Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:People's Socialist Republic of Albania

Untitled

"Hoxha tapped..." should surely read "Hoxha tipped...", since "tap" does not have a relevant meaning in English.80.60.103.23 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"tapped" is a word in English that means selected by a superior for a project. Did Hoxha give someone special treatment for some task? 104.169.36.35 (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the infobox

(Moved here from my talk page) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guy Macon.

So I've seen you've edited out for a second time the line on religion of the infobox. You claim that absence of religion is not one. I agree. The people who wrote the article agree. That's why it clearly states Religion: NONE. and also adds that state atheism was enforced. Is it claiming that atheism is a religion? No, because it says Religion: NONE. If it said "Religion: atheism", then I would agree. But it doesn't. It also provides a reference supporting that statement.

Furthermore, suppose we decide to remove the line on religion of the infobox. Then how would people know state atheism was enforced? What if they thought we just don't know what Albania's stance on religion was?

I hope you understand now the reasons why I reverted your editions.

--WBritten (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Furthermore, suppose we decide to remove the line on religion of the infobox. Then how would people know state atheism was enforced? What if they thought we just don't know what Albania's stance on religion was?", they are supposed to find that out by reading the article. Reading the article, I see no citation that shows the current Albanian government's position on religion since the Constitution of Albania was ratified in 1998, so your edit fails WP:V. You appear to know a lot about Albania, so please edit the article (the body of the article, not the infobox) with citations that establish the current Albanian government's position on state religions and freedom of religion.
Re: "You claim that absence of religion is not one", in the edit you reverted[1] I made no such claim. I claimed that there is a clear consensus against your edits as shown at the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. If you think the admin's closing comments did not accurately reflect consensus, I suggest contacting him on his talk page and asking him to reconsider the evidence. Don't forget that consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
Consensus has been established for removing the parameter. Any further attempts to re-insert it through reverts will result in a discussion at WP:ANI. You are, of course free to go to ANI yourself if you think that my behavior has been improper. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to underline that the PSR of Albania existed from 1948-1992. Now Albania is a liberal democracy, it's not a socialist country anymore. There is obviously no information then about the Constitution of 1998. The current stance on religion of Albania is different than that of the PSR of Albania. To begin with, they do not enforce state atheism. My edit does not fail WP:V, because the Constitution of 1998 belongs to another article, namely, Albania. In that article there's information about the current government's position on state religions.
Second, What is then the purpose of infoboxes? If you are supposed to read the article to find out any information, why have an infobox with the most important facts? The fact that Albania was an atheist state isn't mentioned until the "Cultural and Ideological Revolution" section.
Third, in the first edit you made removing the line on religion, you quoted Penn Jillette. He said something alone the lines, "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby". I think the meaning of that quote is to stress that atheism is not a religion.
Fourth, the consensus against my edit was agreed upon in "Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion". The PSR of Albania was not an individual, it was a whole country, which had a very specific political stance on religion. An individual can't be state atheist. That consensus does not apply here, because it is important to underline that the PSR of Albania had no official religion, and even further, was state atheist.
Fifth, I will go to ANI to discuss this issue. --WBritten (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My apologies about confusing the PSR of Albania with modern Albania. I just finished removing the parameter from roughly 600 articles, and while I did skim each of them and sometimes searched for words like "religion" or "atheism", I missed that. Sorry for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article, and included a mention of state atheism in the first paragraph. I hope this solves the problem. --WBritten (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoxhaism should be removed from government

For one, the term "Hoxhaism" carries little meaning to the average reader. Juche was removed from North Korea for the same reason. Hoxhaism is still a form of Marxism-Leninism, and the term "Marxism-Leninism" may carry some meaning to the average reader.Holden3172 (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Holden3172[reply]

I agree. There's no "Hoxhaist" form of government. The government structure and elections in Albania weren't much different from Hungary, Romania and similar countries. --Ismail (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural and Ideological Revolution - tagged

Only a couple of sentences are referenced - the first three paragraphs are not. Also, this section is linked to the article on China's Cultural Revolution, where it is also tagged for in-line citations. This needs to be addressed. December 2018 104.169.36.35 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

military

the long series of photos of military vehicles is inappropriate. Other states (including much more warlike ones) do not have such items in the general article about the country.2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:6319:1E5E:D49F:61A6 (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government

@ErickTheMerrick and BlueRobot116:

  1. "Whenever a country is totalitarian, it is shown as such on the government infobox"... WHy? It is not a form of government.
  2. "Hoxhaism is a distinct ideology". Wrong, Hoxhaism is a Western term used by commentators to describe Enver Hoxha's interpretation of Marxism-Leninism. Neither the Party of Labour of Albania nor Enver Hoxha actually used that term.

These are obvious questions, and the fact that you, ErickTheMerrick, revert these (and countless other) attempts at correcting the infobox is highly problematic! --TheUzbek (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Because it’s a form of governance. It is how the state was governed, with totalitarian control exerted Enver Hoxha.
  2. You could alternatively use Stalinist as he was Stalinist, but I think it would be better to use Hoxhaist.
ErickTheMerrick (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That is wrong: some interpret totalitarianism as a form of government, but others use it to describe the "process" of dictatorship (and there are too many interpretations to count). We can also not forget that the term "totalitarianism" is extremely controversial. Moreover, it is an extremely vague term that should be replaced by the more specific communist state.
  2. "You could alternatively use Stalinist as he was Stalinist, but I think it would be better to use Hoxhaist". Stalinism was never, either, an official ideology and never proclaimed by the CPSU under Stalin. They were committed to Marxism-Leninism.
  3. Everything should simply be replaced by "Communist state".
  4. Hoxha was not the "form of government" of Albania. Albania was a communist state that was, like every other communist state, organised on the lines of a unified state apparatus in which the highest state organ of power held unified power of the state. And the highest state organ of power was under the complete control of the communist party through its two-thirds majority in it. This is the formal communist system, and totalitarianism doesn't anything about this (the Nazies did not have this system, for example).
  5. Vague, very vague stuff.
TheUzbek (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is listed as such on pages like Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Fascist Italy. Also, not all communist states were totalitarian. Burkina Faso under Thomas Sakkara for example, may have been authoritarian, but not totalitarian.
  2. It doesn't matter if it was the official ideology or not. If it did, North Korea and other dictatorships today would be listed as democratic because they officially say they are and all “communist states” (an oxymoron) would listed as state capitalist dictatorships as none of them were actually socialist (with workers controlling the means of production).
  3. I actually really agree with you here, socialist state is vague and why is there even a communist states page if we aren’t gonna use it? It lays out how these government were run. Someone made a very good agreement for this on the East Germany talk page.
  4. You could make the argument not to include Hoxhaism, but totalitarianism should be there.
  5. Please explain what you meant here.
ErickTheMerrick (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear
  1. I have nothing against that the article, somewhere, describe states as totalitarian or whatever. But the least controversial modifier should be chosen, and that is communist state.
  2. What?! North Korea and Albania are categorized as communist states by most serious scholars and academics in the world. What are you on? It also helps that these states themselves agree, which makes it a neutral designation...
  3. "socialist state" was a term used by communist states to designate their historical evolution (ala historical materialism). That is why all these states also categorized themselves as people's democratic states at one point (they all "advanced" to socialism by the 1970s). Laoas, for example, is not officially a socialist state, but a people's democratic state (a historical materialist stage that is less advanced than socialism).
  4. Hoxhaism; its a designation pushed by others and not by the state itself. Its a designation the state itself doesn't even agrees on exists. At last, its a designation to describe the peculiar ideological development of the communist party under Hoxha, but its a scholarly designation that doesn't mean anything politically and has nothing to do with "form of government".
  5. Totalitarianism is a vague term. The article on China does not describe it as totalitarian even if countless of scholars, politicians and liberals do. Its also an extremely political designation; from a liberal perspective, most modern non-liberal experiments end up as totalitarianism. But what annoys me (and most scholars critical of it) is its vagueness. How can, for example, Tito's Yugoslavia and Hoxha's Albania be described as totalitarian? Most scholars define Yugoslavia as soft authoritarianism, but many define it as totaltarian simply because it was a one-party state. Which can gets us to the crux of the question? What in god's name does totalitarian mean other than very bad and very evil? Its probably one of the vaguest scholarly terms out there.
  6. Democracy means rule of the people. It is a vague term. Those introducing what we now consider democracy in the United States argued that elections were against democracy. Until the American and French Revolutions democracy was synonymous with the lot and elections with aristocracy. Democracy is also an exceedingly vague term. That is why smart people specifically refer to liberal democracy.
TheUzbek (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I agree.
  2. From the Communist society Wikipedia page: “A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless”. Under Communism, there is no state.
  3. Then they should be marked as so.
  4. It doesn't matter whether the state agree with it, it matters if its true.
  5. Like all language, it’s up to interpretation and societal and intellectual opinion. I would say Yugoslavia was authoritarian, but a one-party state is a totalitarian characteristic. That doesn't make it totalitarian, just a characteristic of it is. I would also argue the same with China, it has some totalitarian characteristics, but it falls short of actually being totalitarian.
  6. Yeah, I agree and know this.
ErickTheMerrick (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter much whether you consider PSR Albania to be described as totalitarian or not. At the very least, Wikipedia should provide factual information. PSR Albania was led by a Marxist-Leninist party and was a socialist republic; not many people would dispute that. However, labeling it as "totalitarian" is not constructive, as it does not help readers understand how Albania operated. Furthermore, the nature of such labels is contentious, and many Albanians who lived through socialism would contest that designation.
As for "Hoxhaist," it is not a unique ideology but rather an affirmation of orthodox Marxism-Leninism as practiced by the USSR before Stalin's death, also known as anti-revisionism. The largest anti-revisionist trend within Marxism-Leninism is Maoism. A split occurred within the anti-revisionist movement after Hoxha denounced Mao as a revisionist. Following this, some anti-revisionist parties aligned themselves with the Albanian line. This is where the "Hoxhaist" label is most useful: to distinguish anti-revisionist parties that follow Hoxha's line in the split. However, it is not a particularly useful marker for understanding how Albania's government functioned. BlueRobot116 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The use of Totalitarianism is useful when the system of governance is totalitarian. This is the case with the Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and North Korea. Why would it not apply here? I've added sources to prove this. I'm sure there are people who lived in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy who contest that they were totalitarian. But we have still labeled them as totalitarian, because most academics and historians agree that they were. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not saying you cannot write somewhere that it is totalitarian. But if you can short down "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic
under a totalitarian Hoxhaist dictatorship" to "Communist state" why wouldn't you do it? Are you saying that communist states are not totalitarian? Are you saying any communist states are not Marxist-Leninist? Are you saying any communist state is not a one-party state? are you saying any communist state is not a republic?
Of course you are not. Call them what they are: Communist state. Two words instead twelve! TheUzbek (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that would work. Though not all communist states were totalitarian. Again, my example of Burkina Faso under Thomas Sankara and the RSFSR under Lenin would be examples of "Communist" states that weren't totalitarian. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't agree with designating them as totalitarian either but I can't make any edits there. BlueRobot116 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We agree, but you are wrong on revisionism.
Anti-revisionists accuse certain communists of revising the fundamental tenants of Marxism-Leninism. This they don't like. Surprisingly, the Communist Party of China still accuses the Soviet Union of having made revisionist mistakes in claiming that it had established a socialist state of the whole people.
As for socialist republic, Albania was a people's democratic state until 1976 and a socialist state from then on... But the form of government remained the same. These states are communist states. TheUzbek (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--TheUzbek (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People%27s_Socialist_Republic_of_Albania