Enver Hoxha: Evil Dictator or Hero of the Proletariat?

[Blakk Metal]

Psychopaths typically don't increase the standard of living, particularly for women, by enormous quantities.

Hitler greatly increased the standard of living in Germany until the war. He was still a psychopath. Honestly a lot of psychopaths do increase the standard of living, like it or not even the tyrant Thatcher raised the standard of living for her people.

This is a quintessential Godwin, since Hitler wasn't a psychopath, he was mildly psychotic at best.

[Greater-London]

The Soviet Union had no way to prove that the workers supported it. Free elections were never held because they feared the result.

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

[Rio Cana]

Hoxha was a partisan who helped liberate Albania. Initially, he was not leftish. He was a nationalist. He stumbled into being leftish. Since he had been a teacher he probably wanted to prove that it could be done. The leftish ideology he always supported was Stalinism. When the Soviets turned on him he turned to China. Chinese economic help was not has good or advanced has Soviet help but at least it was something. When China opened diplomatic ties to the US he dumped China. That is when the Albanian economy took a nose diving. It seems has he got older he was kind of out of it. He even purged and some say got rid of his loyal right hand man who had been with him for 30 years. At least he kept Albania independent. After all, its a miracle that the Albania and its people made it intact into the 21 century.

I recommend this long but informative Italian documentary on Albania. It has English subtitles. It has plenty of historical film clips showing Albania before and during Hoxha.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGY1lUP_U-Q

[Dayaar Mongol]

The Soviet Union had no way to prove that the workers supported it. Free elections were never held because they feared the result.

That it failed is proof that they didn't. The Party should have realized that the country was no longer under threat from the bourgeois, and that they could progress to full socialist democracy.

It wasn't until Gorbachev that the Party stopped representing the people. His attempts to implement Capitalism brought about the end of the USSR.

Besides, democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. You could either have one or two parties that follow the exact same ideals, and then claim they're different, only to receive heavy criticism from both your people and the people abroad, or you could have multiple parties and have some rich, corrupt douche bribe everybody so that the worst possible candidate wins.

I'll stick with Socialist dictatorships, thanks.

[Dayaar Mongol]

The Soviet Union had no way to prove that the workers supported it. Free elections were never held because they feared the result.

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

State Socialism is the best kind of Socialist. There's a very slim chance of Capitalists coming into power and ruining your progress.

[Geilinor]

That it failed is proof that they didn't. The Party should have realized that the country was no longer under threat from the bourgeois, and that they could progress to full socialist democracy.

It wasn't until Gorbachev that the Party stopped representing the people. His attempts to implement Capitalism brought about the end of the USSR.

The USSR didn't split so people could have a dictatorship of the proletariat. They wanted democracy.

[United Marxist Nations]

It wasn't until Gorbachev that the Party stopped representing the people. His attempts to implement Capitalism brought about the end of the USSR.

The USSR didn't split so people could have a dictatorship of the proletariat. They wanted democracy.

Aglorland (from Lithuania) paints a different picture; according to him, they enjoyed the economic system, but wanted their own countries; if I understood him correctly.

[Geilinor]

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

State Socialism is the best kind of Socialist. There's a very slim chance of Capitalists coming into power and ruining your progress.

Why do supporters of capitalism not have the right to be heard?

[Constantinopolis]

The Soviet Union had no way to prove that the workers supported it. Free elections were never held because they feared the result.

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

Technically, free elections were not held because the Party argued that they had a better system for ensuring the government represented the interests of the workers. They pointed out that the vast majority of Party members, including the top leaders of the Soviet Union, started life as poor factory workers. This was true (except for Gorbachev, actually). Stalin himself had probably been the poorest of them all, as the son of a destitute shoe-maker from the fringes of the Empire. So the argument was that they were "men of the people" who knew the life of a common worker and could therefore be trusted to represent the interests of common workers more than those privileged rich kids who always win elections in the West.

That was the argument, anyway.

[Geilinor]

The USSR didn't split so people could have a dictatorship of the proletariat. They wanted democracy.

Aglorland (from Lithuania) paints a different picture; according to him, they enjoyed the economic system, but wanted their own countries; if I understood him correctly.

Enjoyed this? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-11-06/news/1991310039_1_bread-lines-moscow-bread-a-day

[United Marxist Nations]

Aglorland (from Lithuania) paints a different picture; according to him, they enjoyed the economic system, but wanted their own countries; if I understood him correctly.

Enjoyed this? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-11-06/news/1991310039_1_bread-lines-moscow-bread-a-day

Inefficient distribution that requires people to stand in line wasn't the whole system. He meant things like the healthcare system, universal employment, subsidized housing, free education, and subsidized university.

[Geilinor]

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

Technically, free elections were not held because the Party argued that they had a better system for ensuring the government represented the interests of the workers. They pointed out that the vast majority of Party members, including the top leaders of the Soviet Union, started life as poor factory workers. This was true (except for Gorbachev, actually). Stalin himself had probably been the poorest of them all, as the son of a destitute shoe-maker from the fringes of the Empire. So the argument was that they were "men of the people" who knew the life of a common worker and could therefore be trusted to represent the interests of common workers more than those privileged rich kids who always win elections in the West.

That was the argument, anyway.

Always?

[Constantinopolis]

Aglorland (from Lithuania) paints a different picture; according to him, they enjoyed the economic system, but wanted their own countries; if I understood him correctly.

Enjoyed this? http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-11-06/news/1991310039_1_bread-lines-moscow-bread-a-day

You're linking to an article from November 1991, you know. That's after the Communist Party was banned by Yeltsin, and less than two months before the USSR ceased to exist. Not exactly representative of the Soviet experience, to put it mildly.

But yeah, they probably enjoyed it more than this:

[Rio Cana]

That it failed is proof that they didn't. The Party should have realized that the country was no longer under threat from the bourgeois, and that they could progress to full socialist democracy.

It wasn't until Gorbachev that the Party stopped representing the people. His attempts to implement Capitalism brought about the end of the USSR.

Besides, democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be. You could either have one or two parties that follow the exact same ideals, and then claim they're different, only to receive heavy criticism from both your people and the people abroad, or you could have multiple parties and have some rich, corrupt douche bribe everybody so that the worst possible candidate wins.

I'll stick with Socialist dictatorships, thanks.

In that documentary video I posted, they interview a former Communist Italian. When Italian Communist party started doing revisions he went to Albania since they kept to the path. In the end, he says it was a vortex. He changed his mind about the ideology.

To hear him, fast forward the video to 1 hour 28 minutes. He ends his talk by 1 hour 31 minutes 15 seconds. He does not start to talk exact at 1 hour 28 minutes but I though you would like to listen to the short song they sing at 1 hour 28 minutes.

Video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGY1lUP_U-Q

[Duvniask]

The Soviet Union had no way to prove that the workers supported it. Free elections were never held because they feared the result.

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

No.

[Liberaxia]

Thats the dictatorship of the proletariat for you. Free elections weren't held because all other ideologies where considered anti-revolutionary and bourgeois.

Like I said, its a bit bogus but that's Soviet style Socialism for you.

No.

It may not be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" that exists in your head, but that's how it exists in the real world. They just happen to go together like that.

[Constantinopolis]

It may not be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" that exists in your head, but that's how it exists in the real world. They just happen to go together like that.

So tell me again about this wonderful limited-government capitalism that exists in your head.

[Cyyro]

Something tells me if United Marxist Nation's was in command of the world...well a lot of people would die...but hey, at least the ones who didn't get free housing! Right?

[Dejanic]

It may not be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" that exists in your head, but that's how it exists in the real world. They just happen to go together like that.

So tell me again about this wonderful limited-government capitalism that exists in your head.

Somalia, obviously.
https://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

[United Marxist Nations]

Something tells me if United Marxist Nation's was in command of the world...well a lot of people would die...but hey, at least the ones who didn't get free housing! Right?

Only those who resist the dictatorship of the proletariat with force. Those who resisted without force would be either arrested or otherwise forced to work. Everyone else would experience socialism though.

[Liberaxia]

So tell me again about this wonderful limited-government capitalism that exists in your head.

Somalia, obviously.
https://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

I just can't take the Mises Institute seriously.

[The Scientific States]

Something tells me if United Marxist Nation's was in command of the world...well a lot of people would die...but hey, at least the ones who didn't get free housing! Right?

Only those who resist the dictatorship of the proletariat with force. Those who resisted without force would be either arrested or otherwise forced to work. Everyone else would experience socialism though.

Why should that be the case? You claim to believe in a ideology that champions equality and fairness, but arresting those who disagree with you is neither equal or fair.

[Liberaxia]

It may not be the "dictatorship of the proletariat" that exists in your head, but that's how it exists in the real world. They just happen to go together like that.

So tell me again about this wonderful limited-government capitalism that exists in your head.

It doesn't. I am not disillusioned by notions of a "true capitalism". To be honest, "capitalism" isn't really a word I use.

[United Marxist Nations]

Only those who resist the dictatorship of the proletariat with force. Those who resisted without force would be either arrested or otherwise forced to work. Everyone else would experience socialism though.

Why should that be the case? You claim to believe in a ideology that champions equality and fairness, but arresting those who disagree with you is neither equal or fair.

It's not because they disagree, but because they are obstructing the operation of the system.

[The Scientific States]

Why should that be the case? You claim to believe in a ideology that champions equality and fairness, but arresting those who disagree with you is neither equal or fair.

It's not because they disagree, but because they are obstructing the operation of the system.

No. In your mind they're doing that by disagreeing.

You disagree with the current free market system, but nobody is arresting you or forcing you to work. I doubt you'd want that, so why should something like that happen to others if socialism were implemented?