Inxhi Brisku
Committee for Tirana, Fiqirete Shehu, who was Prime Minister Mehmet Shehu’s wife. This report was schematic and general, not digging deeply to find the causes of the economic, social, and political problems which had arisen in the discussions among the party cells all around Tirana.24 No self-criticism was made about the work of the party’s leading bodies. Most importantly in this report, there was no reflection on the economic difficulties faced by working masses, on the economic privileges of the senior leadership of the party, the Politburo, and the Central Committee, who were called the “new beys” (the new feudal lords). All these issues were raised as concerns in the meetings of the party cells in the work centers in Tirana but were not reflected in the report of the conference, which irritated the delegates. Consequently, they reacted against the report given by the First Secretary of the Committee of the Party of Tirana, and also gave some speeches against the privileges of the leadership, the luxury in which they lived, the lack of internal democracy in the party, the cult of the personality of Enver Hoxha, the severity of the so-called “class struggle” (which was nothing more than state terror, the harsh punishments received by some former party leaders for reasons unknown), and the extralegal conduct of the secret police against communists and citizens generally.25 Although the criticisms made by delegates at the conference cover a range of issues, including the political, social, state terror, secret police activity, the essence of their criticism of the Party leadership lies in their economic privileges, the luxury in which they lived while the population lived in poverty. Also, the harshest criticisms of the delegates are against the Party’s economic policies, investments in heavy industry, the immediate collectivization of agriculture and handicrafts, which had caused great poverty to the peasantry and the working class. The concerns raised by the participants in the conference were related to the economic situation in the country. Wages were low, and workers were forced to work long hours without receiving proportionate pay. Food and industrial goods were dispersed based on a rationing system that provided workers and peasants with far less than they needed. Concerns were also raised about the great backwardness of agriculture, the lack of mechanization, and the low level of productivity.26 Although only ten years had passed since the agrarian reform, an extremely fast process of collectivization had begun, which was forcibly imposed over the peasants. Those who refused to become part of cooperatives (a type of kolkhoz) suffered severe consequences. This caused severe dissatisfaction in the peasantry who viewed the party and the government with hostility, but it also caused economic problems for the workers in the city because the
24
CSA/PA, Box 2, file 39, sheet 5–5/1 (Governing Bodies), 1956.
25
CSA/PA, Box 2, Folder 1/1.1, sheet 189 (Party Committee of Tirana), 1956.
26
CSA/PA, Box 2, folder 1/1.1, sheets 141–151 (Party Committee of Tirana), 1956.
96
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS510617
Leftist Dissent Against State Socialism in Albania
collectivization of agriculture had led to declining yields and consequently a shortage of agricultural products in the market. Other economic issues raised by the participants at the conference had to do with mistaken economic policies in regards to the country’s industrialization. This is because the economic policies of the party were aimed – primarily for ideological reasons – at heavy industry. They aimed to modernize the country, something that, according to them, went hand in hand with the industrialization and proletarianization of the majority of the Albanian population, who had been living up until then rurally. This industry was not efficient in terms of its productivity. Due to the lack of raw materials, the factories existed but did not function. Also, due to the lack of specialists, and the skill level of the workers, efficiency and productivity suffered. Consequently, the workers could not meet the production quotas and with the small pay that they received they could not meet the basic needs of life.27 Furthermore, the state’s investments in heavy industry weakened the ability to buy consumer goods, which caused difficulties in the lives of workers. All these economic problems were quite obvious, and caused great dissatisfaction for the popular masses. They were raised in the meetings of the party cells but were not given any consideration at all in the report of the conference or in, the discussions of the members of the Politburo or the Central Committee. In addition to criticizing the economic situation and economic policies of the party, the delegates at the conference also criticized the party’s internal organization. This included the lack of internal democracy, the lack of debate within the party, and taking the leader’s word for granted without it being discussed. Censorship and self-censorship in the press were also criticized, as well as the lack of freedom for communists to express their views freely in the party gatherings and the persecution by the secret police of communists expressing dissatisfaction or dissent at the state of terror in the country and at the instructions of the party.28 From their criticisms it seems that the delegates considered the senior party and state leadership and employees of the apparatuses of these institutions as “a caste, the new feudal-lord class” – although these concepts are not mentioned and there is no data on how much knowledge the participants in the conference had of these concepts. Topics discussed at the conference also included the issues of over-administration, bureaucracy, and over-employment of military, police, secret police (State Security), and party administration. This category of administrative employees often with nepotistic and social ties to the high leadership of the party (even if they did not have the same privileges as members of the Politburo and the Central Committee), still lived
27
CSA/PA, Box 2, file 1, sheet 1 (Conference of the Party Committee of Tirana), 1956.
28
CSA/PA, Box 2, folder 1/1.1, sheet 164 (Party Committee of Tirana), 1956.
97
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS510617
Inxhi Brisku
a much better life than the masses, either by receiving wages much higher than the working class or by having no restrictions on access to food and industrial products.29 The rationing system mentioned above did not apply or was much less restrictive for this category of employees than it was for the rest of the population. From the minutes, it appears that the main criticisms of the discussants in the conference were directed at the party leader, Enver Hoxha, the Politburo, the members of the Central Committee, and the Council of Ministers. Thus, a representative from a textile factory, expressed the concern, that while the market lacked goods and food, the top party leadership had special shops where they could buy these products; not only that, but their wives managed to get clothes and custom-made textile materials, which was unthinkable for the rest of the people. He proposed that these problems be discussed more widely in the party and measures be taken, because this differentiation of treatment violated equality, one of the basic principles of socialism.30 The problem of the price difference also arose, the party leadership could get food and industrial goods at much lower prices than the rest of the people because they bought them in special shops, and part of their expenses were provided by the Directorate of Governmental Services. A flagrant case, mentioned in the context of leadership privileges, one which had revolted the masses and the straightforward communists was that, on the occasion of a measles epidemic, the top leadership had bought vaccines from abroad for their children only and not for the children of the common people. As a result, the cemeteries were filled with children’s graves.31 Concrete proposals were made to correct these mistakes, especially because these privileges were enjoyed by the familiar clans of leaders. A delegate from the party organization for Radio Tirana, addressed direct questions to the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Finance, wanting to know from what part of the budget did the expenditures to cover the high expenses that were made for Bloc (an imitation of the Kremlin where the senior leadership of the party lived) come from. He added that this isolated life of the leaders of the state and the party had aroused great dissatisfaction among the masses, who often asked how the leaders could live in villas and own cars with private chauffeurs. These questions were often addressed to the communists by common people, but the communist cadre did not know how to answer them because they had not received clarification about these problems.32 The issue of the leaders’ privileges was discussed at length. Other delegates discussed this problem with officials from the ministry of Defense and the Central Committee
29
CSA/PA, Box 2, folder 1/1.1, sheet 154 (Party Committee of Tirana), 1956.
30
Ibid.
31
“ Viktor Gjikolaj, ju rrëfej 100 vjeçarin Ihsan Budo, që kaloi 35 vjet internim në Kurbnesh,” Pirusti News, Dec. 4, 2020 (online at pirustinews.com/2020/12/04/viktor-gjikolaj-ju-rrefej-100-vjecarin-ihsan-budo-qe-kaloi-35-vjet-internim-ne-kurbnesh [accessed Jan. 22, 2021]). 32
CSA/PA, Box 2, Folder 1/1.1, sheet 175 (Party Committee of Tirana), 1956.
98
Ukázka elektronické knihy