Albania and Enver Hoxha

M-L wrote:

I have not claimed that the theory of three worlds is the exact same as 3rd worldism. What I have claimed is that 3rd worldism is a theory that has been born by the theory of three worlds. No theory of three worlds, no 3rd worldism.

Prove it. You have a clear misunderstanding of what 3 worlds theory is, and of what 3rd wordlism is in relation to that. Like I said: Hoxhaists like to tell you what you believe instead of listening to you. It is dogmatic and idealistic because they cookie cut generic polemics based on inaccurate information. If you are arguing that "3rd Worldism" comes from "Three Worlds Theory" because it divided the world into different conditions for countries, that's ridiculous. The concept of developed and underdeveloped/semi-feudal countries existed way before 3 worlds theory.

M-L wrote:

Some are related, some are not. The theory of three worlds are definetly the father of 3rd worldism, even though father and son do not have a good relationship with each other at the moment.

Prove it. How are they related and in what way does Third Worldism come from 3 Worlds Theory? Don't give me a bullshit generic answer.

M-L wrote:

But, as I wrote in my previous post, they do have the same agenda: To postpone the proletarian revolution.

How? By encouraging national independence movements in underdeveloped countries ravaged by imperialism? That sounds pretty Marxist to me. How are you going to achieve socialism in a country if you don't have a country to spark proletarian revolution in? Once again, Hoxhaists place intentionally vague polemics in order to stir emotion, then yell, "All ideology is revisionism, uphold Marxism-Leninism and Comrade Hoxha."

M-L wrote:

Of curse lines and contradictions develop. But Stalin always had in mind that the party would be strengthend by getting rid of such elements. That was not the stand Mao took in the question.

I would say that movements such as the GPCR would say that Mao intended on ridding the Party of such elements, but I expect a generic answer of "the GPCR was revisionist!" to come back from you.

M-L wrote:

So you are saying that communists in Iran should unite with the bourgouasie against US-imperialism?

Yes, just like how Stalin allied with the Allies in WWII to defeat Fascism, or Mao allied with the Kuomintang to fight the Japanese. US imperialism is the principal contradiction. Iran won't be able to achieve socialism if it is occupied by US invaders.

M-L wrote:

Remember, Iran is not under occupation. If they were, then the question would be a different one.

So we have to wait for imperialism to physically invade to oppose it? Would you suggest that we side with the US for now? Anybody with half a brain knows that the US is using soft power and regional influence to disrupt the government of Iran, especially lately with its support of Saudi Arabian proxy wars and it's efforts against the Syrian government.

Uphold the Broad United Front bro. Don't tell me what I subscribe to and don't answer vaguely or I will be disappoint.

Sorry for derailing the thread,but i'd like to hear your opinion on this Prole.
What would happen if all,let's say,African countries unite in a socialist federation in terms of worldwide socialism/communism that is.
I mean,let's imagine the whole continent turns red...what are its prospects for the future,what are its chances of building socialism,resisting imperialism etc.
Thanks.

I sure hope this isn't a trap.
Honestly, I don't know what the exact question is, because it's quite hypothetical but I will do my best to answer. I must preface and say that, in the end, imposing my idea of what self-determination looks like on another people is highly speculative when it passes the simple line of scientific Marxism.

First I'd like to say that currently in the status quo, Africa is divided into 34 countries with many different cultures, beliefs, tribal alliances, and ideologies, but there is a common African identity among leaders and countries in Africa. This identity is new and has only recently begun to evolve within the last 50 years or so, but essentially, pan-Africanism is one of the most important factors for successful socialist transition. This is because the African continent is one of the most resource rich continents on the planet. It's raw materials and resources are vast and perfect for development, but the continent's division and exploitation by imperialists has fragmented the ability for all of Africa's resources to be used, and instead we have single-export economies.

I also believe that the social conditioning created by "African" culture is much more collectivist than that of Anglo-American or European culture. Some dialects don't even have terms for "private property" and many have commonly used terms of collective consciousness (like Umbutu).

Therefore, I believe that a united Africa would be very successful in developing industry and socialism. I believe that it would eventually grow quite powerful because of the roots of ideology present in "African" culture, and the vast amount and diversity of resources and climates. I also believe that it would be successful in engaging in Peoples War against a withering and dying imperialist entity like the United States or Europe.

That's all speculation though.

I see,thanks for the response.
It's surely an interesting question.
It'd also be good to see some more "concrete" analises though.
For example,how would the droughts and AIDS epydemy effect that (hypothetical) country and its building of socialism? Where would "accumulation" for industries come from?
Would it be able to defend itself against internal and external reaction? I mean we recently saw the most developed and one of the militarily most powerful African countries fall under imperialist aggression...

Loz wrote:

For example,how would the droughts and AIDS epydemy effect that (hypothetical) country and its building of socialism?

That's an interesting point. The droughts would be less of an issue with a United Africa, since I suspect that most of the food development would occur at or below the Tropic of Capricorn and up into certain parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Droughts and Famines happened in China and the USSR, and they were still able to build socialism, so it is not impossible.

As for AIDS, I honestly have no idea. I think pan-African unity will promote education on the subject and begin training doctors for treatment as well as teaching people safe sexual habits and blood transfusion screenings.

Quote:

Where would "accumulation" for industries come from?

Perhaps the vast amount of resources and trade with other socialist countries will allow for industrialization. Russia was able to rapidly industrialize, and China was well on its way even before the capitalist roaders took power. It is certainly possible.

Loz wrote:

Would it be able to defend itself against internal and external reaction? I mean we recently saw the most developed and one of the militarily most powerful African countries fall under imperialist aggression...

I imagine that a United Africa would be far more capable of defending against imperialism than even the most powerful individual country in Africa. Libya had a lot going for it, but lacked certain key resources, like adequate and diverse supplies of clean water.

I also think that Lin Biao's global peoples war will be effective in deterring imperialist aggression. The people of Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the global countryside, can effectively halt imperialist aggression if they act in a broad United Front to combat it.

As far as internal reaction, party discipline and leadership coupled with cultural revolutions and other measures can combat counter revolution and liberalism.

This is quite an interesting subject to discuss, although the specifics of any potential socialist country cannot be adequately addressed and I don't think either of us has the knowledge to address the specific conditions necessary for the construction of a socialist system in Africa.

Sorry about the late answer. My internet connection is not good. Also, english is not my language, so I am not familiar with initials such as "GPCR". What is the full name of the movement?

You want me to prove how 3rd worldism is a relative of the theory of three worlds. Well, first of all, to talk about something called 3rd worldism, you have to take the division of the world into three parts for granted (unless you say that there exists a 4th or 5th world as well, but I rather doubt that any serious marxist does that ). However, the marxist-leninist view is that since the october revolution the world has been split into two camps: A socialist one, and an capitalist (imperialist) one (at least untill the late 80's. Since there are no socialist countries today, this division is no longer accurate). The so called third world is a part of the imperialist world, as oppressed nations, very much in the same way as proletarians is a part of the capitalist world, as an oppressed class. If you do not support the division of the world into three parts, why talk about 3rd(!) worldism?

Secondly, the theory of three worlds preached a class cooperation between, for example, the working class and the bourgouasie of the "2nd world" (let us use Spain as an example) to unite against the Soviet Union. The theory of three world forgot about the class struggle of the proletarians against the fascist bourgouasie of Spain. OK, that was the theory of three worlds as the chineese told. 3rd worldism claims that the proletarians of the 1st world (which must simply be the United States, unless China have taken the place of the Soviet Union) and the 2nd world are bought by imperialist superprofits, and therefore do not have interests in making a revolution to build socialism. What signals to that send to communists in western Europe? Why should we even bother to organize ourself, when the 3rd world is the only place that the revolution can grow? And finally, the theory is all wrong. Have any of the supporters of this theory been in Spain or Greece lately? Have they seen the conditions that the workers in South Korea must cope with?

Thirdly. Like I said. The core of every revisionist ideology is to postpone the proletarian revolution because, the revisionists claims, the world have changed, and marxism is no longer valid. Is that not exactly what 3rd worldism tells to the communists of the imperialist world? Remember comrade, the peoples of the oppressed countries can not crush imperialism as a system. Sure, the peoples of Nigeria can rise and get rid of the oppression in Nigeria, and nothing would be better than that. But imperialism as a system is not crushed because of that. Imperialism will simply find a new marked somewhere else (unless you belive in some sort of neo-Trotskyist thesis of world revolution of course, but you seem to be smarter than that ). The only ones who can get rid of imperialism for good is the workers of the imperialist world. And that comrade, is why 3rd worldism fits the imperialist bourgouasie very well.

And again, I hope my english is understandable

M-L wrote:

Also, english is not my language, so I am not familiar with initials such as "GPCR". What is the full name of the movement?

No problem, I am referring to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

M-L wrote:

You want me to prove how 3rd worldism is a relative of the theory of three worlds. Well, first of all, to talk about something called 3rd worldism, you have to take the division of the world into three parts for granted (unless you say that there exists a 4th or 5th world as well, but I rather doubt that any serious marxist does that ). However, the marxist-leninist view is that since the october revolution the world has been split into two camps: A socialist one, and an capitalist (imperialist) one (at least untill the late 80's. Since there are no socialist countries today, this division is no longer accurate).

But there are still "developed" and "underdeveloped" countries, are there not? No Marxist denies that there is underdevelopment and that the world has massive inequalities between states.

M-L wrote:

Secondly, the theory of three worlds preached a class cooperation between, for example, the working class and the bourgouasie of the "2nd world" (let us use Spain as an example) to unite against the Soviet Union.

Ok, I think you might be a little confused. "Third Worldism," like many other forms of Marxism, Hoxhaism included, advocates that when facing an imperialist aggressor or invader, the imperialists become the principal contradiction. During the social-democratic revolution, the struggles between the national bourgeoisie and proletariat are less antagonistic than that of the imperialists. This is why the Soviet Union allied with the Allies against the Axis, or the Chinese Communist Party allied with the Kuomintang against the invading Japanese. Your example isn't really accurate. A more accurate example would be supporting Gaddafi in Libya against NATO imperialism. Many Marxists do this, not just Maoists.

M-L wrote:

The so called third world is a part of the imperialist world, as oppressed nations, very much in the same way as proletarians is a part of the capitalist world, as an oppressed class. If you do not support the division of the world into three parts, why talk about 3rd(!) worldism?

"3 Worlds" is a bit of a misnomer, there are really only 2 concrete, the underdeveloped and the developed. Anybody with eyes can see that there are imperialist countries and their underdeveloped counterparts.

M-L wrote:

The theory of three world forgot about the class struggle of the proletarians against the fascist bourgouasie of Spain. OK, that was the theory of three worlds as the chineese told. 3rd worldism claims that the proletarians of the 1st world (which must simply be the United States, unless China have taken the place of the Soviet Union) and the 2nd world are bought by imperialist superprofits, and therefore do not have interests in making a revolution to build socialism.

Well it's not just that they are bought off by superprofits, they are the beneficiaries of imperialism and their standard of living would not increase under socialism, so they have little interest in it. We've already discussed this in detail on other threads of this board. But this is not "3 Worlds Theory" because that was a move by the Chinese Communist Party to justify allying with the US imperialists against Soviet social-imperialism, something that goes against the principal contradiction that "3rd Worldism" upholds.

M-L wrote:

Why should we even bother to organize ourself, when the 3rd world is the only place that the revolution can grow?

You can still organize and promote anti-imperialism and 3rd world revolution. I actually encourage communists everywhere to work towards revolution, I just don't think it will happen in the developed countries. Don't let me stop you though. The LLCO is trying to mobilize science in the 3rd World to bring about revolution.

M-L wrote:

And finally, the theory is all wrong. Have any of the supporters of this theory been in Spain or Greece lately? Have they seen the conditions that the workers in South Korea must cope with?

I actually encourage you to read what the LLCO has to say about these protests, here is a link.

M-L wrote:

Thirdly. Like I said. The core of every revisionist ideology is to postpone the proletarian revolution because, the revisionists claims, the world have changed, and marxism is no longer valid. Is that not exactly what 3rd worldism tells to the communists of the imperialist world? Remember comrade, the peoples of the oppressed countries can not crush imperialism as a system. Sure, the peoples of Nigeria can rise and get rid of the oppression in Nigeria, and nothing would be better than that. But imperialism as a system is not crushed because of that. Imperialism will simply find a new marked somewhere else

This is why the Leading Light Communist Organization encourages Lin Biao's global people's war, where the world's masses, through multiple revolutions and protracted struggles, will encircle the First World from the Third World and destroy imperialism by cutting it down at the source. When mass struggles achieve socialism in multiple countries, the First World imperialists will no longer have the means or resources to continue a strong exploitation of the global countryside.

I encourage you to read Long Live the Victory of People's War

Quote:

Remember comrade, the peoples of the oppressed countries can not crush imperialism as a system.

United, the spiritual atom bomb of the masses is more powerful than the physical atom bomb.

I earnestly encourage you to read more from the LLCO before you judge too harshly, much of your analysis doesn't grasp the organization's line well.

I only have time for brief comments right now. I'll be more detailed later if I need to.

proletarian wrote:

But there are still "developed" and "underdeveloped" countries, are there not? No Marxist denies that there is underdevelopment and that the world has massive inequalities between states.

Sure. You do not have to be a marxist to see that. But the contradictions between classes is still the fundamental contradiction, and in general the most important one. Threre are exeptions from this rule too of course. But you can't build an analysis on exeptions.

proletarian wrote:

Ok, I think you might be a little confused. "Third Worldism," like many other forms of Marxism, Hoxhaism included, advocates that when facing an imperialist aggressor or invader, the imperialists become the principal contradiction. During the social-democratic revolution, the struggles between the national bourgeoisie and proletariat are less antagonistic than that of the imperialists. This is why the Soviet Union allied with the Allies against the Axis, or the Chinese Communist Party allied with the Kuomintang against the invading Japanese. Your example isn't really accurate. A more accurate example would be supporting Gaddafi in Libya against NATO imperialism. Many Marxists do this, not just Maoists.

I was talking about the theory of three worlds, not 3rd worldism.

You are talking about countries that is actually invaded. That is not the general thesis, it is the exeption. As I said, you can not build a general analysis on the exeption. There are no pure single country economy any more, and it have not been for almost a century. There is the world economy these days, but the working class must still fight their own bourgouasie, no matter how developed the country is. Sure, the national bourgouasie can be a part of the struggle against imperialism in Nigeria, but the working class must be the leading force in this struggle, and the communist party must be it's vanguard. Two types of tactics by Lenin is a good book comrade.

M-L wrote:

The so called third world is a part of the imperialist world, as oppressed nations, very much in the same way as proletarians is a part of the capitalist world, as an oppressed class. If you do not support the division of the world into three parts, why talk about 3rd(!) worldism?

proletarian wrote:

"3 Worlds" is a bit of a misnomer,

What did Lenin have to say on being clear?

proletarian wrote:

there are really only 2 concrete, the underdeveloped and the developed. Anybody with eyes can see that there are imperialist countries and their underdeveloped counterparts.

Sure there are imperialist countries and their counterparts. But we as marxists must focus on classes, as that is the basic element. Especially in our part of the world (I suppose that you do not live in an underdeveloped country).

proletarian wrote:

Well it's not just that they are bought off by superprofits, they are the beneficiaries of imperialism and their standard of living would not increase under socialism, so they have little interest in it.

On the contrary. Those countries are already industrialized, wich would be an enormous advantage compared to the socialist states that have existed.

proletarian wrote:

You can still organize and promote anti-imperialism and 3rd world revolution.

But not red unions and a strong communist party? You guys should be glad Lenin is dead, because he would not be kind to that sort of attitudes.

proletarian wrote:

I actually encourage communists everywhere to work towards revolution, I just don't think it will happen in the developed countries. Don't let me stop you though. The LLCO is trying to mobilize science in the 3rd World to bring about revolution.

So marxism-leninism is no longer valid here? As I have already said, the core of every revisionist ideology is to postpone the proletarian revolution.

proletarian wrote:

I actually encourage you to read what the LLCO has to say about these protests, here is a link.

Sure, when I have time.

proletarian wrote:

This is why the Leading Light Communist Organization encourages Lin Biao's global people's war, where the world's masses, through multiple revolutions and protracted struggles, will encircle the First World from the Third World and destroy imperialism by cutting it down at the source. When mass struggles achieve socialism in multiple countries, the First World imperialists will no longer have the means or resources to continue a strong exploitation of the global countryside.

All right, what Xbox games should communists in the west play to make time go a little faster? Sorry if you find me rude comrade, but honestly. Do you really fail to see that this is about postponing the proletarian revolution (I wonder how many times I have to use that phrase...)?

Quote:

United, the spiritual atom bomb of the masses is more powerful than the physical atom bomb.

How about workers of the world, unite?

M-L wrote:

But the contradictions between classes is still the fundamental contradiction, and in general the most important one. Threre are exeptions from this rule too of course. But you can't build an analysis on exeptions.

Sure, and the LLCO acknowledges this, but we think that there is a labor aristocracy that doesn't have it in their material interests to fight for socialism. Engels thought the same thing. There is also debate as to whether some retail or service workers create surplus value (Marx didn't think they did) but that is a conversation for another day.

M-L wrote:

You are talking about countries that is actually invaded. That is not the general thesis, it is the exeption. As I said, you can not build a general analysis on the exeption. There are no pure single country economy any more, and it have not been for almost a century. There is the world economy these days, but the working class must still fight their own bourgouasie, no matter how developed the country is.

Because of economic interdependence, no country is free from imperialism. And I agree that the proletariat should fight their own bourgeoisie, and any country that overthrows the bourgeoisie and achieves socialism is a success. But US imperialism must still be defeated. However, the bought off labor aristocracy will not overthrow their bourgeoisie, and if they do, they will not stop imperialism, because their standard of living will drop.

I'm finished discussing the revolutionary potential of the First World Proletariat, if you would like to learn more, read the website or search for discussions on this board using the search function. We have many topics on the subject.

M-L wrote:

What did Lenin have to say on being clear?

I don't know, enlighten me.
We don't call ourselves Maoist Third Worldists anymore because of the misnomer and ties to old power. We call ourselves Leading Light Communists.

Quote:

Sure there are imperialist countries and their counterparts. But we as marxists must focus on classes, as that is the basic element. Especially in our part of the world (I suppose that you do not live in an underdeveloped country).

Well that's a bad assumption to make, but whatever. Leading Lights also focus on classes, but we acknowledge that globalization has created worldwide populations of exploiters and exploited populations. Almost every product you buy contains raw materials from underdeveloped countries that are exploited from populations. You are a consumer of the products more than you are a producer, especially if you work in the service industry for these products rather than the actual manufacturing industry.

Once again, I don't want to discuss this much further, because it gets infinitely regressive.

M-L wrote:

On the contrary. Those countries are already industrialized, wich would be an enormous advantage compared to the socialist states that have existed.

Sure it would, if these countries weren't the benefactors of imperialism. Why would a country choose to lower its standard of living by stopping imperialism? Didn't Albania start as an underdeveloped country?

Quote:

But not red unions and a strong communist party? You guys should be glad Lenin is dead, because he would not be kind to that sort of attitudes.

These one lined replies are not arguments but merely identity politic gimmicks to discredit an individual or movement.

Quote:

All right, what Xbox games should communists in the west play to make time go a little faster?

They should be contributing to developing the science and passing it down to their comrades in the Third World. One movement that is made up of clandestine individuals and has only been around for about a year is not holding up the revolution, the hesitant labor aristocracy is, as well as many elements of the social-imperialist left (like 3rd camp Trotskyists). If you create socialism in these countries, it will be social-imperialist.

Quote:

How about workers of the world, unite?

Sure thing, I just don't think it should be social-imperialist.

Here's the deal, Leading Light Communism doesn't uphold 3 World's Theory or any of the other Hoxha arguments against Mao. We are criticized for other reasons, but not the reasons that Hoxha pointed out: he did die 40 years before we came around

proletarian wrote:

Because of economic interdependence, no country is free from imperialism. And I agree that the proletariat should fight their own bourgeoisie, and any country that overthrows the bourgeoisie and achieves socialism is a success. But US imperialism must still be defeated.

And no one is better fit for that task than the american working class. But unfortuanatly, they do not have a strong vanguard.

Why only US-imperialism though? Would you not say that it is a more urgent task to fight french imperialism if you live in Libya? And what about the german workers? Should not they focus on fighting the imperialist bourgouasie in Germany?

proletarian wrote:

However, the bought off labor aristocracy will not overthrow their bourgeoisie, and if they do, they will not stop imperialism, because their standard of living will drop.

You do not think that a socialist economy will increase the standard of living in countries that are already industrialized? Remember that the biggest sacrefises in former socialist republics have been made in the building of industry. When we do not have to go through this stage, we will have opprotuneties that Stalin could only have dreamd about.

proletarian wrote:

I don't know, enlighten me.

Always be clear, so there will be no room for misunderstandings. (Well, not litterally that, but I do not know how to translate the actual quote.)

proletarian wrote:

We don't call ourselves Maoist Third Worldists anymore because of the misnomer and ties to old power. We call ourselves Leading Light Communists.

A name change does not help when the political line is still wrong.

proletarian wrote:

Didn't Albania start as an underdeveloped country?

Sure did. Like every other socialist state in history.

M-L wrote:

But not red unions and a strong communist party? You guys should be glad Lenin is dead, because he would not be kind to that sort of attitudes.

proletarian wrote:

These one lined replies are not arguments but merely identity politic gimmicks to discredit an individual or movement.

In this case it was a way to demonstrate how far away from marxism-leninism you guys actually are.

proletarian wrote:

They should be contributing to developing the science and passing it down to their comrades in the Third World. One movement that is made up of clandestine individuals and has only been around for about a year is not holding up the revolution, the hesitant labor aristocracy is, as well as many elements of the social-imperialist left (like 3rd camp Trotskyists).

1. Solidarity is a fine thing, but the major task of every communist is to organize and raise socialist spirit in the working class of his country. Percisley who is going to fight the austrian labour aristocracy, if not austrian communists?

proletarian wrote:

If you create socialism in these countries, it will be social-imperialist.

Do you have any actual facts to prove this? Look from another angel: How many social-imperialist states have we had? How many percent of them evolved from an underdeveloped state? And how many evolved from a developed state? My gut feeling is that the numbers will be something like this: 100% vs 0%.

A lot of things can turn a state social-imperialist comrade. You must not stare blind on one factor. If we fear the development of social-imperialism more than the existence of capitalism, the safest thing we can do is nothing.

proletarian wrote:

Here's the deal, Leading Light Communism doesn't uphold 3 World's Theory or any of the other Hoxha arguments against Mao. We are criticized for other reasons, but not the reasons that Hoxha pointed out: he did die 40 years before we came around

I am aware of that, but beeing a thinking human beeing, I am capable of critizising things Hoxha never saw.

M-L wrote:

And no one is better fit for that task than the american working class. But unfortuanatly, they do not have a strong vanguard.

I disagree, and I think if you took the time to read some articles on the LLCO website, you would see why.

M-L wrote:

Why only US-imperialism though? Would you not say that it is a more urgent task to fight french imperialism if you live in Libya?

Sure, but you should oppose all imperialism. The US just happens to be the most imperialist country in the world. The LLCO opposes all imperialism.

M-L wrote:

And what about the german workers? Should not they focus on fighting the imperialist bourgouasie in Germany?

Why would it be in their class interest to? The imperialist bourgeoisie gets them cheap stuff. I bet every single product was either manufactured, or built from materials exploited from the Third World. Even "American Made" or "German Made" products have plastics or minerals in them supplied from underdeveloped countries. It makes goods cheaper, and the working class of Germany is more wealthy, comparatively, than the working class in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

M-L wrote:

You do not think that a socialist economy will increase the standard of living in countries that are already industrialized?

Maybe eventually, however these economies are reliant on the exploitation of the 3rd world worker, and wages between countries are so polar, that an egalitarian distribution of wealth, or discontinuation of exploitative importing, would cripple the economies of these countries.

Quote:

When we do not have to go through this stage, we will have opprotuneties that Stalin could only have dreamd about.

Sure use First World industry, but use it to benefit all workers, not just first world workers.

M-L wrote:

Sure did. Like every other socialist state in history.

So wouldn't historical precedent tell us that revolution is more likely in an underdeveloped country where class struggle is intensified by a "do or die" mentality than in a country with a developed welfare state and higher standard of living.

Quote:

A name change does not help when the political line is still wrong.

The line's not wrong, people just don't want to hear it.

Quote:

In this case it was a way to demonstrate how far away from marxism-leninism you guys actually are

No, we are the furthest development of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin came in the age of imperialism where military conquest was used to increase capitalist wealth, we come in the age of globalization, where entire countries are so economically interdependent that they create countries of the exploiters and the exploitative.

Just as Leninism was the continuation of Marxism, we are the continuation of Lenin. I suggest you learn more about us, because a lot of this is covered in our theoretical journals and articles.

M-L wrote:

I am aware of that, but beeing a thinking human beeing, I am capable of critizising things Hoxha never saw.

Sure, but that's not Hoxha's "critique of Maoism," that's your critique of Leading Light Communism. So we don't bite into the Hoxhaist criticism, right?

Quote:

Why would it be in their class interest to? The imperialist bourgeoisie gets them cheap stuff. I bet every single product was either manufactured, or built from materials exploited from the Third World.

Yeah, the imperialist bourgeoisie has DROWNED us in cheap stuff. Germany won't need to import computers or iPods or cars for at least two decades in order to maintain its standard of living, so this is actually a weird argument. We have too much cheap stuff - and this is a huge problem, not a luxury.

It is in the class interest of the German proletariat to:

* fight the erosion of the welfare state
* fight working conditions that suck (working at McDonald's is an insult to basic human dignity - everywhere in the world. And in fact, most jobs in Germany are starting to look just like this: Bust your ass 10 hours a day for almost no money. One in three Germans are threatened by poverty. The proletarization of the 1st world working class, that you guys are anticipating as a distant probability, is happening right now. I agree that during the latter half of the 20th century, Europe was pretty much a paradise made possible by imperialist profits, but the imperialist bourgeoisie has stopped maintaining this paradise following the disappearance of its socialist competitors.)
* fight the massive psychological warfare that is being waged against it (extreme surveillance, sexism, racism, alienation... people who live in urban environments live like animals in cages. There is no personal freedom at all. Now this isn't an issue for Leninists, but it definitely is an issue for our class.)

Quote:

Even "American Made" or "German Made" products have plastics or minerals in them supplied from underdeveloped countries. It makes goods cheaper, and the working class of Germany is more wealthy, comparatively, than the working class in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Um... the fact that Africa has minerals that Germany doesn't, doesn't necessarily make goods cheaper. It's not like the German bourgeoisie decides "hey, let's use African minerals to make our goods cheaper", it's just that they need these minerals to make their goods because they're just not available in Germany. This is why Congo is kept in its deplorable state, in order to get us these minerals. You make it sound like the causality is the other way around: Because African minerals are cheap, we use them. Well, that's not how it works.

Mabool's answers was good, so I will not comment further on the quotations he answerd.

proletarian wrote:

Sure, but you should oppose all imperialism. The US just happens to be the most imperialist country in the world. The LLCO opposes all imperialism.

The most imperialist country in the world? Exactly how is the US more imperialist than France? Sure, the USA is mightier than most. But to say that they are "most imperialist" is like saying that Roberto Carlos was the "most left-footed soccer-player in the world" because he had the worlds hardest shot. I am sure that the people of Libya find France to be just as imperialist as the USA at the moment.

proletarian wrote:

Sure use First World industry, but use it to benefit all workers, not just first world workers.

Have anyone said anything else?

proletarian wrote:

So wouldn't historical precedent tell us that revolution is more likely in an underdeveloped country where class struggle is intensified by a "do or die" mentality than in a country with a developed welfare state and higher standard of living.

That is not the discution. The discution is weather a communist in Ireland shall work for a revolution in Ireland or in India.

But OK, I'll give you an answer. You need both objective and subjective factors to win a proletarian revolution.
- Objective factor: Factors who are there, because of the laws of capitalism. Such as financial crises, cutting of labour wages etc.
- Subjective factor: Factors that we can do something about. Such as having a communist party.

After the second world war, none of the two factors have been present in the imperialist world, with a few brief exeptions. Why is this? That is a question that it would demand a book the size of the bible to explain in full detail. But one of many key points is:
-The constant opening of new markeds (particularly China and the former Soviet Union). This have kept the financial crises, and therefore class struggle intensety, to an absolute minimum. In that sense, you guys do touch a point. But not much more than that. There are no new markeds for imperialism to open. Therefore, the financial crises will strike the imperialist world with full strenth within the next decades, unless a great war on a similar scale as the second world war breakes out and destroyes massive amounts of capital. This crises can be as hard as the great depression of the 1930's, or even harder. And guess what. When the working class turns revolutionary, it will be to late to form a communist party.

This is not a prophety, it is simply using marxism as a tool to understand history and the world we live in.

proletarian wrote:

No, we are the furthest development of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin came in the age of imperialism where military conquest was used to increase capitalist wealth, we come in the age of globalization, where entire countries are so economically interdependent that they create countries of the exploiters and the exploitative.

If this is true, how come that every imperialist country have a protectionist policy to protect their industry? Could it be because their domestic industry, and therefore their working class (however small it might be), is far too important for them to loose? How does this add up with your thesis on the exploiting working class of the west?

proletarian wrote:

Just as Leninism was the continuation of Marxism, we are the continuation of Lenin. I suggest you learn more about us, because a lot of this is covered in our theoretical journals and articles.

A movement that looses faith in the working class of entire continents can never be the continuation of Lenin(ism). Sorry comrade, but that is the truth.

proletarian wrote:

Sure, but that's not Hoxha's "critique of Maoism," that's your critique of Leading Light Communism. So we don't bite into the Hoxhaist criticism, right?

To a lot of it you do. Like forgetting the class struggle between proletarians and the bourgouasie in what used to be called the first and second world.

an interesting comment section...
http://bit.ly/sr1di7

1947 - Despite having accepted US$26.3 million in aid from the United Nations (UN) Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and US$20.4 million from the US following the end of the Second World War, Albania refuses to participate in the US-sponsored Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of the European economy.

1948 - In November, and on the suggestion of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, the Albanian Communist Party renames itself the Albanian Party of Labour. The party is purged of Tito sympathisers, with 14 members of the 31-member Central Committee and 32 of the 109 People's Assembly deputies being executed. As well about 25% of the party's members are expelled.

Ha, Hoxha didn't denounce China and Mao until after Mao's death. What a squirrelly brown noser.
EDIT: I forgot about this thread, I'll address the above points later this week

He did,read his Reflexions on China (IMO a rather interesting read).
The relationship really went downhill after the Nixon visit however there've been many ideological (etc.) disputes and objections years before 1971.

proletarian wrote:

Ha, Hoxha didn't denounce China and Mao until after Mao's death. What a squirrelly brown noser.

The Albanian leadership took a principled stand in which concerns as to China's course were raised in private (the Central Committee of the PLA sent a letter to its Chinese counterparts when Nixon visited China, and criticized Nixon's visit) while not allowing reactionaries abroad to be given material to attack the socialist camp with. Just as the Albanians attempted to preserve the unity of the socialist camp with the USSR at the head (despite serious misgivings) until 1961, when Khrushchev openly denounced Hoxha at the 22nd Party Congress of the CPSU, called for his removal, and then proceeded to break off diplomatic relations with Albania soon after. At that point it became clear that there could be no unity with revisionists and that only resolute struggle against revisionism could serve as the basis for such unity.

Hoxha notes in Imperialism and the Revolution that the Chinese kept a lot of things hidden from their Albanian counterparts concerning domestic events. Like the Soviets, the Chinese didn't consult the Albanians on a great many foreign endeavors, most notably the visiting of Nixon to Beijing.

khlib wrote:

1947 - Despite having accepted US$26.3 million in aid from the United Nations (UN) Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and US$20.4 million from the US following the end of the Second World War, Albania refuses to participate in the US-sponsored Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of the European economy.

There was a UNRRA book written around 1957 or so that notes that the Albanians distrusted both UNRRA and US aid. Some UNRRA members, for instance, were accused of sabotage. Hoxha later noted in his book Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism that the Yugoslavs, by contrast, had no problem with UNRRA and US aid and didn't care in the least that it undoubtedly brought with it pressure to conform to Western economic and political norms.

Also the "comments" section of that website is lame. Every single scholarly source I've read about Albania the great advancements Albania made throughout the 1940's-70's in all fields. The central problem of the 1980's was an almost total lack of technological upgrades and replacement parts, which significantly harmed the industrial productivity of the country. Raising the life expectancy from 38 to 71, eradicating illiteracy, and having an economy go from being heavily based on agriculture to having most of its income derive from industry (among various other things I can note) are not the marks of "illusory" changes.

If one wants to criticize Albania for having principles and defending Marxism-Leninism on a consistent basis and thus suffering economically, then one might as well study Deng Xiaoping's Selected Works and repeat to themselves his slogan, "To get rich is glorious." They are willing to forfeit class struggle and the construction of socialism for dollars.

Is anyone aware of the living standards in Enver Hoxha's Albania? If so is it possible to provide some description?

Political Interest wrote:

Is anyone aware of the living standards in Enver Hoxha's Albania? If so is it possible to provide some description?

Any specific information you want to know? Albania was Europe's poorest country upon independence in 1912, upon liberation in 1944, and upon the end of the socialist system in 1990-1991. It made great gains as bourgeois histories would note, but it was still a poor country by Western standards.