HoxHaist? Sectarian?

[Periodic]

What exactly is a Hoxhaist/Hoxhaist Union? From what i've seen, alot of RevLeft members are against them.

And, you guessed it, what is Sectarianism?

[Q]

What exactly is a Hoxhaist/Hoxhaist Union? From what i've seen, alot of RevLeft members are against them.
They're a bunch of Stalinists, although they don't like to be called like that, so "Hoxhaism" is all the hype. Named after Enver Hoxha, Stalinist dictator in Albania that build a lot of useless bunkers. I never really got it myself.


And, you guessed it, what is Sectarianism?
As Marx already explained well, we should be where the masses are. That is both litterally as on the area of ideas. Failing to do that and only praise Marxist dogma's (or whatever) as something the masses should just get, is a sectarian attitude.

As MIA (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/e.htm#sectarianism) puts it more clearly:

Sectarianism and Opportunism

Sectarianism and Opportunism are the twin errors which may befall any organisation formed in pursuit of some principle.

The Sectarian emphasises the absolute truth of its principle over any other, finds in every small disagreement the seeds of fundamental difference, see the most deadly foe in the closest rival, puts purity of dogma over tactical advantage, refuses to compromise or modify their aims and is proud of being against the stream. Simply put, sectarianism is the breakdown of solidarity.

The Opportunist is always ready to adapt its principles to circumstances, minimises the significance of internal disagreements, treats even opponents as "the lesser evil", puts tactical advantage ahead of being true to its principles, is too ready to make compromises and is all too ready to follow the current of the stream.

Not suprisingly, the sectarian or opportunist invariably repudiates being labeled as such, and instead reverses the claim. Meanwhile, these labels are all too easily thrown against minority positions in the attempt to invalidate their opinions as "anti-party", simply because they are different and challenging.

Naturally, real differences exist within groups and between different organisations. When these are fundamental differences, opposition and conflict is to be expected when a common course is attempted. The trouble with sectarianism is that it behaves as if fundamental differences exist when they do not; while opportunism actively ignores real differences. Thus, when for example Anarchists and Socialists attempt a common action, one can expect some areas of conflict.

Some confusion arises becuse the very nature of a Communist is to support the working class as a whole, which includes parties, unions, organisations, etc. Such a purpose is an arduous one and a fine line is sometimes walked between helping increase class consciouness and the sectarian slide of dictating to workers that their interests are not workers interests! Thus, mutual respect and thorough going solidarity are two steadfast principles of real Communists.

Sectarianism and Opportunism exist in all things; but they are no more dominate in the working class movement than they are in religious organisations or capitlist governments. In the United States for example, the Republican and Democratic parties have been in deeply sectarian battles over how best to rule a capitalist government for over 100 years. While they see one another as fundamentally in opposition (though we clearly know that they are not), they do have the tolerance to the extent that they recognize the need for one another in order for their government to survive. Thus, to irradicate sectarianism is impossible (an attempt we saw in the Soviet Union, accomplished with the most brutal of results), but to control it within certain boundaries can be a source of great strength.

"Every form of doctrinaire fanaticism, every attempt to turn Marxism into an unalterable dogma is contrary to Marxist thought, which recognizes no absolute truth but only relative truth. This is not scepticism, which denies the very possibility of absolute perception of the world, but only a recognition of the limitations of our perception. All the truths which we recognize are not truths in themselves, independent of time and place, but truths only as far as we are concerned, valid only for us, for our time, for the space in which we live. Every such truth must govern our actions until more advanced perception has exposed and removed the bit of error residing in the previously accepted truth." - Karl Kautsky, Marxism and Bolshevism – Democracy and Dictatorship

[Dros]

What exactly is a Hoxhaist/Hoxhaist Union? From what i've seen, alot of RevLeft members are against them.

Hoxaists are anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists ("Stalinists") who disagree with Maoism and support and uphold Albania under Enver Hoxha (HO ja)

The Hoxhaist Union is a league of Hoxhaist parties.


And, you guessed it, what is Sectarianism?

Sectarianism can be good or bad (in my view). Good sectarianism is the understanding that universal cooperation means the negation of a viable revolutionary theory and the understanding that there is a need for organization around the most revolutionary line, not the most opportune line.

[manic expression]

The Hoxhaist Union is a league of Hoxhaist parties.

It exists outside of Revleft?


Sectarianism can be good or bad (in my view). Good sectarianism is the understanding that universal cooperation means the negation of a viable revolutionary theory and the understanding that there is a need for organization around the most revolutionary line, not the most opportune line.

At what point does (what you call) "good sectarianism" cease to be sectarianism? What you described is just common sense: we don't all agree, we don't all function the same in practice, so it's ridiculous to expect everyone to hold hands. In my own opinion, I wouldn't call that sectarianism, I'd call it pragmatism; sectarianism is the unnecessary and senseless rejection of other organizations, usually due to a self-aggrandizing mentality.

[el_chavista]

On fighting sectarianism, Pablo invented his "Pabloism" (entryism). :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And it also means not working within a MASS party:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html


The SPD wasn't formed in a revolutionary environment. This is the model, barring notable errors in accepting "social-democratic" hacks, that we should emulate in the present environment, and not the 1912 Bolshevik model.

For the dialecticians on this board:

Thesis: "Revolutionary" conspiracist circles (modern "sectarianism")
Antithesis: Reformist mass parties (alas this appeals to many disillusioned with modern "sectarianism")
Synthesis: Revolutionary MASS party

I outlined how to "rebuild the left" without falling into the trap of allowing Keynesian "social-democratic" hacks who don't uphold "full workers' ownership and control over the economy as a very realistic means to end the exploitation of labor."

DeLeonists are the most radical amongst parliamentary socialists (aside from the WSM scum), for example, but I see no problem in working with such democratic socialists.

[Dros]

It exists outside of Revleft?

Yes.


At what point does (what you call) "good sectarianism" cease to be sectarianism?

What does that mean?


What you described is just common sense: we don't all agree, we don't all function the same in practice, so it's ridiculous to expect everyone to hold hands.

Except that every other day, someone comes here and posts some stupid "let's all work together!" thread.


In my own opinion, I wouldn't call that sectarianism, I'd call it pragmatism;

Pragmatism has a very different meaning that relates to economism, opportunism, and empiricism.


sectarianism is the unnecessary and senseless rejection of other organizations, usually due to a self-aggrandizing mentality.

That's BAD sectarianism. Literally, sectarianism just means supporting the existence of sects. That is good. Sects are necessary. Or rather, revolutionary organizations can only coalesce around a revolutionary theory.

[Ismail]

If you want to know what Hoxhaism is, you can start with the Wikipedia article on Hoxha himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

MIA also has his two of his IMO most important books: http://marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/toc.htm (Imperialism and the Revolution) and http://marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm (Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism)


They're a bunch of Stalinists, although they don't like to be called like that, so "Hoxhaism" is all the hype. Named after Enver Hoxha, Stalinist dictator in Albania that build a lot of useless bunkers. I never really got it myself.We don't like being called 'Stalinists' because to us it's like calling someone 'Engelist' or whatever. Stalin was, in our view, the same as Lenin ideologically. The only reason we call ourselves Hoxhaists is because we believe Maoism is revisionist (but certainly better than Khrushchevism, etc.) and we otherwise call ourselves Marxist-Leninists in more normal discussions, just like all 'Stalinists' do. You see, most anti-revisionists are Maoists, hence Hoxhaism.

And no, the bunkers weren't useless. (At least it wasn't thought so at the time) When the USA, USSR, Britain, Yugoslavia and Greece try to overthrow or otherwise weaken your government, you would probably get scared too. Funny thing is, defense spending went down as time went on except immediately after Albania broke off relations with China (in 1978), and then it went down by 1985 again. If you really want me too, I can go get A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha from my bookshelf for the source.

[Sam_b]

And no, the bunkers weren't useless. (At least it wasn't thought so at the time) When the USA, USSR, Britain, Yugoslavia and Greece try to overthrow or otherwise weaken your government, you would probably get scared too

Weren't most of the pill boxes pointed towards villages rather than outwards to defend them?

[Ismail]

Weren't most of the pill boxes pointed towards villages rather than outwards to defend them?I've heard that too, although I haven't seen any proof of it.

Also lets remember that Hoxha wasn't God-King of Albania. The party as a whole had to discuss the plan, talk with military leaders, etc. No one would of said "Yeah this is quite expensive, but since our leader is glorious Enver Hoxha we'll pass it through anyway."

Yugoslavia and such had much larger airforces than Albania. Both the US and USSR employed strong-arm air tactics during their wars. (Bombing of Cambodia for US, bombing of Afghanistan for USSR, etc.) This was the main reason the bunkers were made.

[Comrade Vasilev]

I've heard that too, although I haven't seen any proof of it.

Also lets remember that Hoxha wasn't God-King of Albania. The party as a whole had to discuss the plan, talk with military leaders, etc. No one would of said "Yeah this is quite expensive, but since our leader is glorious Enver Hoxha we'll pass it through anyway."
From what I have read the bunkers cost approximately 1% of annual GDP for the year they were built, which is nothing really considering that Tito and the revisionist Soviets wanted pretty bad to take an independent socialist Albania out of the picture.