LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Cisairse]

I'm always super sus about folks "indigenising" ideologies. It's not like folks shouldn't, of course adaptations have to be made to to suit local conditions. The problem is it almost always means the worst aspects and prejudices are mashed in haphazardly.

That's kind of part and parcel of Communist anti-colonial movements during the Cold War though. When you actually look past the labeling and ideological idealism, most Communist movements of the post-war period were just anti-colonial groups who paid lip service to Marxism in order to get funding and war materiel from Moscow and Beijing. Naturally, they were still influenced by Socialist ideals to some extent, but most had far more interest in kicking out their colonial overlords or enacting a regime change than pursuing some lofty goal of global Communism or international workers' solidarity.

It's also probably quite telling that a lot of these same movements/groups suddenly switched their tunes and became quite pro-America and open to foreign capital investment when the USSR collapsed and they lost their sugar daddy.

"We need to subjugate ourselves to this European superpower in order to fight colonialism" is an interesting mindset.

[Aureumterra]

That's kind of part and parcel of Communist anti-colonial movements during the Cold War though. When you actually look past the labeling and ideological idealism, most Communist movements of the post-war period were just anti-colonial groups who paid lip service to Marxism in order to get funding and war materiel from Moscow and Beijing. Naturally, they were still influenced by Socialist ideals to some extent, but most had far more interest in kicking out their colonial overlords or enacting a regime change than pursuing some lofty goal of global Communism or international workers' solidarity.

It's also probably quite telling that a lot of these same movements/groups suddenly switched their tunes and became quite pro-America and open to foreign capital investment when the USSR collapsed and they lost their sugar daddy.

"We need to subjugate ourselves to this European superpower in order to fight colonialism" is an interesting mindset.

It’s also the same mindset many of the Pan-African Movement leaders had, especially Lumumba

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

That's kind of part and parcel of Communist anti-colonial movements during the Cold War though. When you actually look past the labeling and ideological idealism, most Communist movements of the post-war period were just anti-colonial groups who paid lip service to Marxism in order to get funding and war materiel from Moscow and Beijing. Naturally, they were still influenced by Socialist ideals to some extent, but most had far more interest in kicking out their colonial overlords or enacting a regime change than pursuing some lofty goal of global Communism or international workers' solidarity.

It's also probably quite telling that a lot of these same movements/groups suddenly switched their tunes and became quite pro-America and open to foreign capital investment when the USSR collapsed and they lost their sugar daddy.

"We need to subjugate ourselves to this European superpower in order to fight colonialism" is an interesting mindset.

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily put it in those terms.

Both the USSR and its dependents outside of the Warsaw Pact had a form of unspoken understanding. The Soviets would supply the weapons and money, and in exchange the colonial rebels would cause havoc for the USSR's enemies (namely Britain, France and America). Once the colonial war was over and independence was achieved, the former rebels (now the ruling class of their independent country) were indebted to the Soviets to some extent, but weren't necessarily subjugated by them.

The interesting thing about Communist Cold War politics is that the USSR and China were constantly bumping heads over who should be the leading country in the struggle against America and Capitalism. In practice, this meant that they were continually undermining each other, and other Socialist states could essentially play each major power off of the other. This naturally meant that the amount of control either major power had over the newly independent colonies was always limited.

Granted, there were exceptions to this. The USSR tended to rule over its puppets in Europe with an iron fist, and China always maintained great sway over North Korea; but outside of their immediate spheres of influence neither power could really exert as much control as they'd have liked. Most Socialist countries were aware of this, and took full advantage of the situation.

[Cisairse]

"We need to subjugate ourselves to this European superpower in order to fight colonialism" is an interesting mindset.

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily put it in those terms.

Both the USSR and its dependents outside of the Warsaw Pact had a form of unspoken understanding. The Soviets would supply the weapons and money, and in exchange the colonial rebels would cause havoc for the USSR's enemies (namely Britain, France and America). Once the colonial war was over and independence was achieved, the former rebels (now the ruling class of their independent country) were indebted to the Soviets to some extent, but weren't necessarily subjugated by them.

The interesting thing about Communist Cold War politics is that the USSR and China were constantly bumping heads over who should be the leading country in the struggle against America and Capitalism. In practice, this meant that they were continually undermining each other, and other Socialist states could essentially play each major power off of the other. This naturally meant that the amount of control either major power had over the newly independent colonies was always limited.

Granted, there were exceptions to this. The USSR tended to rule over its puppets in Europe with an iron fist, and China always maintained great sway over North Korea; but outside of their immediate spheres of influence neither power could really exert as much control as they'd have liked. Most Socialist countries were aware of this, and took full advantage of the situation.

I think we can all agree that the undisputed master of realpolitik during the Cold War was Albania.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily put it in those terms.

Both the USSR and its dependents outside of the Warsaw Pact had a form of unspoken understanding. The Soviets would supply the weapons and money, and in exchange the colonial rebels would cause havoc for the USSR's enemies (namely Britain, France and America). Once the colonial war was over and independence was achieved, the former rebels (now the ruling class of their independent country) were indebted to the Soviets to some extent, but weren't necessarily subjugated by them.

The interesting thing about Communist Cold War politics is that the USSR and China were constantly bumping heads over who should be the leading country in the struggle against America and Capitalism. In practice, this meant that they were continually undermining each other, and other Socialist states could essentially play each major power off of the other. This naturally meant that the amount of control either major power had over the newly independent colonies was always limited.

Granted, there were exceptions to this. The USSR tended to rule over its puppets in Europe with an iron fist, and China always maintained great sway over North Korea; but outside of their immediate spheres of influence neither power could really exert as much control as they'd have liked. Most Socialist countries were aware of this, and took full advantage of the situation.

I think we can all agree that the undisputed master of realpolitik during the Cold War was Albania.

Indeed.

Why have friends or a functioning economy when you can have six bunkers per km².

[Cisairse]

Jacobin: Capitalism Isn’t Working. But What Would a Viable Socialist System Look Like?

[Byeclase]

I think we can all agree that the undisputed master of realpolitik during the Cold War was Albania.

Indeed.

Why have friends or a functioning economy when you can have six bunkers per km².

A very backwards country compared to the rest of Europe, who started to have industry and healthcare and had to isolate itself from revisionism, surrounded by enemies like Yugoslavia who tried to infiltrate the Sigurimi in an alliance with the brits. The bunkers can be justified as defense was highly needed. The little country almost alone advanced the economy and even reached the point of abolishing direct taxes, which is laudable.

The split was done with China to combat soviet social imperialism, unlike Cuba who sided opportunistically with Khruschev and Yugoslavia. They denounced the invasion of Czechoslovakia, being consistent with the principles of the party. But then China sided with other revisionists, their revisionist enemies and rightists, Albania consistently rejected this and the split happened with China too.

This is a top priority, the principles of the party can't be slashed or capitalism is restored soon and we end up puppeteering countries for capitalist games. This is a reason of why Albania is an example and the writings of Hoxha constitute a classic of leninism denouncing revisionist trends and how to proceed when revisionism starts arising around the world. It's an example on how to build socialism in one country and how the party remains internationalist while the other ones mask off as they make opportunistic alliances slashing the principles of the party.
If realpolitik means capitalist restoration, he was consistent with this until the takeover. Realpolitik has to be understood instead in terms to advance communism, for example the necessary Ribbentrop-Molotov pact to boost the industry and military, and finally win the war against fascism.

[Kubra]

I'm always super sus about folks "indigenising" ideologies. It's not like folks shouldn't, of course adaptations have to be made to to suit local conditions. The problem is it almost always means the worst aspects and prejudices are mashed in haphazardly.

That's kind of part and parcel of Communist anti-colonial movements during the Cold War though. When you actually look past the labeling and ideological idealism, most Communist movements of the post-war period were just anti-colonial groups who paid lip service to Marxism in order to get funding and war materiel from Moscow and Beijing. Naturally, they were still influenced by Socialist ideals to some extent, but most had far more interest in kicking out their colonial overlords or enacting a regime change than pursuing some lofty goal of global Communism or international workers' solidarity.

It's also probably quite telling that a lot of these same movements/groups suddenly switched their tunes and became quite pro-America and open to foreign capital investment when the USSR collapsed and they lost their sugar daddy.

Well yes but I mostly meant folks like China and Cambodia. You know, the ones who *actually* meant it in their zany fashion.

I think we can all agree that the undisputed master of realpolitik during the Cold War was Albania.

Indeed.

Why have friends or a functioning economy when you can have six bunkers per km².

A very backwards country compared to the rest of Europe, who started to have industry and healthcare and had to isolate itself from revisionism, surrounded by enemies like Yugoslavia who tried to infiltrate the Sigurimi in an alliance with the brits. The bunkers can be justified as defense was highly needed. The little country almost alone advanced the economy and even reached the point of abolishing direct taxes, which is laudable.

The split was done with China to combat soviet social imperialism, unlike Cuba who sided opportunistically with Khruschev and Yugoslavia. They denounced the invasion of Czechoslovakia, being consistent with the principles of the party. But then China sided with other revisionists, their revisionist enemies and rightists, Albania consistently rejected this and the split happened with China too.

This is a top priority, the principles of the party can't be slashed or capitalism is restored soon and we end up puppeteering countries for capitalist games. This is a reason of why Albania is an example and the writings of Hoxha constitute a classic of leninism denouncing revisionist trends and how to proceed when revisionism starts arising around the world. It's an example on how to build socialism in one country and how the party remains internationalist while the other ones mask off as they make opportunistic alliances slashing the principles of the party.
If realpolitik means capitalist restoration, he was consistent with this until the takeover. Realpolitik has to be understood instead in terms to advance communism, for example the necessary Ribbentrop-Molotov pact to boost the industry and military, and finally win the war against fascism.

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

[Novus America]

That's kind of part and parcel of Communist anti-colonial movements during the Cold War though. When you actually look past the labeling and ideological idealism, most Communist movements of the post-war period were just anti-colonial groups who paid lip service to Marxism in order to get funding and war materiel from Moscow and Beijing. Naturally, they were still influenced by Socialist ideals to some extent, but most had far more interest in kicking out their colonial overlords or enacting a regime change than pursuing some lofty goal of global Communism or international workers' solidarity.

It's also probably quite telling that a lot of these same movements/groups suddenly switched their tunes and became quite pro-America and open to foreign capital investment when the USSR collapsed and they lost their sugar daddy.

Well yes but I mostly meant folks like China and Cambodia. You know, the ones who *actually* meant it in their zany fashion.

A very backwards country compared to the rest of Europe, who started to have industry and healthcare and had to isolate itself from revisionism, surrounded by enemies like Yugoslavia who tried to infiltrate the Sigurimi in an alliance with the brits. The bunkers can be justified as defense was highly needed. The little country almost alone advanced the economy and even reached the point of abolishing direct taxes, which is laudable.

The split was done with China to combat soviet social imperialism, unlike Cuba who sided opportunistically with Khruschev and Yugoslavia. They denounced the invasion of Czechoslovakia, being consistent with the principles of the party. But then China sided with other revisionists, their revisionist enemies and rightists, Albania consistently rejected this and the split happened with China too.

This is a top priority, the principles of the party can't be slashed or capitalism is restored soon and we end up puppeteering countries for capitalist games. This is a reason of why Albania is an example and the writings of Hoxha constitute a classic of leninism denouncing revisionist trends and how to proceed when revisionism starts arising around the world. It's an example on how to build socialism in one country and how the party remains internationalist while the other ones mask off as they make opportunistic alliances slashing the principles of the party.
If realpolitik means capitalist restoration, he was consistent with this until the takeover. Realpolitik has to be understood instead in terms to advance communism, for example the necessary Ribbentrop-Molotov pact to boost the industry and military, and finally win the war against fascism.

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

Also parts of the Albanian military even questioned the value of the bunkers, which actually would be poorly suited to fight an invasion, being easy targets for aircraft, immobile and impossible to supply. Even if the claims of imminent attack (largely BS the bunkers were built base on a hypothetical 11 airborne division attack by NATO or the Soviets in conjunction with Yugoslavia which was simply not going to happen) were true the money would have been better spent on less obsolescence forms of defense rather than 1920s technology and tactics.

[Kubra]

Well yes but I mostly meant folks like China and Cambodia. You know, the ones who *actually* meant it in their zany fashion.

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

Also parts of the Albanian military even questioned the value of the bunkers, which actually would be poorly suited to fight an invasion, being easy targets for aircraft, immobile and impossible to supply. Even if the claims of imminent attack (largely BS) were true the money would have been better spent on less obsolescence forms of defense rather than 1920s technology and tactics.

I mean it would have been better to just dig holes everywhere, they'd have the same roughly the same battlefield value and then they'd have had concrete to build, you know, *housing*. People str8 up went homeless for those bunkers.

[Byeclase]

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

He along with the party helped to instate a centrally planned economy, eliminating large landowners, nationalizing industries, eliminating direct taxes and advancing towards communism.

"Art. 15

The economy of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is a socialist economy which is based on the socialist ownership of the means of production.

In the People's Socialist Republic of Albania there are no exploiting classes, private property and the exploitation of man by man have been liquidated and are forbidden."

" Art. 16

The socialist property is the inviolable basis of the socialist order, the source of the wellbeing of the people and of the might of the homeland, it has special protection from the state.

Socialist property in the means of production is comprised of the stale property and the cooperativist property in agriculture."

Source: https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/ ... bconst.htm
http://www.bannedthought.net/Albania/Go ... a-1976.pdf

"Communism, on the theoretical level, seems to be an aberration for the Albanian situation since there were few, if any, of the historical conditions present which traditionally are necessary for a Communist government to be in power. The most obviously lacking component was the virtual absence of a working class."

"The point which can not be emphasized enough is that any assessment of the Albanian economy must be prefaced with the necessity of only making comparisons and judgments within the parameters of the Albanian historical experience. For example, it would be totally unfair and unrealistic to make judgments of Albanian economic development by comparing Albania during the period in question with almost any other country. In most areas, especially in any economic sphere, Albania had a quite rudimentary starting position. It basically had no industry prior to World War II."

"Although independent, Albania continued until the end of the 1970's (in varying degrees) to remain under the influence of its major ally. The position' Albania found itself in at the time of Enver Hoxha's death was the ultimate end of Albanian Socialism. Albania at that time was in the position which Enver Hoxha desired and had planned for during the previous decades of his power. It is true that more up-to-date technology was needed but for the most part, Albania succeeded in its goal of having built an economic base and becoming somewhat economically self-reliant. The issue of modern technology is crucial and will be discussed in more detail later in this study. Economic planning in Albania depended quite often since the end of World War II on the current state of Albanian foreign policy in relation to the major Albanian ally at the particular time. Changes in alliances caused ad hoc changes in Albanian economic planning to take place."

"The building of the Albanian economy began in earnest with the passing of the Agrarian Reform Law in August 1945. This law removed from the country all of the sprawling estates owned by the beys and large landowners. All forests and pasture land and all land owned by people with non-farm income was expropriated without compensation. Farmers who derived their entire income from fanning and worked the land with machinery were allowed to keep up to forty hectares of land. Those farmers who did not use machinery and the land of all religious institutions was limited to twenty hectares. Landless peasants were each given five hectares per family, with more being given for each married son who lived on the family's property. The total hectareage and property redistributed as a result of these reforms was 172,659 hectares of land, 474,227 olive trees and 5,923 draft animals."

This law is significant because it demonstrated to the peasants the viability of the new government. It also was a practical strategy in terms of gaining popular support for the government because this law allowed the Albanian peasants to achieve one of their traditional dreams — to own their land. Albania was transformed from a land of large estates to one of 70,000 small farms. Prior to this law, 52.43 per cent of all land in Albania was owned by large landowners, 28.07 per cent of the land was owned by small farmers and the state owned 18.71 per cent. After the Reform Law was passed, the beys owned only 16.38 per cent of the land, small farmers owned 43.17 per cent and the previously landless peasants owned 34.63 per cent"

"There can be little doubt that the above passage describes a rural society firmly in the grip of feudalism. There is little difference between Albania prior to the Reform Law of 1945 and the "classic" version of feudalism seen in the Middle Ages. This is why the land reforms were such a significant development in terms of gradually leading Albania into the twentieth century. The industries which did exist immediately after the war were nationalized at rapid rates. For instance, in 1944, only three percent of Albania's industry was nationalized. This amount rose to seventeen percent in 1945 and skyrocketed to eighty-nine percent by 1946".

The growth of Albania's industry was quite amazing, in both speed and in extent. When one considers the extent of damage done in Albania under Enver Hoxha Albania during World War II, it is quite impressive that Albania was able to recover from this damage and by 1946 equal her pre-war level of industrial production. However, even more impressive is the fact that by 1948, Albania doubled its pre-war industrial production. All must agree that this was a quite encouraging beginning for the new people's government."

"Agricultural productivity improved not only because of an increase in the hectareage tilled but due to the employment of more scientific techniques. Two representative results of additional technology were the increase in yields, both in crops and in dairy farming. For instance, in 1973, an average yield of 20 quintals of wheat per hectare was achieved as compared to 10 quintals in 1938. The average produced in 1983 was 45.8 quintals per hectare. Likewise, "the average milk yield per cow was 280 kilograms in 1938, 525 kilograms in 1960, 922 kilograms in 1970, and 1,142 kilograms in 1973."27 In 1976, according to official reports, the greatest achievement of Albanian agriculture occurred; Albania became self-sufficient in bread grain. If true, this is one of the most practical accomplishments of the self-reliance policy. This is extremely impressive, especially when one considers the mountainous terrain (most of which is unsuitable for large-scale agriculture) which comprises the majority of Albania."

"Needless to say, there was no deviation from the policies of Josef Stalin in Enver Hoxha's Albania."

Source: https://espressostalinist.files.wordpre ... of-age.pdf

[Novus America]

Also parts of the Albanian military even questioned the value of the bunkers, which actually would be poorly suited to fight an invasion, being easy targets for aircraft, immobile and impossible to supply. Even if the claims of imminent attack (largely BS) were true the money would have been better spent on less obsolescence forms of defense rather than 1920s technology and tactics.

I mean it would have been better to just dig holes everywhere, they'd have the same roughly the same battlefield value and then they'd have had concrete to build, you know, *housing*. People str8 up went homeless for those bunkers.

True. The concrete wasted on them could have built housing and roads for the entire population.

Admittedly they were probably built more for symbolic and political purposes rather than any real military need. So the practical military value (basically nil) was not probably the primary concern.

The bunker system actually WEAKENED the military but Hoxha never trusted his own military leaders anyways.

One man bunkers with no real communications infrastructure manned by poorly trained and equipped militia lacking an effective combat chain of command are poorly suited for modern defense, but also poorly suited for launching a coup.

The Albanian military wanted a smaller more professional force equipped with modern AFV’s, planes and communications. But successful coups are generally carried out by highly mobile professional troops using careful coordination to seize key sites basically simultaneously.

The poor communication, command and control and lack of mobility was probably considered a feature not a flaw by Hoxha. The bunkers existed to keep Hoxha’s regime in power, not to actually fight a joint Soviet or NATO/Yugoslav airborne invasion which the would not be effective against and which was not going to happen anyways.

[The New California Republic]

True. The concrete wasted on them could have built housing and roads for the entire population.

It's tellingly ironic that many of them have now actually been converted into makeshift housing and storage buildings.

Admittedly they were probably built more for symbolic and political purposes rather than any real military need. So the practical military value (basically nil) was not probably the primary concern.

In the event of any actual invasion the bunkers would have just functioned as giant coffins, as they would have been easily destroyed one by one by grenades, airstrikes, and RPG-type weapons before the occupants could fire a shot.

It would have been far better for them to focus on building an asymmetric-type of force, focused on denial of control, by having armed forces that were difficult for any invader to suppress successfully, which could be achieved through mobility like shoot-and-scoot, use of decoys, camouflage, emcon, etc.

[Questarian New Yorkshire]

It would have been far better for them to focus on building an asymmetric-type of force, focused on denial of control, by having armed forces that were difficult for any invader to suppress successfully, which could be achieved through mobility like shoot-and-scoot, use of decoys, camouflage, emcon, etc.

Sure if Indians had nukes in 1856, they wouldn't have won mutiny

[Dahyan]

Split into two occupation zones, with the agreement that the country would be united under one government.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People% ... c_of_Korea

It was the US that made the first movex organising a coup against the PRK and moving on to massacre its supporters. The Jeju Islands massacres of 1948-1949 being a prime example.

Neither side took the idea it would be peacefully united under one government seriously.
The PRK only existed on paper. It was never viable.
The mutually exclusive political systems and goals meant the two occupation zones made two governments inevitable.

It mostly means that there was never a "North Korean invasion". There was a military response against a separatist movement propped up by the US.

[Dahyan]

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

Establish a Socialist economy. What sort of question is that even?

[The New California Republic]

It would have been far better for them to focus on building an asymmetric-type of force, focused on denial of control, by having armed forces that were difficult for any invader to suppress successfully, which could be achieved through mobility like shoot-and-scoot, use of decoys, camouflage, emcon, etc.

Sure if Indians had nukes in 1856, they wouldn't have won mutiny

Weird take, as all the things I mentioned were possible and available at the time.

[Duvniask]

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

He along with the party helped to instate a centrally planned economy, eliminating large landowners, nationalizing industries, eliminating direct taxes and advancing towards communism.

"Art. 15

The economy of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is a socialist economy which is based on the socialist ownership of the means of production.

In the People's Socialist Republic of Albania there are no exploiting classes, private property and the exploitation of man by man have been liquidated and are forbidden."

" Art. 16

The socialist property is the inviolable basis of the socialist order, the source of the wellbeing of the people and of the might of the homeland, it has special protection from the state.

Socialist property in the means of production is comprised of the stale property and the cooperativist property in agriculture."

Source: https://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/ ... bconst.htm
http://www.bannedthought.net/Albania/Go ... a-1976.pdf

"Communism, on the theoretical level, seems to be an aberration for the Albanian situation since there were few, if any, of the historical conditions present which traditionally are necessary for a Communist government to be in power. The most obviously lacking component was the virtual absence of a working class."

"The point which can not be emphasized enough is that any assessment of the Albanian economy must be prefaced with the necessity of only making comparisons and judgments within the parameters of the Albanian historical experience. For example, it would be totally unfair and unrealistic to make judgments of Albanian economic development by comparing Albania during the period in question with almost any other country. In most areas, especially in any economic sphere, Albania had a quite rudimentary starting position. It basically had no industry prior to World War II."

"Although independent, Albania continued until the end of the 1970's (in varying degrees) to remain under the influence of its major ally. The position' Albania found itself in at the time of Enver Hoxha's death was the ultimate end of Albanian Socialism. Albania at that time was in the position which Enver Hoxha desired and had planned for during the previous decades of his power. It is true that more up-to-date technology was needed but for the most part, Albania succeeded in its goal of having built an economic base and becoming somewhat economically self-reliant. The issue of modern technology is crucial and will be discussed in more detail later in this study. Economic planning in Albania depended quite often since the end of World War II on the current state of Albanian foreign policy in relation to the major Albanian ally at the particular time. Changes in alliances caused ad hoc changes in Albanian economic planning to take place."

"The building of the Albanian economy began in earnest with the passing of the Agrarian Reform Law in August 1945. This law removed from the country all of the sprawling estates owned by the beys and large landowners. All forests and pasture land and all land owned by people with non-farm income was expropriated without compensation. Farmers who derived their entire income from fanning and worked the land with machinery were allowed to keep up to forty hectares of land. Those farmers who did not use machinery and the land of all religious institutions was limited to twenty hectares. Landless peasants were each given five hectares per family, with more being given for each married son who lived on the family's property. The total hectareage and property redistributed as a result of these reforms was 172,659 hectares of land, 474,227 olive trees and 5,923 draft animals."

This law is significant because it demonstrated to the peasants the viability of the new government. It also was a practical strategy in terms of gaining popular support for the government because this law allowed the Albanian peasants to achieve one of their traditional dreams — to own their land. Albania was transformed from a land of large estates to one of 70,000 small farms. Prior to this law, 52.43 per cent of all land in Albania was owned by large landowners, 28.07 per cent of the land was owned by small farmers and the state owned 18.71 per cent. After the Reform Law was passed, the beys owned only 16.38 per cent of the land, small farmers owned 43.17 per cent and the previously landless peasants owned 34.63 per cent"

"There can be little doubt that the above passage describes a rural society firmly in the grip of feudalism. There is little difference between Albania prior to the Reform Law of 1945 and the "classic" version of feudalism seen in the Middle Ages. This is why the land reforms were such a significant development in terms of gradually leading Albania into the twentieth century. The industries which did exist immediately after the war were nationalized at rapid rates. For instance, in 1944, only three percent of Albania's industry was nationalized. This amount rose to seventeen percent in 1945 and skyrocketed to eighty-nine percent by 1946".

The growth of Albania's industry was quite amazing, in both speed and in extent. When one considers the extent of damage done in Albania under Enver Hoxha Albania during World War II, it is quite impressive that Albania was able to recover from this damage and by 1946 equal her pre-war level of industrial production. However, even more impressive is the fact that by 1948, Albania doubled its pre-war industrial production. All must agree that this was a quite encouraging beginning for the new people's government."

"Agricultural productivity improved not only because of an increase in the hectareage tilled but due to the employment of more scientific techniques. Two representative results of additional technology were the increase in yields, both in crops and in dairy farming. For instance, in 1973, an average yield of 20 quintals of wheat per hectare was achieved as compared to 10 quintals in 1938. The average produced in 1983 was 45.8 quintals per hectare. Likewise, "the average milk yield per cow was 280 kilograms in 1938, 525 kilograms in 1960, 922 kilograms in 1970, and 1,142 kilograms in 1973."27 In 1976, according to official reports, the greatest achievement of Albanian agriculture occurred; Albania became self-sufficient in bread grain. If true, this is one of the most practical accomplishments of the self-reliance policy. This is extremely impressive, especially when one considers the mountainous terrain (most of which is unsuitable for large-scale agriculture) which comprises the majority of Albania."

"Needless to say, there was no deviation from the policies of Josef Stalin in Enver Hoxha's Albania."

Source: https://espressostalinist.files.wordpre ... of-age.pdf

All of this is a non-answer to the question. You're just parroting ML bullshit about state ownership and land reform somehow being a break with capitalism along with adding in irrelevant information.

And what did Hoxha do to alleviate, say, the extraction of surplus-value?

Establish a Socialist economy. What sort of question is that even?

Ditto.

[True Refuge]

I’ve found recently that some AnCaps can be the most infuriating people to talk with, especially now from my new left-volntaryist perspective where the disagreements are morally fundamental.

Would take avaritionism over ancap, not gonna lie. At least avaritionism is honest about the practical implications of its ideal world.

[Novus America]

Neither side took the idea it would be peacefully united under one government seriously.
The PRK only existed on paper. It was never viable.
The mutually exclusive political systems and goals meant the two occupation zones made two governments inevitable.

It mostly means that there was never a "North Korean invasion". There was a military response against a separatist movement propped up by the US.

Not really because the Soviet controlled government in the North lacked any legitimacy. By that argument you can justify pretty much any invasion. Just claim to be to government of a place and anyone who disagrees is a “separatist”.

[Novus America]

True. The concrete wasted on them could have built housing and roads for the entire population.

It's tellingly ironic that many of them have now actually been converted into makeshift housing and storage buildings.

Admittedly they were probably built more for symbolic and political purposes rather than any real military need. So the practical military value (basically nil) was not probably the primary concern.

In the event of any actual invasion the bunkers would have just functioned as giant coffins, as they would have been easily destroyed one by one by grenades, airstrikes, and RPG-type weapons before the occupants could fire a shot.

It would have been far better for them to focus on building an asymmetric-type of force, focused on denial of control, by having armed forces that were difficult for any invader to suppress successfully, which could be achieved through mobility like shoot-and-scoot, use of decoys, camouflage, emcon, etc.

Also things like SAMs, AShMs etc for area denial.

Mobility is key for such tactics of course, making the bunker silliness not only a waste of resources but actually completely counterproductive.

Also they needed to have realistic scenarios. Yugoslavia was a possible threat, but a a joint Yugoslavia attack supported by 3 or 4 NATO airborne armies was just silly.
Of course if airborne attacks were the concern, SAMs would be more useful anyways.

The whole bunker thing was not for any actual military value, rather for propaganda purposes, enforce a siege mentality and symbol of an omnipresent government and to make a coup less likely.

[Cekoviu]

I’ve found recently that some AnCaps can be the most infuriating people to talk with, especially now from my new left-volntaryist perspective where the disagreements are morally fundamental.

Would take avaritionism over ancap, not gonna lie. At least avaritionism is honest about the practical implications of its ideal world.

Ancaps > neoreactionaries tbf

[Valrifell]

I’ve found recently that some AnCaps can be the most infuriating people to talk with, especially now from my new left-volntaryist perspective where the disagreements are morally fundamental.

Would take avaritionism over ancap, not gonna lie. At least avaritionism is honest about the practical implications of its ideal world.

Ancaps > neoreactionaries tbf

That bar is so low I'd have to dig it up.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Ancaps > neoreactionaries tbf

That bar is so low I'd have to dig it up.

Not only that, but they cooperate so much that it’s hard to give ancaps even that benefit of the doubt.

[Cisairse]

I’ve found recently that some AnCaps can be the most infuriating people to talk with, especially now from my new left-volntaryist perspective where the disagreements are morally fundamental.

Would take avaritionism over ancap, not gonna lie. At least avaritionism is honest about the practical implications of its ideal world.

I've never had a conversation with an ancap not devolve into "But greed is good!" almost immediately after I start questioning their basics.