It was Not "Eurochauvinist views" that caused Hoxha to criticize Kim il Sung
He criticized him on his Policy of Juche or "Self reliance" which Hoxha saw as Isolationist and against Internationalism
Maoism or Hoxhaism?
David Diaz
Owen Jenkins
That's fucking stupid though, DPRK has consistently shown solidarity and material support for revolutionaries all around the world. Self-sufficiency enhances the DPRK's standing to support international socialism.
Camden Garcia
Albania was even more isolationist than the DPRK.
Luis Turner
Then he hasn't read the basic texts of Juche which do embrace economic cooperation just not on a level that makes one party reliant on the other - and guess what happened, the entire Eastern Bloc which was reliant on the USSR collapse while the DPRK didn't.
There is literally not a single thing Kim Il-sung did that was revisionist, Hohxa's criticism evolves arround the lines of supposed class collaboration during the "NEP phase" of the DPRK, concerns which were unfounded considering the first three year plan of the DPRK. Other than that, the path the DPRK took is almost identical to that of Albania, taxes were abolished as well. The only thing that Albania did which North Korea did only partially was the "proletarizarion" of the army, partly abolishing military ranks and such, on the other hand North Korea does have a milita culture based on a "people's army" and - something Albania never did to that extent - a workplace democracy.
It's just that North Korea never saw the reason to go full confrontational with literally every socialist state, rather they played both USSR, then China, and then USSR again to ensure enough support to survive.
Adrian Reyes
What happened to my posts? I didn't delete them. Weird.
Samuel Nguyen
Reading "The Kruschevites" right now. IMO Hoxha is up there with Marx, Lenin, Engels, and Stalin.
Asher Hernandez
I don't think being critical of Stalin is bad at all tbh. What makes him an anti-Stalinist though? Not that familiar with his work.
Who fucking gives a shit, seriously?
No link but this is what he wrote (in an article about cults of personality and Bob Avakian):
James Sanchez
Like most Maoists he blindly follows the 70% correct 30% incorrect appraisal that the Chinese gave Stalin. And like most Maoists he can't really say what those mistakes are beyond vague clichés like "he didn't trust the peasants enough" "he was too metaphysical" etc. JMP was a Trotskyist before he was a Maoist and an anarchist before that and it really shows. He wrote a pamphlet called Maoism or Trotskyism? as if that were the true burning question facing the Left especially the Leninist Left.
As far as I can tell he's never said anything about Grover Furr's work except for:
moufawad-paul.blogspot.se
So, JMP admits that Furr has assembled a lot of evidence on the matter but dismisses it all as "crude empiricism"? Even if you think that you should look at the evidence and see what it says–only a philosopher would take JMP's approach. Of course JMP isn't alone among the Maoists in taking this course:
stalinsociety.org
Furthermore, Mao himself could have outbursts worthy of the most inveterate Trotskyists:
Isaiah Gomez
Link on Mao quote:
marxists.org
Grayson Clark
Make the choice by which one sounds more stupid
Mau-ism
Hoax-Haw-ism
Gee, I wonder which one…