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
11
19%
Positive
13
23%
Neutral
6
11%
Negative
12
21%
Very Negative
12
21%
Other
3
5%
 
Total votes : 57
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 01 Mar 2014, 21:41
Maybe Trotsky himself was but Trots have always fallen incredibly short of their master.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 304
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2014, 00:36
Komsomol
Post 01 Mar 2014, 23:07
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Maybe Trotsky himself was but Trots have always fallen incredibly short of their master.


On that, we can agree most undoubtedly
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 02 Mar 2014, 09:14
Mabool wrote:
lol dude we've been exposing revisionism since before Hoxha even read the Manifesto...
I guess such "anti-revisionism" is why as late as 1992 Ernest Mandel, who had spent preceding years defending Gorbachev, ridiculed the idea that capitalism would be restored in Russia. Or why the US SWP extols Cuban revisionism. Or why the Sparts extolled Soviet social-imperialism in Afghanistan. Or why various Trots adopted a slavish attitude towards Titoite revisionism when it first emerged.

Also as I wrote a few months back elsewhere, on Khrushchev's "Secret Speech,"
Quote:
The Trot narrative is pretty much pro-revisionist, as typified by Cannon's comment: "The Moscow bureaucrats have made a start — that cannot be denied, or ignored. They have confessed something, but they haven't confessed enough yet." And before that: "Whatever the reason for this action of the Soviet congress, the repudiation of Stalin by his heirs is big news and good news — the biggest news and the best news since the death of Stalin himself three years ago."

I am reminded of the December 18, 1961 issue of The Militant which stated that, "Regardless of motivation, the Kremlin's exposure and denunciation of the savagely repressive regime in Albania furthers the process of democratization within the Soviet bloc and the Communist parties internationally." Isn't it amazing how "regardless of motivation" the Soviet revisionists keep on undertaking allegedly good deeds?

In fact the Trots and Soviet revisionists in some cases had the same lines, such as Khrushchev claiming that class struggle no longer existed under socialism, which practically echoed Trotsky's claim in The Revolution Betrayed.

The Trot narrative fails to recognize the counter-revolutionary role of the "secret speech," which was part of the effort to restore capitalism in the USSR by attacking fundamental aspects of Marxism-Leninism under the cover of attacking the "cult of the individual," "dogmatism" stemming from it, etc. They offer no real analysis of why the speech was made.
As for Trotsky himself, he headed a social-democratic deviation within the Bolshevik Party, as Stalin noted.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 02 Mar 2014, 14:29
Mandel was a moron who also said you could forget the French working class for the next 20 years just weeks before May 1968. Also the Revolution Betrayed doesn't say there's no class struggle in the USSR (on the opposite, it correctly characterizes it as a special form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where class struggle is pretty much implied, and also the entire concept of bonapartism that is used to characterize the USSR is logically contingent on the existence of struggling classes). It just makes fun of the contradiction in claiming "aggravation of class struggle under socialism", he's saying "because there is class struggle, there is no socialism, so stop lying to people about having reached socialism".

Also the SD claim is just funny. It should by obvious to everyone that Stalin stood very much to the right of Trotsky.
"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 02 Mar 2014, 15:49
Mabool wrote:
Mandel was a moron who also said you could forget the French working class for the next 20 years just weeks before May 1968. Also the Revolution Betrayed doesn't say there's no class struggle in the USSR (on the opposite, it correctly characterizes it as a special form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where class struggle is pretty much implied, and also the entire concept of bonapartism that is used to characterize the USSR is logically contingent on the existence of struggling classes). It just makes fun of the contradiction in claiming "aggravation of class struggle under socialism", he's saying "because there is class struggle, there is no socialism, so stop lying to people about having reached socialism".

Also the SD claim is just funny. It should by obvious to everyone that Stalin stood very much to the right of Trotsky.


Stalin was a bureaucratic centralist- opportunism at its finest. Lean on the Bukharinites to purge the Left, then lean upon remaining elements of the capitulationist Left to purge the Right and at the end of the day only Stalin, the butcher, and a couple of his Civil War drinking buddies are left over to pick up the pieces.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 09 Mar 2014, 23:39
It's called proletarian bonapartism. (Which, as I recently understood in a moment of sudden epiphany, explains the name of the pig Napoleon in Orwell's "Animal Farm".)
"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 10 Mar 2014, 00:35
Mabool wrote:
It's called proletarian bonapartism. (Which, as I recently understood in a moment of sudden epiphany, explains the name of the pig Napoleon in Orwell's "Animal Farm".)


Yes, comrade, I agree. I have read much of the IMT/CWI literature too and am familiar with them, though the key disagreements prevent joining up. But this is a correct material analysis of the problem which existed in all of these states (and explains the rapidity with which their bureaucracies did an about-face).
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 10 Mar 2014, 00:39
What do you disagree on?
"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 10 Mar 2014, 00:42
Mabool wrote:
What do you disagree on?


This is for another thread, I'll send you my ideas in a PM. This thread should be about Hoxha, who was certainly a tragic but compelling figure in my mind.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 50
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Feb 2014, 05:02
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 13 Aug 2014, 07:33
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Trots have always fallen incredibly short of their master.


Master? Calling Trotsky a "master" is just ridiculous, in that context. So to regular Marxists, Marx is their "master."
While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no state. - V. I. Lenin
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2014, 00:40
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 09 Sep 2014, 17:33
Let's talk about why Hoxha was unable to thwart revisionism, despite his resolute stand against the Soviets and Dengists.

The Communist Party of New Zealand was the only communist party in the Western world to side with China and Albania during the Sino-Soviet split. Later, when Deng came to power, the CPNZ would again become the only party whose majority sided with the anti-revisionists, switching their allegiance to the PLA. They then fiercely denounced Ramiz Alia when he began the capitalist restoration, pointing to Hoxha's role in allowing this revisionist trend to develop.

See if you agree with their analysis.

Central Committee of the CPNZ wrote:
Before Enver Hoxha died in April 1985, the PLA leadership declared itself in support of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But close study shows that the terms “people’s power” and “people’s state power” were used as virtually interchangeable terms with the dictatorship of the proletariat by Hoxha and other PLA leaders.

In Hoxha’s report to the 8th PLA Congress in 1981, for instance, he declared: “People’s state power is the greatest victory and the most powerful weapon of the working class and the other working masses for the construction of socialism and the defence of the homeland.”

This is just a random selection of one example amongst many. The term “people’s state power” occurs repeatedly throughout Hoxha’s works alongside the term “dictatorship of the proletariat”.

As we have seen, it is nonsensical to use the term “people’s state power”, since all state power rests on “the dictatorship of a single class” (as Lenin put it). State power can never rest on all “the people” belonging to the different classes which still exist after the socialist revolution right up until the era of classless society (i.e. communism). In hindsight, therefore, we must conclude that even in Hoxha’s era the PLA leadership showed theoretical confusion in its defence of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

And this theoretical confusion about the nature of the Albanian state must express a degree of separation between the PLA and the Albanian working class. In practical terms, the Albanian working class cannot have fully consolidated itself as the ruling class in Hoxha’s era, nor can the PLA have completely become the instrument of the proletarian dictatorship.

Given such theoretical and practical weaknesses in creating the dictatorship of the proletariat, it logically follows that socialism must have always been on shaky ground in Albania, despite the outward appearance of good progress being made in Hoxha’s era...

Our research indicates that socialism couldn’t be consolidated in Albania because the leading role of the working class was never brought into full play by the PLA which was hamstrung by the concept of “people’s power”...[1]

Contrary to what Hoxha suggested, state power can never rest on all “the people” – industrial workers, collective farmers, intellectuals, state officials, rural labourers, self-employed tradesmen, etc – who still exist as very different layers of the social strata after the socialist revolution right up until the era of classless society (i.e. communism).[2]


Ray Nunes was a senior member of the CC of the CPNZ, representing the party in delegations to Moscow, Peking and Tirana, including the 1960 International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties. He further investigates Hoxha's errors:

Ray Nunes wrote:
...the Albanian leader, Enver Hoxha, lacking any understanding of dialectics, ascribed the rise of revisionism simply to the actions of Khrushchev. As he publicly declared, Stalin made no mistakes. Therefore, Soviet revisionism must have come into the world already fully grown, for it was only 3 years after Stalin’s death that the 20th Congress of the CPSU began the restoration of capitalism. According to Hoxha’s un-Marxist view, just as Minerva sprang into existence fully-grown from the head of Jupiter, so revisionism sprang into existence fully-grown, from the head of Khrushchev. As any person with even a scanty knowledge of Marxism knows, this is sheer nonsense...[3]

To the dogmatist Enver Hoxha therefore, only the formula of the Russian revolution could be applied to any revolutions. If they did not proceed according to this formula, they could not be genuine socialist revolutions. In spite of this, the Chinese revolution did not proceed according to Hoxha’s metaphysical formula, yet it succeeded. Hoxha asserts that it was never a socialist revolution. And yet Stalin, who was claimed by Hoxha to have made no mistakes, called China a socialist country in his Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR in 1952.

In fact, Hoxha drew most of his lines of attack on Mao from the Russian revisionists, thereby showing that dogmatism and revisionism can turn into each other.[4]


Nunes discusses Stalin's underestimation of the revisionist threat, and their philosophical roots.

Ray Nunes wrote:
This programme [Lenin’s article On the Question of Dialectics] appears to have been missed by Stalin. For he makes only a brief summary of the law of contradiction in his pamphlet, the law is placed last in his exposition of dialectical laws, and it is not treated as the basic law.

In his treatment of the dialectical method, Stalin expounds four laws. (1) The law of interconnection and interdependence of phenomena; (2) the law of continuous change and development through the supersession of the old by the new; (3) the law of the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa, and (4) the law of the unity and struggle of opposites.

As can be seen, these laws differ from the three ‘classical’ laws, which make no mention of any law of interconnection, though certainly classical dialectics recognises the interconnectedness of phenomena, and is itself a logic of motion and development, in contradistinction to metaphysics.

But the internal content of motion is, as we have seen, contradiction, and the interconnection of a given thing or process with surrounding phenomena is no less attributable to the development of contradictions.

The ‘negation of the negation’ is not mentioned by Stalin. However, it must be said that in regard to change and development, he sees the content of this as the supersession of the old by the new, though he does not use this exact formulation. In connection with the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa, Stalin gives this the status of a distinct law of dialectics, a major law. This is the more surprising as, in spite of quoting from Lenin’s ‘Philosophical Notebooks’, he apparently completely misses Lenin’s view, contained in his (previously-quoted) 16-point summary of the dialectical method which figures prominently in the ‘Notebooks’, namely, that this law of transition is actually a particular case of contradiction.

It is evident from his exposition that Stalin did not realise the overriding importance of the law of contradiction for dialectics and hence was bound to make errors in analysing things...[5]

...Stalin had erred in stating in the Constitution of the USSR in 1936, that there were no longer antagonistic classes in the Soviet Union. In fact the new bourgeoisie was an antagonistic class. It was already in existence then, and grew rapidly in the post-war period, enabling Khrushchev, its foremost representative, to gain support for a usurpation of power, leading to the restoration of capitalism.[6]


Foto Çami, member of the CC of the PLA, describes the party line on antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions.

Foto Çami wrote:
A similarly great role is played also by the unity of the party, the people, society, which becomes a new motive force that promotes the development of the country. This is connected with the character of the contradictions which exist in the context of unity, mainly as non-antagonistic contradictions, in which the opposites are not in irreconcilable struggle with each other (My emphasis. C.S.R.), as is the case of contradictions under capitalism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Here we have to do mainly with a unity of opposites in which both sides of the contradiction are generally progressive, and their essential interests coincide. Such unity helps society advance, because it assists, creates favourable conditions to give solution to various contradictions existing in this unity, which, thus, is raised to a higher level...

On the other hand, we must not forget that the non-antagonistic contradictions may turn antagonistic. This our enemies are trying to achieve by spreading their ideology, culture and decadent way of life, by encouraging liberalism and bureaucracy, discord and discontent, theft and embezzlement, etc. And this happens whenever the stand towards the class enemy, its ideology and activity, are opportunist and liberal, when vigilance and the stern struggle against it are weakened or altogether neglected, when a wrong policy in connection with the relationships between various classes and strata in society, between cadres and masses, etc., is followed. If Albania did not go through the retrogressive process which occurred in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, this is accounted for by the fact that our Party has known how to treat correctly the two types of contradictions, and has not allowed non-antagonistic contradictions to become antagonistic contradictions. (My emphasis. C.S.R.)[7]


So who is correct?

[1] CC of the CPNZ. (2000). Albania’s Slide into Capitalism: Statement by the Central Committee Communist Party of New Zealand (11.02.91). Alliance ML, 38(1). Retrieved from http://ml-review.ca/aml/AllianceIssues/ALL38REXH.html
[2] CC of the CPNZ. (2000). Trotskyite Coup in Albania: Statement by the Central Committee Communist Party of New Zealand (15.4.91). Alliance ML, 38(1). Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ne ... a/coup.htm
[3] Nunes, R. (1997, p. 2). The restoration of capitalism in former socialist countries, and the struggle for socialism in the present epoch. From Marx to Mao - and after. Auckland: Workers' Party of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ne ... tion-2.pdf
[4] Nunes, R. (1997, p. 46). Dialectical Materialism. From Marx to Mao - and after. Auckland: Workers' Party of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ne ... ctical.pdf
[5] ibid., pp. 32-33
[6] ibid., p. 60
[7] Çami, F. (1980). Problems of Socialism in the Light of the Marxist-Leninist Theory and the Historical Experience of the Party of Labour of Albania. Albania Today, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/a ... ismpla.htm
— Crìsdean R.

Image

In following the revolutionary road, strive for an even greater victory.
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 09 Sep 2014, 18:54
I think the CPNZ thing is silly. Saying "people's state power" does not deny class struggle or reject the proletarian character of a state unless it is stated that the dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle itself had come and gone, as the Soviet revisionist formulation of the "state of the whole people" did. Lenin and Stalin used wording similar to the Albanians, which derived from the fact that state power was no longer in the hands of the bourgeoisie or feudal elements, but in the hands of the working-class and cooperativist peasantry, the latter under the leadership of the former. The people (the overwhelming majority of the population, no longer divided into antagonistic classes) participated in the life of the country.

The CPNZ itself quickly became a Trotskyist party after the early 90s, which isn't surprising when they were apparently reduced to such an "analysis" as that.

The second thing sounds like a typical Maoist attack. In the first place Hoxha noted that problems of bureaucracy and whatnot did exist under Stalin, particularly after the second world war. Albanian publications also noted that Stalin and the CPSU concentrated on the external basis of capitalist restoration (i.e. foreign invasion and plots within the country encouraged by the capitalist states.) because this was obviously the most troublesome prospect at the time (the civil war, WWII, the start of the Cold War) on one hand, and because of the fact that the USSR was the first state to have to confront and give an answer to all the questions of socialist construction on the other, not having witnessed other socialist states, let alone capitalist restoration.

In the second place Stalin referred to China as socialist in the same sense Lenin spoke of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic upon its formation as socialist: both countries had socialism as a goal, and were laying the foundations for that goal.

As Stalin noted in 1950:
Quote:
What is People's Democracy? It contains at least such features as: 1) Political power being in the hands of the proletariat; 2) nationalisation of the industry; 3) the guiding role of the Communist and Working Peoples' Parties; 4) the construction of Socialism not only in the towns but also in the countryside. In China we cannot even talk about the building of Socialism either in the towns or in the countryside. Some enterprises have been nationalised but this is a drop in the ocean. The main mass of industrial commodities for the population is produced by artisans. There are about 30 million artisans in China. There are important dissimilarities between the countries of Peoples' Democracy and the Peoples' Republic of China: 1) In China there exists a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, something akin to what the Bolsheviks talked about in 1904-05. 2) There was oppression by a foreign bourgeoisie in China, therefore the national bourgeoisie of China is partially revolutionary; in view of this a coalition with the national bourgeoisie is permissible, in China the communists and the bourgeoisie comprise a bloc. This is not unnatural. Marx in 1848 also had a coalition with the bourgeoisie, when he was editing the Neue Rheinische Zeitung , but it was not for long. 3) In China they still face the task of the liquidation of feudal relationships, and in this sense the Chinese revolution reminds one of the French bourgeois revolution of 1789. 4) The special feature of the Chinese revolution is that the Communist Party stands at the head of the state. Therefore, one can say that in China there is a Peoples' Democratic Republic but only at its first stage of development.
Of course the problem with the Chinese revolution was that it was never really a proletarian one, and after the "pressure" which Mao spoke of the USSR exerting on China was lessened following Stalin's death, capitalism in China was given full room to develop.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jan 2014, 00:40
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 11 Sep 2014, 14:19
Why, then, did "people's state power" produce the revisionist clique of Ramiz Alia? What conditions lead to these counterrevolutionaries being able to seize power, when the PLA claimed to be successfully rooting out revisionism?

In 1991, the CPNZ produced a 400-page book of their analysis on this question. This appears to be somewhat independent to the Trotskyists who would later seize control of the party - the pro-Albanians and Beijing-liners were expelled and/or formed their own splinter groups.

I cannot find analyses from other pro-Albanian parties in English, aside from general statements, such as this:

Revolutionary Communist Party of Turkey wrote:
The collapse of socialism in Albania (the only socialist country in the world since the 1960s) towards the end of the 1980s, was the last link in the defeat inflicted in the second half of the 1950s and constitutes the latest victory of the bourgeoisie and imperialism". (p. 9)

"Albania, as a small socialist country, skillfully exploited the opportunities provided by the conflict between the two imperialist blocs from the 1960s to the mid-1980s. It managed to maintain socialist construction in spite of its small size.

The agreement that was concluded in the mid-1980s between the Gorbachevite revisionist bourgeoisie and the western capitalist bourgeoisie was a straightforward conclusion against the proletariat, the peoples and socialism....

The new global conditions left Albania face to face with a unified imperialist blockade, siege, isolation and aggression....

But the PLA did not understand the global changes that had been going on for a long period of time... and the PLA leadership did not display the skills needed for a revolutionary outcome from these grave conditions.... On the contrary, they panicked. They tended to assume an opportunistic position which succumbed to imperialist pressure and threat, and to reactionary internal uprisings. Obviously, this orientation meant taking the road leading to the destruction of socialism.... Socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat were liquidated". (p. 18-20)
— Crìsdean R.

Image

In following the revolutionary road, strive for an even greater victory.
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 11 Sep 2014, 23:27
csrothach wrote:
Why, then, did "people's state power"
Is there a reason you put it in scare quotes?

Quote:
produce the revisionist clique of Ramiz Alia? What conditions lead to these counterrevolutionaries being able to seize power, when the PLA claimed to be successfully rooting out revisionism?
Many of the reasons were similar to how the revisionists were able to seize power in the USSR: the fact that bureaucracy continued to exist, that political education remained formal in many instances, etc.

Albania, unlike the USSR, had a significantly disadvantage in that it was a small country suffering from an economic blockade. Drought in the late 80s aggravated the problems of this blockade, as well as rapid population growth.

In 1989 the Albanian revisionists started praising the GDR as "socialist," and likewise improved relations with the Cuban revisionists. Unlike the Soviet revisionists under Gorby and their allies in Hungary and Poland, the Albanian revisionists throughout 1990 repeatedly relatively "hardline," claiming they were continuing the defense of Marxism-Leninism, the work of Stalin, and so on while at the same time they were restoring capitalism in practice.

In an interview a few years back Nexhmije Hoxha noted that she was approached by various armed Party members who were willing to try and overthrow the government in early 1991, but she noted that such an act would backfire, although she also had some illusions at the time about Alia being able to correct his "errors" (as they were seen.)

Since the West linked up any question of trade with the issue of "human rights," and due to the deteriorating economic situation owing to capitalist reforms and the effects of the blockade and internal factors I mentioned, many Albanians saw no alternative than a market economy and promises of utopia in and from Western countries.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Nov 2008, 05:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 02 Sep 2015, 02:39
Hoxhaism is funny.
Soviet cogitations: 675
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2011, 14:10
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 03 Sep 2015, 15:19
lalando wrote:
Hoxhaism is funny.
Any particular reason?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 982
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Komsomol
Post 19 Sep 2015, 21:11
Ismail wrote:
Any particular reason?

Maybe because it's like kim-jong-il-ism?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 260
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2011, 00:54
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 20 Sep 2015, 15:27
Disagree
"A shiny bauble from Capitalism is worthless when the cost is Children & the Elderly going hungry, The Infirm & Sick dying because of Greed & Education reduced to a token few to placate the masses with Illusions of freedom."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4381
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 20 Sep 2015, 21:20
I also disagree. Hoxhaism is worse, and more ridiculous.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 21 Sep 2015, 03:51
Upon revisiting this thread, I have to say I'm still inclined to reiterate my "neither better nor worse" stance. In the years following the restoration of capitalism, Albania's standing has neither improved nor degenerated. They're essentially right back where they were in Zog's time, as far as I can tell. Perhaps not every single region of the Earth is meant to experience world historic vicissitudes.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.