anything about Albania under him?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Ronnie James Dio+February 15, 2007 11:39 am--> (Ronnie James Dio @ February 15, 2007 11:39 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:52 am

RavenBlade
"Euro-communism is anti-communism" are all good reads too.
Do you know how i can my hands on a english copy? I can seem to find one.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...roco/env2-1.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm)

As for the "Chinese social imperialism", I think it mostly refers to China&#39;s foreign affairs activities in Mao&#39;s last years and after his death, namely the invasion of Vietnam, the support of anti-Soviet regimes in Africa, Nixon&#39;s visit to China, etc., which seemed to put the priority on competition with the USSR, rather than a genuine interest in national liberation in the "third world". [/b]
Well I wouldn&#39;t blame &#39;em China (and Albania) got fucked by the Soviet Union. China especially during the late 50s when the Soviet Union pulled out all personnel (with foundational factory blueprints) temporarily sabotaging China&#39;s economy.

Oh yeah and on the above post of mine, in particular I&#39;m interested in the Albanian Cultural and Ideological Revolution

[Brownfist]

Ravenblade,
The explanation you gave does not account for the failure of the Albanian party to account for modern revisionism, especially within the context of Hoxha&#39;s denunciation of the two-line struggle that was suggested and practiced under Mao. Please explain, if we are not to employ two-line struggle then what kind of organizational method should be employed to combat modern revisionism?

[Prairie Fire]

Brownfist


Please explain, if we are not to employ two-line struggle then what kind of organizational method should be employed to combat modern revisionism?

Party purges,perhaps. I would have to read up more on the internal workings of the PLA to give an informed answer.


Left henry


Oh yeah and on the above post of mine, in particular I&#39;m interested in the Albanian Cultural and Ideological Revolution

I know that Albania did have a cultural revolution, like China. As near as I can figure, it was mostly based on athieism, with the demolishing of churches and mosques and whatnot. I would suggest that you watch some of the videos posted by fogao.


Do you know of anything about Albania under him?
:D nothing positive. Like Mao and Stalin, you&#39;re not going to find too many glowing praises of the Hoxha period printed by capitalist presses. In comparrison, hoxha is relatively obscure to most people, largely overlooked in history books.
The best that you can get would be the testament of the Albanian people themselves, the ones who lived under Hoxha (Not the new, Gen-X Albanians. They never got to see socialist Albania, and are just as indoctrinated as everyone else.)

[Brownfist]

RavenBlade,
I recognize that you have said that you would need to do additional research on the internal workings of the PLA to figure out the answer to my question, however, I think that your first answer demonstrates the lack of theoretical depth in the Albanian party and Hoxhaism, because I find that is actually the course that most Hoxhaites employ. I think that there really isnt a device or tool within the Albanian party that can appropriately deal with the question of modern revisionism, and the assumption is that if one just upholds Stalin that will be enough to stave off revisionism. Definitely one could argue that two-line struggle is not enough to deal with the question of modern revisionism, however, to dismiss it and not provide another model leaves that as the model that necessarily needs to be adopted.

I think that we could definitely agree with the Albanian party that post-1975 China should not be supported as it had capitulated to revisionism, however, I think that we then need to look at the more important argument that Mao and Mao Zedong Thought itself was revisionist and see if there really is validity to that argument. I think Hoxha was completely wrong in his total dismissal of Mao, and then some of the seemingly racist comments against Mao and China I think demonstrate the racism that is permissible in the communist left.

[Prairie Fire]

I think that there really isnt a device or tool within the Albanian party that can appropriately deal with the question of modern revisionism, and the assumption is that if one just upholds Stalin that will be enough to stave off revisionism.

Allright, explain to me how a two line struggle would prevent the rise of revisionism within the party.


I think that we then need to look at the more important argument that Mao and Mao Zedong Thought itself was revisionist and see if there really is validity to that argument.

That&#39;s exaggerated. From what I got from Hoxha, his greatest ideological problems with Mao was the "theory of three worlds", the unprincipaled cooperation between china and the american imperialists, as well as perhaps his criticisms of Satlin and the concept of the Two line struggle. If you read Revolution and Imperialism, you&#39;ll find that much of Hoxhas argument is directed against "the Chinese leadership", not necesarily Mao. Also, hoxha was criticizing Deng Xioping before Maoists were ;) .


I think Hoxha was completely wrong in his total dismissal of Mao

Once again, I find little evidence that he did dismiss Mao completely. He dismissed the line of the Chinese communist party, and some of the ideological contributions of Maoism, but remember that Albania also had a cultural revolution, and he upheld and expanded upon the concept of "Social Imperialism".



and then some of the seemingly racist comments against Mao and China I think demonstrate the racism that is permissible in the communist left.

:blink: Racism? What Racism? From his works, all arguments against the chinese line are done from a scientific point of view. If he did make some allegedly racist remarks, show me a source/quote.