Titta vem som hyllar Enver Hoxha

Titta vem som hyllar Enver Hoxha. Ja, det är Motpol, en sajt som står politiskt långt till höger om SD och AFS. 

Enver Hoxha och den nationella frågan

Chairman Hua has a problem

“Kinas brytning med Albanien” is a book in Swedish published in 1978 by the local Maoist faithful, the so-called Communist Party of Sweden (SKP). It deals with an event which rocked the Maoist “world movement” a couple of years earlier: the split between post-Mao China and Enver Hoxha´s Albania. The Albanian Communist leadership, probably due to China´s pro-American foreign policy course and the vagaries of Balkan power politics (with the Chinese cozying up to Tito´s Yugoslavia), had broken with Beijing and embarked on a more “leftist” course, verbally attacking both the United States, the Soviet Union and China as “imperialist”. While this gung-ho isolationism attracted hard line Marxist-Leninists fed up with both Soviet and Chinese “revisionism” (and Realpolitik), it repelled pretty much everyone else, soon forcing the Hoxha regime to make some tactical adjustments, usually in the direction of pro-Soviet regimes in the Third World, but also Khomeini´s Iran – regimes Hoxha should logically have opposed if adhering strictly to the anti-Soviet (and anti-everyone) line. But this was still in the future when “Kinas brytning med Albanien” was published.

The book is divided into three sections. The most voluminous one is a collection of angry diplomatic (or not-so diplomatic) notes from the Albanian and Chinese Communist governments regarding the Chinese decision to break off its economic aid to Albania. I only skimmed this section. Please note: Albania was so backward that *Mao´s China* (hardly a power house of advanced technological development) could give it economic aid! This section ends with a sarcastic comment (funny when coming from Maoists) about how Albania sent a delegation to India to request economic aid from them instead… But sure, maybe India was more backward than China back in 1978? The second section contain the famous editorial “The Theory and Practice of Revolution”, published in the Albanian Communist organ “Zeri i Popullit”on June 6, 1977. This, then, gives the official Albanian position on the ideological rift with the Chinese. The final section is a response from the SKP to the Albanian polemic. The SKP doesn´t really argue its pro-Chinese line (really pro-Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping), essentially just repeating all the usual “Three Worlds Theory” talking points. What struck me when reading the article was how brazen it was – the SKP freely admits that in the event of a Third World War, they would support the United States and NATO against the Soviet Union! And the SKP regarded a third world war as inevitable…

Of course, SKP´s weird blend of Stalinistic Maoism and Swedish anti-Soviet nationalism didn´t pay off (as far as I know). The proper Swedish authorities still regarded them as unreliable reds. Today, the ex-SKPers have change their line again, now supporting *Russia* against the Western alliance, presumably confirming the deepest fears of the Secret Service. I suppose the left behind Maoists might still be taking their marching orders from oblique editorials in “People´s Daily”, although I suspect the Chinese no longer give a damn. And I frankly wonder if they gave a damn even back in 1978!  

Wretched coward or mad dog?

"Defects in Party Work and Measures for Liquidating Trotskyites and other Double-Dealers" is the bizarre title of two speeches by Joseph Stalin to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party. The speeches were given in 1937, during the Great Purges. The show trials of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Radek had already been staged, while the show trial of Bukharin was still in the future. Thus, the enemies of the Party attacked by Stalin are referred to as "Trotskyites" and "Zinovievites", but there are still no references to "the bloc of Trotskyites and Rightists".

If taken at face value, Stalin's speeches are the paranoid ravings of a conspiracy theorist, who blame all problems in the Soviet Union - not least the economic waste and inefficiency - on foreign agents who have managed to worm themselves into Party organizations, including at the highest levels. They are in cahoots with German and Japanese intelligence agencies, want to partition the Soviet Union between hostile foreign powers, stage terrorist attacks, plan to blow up dams, etc. Naturally, Stalin blames the murder of Kirov on the Zinovievite-Trotskyites. One sure wonders why so many traitors have managed to worm themselves into the monolithic, ever-vigilant, ever-ready Communist Party of the Soviet Union? But, of course, Stalin didn't believe a word of it, which makes the whole thing even more tasteless.

But sure, the great leader of the world proletariat does attempt some kind of "explanation" for the large amount of foreign agents in the midst of the Soviet Union. Apparently, many Party comrades have forgotten that the Soviet Union is still encircled by hostile imperialist powers. They are too preoccupied with economic matters, and too dizzy with the stunning successes of the first five-year plans. The comrades imagine that the opposition to the Soviet system slackens with every success of socialist construction. In reality, the more successful socialism becomes, the *harder* the resistance becomes. Not understanding this, the Party has let itself be caught off guard by the Zinovievite and Trotskyite wreckers, spies, terrorists, and so forth.

Wise words indeed. The second speech even contains some kind of involuntary (?) self-irony from Stalin's side, as he explains that it would be silly to shoot people just because they happened to walk down the same street as a Trotskyite. Silly indeed. In real life, the Great Purges came pretty close to doing just that...

Unfortunately, I haven't seen this particular edition of "Defects in Party Work". I have in my possession a Swedish edition from 1979, published by three small pro-Albanian Communist groups. Their edition is longer than the one found on Marxist Internet Archive (MIA), which only contains parts of the first speech and completely leaves out the second one. It's possible that the editors of the MIA couldn't find an English-language translation of the entire oeuvre, since the American Communists tried to avoid printing it! Apparently, "Defects in Party Work" has also been excluded from some English-language Soviet editions of Stalin's Selected Works.

I'm not entirely surprised. Usually, Stalin was an extremely boring, pedantic speaker. His works are virtual chloroform in print. Even "Defects in Party Work" is surprisingly pedantic in style, with Stalin's typical and constant repetitions - as if he was addressing a bunch of fools. However, the work is also marked by blood-lust and fanaticism. "Comrade" Stalin truly sounds like a mad dog. It seems this work was too hot to handle for some of the man's own supporters. Personally, I don't think they had much right to complain about it...

The Swedish edition of "Defects in Party Work" is topped off by a quotation from Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha: "Everyone must fight to uphold Stalin's correct and immortal work. Whoever fails to defend it, is an opportunist and a wretched coward." Or words to that effect.

Whatever.

It always starts with candy

My exposé of the crypto-Communist candy known as "Albanese USA bears". Was this why Amazon purged me? Maybe HUAC should take a closer look at who owns the "Amerikan" candy industry... 

This is how they win you over. First, they give you sweet, innocent-looking candy. Then, unemployment benefits, collective bargaining and a national pension plan. Before you know it, Alabama will look like North Korea. Is it really a co-incidence that the flag of Russia is red, white and blue? Or that the traditional symbol of the Russian people is a bear? Nobody is going to convince me that this product is patriotic. This is another scheme by the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Pimen to take over the world on behalf of Communism. The flag of North Korea is also red, white and blue. And what does "Albanese" REALLY mean? Enver Hoxha's Albania, probably. They can't fool me.

The theory and practice of Hoxhaism

"The Theory and Practice of Revolution" is a famous editorial, published in the Albanian Communist newspaper Zeri i Popullit on July 7, 1977. The editorial was subsequently translated to several foreign languages by various pro-Albanian Communist groups. I have the unauthorized Swedish translation published in 1978 by "The Communist Unity Group of Stockholm" (SKEG), a forerunner of the KPS (see my review of Magnus Utvik's "Med Stalin som gud"). The American edition was apparently published by the Central Organization of U.S. Marxist-Leninists (COUSML). This group later broke with the "official" pro-Albanian world communist movement. I haven't seen the edition currently at sale here.

"The Theory and Practice of Revolution" was published during the Sino-Albanian split, when the Albanian Communist leadership around Enver Hoxha attacked the Chinese rapprochement with the United States and Yugoslavia. The editorial doesn't really say anything that was new at the time. Rather, it summarizes the erstwhile criticism of China made by Hoxha at the seventh congress of the Party of Labour of Albania in 1976. In 1978, Hoxha would publish what in effect became his magnum opus, "Imperialism and Revolution", in which he expounds at length on the ideological differences between the Albanian Communist regime and its erstwhile Chinese ally. This book, too, became near-canonical among the pro-Albanian Communist groups in different parts of the world.

Little needs to be said about "The Theory and Practice of Revolution", which I haven't already stated in my review of Hoxha's book. Zeri i Popullit has little problem proving that the Chinese adapt themselves politically to the Western powers, to various conservative and right-wing regimes in the "Third World", and that this has little in common with the ideas of Lenin. However, the Albanian Communists also run into serious problems of their own, something various Maoist groups were quick to point out. Thus, both Stalin and Mao had some of the politics Hoxha attacked. Yet, Hoxha never criticized them in his public speeches. In 1978, Hoxha did get around to attacking Mao in his book on imperialism, but Stalin was still upheld as a great Marxist-Leninist and friend of the Albanian people. In reality, of course, Stalin's diplomatic alliances were on a par with those of the Chinese. We're talking about the guy who signed the Hitler-Stalin pact, for crying out loud!

Hoxha's Maoist critics also pointed out the *the Albanian Communists themselves* had pursued many of the politics Hoxha now suddenly claimed were anti-Leninist, including peasant-based guerrilla warfare and "national democratic revolution" as a prolonged stage. I think it's pretty obvious that Hoxha was full of it, and that his break with China had more to do with local Balkan power politics than with some terribly important Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Hoxha presumably didn't fancy the idea of a Western-Chinese-Yugoslav alliance, Tito's Yugoslavia being the usual nemesis of Albania on the Balkan peninsula.

Another ridiculous contradiction concerns Hoxha's idea that the post-Stalin Soviet Union was "state capitalist" and "imperialist". This notion, it should be recalled, was stolen from the Chinese. (How could a "revisionist" like Mao correctly divine the character of the Soviet Union?) Apparently, post-Mao China was also "state capitalist". If the two major socialist countries had turned capitalist, Hoxha should logically draw the conclusion that the counter-revolution has been victorious on a global scale. Yet, he draws the *opposite* conclusion: the proletarian revolution is on the agenda in every nation of the world, including backwaters like Zaire! He also claims that a socialist camp still exists. It consists of "the Socialist People's Republic of Albania and other countries building true socialism". No other country is specified, but it was a public secret that the Albanian regime had good relations with China's Communist competitor Vietnam. Is Vietnam building true socialism? If so, what on earth is the difference between Vietnam and, say, Cuba or Angola, two Communist regimes Hoxha opposed? And how does Hoxha explain Vietnam's good relation with the "state capitalist" and "imperialist" Soviet Union?

Of course, he doesn't. The American publishers of this pamphlet, the COUSML (later the MLP), must have spotted these contradictions in the Albanian creed, forcing them to break their "fraternal relations" with the Party of Labour of Albania. However, they still insisted that Albania was somehow socialist, creating problems for themselves in 1991, when socialist Albania collapsed in pretty much the same manner as the "state capitalist" and "imperialist" Soviet bloc... Only the pesky Chinese, who both Hoxha and the MLP loved to hate, are still going strong! But that, as they say, is another story entirely.

Comrade Burt has the floor

In 1945, American Communist leader Earl Browder was expelled from the Communist Party USA and replaced by his old nemesis, William Z Foster. Browder was accused of various right-wing deviations from the true Communist program, among them an attempt to turn the party itself into a looser "association". His line, which included the idea that the Soviet Union and the United States could peacefully cooperate after World War II on a permanent basis, was condemned as "Browderism".

There was just one problem. "Browderism" was really Stalinism, the Stalinism of the People's Front and the 7th Congress of the Comintern, consistently applied. The Communist Party had supported Roosevelt, the New Deal and the American war effort against Nazi Germany and Japan, including the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Stalin was behind this, of course. I don't know if Stalin approved of Browder's decision to turn the CPUSA into a looser and more "soft line" association, or if Browder moved too fast, but he clearly didn't backtrack fast enough when Roosevelt died and the more anti-Soviet Truman became president. The American Communists quickly unseated and expelled Browder (after various hints from Moscow), switching to a more "hard line" pose.

Or did they?

Some CP members were dissatisfied with the new leadership around Foster. Indeed, most of the "new" leaders (with the exception of Foster) had supported Browder just a few months previously! As for Foster, he immediately decided to purge the party of "leftist sectarians". Eventually, an entire layer of party activists was expelled, since they refused to go along with Foster's "Browderism without Browder". The most well known expellee was William F Dunne, a former editor of "Daily Worker". By contrast, the author of this pamphlet, Burt Sutta, seems to have been completely unknown. He was just a regular party member in Queens, New York. Yet, Sutta might have been one of the more interesting expellees.

In his pamphlet, Sutta has little problem showing that on domestic issues, Foster has simply continued Browder's politics. While opposing Truman's foreign policy, the Communists nevertheless supported the Democrats, including Truman Democrats. In the unions, the Communists attempted to latch unto Philip Murray, leader of the Steelworkers, even as he was beginning to purge Communists from important positions. In New Orleans (where race segregation still was a reality), the Communists demanded that the local (White) police protect their meetings! Clearly, Foster did everything to foster a respectable image for his party, presumably as a tactic to avoid red-baiting.

Sutta has little problem showing that Lenin had a different position. He quotes profusely from "What is to be done". What makes Sutta's pamphlet intriguing is that he (tacitly) attacks popular frontism, for instance by repudiating the Communist Party's support for Roosevelt, by stating that the Western powers even during the war were secretly plotting to attack the Soviet Union, or by rejecting any support for the "liberal bourgeoisie". What Sutta doesn't do is laying the blame for all this "revisionism" on Stalin, where it clearly belongs. Yet, it may be significant that Sutta never references the 7th Congress of the Comintern, instead preferring to quote Lenin's famous (and super-revolutionary) 21 conditions for admission to the Comintern. In a later text, Sutta apparently *did* muster some criticism of Stalin, and was roundly condemned as a "Trotskyite" for doing so by the other expellees.

Most of the "left sectarians" didn't realize (or pretended not to notice) that "Browderism" was the logical culmination of Stalin's popular frontism. Instead, they attempted to prove that Browder (and Foster) had distorted Stalin's true line, quoting various "radical" statements adopted at the 7th Congress in 1935. It should be noted in this context that Stalin didn't suddenly discover this policy during the mid-1930's. He had it already during the 1920's (the Bloc of Four Classes).

Sutta's text, despite its political confusions, could be seen as an early forerunner of similar debates within the "Marxist-Leninist movement" of the 1970's, including those triggered by Enver Hoxha's criticism of Mao. The Albanian leader attacked "Maoist" positions which really originated with Stalin, while pretending to be a super-Stalinist. True to form, Hoxha attacked Browder rather than Stalin! Some people noticed the discrepancy, and acted accordingly. In the United States, the previously crank-Hoxhaite Marxist-Leninist Party (MLP) evolved into a kind of peculiar anti-Stalinist Marxist-Leninists (or, if you are less kind, "Third Period Stalinists minus Stalin"). A very small group in Sweden followed a similar trajectory. Perhaps Burt Sutta of Queens County was an early precursor of these people?

I realize that this review is somewhat "esoteric", and also somewhat "emic". In reality, I really don't care about the factional disputes within the Marxist-Leninist movement. I mean, come on, what's wrong with good ol' Labour Zionism? Still, I did find "The Fight Against Revisionism in the U.S. Communist Party" relatively interesting, in its own kind of way, and therefore give it three stars.

Enver Hoxha on the South Seas

Åh, Valona, mina drömmars stad.. 

In 2015, some poor guy at Amazon, or was it their all-knowing computer system, confused the flags of Albania and American Samoa. Naturally, I had to chime in on the matter... 

 LOL. This is an absolute classic. Somebody has confused the flag of Albania with the ditto of...wait for it...American Samoa??!! Where should I start, I mean think Margaret Mead versus Enver Hoxha's mausoleum, lava-lava versus the Party of Labour of Albania, or Bahai chiefs versus collectivized goats. Besides, the eagle in the Albanian flag is two-headed rather than bald, LOL.

A book that spawned a world movement

Meles Zenawi 

Enver Hoxha was the leader of Communist Albania from 1944 to 1985. "Imperialism and revolution" is his most important book, published in 1978 and translated to several foreign languages, including English, French and Swedish (!).

Originally, Albania was part of the Soviet-led socialist bloc, but it broke with the Soviet Union after Khrushchev had restored Soviet relations with Tito's Yugoslavia, Albania's perennial nemesis on the Balkans. Instead, Albania became an ally of Mao's China. After the death of Mao, his successor Hua Guofeng became pro-American, which was unacceptable to Hoxha. Worse, China established friendly relations with Tito! Albania therefore broke with China as well, and it was during this period of near-isolation that Enver Hoxha wrote "Imperialism and revolution". Indeed, in some ways Hoxha abandoned the ideas contained in the book only a few years later.

"Imperialism and revolution" defends a dogmatic, purist and sectarian form of Marxism-Leninism. Lenin and Stalin are quoted as authorities. Most of the attacks are directed at China. An entire chapter is devoted to criticizing Mao Zedong Thought as being anti-Marxist. This is somewhat unexpected, since Mao used to be Hoxha's ally. However, Hoxha pilfers Mao's analyses on other points of controversy, naturally without mentioning the source. Thus, he claims that the Soviet Union became "social imperialist", "capitalist" and "fascist" under Khrushchev. That, of course, was the Chinese position! Even more ironically, Hoxha claims that *China* has become "social imperialist", essentially turning the Chinese terminology against the Chinese themselves. In one chapter, Hoxha attempts to prove that China wants to become a superpower. This is the only part of the book that sounds somewhat prescient today.

Since the present reviewer isn't a Communist of any denomination, a critique of Hoxha's political strategy seems somewhat moot. Still, I was struck by the strong sectarian flavour of Hoxha's politics. Since both the United States, the Soviet Union and China are "imperialist", no movement having connections to any of these powers can be supported. Thus, Hoxha rejects support even for left-wing regimes such as the Cuban and Angolan ones, since these are simply agents of "social imperialism". Not even Trotskyists are this sectarian! Left-leaning regimes such as that of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan are also beyond the pale, Social Democratic parties and reformist labour unions in Western Europe need to be "destroyed", and so on. Hoxha also rejects the idea that socialism should be preceded by a prolonged stage of "new democracy". He never mentions that this idea originally comes from Stalin. Instead, he attempts to pin it on Mao and...Earl Browder (!). Indeed, Hoxha still defends *Stalin's* compromises, including both the Hitler-Stalin pact and the later alliance with Roosevelt and Churchill against Hitler.

But, frankly, I'm digressing. Why should anyone read Hoxha's book, then? Essentially, I can only think of two reasons. One, it gives the nominal reasons for Albania's break with China (the real reasons were probably more down-to-earth, such as the thaw between Hua and Tito). This may interest specialized students of Albanian or Chinese history. Two, "Imperialism and revolution" may be of interest to students of Communist history.

This book actually spawned a movement, a pro-Albanian Communist movement, operating in competition with the pro-Moscow and pro-Chinese world movements. Of course, the pro-Albanian Communist groups were quite small (except in Ethiopia). However, they were quite high profile in some nations. These groups were attracted by the combination of Stalinism and radical sectarianism in "Imperialism and revolution". Some were more attracted than others. Hoxha soon abandoned the strict isolationist pose of his book and began to support regimes broadly in the Soviet orbit: Surinam, Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Vietnam and the People's Republic of Kampuchea. Albania's good relations with Vietnam go back to the time when North Vietnam was pro-Chinese. When Vietnam became pro-Soviet, Albania opted to continue the relations. They even supported the Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia, together with the Soviet bloc! Albania also established good relations with Khomeini's Iran. In some of these nations, pro-Albanian Communists were fighting the local regimes, but Hoxha simply abandoned them to their fates. This created a semi-secret rift inside the pro-Albanian world movement, with some parties supporting Hoxha's new course, while others kept upholding "Imperialism and revolution". The latter faction was known as Theory And Practice.

Enver Hoxha died in 1985. The Communist regime collapsed in 1991. Ironically, at almost exactly the same time a pro-Albanian Communist named Meles Zenawi became the new leader of Ethiopia after an armed insurrection. However, Zenawi quickly shed his Communism. He was the prime minister of Ethiopia until his death in 2012 and a prominent American ally in the struggle against Muslim fundamentalism in Somalia!

It's ironic to think that he must have read "Imperialism and revolution". In an Ethiopian translation, perhaps?

Comrade Enver has a problem

Earl Browder

"Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism" is a book by Enver Hoxha, who was the leader of Communist Albania from 1944 to 1985. The book was published in Tirana in 1980 and translated to various foreign languages. At the time, there was a pro-Albanian Communist world movement. Presumably, these groups were the main target audience for Hoxha's book.

Most of the book is an attack on the French, Italian and Spanish Communist parties. The Italian and Spanish parties had launched Eurocommunism, a softer and more reformist version of Communism. Why Hoxha considers the French party Eurocommunist is less clear, since the French Communists were notoriously pro-Moscow. But, yes, I guess it could be argued that the French party was "reformist" back stage. Besides, Hoxha didn't like the Soviet Union either. At least not the post-Stalin Soviet Union.

The whole point of the book is to prove that Eurocommunism and other modernized and softened forms of Communism aren't really Communist at all. I readily concede that Hoxha proves his point rather admirably. Hoxha upholds a strict, dogmatic and sectarian form of Marxism-Leninism. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin are quoted as authorities. If *this* is Communism, it's indeed difficult to see in what sense the politics of Togliatti, Berlinguer or Carillo could be considered Communist.

But Hoxha also runs into some problems. Where does Eurocommunism come from? How could it have developed? From an Albanian perspective, the pro-Moscow communists were just as "reformist" as the independent Eurocommunists! Hoxha believes that there is a connection, and singles out Khrushchev and Tito as examples of early renegades from real Marxism-Leninism. Didn't Khrushchev attack the great Stalin? Didn't Tito break with Stalin already during the latter's lifetime? Hoxha also mentions Earl Browder, the American Communist who already during World War II called for "class collaboration", support to democratic American capitalism, and wanted to dissolve the Communist Party into a cultural and philosophical association. Browder was later disavowed by Stalin.

But then, Hoxha makes an unexpected move. He believes that the French and Italian Communist parties had a "reformist" line already in the aftermath of World War II. After all, neither the French nor the Italian Communists wanted to organize a socialist revolution. Rather, they wanted to become equal players in a post-war democratic state. For a brief period, the Communists joined the post-war governments of both France and Italy. How different, Hoxha believes, from East Europe where the popular fronts were dominated by the Communists!

There is only one problem. The actions of the French and Italian parties had the full support and backing of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union and the Cominform. This was in keeping with the post-war deals between the Allies, which turned East Europe into a Soviet cordon sanitaire. In return, Stalin called off any plans for Communist expansion in Western Europe.

Logically, Hoxha should draw the conclusion that *Stalin* was the first renegade from Communism, and attack Old Joe "from the left", as it were. He does not. Instead, Hoxha takes the contradictory line that Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist leader and thinker, while his loyal followers in France and Italy screwed up. In reality, they were simply following the commands of Little Father in Moscow. Hoxha is contradictory on other points as well. Thus, he claims that the Spanish Communist Party acted in a revolutionary way in Spain during the civil war, when in reality the Communists did everything in their power to *stop* the CNT and the POUM from carrying out a socialist revolution. As for Earl Browder, he could hardly have carried out his plans to turn the CPUSA into a "democratic" association, had he not enjoyed backing from Stalin as well, at least initially. Comrade Enver clearly has a problem!

"Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism" is not a very interesting read, unless you have a penchant for the more esoteric problems of the world Communist movement.

The minds of Maoists

"The Communist" was a theoretical journal published by the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a Maoist group in the United States. The group still exists, but seems to have changed many of its politics.

This issue of "The Communist" (no. 5) was published in 1979 and is 240 pages long. It's probably of interest only to avid left-watchers or perhaps budding Maoists.

The main article has the typically Maoist title "Beat back the dogmato-revisionist attack on Mao Tsetung Thought". It's a polemic against Enver Hoxha, the Communist leader of Albania, who had broken with China a few years earlier and written "Imperialism and revolution", a book containing attacks on Mao and Maoism. Since the RCP had also broken with China after the death of Mao, the article doesn't attempt to defend the pro-American foreign policy of China's new rulers. Rather, it concentrates on defending Mao himself from Hoxha's attacks.

Most of the article is very tedious, detailing various factional controversies within the Chinese Communist movement. Still, it does have certain ironic qualities. The Albanian leader had criticized Mao for excessive popular frontism and "new democracy". RCP points out that Hoxha himself had acted in a similar manner in Albania. What about the Democratic Front? RCP also wonders why Hoxha's ruling party is called the Party of Labour of Albania. Hoxha believed that Mao overestimated the peasantry, but when the Albanian party changed its name from "Communist Party" to "Party of Labour", the great mass of Albanian peasants was cited as the reason. The RCP also point out that Hoxha had taken his analysis of the Soviet Union as "social imperialist" from the writings of the Chinese leaders he later attacked. Finally, the RCP quote a Soviet attack on Mao which is almost identical, word for word, to one of Hoxha's attacks on Mao. Since Hoxha claimed to be anti-Soviet as well as anti-Chinese, this is something of an embarrassment.

Of course, the main point of the article is to defend the Cultural Revolution in China. Hoxha had sharply attacked it in "Imperialism and revolution". The RCP has little trouble exposing the fact, that Hoxha's line amounts to support for Liu Shaoqi and indirectly Deng Xiaoping, two of the main victims of the Cultural Revolution. In other words, the orthodox Marxist-Leninist Enver Hoxha actually supported the "capitalist-roaders".

Another article in "The Communist" is called "Plato: Classical Ideologue of Reaction". It's a Marxist analysis of Plato and Socrates. Naturally, the RCP regards Plato as an anti-democratic, reactionary representative of the old oligarchic landowners. They even imply that the framing and execution of Socrates was a good thing! Socrates' way of ironically questioning people and holding them up for ridicule is seen as profoundly anti-democratic. It's an attack on the the democratic notion that the common man can have real knowledge and hence become part of the active citizenry. Plato's "utopianism" was simply an idealization of the old society dominated by oligarchs. The RCP also points out the curious fact that the austere guardians and philosopher-kings are superimposed on a society very similar to Athens of Plato's own day, i.e. an Athens with merchants and a merchant economy. In effect, Plato was the representative of those forces who wanted to turn Athens into an oligarchy, while retaining the basic social relations of the expanding, mercantile slave society. Or so the RCP believes.

A third article in this journal is called "China, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Professor Bettelheim". It's a criticism of Charles Bettelheim, a distinguished French professor with strong Maoist leanings who broke with the Chinese a few years after Mao's death. Bettelheim contributed to the book "China since Mao", apparently a bestseller on the left when it was first published. RCP commends Bettelheim for defending Mao against the new leaders of China, but believes that he is too critical of the Gang of Four and makes other errors as well. Interestingly, RCP believes that Bettelheim puts to much emphasis on democracy under socialism. Bettelheim seems to have supported the Cultural Revolution in the belief that it was more democratic than the usual Communist command systems. When Mao abolished the radically democratic Shanghai Commune in favour of a "revolutionary committee", Bettelheim believed that the Cultural Revolution was in retreat. RCP takes the opposite position: there was *too much* democracy during the first phase of the Cultural Revolution, and Mao therefore did the right thing when he abolished the Commune. The leadership of the true Communists must be upheld at all times, the RCP believes. (The guardians and philosopher-kings?) Bettelheim is also criticized for his past association with Trotskyist and "revisionist" groups, and for attacking Stalin in favour of Bukharin.

"The Communist" (no. 5) is a very esoteric publication, unless you are very interested in the topics covered. Still, it does give a certain insight into the minds of Maoists.

Surprising reflections

"Reflections on the Middle East" is a book containing short reflections on various Mideast topics penned by the leader of socialist Albania, Enver Hoxha. The book covers the entire period from 1958 to 1983. Hoxha comments on the Algerian war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, developments in Egypt, the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There is also an extended article in which Hoxha expresses his great admiration for Arab and Persian culture.

Enver Hoxha's Communist regime in Albania broke with the Soviet Union after the death of Stalin and instead allied itself with China. After the death of Mao Zedong, Albania fell out with China as well, and became relatively isolated on the international arena. Hoxha's hostility to both the United States, the Soviet Union and China explains his political positions, which are sometimes rather surprising.

Thus, he expresses support for both the PLO, Khomeini's Iran and the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union. In the reflections, Hoxha becomes progressively more dissatisfied with Nasser, and strongly supports Sadat's move to expell all Soviet advisors from Egypt. Of course, Sadat's subsequent peace settlement with Israel came as something of a cold shower. The reflections on Iran are initially critical of Khomeini and supportive of the pro-Albanian group "Toufan", but eventually becomes pro-Khomeini, even supporting Iran against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. (Pro-Albanian Communist groups around the world were split on Iran. Some disagreed with Hoxha's change of line and supported Iraq instead!) Khomeini's stand against both the United States and the Soviet Union may have been what commended him to Hoxha.

More surprising still is Hoxha's (muted) support for a two-state settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it's possible that he later changed his mind and started to support "democratic secular Palestine". This is never clearly spelled out in the reflections, however.

Less surprising, perhaps, is Hoxha's almost hysterical condemnation of Ahmed Ben Bella and his strong approval of Boumedienne's coup. Ben Bella had close relations with both Tito and Khrushchev, and attempted to mimic the Yugoslav experiment with "socialist self-management". Hoxha virtually salivates over Ben Bella's downfall, although it's less clear what he subsequently thought of Boumedienne. Another outburst is reserved for Hua Guofeng, presumably because of his break with Albania and warm embrace of Tito (who else?).

On a lesser note, "Reflections on the Middle East" shows that Albania didn't want to completely isolate itself. The Communist regime had a merchant fleet which used the Suez Canal and sent trade delegations to both Turkey and Iraq. The book also shows that Hoxha was perennially worried about a possible Soviet attack on Albania.

Frankly, "Reflections on the Middle East" is a terribly boring book, unless you know what to look for and have a strong interest in the rather narrow subject of Albanian foreign policy.

Decoding Ramiz Alia

A review of Ramiz Alia´s report to the 1986 congress of the Albanian Communist party, which actually exists in an English translation. 

Ramiz Alia was the successor of Enver Hoxha as leader of the Communist regime in Albania. He was also the first elected president of post-Communist, democratic Albania. This little book contains Alia's keynote speech to the 9th congress of the Party of Labour of Albania (PLA), held in 1986. At the time, the PLA was the ruling Communist party of Albania (and the only legal party).

As usual, it's difficult to decode documents like this one. After all, they were intended for public consumption. On many points, Alia sounds like Hoxha. One-party rule is explicitly said to be necessary, the isolationism of Communist Albania is defended, and various "revisionists" are attacked. The text also contains a strong emphasis on Albanian nationalism (the Albanians are, of course, descended from the ancient Illyrians). If this was also Hoxha's line, I don't know.

On other points, Alia sounds cautiously reform-minded. He attacks a botched attempt to collectivize sheep and goats, calls for political decentralization, and wants every village to be self-reliant on food (in reality, a veiled way to introduce local markets). The Albanian leader even calls for free international trade! Apparently, Albania was badly hit by the protectionism of the major economies. Alia boasts about Albania's good relations with both Greece and Turkey, and a whole host of other nations, both capitalist and Communist. Friendly relations with Italy are on Alia's horizon, too. Yugoslavia is something else again - Alia attacks the Yugoslav repression in Kosova: "They are still suffering from nostalgia for Koci Xoxe". (A pro-Yugoslav Albanian Communist, and hence arch-traitor in PLA demonology.)

I also noticed that Alia regards the United States as the most dangerous super-power, a clear revision of Hoxha's original line that both super-powers (the US and the USSR) are equally dangerous. But then, Hoxha himself seems to have adopted this line in practice just a few years after Albania's break with China. While Albania didn't have any relations with the Soviet Union itself, they traded with other states in the Eastern bloc and had good relations with Vietnam, Cuba, Burkina Faso and other nations broadly in the Soviet orbit. Perhaps Alia's plan was to normalize relations with the Western powers, too? Not the United States, but he is clearly wooing Britain and West Germany in his report.

I'm not sure how to decode Ramiz Alia, but perhaps he was - ever so cautiously - attempting to become Albania's very own Gorbachev? If so, he seems to have succeeded. In return, the ungrateful "Illyrians" threw Alia into prison and re-introduced blood feuds. But that, comrades, is another story entirely...

No problemo

Previously posted on Amazon, which recently purged me, Albania Stalinist style, and deleted all my reviews. So I repost them here, at my own blog! The photo above is of Edvard Kardelj, mentioned in the review. 

This small booklet was actually published in Communist Albania in 1978. It cost 3.50 Lekë, which I presume was the local Albanian currency. The author was none other than Enver Hoxha himself, Communist leader of Albania from 1944 to 1985. In Sweden, Hoxha's little book was distributed by a small pro-Albanian Communist group. In the United States, it's still being distributed...by Amazon! The world is strange.

"Yugoslav Self-Administration: A Capitalist Theory and Practice" is an attack on the economic and political system of Tito's Yugoslavia. More specifically, it's a polemic against a book by Edvard Kardelj, often regarded as the chief ideologist of the Titoist regime. Kardelj's work had been translated to Albanian in Kosovo, then under Yugoslav control, and somehow Hoxha procured a copy of it. The system Hoxha calls "self-administration" is more widely known in English as "workers' self-management".

Hoxha has little problem proving that Kardelj is indeed a "renegade", a "revisionist" and so forth. The partially decentralized economic system of Tito's Yugoslavia was indeed very different from the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism as laid down by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin! Hoxha also easily proves that Yugoslavia is really controlled by "the Tito clique" rather than by the workers, that there is an "elite" in Yugoslavia, and that the Yugoslav economy is becoming progressively more decrepit and heavily in debt.

The Albanian Communist leader has some difficulty making up his mind whether Kardelj is an "anarchist", "Euro-Communist" or "Social Democrat", but he is sure of one thing: Yugoslavia is "capitalist" and the bourgeoisie, kulaks and international capital exploit the Yugoslav workers. Of course, he also protests Yugoslavia's control of Kosovo, without mentioning the upgrading of Kosovo's status within the Yugoslav Federation to a near-republic. (Of course, the Kosovar Albanians wanted more, so Hoxha was playing it safe here, as well.)

For rather obvious reasons, Hoxha's booklet is decidedly less convincing when talking about Albania... But yes, it was genuinely Communist, at least we can grant Hoxha that much! :D

(This is the fourth book by comrade Enver I'm reviewing here on Amazon. Do I have an unhealthy obsession with this guy, or what?)

A Communist history of modern Albania

"The History of the Party of Labour of Albania" is an old classic, published in 1971 by the Institute of Marxist-Leninist Studies of the said party's Central Committee.

The book's title is self-explanatory. Yes, it really is an official history of the Communist Party of Albania, later called the Party of Labour of Albania. It could be of interest to students of Albanian history, but must (of course) be double-checked with non-Communist sources for veracity.

A large part of "The History of the PLA" deals with various factional struggles within the Albanian Communist movement. The great hero of the story is, unsurprisingly, Enver Hoxha. His early opponents are, rightly or wrongly, referred to as "anarchists" and "Trotskyists". Later opponents are dubbed "Titoists". The arch-enemy is Koci Xoxe, an Albanian Communist leader closely associated with Tito's Yugoslavia. Hoxha managed to outmanoeuvre Xoxe after Tito's break with the Soviet Union (Hoxha supported Stalin). Curiously, the book doesn't mention that Xoxe was subsequently executed on Hoxha's orders. Other renegades we are supposed to hate include the "Trotskyist" Zjarri group, Sejfulla Malëshova, Sadik Premte and Liri Belishova. (The book was published before Mehmet Shehu's fall from grace.) As a side point, let me note that "real" Trotskyists staunchly deny that there ever were Trotskyists in Albania. This is hardly surprising, since the Zjarri group seems to have been on friendly terms with both the Italian fascists who occupied Albania in 1939, and the politically dubious Balli Kombëtar organization. At least according to this book! (Sadik Premte did join the Trotskyist Fourth International after leaving Albania for safer havens, but that's another show.)

Much of the book deals with real or perceived foreign threats to Albanian national sovereignty, and it's obvious that Hoxha's dogmatic Marxism-Leninism was combined with a kind of nationalism. Hoxha's conflicts with both Yugoslavia and Khrushchev's Soviet Union are dealt with in some detail. So are Albania's economic problems and "socialist construction", including the collectivization of the countryside and the fight against the kulaks. All "mistakes" of the PLA are either attributed to dissident factions, or (more graciously) to the inexperience of the party leadership, but never to Stalin, despite the fact that both the "leftist" and "rightist" deviations must have been ordered from Moscow! Thus, both the super-radical slogans circa 1939-41 and the super-popular front circa 1941-48 are similar in character to the policy of other Communist Parties during exactly the same time frames, so they must have been the brainchild of the Soviet leader. Since this would lead to awkward questions concerning his Marxist-Leninist credentials, the official history simply shoves the whole thing under the rug. Milovan Djilas claims in his book "Conversations with Stalin" that Stalin originally supported the Yugoslav plans to "swallow Albania" (Stalin's own words). Naturally, this isn't discussed in "The History of the PLA" either, which depicts Stalin as a great friend of the Albanian people. More sensationally, sources hostile to Hoxha claim that the Albanian Communist Party was actually founded by the Yugoslav "Titoists", with Hoxha and Xoxe being about equally pro-Yugoslav until the Tito-Stalin split, when Hoxha skillfully stabbed Tito and Xoxe in the back! I'm not sure if this has ever been conclusively proven, but (of course) no objective discussion can be expected on the issue in the officially approved Hoxhaite-Stalinist history of the PLA.

It's also intriguing to compare the chapters on Communist strategy during World War II with Hoxha's later musings in "Imperialism and revolution", published in 1978. In that book, Hoxha strikes a super-revolutionary pose when attacking Mao Zedong. Hoxha charges that Mao based his revolution on the peasantry rather than the working class, and attacks the "revisionist" line concerning "new democracy", etc. But in "The History of the PLA", we learn that the Albanian Communists had a line similar to that of Mao during World War II: create a broad "democratic front" with everyone willing to fight the Axis powers, regardless of their political opinions. This is not surprising, since both Hoxha and Mao took their cues from Stalin. "The History" further states that Albania was nominally ruled by the Democratic Front until 1948, with the Communist Party being semi-secret! This sounds similar to "new democracy" á la Mao. The book also admits that 80 % of the Communist-controlled partisans were peasants. So what's the difference between Mao and Hoxha, really? It's also curious that the Albanian Communist Party, the purest of pure Marxist-Leninists, actually changed their name to the more neutral-sounding Party of Labour. I strongly suspect that this, too, was an idea cracked by Uncle Joe in the Kremlin. Many other East European CPs adopted similar names around the same time...

Otherwise, I was struck by how radical Hoxha's regime became subsequently, once they were firmly entrenched (and firmly isolated). In most Communist states, including North Korea, collectivized peasants had the right to keep their own private plots alongside the collective farm. In Albania, however, a "voluntary" campaign attempted to get rid even of these. Religion was another enemy to eradicate. In 1967, the people "voluntarily" demanded the closing of every church and mosque, which was subsequently carried out. Also, all icons and other religious symbols were removed even from private homes. The publication of religious scriptures and the education of priests or imams had been banned already after World War II. Curiously, Hoxha himself seems to have admired Muslim high culture and the Bektashi Order (not mentioned in this book, however). It's not clear to me why he didn't simply set up pro-Communist religious fronts, a policy followed by most other Communist regimes, even by - wait for it - Kim Il Sung. At one point, "History of the PLA" refer to these and other actions as a "cultural revolution", a term obviously borrowed from Mao's ditto in China. Later, Hoxha would repudiate both the Cultural Revolution and Mao en toto, but without changing his radical domestic policies. Hoxha's successor Ramiz Alia mentions a failed attempt to collectivize sheep herds and goat herds, carried out during the last years of Hoxha's long rule.

"The History of the Party of Labour of Albania" is, of course, an immensely boring book, unless you happen to have some kind of love-hate relationship with the Hoxhaite variety of Marxism-Leninism, or consider yourself an Albanian history buff. (I doubt, however, that modern Albanians read this kind of stuff!) As usual, I have no idea how to rate PLA paraphernalia, so in the end I award this work three red stars out of five.

Red Front salute, comrades. :D

The Soviet Union today

Ronnie Reagan together with Afghan mujahedeen 

This is a review of an obscure book published by the KPS, the (now defunct) pro-Albanian group in Sweden mentioned in my previous posting. I´m not sure if GDPR permits me to mention its title or the real name of the author, so I have decided to "pseudonymize" both. 

This book, published during the 1980´s, was quite the classic in its day, at least if you belonged to the small circles of Swedish Marxist-Leninists. The author, Nils Nilsson, was a member of the KPS, a Communist group which supported Enver Hoxha´s Stalinist regime in Albania. Previously, he had been a member of the KPML(r), today known as the KP, another Communist group.

The KPML(r) had originally been Maoist and condemned both the United States and the Soviet Union as “imperialist” and “capitalist”. However, the (r)´s gradually changed their line during the latter half of the 1970´s, becoming increasingly more pro-Soviet. Their new analysis was that the Soviet Union was “dualist”, with a “revisionist superstructure” resting on a “socialist base”. The (r) group wanted to uphold Stalin and took a more radical stance than the official pro-Soviet party APK on a number of issues, but overall they defended the Soviet Union and its allies. It´s interesting to note that a similar development took place in the United States, and perhaps other nations too, as China´s increasingly pro-American foreign policy pushed some (former) Maoists into the pro-Soviet camp, a camp they had previously denounced.

Nilsson originally wrote "The New Revisionism" as an internal discussion document within the KPML(r), arguing against the new pro-Soviet line. However, Nilsson´s alternative wasn´t the Maoist analysis but rather the Albanian ditto. Enver Hoxha condemned both the post-Stalin Soviet Union and China. The (r) leadership wasn´t amused. Are we to believe Nilsson, one (r) leader “fretted saliva” as he denounced the “sectarian” Albanians, “with a condescending voice full of despise” and “hatred in his eyes” during a meeting with the dissident author. Another (r) leader frankly told Nilsson to get in touch with the KPS! “I´m sure they will publish your document”.

Curiously, Nilsson was never expelled from the KPML(r), but left on his own. One thing that surprises me is the lack of real engagement from the KPML(r) leadership. Judging by Nilsson´s account, they simply didn´t take him seriously, and probably coldly calculated that he would leave the party soon enough anyway.

“The New Revisionism” was indeed published, with some appendices, by the KPS and was heavily promoted by them as the ultimate critique of the KPML(r). Personally, I consider the book to be rather badly written and not particularly interesting expect for devout left-watchers and, perhaps, Marxist-Leninists. Nilsson´s political positions are actually more “rightist” than those of the (r)´s on a number of issues, most notably Afghanistan, where he supports the Mujahedeen, seeing them as a resistance movement against Soviet “social imperialism”, and only very grudgingly supports the pre-invasion leftist regime of Taraki and Amin. Within the KPS, Nilsson was generally “to the right” of party leader Anders Persson, and eventually left the KPS, joining a short lived “broad left” group instead.

Today, this book is probably available only at selected Swedish research libraries!

Lies the left tells itself

I posted this (perhaps a bit too negative) review of Magnus Utvik´s Swedish book "Med Stalin som Gud" at the site of a certain web-based vendor in 2012. They no longer sell it, and the product page has been removed, too, so I just repost it here as a suitable introduction to my book blog! 

Magnus Utvik's book "Med Stalin som Gud" only exists in a Swedish edition. It created quite a stir in Sweden last year. As usual, I missed all the action. (I was too preoccupied trying to understand Owen Barfield, I suppose.) Apparently, Utvik is a well-known Swedish writer and book reviewer. As a teenager in the early 1980's, Utvik had different agendas. At the age of seventeen, he actually joined a small Communist group, the KPS. He left the group, or was de facto expelled, three years later.

The KPS was a small but notorious group. They never stood in elections, but they were difficult to miss. The group supported Enver Hoxha's regime in Albania, and regarded Stalin as a great revolutionary leader and thinker. The group operated a number of bookstores, which sold works by Hoxha and Stalin, some of them in Swedish. Guys, where did you think I picked up all my Stalinist books, which I have been reviewing here at Amazon? At a paperback store downtown? Naaaah.

I'm somewhat younger than Utvik, and I certainly never belonged to the KPS, but I did encounter the group around 1990. My recollections of this small Communist party are very different from those of Utvik. Perhaps they had a more polished image (relatively speaking!) when I encountered them, than when Utvik had decided to join the fray? Utvik describes the small pro-Albanian party as a crazy obedience cult, and in an interview with the Swedish daily Expressen compares them to the Baader Meinhof gang. My impression was vastly different: a dogmatic left-wing group which, when push came to shove, didn't do much out of the ordinary: anti-racist organizing, campaigns against cutbacks, running for local union office, etc. But yes, they really did like Joe Stalin and Comrade Enver...

I don't deny that Utvik's recollections of the KPS are interesting, but unfortunately they are often unreliable. Utvik has interviewed a number of elderly ex-members of the group. I happen to know who they are, and have talked to other ex-members myself. Both "Henrik" and "Lars" remained Communists even after being expelled from the KPS - something they don't mention when Utvik interviews them. Instead, they cast themselves as cult victims. Please. "Karin" gives the wrong date for her defection. "Lars" sets "Karin" straight, but distorts the case of "Henrik", claiming that "Henrik" wasn't really expelled for political reasons, but rather for personal ones. Another curious detail is that "Karin" and "Lars" don't agree on how many members the KPS really had - "Karin" says hundreds, "Lars" says 50 at most. Yet, "Lars" and "Karin" were both members of the KPS Central Committee before being expelled! Why don't they agree even on trivial facts?

Utvik also reports some pretty wild rumours about the KPS stealing and smuggling machinery from Sweden to Albania. Purportedly, the KPS leader Persson and his crony "Gunnar" spent the money on heavy drinking bouts while on vacation in Italy. Really? I've heard jucier stuff about some of "Henrik's" buddies. And no, I don't believe them either...

I know who you are, comrades. Or should I call you CITIZENS?

:P

Another problem with "Med Stalin som Gud" is that it never really explains why a 17-year old boy from a small country town in Sweden would join a dogmatic (or barking mad?) Stalinist sect/cult/group. And yet, the back matter promises an answer to this question. None is forthcoming. Utvik is a Communist already when the story gets started, although a member of the more moderate KU (the youth wing of the Euro-communist VPK, the respectable reds in Swedish politics). He seems to have joined the KPS because he disliked the tepid message of the VPK/KU, wanting the raw stuff instead. Well, he sure got it. Besides, it's unclear how "moderate" his KU comrades really were. They seem to have supported the Soviet Union and East Germany! That's hardly Euro-communist. Sounds more like official Communism to me, which makes me wonder why Utvik left the KU in the first place. Weren't Brezhnev and Honecker hard enough for him?

Ironically, Utvik seems to have been too "far out" even for the KPS, admiring the Baader Meinhof gang, preaching armed struggle at a civics class "election meeting" in senior high, and constantly creating petty trouble when serving in the military (the officer just sighed and discharged him - Sweden has never been at war since 1814. In the United States, he would have been court-martialled). He also slept around with at least one party comrade. If the KPS was a crazy cult, Utvik seems to have fitted right in. Eventually, the KPS more or less expelled him...

There are no reflections about these facts in the book. Instead, Utvik paints himself as the innocent victim, conned by the nefarious KPS and their secretive Central Committee. Apparently, the party refused to grant Utvik candidate membership because of "Trotskyite" tendencies, but one of the defectors kindly informs him 25 years later that "individualism" was the real reason. This confirms my impression: the teen Commie was too unruly for his older peers. "Trotskyite tendencies" was simply the (usual) pretext. (Are we to believe Utvik, the KPS had convoluted rules for membership. Our author was neither a "full" nor a "candidate" member, but a kind of worker-ant at an even lower rung of the hierarchy. It's unclear whether this was because of his youth, or for other reasons. To all intents and purposes, however, he did belong to the group.)

Can I prove any of the above? Of course not. Not unless you give me the same powers as Enver Hoxha's secret service (I don't want it, thanks).

These are my own, subjective recollections and impressions of the KPS, the defectors and of Utvik himself. However, since Utvik's book contains a disclaimer, stating that "Med Stalin som Gud" is *his* subjective story, I might as well chime in with my own.

Incidentally, I have nothing personal against "Henrik", "Lars" and the other people queried by Utvik. They might indeed be fundamentally good guys. Nor do I have anything against Utvik, whom I never met (I think). However, it does look strange to an onlooker that ex-Stalinists are just as liberal with the truth as Stalinists...

Perhaps it's just as good that this work stays untranslated.