No.2223
I have a sensible grasp of Albanian history so I'll ask a stupidish question.
What was Hoxha's personality like?
Reading books by/about Trotsky you get the impression he was a pretentious fuck, Mao was vulgar and earthy, Krushchev was a moron and so on.
With Hoxha however I’ve never really got the sense of what he was like as a person. Maybe a bit stiff/uptight?
No.2224
>>2223I'll quote the opinion of two anti-communists.
First, an Albanian émigré speaking to the CIA in the 1950s:
>When I think about Enver Hoxha whom I met at the French classical school of Korça, I confess I wonder how that insignificant young professor directs today the destiny of Albania. He was a very simple man. But for the sake of truth I should admit that the insignificant professor who taught in Korça in 1937-1938 appeared to me completely transformed when I met him again in the woods as a partisan. He has personality. He imposed himself upon the masses, he was born a demagogue. He is a good speaker. He knows how to excite better than anybody else the simple partisan, the average communist, the farmer, the shepard, the woman, and the young man.Second, a West German journalist named Harry Hamm who visited Albania not long before the Soviet Union broke off relations with it:
>in a number of ways, Hoxha is remarkably unlike the rulers of other Communist countries. Tall, athletic, upright, and with a springy step, he is an impressive figure. When he appears in the colorful uniform of a General of the Army, he looks the very incarnation of the cool and valorous popular hero who is bound to fascinate the Albanian man in the street. Even in civilian clothes, he is still what is known as a "fine figure" of a man. His face, with its broad, frank smile, is attractive. His eyes are cold and brilliant, their lively glance, like the high forehead, attesting to his intelligence. He is fluent in several languages.Those who met him and had no reason to sympathize with him generally said that he had a charming personality which he could turn on or off depending on the situation, was stubborn in his views, was well-read and sociable. Molotov said to Stalin in 1948 that "I saw Hoxha [at the Paris Peace Conference in 1946]. He is very handsome and leaves a good impression. He is quite cultured, but you sense western influence on his upbringing." The fact that he had no Comintern connections and was educated in the West was something the Yugoslavs tried using against him in the years years 1944-48.
No.2226
Is there any significant support for Hoxha/Marxism in modern Albania?
No.2229
>>2226no. Anti-communist propoganda is very commonplace in contemporary Albania. As a result, most Albanians are actually quite anti-communists.
Most Hoxhaists are not from Albania. Most Hoxhaists actually don't even call themselves "Hoxhaists." Being that Hoxha just saw himself as reiterating Marxism-Leninism within the context of Albania, he discouraged his followers from calling themselves "hoxhaists," The only place you'll see "Hoxhaism" as a tendency is on the internet. Every party IRL that had any form of pro-Hoxha streak just call themselves "Marxist-Leninsts." Many actually get offended at being called Hoxhaists. (But many don't mind being called Stalinists, funny enough)
The people on /leftypol/ who made the "Hoxhaist" memes tend to be Titoists who associate their ideology with Yugoslavia, so naturally they projected their beliefs upon the Hoxhaists, even though most Hoxhaists aren't actually Albanian. You know, because the entieriety of the "titoist" movement are just Yugoslav nostalgics.
(Also, one of the more prominent Hoxhaists on the internet, and is actually the guy that introduced Hoxhaism to /leftypol/ before he stopped posting, is very well read on Albanian history. Also, hello, Ismail.)
Communists (particularly anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninists "Stalinists") tend to like Hoxha because, unlike other communist leaders and regimes within the Eastern Bloc, he stayed true to his ideology and managed domestic and foreing affairs purely dependent upon ideology rather than nationalist realpolitik.
No.2232
>>2222Why did he love Bunkers so much?
No.2234
>>2229Albania has (or at least had) one of the highest birthrates in the world, so many Albanians are quite young and only know of the silly one-sided account of life under the "communist regime" given from 1992 onwards. At one point a history book for students had one entire page dedicated to Albania under Hoxha and a bunch of pages for the Balli Kombëtar (the anti-communist "resistance" forces during WWII who collaborated with the Italian and German occupiers, and who were duly rehabilitated as glorious patriots after 1992.)
>>2232Originally the Albanian army and defense doctrines were structured more or less like those in other Eastern European states, following the Soviet model. After 1966 this was changed because of concerns that such a model was inadequate both politically and in terms of Albania's defense needs.
Military ranks were abolished and the emphasis was placed on an armed populace resisting external invasion. Training in weapons became mandatory for pretty much the whole population and many people had rifles in their homes. The mountainous terrain Albania has is ideal for partisan warfare and the bunkers had the purpose of slowing down an enemy's advance into the country, allowing for the organization of resistance in said mountain areas.
The bunker campaign (which was coupled with various other defensive measures) was seen as necessary because of the security threats Albania feared from the USSR (which invaded Czechoslovakia and, in the view of Albania, Romania and Yugoslavia, was partially using this as a "testing ground" for invading other nearby countries) and Greece (which claimed southern Albania as Greek territory until the early 1970s and still proclaimed itself as being in a "state of war" with Albania until 1987.)
No.2235
In what ways did the status of women improve under Hoxha and how (if at all) did he challenge the structure of the family unit?
No.2237
>>2235Women's rights in Albania were practically nonexistent before the war. The "Kanun" and other tribal codes reduced women to an incredibly backwards level in which their husbands could beat them and divorce them for such "dishonorable" acts as drinking wine without their knowledge. To quote a British SOE officer during the war, "Women among the clans were but the slaves and chattels of their men. In the mountains they went unveiled but almost all were prematurely aged by manual labour and child-bearing. Sometimes we saw one hurrying across a courtyard or peering at us from the kitchen fire; otherwise they had no part in our lives." (Julian Amery, Sons of the Eagle, 1948, p. 111.)
I'll quote myself from something I wrote back in December:
> There's a 1992 article titled "Women's Emancipation and Strategy of Development in Albania" (which is on JSTOR.) Besides the stuff on the combating of misogynistic concepts and whatnot, I'll summarize some of the statistics:>By the end of the National Liberation War there were about 6000 women in the National Liberation Army (which had a membership of some 70,000.)>12% of Party members were women in 1967, a figure which rose to 30% by the early 80s. During the latter decade two government ministers (of agriculture and of education) were women, while women comprised 30% of deputies to the People's Assembly, 30% of members of the Supreme Court, and 40% of members of the People's Councils (local government bodies.)>From less than 10% of all industrial workers in 1948 (compared to 4% ten years earlier according to another source), Albanian women constituted 42% of this workforce by 1983.>In 1984 48% of students in primary schools were females, while students in universities were 45% females.There were active efforts to remove the idea that women should be regarded as the sole caretakers of children. To give an example, here's an excerpt from a 1975 Albanian work:
>Third, the Khrushchevite revisionists say that the main task of woman is to rear children and take care of herself since she is a delicate creature, a symbol of beauty destined to be an 'ornament' for man or a means to fulfil his desires. In connection with such a treatment of the problem of woman, the candidate of the philosophical sciences, I.M. Kitchemova, wrote [in 1968]: 'The present woman is not only a worker, or a social activist. She is a housekeeper, a mother and a woman as well. The husband, it should be said among others, does not remain indifferent towards the mood of his wife returning from work; does he find her delighting, fresh, nice, quiet or ill-humoured and tired? This is the origin of the opinion often expressed by men, that it is better for the family if women would work only a little or not at all.' As may be seen, we have to do here with those bourgeois concepts which treat women as a means to give birth to and assure the continuity of the species on one hand, and as a 'creature of luxury' for the use of men, on the other.>Fourth, the Khrushchevite revisionists link the question of the exemption of women from production work with the fact that the Soviet economy no longer stands in need of women's productive forces. In connection with this, the 'Nedelya' magazine, reporting the comments of a participant in an interview organized by its editorial board, emphasized: 'As may be seen, during the first decade, our country demanded that participation of women in production. Today, however, this necessity does not exist.' Treating the problem of women in this way is anti-Marxist. This is an anti-scientific stand viewing the problem of woman from the narrow positions of economism, of the family needs to ensure incomes for subsistence. Thus, the Khrushchevite revisionists view the participation of women in production merely from the angle of economic interest, they vulgarize it and do not see in it the social significance of the complete emancipation of women and of the establishment of social equality between man and woman...>Contrary to the Khrushchevite revisionist views, Marxism-Leninism teaches us that, after the overthrowing of the exploiting order of things and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the decisive factor for women's emancipation for her growing role in society and for the establishment of actual equality between men and women, is the labor factor, the broad participation of the masses of women in social production and in political and social activity. No.2238
How did Hoxha critique Mao’s theories of “Protracted People’s Wars”, “The Mass Line” and “The Two-line struggle”?
No.2240
>>2238Hoxha did not go into detail about the erroneous nature of "protracted people's war," but in his work "Imperialism and the Revolution" he did say that,
>In accord with the concrete conditions of a country and the situations in general, the armed uprising may be a sudden outburst or a more protracted revolutionary process, but not an endless one without perspective, as advocated by Mao Zedong's "theory of protracted people's war". If you compare the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin on the revolutionary armed insurrection with Mao's theory on "people's war", the anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist, anti scientific character of this theory becomes clearly apparent. The Marxist-Leninist teachings on the armed insurrection are based on the close combination of the struggle in the city with that in the countryside under the leadership of the working class and its revolutionary party. Being opposed to the leading role of the proletariat in the revolution, the Maoist theory considers the countryside as the only base of the armed insurrection and neglects the armed struggle of the working masses in the town. It preaches that the countryside must keep the city, which is considered as the stronghold of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, besieged. This is an expression of distrust in the working class, the negation of its hegemonic role.As for the mass line, Mao noted in 1956 that he took the concept from Lenin (although he obviously presented himself as having "enriched" it with his own "thoughts"), and Hoxha noted in his political diary that Mao had "ideas of a leader who exercised personal power; who preached modesty but who was not modest; who preached the line of the masses, but did not apply this line in practice; who preached Marxism-Leninism but did not apply it..." (Reflections on China Vol. II, 1979, p. 632.) One example of the Maoist conception of the mass line was that of the Red Guards, who on Mao's individual orders attacked the CPC and essentially took matters into their own hands before turning on each other. This was not a case of relying on the masses and learning from them but in fact was, as Hoxha noted, a putsch on an all-China scale in which Mao intervened with the army once the Red Guards had served their purposes.
The "two-line struggle" was an example of Mao's idealist conception of class struggle in which the relationship between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie could supposedly become non-antagonistic and the vanguard could represent different classes within it, a conception completely at odds with anything found in the writings of Lenin and Stalin and the practice of the CPSU. It was part and parcel of Mao's right-wing policies and his ability to justify unjustly rehabilitating renegades like Deng whenever he felt the need to balance out the various factions in Chinese society, which he promoted as a way of preserving "unity" and weakening the role of the CPC. Hoxha said that,
>The class struggle in the ranks of the party, as a reflection of the class struggle going on outside the party, has nothing in common with Mao Zedong's concepts on the "two lines in the party". The party is not an arena of classes and the struggle between antagonistic classes, it is not a gathering of people with contradictory aims. The genuine Marxist-Leninist party is the party of the working class only and bases itself on the interests of this class. This is the decisive factor for the triumph of the revolution and the construction of socialism.For Hoxha's critique of "Mao Zedong Thought" in particular see Part Two, Chapter III of his best-known work:
http://enver-hoxha.net/content/content_english/books/books-imperialism_and_revolution.htm No.2261
>>2222How and why did Hoxha become so infatuated with Stalin?
No.2265
As you probably know there were many foreigners who admired Stalin, both communists and non-communists. I'd imagine that, being a communist and coming from Europe's most backward country, it was pretty easy to admire him for presiding over the rapid modernization of Soviet society and the construction of socialism. This admiration probably grew even more as a result of the attacks on Stalin launched by Tito, Khrushchev, Mao, Togliatti, and various others who demonstrated through their own revisionist courses the correct assessments made by Stalin and the consistent Marxist-Leninist nature of his work.
According to the Soviet ambassador to Albania, Hoxha "cried like a baby" when he was informed about Stalin's death.
No.2271
What'd he think of Gramsci?
No.2273
>>2271As he noted in one of his memoirs on the Italian soldiers in Albania after the capitulation of Fascist Italy, "Some of the surrendered Italians expressed their desire to fight and did so. We incorporated them in several units of the National Liberation Army; some of them we incorporated in the 1st Shock Brigade, in a battalion which we gave the name of the founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci." (Laying the Foundations of the New Albania, 1984, p. 365.)
Gramsci was upheld as a defender of the Marxist-Leninist line of the early PCI and as an anti-fascist martyr. The Eurocommunists tried using some of his prison writings to justify their reformist and right-wing policies and theories, but overall those writings contributed to Marxism.
No.2278
>>2274
As a result of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the revisionist countries of Eastern Europe, Western consumerist and cultural trends were avidly promoted. Many Eastern European music groups just blatantly copied from whatever was trendy in the West without any regard whatsoever to class content. Negative phenomena (drug addiction, the apolitical petty-bourgeois politics of the hippie movement, etc.) were the result.
As Hoxha noted when the Soviet social-imperialists invaded Czechoslovakia, "Of what fight against bourgeois ideology can the Soviet revisionists speak while revisionism is nothing else but a manifestation of the bourgeois ideology in theory and practice, while egoism and individualism, the running after money and other material benefits are thriving in the Soviet Union, while careerseeking and bureaucratism, technocratism, economism and intellectualism are developing, while villas, motor-cars and beautiful women have become the supreme ideal of men, while literature and art attack socialism, everything revolutionary, and advocate pacifism and bourgeois humanism, the empty and dissolute living of people thinking only of themselves, while hundreds of thousands of western tourists that visit the Soviet Union every year, spread the bourgeois ideology and way of life there, while western films cover the screens of the Soviet cinema halls, while the American orchestras and jazz bands and those of the other capitalist countries have become the favorite orchestras of the youth, and while parades of western fashions are in vogue in the Soviet Union? If until yesterday the various manifestations of bourgeois ideology could be called remnants of the past, today bourgeois ideology has become a component part of the capitalist superstructure which rests on the state capitalist foundation which has now been established in the Soviet Union." (The Party of Labor of Albania in Battle with Modern Revisionism, 1972, pp. 508-509.)
No.2287
>>2285This contains summaries of most of the Party of Labour of Albania's analyses of the USSR:
https://archive.org/details/SovietRevisionismAndTheStruggleOfThePLAToUnmaskItSocialism was defined the same way the Soviets before the advent of revisionism defined it. See for example:
http://ml-review.ca/aml/CLASSES/Course8-CL.htm No.2297
>>2287>>2278it appears when the mod deleted my sages of the MRN thread, my posts here were deleted in the crossfire.
>>2274 was about Albania under Hoxha banning bellbottoms
>>2285 was about Hoxha's understanding of the USSR and state-capitalism
No.2303
What was Hoxha's position towards Lysenkoism and Darwinianism?
No.2304
>>2303I've never heard of Lysenko's methods being applied in Albania. I know they were applied in China and some other countries though.
Attitude towards Darwin was positive, the same as in other states. Lysenko never claimed he opposed Darwin, but that he was defending Darwin's work while noting its supposed "limitations" which he claimed to have discovered and corrected. In practice, of course, Lysenko's doctrines harmed Soviet biological, agronomic and other research. Lysenko himself later admitted he never actually read Darwin, only interpretations of his writings by others.
No.2305
>>2297I would like to apologise for this. I deleted all posts via your IP as I thought you were just a raiding spammer. I apolgise sincerely.
No.2306
Did Hoxha consider socialism to be its own mode of production?
No.2307
>>2306Yes, this was also the position taken in the USSR under Stalin.
No.2309
>>2307Slight derailment but how does the idea that socialism is "its own mode of production" differ from Brezhnev's idea that there was "actually existing socialism" or that socialism represented its own epoch?
No.2311
>>2309The Soviet revisionists claimed that various new economic laws corresponding to what they called "developed socialism" existed.
As Stalin noted: "One of the distinguishing features of political economy is that its laws, unlike those of natural science, are impermanent, that they, or at least the majority of them, operate for a definite historical period, after which they give place to new laws. However, these laws are not abolished, but lose their validity owing to the new economic conditions and depart from the scene in order to give place to new laws, laws which are not created by the will of man, but which arise from the new economic conditions... Engels' formula does not speak at all in favour of those who think that under socialism existing economic laws can be abolished and new ones created. On the contrary, it demands, not the abolition, but the understanding of economic laws and their intelligent application."
The socialist mode of production reflects the new social relations in society, in which the elimination of exploitation of man by man has been done away with and in which the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in effect. Yet the law of value and the like continue to operate, they aren't "transformed" (which the Soviet revisionists claimed they were.)
No.2373
Any other questions?
(Just keeping this board alive)
No.2384
File: 1428802982789.png (1.26 MB, 1000x729, 1000:729, tumblr_nehmctoaqT1tbebaro1….png)
What'd Hoxha think of Molotov? Did he ever contact him after 1956?
No.2385
>>2384He never was in a position to meet him after 1957.
Hoxha viewed Molotov as a sincere communist and that he expected him to emerge as Stalin's successor after the latter's death. He did, however, lightly criticize him, Kaganovich and others for combating Khrushchev through bureaucratic methods, i.e. trying to oppose him through the leading organs of the CPSU which was evidently futile, both because the revisionists were in control over much of them and because all Khrushchev had to do was to have Zhukov threaten a military coup to get the so-called "Anti-Party Group" to back down.
No.2396
>>2385How should they've combated the revisionists?
No.2398
>>2396Through revolutionary methods and direct appeal to the Soviet people.
Of course Molotov, Kaganovich and so on couldn't be expected to do this, because they were confronted with a then-unique phenomenon (the restoration of capitalism from within by "peaceful" means) coupled with being part of a party and government which had become bureaucratized since the end of WWII.
No.2404
Ever comment on Bordiga?
No.2405
>>2404No. Whatever you think of his views, he was not politically notable after the 20s; even the works of Lenin and Stalin scarcely mention him.
Hoxha had plenty of (negative, of course) words for Togliatti, Berlinguer and other PCI leaders who criticized Soviet revisionism from the right by claiming the "struggle against Stalinism" wasn't going far enough.
No.2407
>>2222Yeah, I have some questions.
Why were religions forbidden?
Why did workers had to do shit like pick related?
Why all those bunkers?
Why all that isolation?
No.2408
File: 1429301144708.jpg (28.78 KB, 278x300, 139:150, Enver Hoxha the flag of wa….jpg)
>>2407>Why were religions forbidden?The struggle against religion did go further in Albania than elsewhere, but as Hoxha noted: "we have not compelled, nor do we compel, anyone by administrative measures to renounce his religious views. Religion is a question of personal conscience." It is true that all religious establishments were closed (or otherwise turned into museums or public buildings for sport and the like.) A significant reason is because of the anti-national role religion played in Albanian history: there was no "national church" (as there was in Serbia, Poland, etc.), those who were Muslims were told to identify as Turks, the Orthodox to identify as Greeks, and the Catholics to look towards the Vatican. Many religious authorities willingly collaborated with the Italian and German occupiers. Furthermore Albanians as a people were known for not being all that religious, so the struggle against religion could proceed more easily than elsewhere.
>Why did workers had to do shit like pick related?As Stalin noted, many local bureaucrats wanted to "impress" their superiors by having busts of Stalin made. Obviously a mountain with "Enver" carved on it goes further than that, but the same phenomenon is presumably at work. That being said, there was a campaign increase arable land in the hills and mountains of the country (with a slogan coined by Hoxha to go along with it.) That should provide context for why it was decided to praise him in that manner, as a sign of the success of the campaign.
>Why all those bunkers?See:
>>2234
>Why all that isolation?Albania was not isolated. The writings of foreign authors, as well as Yugoslav and Italian broadcasts, were available to all those in reach of a bookstore or a television. Foreign delegations from other countries, external trade and news of what was going on outside Albania were commonplace.
No.2448
Once again trying to keep this board afloat.
Any other questions?
No.2449
What was Hoxha's stance upon Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968?
No.2450
>>2449
http://marx2mao.com/Other/WCRC68.html
Basically, the Soviet revisionists, in collaboration with Tito, sought to remove "Stalinists" in Eastern Europe (Rákosi, Révai, Chervenkov, Hoxha, etc.) which likewise involved bringing to the fore those justly condemned in prior years like Nagy and Kádár in Hungary and Gomułka and Spychalski in Poland.
In Hungary a counter-revolution was unleashed thanks to the destabilizing actions of the Soviet revisionists, Titoites, and their local supporters in Hungary who, armed with the 20th Party Congress, denigrated the Marxist-Leninist line of the Hungarian party. Imre Nagy's rise was praised by the Soviet and Titoite revisionists, who praised his struggle against "dogmatism" and "violations of socialist legality." When open counter-revolution occurred, and when Nagy himself was clearly going "too far" for the liking of the revisionists (i.e. openly linking up with Western imperialism and throwing off any "socialist" mask of significance, rather than restoring capitalism in collaboration with the Soviet revisionists and their "Marxist-Leninist" guise) Khrushchev chose one of Nagy's associates, Kádár, to "save" the situation. Thus, as Hoxha noted, the Hungarian counter-revolution was crushed by those who were themselves counter-revolutionaries. A step up from those forces actually carrying out pogroms and calling for a return to feudal privileges in the streets, but still a loss for the cause of socialism in Hungary.
As for Czechoslovakia, there was no counter-revolution at that time. Capitalist restoration had already been underway under the leadership of Novotný. The Soviet revisionists had no initial problems with Dubček. Like Nagy, however, he soon went "too far." He was courted by the arch-opportunists Tito and Ceaușescu who saw in him an ally, he rapidly built up links with the West, called for a "new approach" towards Israel, and was effectively throwing overboard any real pretenses towards socialism, the leading role of the party, etc.
Unlike in Hungary in 1956, however, there was no revolt; there was no justification for intervention by the signatories of the Warsaw Treaty. The invasion was entirely based on the social-imperialist interests of the Soviet revisionists, and for that reason it was condemned and Albania withdrew from the Warsaw Treaty in response.
No.2452
>>2448
>Once again trying to keep this board afloat.
A Stalin thread might get more traffic.
No.2544
Did Hoxha provide any significant contribution to marxist-leninist theory?
No.2549
>>2544
Not in the same sense as Marx, Engels, Lenin or Stalin. That's why there was no effort made in Albania to portray Hoxha's writings some sort of "higher stage" of Marxism-Leninism à la Mao Zedong Thought. Hoxha's significance was in struggling against modern revisionism.
Albanian materials did say that its experiences in building socialism could be useful for other countries to learn from, but beyond that it claimed no special merits for itself.
No.2700
>>2693
What was Hoxha's view of people like Salvador Allende who were elected as socialists? How did he view working through the system in general as opposed to revolution?
No.2709
File: 1437384312043.jpg (17.34 KB, 443x411, 443:411, 1006193_10151478826758531_….jpg)
>>2700
See: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/hoxhachile.htm
> History has proved, and the events in Chile, where it was not yet a question of socialism but of a democratic regime, again made clear, that the establishment of socialism through the parliamentary road is utterly impossible. In the first place, it must be said that up till now it has never happened that the bourgeoisie has allowed the communists to win a majority in parliament and form their own government. Even in the occasional instance where the communists and their allies have managed to ensure a balance in their favour in parliament and enter the government; this has not led to any change in the bourgeois character of the parliament or the government, and their action has never gone so far as to smash the old state machine and establish a new one.
> In the conditions when the bourgeoisie controls the bureaucratic-administrative apparatus, securing a “parliamentary majority” that would change the destiny of the country is not only impossible but also unreliable. The main parts of the bourgeois state machine are the political and economic power and the armed forces. As long as these forces remain intact, i.e., as long as they have not been dissolved and new forces created in their stead, as long as the old apparatus of the police, the secret intelligence services, etc.; is retained, there is no guarantee that a parliament or a democratic government will be able to last long; Not only the case of Chile, but many others have proved that the counter-revolutionary coups d’état have been carried out precisely by the armed forces commanded by the bourgeoisie.
> The Khrushchevite revisionists have deliberately created great confusion concerning Lenin’s very clear and precise theses on the participation of communists in the bourgeois parliament and on the seizure of state power from the bourgeoisie. It is known that Lenin did not deny the participation of the communists in the bourgeois parliament at certain moments. But he considered this participation only as at tribune to defend the interests of the working class, to expose the bourgeoisie and its state power, to force the bourgeoisie to take some measure in favour of the working people. At the same time, however, Lenin warned that, while fighting to make use of parliament in the interests of the working class, one should guard against the creation of parliamentary illusions, the fraud of bourgeois parliamentarianism.
Post last edited at
No.2761
>>2693
Did Enver ever trash on stuff like Lukcas and '68?
No.2762
>>2761
He did condemn Lukács, Marcuse, Althusser and others whose writings were popular with the ultra-left students.
As for protests in 1968, as noted in his book "Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism":
>In 1968 the students in Paris clashed with "the forces of law and order" The Trotskyites, Sartre, the theoretician of existentialism, Sirnone de Beauvoir, Cohn-Bendit and others seized on to these clashes to give them an anarchist colour.
>And in fact they took place in great disorder. The French Communist Party did not participate. Why did it not participate? Was it that in principle it was opposed to anarchism? I think this is not the reason. The reason is that it did not want to unite with the student youth, which was attacking the De Gaulle government. In fact, it was this movement which forced De Gaulle to hold the referendum, and when he did not win in the way he wanted, he retired to Colombay-Les-Deux-Eglises, where he died.
>The French Communist Party stopped the working class from going into action and taking over the leadership of the uprising. The party had the strength to ensure that the flames were spread throughout France, and if not to seize power, at least to shake the power of "princes", or the power of "barons", as they called it at that time. It did not do this, because it was for that road and for those methods which the petty-bourgeois revisionist Georges Marchais advocates.
No.2767
>>2762
While the PCF were foul, I do credit them for introducing Pif Gadget.
No.2818
Serious question: Hoxha's flowery writing (e.g. the way he speaks of Stalin); was that an Albanian thing or just a Hoxha thing?
No.2819
File: 1439691369028.jpg (28.78 KB, 278x300, 139:150, Enver Hoxha the flag of wa….jpg)
>>2818
Hoxha's style of writing wasn't very different from that used in Eastern Europe in general. For example, a speech by Malenkov from 1949: https://www.marxists.org/archive/malenkov/1949/12/21.htm
Hoxha was well-educated for a Eastern European leader and as a result his language is more "flowery" than most, but otherwise in his tributes to Stalin I don't see anything substantially different from what other leaders would write.
No.2896
Anyone else have questions?
No.2948
Did hoxha ever say/write anything about mao?
No.2949
File: 1444604981874.jpg (279.77 KB, 726x1024, 363:512, Hoxha Partij van de Arbeid….JPG)
>>2948
I don't know if the question is serious, since pro-Albanian parties formed in the course of polemics against Maoism, but yes he did, quite a bit in fact. I wrote an article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Albanian_split
No.2953
>>2949
On the subject of pro-Albanian Parties:
How did Hoxha act towards the pro-Albanian parties that emerged. I've been reading a book call Revolution in the Air by Max Elbaum, which deals with the New Communist Movement and how the parties acted to curry favour by supporting different factions in the Deng vs. Gang dispute. If I remember correctly, they also received some level of support from Beijing. In General, what was the relationship of the PPSH to the Hoxhaist parties compared with the relationship of the CCP to the Maoist parties.
Also; do you have any info about a Pro-Albanian Bookstore that existed in Toronto up until the end of Socialist Albania?
No.2954
>>2953
There were various parties which were officially recognized by the Party of Labour of Albania, the most notable probably being the CPC-ML in Canada, PCdoB in Brazil, and KPD/ML in West Germany. The 8th Congress of the PLA in 1981 had delegations from over 20 parties.
Their activities were covered in the Albanian press, occasional articles in their journals and newspapers were reprinted in said press, they attended important Albanian congresses and conferences, etc.
As for the comparison between how China treated fraternal parties and how Albania treated them, Geng Biao said to the Albanians in 1973 that: "China does not approve the creation of Marxist-Leninist parties and does not want the representatives of these parties to come to China. Their coming is a nuisance to us but we can do nothing about them, for we cannot send them away. We accept them just as we accept the representatives of bourgeois parties."
I have talked to someone who was a member of the KPD/ML. He says that the Albanians provided the party with Albanian materials, but did not send them money and encouraged them to be self-sufficient in both ideological and financial matters rather than rely on direction and subsidies from abroad.
>Also; do you have any info about a Pro-Albanian Bookstore that existed in Toronto up until the end of Socialist Albania?
Yes, that was connected to the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), it was originally called the Norman Bethune Institute and later renamed to the Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin Institute.
No.2955
File: 1445078640880.jpg (45.95 KB, 381x580, 381:580, Norman-Bethune-Monument-38….jpg)
>>2954
Oddly enough, Maison Norman Bethune is now the name of the RCP-PCR bookstore in Montreal, and they still have mass quantities of Peking editions of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.
What do you think about the CPC-ML participating in the Canadian election with 70 candidates? I think I might have read the term "Nation Wrecking" a few times in what I read but boes "Democratic Renewal" have any prevenance in Hoxhaism?
No.2957
File: 1445079562244.jpg (218.63 KB, 700x489, 700:489, Hoxha at 25th Anniversary ….jpg)
>>2955
The CPC-ML doesn't identify with Hoxha's writings anymore. Since the mid-90s it has been close to Cuba and (without actually endorsing Juche) the DPRK.
Hoxha wrote about what measures Marxist-Leninists in Western countries should take and what errors to avoid in regard to gaining a mass following: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/english/eurocommunism/IV.pdf
No.3169
What do you have to say about the execution of Liri Gega, a member of the party since it's early days and furthermore, pregnant. Do you support such brutality, or would you have done the same as Hoxha?
Additionally there was some awfully brutal treatment of political enemies in Albania. I am all for revolutionary terror but some of the things I've heard about Hoxha's actions against enemies absolutely sickens me. With Stalin, there often seems to be a rationalization, gulag conditions made sense and there was simply no other option.
I do not normally like to moralize, but the murder of pregnant women cannot be necessary for socialism.
I can support Robespierre, he attempted to limit brutality and curb the terror so that only the powerul, those capable of being guilty, would be in it's scope. Many of the jacobin's themselves were killed in the terror.
If Hoxha's reasons for purging the party were similar, I still do not think I can support it. As far as I know, Robespierre was not directly responsible for the unecessary execution of pregnant women.
No.3170
File: 1456381287367.jpg (579.7 KB, 1204x869, 1204:869, Shoku Enver Hoxha Vizite n….JPG)
>>3169
According to Hoxha, "Khrushchev told us that we had not done well in executing Dali Ndreu and Liri Gega [Ndreu's wife], who was pregnant. 'Even the Tsar did not do such a thing,' he said. We answered calmly that we did not execute people for nothing and that we shot only those who betrayed the Homeland and the people, and after it had been proved that they had committed hostile deeds and the cup had been filled. These people had been denounced by the Party for years before, they were traitors and agents of the Yugoslav revisionists; but it was only when they attempted to flee the country that our security organs caught them, and the people's court, on the basis of the facts, sent them to the punishment they deserved. As to the claim that Liri Gega was pregnant, this is a slanderous lie." (Selected Works Vol. III, p. 33.)
To this day there is no evidence that she was pregnant except Khrushchev's word.
Post last edited at