The CPGB was the "official" Soviet-backed party in the UK.
Results 181 to 200 of 228
What do you mean by ex-Brezhnevites, I thought they were formerly a Trotskyist group more or less?
By academic Marxists, I assume you mean similar to the people of the Frankfurt School, who were utterly divorced from class struggle.
The CPGB was the "official" Soviet-backed party in the UK.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
I think the more important thing to be considering is what the positions(in terms of their place within the party hierarchy, not ideological positions) of the current leadership were 21 years ago. I don't know the answer to that question.
If the United States or anyone else had an interest in Albania that could be comparable to that of the Middle East, I don't think their best means of doing so would be to drop off some weapons to fake opposition members and then piss off forever.
Oh, and what's your excuse for the Invasion of Finland or Poland again? To "Stop the Fascists?". As if that isn't an Imperialist act.
Now Ismail, if I were as low as you are, I would start calling you an apologist for Fascism. But, I don't see me as the member here who is desperately failing so, you know, I'm in a position to actually address your posts without making shit up. Perhaps you could learn from that.
Communism is quite irrelevant in Portugal, actually. Hoxhaists, even more.
So basically there were Two million structurally opposed to the Ben Ali regime, 1,999,995 Islamists and five Hoxhaists.
Just off the top of my head the CPGB. Anyway, I said that there can't exist Orthodox Marxist "Parties" as Orthodox Marxism is a Marxian mode of thinking. Most parties before Eurocommunism and new Left were heavily influenced by Orthodox Marxian thinking, most noticeably none other than the Bolshevik party.
Without Orthodox Marxism, Hoxhaism would have never existed in the same way...
I'm not familiar with many Orthodox Marxist tendencies on the Internet, actually. All of the Hoxhaist parties you mentioned are tiny and irrelevant. The fact that five internet nerds decided to form a party in real life doesn't say anything.
Don't throw stones inside glass houses, and all that.
Because "Normalizing" relations basically means the U.S. and Albania get an embassy in each of their countries. The U.S. had no particular interest in Albania at all. Think I'm lying? Look at Albania today. The U.S. hasn't even payed attention to it. Surly Hoxha would represent the last vestiges of defense against Imperialism and if his structure were to fall, the U.S. would for fill their interests in Albania, no? That's not what happened. No one gave a shit.
Yet no one gave a shit about Albania.
Albania had nothing to gain from either the United States or the Soviet Union. If it did, it would have normalized relations with them just like all the other socialist states. The United States and Soviet Union would just leave Albania to rot to shit, regardless if Hoxha "Normalized" relations with them. You seem to be under the impression the U.S. government actually gave a fuck about Albania.
The Maoists were largely marginalized in the Urban areas, but I think it shows a lot when you didn't have Muj in places other than Rural, uneducated places. Maoists were, no doubt, educated.
This was like the first result on google. It's very well known and it's common sense.
You're arguing with a ghost. Obviously Leftist sediment wouldn't exist in Afghanistan after the Invasion. I didn't ever say otherwise.
That's a lie. You underestimate the Imperialist-Propaganda machine that is wielded by the United States, and China. The Muj, arguably, would not have won the War if not forces from Pakistan and weapons from U.S. and China came to their aid.
Collaboration with Islamists automatically makes you their asslicker. Even the PFLP had to adopt several reactionary positions (Like the Roman salute) to adjust to the Islamist scum.
Ismail, you'd sacrifice class struggle and the proletariat in favor of Anti Imperialism. Marxists understand you cannot be totally consistent when it comes to class struggle. For example, we oppose death penalty enacted by the Bourgeois class but support it after the Revolution to deal with the reaction.
Some users here like a year ago. There was quite a shit storm about it. December, I think it was.
Class Collaboration wasn't an occurance in Albania's National Liberation war, and yes, the end result was the complete restoration of Capitalism, the enslavement of the proletariat (After the 90's).
Because it's true..
And, name me a National Liberation war, where, at the end result, with the national bourgeoisie in power, a strong communist movement grew and fought against the national bourgeoisie? That was the prediction by Hoxha, that, in Afghanistan, should the Muj win, this would pave way for a real Leftist movement. Indeed, none of the "Real" leftist movements (Hoxhaist, Maoists) would not have existed without a strong Leftist Status quo already in power. And, surly, after the destruction of the puppet state there were no Leftists in Afghanistan.
Which usually ends up with a very strong Native Bourgeoisie and no class struggle. If you want me to name examples I can.
Lenin didn't say they were no different, he merely called them out on their reactionary position. That's different from a country whose within the realm of the capitalist mode of production adhering to Imperialism.
A defeat of the Muj would be a defeat for the working class (Hoxha)?
Victory for ethnic, religious minorities and women? Or victory for a class? Yes, that's right, it was a victory for the Landowners.
Didn't dear leader tell us that Leftists would exist after the defeat of the USSR?
The Taliban is the Same as the Muj that were fighting the Soviets. Even the Northern Alliance were just as reactionary. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, too, reactionary scum.
It's about class. What was the class background of the Muj and the Soviets? Feudalist landlords and the Bourgeois class.
http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Cou.../dp/1400042305
If I source that book is that okay? It specifically dealt with the Soviet state under Stalin..
Most of what I am saying is common sense, but I did link something.
I don't use sources because you'll denounce them for whatever reason. Just like I denounce yours for having a tad bit of bias, you know.
I just find it Ironic that Hoxha stressed strict anti revisionism, and according to him this is what divided him with the "Revisionist" nations. When in fact, the Revisionists did much better economically. They were all Bourgeois states, in the end, like the U.S. and Western Europe. Deng Xiaoping's reforms only changed the structure of the ruling bourgeois class's mode of rule, that's all.
You'd support Fascists, then.
This is a fine example of Ismail's techniques of only quoting segments of a sentance so he could formulate some kind of argument. It's worthy of taking note that, Ismail, most members who read this thread actually read my posts saying it wasn't progressive, but oh well.
And the elderly who tell me Hoxha was a son of a *****? I haven't met one Albanian who praises Hoxha. Not one. You blame this on the fact that most Albanians are young, yet you don't account for the elderly. Even those who are in their 50's. A women told me how people would get maybe tea and one egg as a meal for the whole day. Who to believe, her or you?
You're like the Leftists who are so shocked and appauled of U.S. Imperialism. You don't recognize the Soviet Union as a Bourgoeis state and criticize it as if it's you're lover. One could imagine Hoxha "Waaa but I thought you loved me, Bhreznev!".
Why are you under the impression that I am lonely? I'm just curious.
Okay, so, if you want to quote a tiny segment of Engels (Which doesn't even back up anything you're saying) you have to be consistent and recognize they were living in a different time period.
Perhaps some use that bit by Engels to support the Muj.
are you denying women had more rights under the PDPA?
You are, by definition, an Idiot. You cannot articulate an anology so instead of attacking the root message from it, which, exists regardless of the location of such an instance, you attack the irrelivent details only written to give the analogy a cradle to rock in. If I replace "The South" with some sort of Quebec Fascist group in Canada will you stop crying?
So you support the very same people the Working class should over throw against more Bourgeois bastards?
Afghanistan is more progressive than before, now, socially, culturally, etc.?
In comparison to Fascism, I suppose Liberalism was progressive socially. In the end, they were all Bourgoeis-Imperialists competing to for fill the hunger of capital. Do you deny the U.S. being an Imperialist force in WW2? Didn't that asshole Stalin call them progressive in doing so? Stalinists, like any Bourgeois ideological faction, will support Imperialism when it best suits them.
Okay, if the U.S. invaded Canada in thirty years where Fascist Qeubec Nationalists fought against the Liberalist Canadian regime, would you support Fascists? I mean, fuck you just ignored the whole analogy. Let's assume the South presented itself as a nation of peoples. Who are you to say otherwise? How exactly does one qualify to be an "Oppressed Nation"? I think the concept of "The Nation" is fucking ludicrous.
False, Vietcong had the support of the majority of the population + strategic advantage. The Muj, on the other hand....
The Soviet Union was less guilty of killing people for no reason than the U.S., they cared more about "Appealing" to the masses. Unless you want some statistics about U.S. treatment of Japan or the countries they occupied in WW2 with the Soviets in Eastern Europe.
As the Muj committed crimes worse, or at the least equal with that of the Soviet Union. The wars of the ruling classes are most bloody, indeed. What's your point? Once you claim to be a Scientific Marxist and now you want to make an argument with emotional appeal?
Yeah, that isn't inaccurate. Moving on.
I think it's worth noting I would not have supported the VietCong. I concur with Bordiga on the issue of Imperialism. The difference is not that one side was Islamist, the other "Communist", the difference is that one had a basis in defending the interests of the landowners and the other had a basis within the Peasantry. It's normal for an ML to make the excuse of supporting the Vietcong, but to support the Muj is, by definition, reactionary (In contrast with supporting the VietCong, witch is just petty bourgeois).
Do you know how many supported the Fascists in Germany by 1940? Or do you need statistics?
It doesn't mean anything if the majority of the population is manipulated by X ruling class. Fact is, the Mujaheddin were just as bad as the Soviet Union, and are not to be supporting in any way. Both defended the interests of Imperialism, the difference, one was Bourgeois, the other was Feudalist Landlord class.
The Soviet prescence in Hungary predates Khrushchev and yes, there were many crimes commited by Soviet Soldiers. Do you want me to cite that, as well?
Many reactionary currents had the support of proletarians, it doesn't mean as a party it serves their interests as a class.
The Afghan people do not exist. Stop using this populist bullshit. Do you have any grasp of class relations at all, Ismail?
I'm anti social now, wonderful. There is a difference between classifying a "nation" as a collective group of interests under the guise of "The people" and understanding people do exist (When have I said otherwise?). The "Afghan People" don't exist as a collective group of interests, and any Marxist would know this. I find it pathetic you'd suggest otherwise, and try and call yourself a Marxist. By the way, for anyone whose reading this, Ismail is accusing me of being anti social because I'm not a populist. Is this not a new low?
The Palestinian people are divided into classes and several factions. You're going to have to be specific, as the very notion that a nation has a collective group of interests is reactionary and has origins in.. Dare I say, Fascism?
The struggle of socialism has never followed the victory over the National Bourgeoisie. It just led to a overwealming support for the National Bourgeoisie and a strong one at that.
Hold the fuck up, are you trying to tell me that a National Bourgeoisie must retrieve class power before a Proletarian class can exist and eventually start a class struggle? This was the same excuse made by Deng, that his country needed heavy doses of Neoliberalism for a proletariat to rise and actually engage in class struggle.
So it was all a planned conspiracy. I hope you know that the call for assistance was largely secret.
Which has nothing to do with my post. You're such a fucking opportunist, Albania has nothing to do with this.
Amin was largely responsible for growing disdain for the PDPA. It's common sense, you'll find that on the history channel, I bet. Unless you want to pick and choose which bourgeois sources are credible.
The Soviets were losing control because of the vast unpopularity that was being created by Amin's policies. They had to invade to stop the growing infectious swarm of Islamists because of this.
But, it's a legitimant reason for the Bourgeoisie to do this, to defend their own class interest. Now, I don't recall supporting the Bourgeoisie, or their class interest, but they certainly do.
You think that's fucking credible?
Jesus Christ, are you trolling or not?
Is this in the early 1920's where Albanian communist parties did not exist?
Albanian Communist parties didn't exist. I already addressed Soviet support of Bourgeois states, if you would scroll up a little. But then again, I'm sure users who care about this conversation have already read it, and are laughing at you. Besides your little dog Roach and maybe Freepalestine. Trying to make friends, are we? (That shit head messaged me more incomprehensible nonsense calling me "Kruesshev")
It isn't contradictory that the Mujahidin was an Imperialist proxy and managed to manipulated the poor and uneducated peasant population.
You like to pick and choose which sources are credible. Why should I believe a source from he ML review if you're not going to buy a source from some of the ideological enemeis of Hoxhaism?
Yup, Fuck you to millions of Afghans indeed. That's exactly what I said. Waa waa keep crying with your unscientific emotional bullshit. Reminds of me of Red Dave crying in that thread about how Trotsky was murdered.
This was a follow up of the war.
They didn't become extremely relevant until the mid-late 70's.
I'd go as far as saying that not even a year after their existence, they were being armed by Imperialist powers. The U.S. isn't living under a rock, the existence of a socialist regime in Afghanistan very much upset them.
no, YOU () good job.
And to you, they are all a collective group of interests? Hmm.... Mussolini much?
Don't act like Hoxhaism doesn't exist and it's just the continuation of Soviet Marxism Leninism with Maoism and the rest being offshoots. Hoxhaism is very specific, it is an offshoot of Marxism Leninism, like the rest.
I stand correct, than. Those large font posts completely shit on everything you've said. Everyone in this thread knows that, which is why I made them very large. Because, before, you'd skip over them and they would be forgotten to the conversation. Making them large is just a way for it to be shoved down your throat, to force you to address them. And if you don't, everyone here will know you lack the ability to address them.
The Muj were a direct proxy of U.S., and Chinese Interests.
He didn't, actually.
Hoxha has about zero influence on anything in modern times, while the works of Zizek are at the least very interesting and have a good amount of influence on the masses. You didn't answer my question (Anyone can criticize Yugoslavia, it's about the structural enhancement of Marxism), who has more of an influence on the modern day working class, Zizek or Hoxha?
The combination of Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism? The formula to destroy the symbolic mystification put in place by the Bourgeois class internationally? He was called the most dangerous philosopher in the west for a reason.
They're pretty tiny in comparison with other communist groups in the region.
Everyone scroll up. I made it in large font concerning whether or not they were "Objectively Progressive". Ismail, of course, didn't respond to it. You all should be grateful I'm making them in large font, for if you didn't, you'd have to look for them.
Opposing Imperialism in the belly of the beast does, yes. That doesn't mean supporting reactionary landlords does anything to do so.
Actually, you fuck, I have. Scroll up, you piece of shit. This was fucking not even a couple scrolls up:
Of course, this was only a fraction of the actual post addressing the topic.
To members reading this: has Ismail not proven my point? He addressed Half of the total post (There were 2), and even the ones that he addressed he twisted and manipulated.
Members, is he not falsely accusing me things he pulled out of his ass?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
If by "drop off some weapons to fake opposition members" you mean actually have émigré anti-communists spend months organizing with American and British agents in places like West Germany, and then drop them off with the goal of trying to overthrow the government, then you'd be right.
And I said relative, just like no one particularly cared about Palestine (and from that Israel) until the 1960's.
I like how you are trying to distract from the fact that you justify the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by bringing up irrelevant situations.
Yes, the movement of troops into Poland was to stop the fascists—specifically Hitler, whose men were moving beyond the Bug river and thus the Curzon line. With the Polish government having fled, the alternative was to allow Nazi Germany to move up to the Soviet border.
The nice thing is that eastern Poland was actually just Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia. Thus the Soviets were welcomed as liberators.
On the Soviet decision to intervene see: http://chss.montclair.edu/english/fu...de_poland.html
On Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia:
"The annexed territories did not belong to the core of the Polish state and did have an anti-Polish national liberation movement. Before the war, five million Ukrainians lived in Poland as an oppressed minority."
(Constantine Pleshakov. There Is No Freedom Without Bread. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. pp. 30-31.)
"The population of the area did not oppose the Russian troops but welcomed them with joy. Most were not Poles but Ukrainians and Byelo-Russians. U.S. Ambassador Biddle reported that the people accepted the Russians 'as doing a policing job.' Despatches told of Russian troops marching side by side with retiring Polish troops, of Ukrainian girls hanging garlands over Russian tanks."
(Anna Louise Strong. The Stalin Era. New York: Mainstream Publishers. 1957. p. 80.)
As for Finland, the Soviets were only interested in a government that would lease ports so that Nazi troops couldn't use said ports as a base to attack Leningrad, which was quite vulnerable otherwise. Geoffrey Roberts in his book Stalin's Wars has a good bit to say on this. At no point did the Soviets ever discuss, privately or otherwise, annexing Finland or otherwise doing anything imperialist (in the Leninist definition) towards it. The Winter War concluded with the achievement of the Soviet objective of safeguarding Leningrad. Shortly after the war an anti-war organization was set up in Finland with 35,000 members.
"Is" as in always was? Or "is" as in "it's presently irrelevant, like communism just about everywhere else on earth"? Because if it's the former then you'd simply wrong. It'd be similar to calling Spanish Communism "irrelevant" in the 1950's-70's. Communists in both countries tended to be the most popular choice of the people whenever private studies were done by those governments in the period.
Does this mean you're going to defend Ben Ali as "objectively progressive" too? Apparently "Orthodox Marxism" à la Rafiq sure loves to wriggle around with supposedly obeying the "material conditions" and being "objectively progressive"
Considering that Grenzer made a post mentioning solely that party in this very thread, this must have been a very arduous task for your strange brain. In any case it is, as I said, a party of ex-Brezhnevites and "New Left" (aka Maoist and quasi-Maoist) types. I'd take five people risking their lives (whether physically or in effect via years of imprisonment) to ten-thousand do-nothing Marxists with great intellectual pretensions.
The same party that in your view was constructing capitalism?
Well at least I know why you admire DNZ so much, your ideology/"mode of thinking" is devoid of any real activity in the service of the proletariat.
Here's a fun fact: "Orthodox Marxism" doesn't mean "Marxism in the time of Marx and Engels." Taking such a pretentious title only demonstrates your own insecurities and desire to posture yourself as some sort of holy defender of "pure" Marxism (as you define it 129 years after Marx himself died.)
All I can say is that countries like Tunisia, Burkina Faso, Mali and the Ivory Coast must have had pretty extensive internet services, considering that all of those parties were founded in the 70's or 80's.
The fact that you actually thought you'd "own" me with the preceding stuff you typed out is... just sad.
It also means opening up Albania to American investments and other forms of penetration.
I guess making it a part of NATO and financing the ridiculously anti-communist Democratic Party in 1991 (refusing to grant any "assistance" to the government unless said party won) means not paying attention to it.
All this extra gloating to your already false points just makes you look like an uninformed idiot boasting about his false takedowns... which is quite accurate.
Okay, let's try the USSR.
"The spillover from the Sino-Soviet conflict into Eastern Europe was evident almost immediately. In late 1960 and early 1961 the Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha, sparked a crisis with the Soviet Union by openly aligning his country with China, a precedent that caused alarm in Moscow. Quite apart from the symbolic implications of Hoxha's move, Khrushchev had always regarded Albania as a key member of the Warsaw Pact because of 'its superb strategic location on the Mediterranean Sea.' The rift with Yugoslavia in 1948 had eliminated the only other possible outlet for the Soviet navy in the region. To ensure that Albania could serve as a full-fledged 'military base on the Mediterranean Sea for all the socialist countries,' the Soviet Union had been providing extensive equipment and training to the Albanian army and navy. In particular, the Albanian navy had received a fleet of twelve modern attack submarines, which initially were under Soviet control but were gradually being transferred to Albanian jurisdiction. Khrushchev believed that the submarines would allow Albania to pose a 'serious threat to the operation of the NATO military bloc on the Mediterranean Sea,' and thus he was dismayed to find that Soviet efforts to establish a naval bulwark on the Mediterranean might all have been for naught.
As soon as the rift with Albania emerged, the Soviet Union imposed strict economic sanctions, withdrew all Soviet technicians and military advisers, took back eight of the twelve submarines, dismantled Soviet naval facilities at the Albanian port of Vlona, and engaged in bitter polemical exchanges with the Albanian leadership. Khrushchev also ordered Soviet warships to conduct maneuvers along the Albanian coast, and he secretly encouraged pro-Moscow rivals of Hoxha to carry out a coup. The coup attempt was rebuffed, and the other means of coercion proved insufficient to get rid of Hoxha or to bring about a change of policy. In December 1961, Khrushchev broke diplomatic relations with Albania and excluded it from both the Warsaw Pact and CMEA. However, he was unwilling to undertake a full-scale invasion to bring Albania back within the Soviet orbit, not least because of the logistical problems and the likelihood of confronting stiff armed resistance."
(Carole Fink, Philipp Gassert & Detlef Junker (Ed.). 1968: The World Transformed. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998. pp. 117-119.)
The whole "Soviet access to the Adriatic" issue was actually quite big at the time. Harry Hamm in his book Albania: China's Beachhead in Europe and William E. Griffith's Albania and the Sino-Soviet Split both noted the attention Albania received because of this.
I will now proceed to quote Hoxha, both because most consider him a fairly reliable source on these matters and because I don't care what you consider "unreliable" or not, since anything written not by someone who is an "Orthodox Marxist" or a member of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU is apparently unreliable.
Hoxha on Khrushchev's 1959 visit to Albania:
"He called Malinovsky, at that time minister of defence, who was always at hand:
'Look, how marvellous this is!' I heard them whisper. 'An ideal base for our submarines could be built here. These old things should be dug up and thrown into the sea (they were referring to the archaeological finds at Butrint). We can tunnel through this mountain to the other side,' and he pointed to Ksamil. 'We shall have the most ideal and most secure base in the Mediterranean. From here we can paralyze and attack everything.'
They were to repeat the same thing in Vlora a day or two later. We had come out on the verandah of the villa at Uji i Ftohtë.
'Marvellous, marvellous!' Khrushchev cried and turned to Malinovsky. I thought he was referring to the truly breath-taking landscape of our Riviera. But their mind was working in another direction: 'What a secure bay at the foot of these mountains!' they said. 'With a powerful fleet, from here we can have the whole of the Mediterranean, from Bosporus to Gibraltar, in our hands! We can control everyone.'"
(Enver Hoxha. The Khrushchevites. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1980. pp. 376-377.)
You're right, it was poised to lose its independence and its industrial development, since the USSR wanted it joined to the "international socialist division of labor" the post-Stalin leadership had cooked up. Under this plan Albania would focus its exports on cash crops and fruit. I doubt American economic policies would be much different.
They didn't win the war because of US and Chinese aid. Such aid gave them modern weaponry, but guns don't automatically equal popular support, which the Mujahidin clearly enjoyed in the majority of the country, the same majority you write off as not caring about because they were not areas inhabited by the "Marxist" PDPA and its Soviet overlords.
The Soviets couldn't beat the Mujahidin. The best they could do was conduct their own form of "Vietnamization" to make the Afghan soldiers in the pay of the government fight better and to begin a gradual withdrawal because the war was a significant strain on Soviet resources. It's not much different from the Vietcong and other popular guerrilla movements.
No, but defending imperialism (especially in its most open form in the manner of brutal occupation) is certainly a good way of ensuring that no proletarian will ever support you, because the last thing they want to hear is "suck it up, at least they're building roads for your pathetic Islamist-asslicking piece of shit motherfucking Hoxhaist Maoist Stalinist capitalist... existence."
Then they're idiots.
Really? The national liberation councils were open to anyone, so long as they fought the fascists. Ditto with the National Liberation Movement.
Of course this isn't the proper use of the term, which you seem to use for everything.
The vast majority of said wars have only ever had pseudo-left forces at the helm to begin with and few actual communists. Those "communists" who did align with them were loyal to the Soviet revisionists and sought to integrate said struggles into the "world struggle" for "peaceful coexistence."
It was? From what I recall the liberation of Afghanistan from Soviet yoke would weaken the Soviet imperialists, not that it would "pave way" for leftism in Afghanistan, although obviously not having "Marxist-Leninists" shooting at Afghan peasants and calling for glorious fraternal unity with the Soviet occupiers would assist a fair bit in that endeavor.
I will again quote from his December 1979 diary entry, at a time when non-Mujahidin forces were still notable:
"As is known, there are many insurgent movements in Afghanistan led by patriots who want neither the Soviet yoke nor the yoke of their agents, but they are described as Moslems and their anti-imperialist patriotic movement is described as an Islamic movement. This is a common label which world capitalism uses to revive religious animosities and strife and to give liberation movements the mediaeval meaning of religious wars. There is no doubt that the Afghan liberation fighters, who have risen against the yoke of imperialism, social-imperialism and the monarchy, are Moslem believers. Afghanistan is one of those countries where religion is still alive and active. However, it is not just their religion, which makes these people rise arms in hand against the occupiers of their homeland. Of course they are not Marxists, but they are patriots who want the liberation of their homeland, they are representatives of the democratic bourgeoisie. They do not want to live under the yoke of foreigners, regardless of the fact that their views are still far from those revolutionary bourgeois-democratic views, which result in deep-going reforms in the interest of their peoples.
But the struggle they are waging is of great importance, not only for Afghanistan, but also for the other peoples. It is evident that, with its intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union is fulfilling its imperialist strategic plans to secure key military positions in those countries and especially to extend its imperialist domination to the heart of Asia and the Middle East. It is known that Afghanistan borders on China and Pakistan. So the Soviet Union wants to consolidate its strategic-military positions against China and pro-American or pro-British Pakistan. On the other hand, it is known that Afghanistan also borders on Iran, and indeed the Afghan insurgents present themselves as friends, well-wishers and co-fighters of Khomeini. Hence, if the Afghan insurgents triumph over the Soviets and their tools, this would be to the advantage of Khomeini....
Naturally, the two superpowers reach secret agreements over the division of spheres of influence between them, but this division also gives rise to great opposition, causes a fierce militant revolutionary reaction on the part of the masses of the people who suffer the consequences of these agreements; this situation impels the peoples to revolt against the internal and external oppression of local and world capitalism."
(Enver Hoxha. The Superpowers. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1986. pp. 523-525.)
He later noted that the USA, Pakistan and China sought to direct the struggle of the Afghan people for their own ends.
Are you saying that Najibullah praying to Allah and Babral Karmal's offer of amnesty to Mujahidin forces and the return of their property were "leftist" forces?
I thought the Soviets were imperialists? I thought the Afghan government was, in your own words, a puppet state of Soviet imperialism? Where the hell does "leftism" come in anywhere near the two?
I don't see how this government, which you seem to admit had basically no support outside the capital, was supposed to usher in some sort of glorious period of capitalist development, which seems to be your only concern here. If it is, then the Republic that overthrew the monarchy, or even the monarchy itself (which was becoming increasingly "constitutional" as time went on and, as you might know, allowed the lamest—and later slavishly pro-Soviet—faction of the PDPA, the Parcham, to have a legal political existence) would have been sufficient.
Not quite, no. The Northern Alliance were certainly reactionary, but the Taliban were clearly at the fringe when it came to obscurantist sentiments.
And I ask you: what is the evidence that a regime despised by the vast majority of the population, and in any case conciliatory to said landowners especially after 1987, was worth supporting or sympathizing with in any way when it proved itself unable to exist without Soviet troops and the subsequent transfer of arms from the USSR to the Afghan armed forces. Do you seriously think that the government was going to hyper-nationalize Afghanistan and make it a bourgeois paradise? It'd need actual popularity to do that.
http://www.amazon.com/Stalin-The-Cou.../dp/1400042305
Are we talking about the USSR? Do you have any sources refuting the claims made in the books about Afghanistan I've mentioned?
I don't dismiss Montefiore, there's just various examples of his book being wrong. Just like I don't look at a book with a claim of "Stalin killed 30 million people" and go "OH GOD NO I CAN'T BEAR TO LOOK AT THIS ANY LONGER," but I note various disagreements with that figure from men like Getty, Thurston, etc. who use Soviet archives to make their point.
I don't go "IT'S BOURGEOIS SO FUCK IT" like you do.
I'm pretty sure the question of socialism isn't decided on the basis of bourgeois economic figures.
They did "much better economically" by exploiting the world or, in the case of China, turning their country into a place where labor conditions are abhorrent for the vast majority and in the service of capitalists from across the world.
As Hoxha has stated:
"Only according to Mao Tsetung's theory of 'three worlds', classes and the class struggle do not exist in any country. It does not see them, because it judges countries and peoples according to bourgeois geo-political concepts and the level of their economic development."
(Enver Hoxha. Imperialism and the Revolution. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1979. p. 256.)
It was Khrushchev and other Soviet revisionists who, like Tito, Deng, etc. turned "socialism" into a question of better access to consumer goods and other capitalist indicators of a "successful society."
Hence the words of Hoxha, speaking openly in front of Khrushchev, that:
"If N. Khrushchev and his followers, for one or another reason, do not like to help us, they are expecting us in vain to address ourselves to the imperialists and their allies for 'alms'. Our people have friends and comrades in the socialist countries who have not aban-doned and will not abandon them. But, regardless of this, we tell N. Khrushchev that the Albanian people and their Party of Labor will live even on grass, if need be, but they will never sell themselves for 30 pieces of silver, for they prefer to die standing and with honour rather than live with shame and knelt down."
(Enver Hoxha. The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1972. p. 127.)
How about actual Albanians in Albania proper?
See: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0710/p10s01-woeu.html
Originally Posted by ArticleI guess I was wrong, you apparently know plenty of old Albanian women.
So when Engels supported the liberation of Poland and Ireland, were those unacceptable later on as well?
I already noted that the world was developing in a situation similar to the quote of Engels I gave than the ones where he notes the progress the colonization of India gave to its bourgeois development. I noted Lenin's work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, too.
Was RAWA? I bet women have more rights in post-Taliban Afghanistan as well than under the Taliban. Too bad those don't matter for much when you can't even enjoy them, either in the case of the Soviets occupying your country in the former or American occupation with the backing of complacent tribal leaders on the other.
Sure. If tensions in Canada ever got so bad that Anglo-Canadians began nationally oppressing their French counterparts (with guns and tanks, no less), and French national sentiment evidently shot through the roof in response, then leftists would, indeed, support the national liberation of Québec.
And there'd be no question of landlords or anything else, the main forces would be capitalists versus capitalists, with the French-speaking communists having the task of uniting the working-class of Québec for national autonomy up to self-determination if said working-class desires it.
For someone who claims to be a "scientific Marxist" and a guy who, as far as he's concerned, is concerned only with class, you sure like to submerge the issue of the ratio of class forces in favor of bourgeois notions of economic development, women's rights, etc.
You can see the first part (and the others, of course, but the first is relevant here) of Stalin's speech to the 18th Party Congress here: http://marx2mao.com/Stalin/REC39.html
Well lets see here, the USA is an imperialist power, Canada is a defender of imperialist interests, and Québec is a part of Canada with its own nation. I think in this case it'd be fair to character the conflict as an inter-imperialist war between two aggressive capitalist states. The working-class of the USA and Canada would be tasked with overthrowing their countries' respective governments while the people of Québec would be tasked with liberating it from Anglo-Canadian occupation.
I was mistaken, you don't misunderstand national liberation; you misunderstand the very concept of a nation, something tons of Marxists ("Orthodox" or otherwise) have written on. Not even Luxemburg denied the existence of nations, and she was one of Lenin's strongest critics on the issue.
No wonder you suck so badly at Marxism.
... you've already mentioned that the Afghan terrain favored the Mujahidin. You've tacitly admitted that the Mujahidin enjoyed the support of the majority of the population of the country.
There's a fairly big difference. The Soviets committed their crimes from the vantage point of occupiers with superiority in just about every area (except, of course, popular support.) The abuses of Mujahidin units, like those committed by the Vietcong, Algerian resistance, etc., were qualitatively different from those of Soviet soldiers who were conscious of their role as unpopular occupiers and who tended to hate the native population.
Was Nazi Germany being occupied by a foreign power and the people tracing their very existence as a nation to the victory of some sort of Nazi national liberation guerrilla campaign?
In reality the Nazis gradually lost support as WWII dragged on. By the beginning of 1945 it's safe to say the majority of the people had a pretty clear hatred of Nazism. Not to mention that the entire situation is irrelevant, of course, since you're comparing a national liberation war with Hitler manipulating bourgeois elections, coming to power, and manipulating public support from that vantage point.
Everyone knows of the fact that various Soviet soldiers engaged in rape, etc. shortly after the war had ended. Yet it is pretty obvious that Khrushchev's "destalinization," the rehabilitation of Imre Nagy, etc. had laid the basis for the Hungarian uprising to occur. Khrushchev put an end to the uprising and used this to "teach" people about "Stalinism" and how it apparently doesn't allow the national culture of a people to be respected, and proceeded to promote "Goulash socialism" and the construction of a new party on a firmly pro-Soviet and revisionist course.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia states the following: "Afghans (self-designation Pashtani, singular Pushtun; among the eastern Afghans, Pakhtani and Pukhtun, respectively), a people constituting more than half of the population of Afghanistan (more than 8 million people, according to a 1967 estimate)."
Of course your gigantic block of text immediately succeeding this is meant to show that you aren't anti-social at all; you realize that yes, there is an Afghan nation and presumably this is made up of millions of people. Yet there are times when more or less the people of a country, regardless of social and economic origins (although with variable willpower, e.g. landowners are generally less likely to fight than students), are willing to fight on the same side. That's the Marxist usage of the word "people" in matters such as national liberation wars.
I guess the Anti-Fascist National Liberation War of the Albanian People (the full title given to it by the Party of Labour) was, in fact, fascist all along.
Could have fooled me.
It was? Here I thought Deng argued that China already was "socialist" and that it could basically do anything it wanted and not have to worry much about capitalist restoration.
No, the proletariat can and has led national liberation struggles. Albania being the most obvious example in my mind, but there were also examples of this in places like the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, etc. in the 1917-1918 period where, when the proletariat was in a position to directly challenge the interests of any national bourgeois forces, direct struggle emerged and the national bourgeoisie put themselves in the service of a foreign imperialism.
Yeah, so secret nobody in Afghanistan heard it except a few guys in the capital's palace, and a few months later the Soviets came into that very palace to kill the head of state, whose predecessor had asked for the Soviets to send a few Turkmen, Uzbeks, etc. in Soviet clothing to fight alongside the Afghan army because it sucked so badly as a fighting force.
Very compelling.
The disdain must have lowered the view of the PDPA from the average Afghan from "hated" to "slightly more hated" (turned into "absolutely hated" after the Soviet invasion) since, again, Taraki desperately asked for Soviet assistance via secret Soviet citizens dressing up as Afghan army personnel. See: http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...&brand=ucpress
Does that conversation really sound like it was made by someone not leading a party disdained by the masses?
Yes, it was an imperialist invasion. Just don't use the excuse of any "request" made, because the man who made it was dead for quite a while by that point and it was unrepresentative in any case.
So the Soviets didn't pretend that Amin was a wonderful comrade who was valiantly advancing the cause of the Afghan revolution up until the day they decided to invade and off him? The Soviets didn't fly Karmal in from his exiled position?
... are you now claiming that the Soviets didn't claim they were merely "assisting" the Afghan government in accordance with prior treaties?
The Comintern existed, the communists listened to Comintern instructions. It was the Comintern which called on the Albanians to form a communist party in 1941, it was the Comintern the Albanians, upon forming the party, waited to receive a letter containing subsequent instructions. But there were bourgeois-democratic organizations besides Bashkimi which, along with it, had ties to the Comintern. The Comintern also endorsed the creation of a National Liberation Committee (called KONARE) in 1925 which was affiliated to the Comintern and was a bourgeois-democratic organization operating in exile against Ahmet Zogu's regime.
The ideological enemies of "Hoxhaism" which you're apparently alluding to and offering to cite are Soviet sources, I suppose. You're free to cite them.
Tell me how they fared.
And it didn't take American arms to get them to organize against the unpopular government, now did it? If you'd like to attribute the very first attacks the Mujahidin inflicted on the government to having their origins in supposed American backing then feel free to provide a source.
"Socialist regime." Also you'd be wrong, according to no less a source than Brzezinski himself, who in 1998 dropped a "bombshell" by admitting that yes, the Americans backed the Mujahidin before the Soviets invaded, but also noting that "it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul."
That was months after Taraki's desperate phone-call.
Name any distinguishing ideological features, then. Explain why no one (except Maoists who used "Hoxhaite" as a pejorative) ever used the term on a serious basis.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/au...zize-a27.shtml
Neither, I think Barack Obama and Mitt Romney triumph both by leaps and bounds. Better question: whose writings are better poised to actually advance a Marxist movement in the United States?
I know what you'll answer with, you already said you find his hack writing "interesting."
lol
Like who?
You called modern-day Afghanistan reactionary. Congratulations. Doesn't address what I wrote.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
In which they quite not too long after. They never gave a shit.
Palestine didn't have an official formal government which claimed to be leading the international communist struggle against global capitalism (while operating within the capitalist mode of production).
because the face of Soviet Imperialism has never changed, from the 1930's all the way up to 1990's.
That is, by definition, an act of Imperialism.
They were welcomed as Liberators by everyone except the poles themselves. You know, I'm sure many ethnic minorities who were persecuted by the Mujahadeen on the rural side welcomed the Soviets as well.
"I let the big other think for me".
That isn't credible evidence. You have a tendency to reply to people by throwing links out of your ass and saying "Yeah, what he said".
And what of the actual Poles, how did they react? Furiously.
Thanks for proving my point.
I can easily just dismiss this as apoligia for Soviet Imperialism. You can't oppose the Soviets invading Afghanistan (Because of Imperialism) and then continue to support them invade Finland.
Aren't you the peace of shit who tried to lecture me on being consistent?
Yeah, they didn't want to annex Poland, they just wanted to set up a puppet government there that would for fill their interests as an Imperialist superpower (hmm... Does this remind me of Afghanistan?).
Saying something like that would require a source. That certainly isn't common sense.
Despite my last, I don't know, three fucking giant posts destroying this argument, Ismail continues to use it because those posts were drowned to the top of the page. If anyone is interested in seeing them, one must only scroll up. I kind of feel bad for Ismail, as the only means of argument he has is to constantly make up things about his opponents.
No, because there was no real party that actually vanguard the struggle. Most of the struggle against Ben Ali was without a party, of every day students, workers, petite bourgeoisie, etc.
Fuck you. I never said the word "Objectively progressive" Ever. Prove me wrong you fuck. I've never labeled anything that. There's a difference between calling Imperialism progressive and stating the obvious truth that the Soviets were more, how should I say, Up do date on issues like Women's rights, the right's of minorities, etc.
Every party on Earth is in some way influenced by Orthodox Marxian thought. The first people to smoothen out Marxism to collide with the proletarian movement were the Orthodox Marxists. However, very few parties are influenced by Hoxhaist thought. Hoxhaists are influenced by Orthodox Marxism (Indirectly) to some extent, yet not many are influenced by Hoxhaists.
The Bolshevik party degenerated during the late twenties into a fully capitalist party, yes. It was no longer a proletarian based party keeping capital under control, capital devoured it. But none hte less, yes, it had origins in Orthodox Marxian thought. So what? So because members of the Bolshevik Party during the 30's understood mathematics, does that mean we should oppose mathematics?
And yours is? What is with this moralist bashing of intellectuals? If you are in a position to afford it (Which, you are as well, considering you post here just as often, if not more often than I do) there isn't anything wrong with being an Intellectual. This is Bourgeois-Moralism. All the Bolsheviks started out as Intellectuals, hell, Marx was a fucking intellectual.
Orthodox Marxism isn't pure Marxism limited to Marx and Engels, that's classical marxism. Orthodox Marxism applied Marxism to modern times and smoothened, straightened it out. This line of thought continued on throughout the 20th century in virtually all communist parties.
Probably founded because both the Soviets and china refused to arm them. Today, Hoxhaism is nothing more than an internet fad.
I have, you simply haven't responded to them, and if you have, you've manipulated the quotes for your own sinister purpose. Because if you were to reply to them, you'd have nothing to say. Look at the evidence, look at the size of my post compared to yours.... Do you think it's a coincidence that all of these posts are virtually the same in size every time? Because I write something large, you'd reply to half of it, and repeat process. Have you anything to say to those who are watching this thread?
I've destroyed you. Several times. Your only remnants of defense are labeling me things you pulled out of my ass and falsely accusing me of bizzare and obsucre positions in which there is no evidence as to whether I've made them. Look at the quotes in your signature. None of those members have held those positions.... You're just a sad little pile of shit who can't artilucate posts of members whose asses are not in their heads, therefore, you must label them something that only exists within the fantasist realm of Hoxhaist ideology. Quite sad, really.
I know you aren't going to reply to this because you're a coward, so I'll make it big for everyone to see.
Albania is open to the United States yet it's made little to no investment. The U.S. has nothing to gain from Albania. shit head. I've pointed this out:
Yet NATO isn't stronger with Albania. And yes, the U.S. sends funds to the party yet ignores it. You know ,the two are not mutually exclusive. Virtually all the postcommunist parties were funded by the U.S.
You haven't responded to what I've said. The U.S. did not give a shit about Albania. Only in the Kosovo War, afterwords they said fuck you and left everyone to rot. When Hoxha left, the U.S. didn't rush in to make investments like they did in Russia.
Let us.
Yes, I've establish that the Soviets cared about Albania for a brief period of time, and when it was discovered they broke relations with China, the Soviets regarded them as fucking nutjobs and never payed attention to them again.
By the way, the only reason Albania broke relations with Moscow is because China promised them more shiny toys. Yup, the ugly materialist truth to it all. Behind all of hte ideological rhetoric, there was some kind of economic, or military benefit from Hoxha's foreign policy.
Hoxha had no problem becoming friends with the SU after Khrushchev died, it was only after he discoverd they weren't planning on suiting Albania any better that he continued to denounce their "revisionism".
Because they were replaced by Chinese...
But after the Albanians rid themselves of China no one gave a shit, as I pointed out. These books are all about Albania being a dog of China. Before, the dogs of the soviets, after, of china, after that, of no one.
Who the fuck is most? Most who?
No, but a third party external historian perhaps, maybe, would be more reliable than Hoxhas ramblings. Like I said, Hoxha stated he broke relations with the SU over revisionism, when in fact, it was because he had more to gain from China. He's full of shit. Are we to quote Obama on issues in Afghanistan?
I highly doubt anyone said that, it was just Hoxha disillusionment "I hear voices" kind of thing. Kind of like how you "hear voices" about me supporting Soviet Imperialism when I clearly denounce it.
"I hear voices"
There isn't any evidence to support this aside from Hoxha, the disillusionment drowned nut job. Tell me again why I should believe it? Because "most" find him reliable? And by "Most" do you mean you and your band of asslickers?
So it's nothing noble of "giving in" when the result is getting fucked over. If Albania did have something to gain, on the other hand, they would have imminently made relations with both these countries, as they attempted to do with the SU after Khrushchev, only to find out the people to come after him still don't give a shit.
There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that without Chinese aid and U.S. aid, most noticeably their stinger missile launchers, the Muj would have lost.
The Soviets didn't need popular support to win the war. It was an imperialist proxy war.
By the way, you praise the Muj so much for their anti imperialism, yet, the Muj promised that should they seek power, they'd re create the "Islamic Calaphite" empire across the whole fucking world. What do you have to say about this?
There hasn't been a victory in Afghanistan by anyone in quite a fucking while. It's terrain is unbearable. Much like how the U.S. will get fucked just like anyone. Afghanistan is simply an impossible country ,and the fact that the Muj won isn't proof that they had popular support, regardless if they did or not.
Originally Posted by RafiqIsmail dare criticize me for making these both in '5 font. Despite all of this, Ismail still accuses me of supporting and defending Imperialism.Originally Posted by Rafiq
You forgot to address how the rest of the "National Liberation" wars were complete fuck ups.
Yet they had the upper hadn because they had the support of another Imperialist power: The Soviet Union.
Class Collaboration did exist, this is the proper use of the term. More and more, we see the ideological insecurity of Ismail, that the usage of mere terms is a threat to his dillusioned vision of the world.
Are you blaming the Ideas of these groups to their downfall?
And what is being a communist to you? Agreeing with Hoxha?
Wasn't it you who said National Liberation wars are to be supported and should be successful regardless if it's communists leading the way? And now, you're saying that they failed because communists were leading the way? Under this logic, why even support the Mujaheddin, when you know it will be a disastrous failure?
I made it large because this is going to stump you and you're probably going to ignore it.
Ismail said this: Wow, just like Stalin, Hoxha, and others said it would! Yes, that's the point in national liberation wars where the communists aren't at the head.
Ismail said this:
You've now gone from "opposing" the Soviet invasion to putting its imperialism in quotation marks. Nice strawman as well. Hoxha did not call for a "Marxist-Leninist paradise" in Afghanistan, he called for a war of national liberation against the Soviet occupiers. Only when freed from this occupation could the Afghan communists actually work on the basis of waging class struggle against the feudal forces who, thanks to the Soviet occupation, were able to pose as the "liberators" of Afghanistan to begin with.
As they were not. Stop trying to make it as if Hoxha is a fucking credible source.
Fucking idiot praising the Mujaheddin. No one knew the real character of the Muj until they actually got into power. He called them the "democratic bourgeoisie" when in fact they were fucking Feudal land lords.
And he was wrong. He fell flat on his face and ate his own shit.
The struggle was started by them. It is not as if this was a major struggle and they just "intervened".
This was well after there was a "Leftist Status quo" and you know very well that's what I meant, you fucking scum bag.
Leftism isn't inherently revolutionary or non capitalist, you know. It's called Bourgeois Leftism.
This doesn't have anything to do with the class character of the Muj. "Glorious period of capitalist development" get the fuck out of here. I don't praise things and call them "Glorious" like you do, I'm not a red alert tankie.
So now you're supporting the Northern alliance because they're more "Progressive"? Fucking hypocrite.
Actually, you don't need popularity to do that. Stop bringing up the late 80's. It was a lost war by then and the state had no chance. You're fucking pathetic. I am talking about the 70's and early 80's here, when, you know, there was actually a chance one side would win over the other.
Do you have any viable sources refuting the claims of The court of the Red Tsar?
There's probably various examples of those same bourgeois sources being wrong, yet unlike the Hoxhaists no one gave a shit to refute them. I could ask Khad for some sources, Perhaps, perhaps...
right, because Stalinists are inherently bourgeois. You say "IT'S REVISIONIST SLANDER FUCK IT".
Bourgeois economic figures being measurement of living standards, wages, etc. ?
And what makes you think Albania wouldn't do the same if they could? Fucking Idealist.
Any serious Marxist recognizes the Class collaborationist shit that lurks within Maoism... But we Marxists strike the scum at all corners, we strike hoxhaism for it's Idealism and inconsistency, and we strike China for it's bourgeois romanticist class collaborationism.
They were, after all (Even under Stalin) capitalist countries, it's only natural that they would eventually adopt the rhetoric of their western counterparts.
Does Hoxha think for you, or are you just a troll? He isn't a credible source. No Marxists take that fucker seriously.
Smells of Propaganda, I'll pass. I'm sure that scum doesn't represent people living in Albania.
"I guess I should just believe internet propaganda than an actual (Non opportunist, non religious) person who actually lived and breathed Albania".
You think I'll believe you instead?
When Bourgeois forces were progressive, it was acceptable. Lenin pointed out that the Bourgeoisie were no longer successful (WW1) so their vanguards are not to be supported (aside from the right to determination shit).
You didn't.
Engel's position didn't apply to supporting the Muj, sorry. I don't know of any Feudal forces Marx and Engels supported.
Ismail believes women had more rights under the Taliban than the PDPA. Yup, he actually does.
Ismail doesn't understand the meaning of a hypothetical potential scenario which could exist in maybe decades.
Would you support Fascists, than?
Would you support Anti imperialist Feudalist Fascist Hindu extremists against Imperialism in India, should China invade?
This is an issue of class, between the bourgeoisie and the remnants of feudalism. I choose to side with none, you choose the latter in the basis of "Anti Imperialism".
Why can't you addres the issue? Stalinists supported the bourgeois when it suited them, they supported Imperialism (And IMperialist powers) when it suited them. Hoxha supported the SU and China until they stopped giving them shiny toys.
Since you can't understand a hypothetical analogy (Because you're a fucking idiot) respond to what I said about India. Sixty years before Afghanistan, I'm sure something so hypothetical (About Muj vs. Soviets) would have been met with "Well, for one, the Muj do not exist there, two, Soviets have no influence there, etc."
It's HYPOTHETICAL. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't falsify the message: In such a situation (Even though that situation is not present yet) Would you support Fascists against Imperialism?
Luxemburg isn't something I hold dear to my heart. I don't think the nation exists, it's something artificially created. The nation is, of course, defined as a homogeneous body of humans who share language, history, etc. Could this not be applied to the south? It could be applied to whatever the fuck you want to apply it to. The nation as a concept is a Bourgeois concept that sought to collaborate classes under the guise of "National strength" or, "National liberation"
Ismail sais other people "Suck at Marxism" when he blames the downfall of the Soviet Union, China, on the abandonment of Ideas.
Marxism doesn't put emphasis in recognizing the nation, I'm sorry. That's for Fascists and the likes of the Socialist Phlanx, you certainly have a lot in common with.
But unlike the VietCong, the Muj didn't need the support of the majority of the population for victory.
A so called scientific Marxist judges the Soviet Union because cheesy American 80's movies about the "Occupier" while real Scientific Marxists judge the Soviet Union on the basis of for filling the hunger of capital, but still oppose the Feudal Muj.
Name me cases where the Vietcong and the Algerian resistance forced little girls to marry old men, where they systematically sold, raped and auctioned off little boys to perverted old scum bags. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_548428.html
There has not been a Soviet atrocity comparable. Even death is better.
Yes, it was, namely the United States and the Soviet Union, after WW2.
And, the point was, you justified support for x reactionary force on the basis that they had popular support. The great Bordiga did a good piece of work on how these "Democracy" myths are bullshit.
Plus, that's not a scientific analysis. You always look at the rhetoric of the scum bags "Tito said X" "Khruschev Said X" "Nazis Said X" Instead of criticizing the class background of them.
The rhetoric of the reactionaries isn't of importance, what ever struggle they deem to guise themselves under.
By the 90's I'm sure most Afghans hated the Taliban... So?
You are the one who said the Muj are to be supported because they have popular support.
So good, we've moved on. We have established that having popular support isn't grounds for supporting x force.
Just as much as they did under Khrushchev, but go on..
As Stalin would have done the same, go on. (The same Nagy who was shot).
Stalin would have done the same. You haven't really pointed out the difference between Khrushchev and Stalin other than some bullshit about tractors... Really, the class character of the SU was about the exact same until 1965.
The Hungarians, from a source, have hated the Soviet soldiers even under Stalin. The uprising was just a growing storm.
What the hell makes you think I find that a reliable source, either?
You don't know what I mean when I say the "Afghan People". As in, a collective homogeneous interest that overlaps class divide. The Afghan people as an interest do not exist, as any Marxist would recognize.
Yes, it's called false conscious. When a class is acting in favor of another, it is not doing so within the realm of class conscious, it is doing so within the realm of false conscious. Meaning, the class interests existed, the "People" never existed as a collective interest, it's just one class managed to suppress the interests of another. That does not mean those interests did not exist.
of course, you probably won't reply to that.
There isn't anything Marxist about that. There is, though, a hint of Bourgeois-Stalinism (which is just another guise supporting the rule of capital).
If the PPSH indeed held the believe that there exists an interest based on national background that overlaps class interest than yes, they certainly had influences from Fascism.
it's no surprise the Socialist-Nationalists use the emblem of Albania (Two headed eagle or whatever). It's because Hoxhaism in nature is very, very nationalistic.
But yes, the ideological backbone of Fascim is that there exists a collective homogeneous interest in regards to "The Nation" that makes class irrelevant. The PPSH was in fact a bourgeois party, anyway ("Nation before class"). It's no surprise.
Obviously not, your head is so far up your ass you're hopeless.
That's not exactly the justification he gave. He said that the National Bourgeoisie must have their way before a real genuine proletarian movement could arise. This was false.
Except that there were no Proletarians in Albania. Do you know what a Proletarian is? Albania's struggle was a petite bourgeois struggle. There can exist cases where the proletariat could fight against a Bourgeois invader based solely on their own class interest, yes, but this can never be the cases when, as you put it "Nation comes before class".
Except for the fact that there were no Proletariat in those countries.
So you support factions under the guise of "Whether they are good at fighting" or not? You previously stated that in Afghanistan, the only reason the regime called assistance was to make the Afghans believe that they weren't directly being controlled by the Soviet Union. And now you're admitting it was secret, and no Afghans knew about it to start.
To quote Ismail:
Actually a puppet government would ask for assistance. The point of these governments is to bring legitimacy to the occupier.
Which one is it? Did they call assistance to bring legitimacy or did they do it in secret without any one knowing?
The situation for them was getting out of control for the puppet government.. Amin was fucking things up and the Muj was getting stronger by day. That's why factions within the PDPA called in for Soviet Assistance.
I've cited many things you've said, so now you need to cite everyone where exactly I said that the PDPA wasn't disdained.
Ismail is so dillusioned, he's hearing voices like comrade Hoxha.
It was an Imperialist invasion, yet it was far more complex for your tiny little Hoxhaist mind to comprehend.
No, from day to day they were getting more and more dissatisfied from him, after the first day he was in power.
They did claim that, it doesn't mean it's true.
What communists? There were none.
You said that by the early 1920's the Comintern instructed Albanian "communists" to collaborate with other classes. I stated those communists never existed. Now you;re talking about 1941?
I've already addressed the issue of the Soviets supported Bourgeois forces, you know, maybe two or more posts ago (You were never able to respond, unsurprisingly). They were desperate. They needed friends. Lenin himself never had any illusions about it (Like supporting Kemalists, who later massacred communists with Russian weapons).
Which wouldn't have happened if the revolution by then, you know, wasn't degenerating because of failed revolution in Germany (1919).
I am, but you will none the less dismiss them as mere propaganda and bias. Just like you dismiss the works of Stalin by Bourgeois western academics.
That isn't an argument. We know they lost because of Imperialist aid to the Muj. Your point?
But it did take arms and Propaganda from Imperialist powers to allow that organized Muj to gain support. After the Muj became something visible to the world, the Americans were the first to arm them.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/199...n_control.html
Every socialist state operated within the capitalist mode of production, and "Socialism" is what separates them from Western Liberalism, ideologically. Is this Proletarian Socialism? No, it's Bourgeois socialism. Whatever. I call these Communist states because that's what they are known as. Paul Cockshott pointed out that saying X state isn't "Socialist" without actually having real socialism to compare it with is absurd. And, since each and every state was not "real socialism" (especially Albania) than there is no use in calling them "State capitalist" or whatever.
That's the official date, but I'm very sure they had ties to them earlier on.
See above.
Rampant Nationalism, the banning of "Beards (Banans)", plain weird fucked up policies, Anti Revisionism, are only unique to Albanian Hoxhaism. Stalin wasn't an anti revisionism, he constantly revised Marxist Leninist ideology to suit the needs of Soviet Capital. Most noticeably concepts of SIOC, how he said it was not the goal of the SU to spread revolution, deals with various Imperialist powers, the fueling the fire of Soviet Capital, etc. etc. etc.
Anti Revisionism itself is Revisionist.
Also Hoxha was a racist fuck. He called the music of Africans in the west "Jungle Music". What a piece of shit.
Everyone besides Hoxhaists uses the word Hoxhaite, and if they don't, it's when they aren't mentioning it.
Zizek:
Zizek was saying there wasn't a revolutionary programme of the riots and that they were a spontaneous burst of anger and dissatisfaction from the System (like occupy) and therefore didn't see the revolutionary potential (Or class based). That's different from calling them savages and denouncing them all together. What he is denouncing is the hypocritical notion that we live in a system of choice when the only way to make a choice different from what we are provided is what he calls "Blinding out", rioting, destroying things, etc.
Of course, I don't fully agree with him, but it's hardly reactionary as a statement.
Zizek's writings are to advance Marxian thought, not a "movement". They are not comparable. Hoxha has influenced far less than Zizek has.
And you're wrong. That's not what I was going to answer with. Funny, most of the predictions I've made about what you were going to do were 100% correct, while none of yours were.
"Lol, dur hur I dnt undarzstand the big wordz, dear leader hoxha has made me not compute, cannot articulate, I am on the verge of self destruction so I must just say "lol" as a desperate final attempt to make sesne of non hoxhaist termzzzz".
In Latin America, many communist movements, many movements in Spain, etc. I said region, not country. In Latin America, you had Nicaraguan movements, movements in Colombia, Peru, Chile, etc. None were Hoxhaists.
You once said that one of the contributing factors to the Sino Albanian split was China's support for Pinochet. When in fact, this was far from the case. They broke support because China's shiny new toys were no longer being imported. Albania simply no longer needed China, it was a burden.
Albania, on the other hand, praised Pinochet and said he was more progressive than the Soviet Union.
Actually, you fuck, the U.S. has what to offer to Afghanistan? The Hamid Karzai Government. Which is more or less on the same level of being reactionary as the Taliban. The Karzai govt certainly isn't more progressive in any way, socially, or via class.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
I am a fortune teller. I shall predict Ismail's next post will tamper and twist my words to suit him. I will also predict Ismail's next post will not address everything I said and at Maximum, will address 2/3rds of my post, like his last one.
I also will predict his next post will contain accusations that I support Soviet Imperialism.
Also, I predict he will take my analogy in regards to India and say "There isn't a Fascist movement in India that would do such, it would not happen because I don't understand what being hypothetical means.
He will also continue to say that it's weak because it's hypothetical, and not real, when in fact, it is merely there to root out whether he'd support fascists in such a scenario.
I also predict that Ismail will ignore the real, important points I've made in my post under the guise of "Waa waa" big font.
Also, I predict that Ismail will talk more about Orthodox Marxism, of things he has no Idea in regards. He will than accuse me of calling the SU "Objectively Progressive", and make an argument against that, i.e. a straw man.
I predict Ismail will cite Hoxha at the least five times.
And finally, I predict his dog Roach will thank the post. Maybe Botsana too.
And, finally, if none of these are done, I predict it is merely because I made this very post predicting them.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Ismail, your fantasies of this thread being an ideological victory for Hoxhaism shall never be for filled.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
That's why Teme Sejko and others were executed in 1960 in a plot which involved the USA? Is that why Mehmet Shehu was denounced as a CIA agent?
Indeed, the Nazi invasion was a clear case of the imperialist ambitions of Nazi Germany.
Most of whom settled there during the 20's and 30's?
Really? I was under the impression that one of the leading Mujahidin groups was Uzbek.
What's your point? Polish settlers reacted strongly against the Ukrainians and Byelorussians getting their land back. News at 8.
Except I noted that the situation in Finland had nothing to do with imperialism.
They set up a puppet government in Poland? Perhaps you made a typo and meant to say Finland? Well no, they didn't want to set up a puppet government in Finland either. Roberts notes that the "Finnish Democratic Republic" was created because the Soviets thought it might become popular and would be willing to sign the agreements. When it was proven to be non-popular in practice, it was disbanded.
National Guardian, April 16, 1971 on an ODESSA study by the Spanish government
No, 1950's.
So was Hoxha. But so was Sejfulla Malëshova, too. The question is one of intellectualism, not being an intellectual.
They split from pro-Soviet and Maoist parties, actually.
Why would the U.S.A. invest in Albania? It can't gain from that. Of course Albania has helped, e.g. provided support for NATO's invasion of Kosovo.
The Democratic Party in Albania is slavishly pro-US. Its leader, Berisha, compares Ahmadinejad with Hitler and gave Bush a hero's welcome when he visited a few years back.
Well for what it's worth the Department of State occupied the Enver Hoxha Museum and turned it into a relief agency.
Is that why the Soviets continued throughout the 1980's to try and "normalize" relations, played up the Soviet-Albanian Friendship Society (which went defunct in Albania after 1961), etc.?
Really? Every source I've read noted that:
A. China couldn't provide as much to Albania;
B. Hoxha constantly accused the Chinese in his diaries of trying to economically sabotage Albania after the 60's, and of organizing a plot in the military to overthrow him in 1972-1974.
Wrong. Hoxha in his diaries clearly condemns the Chinese for praising the fall of Khrushchev and trying to "normalize" ties with the Brezhnevite USSR. I can provide quotes if you'd like.
The Chinese technicians and such sent to Albania, for what it's worth, were a lot less odious to the Albanians. Soviet technicians, as James S. O'Donnell and others have noted, were actually paid a salary quite a bit higher than Hoxha himself. Chinese technicians willing to work for Albanian wages and the Albanians had more control over them.
Yes, in the 60's and early 70's Albania was seen as a "dog" of China. But in the 80's and onwards it was made clear that the image of Albania as a "dog" of China wasn't really accurate, since from the start there were fundamental differences between the two states who, in the end, really didn't coordinate anything outside of diplomatic matters (and even then that mostly ended after 1972.)
Jon Halliday, for one.
Albania tried to open up ties with the USSR after Khrushchev fell? Really? Is that why Hoxha called Brezhnev a fascist and formally withdrew from the Warsaw Pact in 1968? Is that why Hoxha denounced the Chinese for trying to align with the Soviets after 1964?
That's why the Soviets sought to gain popular support via the puppet regime, right?
Nothing, because I never said the Mujahidin were anti-imperialist, just that they were, objectively, at the head of an anti-imperialist struggle because of the absence of any other significant force. That's also pretty weird, since I'm pretty sure the Mujahidin were a fairly diverse lot and you can't subscribe one single goal to them besides "we hate the Soviet Union and the godless atheists who invaded our glorious land."
Yeah, he's a Brezhnevite, he'll defend the Soviet occupation under any circumstances because he has admitted that geo-politics are more important to him than anything else.
... no he [assuming "Albania" = Enver Hoxha] didn't. He pretty obviously denounced Pinochet and used China's friendship with him, Mobutu and others as an example of the anti-Marxist character of the "Three Worlds Theory."
I'm done. Not because you "win," but because I have no wish talking to someone who I suspect, quite frankly, has mental issues that make any debate worthless. Apologia for Soviet social-imperialism, calling Hoxha insane, praising Žižek, and a bunch of other stuff that makes it not worth talking to you. I'm confident that what I've written in previous posts is good enough to make my point in-re Afghanistan.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
It's called paranoia.
Yes, as well as the Soviet Union. Or is it too hard for you to grasp the fact that both were Imperialist states with Imperialist ambitions.
Doesn't matter.
Ethnic and Religious minorities
Poles all over Poland, no just Eastern Poland. Nice try.
Yes, and because you noted it means that it wasn't. Of course it was an act of Imperialism.
Yes, I do mean Finland. The Finnish Democratic Republic wasn't disbanded because Lack of popularity, it was disbanded because they lost in the Imperialist war for Finland. They wanted to set up an Imperialist puppet government, much like the one in Afghanistan you criticize so strongly.
Yeah, actually link it.
You're a fuclking idiot. There wasn't a noticable difference in policy under Khrushchev other than some irrelivent nonsense about tractors.
By the late 1920's the Bolsheviks had established relations with several imperialist powers and opened the country up to foreign business, selling the proletariat. The existence of capital was no longer "Controlled", they were all devoured by it.
Hoxha wasn't intellectual. He didn't contribute anything to the structural enhancement of Marxism. Hoxha was a puppet of foreign Imperialist interests.
Than they were irrelevant Idealists who just were "riding the wave" of all the other proxy groups and split off. When you have a strong communist movement in the third world, you tend to have these irrelevant splinter groups break off for fuck all reasons.
And after the Kosovo war no one gave a shit. The U.S. never had anything to gain from Albania, Hoxha or no Hoxha.
Good job, he's just ass kissing for help, which he will never get.
...And? They didn't rush in as if "Oh yes, finally!" like they did with the rest of the "revisionist" countries.
The Soviet Union didn't have any particular interest in Albania after the Sino-Albanian split. Nice try.
yet it provided more than the Soviet Union did.
There's a clear difference beteween the character of the Hoxha state and Hoxha himself. This was just mere paranoia. It all traces back to Yugoslavia. When China decided to create relations with Yugoslavia this pissed off Hoxha, (And the fact that China was running dry with nothing to offer Albania).
They then broke relations, and afterwords, make up an ideological mystification to justify this, i.e. (But China and the U.S. created relations! But China is becoming increasingly revisionist!).
That's a lie. I'm talking about the period between Khrushchev and Brezhnev, i.e. When Khrushchev was dumped, automatically Hoxha tried to normalize relations with the Soviet Union, only to find that they still had nothing to offer him, and that's when Brezhnev came to power.
In October 1964, Hoxha hailed Nikita Khrushchev's fall from power, and the Soviet Union's new leaders made overtures to Tirana. It soon became clear, however, that the new Soviet leadership had no intention of changing basic policies to suit Albania, and relations failed to improve. Tirana's propaganda continued for decades to refer to Soviet officials as "treacherous revisionists" and "traitors to communism," and in 1964 Hoxha said that Albania's terms for reconciliation were a Soviet apology to Albania and reparations for damages inflicted on the country. Soviet-Albanian relations dipped to new lows after the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, when Albania responded by officially withdrawing from the alliance.
Sino-Albanian relations declined by 1970. With the Sino-Albanian split, the Albanians began to normalized relations with the Soviet Union, as well as opening new relations to other nations.
Obviously Hoxha didn't care that China became friends with the United States, considering he created relations with West Germany, etc. He was an opportunist, just like Tito.
Yes, that's true. The Chinese were cheaper and gave more shiny toys. That's why he broke relations with the SU in favor of China, i.e. Nothing to do with "revisionism".
Was no longer accurate. Albania was a dog, in the period it had relations with China.
China used Albania and Albania needed China. Simple as that. After China left the Albanian economy became so desperate they tried to normalize relations with anyone who could help. Not until it spun out of control into shit, that is.
So that's everyone ? No one takes Hoxha's works as a credible source besides his cult.
Khrushchev fell in 1964. It was only later on until Hoxha realized Brezhnev still didn't give a shit and withdrew as it had nothing to gain from the warsaw pact. He later justified it by calling Brezhnev a revisionist. But had Brezhnev offered something to Albania, he wouldn't have called him that.
it would help, but it wasn't essential.
Anyone who's been reading this conversation can clearly come to the conclusion that you did.
It wasn't an anti imperialist struggle, as it very much benefited other Imperialist powers.
All members of the Muj wanted to re-build the Islamic Calaphite empire that would stretch across all of Earth. And yes, they all fought and hated the Soviet Union because they were "godless".
And you're a Hoxhaist who'll just agree with everything Hoxha said regardless of whether it's inconsistent or not. You're not even a real Stalinist, if Hoxha hated Stalin, you would too.
Hoxha clearly stated that the Soviet Union was worse than Pinochet. Hoxha didn't have any problems with China's bullshit until he broke relations for purely economic reasons.
Ismail, you're not done, you're going to respond to this. I know of it. Why? You pulled this stunt so you wouldn't have to address the other 9/10ths of my post because you simply couldn't. You wanted me to respond to the content that you decided I should. Now you'll respond to this and forget about that whole other post I made, and try and make it irrelevant. You're a coward. I don't "win" because you said you aren't going to respond, I "Win" because you're going to respond to this and will never respond to the actual important posts I made above here.
It's pathetic. Feel free to respond to all of this, because, as far as I'm concerned, my job here is done, and I'm sure anyone with a head will concur with me. If you actually respond to my whole post above, you know, the other 9/10ths than I'll be glad to continue to engage in conversation with you. I just won't have it, making that post for no fucking reason.
You would not be able to actually type this up if you would have responded to my whole post above, because it would be contradictory to it.
In which every serious Marxist does.
I like Zizek. He's not that worthy of praise but he's something. He's better than Hoxha (though that's not an accomplishment) at the least.
Yet you'll continue this conversation, you just didn't want to face the actual facts I presented to you.
Your point was simple slander and name calling, accusing me of positions in which I have nothing to do with, that of which I debunked several, several times over in large font. That's hardly making a point.
The only thing you've shown everyone here is that you're incapable of having a conversation with someone without
1. Mentioning Hoxha
2. Falsely accusing them of Ideological positions that only exist in the world of Hoxhaism
3. Failing to address at least 2/3rds of an entire post
and Finally, apologia for a Feudal and Reactionary force, the Muj, not because deep down you support them, but because Hoxha did.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Since much of this thread has gone off-topic anyway:
And the landowners appealed to the mujahedeen. Ismail needs to learn some history here.
Just a correction to both of you: the original Mensheviks (Martov, Plekhanov, etc.) also had their theoretical origins in Orthodox Marxism. It wasn't for good (however disagreeable) reason that the left Mensheviks, despite their stagism, called the Bolshevik position of a Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry "crass Jaures-ism"; the entire Marxist center condemned reform coalitions.
Hoxhaism is so much more focused on History than on modern strategic line, I'm afraid.
I should note that Ismail hasn't made any responses to comrade Rafiq's FYIs on Orthodox Marxism. I wonder why.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
You guys are confusing organizational histories here. Yesterday's big CPGB is today's left-nationalist CPB. The CPGB-PCC, on the other hand, are the Weekly Worker comrades.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
No, they wanted to set up a government that was willing to negotiate with the USSR on leased ports. They didn't think that the reactionary, pro-German government would be able to unite even "left-wing" Finns with it.
The goal was to secure Leningrad.
Why? Because the only source you know is Wikipedia?
Incorrect.
That's why collectivization and the five-year plan were instituted, of course... they were "devoured" by capital.
Actually the late 20's was quite a nice time, it was when the rightists were defeated. Then again you've called industrialization and such "disastrous," because you yourself seem to sympathize with said rightists.
"Intellectual" doesn't mean "contributed to the 'structural enhancement' of Marxism according to Rafiq."
Last I heard he kicked them out in 1944.
Oh, I see, so you're taking the Soviet line. "These dogmatists are sectarians bla bla bla."
Then why did it continue to agitate for "normalized" relations? You do realize Albania was actually fairly economically significant, right? It was one of the world's leading producers of chrome, something fairly important in weapons-making.
... by being equal, yes. Otherwise no, the Soviets gave more actual aid than the Chinese. In fact Khrushchev actually boosted aid to Albania in the 1957-1959 period (to the extent that Albania could abolishing rationing), in hopes that Hoxha would be persuaded by credits over principles.
As opposed to Nixon's visit and the "Three Worlds Theory"? As opposed to the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution"? As opposed to when China cared more about territorial issues with the USSR than actual ideology?
No he didn't.
That source (whatever it is, all I get on Google is Ask.com) is wrong. Relations with the USSR weren't "normalized" until 1990. Hoxha explicitly stated that the Soviets were trying to take advantage of the break with China because apparently Albania was now "alone" and "trapped," etc.
I forgot the part where Tito allowed foreign investment in his country and had millions of Albanians go to work in West Germany as migrant labor. Perhaps you can refresh my memory? Also West Germany established diplomatic relations with Albania in 1987, idiot.
Yeah, that's why the 1976 Constitution banned foreign investments and seeking credit from abroad. That's why Hoxha said that the entire country must operate on the basis of self-reliance in all fields.
You're free to provide a source.
Even random tribal guys who thought the world revolved around their clan?
Where?
Yes, I'm still replying, but only because talking about Hoxha tends to be more interesting than hearing you defend Soviet social-imperialism in-re Afghanistan.
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
Why is it called the "Provisional Central Committee" anyway? I've never quite understood that.
"No, they wanted to set up a government that was willing to negotiate with the USSR on leased ports (PDPA). They didn't think that the reactionary, pro-Islamist government would be able to unite even "left-wing" Finns with it".
It's still an act of Imperialism.
The goal was to secure Tajikistan and Uzbekistan
Which is far more credible than Hoxha's diary ideological excuses.
The only thing different about Khrushchev you've stated was that he did something different with Tractors, "Rehabilitated Imre Nagy" (which you have no evidence Stalin would have done the same) and denounced Stalin (Go cry about it).
Hoxha didn't have problems with Khrushchev (or Brezhnev) until he discovered they didn't suit his interests.
Are you fucking kidding me? Collectivization and the fire year plan operated within the capitalist mode of production.
http://libcom.org/library/communism-...-bordiga-today
Which rightists were defeated? None. Russia was the fastest growing Industrializing nation in 1913 on planet Earth. It was inevitable.
Typo, genius, you mean "Intellectual means contributing to the structural enhancement of Marxism according to Rafiq".
Hoxha wasn't a Marxist intellectual. He was hardly a Marxist either.
And then went on to be a dog for them later on in the early 50's.
No, they were just irrelevant. You don't need to be the Soviet Union to realize that.
They didn't, though. Not severely. And if they did, Hoxha would have came running to them as he almost did to Yugoslavia (his biggest enemy) when the Albanian economy went to shit.
Wrong, the Chinese had much more to offer and were cheaper.
More bullshit Idealism. Actually, Hoxha was already persuaded, it just so happens that in the midst of the Sino Soviet split he had more to gain from China.
Firstly, let's get rid of the bullshit, i.e. No one cared about Ideology. First was action, Ideology morphed to adjust to it later.
And yes, the three worlds theory and the rest never had an effect on Albania's relation with China, but he did denounce the visit with the United States because this signified China was no longer isolated and didn't need Albania. Kind of like the little kid whose excluded from the ball game, if you will.
Yeah, he actually did. He praised Khrushchev's downfall and hoped to normalize relations with the Soviet Union.
It doesn't matter what Hoxha wrote in his little diary before bed time, this was the reality.
Hoxha would have done the same if he could actually afford to sell migrant workers.
And yes, Hoxha established relations with Italy, France, West Germany, etc. some of which being before the late 80's. He established relations with Imperialist and reactionary states right after the sino Albanian split, you shit head.
Which is why he created diplomatic relations with Imperialist states and was so desperate at one point he wanted to go running to Tito.
Yeah, let me pull a source out of my ass about an Alternate history... Fucking idiot.
They wouldn't count as members of the Mujaheddin (then), just dogs. The Muj was a strictly Islamist organization.
"For China the Spain of Franco, the Chile of Pinochet, or the Rhodesia of Ian Smith are friends, while the 'Soviets are the most dangerous, because they pose as Marxist-Leninists'.
Ladies and Gentlemen, scroll up and look at my latest post besides this one. It's in large font for all to see.
Ismail, the coward, didn't want to address the Issues I presented him in the post I made before that, so he said that "He's done". He was never done. He responded to about 1/10th of the whole post, the things he wanted to respond to, the things he thought he could address. He knew, obviously, I would respond to them. And now we are having a discussion about what Ismail wants to talk about.
I might, myself, be done. It depends on what he replies this with. Probably more horse shit. It just feels good to be right, you know?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
So, to make this official, I "Win" about everything, about OM, about the Muj, about Anti Revisionism. Now he wants to debate about Hoxha's foreign policy. Good, let him.
He shall loose once more.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
And Ismail, while you're at it, why don't you respond to DNZ?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Who cares what DNZ thinks? His criticism of Stalin was that he didn't annex the future Warsaw Pact states into the USSR, ditto with Mongolia. He's as irrelevant as you are, and as pro-Soviet too.
In any case the Hoxha debate belongs in another thread now: http://www.revleft.com/vb/hoxhaism-t...html?p=2403304
Also Nagy, Gomulka, and others were denounced in Stalin's time as Titoists/nationalists. It's quite obvious that they wouldn't be rehabilitated if "destalinization" hadn't occurred, considering that they were held up as examples of "Stalinist repression."
* h0m0revolutionary: "neo-liberalism can deliver healthy children, it can educate them, it can feed them, it can clothe them and leave them fully contented."
* rooster: "Supporting [anti-imperialism] is reactionary. How is any nation supposed to stand up [to] the might of the US anyway?"
* nizan: "Fuck your education is empowerment bullshit, education is alienation, nothing more. You indulge in a dying prestige for a role in a bureaucratic spectacle deserving of nothing beyond contempt."
* Alexios: "To the Board Administration: Ismail [...] needs to be eliminated from this forum."
His post had little to nothing to do with Stalin. Address it, you cowardly bastard.
uh huh
They would have. If you're going to blame them for the Hungarian uprising you're a fucking idiot. The uprising would have occurred regardless.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
