Why aren't you a Hoxhaist yet? Hoxhaists be silent no more
Readings
Karl Marx, V I Lennin: marxists.org
With Stalin, E. Hoxha: marxists.org
Albania Challenges Kruschev revisionism, E. Hoxha: marxists.org
Reflections on China, E. Hoxha: marxists.org
Join a Hoxhaist party
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Debunking The bunker memes/leftcom/revisionist/imperialist Slander
WIP
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
m.youtube.com
oneparty.co.uk
twitter.com
>>With Stalin, E. Hoxha: marxists.org
Was Hoxha gay?
...
To me it just seems like anti-revisionist ML but with an extra cult of personality (Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha, instead of just Lenin and Stalin). Did he actually make any contribution to Marxist-Leninist theory? If not, why is Hoxhaism even a thing? It seems like a completely pointless tendency to me. There is (or was?) some very knowledgeable Hoxha flag poster on this board who always makes really insightful posts, though, so maybe I just don't know enough about it?
Another thing: do anti-revisionists such as Hoxhaists have an actual analysis of revisionism? Because to me it seems like most anti-revisionists have (correctly) identified that revisionism is a thing that tends to infect Communist parties, but don't have a very thorough analysis of why or what could be done about it (except for shooting more people, sending more people to the gulag, more purges, etc). I'm starting to wonder if purging people who don't agree completely with the party line just creates an environment where opportunists thrive and take over as soon as the strong leader (Stalin, Hoxha, whoever) is gone.
Tell me why you think you have any right to participate in this discussion?
It is a thing because Hoxhaists consider Hoxha to be the fifth classic of ML because of his work against world imperialism and revisionism. You might say with some justice that anti-revisionist ML only exists because there are so many revisionist tendencies and in this sense Hoxhaism is a demarcation from these trends. On the other hand, I think Hoxha made important contributions to Marxism and even if there were no revisionist tendencies around today he would still be a classic of ML. Personally, I find Hoxha to be one of the most interesting socialist leaders to read because he was both a hard-liner and he was writing all the way up to 1984. He also has an uncanny way of predicting the future such as when he predicted the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent looting of the East bloc by the West in 1974 or so.
Sure, reduction of wage differentials, cultural revolution, improvement of scientific/cultural level of the masses in order to make the transition towards communism. Revisionism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie and as Stalin teaches us the class struggle actually grows more intense under socialism. Hoxha also teaches the working class in revisionist countries to prepare for struggle, to form a new party and to overthrow the revisionist bourgeoisie in those countries. Plus Hoxha's analysis of the rise of revisionism in Yugoslavia, the USSR, and China is invaluable if you want to understand what modern revisionism is and how to stop it.
btw I still post here
if you're just going to post memes, you can leave now, before you get banned. I don't even get why we allow anti-marxists like you on Holla Forums
I have read some blogposts by Hoxhaists, I've talked to some Hoxhaists on various discord servers, and there are some Hoxhaists here on Holla Forums, so I have some vague idea of what Hoxhaists believe and what they are like. I wasn't trying to hide the fact that I don't know much about Hoxha or Hoxhaism though, and I asked some questions about it, so if you think I'm wrong, why don't you try to correct me? I'm open to being convinced of the correctness of Hoxhaism. Nobody has actually made an argument in favour of Hoxhaism in this thread yet.
nevermind, didn't see this post
How though? I've never really understood what Stalin meant by this. The exploiting classes in the USSR were abolished.
After you deal with bourg in your own country, you have to deal with bourg in everyone else's country.
t. Stalin (4 Feb., 1931)
Well, I think he was talking about the struggle between collectivization and the kulak class in that quote. But, there are going to be those people from the exploiting classes who want to go back to the old order. Likewise, the existence of commodity production and wage differentials in a country allows for the possibility of going back to capitalism even if they can't be abolished overnight.
Also this poster has a good point, the international bourgeoisie isn't going to sit back and let you move towards communism or promote revolution on the world scale. You have to defeat/stop foreign exploiters and their spies/mercenaries as well as your own.
1) William "Bill" Bland was arguing in 1970s that in the event of USSR/UK war, a real Communist should support UK as the more progressive nation. This is a 100% clear sign that Hoxhaist movement either lacks consistency or is grossly misinformed/revisionist itself.
2) I am not satisfied with Hoxha's explanation of Khrushchev's revisionism.
Imo, it is incomplete. The first step would be to give better definition of Petit-Bourgeoisie, then proceed to elaboration on education/skills being able to function as MoP - and after having better grasp on two base concepts proceed to deep analysis of class struggle/antagonism within Socialist states.
Because Hoxha recognized Maoist deviation from Communism.
Interesting, do you have a source beyond an Ismail post? Its worth noting that there are those in the Hoxhaist movement that recognize Bland as a Neo-revisionist. I think Bland did some good work personally but it is not like such people do not have a capacity to deviate. It's not like he was the entirety of the communist movement or represents it today anyway.
What the hell even is "Hoxhaism"? What "theory" did he invent? Is it just Stalinism with bunkers? Why is there a need to give every dictator their own little special snowflake theory label? Why aren't you a Ceaucescuist yet?
How is Hoxha any different from a Trot in constantly accusing other socialist countries, such as the USSR, of imperialism?
Well, I'll be hard-pressed to find exact quote right now, but in his "Restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union" Bland unambiguously calls USSR fascist:
oneparty.co.uk
He is no different from Shachtman.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I did make some posts on Bland on /marx/ (discussing State Capitalism), before the whole purge thing. Is that what it is about?
Complete and utter distortion of the basics of Marxism, coupled with politically correct support of anti-Soviet position? I fail to recognize this as anything, but deliberate anti-Communist propaganda.
No, but he was a recognizable Hoxhaist, who was not kicked out and denounced. Consequently, I can't treat Hoxhaism as such seriously. Sure, there might be good texts and authors, but if we are talking Hoxhaism - it clearly lacks quality control.
Hoxha actually ran a country and loved Stalin?
you must've misspelled reddit.com in your URL field
Hmmm…well, the thing is that Stalin invented the concept of social fascism and not Hoxha or any of his successors. Originally, Stalin was referring to social democracy particularly the horrid behavior and anti-worker imperialist actions of the SPD. However, its not like you can say that it ended there as a mere description of the Western reactionary "labor" parties.
It wasn't uncommon for Soviet writers and propagandists in the Stalinist era to describe Trotskyism as the handmaiden of fascism especially after the Moscow Trials. Ditto with Titoism although the condemnation from the Cominform and the Soviet press was probably even stronger in this regard.
Stalin's concept of social-fascism perhaps has flaws but its not like Hoxha or Bland pulled this out of nowhere or from some Trotskyist paper. In the USSR, some aspects of the socialist system remained but I think they drifted towards revisionism and capitalist-restoration. And that does lead to an interesting question: "If the revisionist leaders weren't social fascists then what were they?"
It's not like you could say Tito or Pol Pot were socialists-and you can't say they were liberal democrats either. At the same time, they weren't anarchists-although you could say that Tito for instance plagiarized a few pages from the syndicalists. The nature of their crimes and their relationship towards the proletariat places them closer to fascists or the imperialist bourgeoisie than it does to real communists and its not like the same can't be said about other revisionist leaders.
No, not really just saying that he isn't honest with his defense of any and all types revisionism and his consequent slandering of anti-revisionism. I've seen your posts on /marx/ and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like even your getting fed up with it but you are not alone in that.
I think his work analyzing various revisionist plots and looking at the work of Dimitriov, the relationship of Zionism in the USSR to revisionism etc. do have some objective merit. I also think you were never really even handed in your analysis of his book The Restoration of Capitalism in the USSR you seemed to object more to the conclusions he draws from it then what the rather damning Soviet sources he uses actually says. I am familiar with your opposition to these sources on the ground that they are "cherrypicked" you could make that case but I don't think their all that different from the character of revisionist era statements and political economy that I've seen available in English on the net.
Are you the kind of person that can't be bothered to separate the wheat from the chaff? I personally think that many of the Hoxhaist parties did suffer from the formal alliance with Maoist China and the parties following its line. The death of Hoxha has also left many of its followers unmoored. It's also a truism that any tendency that criticizes nominally "socialist" nations will naturally find its share of ultra-leftist scoundrels and useful idiots of the Western bourgeoisie in its midst but at the same time that does not mean that such criticism should not be done.
To me at least the writings from Albania and from Hoxha are of a very high quality and there has also been some very high quality stuff I've read on EROL from Hoxhaist parties (many now defunct) in North America and elsewhere. I have to say that you should read some of the writings of the communist parties following the comintern in Lenin and Stalin's time–a great deal of it is garbage. Even Stalin admitted that many of the foreign parties were woefully underdeveloped in their theoretical work and political line by Soviet standards. I don't think you should judge a movement merely by its hanger-ons, from what I can tell the American, Italian, and French parties for instance never had true Bolshevik leadership even in Stalin's time.
Trotsky wasn't kicked out of the Central Committee until 1927 and wasn't expelled after 1929. There were other revisionists like Zinoviev and Bukharin who weren't recognized for what they truly were until much later and with disastrous consequences. And it didn't all end with the Moscow Trials either, I mean Khruschev and his circle slipped through the cracks and even Molotov–who does stand as one of the greatest bolsheviks had a wife who was in league with the Zionists. Once Stalin had been murdered he meekly went along with the plans of the revisionists despite being utterly destroyed politically by them.
I think if you're judging Hoxhaism merely by the scoundrels who have managed to slip through the cracks I would say that I think that materialist criticism is made of much stirner stuff than that.
*sterner apologies to the milk shop man
ITT: Poe's Law