Ismail

I am glad to see that this seems to be a common acceptance among most of us.
"Too many agendas for social change have excluded the transformation of how surplus labor is produced, appropriated, and distributed. The history of the USSR exemplifies the disastrous consequences of such exclusions for the project of moving beyond capitalism" -'Class theory and history; Capitalism and Communism in the USSR'

Ha! I am Ecstatic! "It is quite clear with the benefit of hindsight, from the experiences in both the Soviet Union and China, that simply raising the level of productive forces without really revolutionising the relations of production is doomed to failure. In particular the masses have to be drawn into the real decision making processes in order to achieve the high level of political consciousness necessary for socialism to be built"

Well i am going to take control of your essay "WHY DID THE SU COLLAPSE" and distribute it a lot, this is very good.

Frankly said, I don't know much about communist Albania or Enver Hoxha... I would be interested to know more though. Didn't you already post advise on some good literature about it?

What the Kims are concerned: I visited the DPRK two years ago and got a fairly good impression of what their story is about from a DPRK point of view and bought some books on it. However, I wouldn't - I don't - advise anyone to start reading those...

With your knowledge and collection of sources, you could probably pull of something of professional or near-professional quality if you put enough effort into it, but I would imagine there are a lot of sources out that that remain untranslated

You mentioned that you might write an article about 1924 Albania, did you ever get around to it?

Well the key thing is that ultra-leftist opposition to the doctrine of anti-imperialism is not in support of foreign nations forcing regime change, but against the imperialist powers which seek to preserve the current regime to their interests. Both sides seem to have some validity. Ultra-leftists would be against the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, for example, but also be against the Taliban as a nationalist, capitalist movement as well.

If you do adhere to anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism, then the support for national liberation does make more sense. Where it seems most inconsistent is with Trotskyists.

"As a note he did criticize those who put up a "Chinese Wall" between the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions, noting that the former must always be waged with an aim towards turning into the latter."

That's what I mean by being historically invalidated. Has this ever even happened aside from the Russian Revolution, which may be considered to be a very unique and anomalous situation? My main criticism of the doctrine of anti-imperialism is that more often than not, it simply seeks to switch one imperialism with another; such as in the case of Libya where Gaddafi was merely a pawn of Russian and Chinese imperial interests. This is even more clear in the case of Syria.

I'm not sure about the Congo, but do anti-revisionists consider the struggle in Vietnam to have been about socialism? If they did, then that is consistent; what I am more criticizing is the support many self-described Marxist-Leninists give to explicitly nationalist, capitalist "national liberation" groups, such as a hypothetical capitalist African American nation formed within the United States. I'm not sure what the anti-revisionist line is on this, but like a lot or ordinary Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists support this kind of thing.

...because this seems to be the logical conclusion as well, the ending of class relations in the household, but i have to finish this..