@Synopsis internet needs to be limited. He should only be allowed access to NK n CCP intranet.

Western Dengoids are just spewing Reagonomics all day it's kinda funny

if you don’t minds what ur take on Hoxha and Hoxahoist or whatevers

Unnecessarily divisive and obsessive over Stalin's legacy.

Leaving the Warsaw pact and building all those bunkers was not it

I have to criticize all the splitting stuff. First you have beef with your neighbor Yugoslavia, then you split from the USSR, then you split from China. Capitalists don't do this. Sweden isn't gonna "split" from Saudi-Arabia yet they both are capitalist and do business with each other. In my opinion this whole revisionism-talk was just disguised nationalism (as was the Sino-Soviet split). We would have been along much further if we had a truly internationalist movement that allows for some variety in opinions and state ideologies.

Albania did a few good things that were typical of planned economies like raising the literacy rates. The bunkers were a bit overkill though. I also think his stance on religion didn't help (although this was a stance most 20th century European communists seemed to have and has to be regarded a bit in the historical context).

Like I do agree with the contents of the Sino-Albanian split because China definitely became the running dog of the USA, but I think Hoxha would have been wiser to never rock the boat in the first place and to keep better relations with Yugoslavia, Romania, the USSR and later-on China.

The main reason for this difference in nationalism is that under capitalism, trade is international and the economy rules over the politics. Capitalists have no allegiance to any states, they will open businesses abroad and dodge taxes however they please, they know no nationality, they only know their class interests. See Davos Forum, see Bilderberger Meetings, see Group of Rome...since capitalists rule the capitalist countries, the politicians of these countries who have to follow their orders generally will pursue a globalist line.

But in socialism, politics rules over economics. While economics allows the globalization mechanism to happen through trade, there are no similar ways to do this with politics. Politics are chiefly a local and national question, and national politicians don't want to lose their power, so they turn against true internationalism (see: USSR, China, Albania, Yugoslavia...).

Globalization helps the ruling class of capitalist countries (i.e. the bourgeoisie) to gain power even in the short-term, while internationalism in the short-term leads to a loss of power for the ruling classes in socialist countries (i.e.: the politicians and bureaucrats).

However, capitalists could take advantage of their global network of capital, while socialists were to busy fighting each other to take advantage of any possible internationalist network post WW2.

Hoxhaism is really not a real thing tbh he made no actual theoretical contributions just a full defence of Stalin and full condemnation of everything that came after that

The Albanian-Soviet split happened because of nationalistic and geopolitical reasons, not anything ideological. Hoxha was pissed that the USSR was trying to approach Yugoslavia, that they were supporting more autonomy for Albanian-Greeks in Greece, and that Khrushchev wanted a Comecon socialist division of labor, while Hoxha wanted to remain autark and develop alone.

so would u say that nationalism would be in the biggest flaws in the 20 century experiments?

Well nationalism is an outgrowth of the rulers not wanting to share power with anyone else. In the capitalist world, the bourgeoisie forces such rulership sharing (see for example the European Union) because it is better for their business. In the socialist countries, you didn't have such arrangements especially post-WW2. Ironically before WW2 you almost had more internationalism under Lenin and Stalin, or even if you go back to Marx's time.

Here is Marx talking about the SPD Gotha Program not endorsing internationalism clearly enough:

It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

.

And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" – a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie – which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries – and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy.

.

In fact, the internationalism of the program stands even infinitely below that of the Free Trade party. The latter also asserts that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples". But it also does something to make trade international and by no means contents itself with the consciousness that all people are carrying on trade at home.

In the last paragraph he says what I said: Capitalists definitely have a form of "internationalism" and they do a lot to pursue it, while socialists often just stay stuck with platitudes such as "solidarity with country XYZ" or, in the case of socialist states, petty revisionism debates that haven't benefitted anyone except the USA.

TLDR: Internationalism is LIONed

LIONED
NEVA LOST

CHINA IS COLONZING AFRICA

the fact that people take some random comedian as their source for news has always been funny

i enjoyed contrapoints at one time

sad 2 see her in this list

Also this is why the Cuban revolution is LIONED

Most genuinely internationalist revolutionary movement that came to power

What is this from lol

CIA guide on how to destroy organizing / subvert an organization

"talk as frequently and at great length"

Fidel a lil sussy baka

LIONED

Radlibs so dumb they will do this anyway

exactly

Radlibs are a CIA psyop

That's meant only half jokingly

tfw when iran has multiple political parties/entities