could someone explain hoxhaism to me? [Archive]

Prairie Fire

7th April 2008, 12:20

hewhocontrolstheyouth:

see Stalinism,

then add 'three worlds theory'

thats about it really

The Red Ghost Re:hewhocontrolstheyouth

You should leave explanations to people who actually know what they're talking about.

Drosera99, Re: hewhocontrolstheyouth

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I know it has allready been said by two maoists, but that was an amazingly incorrect definition. Sorry, but when you state that one of the defining traits of Hoxhaism is the "theory of three worlds", which in actuality is explcitly rejected by Hoxhaism, it's fair to say you have done next to nothing in terms of research. Even a brief skimming of Hoxhas major work Imperialism and the Revolution would reveal this rejection of the theory of three worlds, not just in the text, but in the fucking table of contents, with chapter headings like "The Theory of the "Three Worlds": A Counterrevolutionary Chauvinist Theory (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/imp_ch4.htm)"

That'd be like me saying "Nazism is, in essence, a theory espousing a profound love of peoples of semmetic/Hebrew heritage or the jewish faith." :rolleyes:

If you don't know the answer to a question, that's okay; you don't have to pretend you do.

Unicorn

Hoxha is best known for littering a beautiful country with concrete bunkers.

"Aesthetics deserve priority over practicality and necesity."
Metaphysical observations are fun to make, but irritating to the Marxist-Leninists who read them. You're immature and superficial, thanks for playing.

By the way, while we're on the subject, any persyn who considers the bunkers built in albania to be Scandalous should probably keep that thought on the D-L, because it makes you look completely removed from the reality of world politics and history when you criticize a nation under siege for building fortifications.

The United States also built bunkers. Criticism, anyone?

anyways, Cameron,

shit. i just found an earlier thread that explains everything:blushing:

Allright. do you have a link?

I'll also leave a brief, practical definition:

Hoxhaism (We only use that term to distinguish, in the company of other leftists; usually, we are just Marxist-Leninists or occasionally anti-revisionists) is a strand of anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism that is seperate from Maoism, and does not uphold it's additions.

I think that is a pretty brief summary of Hoxhaism. If you recquire a more in depth summary, particulars, or would like to view the theoretical works yourself, PM me or any one in the Hoxhaist Union.

if i were a strongman, i'd totally do the whole concrete bunker thing tho

:rolleyes:. Too many leftists want to characterize Hoxhaist ML's as "authortarian fetishists", "tankies", or some other "Red Alert 2" shit. We don't watch clips of North Korean military parades and salivatate, with visions of gulags and persynality cults dancing in our heads because we didn't get enough hugs as children, allright? There are those who do that, but that isn't us.

We do not gravitate towards Marx, Engels, Lenin, stalin or Hoxha because we think they were strongmen, and want to be like them; we embrace their teachings out of concurrance with the correctness of their theories and ideas. Ask anyone in the HU, we're all pretty well-read.

There are the rare Hoxhaists who love Mao, like the former members of the now defunct Communist Party of New Zealand (Taken over by Trots).

Trots took over the Communist Party of New Zealand? Man, that party has been through every ideological tendency, hasn't it.

bootleg42

Just more dogma on the left, our biggest weakness IMO.

The Lefts "Biggest weakness", isn't Dogma, it's bullshit revisionists like you who have waged an unrelenting war against Marxism-Leninism, but never produce any results yourselves, nor stab capitalism any more substantially than throwing a garbage can through a StarBucks window.

On the contrary, the ultra-left types (such as yourself) who criticize Marxism-Leninism tend to be the most dogmatic, the most obsessed with
ideological purity (and therefore the most ivory tower and irrelevent to any of the proletariat.).

Bilan

7th April 2008, 13:47

I'm no fan of Hoxhaism, nor a hoxhaist, but here is a link of how they explain their positions: An introduction to Hoxhaism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/introduction-hoxhaism-t69193/index.html)

Hope this helps.

bootleg42

7th April 2008, 14:42

The Lefts "Biggest weakness", isn't Dogma, it's bullshit revisionists like you who have waged an unrelenting war against Marxism-Leninism, but never produce any results yourselves, nor stab capitalism any more substantially than throwing a garbage can through a StarBucks window.

On the contrary, the ultra-left types (such as yourself) who criticize Marxism-Leninism tend to be the most dogmatic, the most obsessed with
ideological purity (and therefore the most ivory tower and irrelevent to any of the proletariat.).

How am I dogmatic if I don't follow any party line but I only follow what people want?????

And we haven't produced anything??? We've been able to help create better conditions for poor people (and myself since I'm no middle class white suburban) so that they can live better while the state and capitalism still exists.

I could care less what "ideology" the poor take. Whatever they want (and not what they're told to think, either by capitalists or anyone else) they should get. Right now (if you've had contact with inner city poor, etc), people are not even thinking about eliminating the state or stuff like that, they (at the moment) just want basic things (like healthcare, jobs, etc) and they're trying to achieve it via the state via social movements. They will one day be pushed to a limit when they realize that the state can only achieve so much that they'll all come to their own conclusions of it's unnecessity, which is THEN when they'll do what THEY feel is necessary, not what a party line or some ideology feels is necessary.

The lefts biggest weakness is holding on to old theories which has turned into dogma. The left is not seeing people's problems and most importantly, it's not asking the important question, "what do the workers themselves want?" That's how you create grassroots political movements. You don't go to people and say "you must follow xxxxx line to achieve socialism, etc". It's as simple as asking "what do you want?". Immaturity on the left is terrible. I hope it gets healed one day. When it does, we'll see the beginning of the end of capitalism and the state and the beginning of socialism.

Unicorn

7th April 2008, 18:04

"Aesthetics deserve priority over practicality and necesity."
Metaphysical observations are fun to make, but irritating to the Marxist-Leninists who read them. You're immature and superficial, thanks for playing.

By the way, while we're on the subject, any persyn who considers the bunkers built in albania to be Scandalous should probably keep that thought on the D-L, because it makes you look completely removed from the reality of world politics and history when you criticize a nation under siege for building fortifications.

The United States also built bunkers. Criticism, anyone?
:D
Albania's isolation was entirely Hoxha's own fault. The construction of bunkers and other military spending served no purpose but it impoverished the Albanian people. Hoxha aligned himself with Mao and was kicked out of Warsaw Pact.

Hoxha also criminalized homosexuality which is inexcusable.

:rolleyes:. Too many leftists want to characterize Hoxhaist ML's as "authortarian fetishists", "tankies", or some other "Red Alert 2" shit. We don't watch clips of North Korean military parades and salivatate, with visions of gulags and persynality cults dancing in our heads because we didn't get enough hugs as children, allright? There are those who do that, but that isn't us.
I am a "tankie" and think that Hoxha was a delusional fool who wanted to develop socialism in isolation. That didn't work. Under Hoxha's rule Albania became the poorest nation in Europe and the people was oppressed.

Hoxha opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia which places him outside M-L orthodoxy. In this regard he was not better than the revisionist Eurocommunists.

bezdomni

7th April 2008, 18:10

Hoxha aligned himself with Mao and was kicked out of Warsaw Pact.

Read my above post. This is not true. I don't know where you get this idea, Hoxha and Mao were not on very good terms and mutually considered eachother to be revisionist.

The construction of bunkers and other military spending served no purpose but it impoverished the Albanian people.
I am admittedly ignorant on the subject, but my understanding is that the bunkers weren't built to suppress internal revolt (as the bourgeoisie say) but in the case that an invasion happened (which was always possible), people in villages would be able to head for the bunkers for safety.

I could be wrong, but the whole "Hoxha built bunkers" thing always comes off as anti-communist propaganda to me.

Unicorn

7th April 2008, 18:57

Read my above post. This is not true. I don't know where you get this idea, Hoxha and Mao were not on very good terms and mutually considered eachother to be revisionist.
China gave much economic aid to Albania in the 1960s.

I am admittedly ignorant on the subject, but my understanding is that the bunkers weren't built to suppress internal revolt (as the bourgeoisie say) but in the case that an invasion happened (which was always possible), people in villages would be able to head for the bunkers for safety.
The bunkers were supposed to shield soldiers in the case of invasion. They cost more than twice as much as the French Maginot line but were total waste of money. The Albanian army was shit and could not defend the country effectively if NATO or WP invaded.

Coggeh

7th April 2008, 19:03

Just more dogma on the left, our biggest weakness IMO.
Having an ideology isn't dogmatic, but not fighting for reforms because they aren't grassroots socialism based is. we must fight for all reforms but still uphold and propagandize our ideas. There is nothing "dogmatic" about debating your line of ideas and frankly for someone who isn't supposed to be dogmatic your using that term alot .

bezdomni

7th April 2008, 19:25

China gave much economic aid to Albania in the 1960s.

Yeah. China gave unconditional support to all struggles of national liberation, but they did not consider Albania to be undergoing a communist revolution nor did they ever consider Hoxha to be a real communist.

China supported the struggle for national liberation in Albania, as they did all over the world. It was never an endorsement of Hoxha, but rather an aid to the struggle of the masses against imperialism.

cameron222

7th April 2008, 22:02

the thread already touching on this was a few pages back in learning.

so i take it hoxhaists don't give unconditional support to cuba or n. korea. do they support them in any way?

i'm guessing that the chances of hoxhaists convincing a large segment of anyone in the first world of the validity of their line are pretty low, (i myself didn't even knowwhat a hoxhaist was till i saw the hoxhaist group), so do they concentrate on third world countries? do they try to convince maoists that are already convinced?

Prairie Fire

8th April 2008, 02:15

Albania's isolation was entirely Hoxha's own fault.

What were the other alternatives? Become the neo-colonial "breadbasket" of the Warsaw pact, idustrializing and electrifying at the whims of the Kruschevite USSR? Be annexed into the Yugoslavian SFR? Stand silent with the PRC, as they continued to openly collaborate with American imparialism and right-wing entities world wide?

Isolation is not the worst thing that can happen to a country, and usually it is imposed by external conditions rather than internal decision making.

The construction of bunkers and other military spending served no purpose but it impoverished the Albanian people.

Actually, Albanias military spending by percentage was quite low, as far as I know.

Good try. As for "Served no purpose", you seem to have forgotten about the British backed "Bay of Pigs" style invasion of Albania by Albanian reactionaries. :rolleyes:

Once again, more metaphysical,superficial bullshit. "Bah, why does any country spend money on their military? Surely a Country like Albania, opposed to both military superpowers, would be completely safe from any type of invasion or armed aggression. I mean, it's not as though the USA and USSR financed armed coups in countries all over the world during the cold war, or frequently invaded them to impose regime change, right?":rolleyes: .
As I said, you're immature and superficial, thanks for playing.

Hoxha aligned himself with Mao and was kicked out of Warsaw Pact.

And? What does this little tid-bit possibly have to do with anything? How is that remotely relevent to your bullshit point you are trying to make against the construction of defensive bunkers?

Hoxha also criminalized homosexuality which is inexcusable.

Source?

Anyways, So did the Brezhnevite paradise that you drool over; So did Maos China.
Homosexuality was not known or understood very scientifically at the time, so certainly all states, both socialist and capitalist, reacted to it in an innapropriate way. If you want to blame Albania, then you have to blame the USA (many states STILL have laws against sodomy), the USSR, and every other country in the world at that time.

While you're at it, blame every country that used to think the world was flat during the dark ages. :rolleyes:

I am a "tankie" and think that Hoxha was a delusional fool who wanted to develop socialism in isolation

Well then, you're wrong. You have done no research on the subject, are not aware of the network of fraternal parties that the PPSH encouraged and supported, are deliberately ignoring Albanias history of relations with other socialists nations (as long as they remained genuine,), and repeating lines that you can't substantiate that sound like they were taken from a bourgois TV program/wikipedia (they use the sam eline about North Korea.).

You're just mad because Hoxha denounced Kruschev and Brezhnev, you're social imperialist heros, and Albania refused to be a cash-crop neo-colony of the Warsaw pact.

Hoxha opposed the invasion of Czechoslovakia which places him outside M-L orthodoxy.

Now we get to the root of your bullshit;

Explain to me, simply, how the invasion of Czechoslavakia held any similarity to the orthodox theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism? Cause see, Hoxha points out clearly how it does not! Parties that follow Hoxha point out clearly how the actions of the Kruschvite USSR in Czechoslavakia and hungary have zero basis in the theory or actions of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Explain to me your case, of how the military intervention of the social imperialist forces in this state was the Marxist-Leninist in any sense?
Because they waved red flags when they did it?:rolleyes: You certainly are a tankie, you Brezhnevite scum.

In this regard he was not better than the revisionist Eurocommunists.

Read "Eurocommunism is anti-Communism" by Enver Hoxha

China gave much economic aid to Albania in the 1960s.

Yeah....and? you keep giving me these "Fun facts" about Albania that seem to have nothing to do with the subjects we are discussing.

The bunkers were supposed to shield soldiers in the case of invasion.

As well as people. At least you understand that the bunkers were of a defensive nature.

They cost more than twice as much as the French Maginot line but were total waste of money.

source?

I would like to point out, was the maginot line was not also a total waste of money? Also, the biggest difference is, France had colonies to foot the bill of their militarism. Albania did things alone, with nothing more than proletarian power.

I doubt their fortifications cost much in terms of capital, as the labour and materials were domestically produced with state facilites.

The Albanian army was shit and could not defend the country effectively if NATO or WP invaded.

"The Albanian army was shit"? Do I detect national chauvenism?

Anyways, so what you're saying is that if a country doesn't have the military might to stand up to imperialist superpowers, it is illegitimate to try and do so? Might makes right? You are passing from Brezhnevite into fascist.

In reality, the poorly armed Vietcong gave the USA a very hard time in Vietnam (culminating in defeat,), and the poorly armed Mujihideen gave the USSR a very hard time in Afghanistan (culminating in defeat.). Now, the poorly armed, poorly organized Iraqi resistance is giving the USA a very hard time in Iraq, and my country is having a hell of a time in Afghansistan.

I hate to quote Mao, but seriously, "All reactionaries are paper tigers."

Now to answer Camerons legitimate question:

so i take it hoxhaists don't give unconditional support to cuba or n. korea. do they support them in any way?

Well, that depends. The thing to remember about Hoxhas analysis is that the world changed, and currently there is no genuine Marxist-Leninist state to look to. Because of this many Hoxhaist organizations now critically defend Cuba and North Korea against regression. We still consider Castroism to be revisionist, as well as Juche, but straight up capitalism is worse.

i'm guessing that the chances of hoxhaists convincing a large segment of anyone in the first world of the validity of their line are pretty low, (i myself didn't even knowwhat a hoxhaist was till i saw the hoxhaist group),

Ignorance of the truth doesn't make it any less aplicable.

Anyways, actually the most succesful Hoxhaist party outside of Albania was in Canada (CPC-ML).

so do they concentrate on third world countries?

Not specifically... We have parties in thirdworld countries, yes, but not specifically because they are third world. Read Imperialism and the Revolution for Hoxha criticisms of the theory of three worlds.

We encourage parties in all countries.

do they try to convince maoists that are already convinced?

Once again, not specifically, but I know that many international Hoxhaists are ex-Maoists. I myself am, as is Andres Marcos.

Certainly, I would consider Imperialism and the Revolution to be a "12 step" program for Maoists.

Coggy:

There is nothing "dogmatic" about debating your line of ideas and frankly for someone who isn't supposed to be dogmatic your using that term alot .

Nice. :D

How am I dogmatic if I don't follow any party line but I only follow what people want?????

And we haven't produced anything??? We've been able to help create better conditions for poor people (and myself since I'm no middle class white suburban) so that they can live better while the state and capitalism still exists.

I could care less what "ideology" the poor take. Whatever they want (and not what they're told to think, either by capitalists or anyone else) they should get. Right now (if you've had contact with inner city poor, etc), people are not even thinking about eliminating the state or stuff like that, they (at the moment) just want basic things (like healthcare, jobs, etc) and they're trying to achieve it via the state via social movements. They will one day be pushed to a limit when they realize that the state can only achieve so much that they'll all come to their own conclusions of it's unnecessity, which is THEN when they'll do what THEY feel is necessary, not what a party line or some ideology feels is necessary.

The lefts biggest weakness is holding on to old theories which has turned into dogma. The left is not seeing people's problems and most importantly, it's not asking the important question, "what do the workers themselves want?" That's how you create grassroots political movements. You don't go to people and say "you must follow xxxxx line to achieve socialism, etc". It's as simple as asking "what do you want?". Immaturity on the left is terrible. I hope it gets healed one day. When it does, we'll see the beginning of the end of capitalism and the state and the beginning of socialism.

While I will agree with you that a real party must analyze concrete conditions properly, develop short term and pragmatic goals, occasionally make small victories under capitalism, and properly interpret the goals and struggles of the masses ("Land, Peace, Bread"), but that's where I stop agreeing with you.

And who are you that you were part of this vaguely defined "We", that apparently created better conditions for the poor people under capitalism? From what I've heard, most labour advances and social programs (in my country, anyways,) from the 8 hour work day, to the weekend, to nationalized health care, were brought on by the concious labour movement and the communist parties. Quit co-opting the accomplishments of organizations and movements that you had no direct role in.

Die Neue Zeit

8th April 2008, 02:40

^^^ I thought the Warsaw Pact had other breadbaskets. :confused:

Personally, I would have preferred a Yugoslav federation uniting the six historical republics with Bulgaria and Albania - but as one larger Soviet satellite. :D Lord knows why Mongolian economic integration wasn't given more attention by the Soviets in their spats with China. :(

Explain to me, simply, how the invasion of Czechoslavakia held any similarity to the orthodox theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism? Cause see, Hoxha points out clearly how it does not! Parties that follow Hoxha point out clearly how the actions of the Kruschvite USSR in Czechoslavakia and hungary have zero basis in the theory or actions of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Sure: "Comrade" Stalin plotted to assassinate Tito, and basically tried to weaken Mao by committing China's forces to the Korean war with only Soviet aerial support. :)

Dros

8th April 2008, 03:34

Yeah. China gave unconditional support to all struggles of national liberation, but they did not consider Albania to be undergoing a communist revolution nor did they ever consider Hoxha to be a real communist.

China supported the struggle for national liberation in Albania, as they did all over the world. It was never an endorsement of Hoxha, but rather an aid to the struggle of the masses against imperialism.

The RCP considers Albania to have been socialist.

bezdomni

8th April 2008, 04:21

The RCP considers Albania to have been socialist.

Where do you get that from?

Unicorn

8th April 2008, 04:48

What were the other alternatives? Become the neo-colonial "breadbasket" of the Warsaw pact, idustrializing and electrifying at the whims of the Kruschevite USSR? Be annexed into the Yugoslavian SFR? Stand silent with the PRC, as they continued to openly collaborate with American imparialism and right-wing entities world wide?

Isolation is not the worst thing that can happen to a country, and usually it is imposed by external conditions rather than internal decision making.
There was nothing wrong in specialization within the socialist camp and Albania should have stayed as a primarily agricultural country. In that way the Albanian people could achieve the highest possible living standard. Industrialization would also be much easier with Soviet assistance.

Actually, Albanias military spending by percentage was quite low, as far as I know.

Good try. As for "Served no purpose", you seem to have forgotten about the British backed "Bay of Pigs" style invasion of Albania by Albanian reactionaries. :rolleyes:

Once again, more metaphysical,superficial bullshit "Bah, why does any country spend money on their military? Surely a Country like Albania, opposed to both military superpowers, would be completely safe from any type of invasion or armed aggression. I mean, it's not as though the USA and USSR financed armed coups in countries all over the world during the cold war, or frequently invaded them to impose regime change, right?":rolleyes: .
As I said, you immature and superficial, thanks for playing.
As a socialist state Albania should have directed military spending to strenghten the socialist block against US imperialism in accordance with Warsaw Pact's doctrine. Building the country full of bunkers would not be desirable. Instead, Albania would have built armored and mechanized divisions etc.

Hoxha's military spending had anti-Soviet purposes and was a burden on Albanian workers and women who were unjustly drafted.

And? What does this little tid bit possibly have to do with anything? How is that remotely relevent to your bullshit point you are trying to make agains the construction of defensive bunkers?
Siding with Mao and leaving the socialist pact was a revisionist act. It was anti-Soviet left-opportunism. China treacherously murdered dozens of Soviet border guards on Chenpao Island and planned nuclear war against the country of Lenin, later in league with US imperialists.

Well then, you're wrong. You have done no research on the subject, are not aware of the network of fraternal parties that the PPSH encouraged and supported, are deliberately ignoring Albanias history of relations with other socialists nations (as long as they remained genuine,), and repeating lines that you can't substantiate that sound like they were taken from a bourgois TV program/wikipedia (they use the sam eline about North Korea.).

You're just mad because Hoxha denounced Kruschev and Brezhnev, you're social imperialist heros, and Albania refused to be a cash-crop neo-colony of the Warsaw pact.
Ah, why I have never heard of these Hoxhaist parties? Perhaps because they never had an impact on the real world. When Hoxha ruled in Albania the working class in Western countries supported Social Democrats, Eurocommunists or pro-CPSU anti-revisionist communists. Other tendencies were of no significance.

Now we get to the root of your bullshit;

Explain to me, simply, how the invasion of Czechoslavakia held any similarity to the orthodox theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism? Cause see, Hoxha points out clearly how it does not! Parties that follow Hoxha point out clearly how the actions of the Kruschvite USSR in Czechoslavakia and hungary have zero basis in the theory or actions of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Explain to me your case, of how the military intervention of the social imperialist forces in this state was the Marxist-Leninist in any sense?
Because they waved red flags when they did it?:rolleyes: You certainly are a tankie, you Brezhnevite scum.
The Czechoslovakian leadership was attempting to restore capitalism. It was necessary to intervene to prevent that. The intervention served the interests of the Czechoslovakian proletariat.

Read "Eurocommunism is anti-Communism" by Enver Hoxha
Eurocommunists are basically left-wing social democrats. I know the differences between them and the quasi-Stalinist crank Hoxha.

Yeah....and? you keep giving me these "Fun facts" about Albania that seem to have nothing to do with the subjects we are discussing.
The problem was that Hoxha joined Mao's revisionist anti-Soviet camp.

source?

I would like to point out that the maginot line was not a total waste of money? Also, the biggest difference is France had colonies to foot the bill of their militarism. Albania did things alone, with nothing more than proletarian power.

I doubt their fortifications cost much in terms of capital, as the labour and materials were domestically produced with state facilites.
The Maginot Line was indeed a formidable fortification. The Germans just circumvented it. But building bunkers randomly around the country would not be effective at all.

Source about the cost:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2098705.stm

"The Albanian army was shi"t? Do I detect national chauvenism?

Anyways, so what you're saying is that if a country doesn't have the military might to stand up to imperialist superpowers, it is illegitimate to try and do so? Might makes right? You are passing from Brezhnevite into fascist.

In reality, the poorly armed Vietcong gave the USA a very hard time in Vietnam (culminating in defeat,), and the poorly armed Mujihideen gave the USSR a very hard time in Afghanistan (culminating in defeat.). Now, the poorly armed, poorly organized Iraqi resistance is giving the USA a very hard time in Iraq, and my country is having a hell of a time in Afghansistan.

I hate to quote Mao, but seriously, "All reactionaries are paper tigers."
Albania's army was indeed shit because Albania was a small country which did not have the men or the material to build a powerful army and the Maoist military doctrine was seriously flawed.

If NATO or the Warsaw Pact (rolling over Yugoslavia) had invaded the Albanian army could not resist the invasion effectively. Maybe the army would have fought against NATO but the Albanian people would have welcomed the Soviets as liberators.

Die Neue Zeit

8th April 2008, 05:10

* Sits back with some popcorn :laugh: *

Now we get to the root of your bullshit;

Explain to me, simply, how the invasion of Czechoslavakia held any similarity to the orthodox theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism? Cause see, Hoxha points out clearly how it does not! Parties that follow Hoxha point out clearly how the actions of the Kruschvite USSR in Czechoslavakia and hungary have zero basis in the theory or actions of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin.

Explain to me your case, of how the military intervention of the social imperialist forces in this state was the Marxist-Leninist in any sense?
Because they waved red flags when they did it? :rolleyes: You certainly are a tankie, you Brezhnevite scum.

The Czechoslovakian leadership was attempting to restore capitalism. It was necessary to intervene to prevent that. The intervention served the interests of the Czechoslovakian proletariat.

Why has nobody made comparisons to the Kronstadt uprising?

bezdomni

8th April 2008, 17:59

Albania's army was indeed shit because Albania was a small country which did not have the men or the material to build a powerful army and the Maoist military doctrine was seriously flawed.

If NATO or the Warsaw Pact (rolling over Yugoslavia) had invaded the Albanian army could not resist the invasion effectively. Maybe the army would have fought against NATO but the Albanian people would have welcomed the Soviets as liberators.

You should probably re-think everything you've said there...especially that whole "welcomed the Soviets as liberators" bit.

spartan

8th April 2008, 18:29

Albania's army was indeed shit because Albania was a small country which did not have the men or the material to build a powerful army and the Maoist military doctrine was seriously flawed.

I am no defender of Hoxha or anything but WTF has the size and state of Albania's armed forces got to do with anything exactly?

The Czechoslovakian leadership was attempting to restore capitalism. It was necessary to intervene to prevent that. The intervention served the interests of the Czechoslovakian proletariat.

Good lord put down the propaganda before its too late!

I would say that any leadership of a country which loosens restrictions on the media, speech and travel deserves credit, especially when they are being bullied by one of the worlds two superpowers to stop giving their people more of these personal freedoms.

There was nothing wrong in specialization within the socialist camp and Albania should have stayed as a primarily agricultural country. In that way the Albanian people could achieve the highest possible living standard. Industrialization would also be much easier with Soviet assistance.

Why should Albania submit themselves to the will of the USSR?

Yes from a standardisation POV it would show a united front to Capitalism but Socialism isnt about forcing smaller nations to accept someone else's rules.

The Maginot Line was indeed a formidable fortification. The Germans just circumvented it. But building bunkers randomly around the country would not be effective at all.

You have to remember that Albania had to face a western supported invasion by Albanian anti-Communists so these bunkers placed randomly around the country would serve a purpose if they had to face that scenario again.

Wow i cant believe that i actually just defended Hoxha and Albania:scared:

Unicorn

8th April 2008, 20:31

I am no defender of Hoxha or anything but WTF has the size and state of Albania's armed forces got to do with anything exactly?
Hoxha's military spending among other things impoverished the Albanian proletariat.

Good lord put down the propaganda before its too late!

I would say that any leadership of a country which loosens restrictions on the media, speech and travel deserves credit, especially when they are being bullied by one of the worlds two superpowers to stop giving their people more of these personal freedoms.
The Czechoslovakian leadership also wanted to restore market economy.
See:
http://www.workers.org/marcy/cd/samczech/czech/czech04.htm

Why should Albania submit themselves to the will of the USSR?

Yes from a standardisation POV it would show a united front to Capitalism but Socialism isnt about forcing smaller nations to accept someone else's rules.
Unity within the socialist block is one of the principles of Marxism. Albania had a right to self-determination and the USSR respected it but Albania turned against the Soviet Union to the detriment of the Albanian people and all socialist countries.

You have to remember that Albania had to face a western supported invasion by Albanian anti-Communists so these bunkers placed randomly around the country would serve a purpose if they had to face that scenario again.
Three hundred people were not a serious threat to Albania then and especially not after there were hundreds of thousands of people in the Albanian army. The bunkers were useless.

And if Albania was seriously concerned of its security it should stay as a member of the Warsaw Pact.

Dros

8th April 2008, 21:21

Where do you get that from?

Revolutionary Worker # 902

"Led by the communists, the people of Albania's isolated villages fought to create a new collective agriculture. They broke the power of the old bey feudal landowning classes. As the war-torn economy was rebuilt, modern industry emerged in Albania for the first time--created along socialist lines. Albania had close ties to the Soviet Union--which in those years was a socialist country led by Joseph Stalin.

In 1956 phony communists rose to power in the Soviet Union and overthrew socialism. They restored capitalism--using a state-capitalist system of ownership. And their new state-capitalist owning class exploited the people, even while they continued to call themselves "communists."

Albania was the only country in Eastern Europe that refused to follow the Soviet revisionists down that capitalist road. At great risk, Albania's Party of Labor broke with the Soviet Union, and made a close alliance with Mao's China. Albania remained socialist for two more decades, led by Enver Hoxha, the leader of the Party of Labor of Albania (PLA)."

Emphasis added.

Unicorn

8th April 2008, 23:10

Prairie Fire

9th April 2008, 05:37

Unicorn:

There was nothing wrong in specialization within the socialist camp and Albania should have stayed as a primarily agricultural country. In that way the Albanian people could achieve the highest possible living standard. Industrialization would also be much easier with Soviet assistance.

Where have I heard this before.... sounds like the type of shit the IMF puts out.

There is a LOT wrong with "specialization" (Read: Neo colonialism). "Specialization" is part of the reason why Cuba is in the position it is today. Rather than industrializing, they became reliant on sugar cash-crop exports to the USSR, and imported everything they needed from the USSR. Now, when there ceased to be much of a USSR, Cuba entered the "Special economic period".

Now, they've had to trick their country out to capitalist tourists as a vacation destination, and the ensuing capitalist regression (which has been going on for years,) has been sped up. If they had industrialized or built any infrastructure in their country, there wouldn't have been a "Special economic period."

Anyways, who the fuck are you to decide what Albania's chief product should be? A PPSH cenral planner, perhaps? An Albanian collective farmer? Are you even Abanian?

As a socialist state Albania should have directed military spending to strenghten the socialist block against US imperialism in accordance with Warsaw Pact's doctrine.

If the Warsaw pact had any intentions of "countering US imperialism", they should have dispensed with all of that "peaceful coexistance" shit that Kruschev put out!

Anyways, Albania did counter US imperialism, but they explicitly saw that the USSR was just as bad under the social-imperialists.

Building the country full of bunkers would not be desirable.

Once again, why do you feel you are in the position to make this call?
The people who constructed the bunkers had actually fought wars in Albania, and this experience went into their preperations.

Also, if you know anything about the United States, they rely on Air superiority for their military. In the case of probable carpet bombing and air strikes, yeah, bunkers would be a pretty good idea to have. I'm sure the people of Vietnam,Laos and Cambodia would have liked to have a concrete bunker or two, in the the face of un-relenting air attacks.

Instead, Albania would have built armored and mechanized divisions etc.

I thought you wanted them to become an agricultural nation? Anyways, the Albanians most likely had the facilities to produce war machines
(they had the biggest tractor factory in the world), but as that little tid-bit just said, they used these facitilies to produce tractors and other things that were useful to the actual situation in Albania, which you seem to know very little about.

Hoxha's military spending had anti-Soviet purposes

The Soviets had anti-Albanian purposes; you're inability to recognize a distinctive shift in the policies and ambitions of the Soviet leadership, in different time periods of the USSR, is what makes you a Brezhnevite.

and was a burden on Albanian workers and women who were unjustly drafted.

And all Soviet soldiers were volunteers. :rolleyes: Hell, even the US had the draft until 1972/1973. Most countries in the world at that time had the draft.

Also, why do you differentiate between workers and Womyn?

Siding with Mao and leaving the socialist pact was a revisionist act.

Because....

It was anti-Soviet left-opportunism.

That still doesn't answer my question about your absurd statement above.
Leaving the warsaw pact and the Soviet economic/military sphere was revisionist because....

China treacherously murdered dozens of Soviet border guards on Chenpao Island

I thought we were talking about Albania?

and planned nuclear war against the country of Lenin

Whoa, whoa whoa! What the hell is this "Country of Lenin" shit? Now we reach the crux of your ridiculous non-argument. I allready have pointed out your metaphysical streak, and your inability to recognize actual social conditions or political/economic regression in socialist countries, which leads you to support damn near anything the USSR did. This,however, is the finest demonstration of your metaphysical allegiances, as you believe
that, somehow, the USSR was inherently revolutionary because Lenin was born there? Because the USSR was revolutionary and socialist at one time, everything they did was automatically socialist and revolutionary for the rest of their existence?

You ignore the re-introduction of the profit motive back into the USSR by the social-imperialists, the break down of central planning, the introduction of "peaceful coexistance" with the American imperialists, the encouraging of economic and material dependency in countries under their influence, external military aggression against neighbouring countries, and support of coup attempts not unlike the USA (from Mengistu in Ethiopia, to the PDPA in Afghanistan.. the new soviet leadership even tried to overthrow Kim Il sung a few times in DPRK.)

Seriously, when the political, economic and social truths demonstrate the regresion towards capitalism and the thorough revisionism of the latter USSR, where does this "country of Lenin" shit come from? I mean, I'm a supporter of Enver Hoxha, but I was able to recognize that the leader after him (Ramiz Alia) was thoroughly a revisionist and capitalist restorationist,and I criticize him as such. I am able to recognize whne a country strays from the socialist path,despite wether or not they keep waving red flags.

Sheesh, if the USSR must be dogmatically, eternally supported as the "Country of Lenin", does that make it treasonous and revisionist when the Soviets struck back against Nazi Germany? Germany was, after all, the "Country of Marx". :rolleyes:

Stupid, Stupid Brezhnevite.

later in league with US imperialists.

...which the PPSH denounced thoroughly;They were the first to do so. Have you done any fucking research, or do you just enjoy the sound your keyboard makes when you type?

Ah, why I have never heard of these Hoxhaist parties?

Because you're an idiot, and have done little, to no research.
Why is it that I know of most of the worlds communist parties (even ones I'm opposed to,) and you don't?

Perhaps because they never had an impact on the real world.

In my country, the Hoxhaist Party was the largest party, much stronger than the Soviet supported one; it still is. CPC-ML, look it up.
In New Zealand, the ONLY communist party was Hoxhaist.

Also, a party with Hoxhaist leanings won against the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia (although the leadership abandoned Hoxhaism soon afterwards.)
Do a little research next time.

When Hoxha ruled in Albania the working class in Western countries supported Social Democrats, Eurocommunists or pro-CPSU anti-revisionist communists. Other tendencies were of no significance.

Once again, the largest, strongest communist party in Canada was Hoxhaist. The CPC were a joke, ever since the USSR went revisionist. The CPC only persisted (in a greatly diminished capacity) because of "Moscow gold".

And if you are going to support the Social Dem's in any country, you have no right to call anyone a revisionist.

The Czechoslovakian leadership was attempting to restore capitalism.

Which supposes there was socialism in Czechoslavakia to begin with.

It was necessary to intervene to prevent that. The intervention served the interests of the Czechoslovakian proletariat.

Which is why you are a Brezhnevite. A Marxist-Leninist believes in extensive party building, and working to lead the proletariat to take power for themselves, against their own national bourgoisie (and possibly an international one as well.). This is what happened in Albania. Socialism worked in Albania specifically because the Red Army of the Soviet union never set foot in it. The Albanian proletariat, with the PPSH at their head, liberated themselves. Now, I'm not criticizing Stalin for the anti-fascist war against the Germans; that was necesary, and he withdrew troops soon afterwards. I'm saying that the Soviet unions participation in the anti-fascist war can't be compared in context or content to Czechoslvakia or Hungary, and that socialism can't be enforced by an advancing red army. If you aspire to do things "in the interests of the proletariat", without their participation(let alone leadership), then you side-line them and, abandon any pretenses of Marxism-Leninism. That is imperialism, straight up.

Eurocommunists are basically left-wing social democrats.

Right....

I know the differences between them and the quasi-Stalinist crank Hoxha.

Obviously not, or you never would have made such an idiotic response that prompted my original request, that you read Euro-communism is Anti-communism
(at this point, Manifesto of the communist Party by Marx and Engles, As well as What is to Be Done and Imperialism: The Highest stage of capitalism by Lenin might help you out as well. In order to recognize revisionism, you should acquire a basis for comparison, right?)

The problem was that Hoxha joined Mao's revisionist anti-Soviet camp.

Which was a problem why ? See, every time I ask this question (because all of your accusation lead here,), you dance around it, and refuse to address the issue. to make it clear for you, the issue is: What was there in the USSR /warsaw pact, that was worth being a part of? Why do you think the USSR was still socialist from the mid-fifties, onward? In what ways did it's organizational, economic, and social structure reflect the advancements of Marxism-Leninism?

Don't give me any of that pseudo-religious "Country of Lenin" dogmatic tripe. Lenin died in '24; the USSR went south in the fifties. Stop your naive Brezhnevite cult mentality, and let's see you defend the socialist content that you allege the USSR still had during the social imperialist era! That is the issue.

But building bunkers randomly around the country would not be effective at all.

Random? Most were close to population centers. As I said, in the event of air tsrikes, it would be very effective.

Albania's army was indeed shit because Albania was a small country which did not have the men or the material to build a powerful army and the Maoist military doctrine was seriously flawed.

I think Spartan mostly took you to town on this one ( I can't believe it either,), but my thoughts:

1. What does being a small country have to do with the legitimacy of having an army? What does population size or technology have to do with it? Albania needed an army, therefore they had one. You still approach this from the point-of-view of "Might makes right", which is what I'd expect from a Brezhnevite.

Real life is not like "Red Alert 2", and wars happen wether you have the men and materials for a military or not, which is what happened to Albania.

2. Okay, the Albanian army was never "Maoist", but if you're refering to abolition of rank in the army and simplistic uniforms, explain how this is contradictory to socialism? I could counter on the role that the Soviet officers played in the social-imperialist coup in the USSR, with all of their pomp and privilage and whatnot.

If NATO or the Warsaw Pact (rolling over Yugoslavia) had invaded the Albanian army could not resist the invasion effectively.

More of that "might makes right", Brezhnevite "Logic"; I'm getting sick of it. By this logic ,the National Liberation Front(Viet Cong) should have just laid down their arms, and surrendered to the Americans in Vietnam, as they "Couldn't resist effectively". the same goes for every socialist revolutionary movement/army ever. Hell, even the original soviet Red army was not the most advanced, most well equipped army in the world, but they still repelled a dozen countries, for years to come.

Maybe the army would have fought against NATO but the Albanian people would have welcomed the Soviets as liberators.

Which is based on a gigantic boat-load of nothing. Did you read above, where I said the Soviet Red army never entered Albania, at any time? An invader is an invader, a social-imperialist is an imperialist.

Hoxha's military spending among other things impoverished the Albanian proletariat.

And the Soviets military spending didn't? All those missiles were pulled out of a magical hat, I presume? Anyways, we've been over why countries often need to defend themselves, wether they can afford it or not.

I guess the USSR had neo-colonies to foot the bill of their militarism, so only a foriegn proletariat got shafted. Yay, proletarian internationalism! Wooo!

The Czechoslovakian leadership also wanted to restore market economy.

once again, quit dancing around the issue, deliberately avoiding it. The question is not wether capitalists were trying to pull tricks in Czechoslavakia, but wether it was ever socialist in the first place! There was no revolution ,there was no dictatorship of the proletariat, and there was no liquidation of bourgois elements in Czechoslavakia, hence there was no socialism in a real sense.

Unity within the socialist block is one of the principles of Marxism

Actually, genuine Marxists have never been shy to break decisively with revisionists. Re-read the Manifesto of the communist party (that is, if you ever read it in the first place,), and read Marx and Engles criticisms of the other types of socialism. Read up on how Marx split with Bakunin in the first international. Read up about Lenins break with Kautsky, and the revisionists of the Second international. If Lenin followed "Unity of the socialist camp" in the dogmatic, superficial way that you mean, regardless of actual content, there never would have been a Bolshevik party, and probably not a Soviet union either.
Stalin had his Tito, his Trotsky, and the Browderites of the CP-USA... Splitting with revisionist elements is actually the only thing that has ever brought about revolutionary success for the proletariat and their parties.

Ideally, yeah, the genunine socialist bloc should stand united (like it was during the late forties, and with the third comintern,), but you don't have to un-critically support evey persyn/organization/country that flys a red flag!

Albania had a right to self-determination and the USSR respected it but Albania turned against the Soviet Union to the detriment of the Albanian people and all socialist countries.

I see; and you are the incarnate voice of the entire Albanian people, circa late 1950's? Certainly not the Labour Party of Albania, or the hundreds of thousands of people in it; certainly they had no idea what was good for Albania.The Albanian proletariat, born and raised in Albania, had no idea what was in their "best interests,", only Soviet apparatchiks who had never set foot there.

And no, encouraging Albania to be economically dependent on commodity production, and a silent component of the warsaw pact, was not very "respectful of their self-determination".

Three hundred people were not a serious threat to Albania then and especially not after there were hundreds of thousands of people in the Albanian army. The bunkers were useless.

You mean hundreds of thousands in the Army that, according to you, shouldn't have existed in the first place?
Anyways, the bunkers were to defend against a bigger, better equipped army. Sometimes the US used contras to topple a regime, but when that failed, they would directly invade countries they disliked. Albania was closer to NATO countries than the USSR, with Greece directly to their south, Italy beside them, Titoites to the north, and the USSR to the East, ALL OF THEM HOSTILE TO ALBANIA.

And if Albania was seriously concerned of its security it should stay as a member of the Warsaw Pact.

"If this neighborhood was seriously concerned for it's safety, they should have paid the mafia it's protection money."

Prairie Fire

9th April 2008, 06:47

Many Hoxhaists have the authoritarian personality Adorno described. They have pre-Fascist tendencies and indeed some of them are disillusioned Nazis.

For example, Hoxhaist poster Cmde. Slavyanski is actually a former spokesman of the White Supremacist organization National Alliance. This is not a joke.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/03/updates.html

Cmde. Slavyanski uses the name J.P. Slovjanski on the White Supremacist VNNforum and Captain Marinesko on Phora. Just take a look at what kind of hate-filled posts he has made in the past and you'll see that he is clearly a deranged person. His recent "conversion" to Marxism-Leninism is not even genuine as he is still whining that capitalist societies are destroying the "white race" and claiming that only Marxism can save it. Slovjanski's racist Hoxhaist views are a tragic caricature of Marxism.

Anyway, given the ability of Hoxhaists to distort Marxism-Leninism it does not surprise me that they have abandoned proletarian internationalism.

When you have no argument, attack persynal qualities, dig up dirt and mudsling.;yup, I'ver seen this tactic too many tiimes.

Leave my boy alone. You have found one Hoxhaist who was a former Nazi, and now you use that, as though it is the norm, to bolster your non-argument?

I'd re-direct you to the thread in his defence, but it's in the CC. Perhaps someone could reprint it. Also, for someone who believes in "Proletarian internationalism a'la Tank brigade" and doing things "in the best interests of the proletariat", with a foriegn military, you really have no right to accuse anyone else of "pre-Fascist tendencies"

he is still whining that capitalist societies are destroying the "white race" and claiming that only Marxism can save it

Mmmm, when? I know him, I read his blog regularly... When has he said that recently?

given the ability of Hoxhaists to distort Marxism-Leninism it does not surprise me that they have abandoned proletarian internationalism.

You mean Soviet economic and political dominance? Is Proletarian internationalism a euphemism for that now?

Drosera:

R
evolutionary Worker # 902

"Led by the communists, the people of Albania's isolated villages fought to create a new collective agriculture. They broke the power of the old bey feudal landowning classes. As the war-torn economy was rebuilt, modern industry emerged in Albania for the first time--created along socialist lines. Albania had close ties to the Soviet Union--which in those years was a socialist country led by Joseph Stalin.

In 1956 phony communists rose to power in the Soviet Union and overthrew socialism. They restored capitalism--using a state-capitalist system of ownership. And their new state-capitalist owning class exploited the people, even while they continued to call themselves "communists."

Albania was the only country in Eastern Europe that refused to follow the Soviet revisionists down that capitalist road. At great risk, Albania's Party of Labor broke with the Soviet Union, and made a close alliance with Mao's China. Albania remained socialist for two more decades, led by Enver Hoxha, the leader of the Party of Labor of Albania (PLA)."

Emphasis added.

Interesting, because I believe the declaration of the RIM denounces Hoxha, and RCP-USA was a signatory.

Spartan:

Wow i cant believe that i actually just defended Hoxha and Albania:scared:

:scared: :scared: :scared:

Oh no! I seem to have switched bodies with Spartan! He is defending Hoxha and Albania, meanwhile I'm calling someone a fascist and arguing against the USSR!

Everything is upside down! the laws of the universe have been reversed! Run for your life!:scared:

:D Seriously though Spartan, I was expecting less. When I saw that you posted here, I rolled my eyes. I find myself agreeing with you more frequently since you went Honeckerist.

Keep up the good work.

Jake:

Why has nobody made comparisons to the Kronstadt uprising?

Because there aren't really any parrallels? Using the red army to put down a bunch of rebellious anarchist sailors within the context of a proletarian revolution is not the same thing as crossing into a neighboring country to interfere in the political process, all the while side-lining their proletariat in a patronizing way, and enforcing demonance.

Unicorn

9th April 2008, 13:06

When you have no argument, attack persynal qualities, dig up dirt and mudsling.;yup, I'ver seen this tactic too many tiimes.

Leave my boy alone. You have found one Hoxhaist who was a former Nazi, and now you use that, as though it is the norm, to bolster your non-argument?

I'd re-direct you to the thread in his defence, but it's in the CC. Perhaps someone could reprint it. Also, for someone who believes in "Proletarian internationalism a'la Tank brigade" and doing things "in the best interests of the proletariat", with a foriegn military, you really have no right to accuse anyone else of "pre-Fascist tendencies"
Hoxhaism attracts people who have an unbalanced authoritarian personality. Neo-Nazism attracts people of the same type. These people are not reliable comrades and for me it is a valid reason to avoid association with Hoxhaists, IMO. They could Fascists next week and betray you.

My another point is that apparently you argue as a Hoxhaist that the communist movement should welcome villainous criminals. Slovjanski has committed many crimes against the working class, such as incitement of racial hatred and membership in a Fascist organization. He is not better than a murderer or a rapist in my eyes.

Mmmm, when? I know him, I read his blog regularly... When has he said that recently?
Slovjanski: "In other words, capitalism is driving the immigration/globalization process, and multiracialism and cosmopolitanism are being promoted in order to get the people to go along with that. That is why to build racial values we need to overthrow that system because its needs and goals are at odds with racial and national values."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=224618&highlight=racial

You mean Soviet economic and political dominance? Is Proletarian internationalism a euphemism for that now?
Proletarian internationalism is a principle of Marxism shared by all genuine Marxist tendencies. Slovjanski's racism and xenophobia is incompatible with genuine Marxism.

Die Neue Zeit

9th April 2008, 15:03

If the Warsaw pact had any intentions of "countering US imperialism", they should have dispensed with all of that "peaceful coexistance" shit that Kruschev put out!

Khrushchev formalized the policies of "Comrade" Stalin, anyways. In my thread on "Marxism-Leninism," the mere sellout of the Greek "Marxist-Leninists" (so we're not talking about revolutionary Marxists, here :p ) from a position of strength was an act of "peaceful coexistence." The limitation of Soviet involvement in the Korean war to aerial support was also another act of "peaceful coexistence." All the genuine stuff about "Comrade" Stalin wanting an unified but non-aligned Germany was also "peaceful coexistence." :glare:

once again, quit dancing around the issue, deliberately avoiding it. The question is not wether capitalists were trying to pull tricks in Czechoslavakia, but wether it was ever socialist in the first place! There was no revolution ,there was no dictatorship of the proletariat, and there was no liquidation of bourgois elements in Czechoslavakia, hence there was no socialism in a real sense.

Whatever happened to the Czech and Slovak "Socialist" Republic-satellites established under "Comrade" Stalin? :glare:

[BTW, I do agree with you, considering my old History thread on "Lenin, Stalin, and post-Stalin." Lenin established revolutionary-democratic state capitalism, while Stalin did away with revolutionary democracy and established bureaucratic state capitalism.]

Unicorn

9th April 2008, 16:07

Unicorn:
Where have I heard this before.... sounds like the type of shit the IMF puts out.

There is a LOT wrong with "specialization" (Read: Neo colonialism). "Specialization" is part of the reason why Cuba is in the position it is today. Rather than industrializing, they became reliant on sugar cash-crop exports to the USSR, and imported everything they needed from the USSR. Now, when there ceased to be much of a USSR, Cuba entered the "Special economic period".

Now, they've had to whore their country out to capitalist tourists as a vacation destination, and the ensuing capitalist regression (which has been going on for years,) has been sped up. If they had industrialized or built any infrastructure in their country, there wouldn't have been a "Special economic period."
Castro made the decision to focus on sugar production himself. It was sensible because there is much demand for sugar in the world and Cuba's climate is well suited for sugar production. Castro's friendship with the Soviets paid off.

If the Warsaw pact had any intentions of "countering US imperialism", they should have dispensed with all of that "peaceful coexistance" shit that Kruschev put out!
The world changes and the Marxist theory must thus be updated constantly. Nuclear warfare between NATO and the Soviet Union was a new threat which made necessary to minimize the risk of war.

Anyways, Albania did counter US imperialism, but they explicitly saw that the USSR was just as bad under the social-imperialists.
Albania was a small impoverished country and couldn't do a damn to counter US imperialism abroad unlike the Soviet Union.

Once again, why do you feel you are in the position to make this call?
I am not an Albanian but my heart bleeds for the Albanian workers who suffered terrible oppression under German and Italian Fascists rule and Stalinist misrule under Hoxha.

The Soviets had anti-Albanian purposes; you're inability to recognize a distinctive shift in the policies and ambitions of the Soviet leadership, in different time periods of the USSR, is what makes you a Brezhnevite.
I am very familiar with theoretical developments within the CPSU.

And all Soviet soldiers were volunteers. :rolleyes: Hell, even the US had the draft until 1972/1973. Most countries in the world at that time had the draft.

Also, why do you differentiate between workers and Womyn?
I don't differentiate between workers and women of course, sorry for misphrasing.

A draft is not a problem. I support universal conscription in socialist countries. Drafting women is a problem because it violates the social role of women (their right to motherhood and family life) and places those women who are not physically or mentally ready for front-line combat in an unjust situation. Women can serve in the military but only as volunteers.

Because....
See:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-revisionism-vs-t74878/index.html

That still doesn't answer my question about your absurd statement above.
Leaving the warsaw pact and the Soviet economic/military sphere was revisionist because....
Albanians sided with US imperialists against the Soviet Union. Hoxha's Albania exported chrome to the US but refused to trade with the Soviet Union.
Source: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/gdoc/hearings/82603423/82603423.html

The Soviet Union was at worst (according to Trots) a "degenerated" workers' state but no genuine Marxist equates the USSR with US imperialism or considers it worse. Even Trotsky supported defending the gains of the revolution in the USSR.

I thought we were talking about Albania?
Albania was Mao's chief mouthpiece in the UN and supported China after the Sino-Soviet split.

Whoa, whoa whoa! What the hell is this "Country of Lenin" shit?
A figure of speech. It refers to the fact that because the Soviet Union was the first country which achieved socialism the party was most experienced and hardened and provided sound advice to all M-L parties in the world. CPSU had a rightful role as the vanguard of the international communist movement.

Now we reach the crux of your ridiculous non-argument. I allready have pointed out your metaphysical streak, and your inability to recognize actual social conditions or political/economic regression in socialist countries, which leads you to support damn near anything the USSR did. This,however, is the finest demonstration of your metaphysical allegiances, as you believe
that, somehow, the USSR was inherently revolutionary because Lenin was born there? Because the USSR was revolutionary and socialist at one time, everything they did was automatically socialist and revolutionary for the rest of their existence?

You ignore the re-introduction of the profit motive back into the USSR by the social-imperialists, the break down of central planning, the introduction of "peaceful coexistance" with the American imperialists, the encouraging of economic and material dependency in countries under their influence, external military aggression against neighbouring countries, and support of coup attempts not unlike the USA (from Mengistu in Ethiopia, to the PDPA in Afghanistan.. the new soviet leadership even tried to overthrow Kim Il sung a few times in DPRK.)

Seriously, when the political, economic and social truths demonstrate the regresion towards capitalism and the thorough revisionism of the latter USSR, where does this "country of Lenin" shit come from? I mean, I'm a supporter of Enver Hoxha, but I was able to recognize that the leader after him (Ramiz Alia) was thoroughly a revisionist and capitalist restorationist,and I criticize him as such. I am able to recognize whne a country strays from the socialist path,despite wether or not they keep waving red flags.

Sheesh, if the USSR must be dogmatically, eternally supported as the "Country of Lenin", does that make it treasonous and revisionist when the Soviets struck back against Nazi Germany? Germany was, after all, the "Country of Marx". :rolleyes:

Stupid, Stupid Brezhnevite.
Ridiculous. If I really thought so I would defend Gorbachev who was the General Secretary of CPSU and a damned revisionist. All leaders of the USSR deserve criticism, some of them more than others.

...which the PPSH denounced thoroughly;They were the first to do so. Have you done any fucking research, or do you just enjoy the sound your keyboard makes when you type?
I have done my research well and know that especially after the Sino-Albanese split Hoxha actively supported US imperialists trading raw materials to them.

Because you're an idiot, and have done little, to no research.
Why is it that I know of most of the worlds communist parties (even ones I'm opposed to,) and you don't?
I don't know or care how many communist parties you know.

In my country, the Hoxhaist Party was the largest party, much stronger than the Soviet supported one; it still is. CPC-ML, look it up.
:laugh:
Let's take a look at the electoral success of your party.

Election # of candidates nominated # of seats won # of total votes % of popular vote % in ridings run in
1974 104 0 16 261 0.17% ?
1979 144 0 14 231 0.12% ?
1980 177 0 14 697 0.13% ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada_(Marxist-Leninist)#Electoral_activity

Your party is a fucking joke. Has always been. I am Finnish. Let's compare it to my former party, SKDL.

Year MPs Votes Share of votes

1966 41 502 374 21,20%
1970 36 420 556 16,58%
1972 37 438 757 17,02%
1975 40 519 483 18,89%
1979 35 518 045 17,90%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_People's_Democratic_League

Which is why you are a Brezhnevite. A Marxist-Leninist believes in extensive party building, and working to lead the proletariat to take power for themselves, against their own national bourgoisie (and possibly an international one as well.). This is what happened in Albania. Socialism worked in Albania specifically because the Red Army of the Soviet union never set foot in it. The Albanian proletariat, with the PPSH at their head, liberated themselves. Now, I'm not criticizing Stalin for the anti-fascist war against the Germans; that was necesary, and he withdrew troops soon afterwards. I'm saying that the Soviet unions participation in the anti-fascist war can't be compared in context or content to Czechoslvakia or Hungary, and that socialism can't be enforced by an advancing red army. If you aspire to do things "in the interests of the proletariat", without their participation(let alone leadership), then you side-line them and, abandon any pretenses of Marxism-Leninism. That is imperialism, straight up.
Dubcek was a betrayer of Marxist-Leninist ideals and planned to purge the party of genuine communists, also communists like you. The Czech revisionists persecuted pro-Soviet workers and were starting a counter-revolution introducing market economy.

As Brezhnev said "when forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries." Stalin had this same position and that is why I don't understand your attitude at all.

Which was a problem why ? See, every time I ask this question (because all of your accusation lead here,), you dance around it, and refuse to address the issue. to make it clear for you, the issue is: What was there in the USSR /warsaw pact, that was worth being a part of?
The USSR was the largest socialist country in the world. Soviet workers enjoyed unparalled freedom and social rights. The USSR and other WP countries were steadfast opponents of American imperialism. The Warsaw Pact was a defensive alliance and more than match against NATO in Europe, thus providing security for the workers in socialist countries.

Why do you think the USSR was still socialist from the mid-fifties, onward?
Workers owned the means of the production. Nothing changed in the mid-fifties. The economic growth was also fastest in world history.

In what ways did it's organizational, economic, and social structure reflect the advancements of Marxism-Leninism?
After Stalin died the Leninist principle of democratic centralism was restored to the party. Stalin criminally purged his opponents which lead to intellectual poverty within the party. Brezhnev's USSR was definitely more authentically Marxist-Leninist.

once again, quit dancing around the issue, deliberately avoiding it. The question is not wether capitalists were trying to pull tricks in Czechoslavakia, but wether it was ever socialist in the first place! There was no revolution ,there was no dictatorship of the proletariat, and there was no liquidation of bourgois elements in Czechoslavakia, hence there was no socialism in a real sense.
Bullshit. The workers controlled the means of production in Czechoslovakia. The economy was centrally planned. Stalin himself approved of this system and stated that it was socialist. However, in 1968 the Czechoslovakian revisionist bureaucrats wanted to restore market economy.

What would Stalin do in this situation? It is obvious that he would deal with the Czechoslovakian situation in the same way as Brezhnev.

Actually, genuine Marxists have never been shy to break decisively with revisionists. Re-read the Manifesto of the communist party (that is, if you ever read it in the first place,), and read Marx and Engles criticisms of the other types of socialism. Read up on how Marx split with Bakunin in the first international. Read up about Lenins break with Kautsky, and the revisionists of the Second international. If Lenin followed "Unity of the socialist camp" in the dogmatic, superficial way that you mean, regardless of actual content, there never would have been a Bolshevik party, and probably not a Soviet union either.
Stalin had his Tito, his Trotsky, and the Browderites of the CP-USA... Splitting with revisionist elements is actually the only thing that has ever brought about revolutionary success for the proletariat and their parties.

Ideally, yeah, the genunine socialist bloc should stand united (like it was during the late forties, and with the third comintern,), but you don't have to un-critically support evey persyn/organization/country that flys a red flag!
I agree with this principle but Mao was not a genuine Marxist. See:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/maoist-revisionism-vs-t74878/index.html

nvm

9th April 2008, 16:38

AGITprop

9th April 2008, 16:44

Man look
Hoxhaism , Stalinism and Maoism are all bankrupt ideologies. They collapsed meaning that they all had a bureaucracy that eventually sold out to the capitalists and they were all degenerated or deformed workers states.
There was no workers democracy in them .
Who gives a rats ass if Hoxha liked Stalin and considered Mao as a revisionist , and that Mao considered Hoxha as a revisionist. In the end they were all revisionists and of the worst type.
Hoxhaism is another attempt to make the marxist-leninist ideology ,serve the interests of the bureaucracy.
Long live workers democracy .

Here Here!
Long live recallable officials as well. Long live the right to abort! Long live the INTERNATIONAL REVOLUTION! Long live the complete and utter opposition to Fascist states. Long live equal wages for officials and workers! Long live the power of the proletariat!

Ugh...
sometimes communism is so cheesy :lol:

bezdomni

9th April 2008, 17:23

Here Here!
sometimes communism is so cheesy :lol:

Trotskyists make communism boring.

AGITprop

9th April 2008, 17:27

Trotskyists make communism boring.

How very scientific.
When you conduct a study and prove the relationship or at least a correlation between Trotskyists and boring communism, I'll listen to your slander!:)

bezdomni

9th April 2008, 20:10

How very scientific.
When you conduct a study and prove the relationship or at least a correlation between Trotskyists and boring communism, I'll listen to your slander!:)

Case in point.

AGITprop

9th April 2008, 20:22

Case in point.

Well I'm sorry, but Communism is boring. It is serious business and not meant to be a source of humour.

It's too bad that I actually take revolution seriously.

Dros

9th April 2008, 21:23

Interesting, because I believe the declaration of the RIM denounces Hoxha, and RCP-USA was a signatory.

True. Maoists denounces Hoxhaism as revisionist and Hoxha as an opportunist and a hack theorist.

However, that does not mean that Albania may have been objectively socialist for some time. Also, Hoxha became a revisionist and was not necessarily always one (can't say for sure b/c I haven't read any Hoxha, especially any early Hoxha).

Comrade Rage

9th April 2008, 21:34

I could be wrong, but the whole "Hoxha built bunkers" thing always comes off as anti-communist propaganda to me.There were bunkers, in case of an invasion, but they weren't some odd conspiracy like the anti-communist idiots want you to think.

Die Neue Zeit

10th April 2008, 02:55

Whoa, whoa whoa! What the hell is this "Country of Lenin" shit? Now we reach the crux of your ridiculous non-argument. I allready have pointed out your metaphysical streak, and your inability to recognize actual social conditions or political/economic regression in socialist countries, which leads you to support damn near anything the USSR did. This,however, is the finest demonstration of your metaphysical allegiances, as you believe
that, somehow, the USSR was inherently revolutionary because Lenin was born there? Because the USSR was revolutionary and socialist at one time, everything they did was automatically socialist and revolutionary for the rest of their existence?

...

Sheesh, if the USSR must be dogmatically, eternally supported as the "Country of Lenin", does that make it treasonous and revisionist when the Soviets struck back against Nazi Germany? Germany was, after all, the "Country of Marx".

Um, I think he meant "country of Lenin" in terms of the Soviet Union itself (which Lenin helped create), not the land on which it was on (the territory of the former Russian Empire, and Lenin was born in the Russian Empire itself). :rolleyes:

You need to sharpen your polemical skills and not go to ridiculous extremes. :(
Mixing Kautsky (look at my avatar and see my turn-Hegel-right-side-up reasoning) with Hitler was a no-no in the "Un-orthodox Maoists" thread. :(

bezdomni

10th April 2008, 16:18

There were bunkers, in case of an invasion, but they weren't some odd conspiracy like the anti-communist idiots want you to think.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Obviously Hoxha built bunkers. :P

Well I'm sorry, but Communism is boring. It is serious business and not meant to be a source of humour.

It's too bad that I actually take revolution seriously.

You are a supporter of the IMT, aren't you? Explain to me what is revolutionary about the IMT's "transitional demands". Is that seriously how you think socialist revolution happens? Some obscure Trotskyoid party calling for a "mass party of labor" publishes a list of reformist demands and thinks that is how revolution is gonna happen. Sorry, but Trotsky himself wasn't even that silly.

If you want to see the least bastardized continuation of Trotskyism today, I suggest you check out the Spartacist League and their crappy paper "Workers Vanguard".

Although even more than that, I suggest you study Lenin and Trotsky and note the important instances where they disagree. Trotsky himself said that he opposed the joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry because he thought it was unmarxist, which was contrary to Lenin's position and the rest of the CPSU.

Trotsky also refused to march the Red Army through peasant villages, because he hated the idea of recruiting peasantry into the Red Army. After the revolution, he was arguing for the militarization of labor and the continuation of "war communism".

The reason he was kicked out of the party isn't because Stalin couldn't handle dissent, it's because Trotsky was consistently violating the party's democratic centralism and he was at the forefront of a faction within the party, which was banned by a previous decision of the Central Committee back when Lenin was a live. To paraphrase Lenin, "the most detrimental thing that can happen to our party is factionalism, especially right now when there is so much turmoil".

So Trotsky and all of the factionalists got kicked out of the party because they were violating democratic centralism. Trotsky could never admit to that though, and kept on with his anti-materialist tirades about how Stalin was leading a "deformed workers state" and was an enemy of the revolution.

Revolution is serious, which is why you have to study rather than adopt Trotsky as a father figure because the bourgeoisie say fewer bad things about him than they do about Stalin. Too many people accept Trotskyism because they view it as an "anti-Stalinist Leninism" rather than what it actually is - a dogmatic, non-marxist, idealist at best and counterrevolutionary at worst ideology.

Ismail

10th April 2008, 17:50

To shut people up about the "OMG HOXHAISM NEVER EXISTED ANYWHERE" argument:

Current Parties (via the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist-Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Unity_and_St ruggle%29))
Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin), Parti communiste du Bénin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Benin)
Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil), Partido Comunista Revolucionário (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolutionary_Communist_Party_%28B razil%29&action=edit&redlink=1)
Burkina Faso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso), Parti communiste révolutionnaire voltaïque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaic_Revolutionary_Communist_Party)
Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile), Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Communist_Party_%28Proletarian_Action%29)
Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia), Partido Comunista de Colombia (Marxista-Leninista) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Colombia_%28marxist-leninist%29)
Côte d'Ivoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivoire), Parti Communiste Révolutionnaire de Côte d'Ivoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_C%C3%B4te_d%27Ivo ire)
Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark), Arbejderpartiet Kommunisterne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Communist_Party_%28Denmark%29)
Dominican Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic), Partido Comunista del Trabajo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Labour)
Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador), Partido Comunista Marxista-Leninista de Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Communist_Party_of_Ecuador)
France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Parti communiste des ouvriers de France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Communist_Party_of_France)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany), Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Roter Morgen) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_%28Red_Dawn%29)
Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece), Κίνηση για Ανασύνταξη του ΚΚΕ 1918-55 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Reorganization_of_the_Communist_P arty_of_Greece_1918-55)
Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), Hezb-e Kar-e Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_Labour_of_Iran&action=edit&redlink=1)
Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Teoria & Prassi
Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico), Partido Comunista de México (Marxista-Leninista) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Mexico_%28Marxist-Leninist%29)
Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway), ML-gruppa Revolusjon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Group_Revolusjon)
Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), Partido Comunista de España (marxista-leninista) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Spain_%28Marxist-Leninist%29)
Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia), Parti communiste des ouvriers tunisiens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Workers%27_Communist_Party)
Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey), Türkiye Devrimci Komünist Partisi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_Turkey)Historical (note: may include same parties as above but with English names)
Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin): Communist Party of Dahomey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Benin)
Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil): Communist Party of Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Brazil)
Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom): Communist League of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League_of_Great_Britain)
Burkina Faso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso): Voltaic Revolutionary Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaic_Revolutionary_Communist_Party)
Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada): Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada_%28Marxist-Leninist%29)
Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile): Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_Communist_Party_%28Proletarian_Action%29)
Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia): Communist Party of Colombia (marxist-leninist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Colombia_%28marxist-leninist%29)
Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark): Communist Party of Denmark/Marxist-Leninists (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communist_Party_of_Denmark/Marxist-Leninists&action=edit&redlink=1)
Dominican Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic): Partido Comunista del Trabajo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Labour)
Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador): Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Communist_Party_of_Ecuador)
Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia): Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_League_of_Tigray)
Faroe Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands): Advancement for the Islands (m-l) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_for_the_Islands_%28m-l%29)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany): Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany/Marxists-Leninists)
Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany): Communist Party of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany_%28Red_Dawn%29) (KPD/Roter Morgen)
Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greece): Organisation of Communists Marxists-Leninists of Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Communists_Marxists-Leninists_of_Greece)
Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran): Party of Labour of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_Labour_of_Iran&action=edit&redlink=1)
Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan): Japan Communist Party (Left Faction) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japan_Communist_Party_%28Left_Fact ion%29&action=edit&redlink=1)
Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico): Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Mexico_%28Marxist-Leninist%29)
Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands): Workers Party of the Netherlands (build-up organisation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Party_of_the_Netherlands_%28build-up_organisation%29)
Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua): Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party_of_Nicaragua)
Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal): Communist Party (Reconstructed) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_%28Reconstructed%29)
Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain): Communist Party of Spain (marxist-leninist) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Spain_%28marxist-leninist%29)
Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden): Communist Party in Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_in_Sweden)
Togo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Togo): Communist Party of Togo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Togo)
Tunisia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisia): Tunisian Workers' Communist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Workers%27_Communist_Party)
Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey): Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist - Hareketi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Turkey/Marxist-Leninist_-_Hareketi)
Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey): Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_Turkey)
USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA): Alliance Marxist-Leninist (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alliance_Marxist-Leninist&action=edit&redlink=1) (North America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America))
USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA): Ray O. Light Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_O._Light_Group)
USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA): Marxist-Leninist Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist-Leninist_Party)
Venezuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela): Red Flag Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Party)

Unicorn

10th April 2008, 23:27

The Maoists who chose the Albanian side after the Sino-Albanian split did so largely because Albania was closer and it was less expensive to travel there. :laugh:

Unicorn

11th April 2008, 01:05

Crum, instead of posting .JPGs explain why Hoxha supported US imperialism with Albanian chrome?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhas-trade-united-t75588/index.html?t=75588

Andres Marcos

11th April 2008, 01:22

Wow Unicorn your fascism and national chauvinism is the funniest thing I hjave seen all over this thread, you have managed to ''unite'' The Trots, Maoists and Hoxhaists to bash all over you and I will do the same.

Castro made the decision to focus on sugar production himself. It was sensible because there is much demand for sugar in the world and Cuba's climate is well suited for sugar production. Castro's friendship with the Soviets paid off.

Which isn't supported by any facts. Cuba's production in sugar DECREASED thanks to the Soviet Empire's control of its economy. This resulted in Che Guevara to call out the USSR on this control of their economy and they were pissed about it.

"Castro announced . . . that his whole new economic policy was postulated on a spectacular increase in sugar production, aimed at reaching 10 million tons by 1970. Agricultural diversification went backward instead of forward. For example, rice production had advanced to a high point of 181,000 tons in 1957, two years before Castro, and plunged to 95,400 tons in 1962, after three years of Castro. Cuba had been forced to reorganise its entire economy'. (Theodore Draper (1965): pop. cit.; p. 172, 227, 230).

In April 1961 Guevara could still stress the necessity for Cuba to break with the semi-colonial pattern of dependence upon a single export crop, in favour of industrialisation and diversification:
"Under-development or distorted development, carries with it a dangerous specialisation in raw materials, containing a threat of hunger for all our people. We, 'the underdeveloped', are those of the single crop, the single product, and the single market. A single product whose uncertain sale depends upon a single market, which imposes and sets conditions. This is the great formula of imperial economic domination which is combined with the old and always useful Roman formula, 'divide and conquer". (Ernesto Guevara: 'Cuba - Exception or Vanguard?', in: John Gerassi (Ed.): op. cit.; p. 135).
"Once settled in the Ministry of Industries, Che began to speed up the industrialisation of Cuba. . Along with industrialisation went the companion aim of diversification (Daniel James: 'Che' Guevara'; London; 1970; p. 123).
"The regime in Cuba intended now to diversify her agriculture so that in a very short time. . . . she need no longer rely on sugar". (Hugh Thomas: op. cit.; p. 512).
But diversification and industrialisation were not compatible with the desires of the Soviet revisionists that Cuba should take up a semi-colonial position to the Soviet Union. Under Soviet pressure, therefore, these plans were abandoned in favour of continued concentration upon the growing of sugar for export.

and Che Guevara's criticisms of the Soviet Empire as well

THE EXILE OF GUEVARA (1965-67)
While Castro's criticism of Soviet revisionism in the period 1963-67 was expressed obliquely, that of Guevara -- now Minister of Industry -- was open and direct.
For example, in February 1965, at a meeting of the Organisation of Afro-Asian Solidarity in Algiers, Guevara accused the Soviet government of being a
"Tacit accomplice of imperialism11 (Daniel James: op. cit.; p. 131).
And in the Egyptian weekly Akher Saa:
"Che roundly castigated the Russians as "revisionists". (Daniel James: op. cit.; p. 134).
The Soviet Government, finding these public attacks intolerable, demanded that Guevara be removed from any position of influence:
"Che's embrace of a kind of Maoism and his search for ideas that led him outside (the Soviet distortion of -- Ed.) Marxism-Leninism could be, and were, construed in Moscow to be be anti-Soviet. Che had to go. His repeated public attacks upon the Soviet Union had finally become intolerable to the Kremlin, whose representatives had served notice of their displeasure on Premier Fidel Castro, leaving Castro with no real choice, since Moscow's economic aid kept his government and economy afloat". (Daniel James: op. cit.; p. 131, 133, 149).
http://www.allianceml.com/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm

A draft is not a problem. I support universal conscription in socialist countries. Drafting women is a problem because it violates the social role of women (their right to motherhood and family life) and places those women who are not physically or mentally ready for front-line combat in an unjust situation. Women can serve in the military but only as volunteers.
We can now add sexist to the long list of everything wrong with you at this point. Who the hell are you to say women should be mothers and in control of a familt if they don't want to? Also tell me in what instances are women not physically or mentally suitable for combat? I certainly have not heard of that problem in the Soviet Armies, Albanian military, or the Israeli one as well as numerous militaries around the world who have women serve.

The Soviet Union was at worst (according to Trots) a "degenerated" workers' state but no genuine Marxist equates the USSR with US imperialism or considers it worse. Even Trotsky supported defending the gains of the revolution in the USSR.
OH lets see, industries run through profit, calling unemployment ''labor surplus'', opening up coca-cola factories during the brezhnev era, as well as striking deals with the U.S. to have joint adventures in its nation does not qualify the post-Stalin USSR as being a capitalist nation?

Read this book
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrintro.html

Albania was Mao's chief mouthpiece in the UN and supported China after the Sino-Soviet split.
BECAUSE Mao had criticized Khrushchev's attacks on Stalin, and at that time China had maintained the facade that it was a Marxist-Leninist state. Also mouthpiece? thats absurd, if you call withdrawing from the Warsaw pact after the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, trying to assasinate Kim Il Sung, and establishing a blockade against Albania being a mouthpiece then Ill be fine with that because NO state would be happy to deal with a nation that plotted its overthrow, Hoxha was not the only Marxist-Leninist to be on the bad side of the USSR Gheorghe Gheorghu-dej also forbade the USSR to set foot in Romania after De-Stalinization and after they tried to overthrow Kim Il Sung.

A figure of speech. It refers to the fact that because the Soviet Union was the first country which achieved socialism the party was most experienced and hardened and provided sound advice to all M-L parties in the world. CPSU had a rightful role as the vanguard of the international communist movement.
WTF?!?!? that doesnt justify the USSR bombing of Ethiopia and its open embrace of capitalism and ''peaceful coexistence''' after the death of Stalin! So just because Lenin was Russian means I have to kiss the ass of every Russian I meet?

I have done my research well and know that especially after the Sino-Albanese split Hoxha actively supported US imperialists trading raw materials to them.
Oh bologne, if Hoxha was trading with the U.S. the USSR was fucking them even allowing coca-cola to build factories in the USSR as well as tag teaming with them against Iran in the Iraq-Iran War.

Dubcek was a betrayer of Marxist-Leninist ideals and planned to purge the party of genuine communists, also communists like you. The Czech revisionists persecuted pro-Soviet workers and were starting a counter-revolution introducing market economy.
Which the USSR had ALREADY done

"Profit is formed directly from the difference between the price and cost of production". (L. Gatovsky: "The Role of Profit in a Socialist Economy", in: "Kommunist" (Communist), no. 18, 1962, in: M.E. Sharpe (Ed.): "Planning, Profit and Incentives in the USSR", Volume 1; New York; 1966; p. 98).
"We must elevate the importance of profit and profitability".
(N.S. Khrushchov: Report on the Programme of the CPSU, 22nd.
Congress CPSU; London; 1961; p.54).

This line was developed under the "economic reform" carried through by Khrushchov's successors. General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin:

"Let us consider profit, one of the economic instruments of socialism. A considerable enhancement of its role in socialist economy is an indispensible requisite for cost accounting".
(Editorial: "Economic Policy and the Work of Communism", in: "Pravda" (Truth), January 14th., 1966, in: "The Soviet Economic Reform: Main Features and Aims"; Moscow; 1967; p.11)

So let me ask you this? I am supporting the Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein when I oppose the invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing in 2003? Fail, not only Fail EPIC FAIL. The USSR had NO right to interfere in the private affairs of a nation, Stalin didnt invade Yugoslavia when Tito started kissing up to capitalism.

The USSR was the largest socialist country in the world. Soviet workers enjoyed unparalled freedom and social rights.
Like the Freedom to be unemployed?

If one studies the specialised Soviet economic journals a very different picture emerges. The so-called "economic reforms" instituted after the death of Stalin have abandoned central economic planning; the profitability of each enterprise has become once more the motive and regulator of production. True, these profits – as in orthodox "profit-sharing" schemes in the "West" – are shared among the whole staff of the enterprise. But they are distributed according to what is termed "responsibility in profit-making", which means that the lion’s share goes to management. The latest statistics show that 51% of the profits go to workers (who form 96% of the personnel), while 49% go to management (who form 4% of the personnel).
The restoration of the profit motive in the Soviet Union has meant reliance on market forces, on the laws of "supply and demand". This means, as elsewhere, that it is often more profitable to produce luxury items for the wealthy than necessities of life for the working people.
Enver Hoxha described contemporary Soviet society as essentially a capitalist society, in which the working people were exploited by a new ruling class, a new capitalist class – the enterprise directors. He noted that all the negative phenomena which are associated with capitalism have began to reappear – crises of "over-production", inflation, redundancy, etc.
True, the Soviet economic journals do not speak of "unemployment", only of "surplus labour". To solve this problem a "youth employment scheme" has been established, and an official campaign that "a woman’s place is in the home"! Letters are published calling – not, of course, for "unemployment benefit", but for "stipends" for workers who are "between jobs".

http://www.allianceml.com/Albania/ALBANIANLIFE/BlandTalkAS1985.htm

Workers owned the means of the production. Nothing changed in the mid-fifties. The economic growth was also fastest in world history.
Except they recieved the scraps of the shares of production, so much that the managers and directors who made up 4% of the employment made 45% of the profits.

After Stalin died the Leninist principle of democratic centralism was restored to the party. Stalin criminally purged his opponents which lead to intellectual poverty within the part. Brezhnev's USSR was definitely more authentically Marxist-Leninist.
LOL read that book I placed up on there.

Unicorn

11th April 2008, 03:22

Wow Unicorn your fascism and national chauvinism is the funniest thing I hjave seen all over this thread, you have managed to ''unite'' The Trots, Maoists and Hoxhaists to bash all over you and I will do the same.
I am a Fascist? Leonid Brezhnev is a Fascist? Is Mikhail Suslov a Fascist? Quit the crap.

We can now add sexist to the long list of everything wrong with you at this point. Who the hell are you to say women should be mothers and in control of a familt if they don't want to? Also tell me in what instances are women not physically or mentally suitable for combat? I certainly have not heard of that problem in the Soviet Armies, Albanian military, or the Israeli one as well as numerous militaries around the world who have women serve.
As I said women can serve as volunteers as they did in the Soviet army but they should not be conscripted. Is that sexism? It's ironic that only the Zionist state of Israel and Albania have conscripted women.

It is funny that you call me a sexist when in Hoxha's Albania women could be stoned for the "crime" of wearing pants.

OH lets see, industries run through profit, calling unemployment ''labor surplus'', opening up coca-cola factories during the brezhnev era, as well as striking deals with the U.S. to have joint adventures in its nation does not qualify the post-Stalin USSR as being a capitalist nation?
No. You clearly don't understand what capitalism is. Who owned private property in the Soviet Union in the 1970s?

Read this book
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrintro.html
I prefer to get my information on the events from reliable sources like TASS. Why should I read the tract of some obscure sect?

BECAUSE Mao had criticized Khrushchev's attacks on Stalin, and at that time China had maintained the facade that it was a Marxist-Leninist state. Also mouthpiece?
Albania was indeed Mao's mouthpiece in the UN. PRC became a member of the UN in 1971 and before that Albania faithfully expressed the Chinese view on every issue. Albania's job was also to make all anti-Soviet insults the Mao was too cowardly to make publicly.

thats absurd, if you call withdrawing from the Warsaw pact after the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, trying to assasinate Kim Il Sung, and establishing a blockade against Albania being a mouthpiece then Ill be fine with that because NO state would be happy to deal with a nation that plotted its overthrow, Hoxha was not the only Marxist-Leninist to be on the bad side of the USSR Gheorghe Gheorghu-dej also forbade the USSR to set foot in Romania after De-Stalinization and after they tried to overthrow Kim Il Sung.
Left deviationism is as bad as right deviationism. That was what Stalin thought of the matter. "National self-determination" cannot justify turning a socialist country to capitalism.

WTF?!?!? that doesnt justify the USSR bombing of Ethiopia and its open embrace of capitalism and ''peaceful coexistence''' after the death of Stalin!
Detente was a temporary necessity and wrong only in the eyes of crazy Maoist warmongerers who wanted a world war. In fact, they actually said that it was inevitable. The USSR did not want a nuclear war because it would lead to the death of billions of people.

So just because Lenin was Russian means I have to kiss the ass of every Russian I meet?
No, but CPSU was a great party which had much experience in building socialism.

Oh bologne, if Hoxha was trading with the U.S. the USSR was fucking them even allowing coca-cola to build factories in the USSR as well as tag teaming with them against Iran in the Iraq-Iran War.
When did Coca-Cola build factories in the USSR? Source? The Soviet Union picked the right side in that conflict, the Iranians were theocrats much worse than Saddam.

Which the USSR had ALREADY done
[SIZE=1][COLOR=#000000]

So let me ask you this? I am supporting the Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein when I oppose the invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing in 2003? Fail, not only Fail EPIC FAIL. The USSR had NO right to interfere in the private affairs of a nation, Stalin didnt invade Yugoslavia when Tito started kissing up to capitalism.
A silly analogy. You can't compare the imperialist US invading Iraq and a socialist country giving a helping hand to Czechoslovakian Marxist-Leninists in the name of revolutionary solidarity.

Seriously, do you think Stalin would not have intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968? Marxist-Leninist who support the invasion are often called "Stalinists". There is a reason for that.

Like the Freedom to be unemployed?
Everyone had work in the Soviet Union.

Except they recieved the scraps of the shares of production, so much that the managers and directors who made up 4% of the employment made 45% of the profits.
Your statistic is wrong and in the Soviet Union income distribution was much more equal than in bourgeois countries. Also, income differences exist in socialism. What is the problem?

spartan

11th April 2008, 03:27

It is funny that you call me a sexist when in Hoxha's Albania women could be stoned for the "crime" of wearing pants.

I dont think that is true as i have seen Albanian military parades and the women soldiers were wearing exactly the same uniforms as the men (Which included trousers).

Where did you hear this exactly?

Unicorn

11th April 2008, 03:53

I dont think that is true as i have seen Albanian military parades and the women soldiers were wearing exactly the same uniforms as the men (Which included trousers).

Where did you hear this exactly?
"Western fads are not tolerated. After the surly, green-uniformed customs officials have finished their examinations, visitors arriving at Tirana's bucolic, one-strip airport are immediately advised that socialist Albania frowns on long hair, shorts or deep décolletage. "We don't need hash, long hair or jazz music," one crew-cut student told a modishly dressed but severely disillusioned Italian Maoist in our group, pointing to his body-hugging Via Veneto shirt, bell-bottom jeans and wide belt. "A socialist does not dress like an American cowboy." A Swedish girl, who ventured out of her beachside hotel in hot pants one scorching day, got the point even more strongly when a bunch of dedicated puritans from a nearby party youth camp pelted her with rocks and catcalls."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943861,00.html

I have also heard the account of a Finnish (male) communist traveled to Albania in the 1970s. Albanian authorities cut his long hair and took away his clothes because they wanted to protect the people from "decadent" Western influence.

Ismail

11th April 2008, 12:32

Long hair was/is frowned upon because it was viewed as unhygienic. (Not an uncommon belief even in the US, plus look at the DPRK as they have similar views)

A Swedish girl, who ventured out of her beachside hotel in hot pants one scorching day, got the point even more strongly when a bunch of dedicated puritans from a nearby party youth camp pelted her with rocks and catcalls.This depends where it is. I mean keep in mind that Albania went from not allowing women to divorce, vote, or hold paying jobs with whipping as an acceptable punishment for disobeying your husband to having all of these things reversed. Plus Albania has a fairly big clan problem, with clan leaders sometimes refusing to do things (which usually resulted in their execution when found) so obviously situations like this can occur.

To be fair though, it isn't like was she showing her whole head or anything and then the puritans attacked. Like in the DPRK, there are just stringent hygiene requirements & dress codes. Finally, you claimed that women were "stoned" which is a lie. This was a case of some people probably finding her clothes inappropriate causing them to throw some rocks. It isn't like the whole town encircled her and screamed "THIS PERSON HAS DEVIATED FROM OUR GLORIOUS MARXIST-LENINIST COURSE" and threw rocks in unison.

bezdomni

11th April 2008, 16:18

As I said women can serve as volunteers as they did in the Soviet army but they should not be conscripted. Is that sexism?

You said women shouldn't be drafted because that would take them away from their homemaking duties, which is apparently more important to your male chauvinist ass than the masses protecting themselves from an invasion.

Unicorn

11th April 2008, 16:29

You said women shouldn't be drafted because that would take them away from their homemaking duties, which is apparently more important to your male chauvinist ass than the masses protecting themselves from an invasion.
Wrong. I said that women should not be drafted because they have a right to motherhood. Military service is hazardous to pregnant women and in combat they are exposed to the risk of rape if they are captured by the enemy.

It is a violation of women's rights to place them to frontline combat against their will. Genuine respect for women's rights means also the recognition of differences between men and women. Women should not be conscripted although they can serve as volunteers.

bezdomni

11th April 2008, 16:39

I said that women should not be drafted because they have an obligation to motherhood. (fixed it for you)

By telling women "Well, you don't have to do military service because you have the right to motherhood", you are putting social pressure on women to become mothers which is grossly unfair and reinforces patriarchial relations in society.

What if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, but a doctor? Would you conscript her then? Does she have a right to anything *other* than motherhood?

Military service is hazardous to pregnant womenMilitary service is hazardous to everyone.

Although a pregnant woman joining the military is making it incredibly likely that she will die and not be very useful in combat. Pregnant women should probably be deterred from the military, although I imagine simply being pregnant is itself enough of a deterrent to military service.

in combat they are exposed to the risk of rape if they are captured by the enemy.You can't rape an AK-47. A woman is probably safest from rape (especially during war time) in the military than at home or in the streets.

It is a violation of women's rights to place them to frontline combat against their will.It is a violation of any human's rights to place them anywhere against their will. In the history of the communist movement, the most successful military campaigns have been largely voluntary and the masses of people made decisions to fight and were not conscripted. The battle of Stalingrad is a good example of this.

Genuine respect for women's rights means also the recognition of differences between men and womenYou are talking like the fuckin pope. What are you going to tell me next? That women are more humble and good at listening, while men are bread-winners and the creative force of society?

Women should not be conscripted although they can serve as volunteers.A revolutionary military should avoid conscription entirely. Although, if it has to be enacted for some reason...women should be conscripted too.

Andres Marcos

11th April 2008, 16:50

I am a Fascist? Leonid Brezhnev is a Fascist? Is Mikhail Suslov a Fascist? Quit the crap.

Oh okay, you might not be a fascist, but you are a PHONY communist feel better?

As I said women can serve as volunteers as they did in the Soviet army but they should not be conscripted. Is that sexism?
YES, you said women do not have some mental capacity to fight in war.

It's ironic that only the Zionist state of Israel and Albania have conscripted women.
That is utterly retarded

It is funny that you call me a sexist when in Hoxha's Albania women could be stoned for the "crime" of wearing pants.

"Western fads are not tolerated. After the surly, green-uniformed customs officials have finished their examinations, visitors arriving at Tirana's bucolic, one-strip airport are immediately advised that socialist Albania frowns on long hair, shorts or deep décolletage. "We don't need hash, long hair or jazz music," one crew-cut student told a modishly dressed but severely disillusioned Italian Maoist in our group, pointing to his body-hugging Via Veneto shirt, bell-bottom jeans and wide belt. "A socialist does not dress like an American cowboy." A Swedish girl, who ventured out of her beachside hotel in hot pants one scorching day, got the point even more strongly when a bunch of dedicated puritans from a nearby party youth camp pelted her with rocks and catcalls."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...943861,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943861,00.html)

Oh wow, SOME Albanians do some fucked up shit and the WHOLE country AND the government is blamed for it, Thats fucking retarded you know? Thats like saying Germans hate Jews just because Hitler, utterly stupid. I also doubt that shit, its not like Time magazine is the best place to get fair coverage about commies(quite on the contrary).

Anyways you probably should be pelted if you went out like this

http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hot_pants_.jpg
http://cityrag.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/hot_pants.jpg

In all seriousness its not like people should be surprised that people don't take kindly to people wearing cloths that expose their ass crack....hell I know for a fact there are cities around the world that actually prohibit that, you want to call those states totalitarian too? :rolleyes:

:laugh:

I have also heard the account of a Finnish (male) communist traveled to Albania in the 1970s. Albanian authorities cut his long hair and took away his clothes because they wanted to protect the people from "decadent" Western influence.
You heard? gossip doesn't count as proof.

No. You clearly don't understand what capitalism is. Who owned private property in the Soviet Union in the 1970s?
Oh lets see, industry organized through profit, the lion's share of wages going to the enterprise directors, Private companies allowed to do business in the nation, and unemployment(oh my bad ''labor surplus'') IF thats what you uphold then you might as well uphold Tito and Mao since both did exactly the same thing except in Mao's case he did not allow foreign companies to do business in China(instead his ''national bourgeoisie'' see On State Capitalism, whereas Brezhnev took no care.

I prefer to get my information on the events from reliable sources like TASS. Why should I read the tract of some obscure sect?
urghhh, all of that are CITED soviet economic journals, I guess those aren't important for you.

Albania was indeed Mao's mouthpiece in the UN. PRC became a member of the UN in 1971 and before that Albania faithfully expressed the Chinese view on every issue. Albania's job was also to make all anti-Soviet insults the Mao was too cowardly to make publicly.
I've been a Maoist for quite some time and studied the history quite frequently, and this is utter bullcrap for all my criticisms of China the Maoists NEVER imposed their will on their allies or set up military bases in Albania unlike the Soviet Union who twisted the defense pact to impose their will on their friends. Exactly how is asking the UN to have the Chinese Mainland rather than the island of Taiwan to represent the whole of China? Also Albania was a completely independent nation that took no orders from China unlike the Eastern Bloc which were vassals to their master in Moscow. Also Albania and China's anti-sovietism were not equal, Albania had more criticisms than China had.

"Especially shameless was the behavior of that agent of Mao Zedong, Enver Hoxha. He bared his fangs at us even more menacingly than the Chinese themselves. After his speech, Comrade Dolores Ibárruri [a Spanish Communist], an old revolutionary and a devoted worker in the Communist movement, got up indignantly and said, very much to the point, that Hoxha was like a dog who bites the hand that feeds it." - Nikita Khrushchev, Khrushchev Remembers, trans. Strobe Talbott (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1970), 475-476Just shows you how the Soviet Social-Imperialists thought, just shows their will of wanting to form all the real Communists into their little puppets, there was nothing wrong with Hoxha wanting to distance himself from a non-Communist state like the USSR.

Left deviationism is as bad as right deviationism. That was what Stalin thought of the matter. "National self-determination" cannot justify turning a socialist country to capitalism.
Lets see not only are you twisting what Stalin said but are justifying Soviet Social-imperialism. You are no better than a Trotskyite the only difference is the Trots had no evil intentions(as far as we know) with their pushing of imposing revolution through foreign armies and Brezhnevites wanted to impose their hegemony over nations that dared tried to become its equal.

No, but CPSU was a great party which had much experience in building socialism.
Until they destroyed it in 1956.

When did Coca-Cola build factories in the USSR? Source?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E3D9153BF937A15752C0A9639482 60

Seems however, that I mistook Pepsi for Coca-Cola. Meh.

The Soviet Union picked the right side in that conflict, the Iranians were theocrats much worse than Saddam.
Your arrogance knows no bounds, the USSR had NO right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation. I guess the USSR was on the right side when it helped to murder over a million Iranian people by help giving Sadaam weapons? The Iranians may have been theocrats but they threatened no one, I could give a shit if a nation had a reactionary in it so long as he/she wasn't invading other countries which your fascist phony commie Brezhnev was doing.

Everyone had work in the Soviet Union.
You mean when they called it ''labor surplus''.

Your statistic is wrong and in the Soviet Union income distribution was much more equal than in bourgeois countries. Also, income differences exist in socialism. What is the problem?My statistic is wrong? Man then I guess those Soviet economic journals must be wrong b/c thats where Bland got it from.

Unicorn

11th April 2008, 17:21

By telling women "Well, you don't have to do military service because you have the right to motherhood", you are putting social pressure on women to become mothers which is grossly unfair and reinforces patriarchial relations in society.

What if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, but a doctor? Would you conscript her then? Does she have a right to anything *other* than motherhood?
Workers in general do have a subjective right to reproduction. This means that the state cannot force anybody to be sterilized, for example. If a man has a pregnant wife/girlfriend that does not prevent service.

Military service is hazardous to everyone.

Although a pregnant woman joining the military is making it incredibly likely that she will die and not be very useful in combat. Pregnant women should probably be deterred from the military, although I imagine simply being pregnant is itself enough of a deterrent to military service.
Frontline combat is both psychologically and physically demanding. Genuine respect for women's rights means that the physical differences between men and women are recognized. Many women without their own fault don't have the physical qualities necessary to serve in the military. Men are generally physically and mentally suited to military service and it is appropriate and necessary to conscript adult males.

You can't rape an AK-47. A woman is probably safest from rape (especially during war time) in the military than at home or in the streets.
Wrong. PoWs are often subjected to revenge. The Germans more often raped female Soviet soldiers than civilians.

It is a violation of any human's rights to place them anywhere against their will. In the history of the communist movement, the most successful military campaigns have been largely voluntary and the masses of people made decisions to fight and were not conscripted. The battle of Stalingrad is a good example of this.
You don't seem know much about military history. Have you even served? I have am trained as a reserve officer.

You are talking like the fuckin pope. What are you going to tell me next? That women are more humble and good at listening, while men are bread-winners and the creative force of society?
My view is the same as Lenin's view.

A revolutionary military should avoid conscription entirely. Although, if it has to be enacted for some reason...women should be conscripted too.
An universal conscription is needed to defend the socialist motherland. Women can serve as volunteers but coercing them would be wrong.

bezdomni

11th April 2008, 17:33

Frontline combat is both psychologically and physically demanding. Genuine respect for women's rights means that the physical differences between men and women are recognized. Many women without their own fault don't have the physical qualities necessary to serve in the military. Men are generally physically and mentally suited to military service and it is appropriate and necessary to conscript adult males.
Historically, some of the most fierce revolutionary cadre have been all woman cadre. You're talking out of your male chauvinist ass. If this were revolutionary China, some female red guards would kick the shit out of you.

You don't seem know much about military history. Have you even served? I have am trained as a reserve officer.

For who's military?

My view is the same as Lenin's view.
If that is so, then I am not a Leninist.

http://img.revleft.com/revleft/misc/progress.gif
An universal conscription is needed to defend the socialist motherland. Women can serve as volunteers but coercing them would be wrong.
lol, I hope your concept of universal suffrage is not the same as your concept of universal conscription.

Unicorn

11th April 2008, 19:40

Historically, some of the most fierce revolutionary cadre have been all woman cadre. You're talking out of your male chauvinist ass. If this were revolutionary China, some female red guards would kick the shit out of you.
I don't have a problem with female red guards. They were volunteers.

For who's military?
Any military. I served 12 months in the Finnish army and was trained as a reserve officer.

The Maoist concept of guerrilla warfare is seriously flawed. During the Sino-Vietnamese war real communists kicked the the ass of the nationalist-chauvinist Chinese. The PRC army was reformed afterwards.

If that is so, then I am not a Leninist.
Stalin had the same position. All Soviet men of age had a duty to serve and women were exempted. The army was organized appropriately and proper ranks were used.

lol, I hope your concept of universal suffrage is not the same as your concept of universal conscription.
Don't be silly. Universal conscription means that all men regardless of class have a duty to serve.

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 00:40

Well well well, looks like I caught a little worm. Did you honestly think you could post this without me finding out about it?

Many Hoxhaists have the authoritarian personality Adorno described. They have pre-Fascist tendencies and indeed some of them are disillusioned Nazis.

Idiotic psychobabble; I embraced Marxism-Leninism through careful reading and analysis. It had nothing to do with attraction to some authority figure. In fact my interest in Marxism, though owing a lot to disillusionment with NS, was actually sparked by ironically, Tito, not Stalin or Hoxha.

For example, Hoxhaist poster Cmde. Slavyanski is actually a former spokesman of the White Supremacist organization National Alliance. This is not a joke.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/03/updates.html (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004/03/updates.html)

Did you bother to check the date on that? First off, those at the HU were aware of my dark past, I told them everything. Do you expect me to believe that your current beliefs were consistent all through your life? Getting where I am today took years of experience, research...like with all people my perspective was also influenced by upbringing and the culture around me.

What would you have me do, go back to embracing a belief system I know to be wrong on so many levels?

Cmde. Slavyanski uses the name J.P. Slovjanski on the White Supremacist VNNforum

Put the brakes on here buddy. 'Uses' is the present simple tense, as in something done as a matter of routine. I haven't posted on VNN in well over a year, the only posts in 2007 were done mainly to piss people off(in other words, trolling).

If you think otherwise, try registering an account there and bringing up my name, or for bonus points, try doing it and mentioning J.P. Slovjanski in a positive light. At worst they will ban you immediately, at best you will be treated to an avalanche of flames.

and Captain Marinesko on Phora.

Did you ever wonder why I used the name Captain Marinesko? It was specifically chosen to piss off the Nazis, and every time one of them catches on, LULZ ensue.

Just take a look at what kind of hate-filled posts he has made in the past and you'll see that he is clearly a deranged person.

I cannot simply excuse away many of the things I said in the past, and neither can you do the same for that matter. The only differences is that I put some opinions on the internet, and whatever discretions you might have made don't appear(well, I'm sure many do but I don't give enough of a damn to look them up).

The process by which a person gradually is led to believe, do, or espouse certain things is quite complicated. Many times what I posted and what I actually felt were 180 degrees apart(granted, this was not always the case), because in the movement if you stray too far from their framework, you will be rabidly attacked, and some of these people will stop at nothing to run you into the ground. That doesn't excuse what was posted, but as I said, I am 100% certain there are things you have done in your past, that you probably wouldn't like to be constantly reminded of or judged by.

His recent "conversion" to Marxism-Leninism is not even genuine as he is still whining that capitalist societies are destroying the "white race" and claiming that only Marxism can save it. Slovjanski's racist Hoxhaist views are a tragic caricature of Marxism.

This is a gross distortion. It is true that the main reason why I started to slip away from racialism was because I started to realize that economics had a lot more to do with explaining those problems that racialists ***** about. It wasn't "the Jews", it wasn't "race", or anything human related- it was in the mode of production. You fail to realize that thinking people don't just automatically switch to another ideology, they go through a process of learning. Later I would come to use the aforementioned argument as a way of prying come novice racialists away from the movement. It has worked in at least one or two cases. With one of them I specifically stated: I am not going to "racialize" Marxism-Leninism for you. I told him that migration hurts all people and if you are not working for all of humanity, you aren't helping your own people. (The "white race" is indeed a social construct, largely American in origin, and cannot be readily defined in any meaningful way. It is unlikely that this "race" will disappear, even if immigration trends continue.)

As I had to recently explain to a comrade due to your under-handed, cowardly attack, I increasingly put terms like "white" and "race" in quotes for a reason. At the same time, I often use the concepts of the WN movement in order to expose its internal contradictions and ultimately incoherency. Basically the process works like this: "You say you care about X(race, people, whatever the hell they use), but how do you explain Y?" I also have a lot of fun upsetting them over the question of what "white" entails exactly.

What you need to do is stick to the damn topic and stop trying to attack people through backdoor tactics like this. No matter what you post from my past, that does not reflect my beliefs, and my involvement in the HU is just but one of the ways through which I try to make up for those transgressions.

As for me supposedly committing crimes against the working class, well your Soviet revisionists have me beat hands down.

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 00:50

Stalin had the same position. All Soviet men of age had a duty to serve and women were exempted. The army was organized appropriately and proper ranks were used.

Who the hell are you to accuse people of being reactionaries? Not only do you seem to oppose a more progressive stance on women in the military, but you praise the restoration of bourgeois-style military ranks and discipline, one of the factors contributing to the restoration of capitalism in the USSR(the Marshals were instrumental in Khruschev's actions against Beria, and they kept silent during his secret speech out of fear).

Women serve in all positions(including special forces) of the North Korean army, and they are subject to conscription in the Israeli Defense Force. Women proved capable of taking part not only in combat during WWII, but also missions of a highly dangerous character, such as those undertaken by Viktor Leonov in Karelia and Norway.

If a society conditions women for taking part in all its aspects, as a progressive and Marxist-Leninist society should, then they will easily be able to fulfill many military roles. More importantly, allowing women to take up arms gives them a stake in the nation that they deserve. Why should they be forced to sit at home while their brothers, fathers, and lovers get killed? And why should they care about the revolution or nation when they are not allowed to defend it with arms? Give a girl an AK, and you give her a part of society.

By contrast, your Brezhnev's revisionist Soviet Union sent thousands of women home to "make babies". Sexist attitudes developed and led to the piss-poor condition of women's rights in Eastern Europe and the FSU today.

Comrade Rage

12th April 2008, 00:53

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943861,00.html
You're quoting TIME magazine? Why, didn't National Review write something on the subject?:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Die Neue Zeit

12th April 2008, 02:08

By contrast, your Brezhnev's revisionist Soviet Union sent thousands of women home to "make babies". Sexist attitudes developed and led to the piss-poor condition of women's rights in Eastern Europe and the FSU today.

That would be "Comrade" Stalin, actually. :rolleyes:

Abortions were banned under his regime and permitted "revisionistically" afterwards. The 71-member Central Committee and Politburo were all stacked with MEN.

As for Brezhnev, if he wanted women to "make babies," he failed miserably (the Russian demographic decline from his time to today). :laugh:

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 03:04

Well well well, looks like I caught a little worm. Did you honestly think you could post this without me finding out about it?
LOL. Are you really arrogant enough to think that I was afraid that you would see my post? Of course I expected that comrades would tell you that they had seen my post and tell you to fuck off from this leftist forum.

This is a gross distortion. It is true that the main reason why I started to slip away from racialism was because I started to realize that economics had a lot more to do with explaining those problems that racialists ***** about. It wasn't "the Jews", it wasn't "race", or anything human related- it was in the mode of production. You fail to realize that thinking people don't just automatically switch to another ideology, they go through a process of learning. Later I would come to use the aforementioned argument as a way of prying come novice racialists away from the movement. It has worked in at least one or two cases. With one of them I specifically stated: I am not going to "racialize" Marxism-Leninism for you. I told him that migration hurts all people and if you are not working for all of humanity, you aren't helping your own people. (The "white race" is indeed a social construct, largely American in origin, and cannot be readily defined in any meaningful way. It is unlikely that this "race" will disappear, even if immigration trends continue.)
Here you again admit your racism. You are against immigration. You believe that migration hurts humanity. You advocate ethnically homogenous societies.

Don't try to deny it. You made this post on 29 January 2008:

"Mutual respect does not imply multi-culturalism and an ethnically homogenous society does not imply disrespect or hate towards other ethnic groups. In fact, ethnically homogenous societies tend to be far more hospitable and openminded towards other cultures because they have no bad experiences with them. The Soviet Union was a far better example- while what you call "mixing" was not condemned nor encouraged, all peoples had their own republics and governments, and the distribution of wealth from the center for the most part encouraged people to "stay home". Only as this wealth began drying up in the late revisionist decades did people start to move into places like Moscow, from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc."
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=504521&postcount=50

Genuine Marxists recognize that working men have no country. Genuine Marxists don't think that an ethnically homogenous society functions better. Millions of workers in developing countries are denied the opportunity to immigrate to Europe. People die when attempting to do so illegally. Border controls enable the hyperexploitation of poor countries as Lenin described in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". "Fortress Europe" must be smashed.

Comrade Rage

12th April 2008, 03:12

"Unicorn" tried to paint Slavyanski as a racist. Unfortunately for him, it said this (in the part not-highlighted.)
and if you are not working for all of humanity, you aren't helping your own people. (The "white race" is indeed a social construct, largely American in origin, and cannot be readily defined in any meaningful way. It is unlikely that this "race" will disappear, even if immigration trends continue.)Racist?

Nice try, Unicorn.:rolleyes:

FAIL

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 03:15

That would be "Comrade" Stalin, actually. :rolleyes:

Abortions were banned under his regime and permitted "revisionistically" afterwards. The 71-member Central Committee and Politburo were all stacked with MEN.

As for Brezhnev, if he wanted women to "make babies," he failed miserably (the Russian demographic decline from his time to today). :laugh:
Actually, the birth rate was very respectable. The fall in birthrates was caused largely by the improving education of women. That happens in all societies. The Soviet birth rate reached its lowest point in 1991 when it was 2.4, well above the replacement rate.

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 03:21

"Unicorn" tried to paint Slavyanski as a racist. Unfortunately for him, it said this (in the part not-highlighted.)Racist?
Just because he says that the "white race" is a social construct does not excuse his anti-immigration views. He advocates ethnically homogenous societies and is against large-scale immigration from the developing countries to Europe.

Die Neue Zeit

12th April 2008, 03:21

Actually, the birth rate was very respectable. The fall in birthrates was caused largely by the improving education of women. That happens in all societies. The Soviet birth rate reached its lowest point in 1991 when it was 2.4, well above the replacement rate.

I was referring specifically to the Russian ethnic demographic.

Comrade Rage

12th April 2008, 03:27

Just because he says that the "white race" is a social construct does not excuse his anti-immigration views. He advocates ethnically homogenous societies and is against large-scale immigration from the developing countries to Europe.I was also referring to this:

if you are not working for all of humanity, you aren't helping your own people.

^^^You remember how to use the QUOTE function, right.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

TEXT GOES HERE
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 03:35

I was also referring to this:
You don't seem to get the point. Yes, I admit that Slavyanski no longer (publicly) advocates violence against non-whites, Jews and "race traitors". This does not excuse the the more moderately racist, anti-immigration views he still has. Such views would normally justify a ban or restriction on this forum.

Comrade Rage

12th April 2008, 03:41

You don't seem to get the point. Yes, I admit that Slavyanski no longer (publicly) advocates violence against non-whites, Jews and "race traitors". This does not excuse the the more moderately racist, anti-immigration views he still has. Such views would normally justify a ban or restriction on this forum.First off, you still call him a racist. Secondly, you have provided no substantial proof that he is a racist. I can tell you that he has no racist beliefs.

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 03:50

First off, you still call him a racist. Secondly, you have provided no substantial proof that he is a racist. I can tell you that he has no racist beliefs.
Being anti-immigration is not a defensible Marxist position.

Comrade Rage

12th April 2008, 03:53

Being anti-immigration is not a defensible Marxist position.
*GROAN* He NEVER said that he opposes immigration. He said it's hurtful to some people. That in and of itself is not opposition to immigration.

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 04:04

*GROAN* He NEVER said that he opposes immigration. He said it's hurtful to some people. That in and of itself is not opposition to immigration.
Lol. He claimed that "migration hurts all people" and advocated ethnically homogenous societies.

Comrade Rage

12th April 2008, 04:14

Lol. He claimed that "migration hurts all people" and advocated ethnically homogenous societies.Where did he suggest a ban on immigration?

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 04:26

LOL. Are you really arrogant enough to think that I was afraid that you would see my post? Of course I expected that comrades would tell you that they had seen my post and tell you to fuck off from this leftist forum.

Oh don't worry, you will be.

Here you again admit your racism. You are against immigration.

I am against exploitation, not immigration.

You believe that migration hurts humanity.

You don't think so? Maybe you can explain why it is fair and egalitarian, when someone who is born in the UK or US has a world of opportunity for them right in their homeland, but someone from Mexico or any other number of exploited nations is forced to find work somewhere abroad, be heavily exploited, and possibly risk their life. Tell me which do you think millions of immigrants would choose, had they been given the choice- risk their life in the Sonora desert in order to be superexploited in back-breaking labor, or being part of a socialist state in their own homeland where they own the means of production. Migration leads to brain drain(the culling of those very people who would be a valuable asset to their respective nations), as well as depopulation.

There is a difference between being against exploitation and giving into demagogic, scapegoating anti-immigrantism. I don't blame the victims(the immigrants), and I don't support measures against them.

You advocate ethnically homogenous societies.

No, I don't, and this is absolutely ridiculous.

Don't try to deny it. You made this post on 29 January 2008:

http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=504521&postcount=50 (http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=504521&postcount=50)

Congratulations! You just exposed yourself as a liar! What you cut and pasted here brought together the words of a fanatical Nazi which I was responding to, in such a way as to present it as though I wrote it. Furthermore, what I said about immigration in Russia is true- all wealth is being concentrated in one city, Moscow. It has had disastrous effects for everyone involved.

Genuine Marxists recognize that working men have no country.

There is a difference between nation and country. Read J.V. Stalin's work on the National Question.

Genuine Marxists don't think that an ethnically homogenous society functions better.

Neither do I.

Millions of workers in developing countries are denied the opportunity to immigrate to Europe. People die when attempting to do so illegally.

Wow, what a GREAT opportunity for us to offer them! Why be exploited in your own country when you can risk your life and be exploited in a completely foreign one, all the while right-wing politicians will be scapegoating you whenever something goes wrong!!!

Marxist-Leninists are supposed to provide answers. The answer for millions of suffering people in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, is not moving out of their nations to be exploited abroad. Even those that immigrate legally often find themselves in humiliating conditions, or at the very least resented by a reactionary population.

The idea that a privileged few nations should have the luxury of their children not being forced to risk their lives doing menial labor abroad is quite frankly disgusting and a lot more racist than the quote I put out there.

Border controls enable the hyperexploitation of poor countries as Lenin described in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". "Fortress Europe" must be smashed.

No, the export of capital and makes this possible. What you advocate only strengthens the reactionaries, and offers no solution to immigrants or their families back home.

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 04:33

Lol. He claimed that "migration hurts all people" and advocated ethnically homogenous societies.

Again, lest you forget that you are a moron, remember that this statement is based on your distortion of what I wrote, in this case lumping the quote of my opponent in with my own text.

And to pound the problem of migration into your thick little skull a little further, let me use an example of "my own people". Ukraine is an exploited nation, it is exploited by Russia, Turkey, as well as Western Europe. Human trafficking is rampant, and it is estimated that since 1991, 500,000 Ukrainian women and girls have been trafficking around the world as sex slaves. Perhaps more, out of total desperation, have found themselves working as prostitutes in various other nations, sometimes legal, other times not.

Now there is the issue of EU membership- this will make it easier to migrate out of Ukraine. Now from a "patriotic" standpoint, how is this good for Ukraine? It hurts Ukraine because it draws off our intelligentsia, as well as the youth who could be building a better society.

You, being from a privileged country, most likely benefiting from exploited labor, probably can't imagine that. I doubt the women of your country are synonymous with "prostitute" or "mail order bride" in many countries. But that is the reality of life for many Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, Thai, etc.

And of course you think that's a wonderful thing obviously.

So yes, migration does hurt people, it hurts developing nations. After the establishment of a socialist nation, there must be immigration controls for the sake of security. Those immigrants already in the country legally can be granted citizenship, while those undocumented can either seek amnesty or choose to go to another country if they wish. This solution is fair and is hardly racist or nationalist either.

Perhaps you ought to review the Soviet immigration policy (http://rr.rezbit.com), right after you figure out how to recognize when someone is QUOTING someone else.

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 05:27

You don't think so? Maybe you can explain why it is fair and egalitarian, when someone who is born in the UK or US has a world of opportunity for them right in their homeland, but someone from Mexico or any other number of exploited nations is forced to find work somewhere abroad, be heavily exploited, and possibly risk their life. Tell me which do you think millions of immigrants would choose, had they been given the choice- risk their life in the Sonora desert in order to be superexploited in back-breaking labor, or being part of a socialist state in their own homeland where they own the means of production.
A false dilemma. People "risk their life in the Sonora desert" because the state enforces border controls which you advocate. There should be no border controls and all immigration should be safe and legal.

Migration leads to brain drain(the culling of those very people who would be a valuable asset to their respective nations), as well as depopulation.
Immigrants in the West transfer money to developing countries. The impact is positive without question.

There is a difference between being against exploitation and giving into demagogic, scapegoating anti-immigrantism. I don't blame the victims(the immigrants), and I don't support measures against them.
You conveniently ignore that the people who want to immigrate to industrialized face far worse exploitation at home. There they have to work in sweatshops and in some countries don't even have a right to trade union activity.

Many of them are not even able to immigrate because of the border controls which force the proletariat of the Third World to a life of despair and poverty.

Congratulations! You just exposed yourself as a liar! What you cut and pasted here brought together the words of a fanatical Nazi which I was responding to, in such a way as to present it as though I wrote it. Furthermore, what I said about immigration in Russia is true- all wealth is being concentrated in one city, Moscow. It has had disastrous effects for everyone involved.
Bullshit. You wrote the words I quoted.

There is a difference between nation and country. Read J.V. Stalin's work on the National Question.
J.V. Stalin did not define a nation racially or on basis of descent. You do so as demonstrated by racist, nativist whining like this:

" I would like to know as to whom these laws are going to apply to. It is a goddamned shame that someone of Russian descent such as myself can NEVER be a citizen of the Russian Federation, even if married to a Russian citizen, while some Chechen fucktard gets automatic Russian citizenship.

No, the export of capital and makes this possible. What you advocate only strengthens the reactionaries, and offers no solution to immigrants or their families back home.
So let me get this straight. You support the border controls of capitalist states as a preferable alternative to capitalist states without border controls?

Marxist-Leninists are supposed to provide answers. The answer for millions of suffering people in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, is not moving out of their nations to be exploited abroad. Even those that immigrate legally often find themselves in humiliating conditions, or at the very least resented by a reactionary population.
Many workers in those countries would prefer to live in the West and be exploited by the capitalists there rather than their national bourgeois and international companies.

Workers are much better paid even for menial labor in industrialized countries than in the Third World. Europe could and should welcome millions of immigrants more each year.

Unicorn

12th April 2008, 06:01

Again, lest you forget that you are a moron, remember that this statement is based on your distortion of what I wrote, in this case lumping the quote of my opponent in with my own text.

And to pound the problem of migration into your thick little skull a little further, let me use an example of "my own people". Ukraine is an exploited nation, it is exploited by Russia, Turkey, as well as Western Europe. Human trafficking is rampant, and it is estimated that since 1991, 500,000 Ukrainian women and girls have been trafficking around the world as sex slaves. Perhaps more, out of total desperation, have found themselves working as prostitutes in various other nations, sometimes legal, other times not.
The solution to that problem is to fight against sex trafficking, not restricting immigration.

Now there is the issue of EU membership- this will make it easier to migrate out of Ukraine. Now from a "patriotic" standpoint, how is this good for Ukraine? It hurts Ukraine because it draws off our intelligentsia, as well as the youth who could be building a better society.
Again, you examine this question from an un-Marxist, nationalist standpoint. It is irrelevant whether migration is good for Ukraine or not. Ukrainian people have a right to seek a better life abroad if they wish so.

You, being from a privileged country, most likely benefiting from exploited labor, probably can't imagine that. I doubt the women of your country are synonymous with "prostitute" or "mail order bride" in many countries. But that is the reality of life for many Eastern Europeans, Filipinos, Thai, etc.

And of course you think that's a wonderful thing obviously.
It is not surprising at all that it pisses you off when Eastern European women marry foreigners and you stereotype them as prostitutes and mail order brides. After all, you are a nationalist.

So yes, migration does hurt people, it hurts developing nations.
"Immigration hurts developing nations" is a lie circulated by the reactionary anti-immigration lobby. It has no factual basis.

After the establishment of a socialist nation, there must be immigration controls for the sake of security.
What kind of security interest justifies immigration controls?

The living standard in a socialist nation established in an industrial country will be much higher than the living standard in developing countries.

Perhaps you ought to review the Soviet immigration policy (http://rr.rezbit.com), right after you figure out how to recognize when someone is QUOTING someone else.
I am very familiar with the Soviet immigration policy. The Soviet Union no longer exists and the situation is very different today. The proletariat in the Third World faces massive need to emigrate today unlike in the 1950s.

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 11:03

First off, before continuing in this debate, we must first point out that you were losing the debate with my comrades, which is why you needed a red herring such as this.

A false dilemma. People "risk their life in the Sonora desert" because the state enforces border controls which you advocate. There should be no border controls and all immigration should be safe and legal.

This is not a solution. People are forced to emigrate due to conditions forced up on them by capitalist states, or the capitalist order as it is(where a few nations are rich at the expense of the majority).

Did you ever consider the long term effects of this? Because on a long enough time-line this would lead to most of the world concentrating in a very small place. Or better yet, attempting to.

Immigrants in the West transfer money to developing countries. The impact is positive without question.

Only in the short term, and only in terms of sustaining individual families. It doesn't encourage change in these nations, and it makes it easier for entrenched local bourgeoisie to go about plundering what's left. Why do you think the pro-Western leaders countries in Eastern Europe love the idea of EU membership? It's a great way to deal with unemployment. The great "democrat" of Europe, Sali Berisha, actually asked Europe to grant access to several thousands of Albanians, due to unemployment in his new "democratic" state. He basically wanted to more or less deport some of his people to solve the problem.

Then there is the matter of Poland. Even with EU membership, many Poles are working as migrant laborers. Part of Poland's bribe for involvement in Iraq was looser visa restrictions to the US. The Czech Republic got the same deal, but when they withdrew their forces they found the same restrictions again.

You conveniently ignore that the people who want to immigrate to industrialized face far worse exploitation at home. There they have to work in sweatshops and in some countries don't even have a right to trade union activity.

Yes I know, and how does letting a certain percentage of them run away to face new exploitation help that problem in the long run? Remember, we are revolutionaries here.

Many of them are not even able to immigrate because of the border controls which force the proletariat of the Third World to a life of despair and poverty.

Things like privatization, foreign investment, and neo-colonialism are what keep the Third World in poverty. You have no long-term solution.

Bullshit. You wrote the words I quoted.

Nope, go to the link again.

J.V. Stalin did not define a nation racially or on basis of descent.

He didn't throw the borders open to whoever wanted to live in the USSR either.

You do so as demonstrated by racist, nativist whining like this:

There was a good reason for this, as the imperialist Russian state prosecuted a war against Chechnya, supported a corrupt government there, and Chechens are generally hated in Russia. HOWEVER- Chechens that have money, like part of the mafia, are embraced, just like anyone else who can wave some bills, and are basically above the law. These guys were actually supporting the war against the Russian army with their funds, while living in places like Moscow, and nobody touched them.

So let me get this straight. You support the border controls of capitalist states as a preferable alternative to capitalist states without border controls?

Damn you are confused. As socialists, we must fight for the rights of immigrants and those that are undocumented, we must fight to get them organized and organized with the native populace as well. Beyond this we must fight to break down the practices and institutions which keep most of the world in poverty.

Many workers in those countries would prefer to live in the West and be exploited by the capitalists there rather than their national bourgeois and international companies.

Wow, what a GREAT choice you are offering these people! Can you explain to me why you should have been born with far more choices?

Workers are much better paid even for menial labor in industrialized countries than in the Third World. Europe could and should welcome millions of immigrants more each year.

What you are advocating does not advance the cause of socialism, it drains nations of their best minds and youth, and it strains social welfare programs so as to provide legitimization for privatization.

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 11:13

The solution to that problem is to fight against sex trafficking, not restricting immigration.

The two go hand in hand, and I was not advocating socialists fighting for the restriction of immigration under capitalism. We should be focusing on the uniting of immigrant and native laborers, and organization.

Again, you examine this question from an un-Marxist, nationalist standpoint. It is irrelevant whether migration is good for Ukraine or not. Ukrainian people have a right to seek a better life abroad if they wish so.

Idiocy. Ukrainians have a right to their historical nation, that which has currently been stolen by local bourgeoisie and that of capitalist Russia. Please explain why those people should get to own Ukraine's resources and productive means while the majority of the people shouldn't.

It is not surprising at all that it pisses you off when Eastern European women marry foreigners and you stereotype them as prostitutes and mail order brides. After all, you are a nationalist.

No, I am not a nationalist, and you are a moron. I did not invent these stereotypes. Eastern European women, among other catagories(South Asian for example), have to live under these stereotypes. Were you aware for example, that the slang for prostitute in places like Israel and Turkey is "Natasha"? Is that something for Ukrainian or other Eastern European women to be proud of? Does that leave good prospects for a better life?

The same plight is also faced, if not far worse, by many Asian women. Race is not the factor here. I can't remember which privileged nation you are from, but imagine people looked at your sister as a potential whore, because of her nationality. I don't imagine you would like that.

"Immigration hurts developing nations" is a lie circulated by the reactionary anti-immigration lobby. It has no factual basis.

Losing the best minds, and a great deal of the workforce, while enabling the local bourgeoisie to cement their power doesn't hurt developing nations in the long run?

What kind of security interest justifies immigration controls

Damn you really are a complete moron. Assume there is a socialist revolution somewhere. Believe it or not, but all the powers of the world are going to be hostile to it. They are going to try to infiltrate and sabotage it just like they did to every socialist and quasi-socialist nation of the 20th century. What do you think is going to happen when you leave your borders open to anyone who wants to cross?

Aside from that, the social welfare provided by a socialist nation would be beyond that of any capitalist nation in existence. Ergo neighboring capitalist nations would most likely just shut their doors to immigration for a while, in an attempt to flood the welfare system in the new socialist nation.

The living standard in a socialist nation established in an industrial country will be much higher than the living standard in developing countries.

So? That's the solution? The rest of the world must move there?

I am very familiar with the Soviet immigration policy. The Soviet Union no longer exists and the situation is very different today. The proletariat in the Third World faces massive need to emigrate today unlike in the 1950s.

This need was forced upon them, and the solution for a socialist nation is to give them long term help. Yes, a socialist nation can, after a certain period, loosen up immigration controls, and in a socialist world borers would become mostly meaningless, but after the initial period after revolution, a consolidation period, what you propose cannot be allowed for practical matters.

Race has nothing to do with it.

Maybe we ought to focus on your sexism, support for military intervention in foreign nations, and fascination with the military officer class.

Cmde. Slavyanski

12th April 2008, 13:28

A few minutes ago I just realized that I may have been a bit harsh on you. Given your sad attempt to throw in a red herring in order to save your ass from my comrades, and your inability to grasp the subtle differences between being anti-immigrant and supporting immigrants as workers while fighting those institutions that uproot and then scapegoat them(HINT: Capitalism), as well as your difficulty grasping the concept of quoted text, I figured you might have a low-grade form of autism, such as Asperger's Syndrome, or some other similar mental deficiency. Feel free to self-diagnose yourself with this test (http://www.rdos.net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php), and you'll be on your way to excusing your social ineptitude in no time!

When I looked back at some Phora threads, there is a certain theme you have missed. When trying to prevent people from converting to WN(you find these curious types on forums all the time, who can be saved if you know how to talk to them), or when just trolling Nazis for the LULZ, you have to use different tactics. You have to hypothetically accept certain assumptions they have in order to expose the internal contradictions and ultimately the incoherency of their arguments.

I alluded to this a bit before; where you say something like "If X is true by your claims, then Y cannot be true." In the case of the thread you highlighted, the user known as Illusions(you know, the guy whose quote you tried to attribute to me), is a hard core Nazi. Not a neo-Nazi, he considers them to be apostates, he actually refers to himself as an "old school National Socialist". That is why you can imagine his rage when someone confronts him with the fact that the Soviet Union, which he sees to be a Jewish demon, was better at preserving more-or-less homogeneous societies than his beloved Third Reich, which ended up as a smoking crater. That is not advocating such societies, and it was certainly not the intention of the USSR to have such societies either. Intermarriage and immigration between republics were not restricted. Yet at the same time, the state often encouraged national pride, mutual respect, and cultural expression among the various nations of the USSR. This is apparent from the propaganda and art of the Soviet era, much of which lasts to this day. Here is an example:

http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0064.jpg

Note that it is written in the native language of one of the Central Asian republics, my money is on Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan.

http://www.sovmusic.ru/jpg/posters/ussr0106.jpg

"Friendship in the name of Progress and Peace."

So as I stated, there is nothing un-Marxist about my current beliefs, they are no different than those expressed under the socialist Soviet Union(though I personally think that Russian nationalism went too far in WWII, but then again a lot of things did), or Albania for that matter. Marxism-Leninism is not incompatible with the idea of a nation or national culture, or even national pride. It is on the other hand against nations exploiting others, national bigotry and supremacy, and nationalism, which means the subverting of the class struggle in favor of national identity.

Then there is the simple fact that people often say things in debates that they do not personally believe or support- but rather they post it because they know it will aggravate their opponent(this is the essence of trolling). I am not saying that totally explains some of those posts, I already dealt with that. However, there are certain things that piss off Nazis with 100% certainty(try mentioning Heidi Klum to them, and watch the sparks fly). Why do you think I chose the handle Captain Marinesko? Obviously I don't find the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff funny, but I what I DO find funny is the reaction I get from Nazis every time one of them Google's the name.

Of course logic and reason are not your goals here; this whole red herring was to pull your ass out of the fire of a losing argument. That is why you carefully cherry pick certain posts, and try to lump someone else's quote in with mine. It is also why you deliberately ignore hundreds of posts arguing against Holocaust denial, and White Nationalism, as well as nationalism. Your comment about me being a Ukrainian nationalist is especially funny because I got into a huge argument with a Ukrainian nationalist not only on the Phora, but on another forum as well. When you argue with a nationalist, you have to speak their language. That means when they preach about national pride, you paint a picture of the truth and ask them how they could be proud of that. When they say Ukraine for the Ukrainians, you ask them how exploitation of ethnic Ukrainians is better than that of foreigners. You don't just go on there shouting things like 'racist'! They are used to that. Whenever you try to defeat or convert an opponent, you must step into his perspective, show them that you have in fact considered their viewpoint rationally, but that there are problems with it.

Again, the fact that you fail to notice this suggests that you are either deliberately resorting to desperate tactics, cannot understand the subtleties of politics in general, or a combination of both. What follows is a thread you some how missed, where I tear apart an article by "academic" racist and anti-Semite Kevin MacDonald. The issue of race is dealt with in it by me. PLEASE LEARN THE QUOTE SYSTEM BEFORE READING IT!

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36492

Me, on the anti-racist board MootStormfront, explaining to someone what is wrong with nationalism.
http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?p=181837#post181837

Another post, mocking a nationalist. Their alarmist anti-immigrant rants are mocked as well.

http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7818

More mockery of WN and nationalist beliefs.

http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7813

Second page of said mockery:

http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7813&page=4 (http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7813&page=4)

A TL;DR in depth work on racialism and its inherent contradictions and incoherency.

http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7026 (http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7026)

Finally, an in-depth analysis of Nativist Groups and anti-immigration hysteria:

http://www.mootsf.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7123 (http://rr.rezbit.com)