Why I am a Titoist

[Ismail]

About the history of Albania and the roots of the Albanian people. These are completely irrelevant to Stalin's knowledge of the contemporary Albanian geo-political situation.

Except you've provided no evidence that Stalin knew much anything about said geo-political situation or about the Albanian leadership. Stalin did ask the Yugoslavs about Hoxha, what they knew about him, etc. so evidently he wasn't all that well-briefed concerning him. Remember, the Soviets had no involvement in liberating Albania. The Soviets worked with the Yugoslav partisans and helped them liberate Belgrade.

You are of course talking about some parts of Albania. However lets not forget that Albania was occupied during and partitioned after the World War 1. So it wasn't that obscure to the European powers. It's tends to be rather hard when a country is so close to Italy and Greece.

It was still obscure to them. The memoirs of various British officers who helped the Albanian partisans in the 1940's note that the British knew very little about the situation in Albania. Edward Grey in 1913 noted that Albania was a little-known country and that its borders were being decided on by the Great Powers entirely based on political concerns between them, with practically no knowledge (or, of course, care) about what Albanians thought about them. The Italians knew a lot about Albania during the 20's and 30's, but that was because the reign of King Zog was basically that of an Italian puppet, and the Italians had "advisors" in the army, owned the "national" bank, etc.

He was an Albanian version of Metternich, Churchill or Mussolini and Stalin was a Russian version of the same sort of people, within the limits of their respective ideologies. Good luck trying to find a backbone in the ideologies of the likes of such people.Joffe noted in his unpublished memoirs that of the various diplomatic, economic, etc. agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers, Lenin spoke often of having "dirty tricks" within them.

Despite all his faults and errors, Lenin was not a politician like these gentlemen. He was a revolutionary who had a backbone; whose main concern was not his own or Russia's interests but those of the world revolution; who did not change his ideology as he made and broke alliances.

Joffe noted in his unpublished memoirs that of the various diplomatic, economic, etc. agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers, Lenin spoke often of having "dirty tricks" within them. Of course Stalin spoke of similar things as well.

I was unaware that Stalin ever changed his ideological views after 1925, or that Hoxha ever substantially changed his own at all.

To get more Maoist than that, Hoxha would have had to proclaim that Mao was the personification of god walking among mortals.

No, to get more Maoist than that Hoxha would need to have actually been a Maoist. Writing an official letter praising the CCP and Mao is a bit different from actually being a Maoist. As noted his own diaries in the 1960's and 70's show him attacking Maoism. He never adopted China's "Three Worlds Theory" and any author dealing with 1960's Albania will note that the relationship between China's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" and Hoxha's "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" were slight outside of the former obviously influencing the latter coming into existence. Hoxha did, of course, denounce the "GPCR" as well with growing intensity in his diaries and in closed meetings of the Central Committee.

Because Khrushchev wanted reconciliation with Yugoslavia.

Again, Hoxha's own diaries show that when Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Hoxha was more than a little upset. That same year saw a party conference in which various bureaucrats and military men (as noted by Nicholas C. Pano) tried to remove Hoxha from his post as head of the Party, claiming that he was insufficiently struggling against the "cult of the individual" and suchlike.

Who says they were to engage in equal trade? What is equal trade? Before the Stalin-Tito split, the Yugoslavians were paying the Albanians three times what the Albanian raw materials were worth and even that wasn't "equal" enough apparently, as the Albanians started complaining they weren't getting enough money.

James S. O'Donnell notes the exploitative economic relationship between Albania and Yugoslavia in the 1940's in A Coming of Age.

Equal trade was trade based on barter. E.g. Albania would exchange electricity for industrial parts.

Again, I am not interested in "blasting" the Albanian government. I've made it clear that I see it as a bourgeois government - there is nothing surprising in a bourgeois government trading, needing foreign investment, wanting to strengthen its ties to the world market.

There isn't much surprising about anything ever wanting to do that at a time when socialism hasn't triumphed in most of the world.

Who was the director of the Party School and held no important ranks in the party. Shows how serious a challenge the hardline opposition posed to Alia.

I never said it was a serious challenge, but it did exist. Nexhmije to this day is still an avowed communist and defends her husband's policies.

- Tito and Stalin split, Hoxha take the opportunity and side with Stalin, formulates his ideological opposition to Titoism from a pro-Stalin perspective.

As opposed to what? An anti-Stalin perspective?

- Stalin dies, Khrushchev wants reconciliation with the Yugoslavians and tries to force Hoxha to make gestures towards Tito. When Khrushchev criticizes Stalin, Hoxha's main reaction is to defend him by attacking Titoism.

Authors on Albanian history would also note that the events in 1956 in Hungary and Poland also prompted Hoxha to indirectly attack Khrushchev, e.g. by attacking calls for "different roads to socialism" in a November 1956 Pravda article.

- Khrushchev also starts having problems with the Chinese. Hoxha sides with the Chinese and together they denounce Khrushchev's revisionism. Thus, Albania ends up siding with China and leaving the Russian block.

Hoxha's diaries show that, outside of the initial apprehension of Mao saying in 1956 that Stalin made "mistakes" in-re Yugoslavia among other things, he was quite optimistic about China at the time. You forget that in the 1960's the Chinese also tried to reconcile with the Soviets, which Hoxha criticized in his memoirs.

[Искра]

Wait, you use Hoxha's diaries as somekind of a source?

[Leo]

Except you've provided no evidence that Stalin knew much anything about said geo-political situation or about the Albanian leadership.

So you are saying that Stalin was lying when he said he looked into the Albanian situation and Hoxha was unable to explain it to him.

Stalin did ask the Yugoslavs about Hoxha, what they knew about him, etc. so evidently he wasn't all that well-briefed concerning him. Remember, the Soviets had no involvement in liberating Albania. The Soviets worked with the Yugoslav partisans and helped them liberate Belgrade.

Who, in turn, worked with the Albanian partisans and helped them liberate Tirana. And it would be absolutely amazing if you think that the NKDV wasn't present in these countries, being one of the biggest spy networks in the world at the time.

It was still obscure to them. The memoirs of various British officers who helped the Albanian partisans in the 1940's note that the British knew very little about the situation in Albania. Edward Grey in 1913 noted that Albania was a little-known country and that its borders were being decided on by the Great Powers entirely based on political concerns between them, with practically no knowledge (or, of course, care) about what Albanians thought about them. The Italians knew a lot about Albania during the 20's and 30's, but that was because the reign of King Zog was basically that of an Italian puppet, and the Italians had "advisors" in the army, owned the "national" bank, etc.

It may have been in obscure in 1913. The British were never that involved until WW2. For the rest of Europe, it wasn't that obscure after WW1.

Joffe noted in his unpublished memoirs that of the various diplomatic, economic, etc. agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers, Lenin spoke often of having "dirty tricks" within them.

There weren't that many agreements the Bolsheviks signed with foreign powers in Lenin's day. Initially, the (correct) principle was to have everything in the open - the working class has nothing to hide when talking with its enemy they said. This was what was done in Brest-Litovsk. By 1923, the Bolsheviks themselves had changed and were now secretly selling guns to the Germans (the Rapallo treaty) behind the back of the German revolution. Lenin himself was never involved with either, he was never the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations in fact, his position was in a minority in the party. for a considerable period.

I was unaware that Stalin ever changed his ideological views after 1925

You are joking, aren't you?

No, to get more Maoist than that Hoxha would need to have actually been a Maoist. Writing an official letter praising the CCP and Mao is a bit different from actually being a Maoist. As noted his own diaries in the 1960's and 70's show him attacking Maoism. He never adopted China's "Three Worlds Theory" and any author dealing with 1960's Albania will note that the relationship between China's "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" and Hoxha's "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" were slight outside of the former obviously influencing the latter coming into existence. Hoxha did, of course, denounce the "GPCR" as well with growing intensity in his diaries and in closed meetings of the Central Committee.

Hoxha did not denounce the GPRC, in fact admitted that they supported it even after his break with Maoism. Hoxha indeed did not adopt the three worlds theory - but not all Maoists do anyway. Hoxha says with his own words that he accepts the Mao Zedung thought, you can deny it all you want.

Again, Hoxha's own diaries show that when Khrushchev denounced Stalin, Hoxha was more than a little upset.

Probably he read something into it about Yugoslavia.

James S. O'Donnell notes the exploitative economic relationship between Albania and Yugoslavia in the 1940's in A Coming of Age.

Oh I am not saying it wasn't - I am saying that the Yugoslavians were giving them a better deal than anybody else would for these raw materials. There was a price to pay though: subordination.

I never said it was a serious challenge, but it did exist. Nexhmije to this day is still an avowed communist and defends her husband's policies.

Obviously I don't consider her a communist as I don't consider her husband one either. I will suffice to say that her positions were obviously shaped by nostalgia rather than real politics. Hoxha's positions would have been shaped by real politics, and he would have done what Alia did.

As opposed to what? An anti-Stalin perspective?

The root of the problem, he traces to Titoism, not to Soviet revisionism. This is quite telling.

Authors on Albanian history would also note that the events in 1956 in Hungary and Poland also prompted Hoxha to indirectly attack Khrushchev, e.g. by attacking calls for "different roads to socialism" in a November 1956 Pravda article.

Irrelevant and speculative. Besides, Hoxha mainly blamed Titoism for the events in Hungary and Poland.

Hoxha's diaries show that, outside of the initial apprehension of Mao saying in 1956 that Stalin made "mistakes" in-re Yugoslavia among other things, he was quite optimistic about China at the time. You forget that in the 1960's the Chinese also tried to reconcile with the Soviets, which Hoxha criticized in his memoirs.

So? Are you saying that they didn't side with the Chinese?

I'm getting pretty bored of this to be honest.

[Ismail]

Wait, you use Hoxha's diaries as somekind of a source?

Well you'd think that his diaries would be more accurate than his public pronouncements, no? Besides that he wrote very long entries in his diaries at times discussing ideological and theoretical issues. In total he wrote 23 volumes worth of published diaries, and more were being published until the year 1990 hit and the government decided to stop printing them.

And now on to Leo.

So you are saying that Stalin was lying when he said he looked into the Albanian situation and Hoxha was unable to explain it to him.

Well unless you believe that the Albanian national liberation war lasted after 1944, then no.

Who, in turn, worked with the Albanian partisans and helped them liberate Tirana. And it would be absolutely amazing if you think that the NKDV wasn't present in these countries, being one of the biggest spy networks in the world at the time.

I never heard of the NKVD being in Albania. You're free to provide a source.

You are joking, aren't you?

No? I mean Trotskyists claim that Lenin adopted Trotsky's views in early 1917 and that he tacitly accepted Permanent Revolution after being in opposition to it (calling it "absurdly left" in 1914) for years. Obviously I don't believe that, but you could also find anarchists who will also say that Lenin changed his views on the state upon assuming state power, etc. That's baseless as well.

Also claiming that "he was never the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations in fact, his position was in a minority in the party for a considerable period" doesn't mean much. Lenin threatened to resign if the Brest-Litovsk treaty wasn't signed, and you had "left-communists" like Bukharin attacking him. He was anxious about the Bolsheviks overthrowing Georgia lest Social-Democrats in the West denounce Soviet Russia. He was active early on in agreeing to economic agreements, e.g. oil deals in Baku with the Germans.

Hoxha did not denounce the GPRC, in fact admitted that they supported it even after his break with Maoism. Hoxha indeed did not adopt the three worlds theory - but not all Maoists do anyway.

They publicly supported it, but if you read his diaries it's very clear that he had criticisms of it from the beginning which grew over time.

Here's an example outside of his diary from Vol. IV of his Selected Works, which is on MIA: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1966/10/01.htm

It's mild, obviously, but it's a list of criticisms from the opening days of the "GPCR."

Hoxha says with his own words that he accepts the Mao Zedung thought, you can deny it all you want.

Yet there's no example of Hoxha actually enacting Maoist policies. If you want I can tell you right now that the closest he did to this was saying "mass line" a few times in the late 60's and early 70's, and they obviously shared the view of the USSR being state-capitalist and social-imperialist.

Here's an example of Hoxha quite obviously attacking the "GPCR" in a 1978 letter: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1978/07/30.htm

Not to forget that Hoxha obviously attacked the "GPCR" in his book Imperialism and the Revolution.

I will suffice to say that her positions were obviously shaped by nostalgia rather than real politics.

Actually even when the subject came up in prison of executing enemies, etc., she still insisted that there was nothing wrong with this. When asked if she was a Marxist she said that "we have always believed [in Marxism]," that she was an atheist, etc. If you want I could get the interview, which was conducted when she was in prison in 1997. It's like saying that Molotov was more interested in nostalgia than "real politics" in his 1970's and 80's conversations with Chuev, ditto with Kaganovich.

Hoxha's positions would have been shaped by real politics, and he would have done what Alia did.

Except not really. It was only a year after Hoxha's death that efforts were made to promote greater pay incentives (note that Albania had the world's most egalitarian wage structures), to abandon the idea of collectivizing individual livestock in farms, etc. It was like the USSR between 1953-1955, Stalin in public was upheld, but in private many of his activities were negated, e.g. his book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was denounced as "left-deviationist."

So? Are you saying that they didn't side with the Chinese?

He did, what's your point? He wasn't a Maoist, he actually protested to the CCP's Central Committee in 1972 when Nixon met Mao, and at the same time Albania used the economic aid given to it (as O'Donnell among others note) to create his goal of a generally self-sufficient Albania. Even in the 1940's he spoke of "relying on our own forces" in-re economics.

[Leo]

Well unless you believe that the Albanian national liberation war lasted after 1944, then no.

So you are saying that Stalin explicitly stopped looking into the Albanian situation after 1944, as if he was trying to be ignorant about it? You are getting more and more absurd.

I never heard of the NKVD being in Albania. You're free to provide a source.

If you think they weren't, you are extremely naive.

Also claiming that "he was never the Commissar of Foreign Affairs, during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations in fact, his position was in a minority in the party for a considerable period" doesn't mean much. Lenin threatened to resign if the Brest-Litovsk treaty wasn't signed, and you had "left-communists" like Bukharin attacking him.

Which was an internal party discussion, not a negotiation between them and the Germans.

He was anxious about the Bolsheviks overthrowing Georgia lest Social-Democrats in the West denounce Soviet Russia.

His positions about Georgia changes - however he wasn't the one making the policies in Georgia.

You are joking, aren't you?

No?

Just read the history of the Comintern for fucks sake.

He was active early on in agreeing to economic agreements, e.g. oil deals in Baku with the Germans.

Was he now? And when exactly would that be?

They publicly supported it, but if you read his diaries it's very clear that he had criticisms of it from the beginning which grew over time.

Here's an example outside of his diary from Vol. IV of his Selected Works, which is on MIA: http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...1966/10/01.htm

It's mild, obviously, but it's a list of criticisms from the opening days of the "GPCR."

So publicly he was a Maoist, while privately he made/prepared mild criticisms. OK.

Yet there's no example of Hoxha actually enacting Maoist policies. If you want I can tell you right now that the closest he did to this was saying "mass line" a few times in the late 60's and early 70's, and they obviously shared the view of the USSR being state-capitalist and social-imperialist.

Meh, I mean what are Maoist policies? I don't think it can be said that there ever was a consistent Maoist policy either - the history of Maoism itself has been written by the results of inner party struggles in the Chinese Communist Party.

Here's an example of Hoxha quite obviously attacking the "GPCR" in a 1978 letter:

Not to forget that Hoxha obviously attacked the "GPCR" in his book Imperialism and the Revolution.

I don't think Hoxha attacking the GPCR in 1978 proves anything,

Actually even when the subject came up in prison of executing enemies, etc., she still insisted that there was nothing wrong with this. When asked if she was a Marxist she said that "we have always believed [in Marxism]," that she was an atheist, etc. If you want I could get the interview, which was conducted when she was in prison in 1997.

I am absolutely not interested in reading such interview. I think the summary you make itself clearly shows that it was all about nostalgia.

It's like saying that Molotov was more interested in nostalgia than "real politics" in his 1970's and 80's conversations with Chuev, ditto with Kaganovich.

No it isn't, both Molotov and Kaganovich were, while relatively obscure and unimportant figures until 1923, had been a part of the core of Stalin's ruling faction for years. The were among Stalin's closest henchmen for thirty years. And when Mr. Mustache died, they were ousted from power. Realistically, of course, they had no chance of coming back to the top, but at least Molotov did, by playing his cards right, managed to get a rehabilitation in the Brezhnev era.

Except not really. It was only a year after Hoxha's death that efforts were made to promote greater pay incentives (note that Albania had the world's most egalitarian wage structures), to abandon the idea of collectivizing individual livestock in farms, etc. It was like the USSR between 1953-1955, Stalin in public was upheld, but in private many of his activities were negated, e.g. his book Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R. was denounced as "left-deviationist."

Which again is not to say he wouldn't have done the same thing.

He did, what's your point? He wasn't a Maoist, he actually protested to the CCP's Central Committee in 1972 when Nixon met Mao

So did many Maoists. He was as much as a Maoist can anyone could be in those days, at least publicly which is what counts.

and at the same time Albania used the economic aid given to it (as O'Donnell among others note) to create his goal of a generally self-sufficient Albania. Even in the 1940's he spoke of "relying on our own forces" in-re economics.

Which is pretty nationalistic but also quite impossible. Self-sufficiency is impossible for countries far larger than Albania. The world market is a whole, no country is self-sufficient.

Again, I'm getting pretty bored of this.

[Ismail]

So you are saying that Stalin explicitly stopped looking into the Albanian situation after 1944, as if he was trying to be ignorant about it? You are getting more and more absurd.

You're the one claiming that Albania had information readily available on it and that the NKVD were roaming the mountains using their magical Stalin powers. One wonders why Stalin would ever even need to ask the Yugoslavs anything about Albania.

Also let's be honest, I'm pretty sure Stalin was flattering Hoxha a bit. I seriously doubt Stalin knew much about what was going on in Albania. I'm sure he received updates from the Yugoslavs, but that doesn't make someone well-informed.

If you think they weren't, you are extremely naive.

Apparently so is every writer on Albanian history. Again, if you can't provide information on NKVD activities in Albania then it's safe to say you're just pulling things out of your behind.

Which was an internal party discussion, not a negotiation between them and the Germans.

Evidently it was an internal party discussion about Brest-Litovsk, about whether it should be ratified or not, etc. I doubt Hoxha just woke up every day and unilaterally decided a course of action for things either.

His positions about Georgia changes - however he wasn't the one making the policies in Georgia.

I fail to see how that changes anything.

Just read the history of the Comintern for fucks sake.

I have. I fail to see how Stalin changed his ideological views to any significant extent. The most you could say is that he toned down or dropped his views on "social-fascism" (which wasn't a view cooked up by him in the first place).

Was he now? And when exactly would that be?

From The Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin:

Germany urgently needed the agricultural and mineral wealth and the railroad system of Georgia, and even more so the oil wells of Azerbaijan, to sustain her war effort. Thinking ahead to the postwar world, German leaders also intended to use Transcaucasia as a spearhead into the markets of the Middle East... Germany, beset by shortages, had counted on replenishing her resources from the captured south and west of Russia, and controlled much of the economy of Georgia during 1918; but in Berlin the resources of Georgia were not regarded as sufficient. [Ismail] Enver's race to Baku... threatened to wreck the armistice arrangement with Russia... The German leaders told the Russian ambassador in Berlin that they would take steps to stop the Ottoman advance if Russia gave assurances that she would supply at least some of Baku's oil to Germany. "Of course, we will agree," Lenin cabled to Stalin in reporting this development.

Meh, I mean what are Maoist policies? I don't think it can be said that there ever was a consistent Maoist policy either - the history of Maoism itself has been written by the results of inner party struggles in the Chinese Communist Party.

Besides the "mass line" (which is an ambiguous and in any case not original concept) there was the "two-line struggle" within the Party, New Democracy, obviously the necessity of a "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," the Three Worlds Theory, and a tendency for Maoists to emphasize the youth and the peasantry at the head of "protracted people's wars."

Again, despite saying "mass line" a few times, Hoxha adhered to none of those.

I don't think Hoxha attacking the GPCR in 1978 proves anything,

The point was that he very obviously did attack the "GPCR."

If you want, the two volumes of Hoxha's Reflections of China are online in English and provide plenty of criticism of the "GPCR" in his diaries:
* http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_...lume_I_eng.pdf
* http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_...ume_II_eng.pdf

Of course as you note he did publicly praise the "GPCR" in a perfunctory way, and even his diaries show that he didn't think it was all that bad at first, but by 1970 his views obviously dampened. The more important point is that the "GPCR" was not implemented in Albania.

Which again is not to say he wouldn't have done the same thing.

That's idle speculation. I'm fairly sure Stalin wouldn't have denounced his own work as "left-deviationist," though.

Again, I'm getting pretty bored of this.

I'm not posting for your personal entertainment.

[Leo]

You're the one claiming that Albania had information readily available on it and that the NKVD were roaming the mountains using their magical Stalin powers.

Yes, cause its all mystical mountains cut off from the rest of the world, Albania, no cities and civilization whatsoever. Right.

One wonders why Stalin would ever even need to ask the Yugoslavs anything about Albania.

Why not? Could he not have wanted to know what the Yugoslavians were thinking and planning?

Also let's be honest, I'm pretty sure Stalin was flattering Hoxha a bit. I seriously doubt Stalin knew much about what was going on in Albania. I'm sure he received updates from the Yugoslavs, but that doesn't make someone well-informed.

I am sure he received updates from multiple sources.

Apparently so is every writer on Albanian history.

Perhaps they simply assumed that an organization which had spies everywhere in Europe didn't happen to miss a Nazi occupied country between Italy and Greece.

Evidently it was an internal party discussion about Brest-Litovsk, about whether it should be ratified or not, etc. I doubt Hoxha just woke up every day and unilaterally decided a course of action for things either.

No, but after he and his lackeys murdered all his rivals in the party, it was basically like him waking up, coming up with a political line and everyone else unanimously approving.

I fail to see how that changes anything.

The point is that he wasn't calling the shots about Georgia.

I have. I fail to see how Stalin changed his ideological views to any significant extent. The most you could say is that he toned down or dropped his views on "social-fascism" (which wasn't a view cooked up by him in the first place).

Again, you gotta be joking.

Germany urgently needed the agricultural and mineral wealth and the railroad system of Georgia, and even more so the oil wells of Azerbaijan, to sustain her war effort. Thinking ahead to the postwar world, German leaders also intended to use Transcaucasia as a spearhead into the markets of the Middle East... Germany, beset by shortages, had counted on replenishing her resources from the captured south and west of Russia, and controlled much of the economy of Georgia during 1918; but in Berlin the resources of Georgia were not regarded as sufficient. [Ismail] Enver's race to Baku... threatened to wreck the armistice arrangement with Russia... The German leaders told the Russian ambassador in Berlin that they would take steps to stop the Ottoman advance if Russia gave assurances that she would supply at least some of Baku's oil to Germany. "Of course, we will agree," Lenin cabled to Stalin in reporting this development.

So?

Besides the "mass line" (which is an ambiguous and in any case not original concept) there was the "two-line struggle" within the Party, New Democracy, obviously the necessity of a "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution," the Three Worlds Theory, and a tendency for Maoists to emphasize the youth and the peasantry at the head of "protracted people's wars."

It was far more complicated that that but I am not gonna go into the faction war in China.

Again, despite saying "mass line" a few times, Hoxha adhered to none of those.

He publicly said he adhered to the Mao Zedung Thought - no matter what you said.

He probably didn't think of the ridiculous position this would put Hoxhaists trying to claim he never was a Maoist years after his death.

The point was that he very obviously did attack the "GPCR."

Yes, after he split with China.

Of course as you note he did publicly praise the "GPCR" in a perfunctory way, and even his diaries show that he didn't think it was all that bad at first, but by 1970 his views obviously dampened. The more important point is that the "GPCR" was not implemented in Albania.

It wasn't the sort of thing which could have been "implemented" anywhere, it was an ideological cover-up for a faction war. There were no factions rival to Hoxha left in the Albanian Party.

That's idle speculation.

No, its a logical conclusion. I would expect a man who spend his whole life calculating and doing what was necessary for his interests to do so in the future had he lived for longer. A politician as sneaky as Hoxha would not have gone down Ceausescu style.

I'm not posting for your personal entertainment.

No? But that breaks my heart.

[Ismail]

Yes, cause its all mystical mountains cut off from the rest of the world, Albania, no cities and civilization whatsoever. Right.

You haven't provided any evidence of the NKVD in Albania. I've never seen it mentioned by anyone that there were NKVD persons in Albania. You honestly might as well be talking as if you were a protégé of Joseph McCarthy, talking about nonexistent communist conspiracies that just have to exist.

Why not? Could he not have wanted to know what the Yugoslavians were thinking and planning?

Sure he could, but the memoirs of Djilas, Dedijer, etc. make clear that he asked them quite a lot of questions about Albania. Some sources about Albania speak about how the Soviets initially distrusted Hoxha and thought that he might have been influenced by the British. Nowhere have I read that the Soviets actually knew what was going on in Albania to any significant extent. You'd think that there would be something like "and then Stalin sent his agents to Tirana" or something, but I've never seen anything like that in the various books I've read concerning Albania. It's generally noted that Hoxha's visit to the USSR in 1947 was the start of Stalin moving away from a distrust of Hoxha to supporting him.

Perhaps they simply assumed that an organization which had spies everywhere in Europe didn't happen to miss a Nazi occupied country between Italy and Greece.

Maybe all the NKVD operatives in Albania suffered from narcolepsy and were unable to report their findings. Maybe they undertook operations so secretive no Soviet or Albanian source has ever commented on them. Maybe there never actually were any NKVD agents in Albania.

The point is that he wasn't calling the shots about Georgia.

He evidently didn't question the wiseness of the action after it was carried out. The only thing that concerned him was making sure Georgians had equal rights within the USSR.

So?

So... why does this action not elicit your disapproval?

He publicly said he adhered to the Mao Zedung Thought - no matter what you said.

Yet there's no evidence of him actually adhering to it in practice. Again you can't name a single Maoist policy of his; doesn't matter what Chinese faction would have thought it appropriately Maoist.

He probably didn't think of the ridiculous position this would put Hoxhaists trying to claim he never was a Maoist years after his death.

He did acknowledge that Albanian sources (including himself) praised "Mao Zedong Thought," so no.

Yes, after he split with China.

No, during the "GPCR." Again, feel free to skim the two volumes of his Reflections on China. In addition I've already noted he brought it up outside of his diaries in meetings of the Central Committee.

There were no factions rival to Hoxha left in the Albanian Party.

Actually that's not correct. As I said 400 or so military men were shot in the 1970's, and there was also a purge of the economic and cultural fields. Important Party members like Beqir Balluku and Abdyl Këllezi were executed. And they were pro-China in orientation.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ok real quick. I am interested in reading this but i have to ask. Is this full of semantics and shit slinging or is there real theoretical and historical discussion. These broken up quotes are really holding me back. If someone could just say whether or not its something worthwhile reading it then please. do so.

and let me offer a song. Though im not a 'titoist' or market socialist myself i find this song to be very mellow and nice.

+ YouTube Video

[Искра]

In my opinion this is a good discussion which becomes little bit boring with Ismal vs. Leo discussion on Hoxhaism and Albania vs. Yugoslavia. It’s worth reading.

[Leo]

Got rather boring in the end

[PolskiLenin]

I've had an entire revelation and change of mind regarding this.

[Искра]

I've had an entire revelation and change of mind regarding this.

Could you explain it better?

[Искра]

I've just read Ernest Mandel's article Yugoslav Economic Theory which is really good criticism of Yugoslav economy or market socialism. I recomend this to everyone.

Also, I posted this (along with Croatian translation) into Yugoslav study group, so you can go there if you want to discuss this article

[PolskiLenin]

I have actually had a "revelation" I guess you could say regarding this. I've spent the last several months studying in depth yugoslavian socialism ("Titoism") and the realistic extent of workers' democracy in the People's Liberation War and in Yugoslavia. If anyone's interested, we should talk about it.

I'm wholly convinced now, as my research has attested to, that REAL, GENUINE socialism was the political, economic nature of Yugoslavia.

Lastly, "Nox", your uncomradely manner of discussion is inappropriate, along with your national chauvinism. Please debate honestly and comradely, leaving out all nationalist prejudice.

[Robespierre Richard]

I have actually had a "revelation" I guess you could say regarding this. I've spent the last several months studying in depth yugoslavian socialism ("Titoism") and the realistic extent of workers' democracy in the People's Liberation War and in Yugoslavia. If anyone's interested, we should talk about it.

I'm wholly convinced now, as my research has attested to, that REAL, GENUINE socialism was the political, economic nature of Yugoslavia.

Go on, I'm very interested.

[Ismail]

As a note, since this discussion I had done more research into Nako Spiru. Turns out he actually played a part in trying to unseat Hoxha at the 1944 Berat plenum of the Communist Party of Albania. He was used as an agent of the Yugoslavs but was later abandoned in favor of the more reliable Koçi Xoxe. Thus part of his reason for committing suicide was because the Yugoslavs had dirt on him which they could easily use.

[Искра]

I'm wholly convinced now, as my research has attested to, that REAL, GENUINE socialism was the political, economic nature of Yugoslavia.

Hm.. what? Could you write more about it?

[Tovarisch]

I always liked Tito after I learned about him. He seemed to be very anti-nationalist and worker-friendly. He did not suppress religion and actually allowed people to travel outside of Europe. Everybody had free health care, and everybody had a chance to learn and work. And most importantly: people were happy. I know many Yugoslavian immigrants who loved Tito's rule. Even people who did hate his rule during his administration are now claiming that they miss him.

[Prometeo liberado]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]
Can't find the USSR either...[/FONT]

Pretty sure you can find both the USSR and Yugoslavia right between Global Capital and Revisionism.