What's the difference between Hoxhaists and Stalinists?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is there a difference? My impression was that Hoxhaists think that their ideology is the natural continuation of Stalinism.

[spartan]

Not the progression but rather the continuation of true Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) ideals.

Or perhaps the term "Hoxhaist" is an attempt to avoid the stigma associated with the term "Stalinism"?

NOTE: It is good to see you unrestricted Agora77.

[bezdomni]

Hoxhaists represent the anti-khruschev, anti-mao, anti-tito, pro-albania (obviously) continuation of marxism-leninism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hoxhaists represent the anti-khruschev, anti-mao, anti-tito, pro-albania (obviously) continuation of marxism-leninism.

Why are they anti-Tito?

Because Tito pissed Stalin off?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Not the progression but rather the continuation of true Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) ideals.

Or perhaps the term "Hoxhaist" is an attempt to avoid the stigma associated with the term "Stalinism"?

NOTE: It is good to see you unrestricted Agora77.

Thanks, it's good to be out. :D

[INDK]

Because there's two kinds of Stalin kiddies: There's the Maoists, who uphold but criticise Stalin, and there's the Hoxhaists who are hardline Stalinists and contend that Mao's theory is anti-Marxist.

[bezdomni]

Why are they anti-Tito?

Because Tito pissed Stalin off?

No, because he was a revisionist.

To be fair, Maoists are also anti-tito.


Because there's two kinds of Stalin kiddies: There's the Maoists, who uphold but criticise Stalin, and there's the Hoxhaists who are hardline Stalinists and contend that Mao's theory is anti-Marxist.
Why do you have to use the word "stalin kiddie"? Are you going to tell me that leading figures of the revolutionary communist movement (Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Che, Gonzalo...etc) are equivalent to the ignorant borderline-fascists who post on the phora and soviet-empire?

There are two main communist tendencies that uphold Stalin's leadership as being fundamentally positive historically. Maoists and Hoxhaists, both of whom represent a part of the "anti-revisionist" camp. Ironically, Maoists think Hoxha was a revisionist; and Hoxhaists think Mao was a revisionist - so there is substantial disagreement between those of us in the pro-Stalin camp.

Both groups "uphold but criticize stalin". Despite my disagreements on pretty important questions with the Hoxhaists, their analysis is more scientific than say...the anarchists.

[RHIZOMES]

Great thread, I was just wondering this.

SovietPants, why do Hoxhaists call Maoists revisionist, and vice versa? I knew they called each other that already, but I'm wondering why?


Because there's two kinds of Stalin kiddies: There's the Maoists, who uphold but criticise Stalin, and there's the Hoxhaists who are hardline Stalinists and contend that Mao's theory is anti-Marxist.

...Stalin kiddies?

[RNK]

Originally over the course of the Chinese revolution and Sino-Soviet split that began with Stalin's death, Hoxha gravitated towards Mao.

In the 60s and 70s when Mao was deposed by the current cappies in the Chinese Communist Party, and China began adopting pro-market reforms, imperialist pro-west tendencies, etc, Hoxha made an about-face and, somehow, failed to recognize the revisionist coup, and lumped both Maoist China and State Cappie China in the same lump, blaming Mao for causing the cappie takeover.

And of course the "revisionist" label was slapped on because every anti-revisionist feels the need to fucking label every drop of water in the ocean. I can only assume Maoists call Hoxhaists revisionists because of their erroneous understanding of Chinese revolutionary history.

Realistically, Hoxhaism is a non-existent tendency which only sprang up on RevLeft because a bunch of bored people thought it'd be fun to make a Hoxha Union.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What about the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)? :confused: They're not pure Hoxhaists, but they take quite a bit from Hoxhaist ideology.



The more interesting question is: since there's one Maoist party in Russia, how many Hoxhaist parties are existent over there? All the "anti-revisionist" but non-Maoist communist parties in that country who uphold Stalin - and there are at least three of those - are all of them just for the "four classics" (that is, three revolutionaries and one revisionist)?

[careyprice31]

^^^ What about the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)? :confused: They're not pure Hoxhaists, but they take quite a bit from Hoxhaist ideology.



)?


They are actually very close to Stalinist line and hoxha too. They even claim that Bukharin was an enemy of the people.

I know this because I was a member of that party for a month or so then I broke out of that party when I found out what their beliefs ideas, aims, and thoughts about Bolsheviks, Lenin, and Stalin are.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You mean, "their revisionist beliefs, ideas, aims, and thoughts," right? ;)

[AGITprop]

Is there a difference? My impression was that Hoxhaists think that their ideology is the natural progression of Stalinism.

No difference. Hoxha just got to kill less Marxists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

GG, correct, but add, "and far fewer workers".

[Random Precision]

Hoxha decided that Mao was a revisionist after China stopped sending money to Albania and Mao pretty much started slipping the tongue to Tito, who was the greatest danger to Hoxha's rule (nice mental image I know). Before that, he and the PPSH and been completely uncritical of Mao and China, and even followed a lot of his ideology, like the Cultural Revolution and such.

*Preparing for RavenBlade to jump down my throat*

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ There is only one natural reaction to that historical tidbit: :laugh:

[Intelligitimate]

Stalinism is a meaningless term, especially when Trotskyists use it. Trotskyists call each other Stalinists, Khruschev was a Stalinst, Yelstin, Gorby, etc. It's just meaningless bullshit.

Hoxhaist refers to those that follow most closely Hoxha's political line. I personally think Marxists-Leninist need to go beyond the old, worn out anti-Revisionist lines of the 60s and 70s. The closest anyone has come to doing this I think is Ludo Martens. His article On Certain Aspects of the Struggle Against Revisionism: For the Unity of All Communists, In Defence of Proletarian Internationalism (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:NqlBd4HLIzUJ:www.icsbrussels.org/ICS/2005/selected_reading_list/Dir95_India_Seminary_LudoM_1995_EN.doc+Ludo+Marten s+%22aspects+of+the+struggle%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us), should be required reading. I would go further than Martens does about supporting the "pro-Albania" "pro-Chinese" "pro-Cuba" and "pro-USSR" stances, and adding the "pro-North Korea" aspect as well. Of course, one can not hold everything Mao, Hoxha, Castro, etc, said or did as completely correct regarding the Sino-Soviet split. Mao's ideas of "Soviet Social Imperialism" are simply wrong. To say Mao was wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't support Mao. Hell, for that matter, saying Marx & Engels or Lenin was wrong about something doesn't mean we don't support these figures. These people weren't gods who wrote holy scripture. They were men living in the real world, trying to create a better one. Sometimes they messed up.

[Andres Marcos]

Realistically, Hoxhaism is a non-existent tendency which only sprang up on RevLeft because a bunch of bored people thought it'd be fun to make a Hoxha Union.:lol:
Oh well then I guess we can call all these nations that have parties and organizations that carry the "Hoxhaist line'' as irrelevant and non-existent:
Benin, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Britain, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Dominican Republic, Germany, Greece, Albania of course, Iran, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, and the United States. I guess the ''non-existant Hoxhaist tendency'' which somehow seems to be more popular than Maoism in Latin America and Africa is something thats totally irrelevant...

[Prairie Fire]

Spartan:


Not the progression but rather the continuation of true Marxist-Leninist (Stalinist) ideals.

Correct.



Or perhaps the term "Hoxhaist" is an attempt to avoid the stigma associated with the term "Stalinism"?


Erm, no. We are not political cowards who take the path of least resistance.

Sovietpants:


Hoxhaists represent the anti-khruschev, anti-mao, anti-tito, pro-albania (obviously) continuation of marxism-leninism.

Perhaps simply saying anti-Mao continuation of Marxism-Leninism would have been more direct.Adding anti-Kruschev and anti-Tito seems redundant. Even Kruschevites don't aknowledge Kruschev, and only red-streaked Serbian nationalists ,and the occasional trendy North American Suburbanite, aknowledge Tito (without knowing what the hell he was about). Marxist-Leninists aknowledge neither.




No, because he was a revisionist.

To be fair, Maoists are also anti-tito.



Word. As I said, no real socialist supports Tito. Anytime you meet a "Titoite", aks them if they can explain "Titoism" to you.

they will either have no idea, or project their own bullshit ideas onto Tito( Who's ideas were equally bullshit) :D.



Both groups "uphold but criticize stalin". Despite my disagreements on pretty important questions with the Hoxhaists, their analysis is more scientific than say...the anarchists.

Um,...thanks? I consider Maoists to be quite a few theoretical pegs above Anarchism.

Okay, it's agood thing that this thread was started, so that an ensuing parade of revisionists could fully demonstrate that they have no idea what the hell they are talking about:

Maoist RNK, of course, continues with his tired, incorrect line that "Hoxhaists couldn't recognize a revisionist coup, blah blah blah." as though that was even remotely close to being the center of Hoxhas contentions with Mao.


Hoxha made an about-face and, somehow, failed to recognize the revisionist coup, and lumped both Maoist China and State Cappie China in the same lump,


I can only assume Maoists call Hoxhaists revisionists because of their erroneous understanding of Chinese revolutionary history.

No RNK, that was not the point of contention. Thank you for doing no research ( Chairman Mao says :"No investigation, no right to speak").


This viewpoint begins from the Maoist misconception that Hoxha was only criticizing Deng Xioping, Hua ko Feng and other various revisionists in their intiation of Chinas full-scale capitalist regression (and mistakenly saw them as Maos legacy).

While Deng Xioping and company are criticized by Hoxha based on their own thoroughly revisionist merits, Hoxha took direct issue with Mao, and with things that he himslef did, during the duration of the PRC, before the 70's, before even more revisionist persynalities took the reigns of China.

Even a brief overview of "Revolution and Imperialism" would reveal that Hoxha had several points of contention with Mao (many quotes can be found in the "Hoxhaist" group, under the "Maoism and hoxhaism" thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhaism-and-maoism-t70306/index.html):

- The bogus, anti-Marxist "Theory of three worlds"

- Absolutizing the role of the peasantry in socialist transformation

-Placing the highest authority in the Chinese socialist state in his own hands, while negating the legislative powers of the CC of the CPC, rendering them an impotent body (see Andres Marcos criticisms in the "Maoism and Hoxhaism" thread)

- Getting cuddly with American Imperialism, and promoting the idea that American Imperialism had been "Tamed", while Soviet social-imperialism was the greater threat (at the CPC 11th congress, I believe,)

- Shaking hands and making deals with a motley collection of tin-pot, banana republic generals, Colonels and "presidents" from the third world (many of whom were notorious commie killers,), as part of his "theory of three worlds" bullshit.

- Total bungling of the cultural revolution, creating a state of anarchy in china, totally negating the roll of the party, and all the while side-lining the proletariat, while placing the cultural revolution in the hands of the army and the students. In the end, the whole thing was such a tangled erroneous mess, that Mao had to call in the troops to restore order.

etc, etc. read further in-depth criticisms here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhaism-and-maoism-t70306/index.html

Then comes Trotskyist Random Precision, with his misconceptions rooted in alleged economic pragmatism on the part of the PPSH...



Hoxha decided that Mao was a revisionist after China stopped sending money to Albania


Nope; confusion of cause and effect. China was still sending Money to Albania, even after the death of Mao. They quit doing it after Albania denounced them.

If the PPSH were so willing to bite their tongue for the economy's sake,
Enver never would have denounced Nicky in the first place, and Albania would have enjoyed all the economic perks of being a Soviet Sattellite.


Before that, he and the PPSH and been completely uncritical of Mao and China, and even followed a lot of his ideology, like the Cultural Revolution and such.


They were "completely uncritical", because the CPC never made the PPSH privy to anything that was going on in their country, in terms of political and ideological developments. All of their political delegations to China were met with propaganda, field trips to factories and shows. No documents, nothing on the workings of the CPC was ever revealed to the PPSH.
(see "Revolution and Imperialism", Enver Hoxha)


*Preparing for RavenBlade to jump down my throat*

It's as though you deliberatley posted an incorrect answer to agitate me, Catbert. :glare:

Jacob Ritcher, at least, also laughs at your poorly thought out explanation.

Rosa:


GG, correct, but add, "and far fewer workers".

Fuck off, Quit Trolling. You add nothing to any discussion, especially your delightful little one liners that are devoid of any truth or content.

Gunther Glick:


No difference. Hoxha just got to kill less Marxists.

Fuck off, Troll.

Anyways, yeah. Check out the link. I also hope some HU ideological heavy weights will get in here and elaborate a bit (anything I missed?).

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, I was laughing at Hoxha's blatant ideological opportunism (so much for your attempt to split Random Precision and myself on this issue), upholding Mao at one point and doing a full 180 the next. :rolleyes:

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html?)

[More Fire for the People]

One's a hoax, the other's a stain. (badaup bing)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ :laugh:

But I have a more serious thread on "Marxism-Leninism" in our user group:

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html?)

[Lenin II]

One's a hoax, the other's a stain. (badaup bing)
HAHAHA!! DUDE, THOSE ANIMALS ARE SO FUCKING FUNNY THEY MAKE ME WANT TO MERGE WITHOUT LOOKING (does so, causing multiple cars to crash and a tanker to explode behind me.)

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, RUMSFELD!

[Rage Against Right]

why the negativity against revisionist or is my definition of such a person wrong? I only know the term in a historical sense, as a revisionist hisotrian who looks over the facts reassessed and makes a revised anaylyse on the conflicting issue/story, or have i missed the mark compeletly?

[Ismail]

^^^ Actually, I was laughing at Hoxha's blatant ideological opportunism (so much for your attempt to split Random Precision and myself on this issue), upholding Mao at one point and doing a full 180 the next.Yeah, because the Albanian government, which couldn't actually use a plane to travel (would of risked being shot down by Yugoslav's or pro-US/USSR states) plus Hoxha not having left his nation since 1960 made it really easy to understand the exact going ons in China. An entirely different language and the fact that it was across the world had nothing to do with it either.

Also Hoxha did not completely mimic nor completely upheld Mao to begin with. The Cultural & Ideological Revolution Hoxha launched stressed the party at all times, whereas the Cultural Revolution in China in the same period didn't. The party encouraged citizens to get active with it, whereas in China the opposite occurred. Hoxha respected Mao for being anti-Khrushchev, but that's it really. Plus according to Nexhmije (his wife) the Chinese pushed him to do some of his actions such as the anti-religion campaign.


When our Party was founded, during the National Liberation War, as well as after Liberation, our people had very little knowledge about China. But, like all the revolutionaries of the world, we, too, had formed an opinion that it was progressive: "China is a vast continent. China is fighting, the revolution against foreign imperialism, against concessions is seething in China", etc., etc.

We had some general knowledge about the activity of Sun Yat-sen, about his connections and friendship with the Soviet Union and with Lenin; we knew something about the Kuomintang, about the Chinese people's war against the Japanese and about the existence of the Communist Party of China, which was considered a great party, with a Marxist-Leninist, Mao Tsetung, at the head. And that was all.

Our Party had closer contacts with the Chinese only after 1956. The contacts steadily increased due to the struggle our Party was waging against Khrushchevite modern revisionism. At that time our contacts with the Communist Party of China, or more accurately, with its leading cadres, became more frequent and closer, especially when the Communist Party of China, too, entered into open conflict with the Khrushchevite revisionists. But we have to admit that in the meetings we had with the Chinese leaders, although they were good, comradely meetings, in some ways, China, Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, remained a great enigma to us.

But why were China, its Communist Party and Mao Tsetung an enigma? They were an enigma because many attitudes, whether general ones or the personal attitudes of Chinese leaders, towards a series of major political, ideological, military, and organizational problems vacillated, at times to the right, at times to the left. Sometimes they were resolute and at times irresolute, there were times, too, when they maintained correct stands, but more often it was their opportunist stands that caught the eye. During the entire period that Mao was alive, the Chinese policy, in general, was a vacillating one, a policy changing with the circumstances, lacking a Marxist-Leninist spinal cord. What they would say about an important political problem today they would contradict tomorrow. In the Chinese policy, one consistent enduring red thread could not be found.

Naturally, all these attitudes attracted our attention and we did not approve them, but nevertheless, from what we knew about the activity of Mao Tsetung, we proceeded from the general idea that he was a Marxist-Leninist. On many of Mao Tsetung's theses, such as that about the handling of the contradictions between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as non-antagonistic contradictions, the thesis about the existence of antagonistic classes during the entire period of socialism, the thesis that "the countryside should encircle the city", which absolutizes the role of the peasantry in the revolution, etc., we had our reservations and our own Marxist-Leninist views, which, whenever we could, we expressed to the Chinese leaders. Meanwhile, certain other political views an stands of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, which were not compatible with the Marxist-Leninist views and stands of our Party, we considered as temporary tactics of a big state, dictated by specific situations. But, with the passage of time, it became ever more clear that the stands maintained by the Communist Party of China were not just tactics.

By analysing the facts, our Party arrived at some general and specific conclusions, which made it vigilant, but it avoided polemics with the Communist Party of China and Chinese leaders, not because it was afraid to engage in polemics with them, but because the facts, which it had about the erroneous, anti-Marxist course of this party and Mao Tsetung himself, were incomplete, and still did not permit the drawing of a final conclusion. On the other hand, for a time, the Communist Party of China did oppose US imperialism and reaction. It also took a stand against Soviet Khrushchevite revisionism, though it is now clear that its struggle against Soviet revisionism was not dictated from correct, principled Marxist-Leninist positions.

[...]

Our Party supported the Cultural Revolution, because the victories of the revolution in China were in danger. Mao Tsetung himself told us that power in the party and state there had been usurped by the renegade group of Liu Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping and the victories of the Chinese revolution were in danger. In these conditions, no matter who was to blame that matters had gone so far, our Party supported the Cultural Revolution.


Our Party defended the fraternal Chinese people, the cause of the revolution and socialism in China, and not the factional strife of anti-Marxist groups, which were clashing and fighting with one another, even with guns, in order to seize power.


The course of events showed that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was neither a revolution, nor great, nor cultural, and in particular, not in the least proletarian. It was a palace Putsch on an all-China scale for the liquidation of a handful of reactionaries who had seized power.

[Sendo]

They're just two groups of people so desparate for a Messiah of the left (the same way Right-wingers have their Reagan) who got shit done, that they will embrace infamous and bloody dictators. Hoxhaists just like to distract people from this by bringing up meaningless BS like revisionism/antirevisionism which has no meaning outside of a bunch of people who grade all political currents as orthodox or heterodox to the continuation of Leninism.

Talk about anti-revisionism all you want, but Hoxha and Stalin have both been autarks with personality cults, bureaucratized parties, and a pathetic human rights record. Guaranteed health-care is fine, but so is the right to not be shot for expressing dissent and so is the right to not have to endure militarized police and secret police. Both men have obviously strayed from Lenin's whole schtick about how Russia needs to have socialist allies and international revolution. They spew theoretical discussions, but it doesn't change the fact that most Leftists disown Stalinism and Stalin has killed millions of people.

The different is that Stalin had a huge empire which he could use as a giant state capitalist to oppress greater numbers of people and conquer land. Therefore Stalin carries an icky stigma, so they go to the next man in the anti-revisionist line, an obscure dictator from Albania. I have never heard anyone describe himself as a "Stalinist." The fact that they try to put in the closet their love for Stalin speaks volumes.

[Ismail]

They're just two groups of people so desparate for a Messiah of the left (the same way Right-wingers have their Reagan) who got shit done, that they will embrace infamous and bloody dictators.Of course we deny that they were "bloody". Don't confuse us with tankies who look at Soviet nostalgia and go "OH YES GLORIOUS ARMY CRUSH CAPITALISM RNNNGHHH" considering that Hoxha condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as social-imperialist, for example.


Hoxhaists just like to distract people from this by bringing up meaningless BS like revisionism/antirevisionism which has no meaning outside of a bunch of people who grade all political currents as orthodox or heterodox to the continuation of Leninism.Well yes, if you believe Leninism is the correct path to revolution then you're clearly going to condemn those who break away from it. If we had a 'Marxist' who advocated protecting private property, would it not be appropriate to call him or her out on it?


Both men have obviously strayed from Lenin's whole schtick about how Russia needs to have socialist allies and international revolution.I guess China, Vietnam, Korea, all of eastern Europe, and various USSR-endorsed Communist groups in the Americas (look up Harry Haywood or William Z. Foster) & Africa don't count. He got more done than Lenin in this area, but only an idiot would claim this is because Lenin betrayed himself and would ignore the situation at the time.


Therefore Stalin carries an icky stigma, so they go to the next man in the anti-revisionist line, an obscure dictator from Albania.An obscure "dictator" in the US. But he is fairly well known in France for example. Also there were various movements which were pro-Albania and the Albania vs. China debate was fairly big back in the 1970's in the Maoist movement. Check earlier in the thread for a list of parties.

Also read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_Split


I have never heard anyone describe himself as a "Stalinist."Of course not. Why would we? He was a Marxist-Leninist, he didn't offer Marxism-Leninism 2.0 like Mao did, he upheld the line of Marx-Engels-Lenin. Hoxhaism isn't Marxism-Leninism 2.0 either, it just distinguishes us as the orthodox Marxist-Leninists who don't uphold Mao and view the USSR from 1950's onwards as social-imperialist and from 1960's onwards as capitalist. Our view is similar concerning Cuba (social-imperialist until 1990's and state capitalist) and so on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Yes, because your revisionist "orthodoxy" demands unity in thought and action (as opposed to "freedom of discussion and criticism"). :rolleyes:

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html?)

[Sendo]

Stalin undermined revolutions he couldn't control. I think immediately of the Greek Civil War and the squashing of the POUM and the Catalonian anarchists during the Spanish Civil War. I don't know what the rationale is, since the USSR's involvement didn't win the Spanish Civil War.

As for China, I found that most honestly communist sentiments were purged by Chiang Kaishek, and then after that China had a mixed bag of a civil war and revolution, a scene filled with thugs, capitalists, thugs, communists, reformists, moderates, opportunists and a lot of apathy. PRC is an empire, it is not "China." It is a collection of many naitons dominated by a central army. During the 1945-49 period many peasants were indifferent. It was much like the American War of Indpendence. It was called a "revolution" because it had military success and could later implement reforms, but many the populace of many areas lacked popular support for either regime (Mao/Chiang) and so many of the reforms carried out by cadres in the villages were forced from up on high. There was a lot of superficial and flashy violence, but there's a difference between a bloodbath of vengeance killings and socialism. Killing the children of landlords is madness and does nothing to help human progress. Some of the violence bordered on barbarism. Even in the glowing example of Shanxi's villages as shown in William Hinton's "Fanshen" there were a lot of cadres who were little more than gangsters. Mao was very...reactionary in his treatment of liberated urban areas and often preserved many of the power structures and capitalists' control industry (look at Manchuria). The period 1945-49 was part revolution and part protracted civil war. I am glad it happened, though. And despite the conflicts between the Mao and Stalin egos, victory would have been IMPOSSIBLE without Comintern. But wait, that takes away the whole thunder of popular "revolution," doesn't it?

As for Korea, and I don't see a lot of progressivism; I see a lot of militant and cultish hypernationalism (but below that, complete submission to the will of Stalin and Mao in the preSino-Soviet split). the whole Korean War was a useless mess and waste of life and an experimenting ground for aganet orange. It sucked. But I fail to see many differences between
the dictatorship of the South and that of the North. I see two militant satellites of two Cold War superpowers. Any good that Kim Il-Sung had done sure didn't survive into his son's North Korea. Smuggled footage of that country is Orwellian at best.

I didn't know the Soviet Union had any strong role in Vietnam. I could swear that China repaired some railroads at one point (leading to hysteria that China was "intervening"), but that the NLF and the North Vietnamese were strongly nationalist, eventually pissing off China as much as the USA. Look at Pol Pot. China supported Pol Pot out of spite to Vietnam. If I'm wrong about USSR's involvement, correct me.

Eastern Europe? How did Stalin support revolution there? I thought he won those territories from the Nazis in WWII who themselves had seized Eastern Europe from their own peoples. If you refer to the revolution in Poland, that was back in what the 1910s or 1920s when Trotsky was still around, right?

[BobKKKindle$]

The Cultural & Ideological Revolution Hoxha launched stressed the party at all times,The concept of the "cultural revolution" is based on the idea that bourgeois elements exist within the party, even when the proletariat has taken power and capital has been abolished and so an external force is required to return the party to a revolutionary orientation by removing "capitalist-roader" officials. How can the party lead and control the revolution, if the revolution's objective is to change the internal composition of the party?

The Albanian "cultural revolution" therefore makes no sense.

I'd also like to point out that Albania was, like the rest of the Soviet bloc, after the degeneration, anti-abortion. Contraception was restricted (as part of a state program to increase the birth rate) and the government banned abortion, leading to a high incidence of self-induced and illegal abortions, and thus one of the highest maternal-mortality rates in Europe. This was, of course, a continuation of Stalin's reactionary social policy.

Funnily enough, all the Hoxhaists I ask about abortion claim that they didn't know about such restriction. So, Ismail, can you give a justification for this grossly reactionary policy? Abortion was only liberalized after Hoxha's death , what does this say about his commitment to womens liberation?


Our view is similar concerning Cuba (social-imperialist until 1990's and state capitalist) and so on.We've already had a discussion about this issue, Ismail. How can you regard Cuba as capitalist, given that most of the Cuban economy remains under state control, and so there is no bourgeoisie? It only makes sense to speak of the bourgeoisie if there is private ownership of economic resources, as Classes are characterized by their relation to the means of production. And, if Cuba is capitalist, does that mean that you would welcome. or remain indifferent to, the collapse of the Cuban government, and the installation of a market-capitalist regime? By your logic, this would not be a counter-revolution, only a "step sideways" to an alternative version of capitalism.

[Ismail]

^^^ Yes, because your revisionist "orthodoxy" demands unity in thought and action (as opposed to "freedom of discussion and criticism").....which was practiced under Hoxha.

@Sendo:

Stalin undermined revolutions he couldn't control. I think immediately of the Greek Civil War and the squashing of the POUM and the Catalonian anarchists during the Spanish Civil War.The Greek civil war was lost because the Communists made concessions towards the bourgeois. Also the USSR's involvement was limited due to promises made at the Yalta conference. As for the Spanish civil war there was the USSR, France, and UK in a non-intervention treaty. There was much debate whether the USSR should intervene in the first place, with the pro-interventionist side winning and the removal of the foreign minister who was replaced by Molotov.

As for Mao, we don't uphold him.


As for Korea, and I don't see a lot of progressivism; I see a lot of militant and cultish hypernationalism (but below that, complete submission to the will of Stalin and Mao in the preSino-Soviet split).There is without doubt a cult of personality and nationalism. Juche is revisionist, but it is not an imperialist state. It does not demonize those living in the Republic of Korea and I believe is genuinely peaceful albeit paranoid for obvious reasons.


But I fail to see many differences between the dictatorship of the South and that of the North.I'm pretty sure that under Kim Il Sung private property was ended, labor power ended as a commodity and commodity production was reduced where possible. Thing is that the KWP never had a socialist revolution. From the 1940's-1950's it was basically a "Let's have everyone unite!" thing, which is understandable but still no socialist revolution. From the 1990's onwards there have been "special economic zones" in the north of the DPRK which basically mean "Things here are so bad that we'll resort to foreign investments from China, a capitalist state."


Smuggled footage of that country is Orwellian at best.The average citizen of the DPRK leads a good life by international standards. It's only at the northern part of the DPRK bordering China that is not as good.


I didn't know the Soviet Union had any strong role in Vietnam.It didn't have a strong rule, certainly not like it did in eastern Europe, but they obviously endorsed the Vietnamese government as a good one.


Eastern Europe? How did Stalin support revolution there? I thought he won those territories from the Nazis in WWII who themselves had seized Eastern Europe from their own peoples.In Romania and (I think) Bulgaria there were revolutions that overthrew the Fascist governments there. Albania also had a revolution to overthrow the Italian (then German) occupying forces without Soviet help, Yugoslavia did too. The rest viewed the USSR as a liberating force compared to Nazi Germany. Of course Hoxha stated that the nations which did not overthrow their leaders did not experience a socialist revolution, hence why a lot of 'Marxist-Leninist' parties were not very strong. (See: Hungary)

@bobkindles:

How can the party lead and control the revolution, if the revolution's objective is to change the internal composition of the party?Hoxha condemned Mao's cultural revolution as being political and not cultural. Hoxha believed (similar to Stalin) that the bourgeois would only appear in the party if the party allowed it. Of course this is slightly flawed, but it still doesn't mean that Mao's cultural revolution was good. The Ideological & Cultural revolution was about more interaction with the proletariat, which led to the closing of a few government posts, the abolishment of army ranks, more restrictions on religion (which got out of hand), giving women equality (insofar as they could now hold the highest of government offices) and so on.


Contraception was restricted (as part of a state program to increase the birth rate)Now you know why it was restricted.


leading to a high incidence of self-induced and illegal abortions, and thus one of the highest maternal-mortality rates in Europe.Because most were, sadly, peasants that were encouraged to hand the children over to the state but did not want to do so for various reasons. The population policy did work though with it quickly growing by 1960.


what does this say about his commitment to womens liberation?Women went from not being allowed to hold paying jobs and being whipped as legal punishment to being encouraged in the army (with much success) and involved in the highest parts of government. Abortion may not of been legal, but it would be foolish to say that no progress was made.


How can you regard Cuba as capitalist, given that most of the Cuban economy remains under state control, and so there is no bourgeoisie?Cuba works under the Brezhnev-esque profit motive. Managers seem to have a strong influence on decisions, and capitalism seems to be going around in hotels and so on. Explain to me two things: in what way is labor power not a commodity and; how effective and precise is central planning? In the USSR post-Khrushchevite reforms central planning soon became a joke due to a market structure emerging, and it became prediction more than planning. Finally, what is the status of the CCP as a vanguard party? I hear that Fascists are allowed to run for offices, which I assume (or hope) is wrong.


And, if Cuba is capitalist, does that mean that you would welcome. or remain indifferent to, the collapse of the Cuban government, and the installation of a market-capitalist regime?No, since it's still anti-imperialist.

[Wanted Man]

Even a brief overview of "Revolution and Imperialism" would reveal that Hoxha had several points of contention with Mao (many quotes can be found in the "Hoxhaist" group, under the "Maoism and hoxhaism" thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhaism-and-maoism-t70306/index.html):

- The bogus, anti-Marxist "Theory of three worlds"

- Absolutizing the role of the peasantry in socialist transformation

-Placing the highest authority in the Chinese socialist state in his own hands, while negating the legislative powers of the CC of the CPC, rendering them an impotent body (see Andres Marcos criticisms in the "Maoism and Hoxhaism" thread)

- Getting cuddly with American Imperialism, and promoting the idea that American Imperialism had been "Tamed", while Soviet social-imperialism was the greater threat (at the CPC 11th congress, I believe,)

- Shaking hands and making deals with a motley collection of tin-pot, banana republic generals, Colonels and "presidents" from the third world (many of whom were notorious commie killers,), as part of his "theory of three worlds" bullshit.

- Total bungling of the cultural revolution, creating a state of anarchy in china, totally negating the roll of the party, and all the while side-lining the proletariat, while placing the cultural revolution in the hands of the army and the students. In the end, the whole thing was such a tangled erroneous mess, that Mao had to call in the troops to restore order.
These are pretty concrete points. I notice that nobody has really responded to them yet. If you cannot prove that Hoxha had no arguments of merit against Maoism, you should concede the discussion. It looks a lot better than some of the sectarian dick waving in this thread.

[Comrade Rage]

Realistically, Hoxhaism is a non-existent tendency which only sprang up on RevLeft because a bunch of bored people thought it'd be fun to make a Hoxha Union.Actually the Hoxhaist label originates from the Fifties and Sixties when the anti-revisionist movement was largely divided into Hoxhaists and Maoists. Nice try, though.


They are actually very close to Stalinist line and hoxha too. They even claim that Bukharin was an enemy of the people.He was revisionist.


Hoxha decided that Mao was a revisionist after China stopped sending money to Albania and Mao pretty much started slipping the tongue to Tito, who was the greatest danger to Hoxha's rule (nice mental image I know). Before that, he and the PPSH and been completely uncritical of Mao and China, and even followed a lot of his ideology, like the Cultural Revolution and such.

*Preparing for RavenBlade to jump down my throat*Actually, China cut off aid because of Hoxha's criticism. As for being 'uncritical', you are also mistaken on that as Hoxha has had numerous diagreements with Mao during the time when Albania was allied with China.


why the negativity against revisionist or is my definition of such a person wrong? I only know the term in a historical sense, as a revisionist hisotrian who looks over the facts reassessed and makes a revised anaylyse on the conflicting issue/story, or have i missed the mark compeletly?We mean 'revisionist' in the political sense, someone who substitutes Marxist-Leninist principles with reformism, or even all-out capitalism--all while calling himself 'communist' is revisionist.


They're just two groups of people so desparate for a Messiah of the left (the same way Right-wingers have their Reagan) who got shit done, that they will embrace infamous and bloody dictators. Hoxhaists just like to distract people from this by bringing up meaningless BS like revisionism/antirevisionism which has no meaning outside of a bunch of people who grade all political currents as orthodox or heterodox to the continuation of Leninism.Please stop towing the Radio Liberty line about communists.


I have never heard anyone describe himself as a "Stalinist."That is because there is no difference between Stalin and Lenin. Stalin did not alter the nature of the USSR. The only reason that Lenin hasn't been as badly portrayed by the west is because he only lead Revolutionary Russia, and the USSR for less than 7 years. If he had lived longer, the vile propaganda that was written about him would have stuck. [Sendo;1099358]The fact that they try to put in the closet their love for Stalin speaks volumes.[/quote]No, sorry, we aren't cowards. We don't say 'Stalinist' because there IS NO Stalinism and there are NO Stalinists--just those who uphold Marxism-Leninism (me) and those who oppose it (you). I have been more than willing to defend Stalin, and I will continue to do so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Someone who substitutes basic Marxist principles with all-out capitalism isn't even a reformist, let alone a revisionist (obviously it's worse). :confused:

[BobKKKindle$]

Now you know why it was restricted.You think this is justified? The state should not be able to restrict the freedom of its citizens and dictate how they should behave and interact with others - we should be give the ability to make our own choices. How can you justify such a gross infringement on individual freedom?


Women went from not being allowed to hold paying jobs and being whipped as legal punishment to being encouraged in the army (with much success) and involved in the highest parts of government. Abortion may not of been legal, but it would be foolish to say that no progress was made.Access to abortion is one of the most basic rights, because it concerns a woman's ability to determine what happens to her body, and if a woman does not have free access to abortion, her ability to engage in free sexual relations, and take part in society on an equal basis with men is limited. The Albanian government was therefore opposed to womens liberation.


That is because there is no difference between Stalin and LeninWrong. The Soviet Union underwent bureaucratic degeneration, which means that a bureaucracy within the party was able to gain power, and Stalin's rise to power signaled the victory of this bureaucracy.

Lenin recognized that the civil war had resulted in the disintegration of the revolution's social base - the urban population had undergone a drastic decline, because many proletarians had been killed due to military conflict and a lack of adequate food, or had been forced to return to their peasant villages. This disintegration was especially acute in the vanguard of the working class (the section with the most advanced consciousness) because they had often volunteered or had been sent to the front to fight against the reactionary forces. Thus, after the Civil War, in 1921, Lenin said:

"Excuse me, but what do you describe as the proletariat? That class of labourers which is employed by large-scale industry. But where is this large-scale industry? What sort of proletariat is this? Where is your industry? Why is it idle?" (Works, vol. 33, page 174)

As a result, the Soviets were no longer able to function as effective organs of government, and the suppression of internal discussion within the party (the ban on factions, which Lenin had originally intended as a temporary measure) allowed the bureaucracy to attain political power. This is why Lenin wrote:

"Ours is not a workers' state, but a workers' state with a bureaucratic twist to it" (Works, vol. 32, page 24)

Lenin, in agreement with Trotsky, realized that the revolution could only be saved if revolution occurred in other countries, which could provide assistance to the Soviet Union. He tried to deal with the problem of the bureaucracy by initiating a purge within the party, to get rid of people who had joined the party to gain access to material benefits, but this was not sufficient to prevent the bureaucracy from gaining power.

Stalinists, by contrast, deny that the bureaucracy gained power (thus contradicting Lenin and the Marxist method) and are blind to the reasons for the degeneration of the revolution, and what needed to be done to prevent degeneration - international revolution - and restore the political power of the proletariat once this degenerated had occurred - political revolution.

Lenin had nothing in common with Stalin. This is the most powerful lie propagated by the bourgeois historians, to make it seem as if what happened during Stalin's rule was inevitable, or an expression of Marxism's theoretical foundations. Trotskyists uphold Lenin's legacy.


Yes, because your revisionist "orthodoxy" demands unity in thought and action (as opposed to "freedom of discussion and criticism").

In spite of my recent comment, I agree with this, this is another way in which Lenin and Stalin differ - their conception of the Vanguard Party. Lenin recognized that it was important to encourage discussion within the Party, and decisions should not be made without consulting the membership - thus, even during the Civil War, there was internal debate, especially over the issue of whether the Soviet Union should try and sign a peace agreement with Germany, and how much they should be willing to concede. Lenin called for an immediate agreement, but was, at first, outvoted by the rest of the committee, and it was only later, when the Germans began to advance, that he gained sufficient support to gain a majority vote. By contrast, Stalinists envisage a monolithic party, as they see any viewpoint which differs from the accepted norm as "revisionist" and as indicative of an individual's class interests. This is in direct conflict with the Leninist vision.

Trotsky argued against Lenin's ban on factions, as he realized that it would result in the onset of ideological and political conformity and facilitate the growth of a monolithic party that was based upon the hegemony of a bureaucracy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Things are more complicated than that, considering the state capitalism that was common under both regimes. The fundamental differences are political.

[Dimentio]

Because there's two kinds of Stalin kiddies: There's the Maoists, who uphold but criticise Stalin, and there's the Hoxhaists who are hardline Stalinists and contend that Mao's theory is anti-Marxist.

You forgot the tankies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Tankies don't uphold Stalin, though, no? :confused:

I remember this from a Soviet history guide for foreigners (History of the USSR), though:

"Along with... [list of Bolsheviks, including some of Stalin's victims] Vasily Chubar, Stalin made a great contribution... He came to believe in his own infallibility and violated Leninist forms of Party life."

[Dimentio]

^^^ Tankies don't uphold Stalin, though, no? :confused:

I remember this from a Soviet history guide for foreigners (History of the USSR), though:

"Along with...[list of Bolsheviks, including some of Stalin's victims] Vasily Chubar, Stalin made a great contribution... He came to believe in his own infallibility and violated Leninist forms of Party life."

Arch-stalinism (http://www.worldthreats.com/russia_former_ussr/Krutov%20Interview.htm) then...