International Hoxhaism

[bcbm]

Because Hoxha cultists are widely respected? Oh wait, no one has even heard of you.

[Ismail]

Because Hoxha cultists are widely respected? Oh wait, no one has even heard of you.Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Party_of_Labor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_Split

The staunchly orthodox stand of the PPSh attracted many political groupings around the world, particularly among Maoists who were not content with the CPC attitude in the late 1970s. A large number of parties (the most notable being the PC do B) declared themselves to be in the "PPSh line", especially during the period 1978-1980. However, many of them abandoned this certain affiliation after the fall of the communist regime in Albania. Today, many of the political parties upholding the political line of the PPSh are grouped around the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations.

Below is a partial list of parties adhering to the political line of the PPSh during its existence:

* Benin: Communist Party of Dahomey
* Brazil: Communist Party of Brazil
* Britain: Communist League of Great Britain
* Burkina Faso: Voltaic Revolutionary Communist Party
* Canada: Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
* Chile: Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
* Colombia: Communist Party of Colombia (marxist-leninist)
* Denmark: Communist Party of Denmark/Marxist-Leninists
* Dominican Republic: Partido Comunista del Trabajo
* Ecuador: Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
* Ethiopia: Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray
* Faroe Islands: Advancement for the Islands (m-l)
* Germany: Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists
* Germany: Communist Party of Germany (KPD/Roter Morgen)
* Greece: Organisation of Communists Marxists-Leninists of Greece
* Iran: Party of Labour of Iran
* Japan: Japan Communist Party (Left Faction)
* Mexico: Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)
* Netherlands: Workers Party of the Netherlands (build-up organisation)
* Nicaragua: Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua
* Portugal: Communist Party (Reconstructed)
* Spain: Communist Party of Spain (marxist-leninist)
* Sweden: Communist Party in Sweden
* Togo: Communist Party of Togo
* Tunisia: Tunisian Workers' Communist Party
* Turkey: Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist - Hareketi
* Turkey: Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey
* USA: Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)
* USA: Ray O. Light Group
* USA: Marxist-Leninist Party
* Venezuela: Red Flag PartyThe Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist party's for their region.

Nevermind the fact that it created a big split in the Maoist movement in general. But hey, Hoxha came from Albania, so he must be irrelevant! Only large nations can produce anything of value! Not to mention that there were pro-Albanian types in the CPUSA. (And yes, they were actual workers) Serpov would know more. Of course he's 30 and has met with 70 and 80 year old members, and actually knows about the history of Communism in his nation (USA) pre-2004 and certainly pre-1990's. So all you've done is showed that you know nothing of Communist history. Way to go.

[RHIZOMES]

The Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist parties for their region.

^^Truth. I have met 80+ year-old Hoxhaist CPNZ vets.

[Devrim]

Ismail, on your list of parties, there were Hoxhaists in Turkey, but they were very confused. I think the vast majority of them had very little idea about Hoxha, and they mostly emerged due to splits (often over personal clashes) in Turkish organisations. Of course today there are no real Hoxhaists left (Nobody will pay them to be Hoxhaists any more and they have moved onto more fertile pastures.

Ask Leo about it. He had family members who were involved in it.

The only other country I have lived in in your list is the UK. I lived there at the right time, and was aware of the majority of left groups. I have never heard of them.

Devrim

[Bilan]

The Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist party's for their region.

The former being minuscule.



Nevermind the fact that it created a big split in the Maoist movement in general. But hey, Hoxha came from Albania, so he must be irrelevant! Only large nations can produce anything of value! Not to mention that there were pro-Albanian types in the CPUSA. (And yes, they were actual workers) Serpov would know more. Of course he's 30 and has met with 70 and 80 year old members, and actually knows about the history of Communism in his nation (USA) pre-2004 and certainly pre-1990's. So all you've done is showed that you know nothing of Communist history. Way to go.

Not "were", and "was", not "is"
Hoxhaists parties and cults now are piss ants on the revolutionary map.

[RHIZOMES]

The former being minuscule.

Miniscule party for a miniscule country. :lol: The CPNZ was a significant party in the history of New Zealand leftism.

Anyway, miniscule in comparison to what other NZ revolutionary group? :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

Hoxhaists parties and cults now are piss ants on the revolutionary map.I forgot the memo that said Left Communism has revived. Ditto with anarchism, which hasn't had much working-class support (not including the Spanish Syndicalists of the 30's) since the 1800's. At least Hoxha died in 1985 and many M-L (H) parties remained until the early 90's. Also, the UK had a pretty big M-L (H) presence, with Albanian Life based there.

http://harikumar.brinkster.net/Albania/ALBANIANLIFE/coverAS44.jpg
(photo of an issue)

Also, what is with this "cult" idiocy? How are we a cult? We don't go around praising Enver Hoxha all day. We don't respond to stuff with "GLORIOUS FIRST SECRETARY HOXHA STATES IN X THAT..." We just uphold him against Maoism and other, worse forms of revisionism. Compare that to the Maoists themselves, who are obsessed with 'Mao Zedong Thought'.

[RHIZOMES]

Also, what is with this "cult" idiocy? How are we a cult? We don't go around praising Enver Hoxha all day. We don't respond to stuff with "GLORIOUS FIRST SECRETARY HOXHA STATES IN X THAT..." We just uphold him against Maoism and other, worse forms of revisionism. Compare that to the Maoists themselves, who are obsessed with 'Mao Zedong Thought'.

It's an easy way to dismiss someone's argument, obviously.

[leftist manson]

Ismail, on your list of parties, there were Hoxhaists in Turkey, but they were very confused. I think the vast majority of them had very little idea about Hoxha, and they mostly emerged due to splits (often over personal clashes) in Turkish organisations. Of course today there are no real Hoxhaists left (Nobody will pay them to be Hoxhaists any more and they have moved onto more fertile pastures.

Ask Leo about it. He had family members who were involved in it.

The only other country I have lived in in your list is the UK. I lived there at the right time, and was aware of the majority of left groups. I have never heard of them.

Devrim
You've never heard of bill bland?

[leftist manson]

accidentally misquoted Devrim,sorry
Manson.

[RHIZOMES]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_New_Zealand


The CPNZ never had mass influence or real political power, but it did politically influence several generations of radicals and stimulated several important social movements, including Halt All Racist Tours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_All_Racist_Tours) (HART) and the Progressive Youth Movement (PYM).


accidentally misquoted Devrim,sorry
Manson.

Yeah you can edit it...

[Devrim]

You've never heard of bill bland?

No, I have just looked him up on Wiki. I doubt that many English socialists have heard of him or his group either.

They really had no presence whatsoever.

Devrim

[dez]

Incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Party_of_Labor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_Split
The Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist party's for their region.

Nevermind the fact that it created a big split in the Maoist movement in general. But hey, Hoxha came from Albania, so he must be irrelevant! Only large nations can produce anything of value! Not to mention that there were pro-Albanian types in the CPUSA. (And yes, they were actual workers) Serpov would know more. Of course he's 30 and has met with 70 and 80 year old members, and actually knows about the history of Communism in his nation (USA) pre-2004 and certainly pre-1990's. So all you've done is showed that you know nothing of Communist history. Way to go.

Not just the communist party of brazil, the entire brazilian anti dictatorship guerilla forces were pretty much hoxhaist.


What a senseless act of violence. As communists we must condemn this attack. It is incompatible with socialism. This individual act of terrorism will not create an progressive political change. In fact it is a rallying cry of the reactionaries to bring about a witch hunt. These people are working completely in the interest of the state. This is not anything more then some adventurists creating a Casus Belli against the working class.

Completely agree.
Acts of violence before there is enough class consciousness for the masses to join it or to at least passively agree with it is counter revolutionary.
In a number of countries communist movements have been labeled as terrorist by the status quo and militarily repressed due to organized party actions that took place before the time.
Actions that the reactionaries of the respective countries probably stimulated, in order to generate the repression in all sectors of the left.
This is much more worse.
This is a random act of violence against an icon of the state.
You'll come off as a rebellious kid to the public, without the reactionary propaganda be set in motion.

[bcbm]

Incorrect.

So if I went and talked to any average worker in my city, they would know who Hoxha was, have heard of one of the groups you mentioned and know they were Hoxhaist and respect them? Yeah, I believe that.

[Random Precision]

The Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist party's for their region.

The former was miniscule and became Trotskyist after the regime in Albania went under, and the latter was a split from the Brazilian Communist Party after the 20th Congress of the CPSU- so no, it was not the "official communist party", although I suppose out of lack of imagination they named themselves like one. I believe that right now they're members of Lula's ruling coalition.

But the greatest success of international Hoxhaism was the Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray, which led a coalition that overthrew the Soviet-backed Mengitsu regime in Ethiopia in the late eighties. Shortly after this happened they realized how much better American imperialism paid the bills than Enver's ghost, and dropped all references to Marxism-Leninism, communism etc, from their program.

[RHIZOMES]

So if I went and talked to any average worker in my city, they would know who Hoxha was, have heard of one of the groups you mentioned and know they were Hoxhaist and respect them? Yeah, I believe that.

Does any average worker know of whatever group you're in? Or would respect you if you said you were an anarchist? I mean, considering the stereotype people have of you guys... or even worse, saying you're a communist. The average worker would probably call you an unpatriotic traitor.


The former was miniscule and became Trotskyist after the regime in Albania went under

The leadership became Trotskyist. :lol: Then after the CPNZ dissolved since most of the membership weren't happy with the change and left, the Trotskyist/Cliffite faction became the Socialist Worker. Now, the Socialist Worker has been lead by the same man who turned the CPNZ Trotskyist all those years ago, Grant Morgan. Under his leadership, the Socialist Worker has slowly evolved over time into a revisionist/liberal group (I wouldn't call it a party since they always endorsed a "lesser-evil" capitalist party in elections a la CPUSA) and has now practically dissolved itself into the left-liberal party RAM, which calls for the same policies that Keith Holyoake (Of the centre-right National Party, he also sent troops to Vietnam) implemented back in the 60's. But that isn't a surprise, since they're recruiting disgruntled National Party members. :lol: All under the same leadership that turned the CPNZ Trotskyist.

[spartan]

* Benin: Communist Party of Dahomey
* Brazil: Communist Party of Brazil
* Britain: Communist League of Great Britain
* Burkina Faso: Voltaic Revolutionary Communist Party
* Canada: Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist)
* Chile: Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action)
* Colombia: Communist Party of Colombia (marxist-leninist)
* Denmark: Communist Party of Denmark/Marxist-Leninists
* Dominican Republic: Partido Comunista del Trabajo
* Ecuador: Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador
* Ethiopia: Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray
* Faroe Islands: Advancement for the Islands (m-l)
* Germany: Communist Party of Germany/Marxists-Leninists
* Germany: Communist Party of Germany (KPD/Roter Morgen)
* Greece: Organisation of Communists Marxists-Leninists of Greece
* Iran: Party of Labour of Iran
* Japan: Japan Communist Party (Left Faction)
* Mexico: Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist)
* Netherlands: Workers Party of the Netherlands (build-up organisation)
* Nicaragua: Marxist-Leninist Party of Nicaragua
* Portugal: Communist Party (Reconstructed)
* Spain: Communist Party of Spain (marxist-leninist)
* Sweden: Communist Party in Sweden
* Togo: Communist Party of Togo
* Tunisia: Tunisian Workers' Communist Party
* Turkey: Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist - Hareketi
* Turkey: Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey
* USA: Alliance Marxist-Leninist (North America)
* USA: Ray O. Light Group
* USA: Marxist-Leninist Party
* Venezuela: Red Flag Party

When was this and where are they all now?

[Hiero]

So if I went and talked to any average worker in my city, they would know who Hoxha was, have heard of one of the groups you mentioned and know they were Hoxhaist and respect them? Yeah, I believe that.
:lol: Ask a worker about anarchism and they will probally give you the history of the Sex Pistols.

[Winter]

Ah yes, another Anti-Anti-Revisionist thread, how original. :rolleyes:


So if I went and talked to any average worker in my city, they would know who Hoxha was, have heard of one of the groups you mentioned and know they were Hoxhaist and respect them? Yeah, I believe that.

Dude, ask the average worker who any revolutionary leftist is and they would either have no idea who you were talking about or condemn you for even mentioning that "evil commie bastard". Nationalism has blinded the people about all great heroes of the working class. And I'm not just talking about Hoxha, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin, but great anarchists like Kropotkin and Bakunin as well.



You've never heard of bill bland?

I like alot of Bill Blands writings. Here's some info on him to whom have never heard of him:

Bill Bland (April 28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_28), 1916 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916)–March 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_13), 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001)) was a British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) Stalinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinist) and optician who was notable as a worldwide leader of the rather small movement that backed Enver Hoxha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha), the Albanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania) communist leader, in the struggles over Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy in the later 1960s. Before becoming a leader of the small anti-revisionist movement Bland was a member of the Communist Party of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_New_Zealand) and the Communist Party of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain). Bland considered Mao Zedong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong) a left-deviationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviationist) while still maintaining that Hoxha himself was a true Marxist-Leninist in the tradition of Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx), Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin) and Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin). Bland's line on Mao was problematic since Hoxha supported Mao at that time. Bland's position was strengthened after the Sino-Albanian split (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split) and he formed the Communist League of Great Britain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League_of_Great_Britain). After the Sino-Albanian split, a whole raft of formerly Maoist Marxist-Leninist groups went over to a Hoxhaist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxhaist) position, notably Hardial Bains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardial_Bains) and the parties he had formed.

Bland was one of the founders of the Albanian Society, and three years after its foundation he became secretary of the society, a post which he held almost continuously for 30 years until the restoration of capitalism in Albania. He was Editor of the journal of the society, Albanian Life.
Bland was one of the founding members of the Stalin Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_Society) in Britain.

[bcbm]

Does any average worker know of whatever group you're in?I'm not in any group.


Or would respect you if you said you were an anarchist? I mean, considering the stereotype people have of you guys... or even worse, saying you're a communist. The average worker would probably call you an unpatriotic traitor.I didn't ever suggest they would, though I try to avoid ideological labels anyway.


Ah yes, another Anti-Anti-Revisionist thread, how original.

I wasn't aiming for a thread, it was a one-off comment or two in another thread. Why the choice was made to split it thusly is beyond me... it looks bad.

[Winter]

I wasn't aiming for a thread, it was a one-off comment or two in another thread. Why the choice was made to split it thusly is beyond me... it looks bad.


Ahh okay. Yeah, because it comes off as being some random insult out of nowhere!

Thanks for clearing that up. :laugh:

[Devrim]

Dude, ask the average worker who any revolutionary leftist is and they would either have no idea who you were talking about or condemn you for even mentioning that "evil commie bastard". Nationalism has blinded the people about all great heroes of the working class. And I'm not just talking about Hoxha, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin, but great anarchists like Kropotkin and Bakunin as well.

I think that it is always a mistake to imagine that the whole world is the same as your own situation (I presume that you are American). I can't comment on the situation in the US, but it is a place where not only the working class is particularly weak, but there is also a low level of general culture.

I think in many countries most workers would know who people like Marx, and Lenin were.

In some countries, like our for example, workers who are communists still have the respect of their workmates for being communists. It is a situation that used to be much more general.


I like alot of Bill Blands writings. Here's some info on him to whom have never heard of him

This doesn't mean that anybody outside of small Stalinist circles has ever heard of Bill Bland.

Devrim

[Ismail]

So if I went and talked to any average worker in my city, they would know who Hoxha was, have heard of one of the groups you mentioned and know they were Hoxhaist and respect them? Yeah, I believe that.Considering that I am involved in helping people learn Communism, I'd say it's a big challenge getting them to learn basic Marxism already. Also, talk to a worker about Luxemburg or Bakunin. (Moreso Bakunin) They'll probably draw a blank. Just because Marx, Lenin and Stalin are on the History Channel a lot and referenced a lot in general doesn't equal knowledge outside of "Oh, I know the name, perhaps know what they look like, and have a extremely simplified and basic idea of their views."

Hoxha, on the other hand, had it pretty bad when it came to widespread popularity since his views were blocked from both sides of the Cold War. He considered the USSR an imperialist state, ditto with USA and China.


where are they all now?International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle), which is on Wikipedia if you want more info.



ICMLPO participants include:


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)

Ex-members:


Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania), Partia Komuniste e Shqipërisë (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Albania_%281991%29)
Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), Organizzazione per il Partito Comunista del Proletariato d'Italia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organization_for_the_Communist_Par ty_of_the_Proletariat_of_Italy&action=edit&redlink=1) (group defunct)
Venezuela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela), Partido Bandera Roja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Party) (Suspended from ICMLPO in 2005)

[bcbm]

Considering that I am involved in helping people learn Communism, I'd say it's a big challenge getting them to learn basic Marxism already. Also, talk to a worker about Luxemburg or Bakunin. (Moreso Bakunin) They'll probably draw a blank.

Probably.

Who cares?

[Ismail]

Probably.

Who cares?Then why bring up how many people know Hoxha?

[Led Zeppelin]

Ismael, the Iranian party mentioned in that list is virtually non-existent.

[Devrim]

Ismael, the Iranian party mentioned in that list is virtually non-existent.

So is the Turkish one. It dissolved itself into EMEP years ago.

There is no need to upset their fantasises though.

Let them believe in it.

Devrim

[Ismail]

The fact that there are Hoxhaists in Iran, even if they don't do much due to fears of government repression, shows that it is evidently a serious ideology as opposed to, random example, Objectivism, which has no respect anywhere and has never been put into effect. The very fact that it helped overthrow/change governments (Ethiopia, Brazil) shows that it is serious. Council Communism hasn't had much success since the early 20th century, but that doesn't mean it's a joke ideology.


So is the Turkish one. It dissolved itself into EMEP years ago.
After the fall of Socialist Albania TDKP started looking more towards establishing legal structures. Emek Partisi was banned, and instead on March 25, 1996 set up the Labour Party (Emek Partisi, generally called EMEP) as a legal front party. Today, TDKP conducts most of its activities through EMEP and critics claim TDKP is a dormant structure. TDKP is an active participant in the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations.So it still exists as a separate and active entity.

[Devrim]

So it still exists as a separate and active entity.

No, it doesn't. That quote is from English Wiki. Take a look at this one from the Turkish version:


TDKP'nin resmî web sitesindeki yayın organları Devrimin Sesi, Eylül 2001 tarihli 203. sayıdır. Aynı sitedeki Voice of Revolution adlı ingilizce versiyon ise Ekim 2001 tarihli 13. sayıdır. Marksist-Leninist Parti ve Örgütler Uluslararası Konferansı Yayın Organı olarak sunulan "Birlik ve Mücadele" adlı yayın ise Güz-Kış 2003 tarihli 10. sayıda kalmıştır


It gives the dates of their last publications, September 2001, and October 2001 for the Turkish and English language versions respectively. There was also a short publication 'Unity and Struggle' published in 2003.

This organisation no longer exists.

Devrim

[Ismail]

Either that or, you know, it does its work through the EMEP as the English article says.

What about the other parties in the list? Like Ecuador. It shows a 2007 and 2008 issue of En Marcha from them on their English Wikipedia page. (And the party itself has existed since 1964) The Tunisian party seems to be under harassment. (Some members of it were jailed in 1998) Also I heard (on RevLeft) that the Communist Party of Labour of the Dominican Republic had some communes or something of the sort in the 80's across the country. The Spanish one was founded in 2006.

[Devrim]

Ismail, I know that this group doesn't exist anymore. They have dissolved. The English article is wrong.

I also know EMEP. They are a reasonably big organisation. They have a daily, and a TV channel. They are not Hohxaists though.


What about the other parties in the list?

I can't comment on any of the other groups as I know nothing of them. But form the comments so far, your international seems a bit non-existent.

Devrim

[Ismail]

Hoxhaists don't have an official International. Besides the International Conference however, there is Comintern (ML) which, while perhaps not dead, certainly isn't active and appears to have much less influence. (http://ciml.250x.com/) Trots don't have an official International either. The Hoxhaist Union (outside of RevLeft is active) also aims to be an International at some point, although the most progress so far is solely in the USA, which is where almost all of said members are located.

[Random Precision]

The very fact that it helped overthrow/change governments (Ethiopia

Hoxhaism as an ideology had nothing to do with that. Mengitsu's regime was disastrous and unpopular, as it had been unable to deal with massive droughts and starvation. When the USSR and GDR stopped sending aid to them it was only a matter of time; Zenawi and his people could have been bent on restoring the monarchy and it wouldn't have made much difference.

[Ismail]

It still played a part. I'm aware of Ethiopia and its history, thanks.

[Honggweilo]

The Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist party's for their region.lol the brazillian PCdoB (http://www.vermelho.org.br/), which is a very large party in the goverment of Lula da Silva, are probably going to be called international krusthevites revisionists by the ICMPLO today :rolleyes:

[Ismail]

lol the brazillian PCdoB (http://www.vermelho.org.br/), which is a very large party in the goverment of Lula da Silva, are probably going to be called international krusthevites revisionists by the ICMPLO today :rolleyes:Of course everyone here is telling me that these parties changed due to financial reasons, poor knowledge of Hoxha's views that distinguished him from Mao, or both. Yes, they turned into revisionists. The eurocommunist movement, which is outright traitorious and promoted during Khrushchev's time, advocated a parliamentary 'revolution' and acting within cabinets and such. This evidently didn't work well and was simply a way for said parties to moderate more easily. Naturally, the only thing left after this was declaring Leninism 'outdated' and a party moderating outself even more.

There was little Hoxha could do to monitor the parties that upheld his line and encourage more upholders. He did his best. I've seen pictures where Imperialism and the Revolution was translated into a lot of languages, for example. (Portuguese, Turkish, French...)

[Random Precision]

It still played a part.

Not really.

[Benos145]

You have to laugh at the malicious venom of the anarchists on Revleft, constantly hounding the Marxist-Leninist Movement at every turn with the bourgeois in tow. I think Hoxha's work 'The Superpowers' was quite illuminating on this subject.

[Ismail]

Not really.Considering the MLLT led the TPLF then yes, it helped. It isn't iike, say, some random movement with a long name that was isolated from the other movements.

[Devrim]

Yes, they turned into revisionists. The eurocommunist movement, which is outright traitorious and promoted during Khrushchev's time, advocated a parliamentary 'revolution' and acting within cabinets and such.
The people you are talking about in Turkey EMEP have a parliamentary strategy.


I've seen pictures where Imperialism and the Revolution was translated into a lot of languages, for example. (Portuguese, Turkish, French...)

So what, I have seen books by Guy Debord translated into Turkish. It doesn't mean that there is a massive situationist movement here. It probably wasn't that difficult to get translations done when you had a state paying for it.


You have to laugh at the malicious venom of the anarchists on Revleft, constantly hounding the Marxist-Leninist Movement at every turn

I am not an anarchist. I think there are two issues here. One is that the size of an organisation is a nonsense point. In this period revolutionary organisations are small. The second is about lying about how big you are (Though in the case of the Hoxhaists I think they may be deceiving themselves and not blatantly lying). What is being questioned here is whether what is being claimed is true. We have already seen that it isn't in Turkey, and Iran.

To comment on their politics briefly, I think they are deeply anti-working class.

Devrim

[Benos145]

To comment on their politics briefly, I think they are deeply anti-working class.

By 'briefly' I assume you mean 'I have nothing else'. Anarchists are petitebourgeois liberals.

[Devrim]

By 'briefly' I assume you mean 'I have nothing else'. Anarchists are petitebourgeois liberals.

As I said (in the same post), I am not an anarchist. I could say lots of things about why I think that Hoxhaism is anti-working class. I don't really see the point in wasting my time though as nobody takes it seriously.

Devrim

[Benos145]

As I said (in the same post), I am not an anarchist. I could say lots of things about why I think that Hoxhaism is anti-working class. I don't really see the point in wasting my time though as nobody takes it seriously.

Devrim
You are a reactionary, and it's telling indeed seeing you spew your bourgeois embittered venom because you fail at life Devrim.

[Devrim]

You are a reactionary, and it's telling indeed seeing you spew your bourgeois embittered venom because you fail at life Devrim.

And you are a loon. What on earth does 'fail at life' mean? Do you know anything at all about my life?

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

Two things. The first is that the trash from "Benos145" be trashed as it is trolling and doesn't contribute anything to the thread.

The second is that apart from history lessons (and only briefly when looking at the international communist movement and the Sino-Soviet split) and when specifically looking at the history of Albania (and how poor a country it was), I had not heard anything about "Hoxha" or "Hoxhaism" until I came to RevLeft.

At RevLeft is was a while (I joined in 2002) before anyone claimed to be a "Hoxhaist" that I noticed. Suddenly it seems that half the "International" (10 or 15 people or so) have joined up!

And just now reading Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split is says that the Chinese and Albania split in 1978! So for a long time (while Mao was still alive) Hoxhaism was Maoism!


Anyway, so far as I can tell from my own contacts is that Hoxhaism doesn't exist off the Internet. Yes my own contacts are mainly anarchist and non-aligned leftists (with a few Trots and other Leninists thrown in for good measure), but still.

Anyway, for a final hurra, Australian "Left" parties as compiled by @ndy the Aussie Anarchist:
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?page_id=336
http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=88

The only mention of Hoxha is when discussing "The October Seventh Socialist Movement" @ the second link.

[Ismail]

Hoxhaism wasn't Maoism. Hoxha adopted some of Mao's views. For example, he agreed that the party needed a more mass line. But getting in touch with the Chinese was hard. I will say however that yes, Hoxha and Mao got along well. Actually, they got along very well until the 70's when Hoxha began criticizing many of Mao's practices both foreign and domestic. Hoxhaism didn't actually exist before 1978. 99% of us use Marxism-Leninism in normal conversations with other Communists. We only use Hoxhaist to distinguish us from Maoists. Just like we don't call ourselves Stalinists, because (besides it being an insult) Stalin in our view wasn't different enough to warrant such a thing, whereas at least with Maoists it's clear that Mao really was different enough to warrant people saying "I'm a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist."

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#Relations_with_China

And this part of Imperialism and the Revolution:

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

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

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

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

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

Besides this, we did not have full knowledge about the internal political, economic, cultural, social life, etc. in China. The organization of the Chinese party and state have always been a closed book to us. The Communist Party of China gave us no possibility at all to study the forms of organization of the Chinese party and state. We Albanian communists knew only the general outlines of the state organization of China and nothing more; we were given no possibilities to acquaint ourselves with the experience of the party in China, to see how it operated, how it was organized, in what directions things were developing in different sectors and what these directions were concretely.

The Chinese leaders have acted with guile. They have not made public many documents necessary for one to know the activity of their party and state. They were and are very wary of publishing their documents. Even those few published documents at our disposal are fragmentary.

The four volumes of Mao's works, which can be considered official, are comprised of materials written no later than 1949, but besides this, they are carefully arranged in such a way that they do not present an exact picture of the real situations that developed in China. The political and theoretical presentation of problems in the Chinese press, not to speak of literature, which was in utter disarray had only a propaganda character. The articles were full of typically Chinese stereotyped formulas expressed arithmetically, such as "the Three Goods and the Five Evils", "the Four Olds and Four News", "the Two Reminders and Five Self-controls", "the Three Truths and Seven Falses", etc., etc. We found it difficult to work out the "theoretical." sense of these arithmetical figures, because we are used to thinking, acting and writing according to the traditional Marxist-Leninist theory and culture.

The Chinese leaders did not invite any delegation from our Party to study their experience. And when some delegation has gone there on our Party's request, the Chinese have engaged in propaganda and taken it here and there for visits to communes and factories rather than give it some explanation or experience about the work of the party. And towards whom did they maintain this strange stand? Towards us Albanians, their friends, who have defended them in the most difficult situations. All these actions were incomprehensible to us, but also a signal that the Communist Party of China did not want to give us a clear picture of its situation.

But what attracted our Party's attention most was the Cultural Revolution, which raised a number of major questions in our minds. During the Cultural Revolution, initiated by Mao Tsetung, astonishing political, ideological and organizational ideas and actions came to light in the activity of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese state, which were not based on the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin. In judging their previous dubious actions, as well as those observed during the Cultural Revolution, and especially the events following this revolution up till now, the rises and falls of this or that group in the leadership, today the group of Lin Piao, tomorrow that of Teng Hsiao-ping, a Hua Kuo-feng, etc., each of which had its own platform opposed to the other's, all these things impelled our Party to delve more deeply into the views and actions of Mao Tsetung and the Communist Party of China, to get a more thorough knowledge of "Mao Tsetung thought" When we saw that this Cultural Revolution was not being led by the party but was a chaotic outburst following a call issued by Mao Tsetung, this did not seem to us to be a revolutionary stand. It was Mao's authority in China that made millions of unorganized youth, students and pupils, rise to their feet and march on Peking, on party and state committees, which they dispersed. It was said that these young people represented the "proletarian ideology" in China at that time and would show the party and the proletarians the "true" road!Anyway, as to how so many Hoxhaists appeared on RevLeft, it was first RavenBlade, then me. Then a few Maoists started abandoning Maoism (keep in mind that a vast majority of M-L are stuck in Maoism) and then we decided to found the HU. Then suddenly Hoxhaists came in without our intervention. Like Kromando.

[Winter]

Anyway, as to how so many Hoxhaists appeared on RevLeft, it was first RavenBlade, then me. Then a few Maoists started abandoning Maoism (keep in mind that a vast majority of M-L are stuck in Maoism) and then we decided to found the HU. Then suddenly Hoxhaists came in without our intervention. Like Kromando.

You seem to be implying that being a Maoist is a bad thing! ;)

"The articles were full of typically Chinese stereotyped formulas expressed arithmetically, such as "the Three Goods and the Five Evils", "the Four Olds and Four News", "the Two Reminders and Five Self-controls", "the Three Truths and Seven Falses", etc., etc. We found it difficult to work out the "theoretical." sense of these arithmetical figures, because we are used to thinking, acting and writing according to the traditional Marxist-Leninist theory and culture."

I understand a lot of Hoxhas criticisms, but I think that Hoxha failed to understand the context this Marxist revolution was taking place in. China has always had its unique traditions, and in order to get workers and peasants involved was through using a lot of strictly oriental methods. Like Hoxhas criticism on things like "Three Goods and the Five Evils". As early as Confucius ( The Analects ), these methods were used through-out China's history, including Taoism ( Tao-Te Ching ), and Buddhism ( Dhammapada ).

It wasn't just with spiritual/religious texts these methods were used for. Many martial artists books such as the "Art of Peace" is written with aphorisms and uses numbers and labels to categorize methods and theories in order for the student to easilly remember the teachings. The same method would be done with Marxism-Leninism.

I have alot of respect for Hoxha, but I simply think he didn't take into consideration that Marxism-Leninism must be an ever evolving method depending on the countrys enviroment and culture.

[Red October]

I have only met one Hoxhaist in real life. At an anti-war demo, there was a creepy looking guy with a small card table and a few stacks of papers with articles on Hoxhaand whatnot, so I went over to talk to him and asked him about Hoxha and all that. He seemed very sheepish and sort of embarrassed to talk about it, especially when he tried to distance Hoxhaism from Stalin. I didn't take one of his papers and I haven't seen or heard from him since. He was nice enough to distribute his shit right next to some old creep from the SWP though :lol:

[Ismail]

Anyone who distances Hoxha from Stalin is an idiot considering how much Hoxha upheld Stalin and how in With Stalin he basically showers constant praise on him and talks about his meetings with Stalin on issues like Greece, etc.

[Devrim]

The Hoxhaists on this thread seem to be implying that Hoxhaism represents some sort of internationalist working class politics. Nothing could be further form the truth.

If one compares Hoxha's line to the political situation in the Balkans at the time the correlation is very clear.

Basically Hoxha line was a completely national one, expressed mostly by its opposition to Yugoslavia, and its interest in incorpeating Albania in some sort of Balkan republic.

Stalin oppoesed Tito. Hoxha supported Stalin.

After Stalin's death the USSR made approaches to Yugoslavia. Hoxha switched to China.

When China started making overtures to Yugoslavia, Hoxha dumped Maoism.

This is in no way a communist approach. It is a line that historically supported the interests of the Albania (capitalist) state.

Devrim

[dez]

lol the brazillian PCdoB (http://www.vermelho.org.br/), which is a very large party in the goverment of Lula da Silva, are probably going to be called international krusthevites revisionists by the ICMPLO today :rolleyes:

PCdoB had a hoxhaist tendency once, though.
They now form a huge basis for the Lula government, they actively recruit youth and they have all sorts of people and ideologies in the party.
I don't know much about the party, but considering the youth, there are some anti-revisionist nucleus in it, but they are well known to make alliances with anyone and anything for power. Including alliances with the right.

The brazilian representative in ICMPLO, PCR, in my humble view, is just like them. They criticize the government like hell, bash at everyone, but in election times use petit-borgeoise parties (PDT), workers party and pretty much anyone's structure to launch candidates (they are too small to elect candidates on their own). They also sometimes make alliances with PCdoB in student manifestations (with their youth faction, which isn't really instructed in marxism at all, and I was able to talk with students commited for years in activism and without a single drop of notion of marxism), and have a directive of working within the left when they are not too concerned with trying to hunt trotskysts/revisionists. Its actually paradoxical. They show a high concern with not going through revisionist paths, but that's exactly where they are going! Give them some years... Hehehe.


By the way, I went to a youth camp crowded with representatives of ICMPLO, and the only one that made the slightest refference to Hoxhaism in the entire camp was the turkish one.

[JimmyJazz]

We need a Hoxha smiley.

[spartan]

We need a Hoxha smiley.
Yeah we can base them off these pictures:

"Tumbledown Dick":
http://www.esiweb.org/balkanexpress/images/albania/legacies.jpg

Paranoid dictator:
http://img2.travelblog.org/Photos/17055/107157/t/714962-Albanian-bunkers-1.jpg

[Red October]

http://www.esiweb.org/balkanexpress/images/albania/legacies.jpg


Of course, all those people must be petty-bourgeois traitors, there's now way this many people in Albania could actually oppose Hoxha.

[spartan]

Of course, all those people must be petty-bourgeois traitors, there's now way this many people in Albania could actually oppose Hoxha.
Exactly they must have escaped from the labour camps or something and contacted pro-Yugoslav agents within Albania ready to overthrow the glorious Ramiz Alia.:lol:

[Ismail]

Yeah, the bourgeoisie never take advantage of poor economic conditions and such. You do realize the USSR was better than the post-Soviet states today, right? (Even in the 80's) Well, guess what, Yeltsin appealed to nationalism to convince the Russian proletariat to rebel and smash the pseduo-socialism in place.

In Albania, the struggle against socialism was led by Berisha, who was later forced to resign in 1997 following massive riots against him which required American troops to put an end to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sali_Berisha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_unrest_in_Albania
"Result Government overthrown"

So yeah, deception exists.


Paranoid dictator:We've been through this. Bunkers were made due to fears of a Yugoslav, Greek, Italian, British, American or Soviet invasion. Mainly a Yugoslav or Greek one (Greece was technically at war with Albania until the 80's) since Albania had no real airforce.


Basically Hoxha line was a completely national one, expressed mostly by its opposition to Yugoslavia, and its interest in incorpeating Albania in some sort of Balkan republic.Yeah, Hoxha opposed imperialism and all that. Do you doubt that Yugoslavia was basically the most opportunist nation of the 'socialist' world?


Stalin oppoesed Tito. Hoxha supported Stalin.Hoxha supported Stalin pre-break with Yugoslavia and upheld Tito during WWII. (If that's hypocritical, note that was before Tito tried to annex Albania)


After Stalin's death the USSR made approaches to Yugoslavia. Hoxha switched to China.Albania made the switch in 1960, Hoxha was condemning Khrushchev as far back as 1956 when he condemned Stalin. He called Khrushchev a traitor to Marxism-Leninism.

Seriously, read the Wikipedia article, it's pretty bad that you have less knowledge on the subject than Wiki considering how much you seem to act as an authority.


When China started making overtures to Yugoslavia, Hoxha dumped Maoism.Nope, he began getting suspicious when they invited Nixon.


This is in no way a communist approach. It is a line that historically supported the interests of the Albania (capitalist) state.Yeah, King Zog I was clearly a nationalist. :rolleyes:

Was Hoxha a nationalist? Somewhat. He never put nationalism above socialism though. He always talked about an international revolution, the Albanian state made sure to have his books translated in many languages, etc. His nationalism was necessary since it brought in peasants and kept Albania independent. If you can give me an example of him committing racist acts, then by all means do so.

[bcbm]

Then why bring up how many people know Hoxha?

Because talking about any theorist is pretty stupid at this point, outside of certain circles? Nobody gives a fuck about some obscure dead guy, be he anarchist or Enver Hoxha. Its irrelevant to actual working class resistance today.

[Ismail]

Because talking about any theorist is pretty stupid at this point, outside of certain circles? Nobody gives a fuck about some obscure dead guy, be he anarchist or Enver Hoxha. Its irrelevant to actual working class resistance today.Except we aren't talking about Hoxha the man (or rather, we shouldn't be, but people are doing it anyway) but rather Hoxha the theorist and his influence internationally.

[The Author]

Of course, all those people must be petty-bourgeois traitors, there's now way this many people in Albania could actually oppose Hoxha.

I see. So every student in that photograph in that square in Tirana is representative of the entire population of Albania...That's really in-depth.

Tell me, how come we don't see photographs or hear accounts of people of all kinds from Tirana and the rest of the country? How come we only see this photo? Did any one of the posters in this thread ever bother to ask yourselves that question? Or are you just content with mudslinging using bourgeois propaganda? Because if that's as good as it gets, why should you be taken seriously?

[spartan]

Or are you just content with mudslinging using bourgeois propaganda?
"bourgeois propaganda" cute.


Because if that's as good as it gets, why should you be taken seriously?

Sorry but when someone goes about labelling pictures showing people pissed off with a draconian regime destroying the symbols of that regime "bourgeois propaganda", I think it's they who shouldn't be taken seriously.

But it's all the same with your lot.

Anything that shows that your "socialist" paradise was anything but is obviously "bourgeois propaganda" or something.

Personally I think it's a cop out and a poor one at that.

[Ismail]

Bourgeoisie propaganda doesn't exist anymore?


Sorry but when someone goes about labelling pictures showing people pissed off with a draconian regime destroying the symbols of that regime "bourgeois propaganda", I think it's they who shouldn't be taken seriously.I've already told you why they did that. Berisha said that socialism was a failure and that in order for Albania to revive, it must open up to the world. He said that the United States of America was a progressive ally and that Albania must end socialism at once, and this is why Albania is one of the most pro-US governments in the world. The economy was also stagnating in the 80's and Alia did both equivalents to glasnost and perestroika, which ruined the economy further and allowed counter-revolutionary (as in, pro-imperialist, whether Soviet or American, and anti-socialist) viewpoints to develop. Not to mention that, like Gorbachev, he purged anyone he disagreed with from positions.

Apparently taking advantage of things doesn't exist. But hey, not everyone in Albania loves the USA and will die for the American President.

Time for an AP article!


Tirana, Albania - It's 10 o'clock in the morning and Shkelten Daljani, a rambunctious boy of 14 in a tattered "Route 66" T-shirt, should be in school. But if he wants to eat, he has to help his father collect scrap metal to sell. The previous day, he says, there was no metal and no food.

"If we have food, we eat," Shkelten says with a shrug. "If we don't, we don't."

Shkelten and his family live on the outskirts of Albania's capital, Tirana, in the neighborhood of Breju Lumi, which means riverside, though the only nearby water is a dry streambed cluttered with trash. The houses are a collection of concrete blocks and tin shacks without electricity, running water, or sanitation. The streets are little more than dirt lanes.

Shkelten's situation – inadequate housing and sanitation, poor medical care, and occasional hunger – is little different from that of millions of children throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America. But his home is in the heart of Europe.

Millions of children in the formerly communist nations of Eastern Europe have been left behind as their countries made the transition from centralized economies to free-market capitalism. While in absolute numbers the number of poor children has fallen in recent years, advocates and researchers say that a new class of excluded children is emerging who suffer many of the same problems as children in the poorest countries of Africa – but receive far less attention.

"We used to say that everybody was equally poor," says Arlinda Ymeraj, a social-policy officer with the UN Children's Fund in Albania. "Now, if you compare, there are big disparities. A few people have gotten very rich, but more have stayed poor or gotten poorer."

The situation of Albania's children is among Europe's worst. Once one of the most isolated nations, the country remains one of the continent's poorest countries.

Despite recent economic growth, a third of Albania's children live on less than $2 a day. And according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), a staggering 35 percent of children in rural areas are malnourished; in urban areas, 17 percent are. In terms of child malnutrition – measured by the percentage of children under age 5 who are underweight – the World Bank puts Albania just above Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe.

Leonardo Menchini, a researcher for UNICEF's Innocenti Research Center in Florence, Italy, says no one is certain why so many children in Albania are malnourished and that more research needs to be done since the statistics are based only on a handful of studies. Still, he says, "The data for Albania are quite shocking."

Ms. Ymeraj says that it is difficult to compare the situation of children today with that during communist times, but that life has deteriorated for the poorest in a number of concrete ways.

The state no longer guarantees jobs, houses, or healthcare, as it did before. In rural areas, industry and state-farm collectives have collapsed, leaving people to fend for themselves, and many government services are no longer available. In rural areas, for example, 85 percent of secondary schools have shut their doors.

Researchers say that poverty is becoming increasingly entrenched, particularly in rural areas, among Albania's minority Roma population and in families with children. Indeed, across the region, countries with the lowest birthrates also have the lowest poverty levels.

"What has emerged is the concentration of disadvantage. Families with children seem more disadvantaged than before, relatively speaking," says Menchini, emphasizing that the state must do more to protect children. "It's important for these counties to invest in social services. They have to break the intergenerational transmission of poverty."

Jalldyz Ymeri, a young grandmother who lives near the Daljani family, says in communist days she would not have nearly lost her 3-year-old grandson Orgito – a spiky-haired boy with angelic eyes – whom races around the family's dirt yard as she watches. A few months earlier, the boy fell seriously ill, and Ymeri had to bribe a doctor to see him.

"The medicines to cure him are very expensive," she says. "Sometimes we have to choose between food or medicine. Nobody will treat us if we don't pay."

"For us it was much better in communist times," insists Ymeri's husband, Safet. "We were obliged to go to school. The government gave us housing. We like democracy, but this is not real democracy."

[Devrim]

Was Hoxha a nationalist? Somewhat. He never put nationalism above socialism though. He always talked about an international revolution, the Albanian state made sure to have his books translated in many languages, etc. His nationalism was necessary since it brought in peasants and kept Albania independent. If you can give me an example of him committing racist acts, then by all means do so.

Ismail, none of your points contradicted my basic argument. I never claimed that he was a racist, but that he was a nationalist as you yourself admit.

Devrim

[JimmyJazz]

"bourgeois propaganda" cute.

Sorry but when someone goes about labelling pictures showing people pissed off with a draconian regime destroying the symbols of that regime "bourgeois propaganda", I think it's they who shouldn't be taken seriously.

Haha wait a minute, pictures of falling statues surrounded by (at most) a hundred people cannot be staged propaganda events?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42397000/jpg/_42397683_saddam1_ap.jpg

The reason I'm not a Hoxhaist is because I don't have time to read (about) some obscure guy. Not because there's a picture on the internet of his statue being toppled.

[spartan]

Haha wait a minute, pictures of falling statues surrounded by (at most) a hundred people cannot be staged propaganda events?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42397000/jpg/_42397683_saddam1_ap.jpg

The reason I'm not a Hoxhaist is because I don't have time to read some obscure guy when there are lots of political classics I haven't read and lots of world events to keep up on. Not because there's some picture on the internet of his statue being toppled.
There are many images of lots of different Hoxha/marxist-leninist statues and billboards being tore down by lots of angry Albanian people.

Are they staged as well?

Just because one is staged doesn't mean all are, especially when Albania wasn't being invaded by US forces eager for a propaganda victory at the time when the pictures were taken.

[JimmyJazz]

There are many images of lots of different Hoxha/marxist-leninist statues and billboards being tore down by lots of angry Albanian people.

Are they staged as well?

Just because one is staged doesn't mean all are, especially when Albania wasn't being invaded by US forces eager for a propaganda victory at the time when the pictures were taken.

My point was not that the Hoxha pic is staged, but that a pic is not real evidence. I have no reason to believe the pillboxes were built with good justification, either, but that doesn't mean it isn't silly to take some pictures of pillboxes as solid evidence about the nature fo Albanian society under Hoxha.

I agree with making fun of Hoxhaism, just do it for the right reasons: no one has ever heard of him. :)

[Ismail]

Yes, only massive, strong countries or countries constantly in the news deserve praise or respect. Tiny countries (even Albania, which had the first anti-Fascist uprising in Europe in 1939) only exist to be laughed at. :rolleyes:


Ismail, none of your points contradicted my basic argument. I never claimed that he was a racist, but that he was a nationalist as you yourself admit.Chávez is a nationalist. He puts nationalism above socialism and preaches a "mass-based" form of it. That's the difference. Hoxha advocated world revolution and sought contacts all over the world. There are pictures with him and Marxist-Leninist party leaders from Ecuador, Denmark, etc.

[JimmyJazz]

Yes, only massive, strong countries or countries constantly in the news deserve praise or respect.

Tiny countries (even Albania, which had the first anti-Fascist uprising in Europe in 1939) only exist to be laughed at. :rolleyes:

Well, by default, I tend to ignore everything until I'm given a reason to do otherwise. As of right now, I really don't know anything about Hoxha. I scanned his wiki and didn't see anything too interesting.

Didn't Spain have the first anti-Fascist uprising in Europe?

[spartan]

Well, by default, I tend to ignore everything until I'm given a reason to do otherwise. As of right now, I really don't know anything about Hoxha. I scanned his wiki and didn't see anything too interesting.

Didn't Spain have the first anti-Fascist uprising in Europe?
Yes it did.

The Italian annexation of Albania preluded WW2 but I don't know if the Albanians started rebelling against the Italian fascists before WW2 or just after it started?

Either way I don't see why the Hoxhaists on this forum like to place so much emphasis on Albania having the first anti-fascist resistance?

I mean it's like saying "my dicks bigger than yours so nah".

What's important is that there was an anti-fascist resistance, not who was the first to resist and can thus claim the treasured title of "first anti-fascist resistance group in Europe which makes us better than all the others by default".

[avantgarde]

I have to agree with Ismail, Hoxha's 'nationalism', if you can even call it that, was positively harmless. He only used it the context of the 'heroism of the Albanian people in building socialism and resisting imperialism and revisionism' and that kinda thing. The pseudo-leftist attempt to 'deny' and 'abolish' nationality is particularly naive, nations and states 'wither away' under the proletariat, and the idea that all concepts of 'nationality' in the consciousness of the populace 'disappear' the day after socialism comes to power is ridiculous.

That being said, the criticism of Hoxha on this thread is particularly opportunistic and seems designed to appeal to anti-communist stereotypes, ie the 'paranoid dictator'.

[Bronsky]

Ishmail - What relation did Hoxha have to Kosovo during the 90's?

[avantgarde]

Ishmail - What relation did Hoxha have to Kosovo during the 90's?
Do you mean 'Hoxhaism', as Hoxha died in 85' I believe.

[Luís Henrique]

The Communist Party of New Zealand and Communist Party of Brazil were official Communist party's for their region.

What does "official" mean in this context?

At the time the PCdoB considered itself "Hoxhaist", the main "Communist" party in Brazil was, without doubt, the pro-Soviet PCB, or Partido Comunista Brasileiro.

Only after the Soviet Bloc debâcle did the PCdoB became bigger and more influential than the PCB - which reinvented itself as a petty bourgeois Partido Popular Socialist, leaving the PCB brand to a smallish group. But by that time the PCdoB was no longer Hoxhaist, and would consider such past affiliation a mistake; and also by that time the main leftist party in Brazil was, by far, the PT.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Not just the communist party of brazil, the entire brazilian anti dictatorship guerilla forces were pretty much hoxhaist.

To put it short, no.

The PCdoB attempted to create a guerrilla movement in the Amazon (Guerrilha do Araguaia), but unhappily it was crushed before it could grow into anything really threatening the State. It was the most earnest attempt of a socialist guerrilla in Brazil, true. But the anti-dictatorship "guerrilla" that is most commonly remembered as such were the varied "urban guerrilla" groups (Marighella's ALN, Lamarca's VPR, VAR-Palmares, etc), none of which were Hoxhaist (and this should be understood as a compliment to Hoxhaism, not a criticism).

And then comes an anachronism in your post. At the time the PCdoB was setting the Guerrilha do Araguaia, it was certainly not Hoxhaist, but Maoist. Indeed, it was during the self-criticism of the failed guerrilla that most of the PCdoB became "Hoxhaist", with a significant minority sticking to a "sophisticate Maoism" in the lines of Althusser, Poulantzas, Marta Harnecker, Charles Bettelheim.

Luís Henrique

[Bronsky]

Do you mean 'Hoxhaism', as Hoxha died in 85' I believe.


Yes Ta!

[Ismail]

What does "official" mean in this context?Generally, Communist Parties in a nation are seen as "official". This was especially true during the Cold War. Most Communists when looking up Communist parties in the US for example see the CPUSA as the main result. I've had people look up the CPUSA, point to it, and say "they endorse Democrats! That's proof that Communism is dead!" Unless there are various other groups named CPNZ, it remains the 'official' party. CPNZ was also the largest.


What's important is that there was an anti-fascist resistance, not who was the first to resist and can thus claim the treasured title of "first anti-fascist resistance group in Europe which makes us better than all the others by default".It was the only anti-fascist resistance to not rely on Soviet aid either.


Ishmail - What relation did Hoxha have to Kosovo during the 90's?He believed that if the Kosovars felt oppressed, that they should go independent. During WWII for example he condemned the 'Greater Albanian' nationalists (these are the actual nationalists, not Hoxha) like the Balli Kombëtar, etc. who wanted Kosova to be a part of Albania. He also strongly condemned Yugoslavia over the events that happened in 1981.

[Luís Henrique]

Generally, Communist Parties in a nation are seen as "official". This was especially true during the Cold War. Most Communists when looking up Communist parties in the US for example see the CPUSA as the main result. I've had people look up the CPUSA, point to it, and say "they endorse Democrats! That's proof that Communism is dead!" Unless there are various other groups named CPNZ, it remains the 'official' party. CPNZ was also the largest.

In this case the "official" Communist Party in Brazil, at the time the PCdoB claimed to be Hoxhaist, was certainly the PCB, which was bigger and more influential (not for other reason, it was known as Partidão - "Big Party").

The PCdoB became the biggest "Communist" party in Brazil after it abandoned Hoxhaism, and after the fall of the Soviet Union (which led to the implosion of the Partidão) - mainly because the PCB shrinked, not because the PCdoB grew.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

rHoxha the theorist.
Hoxha was a theorist? I didn't know it went beyond "Stalin good! Kruschev bad!"

[Comrade Rage]

Ismail, why even comment on this thread? It's pretty much just ad hominem insults and spam.

I, for one, have better things to do than argue with "OMG UR AN EVIL STALINIST I HATE HOXHA". If someone wants to argue the politics, then ok. But enough idiot insults about obscurity from people who are in groups with that same problem. Because all revolutionaries ALWAYS have had to deal with censorship.

The argument is really pointless.

[Ismail]

Hoxha was a theorist? I didn't know it went beyond "Stalin good! Kruschev bad!"Yeah, kinda like how Communism goes beyond "proletariat good! bourgeoisie bad!'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/toc.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/euroco/env2-1.htm

The second one is stuff I'm sure even non M-L would find interesting. (It talks about Earl Browder of the CPUSA, etc.)

And from Marxists.org bio:

Mao and his followers world-wide insisted that in peasant countries urban insurrection must occur in the last stages of the revolutionary war, which until then would have the countryside as its theater of operations. Hoxha insisted, on the other hand, that the cities ought not to be left until last but that actions must be carried out simultaneously in city and countryside. As revolutionary movements gathered momentum in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, continents with large rural populations, these issues were at the center of intense debates between "Hoxhaists" and Maoists.There's a reason he caused a split in the Maoist movement, after all.

[Andres Marcos]

To whoever was "asking" what Hoxhaist groups there are these are the recent signers of a resolution proposed by the ICMLPO signed on August 23, 2008, found on the PCE(ML)'s website.

América Latina y Caribe
Partido Comunista Revolucionario de Brasil – PCR
Partido Comunista Marxista Leninista del Ecuador - PCMLE
Partido Comunista de México (Marxista-Leninista) - PCM (ML)
Partido Comunista del Trabajo de la Republicana Dominicana -PCT
Partido Comunista Marxista-Leninista de Venezuela
Partido Comunista Chileno –Acción Proletaria ( PC-AP)
Corriente Comunista Gustavo Machado (CCGM) Venezuela
Grupo Avanzar de Argentina
Europa
Partido Comunista de los Obreros de Dinamarca - APK
Partido Comunista de España (Marxista-Leninista) - PCE (ML)
Unión Proletaria (España)
Juventud Comunista de España (Marxista-Leninista)-JCE (ML)
Plataforma de Ciudadanos por la República (España)
SODEPAZ (España)
Ediciones Octubre 17. (España)
Partido Comunista de los Obreros de Francia - PCOF
Espacio Che Guevara / Francia
Unión de Revolucionarios Comunistas de Francia (URCF)
Agrupación de los Círculos Comunistas: Circulo Henri Barbusse, Coordinación Comunista 59/62, Circulo Comunista de Alsacia, Circulo Comunista de la Región Parisina
Ediciones Demócrito
Movimiento por la Organización del Partido Comunista de Grecia 1918-55
Plataforma Comunista de Italia
Redacción de Tierra y Liberación (Italia)
Organización Marxista Leninista Revolución de Noruega
Plataforma Comunista (Marxista Leninista) de Noruega - KPml
Partido Comunista Revolucionario de Turquía - TDKP
Organización para la Construcción de un Partido Comunista de los Trabajadores de Alemania
Partido Comunista de Alemania-KPD
Partido Comunista de Alemania (Roter Morgen)-KPD
Partido Comunista de Alemania Marxista-Leninista (Roter Stern) KPD (m-l)
Proletarskaya Gaceta (Rusia, Petrogrado)
« Defensa del Trabajo », asociación de los Sindicatos de Trabajadores de Rusia
« Comuna Roja », Organización de Jóvenes Trabajadores (Kharkov, Rusia)
Orión, Organización Marxista de Trabajadores (Letonia)
Comunistas- Ginebra (Suiza)
África
Partido Comunista de los Obreros de Túnez (PCOT)
Partido Democrático del Trabajo de Túnez
Partido Comunista Revolucionario Voltaico – PCRV
Partido Comunista Revolucionario de Costa de Marfil - PCRCI
Partido Comunista de Benin – PCB
Comité Cultural para la Democracia de Benin – CCDB
Colectivo de Militantes de Marruecos, de la Inmigración, de Acción y de Lucha
Fernent – Movimiento des los Trabajadores Panafricanos – Senegal – Fernent/MTP-S
Sanfin – La Nubia de Malí
Frente Democrático de las Islas Comoras
Colectivo de Asociaciones y Amigos de las Islas Comoras-CAAC
Asia Medio Oriente
Democracia Revolucionaria de INDIA
Frente de los Trabajadores de PAKISTAN (Pakistán Mazdur Mahaaz)
Partido Comunista de Pakistán Mazdoor Kissan Party
Partido Socialista de Malasia – PSM
Partido del Trabajo de Irán – PTI Toufan
Nueva Iniciativa Sindical (India)

If you have not heard of them, ever think about the fact that you do not live in that country?. If you never heard of Hoxha so what? Ive met "educated" people who have never heard of Joseph Stalin, Ive also heard from workers who think anarchism is Punk Rock Music and Bashing car windows. I have also heard workers think Communism means doctors, and garbage men get paid the same...just imagine what they will think of anarchism which intends to abolish the state "voluntarily" :D which is the biggest riot I can think of.

@ Devrim

For a Turk, you have no idea about the EMEP do you or its history? It is a very large anti-revisionist party with good working class support, If you think it is NOT Hoxhaist(or Stalinist since the two are interchangeable) you are deeply misinformed, the EMEP was formed by uniting the Hoxhaist parties in Turkey it is the "legal" party of the TKDP which has gone underground but works in the EMEP. Similarly Comrade Slavyanski during the Summer met with Communists from Turkey from the EMEP(as well as visiting Tatarstan Communists), specifically Mehmet Ozer, who is a national leader who IS a Hoxhaist, and shortly after he left the govt. shut down Hayat TV. He also made a trip to albania as well to meet with the editor of the PKSH's blog.

http://emep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=54&Itemid=115

Similarly this is from an Article I have of their members from an interview:


Albania
"Albania was the only country where the process of socialist construction was uninterrupted until the 1980s, despite tremendous difficulties and sacrifices....
This is one of the facts that must be established if we ever want to analyse correctly the phenomena and processes involved and derive truly scientific conclusions". (p. 5)
"During and after the 1950s,... true communists, under the leadership of the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA), led by Enver Hoxha, have continuously argued that socialist construction was interrupted in all countries except Albania.... Our Party too has defended this line since its establishment". (p. 8-9)
"The collapse of socialism in Albania (the only socialist country in the world since the 1960s) towards the end of the 1980s, was the last link in the defeat inflicted in the second half of the 1950s and constitutes the latest victory of the bourgeoisie and imperialism". (p. 9)
"Albania, as a small socialist country, skillfully exploited the opportunities provided by the conflict between the two imperialist blocs from the 1960s to the mid-1980s. It managed to maintain socialist construction in spite of its small size.
The agreement that was concluded in the mid-1980s between the Gorbachevite revisionist bourgeoisie and the western capitalist bourgeoisie was a straightforward conclusion against the proletariat, the peoples and socialism....
The new global conditions left Albania face to face with a unified imperialist blockade, siege, isolation and aggression....Also from Wikipedia:


Labour Party (in Turkish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_language): Emek Partisi, EMEP) is a political party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party) in Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey). Its chairman is Abdullah Levent Tüzel. The party was founded as Emek Partisi (Labour Party, EP) in 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996). Due to its ban by the Constitutional Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court), it was refounded with the name Emeğin Partisi (Party of Labour, EMEP), the same year. In 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005), the name "Labour Party" was reinstalled, however keeping the abbreviation EMEP.
The foundation of EMEP was a result of the initiative started by the Turkish political cadres affiliated with the Albanian Party of Labour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_Party_of_Labour). The party defines its ideology as "scientific socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism)", referring to Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party_of_Turkey) as the "illegal revolutionary party of the working class". EMEP presents itself, on the other hand, as "an open worker's party". Its ideological stance is in accord with the line of ICMLPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist-Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Unity_and_St ruggle%29), approving the legacy of Joseph Stalin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin) and Enver Hoxha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha) integrally. In its programme, EMEP identifies its goal as creating a "Independent and Democratic Turkey".
The party publishes the daily Evrensel (Universal), identified as "daily worker's newspaper" and as "a main tool of propaganda, agitation, and organisation activities".
The Hoxhaists on this thread seem to be implying that Hoxhaism represents some sort of internationalist working class politics. Nothing could be further form the truth. Ohh im sorry, What have you left communists been doing these days? If anyone is out of touch it is you guys who have done nothing since 1919, and while that time considered that your little sectarian circles which made no rational approach to educate reactionary workers would be a Mass(A MASS!) Party of the Working class, those are the criticisms Lenin made of you types. If anything its actually funny for ANYONE who isnt a Hoxhaist to criticize it for its shortcomings...well where is your revolution? Prove to us how we are wrong by your great deeds not your great words. Talk is cheap. Most arguments on here, if you want to call them that are crap. I agree with Rage, nobody should really waste their time trying to talk to people who like to mock us and then when we fire back call us "sectarian", really hypocritical if you ask me. Oh well thats Revlib.

[Devrim]

For a Turk, you have no idea about the EMEP do you or its history? It is a very large anti-revisionist party with good working class support, If you think it is NOT Hoxhaist(or Stalinist since the two are interchangeable) you are deeply misinformed, the EMEP was formed by uniting the Hoxhaist parties in Turkey it is the "legal" party of the TKDP which has gone underground but works in the EMEP. Similarly Comrade Slavyanski during the Summer met with Communists from Turkey from the EMEP(as well as visiting Tatarstan Communists), specifically Mehmet Ozer, who is a national leader who IS a Hoxhaist, and shortly after he left the govt. shut down Hayat TV. He also made a trip to albania as well to meet with the editor of the PKSH's blog.

As I commented on them before:


I also know EMEP. They are a reasonably big organisation. They have a daily, and a TV channel. They are not Hohxaists though.

Stalinism is not interchangeable with Hoxhaism. It is possible to be a Stalinist without being a Hoxhaist.

TDKP effectively dissolved itself in EMEP.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Also, I would just like to clarify that I am not against Hohxaism because it is small. I am against it because it is bourgeois.

My point here is that they are exaggerating massively about their membership. Something all bourgeois parties do.

The Communist left is tiny. However, at least we can be honset with ourselves about this.

Devrim

[apathy maybe]

Also, I would just like to clarify that I am not against Hohxaism because it is small. I am against it because it is bourgeois.

My point here is that they are exaggerating massively about their membership. Something we bourgeois parties do.

The Communist left is tiny. However, at least we can be honset with ourselves about this.

Devrim
We bourgeois parties? Unintentionally showing your true colours? :D:lol::p


If you have not heard of them, ever think about the fact that you do not live in that country?. If you never heard of Hoxha so what? Ive met "educated" people who have never heard of Joseph Stalin, Ive also heard from workers who think anarchism is Punk Rock Music and Bashing car windows. I have also heard workers think Communism means doctors, and garbage men get paid the same...just imagine what they will think of anarchism which intends to abolish the state "voluntarily" which is the biggest riot I can think of.
Yes, lots of people don't know things. For example, you appear to think that anarchism is getting the state to do away with its self. Anarchists don't think that, anarchists (mostly) think that the state needs to be smashed. It tends to be Leninists* who believe that the state will magically whither away, disappear "voluntarily".


* Though not all Leninists, by any means, but most people I've discussed the issue with and believe that the state will "whither away" have been Leninists. Even accounting for differences in definitions, thinking that a centralised state will voluntarily abolish it self is absurd, and something that anarchists don't think.

Hoxhaist(or Stalinist since the two are interchangeable)
That's a riot.

[Hiero]

* Though not all Leninists, by any means, but most people I've discussed the issue with and believe that the state will "whither away" have been Leninists. Even accounting for differences in definitions, thinking that a centralised state will voluntarily abolish it self is absurd, and something that anarchists don't think.

If they don't think they state will wither away they are not Leninists.

[apathy maybe]

If they don't think they state will wither away they are not Leninists.

I didn't phrase that terribly well.

Many Leninists support the idea of a centralised state run on behalf of the proletariat. Others support the idea of a decentralised "state" (something anarchists might not recognise as a state, but ignoring that), run by the proletariat.

From my position (and most anarchists I would guess), I can't see how a centralised state would whither away, however, a decentralised "state like" structure envisaged by the second type (who do exist), could whither away.

Moreover, Leninists aren't the only ones to talk about the whithering away of the state. It just seems that Lenininsts are the only ones who think that a centralised bureaucratic state can do that (and again, not all Leninists, just some).

Is that more clear? (I'm doubting it, but I try.)

[Andres Marcos]

Stalinism is not interchangeable with Hoxhaism. It is possible to be a Stalinist without being a Hoxhaist.

Really? Just like its possible for someone like Rosa to be a "Marxist" and be anti-dialectical :rolleyes:. "Stalinism" is interchangeable with "Hoxhaism" so much that the ICMLPO places works from the EMEP on its website. You also dont address the interview they gave which called Albania a socialist nation, or that Mehmet Ozer a national leader in the EMEP whom Slavyanski had the priviledge to meet is a Hoxhaist. Similarly when Hayat TV was shut down the EMEP, along with other ICMLPO organized people to write letters and calls to the Turkish govt. to put it back online, which was a success.



TDKP effectively dissolved itself in EMEP.
No they did not the EMEP is the "legal" party of the TDKP because the TDKP was outlawed! The TKDP is not dissolved, if you would check the list of the parties on there who signed a declaration from the ICMLPO on August 23, 2008 I put up, the TDKP is on there.



Also, I would just like to clarify that I am not against Hohxaism because it is small. I am against it because it is bourgeois. We already know you can't criticize Hoxhaism for being "small", thats because your puritanical Left Communist movement is virtually non-existant and stagnating because it is sectarian with not even making an effort to educate workers and it holds these pipe dreams that it will be a "mass" party. As for my ideology being "bourgeois" because we supposedly "lie" about our numbers, it shows how much of a mechanical materialist sectarian you really are, The parties associated with the ICMLPO are old parties from the 1960s which WERE truly massive parties and the Party with more accomplishments FOR the working class in the Dominican Republic, Turkey, Colombia, Eritrea and Brazil than all other so-called "proletarian"(i.e. Trotskyite, anarchist, and Left Communist) movements combined. So until your "movement" gets up on its ass and actually does something for the working class you have no right to call us bourgeois.



My point here is that they are exaggerating massively about their membership. Something all bourgeois parties do.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Where? I really have not seen any Party exagerrate its membership until you show one from an ICMLPO participant its an absurd statement with zip to back it up.



The Communist left is tiny.we already knew that.



However, at least we can be honset with ourselves about this.No you can't, you still uphold the sectarian and Great Nation chauvinist line of Rosa Luxembourg which Lenin criticized your types for. You seek to make zero and rational attempts to educate reactionary workers and still believe you will be a MASS(yes a Mass) party of the working class.


Yes, lots of people don't know things. For example, you appear to think that anarchism is getting the state to do away with its self. Anarchists don't think that, anarchists (mostly) think that the state needs to be smashed.No by voluntarily, I meant in the sense that you people think that you can rally enough people to "voluntarily" smash the state(whos believes in magic now), I never meant it in the sense the state does it itself.


It tends to be Leninists* who believe that the state will magically whither away, disappear "voluntarily".
No Leninists are not the ones who "invented" this. Marx and Engels concluded this, because they do not view the state as something which is an entity of itself(like anarchists) but that it serves the class in power, they believed the state has a purpose and one alone, to serve the class in power. It is anarchists who think its impossible for the working class to seize power of the state, and that it will "exploit" them. Well is the bourgeoisie "exploited" by its own state? No...so why the hell can't workers seize the state for itself? Hardly from thinking it will magically "disappear" Lenin in the State and Revolution showed that once people start to do roles the state did itself like policing themselves, making estimates to how much they should produce, in effect when human nature has changed to the point where a state is unnecessary which will take an epoch to do and with the worldwide victory of socialism FIRST, that is when the state slowly withers itself away. Anarchists seem to think they can do this all at once, but it usually comes to naught, until you have smashed capitalism ENTIRELY you cannot even make attempts to shashing the state, that is unless you like bullets running through your body since you just abolished the army, navy, and airforce and have no money to buy fuel from abroad.


Though not all Leninists, by any meansthen you werent even talking to "Leninists" or a Communist by any mean, only an eclectic.


Many Leninists support the idea of a centralised state run on behalf of the proletariat. Others support the idea of a decentralised "state" (something anarchists might not recognise as a state, but ignoring that), run by the proletariat.
And now we have the mechanical(which in turn metaphysical) anarchist definition of the centralized state. See this is the problems with anarchists, the state is made up of the class in power, it is never something where it is run on "behalf" of anyone, it is RUN by the class itself.


From my position (and most anarchists I would guess), I can't see how a centralised state would whither awayThen read Marx's Civil War in France, Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific or Lenin's State and Revolution. It would be too long to expound our line here.


That's a riot.Really? So what the hell have you been calling us Stalinists for? Its evident you people have no idea what the line of "hoxhaism" is or what "Stalinism" is, they are exactly the same.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Also I heard (on RevLeft) that the Communist Party of Labour of the Dominican Republic had some communes or something of the sort in the 80's across the country.

Yeah, the PCT (Workers Communist Party) was relatively influential in the 80's, and it helped establish neighborhood committees in many towns and shantytowns across the country. The info about it in English that I know of that's available online is here: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-54438-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

[Ismail]

As a note, a Radio Free Europe thing from 1979:
http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/3-9-6.shtml


Summary: This paper reviews a number of highlights
from Hoxha's Reflection on China, Volume II, which
was published this fall in Albanian and a number of
foreign languages, and to which Tirana is giving a
lot of publicity. The selected topics include Hoxha's
criticism, often in abusive language, of various
communist leaders such as Ceausescu, Kim I1 Song, former
pro-Albanian "Marxist-Leninist" party officials who
have opted for the new Chinese line... The second volume of Hoxha's Reflections on China is an
almost day-by-day account of the gradual and steady erosion of
the Sino-Albanian alliance over the period from 1972-1977.
Volume II of the political diary shows that when the outside
world was only beginning to detect signs of a clash of interests
in Sino-Albanian affairs during the first half of the 1970s,
Hoxha was already seething with distrust, anger, and mounting
determination to defy China's new political course, irrespective
of the potentially grave consequences for his country.

The diary also reveals an extremely well-read man, and one who
is very much in touch with the outside world, despite 20 years
of total withdrawal (the last time he traveled abroad was in
1960, to Moscow). The notes, for example, are sprinkled
throughout with foreign expressions -- Latin, French, and Italian.
Hoxha mentions reading the French daily Le Monde, Edgar Snow's
works on China, including his last book "My Life as a Journalist,"
in the Italian language version, and frequently refers to
watching Italian and Yugoslav television programs, for example,
Tito's triumphal tour of China. Thus, he has apparently had
ample opportunities to learn about China from foreign sources also.

With the exception of the Vietnamese leaders, Hoxha criticizes
all the leaders of the world's traditional communist parties.
Fidel Castro is referred to derisively as that "bearded" Castro.
Kim I1 Song comes under attack once the bitter news reaches
Hoxha that Tito has been invited to visit North Korea:

"In Pyongyang, I believe that even Tito will be
astonished at the proportions of the cult of
his host, which has reached a level unheard
of anywhere else, either in past or present
times, let alone in a country which calls
itself socialist."

After arguing that North Korea's huge propaganda in favor
of Yugoslavia "is a good thing" because then the "genuine"
Marxist-Leninists will conclude for themselves that the North Korean
Workers' Party is "revisionist," he then continues:

"With regard to the 'third world,' Kim I1 Song
pretends to be not only a member, but possibly
also its leader. He also has pretentions
that 'Juche' ideas, i.e., Kim Il Song thought,
should be spread throughout the world with
great speed. All these pretentions do not
upset Tito who, as we know, poses as the leader
of the 'nonaligned world,' of the "nonaligned
states." (...)

"What are these Romanian revisionists with
Ceausescu at the head, whom the Chinese love
and support so much? . . . There is no doubt
that throughout history the Romanian
bourgeoisie has been renowned for its 'love
affairs.' It has made 'love' to all and
sundry at all times. The bourgeoisie has done
this with bourgeois France for example, the
new revisionist bourgeoisie has done and is
doing this with the Soviet Union of Khrushchev,
with the China of Mao, with the Yugoslavia
of Tito, with the United States of America, the
Federal German Republic, and with everyone who
gives it money. . . . If there is the slightest
trace of anti-Sovietism in Ceausescu, this comes
from the fact" that he is an adventurer of the
Khrushchevite, Titoist, or similar type . . .
The Ceausescu regime is a regime of corruption,
bankruptcy, and of personal and family
dictatorship. . . Ceausescu is to be seen
more outside Romania than inside it. What does
he do abroad? He buys and sells, makes and
settles deals, receives a percentage and
sometimes even a decoration. . . Romania is
certainly carrying out a 'great policy' in
Europe and in the world, but it is also trying
to take over the conductor's baton of policy in
the Balkans. This is the long and short of it:
[Sergeant, Sergeant-major (Turkish), a play on
words with Ceausescu's name -- note in
original] . . . . What is Ceausescu's
anti-Sovietism based on?. . . It is totally
involved in Comecon, but raises some
opposition and kicks out a little, but even the
Bulgarians, who are as intimate with the
Soviets as 'their underpants,' do this in
Comecon. Then wherein is their anti-Sovietism
expressed? Is it that they have not become like
the Bulgarian leaders?! But they are just about
as bad, if not worse. Sometimes the Bulgarians
may do something unexpected and surprising,
while the Romanians are not 'bold spirits' of
that sort." (....)

One perplexing side effect of the Sino-Albanian falling
out has been the splits in, and "defections" from, the so-called
Marxist-Leninist movement, which was originally the joint brain
child of the Chinese and Albanian Communist Parties after the
Sino-Soviet break in the early 1960s. A few of these splinter
parties and groups, also commonly known as "Maoists," embraced
the new Chinese line, in the context of the Sino-Albanian
ideological quarrel, whereas the greater number of these parties
chose to follow the Albanian purist brand of the
Marxist-Leninist movement's ideology and strategy.

Hoxha also speaks in detail of another "defector," Edward
Hill, Chairman of the Communist Party of Australia (M-L) who,
it is claimed, after his departure from Tirana (which he visited
on the occasion of the seventh congress), sent a letter to the
Albanian Embassy in Paris (delivered by Mrs. Hill) in which
various objections were made against the theses of the seventh
congress, i.e., the holding of multiparty meetings, on the
international situation, and so forth. As was to be expected,
Hoxha rejects Hill's many arguments and arrives at the conclusion
that:

"Hill is a provocateur, an agent of the
Chinese, therefore he and his so-called
Marxist-Leninist party warrant no further
mention. The question arises about this
party, whether it exists or not. We have
never learned how many members this party
has, but our opinion is that this party
does not exist even on paper, let alone with
a clear Marxist-Leninist ideology, to guide
it correctly in its activity."

(....)

In his political diary about the short-lived Sino-Albanian
romance period Hoxha argues that, with the exception of K'ang Sheng,
none of the leaders of communist China, beginning with Mao,
were true Marxist-Leninists. He claims that Mao was merely
a "progressive bourgeois" or a "centrist" revolutionary, that
Zhou was an extreme "compromiser," Hua Guofeng and Teng
Hsiaoping "ultra-rightists," and so on down the line. It seems that the
incongruous Sino-Albanian relationship was doomed to failure right.
from the start in the face of such contrasting attitudes of
the protagonists: Chinese moderation versus Albanian extremism.
Hoxha's bitter and vindictive comments about the Chinese communist
leaders should therefore come as no great surprise when seen in
the context of the author's long record of extreme hard-line and
uncompromising policies.So yeah, Australia didn't have a Hoxhaist party. Also first part I bolded seems to be indicate that he co-founded the anti-revisionist movement with Mao.

[black magick hustla]

No you can't, you still uphold the sectarian and Great Nation chauvinist line of Rosa Luxembourg which Lenin criticized your types for. You seek to make zero and rational attempts to educate reactionary workers and still believe you will be a MASS(yes a Mass) party of the working class.

Quote

We don't wish to build a mass party. We wish to build a party of internatioanlist militants. We don't have recruitment mentality.

[The Feral Underclass]

Hoxha use to have pill-boxes positioned outside of villages to to deter then population from revolting.

[Ismail]

Hoxha use to have pill-boxes positioned outside of villages to to deter then population from revolting.No he didn't. Next question...

[The Feral Underclass]

No he didn't. Next question...

Yes he did. Next lie...

[Ismail]

Your source for this is...

[Andres Marcos]

We don't wish to build a mass party. We wish to build a party of internatioanlist militants. We don't have recruitment mentality.

Then you have no hopes of ever getting the masses to accept revolution as their sole means of bettering themselves.


Hoxha use to have pill-boxes positioned outside of villages to to deter then population from revolting.Those who don't know things should have no right to talk like they do. In the book A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha, James S. O'Donnell shows that the pillboxes were built in Albania for a culmination of 3 events; The Yugoslav plot to kill Hoxha, rout the Albanian army, and make it the Next Republic of Yugoslavia, this was to be accomplished by Tito's urging to allow the Yugoslav army to station in important Albanian cities to "defend" them from Greece. Second the Greek attempt to get Albanians in the South to revolt and with the help of the Greek Army take Gjirokaster. Third, the U.S. attempt to stage a bay of Pigs event in 1950, using Albanian emigres and former members of Balli Kombetar. According to O'Donnel the Albanians built their pillboxes near towns with AA batteries so that they would be guarded from enemy bombing strikes(They thought the capitalist airforce would hesitate to carpet bomb Albanian fortifications if they were near towns), secondly these pillboxes could be easily moved using a crane, so the notion that they were "built" on the spot there for the purpose of preventing revolts is absurd.


Your source for this is...

He does not have one, people like that use no honest historical documents or books, and generally have no knowledge of what they speak of.

[The Feral Underclass]

Your source for this is...

My Romanian friends father who use to live in a village. Have you ever been to Albania? Perhaps he's a counter-revolutionary. AND MUST BE SHOT!!!

You people are ridiculous.

[Invader Zim]

I have read that Hoxha did indeed construct a vast network of pill-boxes across Albania, often as likely to be aimed into Albania as towards its neighbors, I shall have to try and find the article again. I recall they were built for two reasons, firstly to keep phantom invading armies at arms length and secondly to keep control upon Albanians.

But while we are on the subject of Hoxha's repressive measures, designed to keep his people in check, I think O'Donnell's, A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha (New York, 1999), is a good place to turn. In the conclusion to his chapter on human rights and religion, O'Donnell writes: -

"There is little need for elaborate commentary debating the nature of Enver Hoxha's regime in terms of human rights and religion. Hoxha's record on both issues was unequivocally deplorable. His policies concerning both subjects were products of his rigid adherence to ideology, as well as a method of keeping the population in check by using methods of force which ensured the maintenance of power; for himself and his Party. In terms of the overall analysis of this study, Hoxha's record on both human rights and religion must be considered abhorrent and a negative development in Albania's history."
p. 144.

My emphasis, and any spelling errors are my fault.

I would see what he has to say regarding Hoxha's array of pillboxes, but irritatingly the book doesn't contain an index page, which makes the task somewhat difficult and slow. Quite what O'Donnell and his publisher were thinking, when they decided it would be a good move not to include an index, is beyond me. But I shall have another look next time I am in the library.

[which doctor]

Really? So what the hell have you been calling us Stalinists for? Its evident you people have no idea what the line of "hoxhaism" is or what "Stalinism" is, they are exactly the same.
Then why even call yourselves Hohxaists?

[apathy maybe]

Then why even call yourselves Hohxaists?

Ismail has a crush on the fella. Twenty five pictures http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=grouppictures&groupid=7

I would suggest a serious case of worship going on...


As to why the other folks call themselves Hox... I would suggest two reasons, one they "admire" the theoretical contributions made by the man to Stalinists theory, secondly, they are the under dog. No one loves them, but they think that they will win anyway.

[Ismail]

Actually it's neither. We are Hoxhaists because we are against Mao. Otherwise, we just use Marxist-Leninist everywhere else. We only use Hoxhaism to denote our opposition to Maoism. I've already explained this. Hoxhaism is anti-Maoism. That is his main victory, exposing Mao. Of course he also fought against Eurocommunism and such, but yeah.

@apathy maybe: I uploaded pictures for avatars and such. Plus there are very few pictures of him. I then found out my (not hard, it's just looking up variants of Hoxha on google, right-clicking pictures, save-as, and uploading them) efforts were pretty much a waste when I found a free PDF of Enver Hoxha: His Life and Works which is like 308 pages and contains various pictures.


My Romanian friends father who use to live in a village. Have you ever been to Romanian? Perhaps he's a counter-revolutionary. AND MUST BE SHOT!!!What was his fathers job? (So I know they aren't rich émigrés who are related to Midhat Frashëri or whatever)

The two émigrés I talked to were rich. One was in fact related to Frashëri (who led the pro-fascist Balli Kombëtar), another belonged to a wealthy landowning family (she said this herself).

[Andres Marcos]

My Romanian friends father who use to live in a village. Have you ever been to Romanian? Perhaps he's a counter-revolutionary. AND MUST BE SHOT!!!

You people are ridiculous.

Your Romanian Friends father? thats proof? Where is his word published? nope? then yes we are "ridiculous", ridiculous for not accepting anecdotes as fact. Secondly Romania =/= Albania.


Then why even call yourselves Hohxaists?To distinguish us from Maoists who also call themselves Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists, but thats only when Im on Revleft, outside I dont use the word Hoxhaism but Marxism-Leninism, Communism, Marxism, and Socialist. Secondly, I have never met a "Stalinist" who is not also a supporter of the line of Enver Hoxha, because the line of Stalin is the same as Enver Hoxhas. The only one I have met that was not was because she did not know who Enver Hoxha was and as soon as reading his stuff became a "Hoxhaist" and a "Stalinist", just as many idiots would call me. Does one who supports Dimitrov a "Dimitrovist" and not a "Stalinist", no...just like one who is a supporter of Engels not a "Marxist"?


I would suggest a serious case of worship going on...okay how many anarkiddies have the dead anarcho-syndicalist and individual terrorist Durriti as their avatars on here?....seriously, how is it that the supporters of actual existing socialism are called "worshippers" by anarchists and let them get away with it, when anarchism in many groups was just that i.e. the Makhnovites, The Socialist-Revolutionaries which is culminated in the Great Makhno archive.


As to why the other folks call themselves Hox... I would suggest two reasons, one they "admire" the theoretical contributions made by the man to Stalinists theoryNo, we don't "admire" we find it correct that he upheld Marxism-Leninism while all others were abandoning it, and helped directly with buildng Marxist-Leninist Parties around the world, which the CCP abandoned when it adopted the idiotic Three Worlds Theory, Secondly, Hoxha contributed little to Marxist-Leninist theory, and Third there is no "Stalinist theory", there is only Marxist-Leninist theory, the word Marxism-Leninism was coined first by Stalin and him alone, it would be correct to call our theory just that. Also, we do "admire" Hoxha for one reason, for fighting back those forces which prevented the Albanians modernizing an extremely backward nation, a nation that was able to electrify every village when in just the year prior to that people never knew electricity had existed and keeping it independent when for ALL of its history it was dominated by foreign powers, and there is NOTHING wrong with that, considering Albania was surrounded by imperialism and a neighbor to the North who tried to depose the Albanian government years before.


they are the under dog. No one loves them, but they think that they will win anyway.Seeing as how this remark must mean Anarchism > than actual existing socialism, tell me what "wins" have the anarchist monsieurs made in their 200 years of history, and how does a nation like Albania which had a real revolution pale in comparison to the anarchist failures of revolution everywhere? I don't really understand how people can say that when they support an ideology that has failed miserably everywhere. Also when have ANY revolutionaries been loved? Marx himself was called a bunch of names by the workers he was trying to help, even more so with anarchists. Does anyone love ANY radical ideology these days? you should know better, NO ONE ever loved Communism or Anarchism rather than a minority of very class-concious people.

[The Feral Underclass]

What a Faux-pas. Of course I meant Albania because he's Albanian. Not Romanian...Ok, so I lied. But thanks to Invader Sim it seems that my words have some credibility.

Oh I am naughty! :blushing:

[Ismail]

"The bunkers were just one component of Hoxha's aim to arm the entire country against enemy invaders. Gun training used to be a part of school, I was told, and every family was expected to have a cache of weapons. Soon, Albania became awash in guns and other armaments -- and the country is still dealing with that today, not just in its reputation as a center for weapons trading but in its efforts to finally decommission huge stockpiles of ammunition as part of its new NATO obligations." - http://www.gadling.com/2008/06/26/letter-from-albania-enver-hoxhas-legacy-and-the-question-of-t/

Seems a bit contradictory if the bunkers were OMG DESIGNED TO FIGHT REBELLIONS. Bunkers were everywhere, meant for defense in all directions.

[Hiero]

That is a good point Ismail, some revolutionary societies (whether socialist or nationalist) train citizens in use of weopons and disperse weopons througout the country. Yet these same countries are said to be supressing people by use of the military. I would think if I wanted to suppress any possibility of armed counter revolution the last thing I would do is train people in weoponary and make guns available.

[Invader Zim]

"The bunkers were just one component of Hoxha's aim to arm the entire country against enemy invaders. Gun training used to be a part of school, I was told, and every family was expected to have a cache of weapons. Soon, Albania became awash in guns and other armaments -- and the country is still dealing with that today, not just in its reputation as a center for weapons trading but in its efforts to finally decommission huge stockpiles of ammunition as part of its new NATO obligations." - http://www.gadling.com/2008/06/26/letter-from-albania-enver-hoxhas-legacy-and-the-question-of-t/

Seems a bit contradictory if the bunkers were OMG DESIGNED TO FIGHT REBELLIONS. Bunkers were everywhere, meant for defense in all directions.

But you would presumably accept that it isn't exactly a glowing testiment to the regime? To elaborate, it hardly seems that Hoxha's regime is something to emulate and reproduce if it was so awful and brutal that he thought it best to construct hundreds of thousands of concrete machine gun nests to keep his people obidient.

[Ismail]

More like "hundreds of thousands of concrete machine gun nests" to defend against foreign air strikes among other things. I'm pretty sure the Yugoslav air force was vastly superior to Albania's. Actually, I'm pretty sure Albania had a pretty horrible air force to begin with.

[Invader Zim]

More like "hundreds of thousands of concrete machine gun nests" to defend against foreign air strikes among other things. I'm pretty sure the Yugoslav air force was vastly superior to Albania's. Actually, I'm pretty sure Albania had a pretty horrible air force to begin with.

I have no doubt that the regime's fear of the outside world was a highly motivating factor for the construction of the pill boxes, but it is a fact that a great many were built to keep its people servile, just as it is a fact that the regime deliberately kept its people oppressed in order to maintain control.

[spartan]

More like "hundreds of thousands of concrete machine gun nests" to defend against foreign air strikes among other things. I'm pretty sure the Yugoslav air force was vastly superior to Albania's. Actually, I'm pretty sure Albania had a pretty horrible air force to begin with.
I hardly think that the bunkers were designed to withstand air strikes.

If that was the case then they would have been underground bunkers, not exposed bunkers.

[spartan]

What a load of bullocks. A small socialist state isn't allowed to defend itself against imperialism. No defense against the Greek monarcho-fascists? No defense against Soviet social-imperialism?

Do you forget that that during the 40's Tito tried to occupy Albania, using the pretext of Greek fascist aggression to force Hoxha into ceding to a Yugoslavian occupation. The Titoists made no secret of their wish for Albania to be annexed as a federal subject of Yugoslavia.

Not to mention that the Khrushchevite imperialists tried to steal Albanian submarines and seize an Albanian port because Hoxha was not towing the line.

God Spartan, quit spewing your malicious hate-filled bile at genuine revolutionaries and opponents of imperialistic capital like Hoxha. Your 'arguments' boil down to little but B-grade right-wing stereotypes.
Firstly if Stalin didn't betray the Greek communists leaving them at the mercy of the western-backed monarchists, then perhaps Albania would have had no need to worry about Greek monarcho-fascists in the first place?

Also what's this obsession with independent socialist nation-states?

Are Hoxhaists Albanian nationalists or something?

Albania was being selfish by not becoming part of a greater union (which would have benefitted all it's citizens) and they effectively shot themselves in the foot because of this by always relying on other rival powers for everything only to divorce from them whenever they decided not to give as much money and aid (because Albania had nothing to offer them except draining their own resoirces).

And what's this about "spewing your malicious hate-filled bile"?

The bunkers can't be used for civilian or military air-raid defence as they are exposed!

Bunkers acting as air-raid shelters are supposed to be underground (and even then they can be reached by bunker-buster bombs if the y aren't deep enough).

If Albania was planning on using these for air-raid shelters then god help the poor Albanians who were planning on using them is all I can say.

Then again we all know that this wasn't their real purpose despite the insistence to the contrary by the cult of Hoxha loonies.

[Wanted Man]

That is a good point Ismail, some revolutionary societies (whether socialist or nationalist) train citizens in use of weopons and disperse weopons througout the country. Yet these same countries are said to be supressing people by use of the military. I would think if I wanted to suppress any possibility of armed counter revolution the last thing I would do is train people in weoponary and make guns available.
Interesting that this point has never been addressed. Doing so might be an embarrassing affair for your opponents.

The rest of this thread seems to have moved off-topic. When it comes to 'international hoxhaism', we saw a list of groups, some discussion which ones are actually hoxhaist, and now there is a lot of high-pitched argument about the purpose of the bunkers that seems to be based on educated guesses. Surely, there must have been documents that explain something about these pillboxes.

As for the actual importance of 'international hoxhaism', this subject is also being avoided. Addressing this one might be painful for the 'hoxhaist' side. It would certainly help if they could explain to us the tangible influence of hoxhaism today, and why you and I should be hoxhaists in 2008 AD. As it stands now, I've certainly never heard of the 'Workers Party of the Netherlands (build-up organization)'. It will have to be a bit better than name dropping.

[Wanted Man]

Also what's this obsession with independent socialist nation-states?

Are Hoxhaists Albanian nationalists or something?

Albania was being selfish by not becoming part of a greater union (which would have benefitted all it's citizens) and they effectively shot themselves in the foot because of this by always relying on other rival powers for everything only to divorce from them whenever they decided not to give as much money and aid (because Albania had nothing to offer them except draining their own resoirces).
Just to be sure, I'll ask before wasting more words: is this denunciation of 'nationalism' referring to the Albanian refusal to get annexed by Yugoslavia? Surely, not even you...

[spartan]

Just to be sure, I'll ask before wasting more words: is this denunciation of 'nationalism' referring to the Albanian refusal to get annexed by Yugoslavia? Surely, not even you...
No.

What I mean is this selfish streak of the Albanian leadership to not allow Albania to reap the benefits of greater cooperation with it's neighbours and fellow socialist states, "revisionist" or not.

At the end of the day the only people to suffer because of this policy was the Albanian people.

The charge that Yugoslavia was seeking to conquer Albania doesn't stand up in my view.

But if we are to say that in a hypothetical situation Yugoslavia was indeed seeking for Albania to become apart of a greater Slavic/Balkan union then what is wrong with that in your view? (this is a question I am not advocating it).

At one point Yugoslavia wanted all the states in eastern Europe to join in a socialist union, which would have benefitted the long suffering people of this region immensely I would imagine.

In my opinion Hoxhaists place to much emphasis on people's nationality and ethnicity.

This is against the spirit of internationalism which is one of the defining features of our ideology.

I also find it hypocritical that Hoxha argued against Yugoslavia when he himself used to argue for greater Albanian cooperation with Italy (bordering on what Belarus is currently seeking with Russia).

[The Author]

"bourgeois propaganda" cute.

Journalists under the employ of media enterprises such as CNN, the BBC, and FOX, etc. work for the bourgeoisie. They make a living spreading disinformation. Hence, bourgeois propaganda. It does not take a genius to figure that out.


Sorry but when someone goes about labelling pictures showing people pissed off with a draconian regime destroying the symbols of that regime "bourgeois propaganda", I think it's they who shouldn't be taken seriously.

But it's all the same with your lot.

You showed one picture of a statue in a square in Tirana. No evidence whatsoever of what was going on in the rest of the country. No materialist analysis of the conditions present, no understanding of the situation that caused nationalist discontent. You, like many others, always fail to connect the dots; always fail to think critically and read between the lines. You take everything the bourgeoisie says for granted and you content yourselves with it. Bourgeois propaganda succeeds in duping the proletariat under the guise of being "unbiased," making it very difficult for the revolutionary organizations to win over the working class.

You see nationalists and discontented students from the petit-bourgeois strata, fighting from universities to overthrow socialism and replace it with "bourgeois democracy." Of course, that's to be expected due to their class status, to receiving underground literature from authors such as Ismail Kadare and Radio Free Europe. The intelligentsia dupes the working class, because they like the benefits of the bourgeoisie more.


Anything that shows that your "socialist" paradise was anything but is obviously "bourgeois propaganda" or something.


Ah, another example of someone throwing around the "paradise" label. It's as bad the "personality cult" accusations. I and others of like ideology have said countless times in other threads about the nature of the contradictions and antagonisms still present in socialist society. Whether you or others are capable of ever acknowledging that stance, well, is entirely up to you...

[Invader Zim]

What a load of bullocks. A small socialist state isn't allowed to defend itself against imperialism. No defense against the Greek monarcho-fascists? No defense against Soviet social-imperialism?

Do you forget that that during the 40's Tito tried to occupy Albania, using the pretext of Greek fascist aggression to force Hoxha into ceding to a Yugoslavian occupation. The Titoists made no secret of their wish for Albania to be annexed as a federal subject of Yugoslavia.

Not to mention that the Khrushchevite imperialists tried to steal Albanian submarines and seize an Albanian port because Hoxha was not towing the line.

God Spartan, quit spewing your malicious hate-filled bile at genuine revolutionaries and opponents of imperialistic capital like Hoxha. Your 'arguments' boil down to little but B-grade right-wing stereotypes.

"Bullocks" huh? But which part are you referring to? The part where I stated that the regime feared the outside world? Well Kaloyan, what are you trying to argue? That as a fact, that point is false? Or are you simply trying to legitimise that fear? If its the latter then you will get no argument from me. Sure the regime was highly paranoid, but that doesn't mean that its fears were all unjustified.


A small socialist state isn't allowed to defend itself against imperialism. No defense against the Greek monarcho-fascists? No defense against Soviet social-imperialism?You're confused. The network of machine guns isn't the issue which bothers me, it is the direction some of them were pointed which bothers me, as do the brutal human rights transgressions designed to maintain control of the population through intimidation, and if you were any kind of leftist it would both you too.

[Bilan]

I forgot the memo that said Left Communism has revived.

Memo's aren't set out in case of such events.



Ditto with anarchism, which hasn't had much working-class support (not including the Spanish Syndicalists of the 30's) since the 1800's.

Or the rise of the factory committes in Russia (Unless you're theoretically numb and think that's a by-product of Leninism); or anarchism in Korea (with all its flaws); or anarchism in China; or Mexico; or Paris in 68; Hungary 56?

Mega fail. You're out of your depth.



At least Hoxha died in 1985 and many M-L (H) parties remained until the early 90's. Also, the UK had a pretty big M-L (H) presence, with Albanian Life based there.

At least he died!




Also, what is with this "cult" idiocy? How are we a cult? We don't go around praising Enver Hoxha all day. We don't respond to stuff with "GLORIOUS FIRST SECRETARY HOXHA STATES IN X THAT..." We just uphold him against Maoism and other, worse forms of revisionism. Compare that to the Maoists themselves, who are obsessed with 'Mao Zedong Thought'.

You are no better, don't kid yourself.

[Andres Marcos]

No.

What I mean is this selfish streak of the Albanian leadership to not allow Albania to reap the benefits of greater cooperation with it's neighbours and fellow socialist states, "revisionist" or not.

you know I read this same crap from a guy named Rudyard Kipling its called the White Man's Burden.



The charge that Yugoslavia was seeking to conquer Albania doesn't stand up in my view.
Ever read on the topic? The book A coming of Age shows the plot that Yugoslavia had to depose Enver Hoxha and cripple the Albanian army was true.



But if we are to say that in a hypothetical situation Yugoslavia was indeed seeking for Albania to become apart of a greater Slavic/Balkan union then what is wrong with that in your view? (this is a question I am not advocating it).well ill counterpose it with a question. Do oyu know what happened to Kosovo Albanians under Josip Tito? Their life expectancy was significantly lower than that of the rest of the country, with rampant unemployment, and the blood feud was still practiced. Rammadan Marmalluka an ethnic Albanian from Yugoslavia wrote a book titled Albania and the Albanians and the standards of living for Albanians in Albania were much higher than the kosovars.



In my opinion Hoxhaists place to much emphasis on people's nationality and ethnicity.You have no idea on what you are talking about, we emphasis a nation's right to self-determination to be free from imperialism and economic colonialism which the Yugoslavs intended to do on Albania that is our historical view on the national question, as for right now you cannot say this BS I am a Chicano myself and the Maoist notion of a nation of "Aztlan" has no sympathy with me, as long as a socialist state recognizes that Chicanos should be treated as equals along with everyone else im fine.



This is against the spirit of internationalism which is one of the defining features of our ideology.you are confusing internationalism with national chauvinism. Your line is the same one that British imperialists took in the 19th and 20th Century on colonial peoples that british economic exploitation and barbarity was actually "helping" those people.



I also find it hypocritical that Hoxha argued against Yugoslavia when he himself used to argue for greater Albanian cooperation with Italy (bordering on what Belarus is currently seeking with Russia).??????? what Hoxha proclaimed was opening diplomatic and trade channels ONLY(and he did that with Yugoslavia as well), what Belarus is talking about is a Union, Hoxha talked of no such thing. his policy was an independent Albania.


@SACT

You anarchists seem to take credit for everything.



Or the rise of the factory committes in Russia (Unless you're theoretically numb and think that's a by-product of Leninism)

These were formed by socialist workers themselves who allied with the Bolsheviks, besides in the Ukraine anarchism was non-existent in the urban areas, communism was.


or anarchism in Korea (with all its flaws); or anarchism in China;

Okay fair enough ill concede those. Where are they now? Has it ever succeeded even in achieving what Kim Il sung or Mao Zedong built?



or Mexico; or Paris in 68; Hungary 56?


1. If yer talking of the 1968 strikes in Paris and Mexico those were done mostly by MAOISTS and pro-chinese Marxist-Leninists in fact look up any picture on google these strikes were carried out with a communist student majority, just because there was a little black flags in the background does not mean it was anarchist or that they in anyway shape or form outnumbered the anarchists.

2. You want to take credit for Hungary? fine. hungary was a counterrevolution. The Hungarian Uprising was an anti-semitic pogrom where fascists attacked and murdered Communists and Jews.

Ironically, the best book on this event is probably the Nazi David Irving's "Uprising", where he candidly describes the anti-Jewish motivation of the Hungarian uprising.



Mega fail. You're out of your depth.


No I think its you. You have so far taken credit for "anarchism" 3 events which historically happened and were not even dominated by anarchists.

[Led Zeppelin]

As it stands now, I've certainly never heard of the 'Workers Party of the Netherlands (build-up organization)'.

I used to be a member of that, it consists of one old guy in Rotterdam who has created a (poorly designed) website, nothing more.

And the so-called "Marxist book-shop" mostly has comics and other second-hand books in it that have nothing to do with Marxism at all.

Also, if someone does plan on joining that (if that old guy is still alive, haven't seen him in about 2/3 years) good luck dealing with the sexism and general condescending crap.

[apathy maybe]

Err, as Wanted Man has pointed out, this thread as very much moved from its original purpose. And now seems to be basically full of crap.

May I suggest that it be closed, and further discussions of whether Albania was actually socialist, or what the bunkers really were for, continue in a new thread (if ya'll really want to continue that discussion).

But finally (and in before it hopefully closes), I still don't understand why anyone would be a fascist, and I equally don't understand why anyone would be an authoritarian leftist. I just don't comprehend why some people feel that a massive centralised state is needed to bring about a communist (state-less and class-less) society.

[Bilan]

@SACT

You anarchists seem to take credit for everything.

:cool:




These were formed by socialist workers themselves who allied with the Bolsheviks, besides in the Ukraine anarchism was non-existent in the urban areas, communism was.

Alas, the threat of syndicalism was much larger than ye olde Hoxhaists and bureaucratic dreamers care to admit; Lenin and his cohorts couldn't deny it, and the subsequent crushing of the factory committees and even the power of the trade unions was a direct response to the influence of syndicalism.

Anarchism non-existant? Oh, my.



Okay fair enough ill concede those. Where are they now? Has it ever succeeded even in achieving what Kim Il sung or Mao Zedong built?


My friend, neither of these things are worthy of admiration, and I am certainly glad no anarchists in history have every "achieved" such an appalling failure.

I am also glad, on the flipside, that you've appled such an accurate materialist analysis to this situation. Well done.



1. If yer talking of the 1968 strikes in Paris and Mexico those were done mostly by MAOISTS and pro-chinese Marxist-Leninists in fact look up any picture on google these strikes were carried out with a communist student majority, just because there was a little black flags in the background does not mean it was anarchist or that they in anyway shape or form outnumbered the anarchists.

...
Are you fucking kidding me?
You think Paris 68 was because of Maoism? That is a fucking ludicrous statement! Maoism, line Leninism, was a fringe ideology in Paris. Socialism was dominate, but the party wasn't. Were it dominate, the nature of events would've been different (and far less admirable and inspiring; maybe an election? :lol:).

Not only is your analysis anti-Materialist, it is historically absurd (and subsequently hilarious).




2. You want to take credit for Hungary? fine. hungary was a counterrevolution. The Hungarian Uprising was an anti-semitic pogrom where fascists attacked and murdered Communists and Jews.

It took a turn in its later stages toward that, but if you wish to be foolish enough to paint that whole event as such, be my guest; but enjoy your ignorance.



Ironically, the best book on this event is probably the Nazi David Irving's "Uprising", where he candidly describes the anti-Jewish motivation of the Hungarian uprising.

I am somewhat not surprised a Nazi would describe an uprising against bureaucratic capitalism as anti-Jewish.





No I think its you. You have so far taken credit for "anarchism" 3 events which historically happened and were not even dominated by anarchists.

Nah, it was Hoxhaism! :lol:

Seriously, haha.

Okay, I'm going to stop laughing, because it's a bit rude of me.

I will give you three essays:

The Bolsheviks and Workers Control (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group) - Now this essay chronologically dates the events from the uprising in February, to 1920; it is extremely well documented, and well quoted. It will also show to your virgin eyes the influence that socialism from below (largelly influenced by both left-communism and syndicalism) had on the Russian revolution, and the Bolshevik reaction.

Paris 68 - Diary (http://libcom.org/library/May-68-Solidarity) - this is a diary from a comrade who was infact, part of the Paris 68 uprising. Highlighting largelly what he saw, (which of course, is only one part of a picture). It discusses the role of Stalinists and Maoists, as well as anarchists, and socialists generally.
Enjoy.

As for Hungary, I apologise, the two best essays I've read I can't find online. One was from Maurice Brinton, once more ( apologies if you don't want to read all his essays, but he's my Marx :lol:), and the other was from a Libertarian Socialist/Trotskyist who's name eludes me.

I'll have a gander for it and get back to you.

[Bilan]

But finally (and in before it hopefully closes), I still don't understand why anyone would be a fascist, and I equally don't understand why anyone would be an authoritarian leftist. I just don't comprehend why some people feel that a massive centralised state is needed to bring about a communist (state-less and class-less) society.

Bad analysis and petit-bourgeois mentality, in a nut shell.

[Bilan]

I am going to close this thread, it's gone way off its original topic.
Which is a shame, as I wanted a response from Andres Marcos.
Whatever.

If anyone would like it reopened, PM me.

Thread Closed.