AN ANECDOTE OF CHAIRMAN MAO (AND MALECKI'S WISHFUL THINKING)
hariette at easynet.co.uk
Tue Jun 18 06:51:27 MDT 1996
>>Has anyone in this list ever read the menmoires of Enver Hoxha? I have only
>>read a tome of his entitled "The Khruschevites" . There he portrays himself
>>quite honestly as the greatest Marxist-Leninist alive.
>>A real know-all old Enver. He had it all figured out to the last detail and
>>everyone properly classified and labelled. This enabled him to look down on
>>every one of his contemporaries, and he had some really towering figures of
>>the International Communist Movement to look down to. Georgi Dimitrov,
>>Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin. But for Enver Hoxha there was never a good
>>enough a Marxist nor a most loyal disciple of Stalin.
>>The book shows, in my opinion, that Hoxha particularly resented Chairman
>>Mao's reputation as a Marxist scholar and philosopher, and he shows this by
>>quite a few despective remarks about the Chairman. But then, for Enver,
>>there was only one man he treated with adoration and that was our Uncle Joe
>>Stalin. And even then, one gets the impression that Hoxha allegiances are
>>quite very much influenced by such considerations of how much each one is
>>worth to Hoxha in economic terms.
>>However, Enver reflects quite badly upon himself by relating his personal
>>encounter with the chinese communist leader. He goes on about how he,
>>Enver, had to straighten Chairman Mao up on quite a few of the finer points
>>of doctrine. Obviously, one figures Hoxha going on and on about the bees in
>>his bonnet, but the surprising thing is that the irony is totally lost on
>>him when Chairman Mao responds putting an end to the sterile discussion:
>>"Comrade Hoxha is truly a 100% Marxist-Leninist, we do not presume as much".
>Why don,t you be honest about your headers! Try open letter to Rolf Martens..
>or how about; Rolf Martens, Hoxhaite scumbag..
>malecki in exile
The openly anti-mao, anti-Stalin champion denigrator robert malecki resorts
again to his cockroach-like language and infers much more than there is in
my mailing about old Enver Hoxha.
Enver Hoxha was not a "scum-bag" like malecki nor a wind bag ignoramus with
not an iota of Marxism or Leninism in himself. Quite to the contrary, his
problem was perhaps to be too much of a 100% pure "Leninist", and malecki,
judging by his blatant anarchist and obviously lumpen ideology could not
possible be accussed of that, as we have shown many a times in this list.
However, no one with a sense of history can totally deny Hoxha as a
revolutionary leader, a communist combatant, an anti-fascist guerilla, and a
historical figure of importance too. Compared to malecki, or to anyone of us
for that matter, we have far less of the theoretical and practical
experience needed to lead a revolution that Hoxha ever had, and in that
respect he, like all truly historical figures, stands like a tower besides
mere molehills and we must be conscious of that.
For example, no one can deny Hoxha's importance in history, nor his
contribution in the united Marxist-Leninist front to opposse Khruschov
revisionism, and those were no mean contributions far exceeding malecki's
pathetic antics and cartoon character-like Furry Fuzz brothers behaviour.
However, it is true too that Hoxha's lack of modesty and his high opinion of
himself, as well as the petty bourgeois subordination of every thing to his
own agenda (the bees in his bonnet) were trends - and in that sense his
memoirs, particularly The Khruschevites, are very useful to see that those
trends were part and parcel of how Hoxha saw himself all along - that later
led him to the reversal of his own positions in such matters as Mao Tse-tung
Thought (which he had in many occassions proclaimed as Marxism-Leninism of
the era), the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which he first lauded to
the highest heaven and then denounced, and finally, to his revisionists
theories in relation to social-imperialism and in that context, to the
purging of Mehmet Sehu and the promotion of Ramiz Alia, and thus to the
ultimate betrayal of the revolution in Albania and the besmirching of his
own memory and standing with the proletariat and the people of Albania and
I guess one of the problems of being a 100% of anything is that, since no
longer can negation (revisionism) penetrate you from the outside, so to
speak, the most obvious dialectical transformation then (and transformation
into contraries is a universal law of dialectics) is that you actually end
up compelled to become your own negation, i.e., your own revisionist!
Marxists should learn from both the positive and the negative in the history
of the International Communist Movement. Those lessons, togh, will be
totally lost on maleckis, I suspect.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism