Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Enver Hoxha

POST REPLY

Was Enver Hoxha positive or negative for Albania?

Very Positive
12
21%
Positive
13
22%
Neutral
6
10%
Negative
12
21%
Very Negative
12
21%
Other
3
5%
 
Total votes : 58
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 19 Feb 2014, 22:47
My view on him is pretty mixed. On the one hand, he was probably more progressive than what Albania had before, and Albania's standard of living did raise under him though his personal involvement with that is very open to debate. I also consider some of his critiques of other leaders valid. For example, he predicted the failure of Mao's Cultural Revolution spreading to underdeveloped rural areas with peasants rather than a proletariat, because of Mao's dogmatic belief that it should be as freely-flowing and worker-managed as possible. It ended up turning on skilled workers and the petit-bourgeois just as much as the Chinese equivalent of kulaks.

On the other hand, his severe isolationism was harmful to Albania internationally, he was spitefully sectarian and that harmed the international communist movement, and some of his social policies were needlessly repressive. I get the association with Islam, but banning beards? Really? He also just didn't have a far-reaching impact. With someone like Mao or Tito, their legacy is widely debated today. Few outside of the Balkans even know Hoxha's name. He was more a very rigid bureaucrat than anything, and this shows in some of his policies, like his own Cultural Revolution having the opposite problem of doing almost nothing because it was so centrally managed.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 Feb 2014, 01:33
MissStrangelove wrote:
like his own Cultural Revolution having the opposite problem of doing almost nothing because it was so centrally managed.
This is incorrect. I wrote elsewhere what it accomplished.

Also the pro-Albanian tendency within the international communist movement was more influential than Titoism. Tito's "self-management" rhetoric influenced bourgeois nationalists like Ben Bella and Gaddafi, not actual communist parties. The pro-Albanian communist parties in Mali and Benin played significant roles in opposing revisionist-backed regimes. The pro-Albanian parties in Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Suriname and elsewhere were also notable. The West German KPD/ML was able to create a clandestine branch in the GDR. Canada's CPC-ML was in a number of ways more influential than the revisionist-backed CPC in the 70s-80s.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5167
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 20 Feb 2014, 02:35
All non-stalinists weren't influential in the international movement, because the international movement was purged into being a method of projecting soviet influence and securing their interests. Who cares about the prestige and influence of that movement's tailored offspring, within itself?

The pro-Albanian tendency was nothing more than a leech trying to claim what was built and direct it. Of course you had influence, not only were you part of the tradition but were for a Restoration. Accordingly as that movement died with the USSR, you lost all political relevance. Tito is different.

Tito actually has a legacy to communists outside of being the perfect anti-revisionist, and was never involved in that beyond irrelevant struggle (left communists and trots were more a far more influential voice than Hoxhaists ever were). Unsurprisingly he is a favorite of a lot of 21st century socialists.

As someone who has a lot of dislike for both hardline ML bureaucrats and pseudo bourgeois nationalist 'socialists', Tito is far more influential because his debate actually matters. No to be insulting, but nobody gives a frag about Hoxhaite 'anti-revisionism' as to many it's a divide between two seemingly similar extremes of the Marxist left.

Market socialism & 'self-management' is far, far more divisive among reds and an older struggle, more 'popular' (so western propaganda hits a cultural wall), and more ideologically important than something that's essentially a feud between rival stalinist bureaucrats. The ones who declare each other the manifestation of some counter-revolution and the reason why a country can just flip modes of production overnight.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 20 Feb 2014, 03:29
Conscript wrote:
All non-stalinists weren't influential in the international movement, because the international movement was purged into being a method of projecting soviet influence and securing their interests. Who cares about the prestige and influence of that movement's tailored offspring, within itself?

The pro-Albanian tendency was nothing more than a leech trying to claim what was built and direct it. Of course you had influence, not only were you part of the tradition but were for a Restoration. Accordingly as that movement died with the USSR, you lost all political relevance. Tito is different.

Tito actually has a legacy to communists outside of being the perfect anti-revisionist, and was never involved in that beyond irrelevant struggle (left communists and trots were more a far more influential voice than Hoxhaists ever were). Unsurprisingly he is a favorite of a lot of 21st century socialists.

As someone who has a lot of dislike for both hardline ML bureaucrats and pseudo bourgeois nationalist 'socialists', Tito is far more influential because his debate actually matters. No to be insulting, but nobody gives a frag about Hoxhaite 'anti-revisionism' as to many it's a divide between two seemingly similar extremes of the Marxist left.

Market socialism & 'self-management' is far, far more divisive among reds and an older struggle, more 'popular' (so western propaganda hits a cultural wall), and more ideologically important than something that's essentially a feud between rival stalinist bureaucrats. The ones who declare each other the manifestation of some counter-revolution and the reason why a country can just flip modes of production overnight.


Image


Not told [ ]
Told [ ]
Knights of the Told Republic [x]
Cash4Told.com [x]
The Told Man and the Sea [x]
No Country for Told Men [x]
For Whom the Bell Told [x]

But now for some actual content: aside from agreeing with everything Conscript wrote, I disagree about left communists. I don't think these have had a significant voice for a while, anywhere (correct me if I'm wrong as I am unfamiliar. I come from a disillusioned trot background). Some trots popped up as mass movements in Sri Lanka and Bolivia but that was about it (still far more than the Hoxhaists though). Also: for all his lack of foreign funding and ideological 'purity' Hoxha's regime fell 5 years after his death, his Party just turned into a soc-dem group of burghers and thieves who refuse to open Sigurimi files lest their roles in the regime lose them money.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 Feb 2014, 05:09
Conscript wrote:
Market socialism & 'self-management' is far, far more divisive among reds and an older struggle, more 'popular' (so western propaganda hits a cultural wall), and more ideologically important than something that's essentially a feud between rival stalinist bureaucrats.
Reformism is still more divisive and "popular" as well, what's your point?

And your remark that the debate over "market socialism" is "more ideologically important" makes no sense considering that virtually all the revisionists advocated the implementation of greater market mechanisms. The Chinese revisionists under Deng were influenced in part by the economic system of Yugoslavia.

Your entire post is useless, I can't understand what you're trying to say without getting a really bad impression of your intelligence as a result.

Also left-coms have never been influential anywhere after the 20s, with the exception of Paris in 1968.

somewhat wrote:
Some trots popped up as mass movements in Sri Lanka and Bolivia but that was about it (still far more than the Hoxhaists though).
The pro-Albanian parties in Ecuador and Brazil are/were pretty big. In fact pro-Albanian parties were easily larger than Maoist parties in Central and South America in the 80s with the exception of Peru.

Quote:
Also: for all his lack of foreign funding and ideological 'purity' Hoxha's regime fell 5 years after his death, his Party just turned into a soc-dem group of burghers and thieves who refuse to open Sigurimi files lest their roles in the regime lose them money.
I don't see why you keep on bringing this up. China, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK and Cuba still claim to fly the red flag, does that mean they are somehow "better communists" than Hoxha, or does it mean (as it in fact does mean) that the conditions which caused the defeat of socialism in Albania were different from those that allowed the revisionist regimes in those countries I just listed to survive?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5167
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 20 Feb 2014, 06:37
Ismail wrote:

And your remark that the debate over "market socialism" is "more ideologically important" makes no sense considering that virtually all the revisionists advocated the implementation of greater market mechanisms.


The difference is Soviet revisionists merely have to cite the precedents already set by the Leninists and the CPSU (part of the reason this debate isn't very important, it's too particular to a time and place), and to assume power in what state anyway? Market socialists and the like are a plague on Marxists everywhere and have been since the 19th century. They endure because they actually revise Marxism, make it non-revolutionary. Your revisionists are another breed. They are particular to Leninism and the ML states of the 20th century.

Surely you've met more liberal 'socialists' than revisionists? I think, as socialism becomes more popular in the 21st century, the old debate over reformism/markets and the split between social democrats and Marxists will take precedence. 'Revisionism' in the Stalinist sense is just an anachronism. Without the states in question it has no ideological importance (which really says a lot about MLism).

Quote:
Also left-coms have never been influential anywhere after the 20s, with the exception of Paris in 1968.


There also was no international revolution after the 20s and from then on all communist 'gains' were made in the peasant-dominated backwards countries, under exclusive guidance of ML parties.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 20 Feb 2014, 18:38
Ismail wrote:
This is incorrect. I wrote elsewhere what it accomplished.

So it helped agricultural collectivization, something China did before the Cultural Revolution even began and something the USSR did without any Cultural Revolution to speak of. Even you admitted in that post the main goal, replacing the old bureaucracy to avoid stagnation, didn't go far at all.

Quote:
Also the pro-Albanian tendency within the international communist movement was more influential than Titoism. Tito's "self-management" rhetoric influenced bourgeois nationalists like Ben Bella and Gaddafi, not actual communist parties. The pro-Albanian communist parties in Mali and Benin played significant roles in opposing revisionist-backed regimes. The pro-Albanian parties in Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Suriname and elsewhere were also notable. The West German KPD/ML was able to create a clandestine branch in the GDR. Canada's CPC-ML was in a number of ways more influential than the revisionist-backed CPC in the 70s-80s.

But Tito's ideas are, for better or worse (and I'm not really a fan of his market-socialism), influential today. He's usually seen as a pivotal communist leader, and as you admit, his ideas influenced Deng Xiaopeng's and modern China's. I'm pretty sure that's a sign of historical importance.
Hoxha is mostly notable outside of the Balkans because of his ultra-orthodoxy, and even that's a little tenuous since he did adopt and adapt some early ideas from Mao. His active support consisted mainly of... some parties in Mali and Benin, apparently.
Countries still halfway in the grip of feudalism, where the state often has little relevance in the countryside.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 Feb 2014, 23:47
MissStrangelove wrote:
His active support consisted mainly of... some parties in Mali and Benin, apparently.
Countries still halfway in the grip of feudalism, where the state often has little relevance in the countryside.
What's your point? African countries do not matter? The fact is that the parties in those countries played an active role in toppling the regimes there.

And you for some reason ignored the influence of pro-Albanian parties in Latin America.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 21 Feb 2014, 00:52
MissStrangelove wrote:
What's your point? African countries do not matter? The fact is that the parties in those countries played an active role in toppling the regimes there.

That's not my point at all, and awesome strawman + subtle insinuation of racism.


My point is: firstly, given the state of those countries now and the lack of subsequent development in them, the parties in those countries clearly didn't have much long-term impact. Secondly, I'm really not surprised they didn't. Thanks to being long kept in a feudal state by imperialist exploitation and having a very scattered pool of natural resources in the first place, many of which are only valuable in industrial economies, those countries don't have a coherent and widely-respected state apparatus in the first place. Their governments' authority is often un-respected and irrelevant outside of major cities, where the country is divided between various warlords. And sometimes foreign forces, like in Mali right now.

Quote:
And you for some reason ignored the influence of pro-Albanian parties in Latin America.

I didn't mention those because they had even less long-term impact. What governments did they topple?
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 21 Feb 2014, 07:13
MissStrangelove wrote:
I didn't mention those because they had even less long-term impact. What governments did they topple?
The PCMLE is probably the strongest self-described communist party in Ecuador right now.

The point is that among actual revolutionaries, not bourgeois nationalists or economists, Hoxha was much more influential than Tito.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 21 Feb 2014, 14:19
Ismail wrote:

The point is that among actual revolutionaries, not bourgeois nationalists or economists, Hoxha was much more influential than Tito.


It's easy to be strong when revolutionaries are only the people you say they are.

This is known as a "moving the goalposts" logical fallacy
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 22 Feb 2014, 03:46
somewhat wrote:
It's easy to be strong when revolutionaries are only the people you say they are.

This is known as a "moving the goalposts" logical fallacy
Not really, unless you think Tito and Deng Xiaoping influenced revolutionaries.

And I never claimed that the pro-Albanian tendency was "strong."
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 22 Feb 2014, 18:04
Quote:
Not really, unless you think Tito and Deng Xiaoping influenced revolutionaries.

You'd be hard pressed to find a revolutionary of any sort in the latter part of the *21st century* that wasn't influenced by Tito and what they called "workers self-management" in Yugoslavia.

*Edit*
20th century
Last edited by Loz on 23 Feb 2014, 03:34, edited 2 times in total.
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 22 Feb 2014, 22:41
Loz wrote:
You'd be hard pressed to find a revolutionary of any sort in the latter part of the 21st century that wasn't influenced by Tito and what they called "workers self-management" in Yugoslavia.


Shhh moving the goalposts aka if you're not a Hoxhaist you're not a revolutionary
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 23 Feb 2014, 03:48
Loz wrote:
You'd be hard pressed to find a revolutionary of any sort in the latter part of the *21st century* that wasn't influenced by Tito and what they called "workers self-management" in Yugoslavia.

*Edit*
20th century
So who were these "revolutionaries"? Literally the only persons I know of who tried to implement schemes similar to Yugoslav "workers' self-management" were Gaddafi, Ben Bella and Deng. The number of leaders who praised Yugoslavia's "non-aligned" foreign policy included Nasser, Nehru, Ceaușescu, Kim Il Sung and Pol Pot.

Name a single party that adhered to Tito's doctrines. Slightly easier: name a single person.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 27 Feb 2014, 14:58
Quote:
'Revisionism' in the Stalinist sense is just an anachronism. Without the states in question it has no ideological importance


Well no, Khrushchevism-Brezhnevism has a number of adherents all over the world. In fact, most stalinist parties in the West are Brezhnevists. In Asia and the Middle East, you have Maoists instead. But diehard Hoxhaist anti-revisionism is entirely irrelevant to any ongoing struggle. The ideological strength of different strains of stalinism is roughly proportionate to the (historical) political strength of their corresponding national bureaucracies.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 27 Feb 2014, 15:34
Mabool wrote:

Well no, Khrushchevism-Brezhnevism has a number of adherents all over the world. In fact, most stalinist parties in the West are Brezhnevists. In Asia and the Middle East, you have Maoists instead. But diehard Hoxhaist anti-revisionism is entirely irrelevant to any ongoing struggle. The ideological strength of different strains of stalinism is roughly proportionate to the (historical) political strength of their corresponding national bureaucracies.


Ah, welcome back Mabool. And I thought I was the only somethin-of-a-trot left around.

I agree with your statement and would argue that eurocommunist reformism is the flipside of Kruschev/Brezhnevism, while the weakness of Hoxhaism and the collapse of its theoretically-pure state gives more concrete proof of the country's actual ideological supremacy than all the polemics of Hoxha put together.
Soviet cogitations: 729
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 01 Mar 2014, 07:00
Mabool wrote:
The ideological strength of different strains of stalinism is roughly proportionate to the (historical) political strength of their corresponding national bureaucracies.
In other words, the CPSU, with its original prestige and because it headed the USSR, was able to influence more parties than the Albanians? Wow, that sure is a revelation.

Does any of this serve a purpose, though, beyond allowing Trots to cheerlead for revisionist regimes?
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 01 Mar 2014, 07:19
Speaking of revisionism, you know, folks, the Central Powers are partitioning the Ukraine as we speak. I don't think a Hoxha vs. Trotsky dispute has much of a part to play in this particular caper. In fact, it's starting to feel a lot like 1914, not 1917.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 01 Mar 2014, 16:17
Quote:
Does any of this serve a purpose, though, beyond allowing Trots to cheerlead for revisionist regimes?


lol dude we've been exposing revisionism since before Hoxha even read the Manifesto...
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.