Che's not evil

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

How do people think che is evil.He is amazing

[Brother No. 1]

the Capitalist think hes evil and try to tell the People Che was evil.

[Kassad]

The idea that Che was 'evil' or 'brutal' comes from a few assertions.
- Che's alleged execution of counterrevolutionaries (Note: Most of Batista's supporters were allowed to leave freely. The rest were given trials and either imprisoned or executed after being found guilty)
- Che's 'Stalinism', which is totally baseless.
- Che's homophobia, which I haven't really found much solid evidence to support. It's possible that he killed homosexuals, but did he ride around Havana looking for them? Unlikely.
- General and obnoxious assault on the Cuban Revolution, usually baseless and absurd. Critics of the 26th of July Movement usually use the same bourgeoisie tactics to criticize Castro that the American media and elite use. The Revolution stands tall to this day; defiant in the face of imperialism and oppression.

[Brother No. 1]

Really arrogence clouds their minds alot these days.

[ZeroNowhere]

Nobody is or was evil.

[Comrade B]

Che's alleged execution of counterrevolutionaries
Love it when people say this one

In Guerrilla Warfare there is a section about prisoners which advises releasing all prisoners of no political standing with the hope that the compassion of the rebels will sway them to switch sides.

[Blackscare]

the Capitalist think hes evil and try to tell the People Che was evil.

Capitalists love Che, they make loads of money off him.

[Blackscare]

Love it when people say this one

In Guerrilla Warfare there is a section about prisoners which advises releasing all prisoners of no political standing with the hope that the compassion of the rebels will sway them to switch sides.

I don't know much about the details of Che's life, just wanted to point out that you can't really judge a man by the side of himself he wants you to see. Just because he may have advised mercy in his book doesn't mean he exercised it in real life. Again, I don't know. Just saying.

He also could be sincere in what he wrote, but that may have been from doing the opposite and seeing it fail at arousing support.

All of these things we have to consider. You can't just take leaders at their words, you have to research what really happened from an objective source. No one wants to be portrayed as a monster for posterity, even selfless revolutionaries.

[Brother No. 1]

so everyone loves che even the capitalists. thats scary the Capitalist part.

[JimmyJazz]

In Guerrilla Warfare there is a section about prisoners which advises releasing all prisoners of no political standing with the hope that the compassion of the rebels will sway them to switch sides.

"With no political standing" may be the key phrase. After the victory there were tribunals that resulted in hundreds of executions, even according to this page (http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article20.php?id=640), which is extremely defensive about the justice of the tribunals.

Hundreds is also what I thought I remembered reading in Jon Lee Anderson's book, but I don't have it with me at the mo.

Needless to say, if NHIA corrects me on this I will believe him.

[Kassad]

I have Jon Lee Anderson's book somewhere around here. There's a quote from Anderson somewhere that says something like "In all my study of Che Guevara, I've never found proof of anyone he executed to have not been properly sentenced." Guevara executed war criminals from the Batista regime who, I believe, killed people for having beards. Can't say we lost some gems there.

[JimmyJazz]

First of all, I oppose the death penalty almost unconditionally. I don't believe in retributive justice (not sure how any non-religious person can), and the "practical" arguments made for capital punishment are almost always incredibly weak. That includes those I've heard made for the "practical" application of execution in post-revolutionary situations. There is simply no reason to kill someone whom you have in your custody and could just as easily imprison for life. And if your hold on power is so tenuous that you don't think you can hold on to it for the remainder of said person's lifetime, then consolidating power, not liquidating individuals, is what you need to be focusing on.

More to the point however, a military tribunal is not "proper sentencing" just because Jon Lee Anderson says it is. My impression of Guevara from JLA's book is that he was a man of snap judgments (if you want me to elaborate with examples, I will); and the clear impression I got from the book about the military tribunals which he headed is that they were similar. So I'm afraid a cherry-picked quote containing solely the author's general impression/opinion doesn't do much for me.

Here is the relevant chapter (http://books.google.com/books?id=qfNY7fmDLykC&pg=PA386&lpg=PA386&dq=%22throughout+january,+suspected+war+criminals+ were+being+captured%22+jon+lee+anderson&source=web&ots=uDpPR2I0tD&sig=vHrGfz3jJMyBChQncp2u52H98WQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result) from Jon Lee Anderson's book. It says: "The trials began at eight or nine in the evening, and, more often than not, a verdict was reached by two or three in the morning." O.J. Simpson got better than that.

The typical leftist apologia for such things (whether they occur in the Cuban, Russian, Chinese, French or other revolution) is that "the public overwhelmingly supported it". To me that is obvious hypocrisy, since the great majority of radical leftist positions are made on the basis of a principled approach which is distinctly unpopular. If we were populists, we'd be Democrats. If Eugene Debs had been a populist, he'd have campaigned against the gold standard, not in favor of the (unpopular) idea of socialism. So that argument clearly holds no water, coming from a socialist.

Of course, it is possible to take a principled stand in favor of capital punishment, and most Americans do. But a populist argument is no argument at all.

[wickedrevolution]

I havnt read Jon Lee Anderson's book, but would you not think it is near impossible to have proper trials in the middle of a revolution where you got a few good men and woman vs an army? Its pretty difficult i would say to have to have a proper case that can go on for months or even years while bullets are coming at you.:confused:

[JimmyJazz]

The tribunals in question took place after the revolution was over and Batista had fled.

[Comrade B]

I do not deny that there were executions after the revolution, and I do not know enough about those people to say if all of their deaths were justified or not. It is not a war crime to execute political leaders for crimes, it is to execute POW soldiers though (as was done to Che in the end), which from what I have read, Che did not do.

[JimmyJazz]

^Well, considering that international law allowed a murderous invasion of Korea to be carried out under the flag of the UN, I'm not sure we want to use international law as the ultimate standard of our morality.

I'll stop now though, because it's starting to look like I want to get into a big argument to condemn Che, which is not the case. I support the Cuban Revolution; I'm just pointing to what I think was a mistake.

[TheCagedLion]

@Ches executions/trialling:

I kind of see this, as I see the Nuremburg trials after WWII: I don't condone them, but I can see why they were done.

[Charles Xavier]

No tears for the counter-revolutionary people who starved the people to death, organized themselves into death squads, the corrupt, the torturers, the gangsters who walked around with impunity, those who raped women, and stole from poor people.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No tears for the counter-revolutionary people who starved the people to death, organized themselves into death squads, the corrupt, the torturers, the gangsters who walked around with impunity, those who raped women, and stole from poor people.
Yea that pretty much sums up Batista's henchmen.

[JimmyJazz]

No tears for the counter-revolutionary people who starved the people to death, organized themselves into death squads, the corrupt, the torturers, the gangsters who walked around with impunity, those who raped women, and stole from poor people.

You don't have a very political mind, then. Most people aren't radical leftists; when they hear about a revolution, the most trivial things will sway them either for or against. Americans could have been made much more sympathetic to the Cuban revolution than they were, which would have at least somewhat more tied the hands of the U.S. capitalists and U.S. government in their dealings with Cuba. Most people realize that there is simply no practical reason to kill someone who you already have under lock and key. It's premeditated murder.

Maybe we need a thread on this. I seem to remember the capital punishment debate thread (with Dean taking the "anti"--can't remember who took the "pro") was mostly about problems in the way that the death penalty is administered, not about moral objections to the death penalty itself.

[Cumannach]

You don't have a very political mind, then. Most people aren't radical leftists; when they hear about a revolution, the most trivial things will sway them either for or against.

How could you use that as a guide to policy making?

A non-radical leftist is likely to believe that nationalizing United Fruit is akin to stealing someone's hard earned private property, and making it the property of communist demagogues.

[JimmyJazz]

I just keep replying to this thread.


How could you use that as a guide to policy making?

Well, the immediate application that I was suggesting was to not execute hundreds of people from the former regime after summary trials (less than twelve hours long). And the really absurd/ironic thing about these types of trials is that:


On January 1, 1959, after formally resigning his position in Cuba's government and going through what historian Hugh Thomas describes as "a charade of handing over power" to his representatives, remaining family and closest associates boarded a plane at 3 a.m. at Camp Colombia and flew to Ciudad Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.

Throughout the night various flights out of Camp Colombia took Batista's friends and high officials to Miami, New York, New Orleans and Jacksonville. Batista's brother Francisco "Panchín" Batista, governor of Havana, left several hours later, and Meyer Lansky was also flown out that night. There was no provision made for the thousands of other Cubans who had worked with Batista's regime.

So basically, Batista and the highest up people in his regime escaped any form of justice whatsoever, and only those who were low enough to not have connections getting them out of the country were subject to revolutionary justice. Essentially, you were executed only if you were a relatively minor player in the abuses that took place. This is how it usually goes, unless the rebels manage to assassinate the higher-up people before they can flee. Usually they are able to get out, though. Then you have hundreds of low-level people killed, all of whom have several hundred friends and relatives, and eventually you end up with a sizable portion of the population knowing someone who was killed by one side or the other for political reasons, and the political battle becomes more of a culture war based on which side killed someone you know. That pattern has been repeated many times in Latin America.


A non-radical leftist is likely to believe that nationalizing United Fruit is akin to stealing someone's hard earned private property, and making it the property of communist demagogues.

Right, but not on their own, only because the New York Times said so. This is kind of a perfect illustration of what I am saying, actually: people do not have well-developed political opinions, so they're easily swayed.

Certainly there are lots of things that are out of our control. Whether the New York Times paints us as communists (and I'm picking on the NYT because, IIRC, they are the ones who went out of their way to really paint Arbenz as a communist when he clearly was no such thing) is obviously not in our control. But whether we execute a bunch of low-level collaborators with the former dictator most certainly is. Just because we don't have complete control over our global public image obviously doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best with what we can control. IMO the fact that we don't have total control over it makes it even more crucial that we do our best with what we do control. You can't just brush aside global public opinion--it matters. It doesn't guarantee success (the Sandinistas still lost), but it makes a difference I think. It certainly makes a difference in the history books even if it doesn't make one to the immediate chances for success of your movement.

Again though, I just want to point out that I am pretty much opposed to ever executing anyone who you have under lock and key. It's not just some argument about public opinion, it's my opinion too.

[Cumannach]

I hear what you're saying but you can't compromise on socialist policies just because the bourgeois press might misrepresent them. Was executing counter-revolutionary scum a neccesary socialist policy?

I don't know, but you can also look at it this way- in much of Latin America it may have acted as an example to the communists and workers as well as their repressors that the revolutionaries meant business.

[Merces]

Here is an interesting essay and video on che. But its true though he did fail at everything he attempted. Guerilla warrior, Minister,doctor, etc.

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xHirDOoRu8)

Essay (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1535)

[JimmyJazz]

I hear what you're saying but you can't compromise on socialist policies just because the bourgeois press might misrepresent them. Was executing counter-revolutionary scum a neccesary socialist policy?

I don't know, but you can also look at it this way- in much of Latin America it may have acted as an example to the communists and workers as well as their repressors that the revolutionaries meant business.

I agree 100% with your first sentence. When it comes to socialist policies, which are your whole goal, you don't compromise for the sake of opinion.

And I agree, there are practical arguments to be made both ways on the execution thing. My moral objection is really far, far stronger.

[kiki75]

I would rather have someone executed than spend a lifetime feeding and sheltering that person, knowing that I'm purposefully imposing on his/her freedom. What is the basis for this really strong moral objection?

[JimmyJazz]

I would rather have someone executed than spend a lifetime feeding and sheltering that person, knowing that I'm purposefully imposing on his/her freedom. What is the basis for this really strong moral objection?

Right, so you want to give convicts the choice between getting killed and spending life in jail and see what they choose?

[kiki75]

Obviously, their choices don't matter since we're either killing them or imprisoning them for life. So, why ask?

If we did ask, that might seem slightly more respectful of their autonomy (or whatever we'd be pretending to respect in such a situation), but slight respect is not respect. So, we would only be serving up illusions.

I really would like to know what the basis of your strong moral objection is, if you don't mind.

(And, surely you realize there would be some convicts who'd choose death over life imprisonment. Not all, but some. So, what is your point in asking me that?)

[JimmyJazz]

Well, that was a really literal answer. But my point was that life in prison is definitely preferable to death for just about everyone.

Anyway, the assertion I made originally was that you don't have to kill someone who you have in custody. If they are in prison, they are no longer a threat, so killing them is simply revenge. What you said doesn't really follow. It's not as though I'm suggesting imprisoning them as merely a lesser form of revenge; it isn't revenge at all, it's a practical measure.

This is the response I should have given to you last time.

[kiki75]

Ok. I understand your point. However, if your aim at lifetime imprisonment is practicality, isn't it more practical to just put the person to death? It's cheaper (no feeding and sheltering for how many years) and there's less psychological wear-and-tear on the prisoner. As well as those you'd need to keep watch over said prisoner.

Honestly, I just wanted to understand your really strong objection. I'm guessing you just don't like the idea of killing people, but...that doesn't mean what you prefer is more practical.

edited to add: Putting a prisoner to death is not an inherently vengeful act. I, too, like to be practical.

[JimmyJazz]

Ok. I understand your point.

No, I don't think you do.

When you take someone into custody and remove all means they have of providing for themselves, you have taken on yoursel the responsibility to keep them alive--obviously. Your attempt to paint a conscious decision to end a life as a passive withdrawal of life support is pretty see-through. The state took away all their means of self-subsistence, the state now has to provide their subsistence, or it has made a conscious decision to kill them.

"There's less psychological wear-and-tear on the prisoner" is just pretty stupid. YOU are the one holding them in prison and subjecting them to whatever "psychological wear-and-tear" they may experience.


I'm guessing you just don't like the idea of killing people

And I'm guessing you just don't like inequality (assuming you are a socialist). You can dress it up with formal sounding arguments, but all political debate is about values.

[kiki75]

When you take someone into custody and remove all means they have of providing for themselves, you have taken on yoursel the responsibility to keep them alive--obviously.
Obviously.

The state took away all their means of self-subsistence, the state now has to provide their subsistence, or it has made a conscious decision to kill them.Obviously.


"There's less psychological wear-and-tear on the prisoner" is just pretty stupid. YOU are the one holding them in prison and subjecting them to whatever "psychological wear-and-tear" they may experience.[emphasis mine]Obviously.



And I'm guessing you just don't like inequality (assuming you are a socialist).What point were you trying to make here?


You can dress it up with formal sounding arguments, but all political debate is about values.Debate tends to include formal sounding arguments. I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with that. When you state your values, this response may make more sense. As it is, I've attempted to gather your perspective based on your replies.

Regardless, your points above do not add up to the inherent practical nature of imprisoning someone for life.

[JimmyJazz]

Go troll someone else, seriously.

[kiki75]

I'm not trolling you. I asked you a question.

That's conversation. With which your replies implied you were fine. And, if you're no longer, I can respect that.

[Chambered Word]

^Well, considering that international law allowed a murderous invasion of Korea to be carried out under the flag of the UN, I'm not sure we want to use international law as the ultimate standard of our morality.

I'll stop now though, because it's starting to look like I want to get into a big argument to condemn Che, which is not the case. I support the Cuban Revolution; I'm just pointing to what I think was a mistake.

I just wanted to call you out on that one...

The regime in North Korea is communist in name only, the people are eating shit to survive while Menta-lee Ill builds up his arsenal. He's basically taken the lion's share for his military and himself and left the people to divide the scraps between themselves equally. Kind of an exaggerated form of the US, but I think a US-led invasion would actually (shock, horror:crying:) improve things there.

But I think they've waited til the bastard actually has nukes, so fat chance of anyone actually going to do something about him. The US only hates him because he isn't a capitalist, otherwise they are content to let people die slowly and miserably around the world.

[GiantBear91]

There's a quote from Anderson somewhere that says something like "In all my study of Che Guevara, I've never found proof of anyone he executed to have not been properly sentenced." Guevara executed war criminals from the Batista regime who, I believe, killed people for having beards. Can't say we lost some gems there.


Im currently reading this book, What page is that on? Im only on the 16'th chapter.

[Manifesto]

Here is an interesting essay and video on che. But its true though he did fail at everything he attempted. Guerilla warrior, Minister,doctor, etc.
Dude he succeeded at doctor and Guerrilla warrior for the Cuban Revolution and would have at the rest if it was not for the CIA coming in when most of the revolutions had nothing to do with them.

[h9socialist]

I am opposed to capital punishment. However, the tribunals after the revolution were about as appropriate as the Nuremberg Trials. The tribunals went after the worst of Batista's henchmen, not a bunch of rinky-dink bourgeois shopkeepers. By all accounts Che took the tribunals very seriously, and took great pains to arrive at just verdicts.

This is a particularly poignant subject for me. In April, I was in Los Angeles at a public park, wearing my black Che T-shirt. A man with a hispanic accent came up and suggested that Hitler should be on the T-shirt as well -- likening Che to Hitler. I did not want to get in a fight, so I let him roll off. I figured that he must be a veteran of Brigade 2506! But I will tell you that I had several others come up and express the solidarity, and admiration fo Che . . . and I was with my very Catholic father-in-law, and very right-wing brother-in-law, neither of whom expressed any problems with my T-shirt.

Che is demonized because he was a revolutionary against imperialism, and held firmly to his convictions. The bourgeoisie hates that! They have to believe that everyone can be bought. So Che is cast by them as an overzealous monster. If it's all about counting the gallons of blood spilled, there are many American heroes who were far bloodier than Che. And, by the way, Batista was far more bloody and cruel than anything that occurred in Revolutionary Cuba in 1959. It is tragic, however, that some of our own comrades pass judgment on El Che as quickly as some of his bourgeois detractors.

[Anarkiwi]

Che is as great a revolutionary as jesus christ.
he never once killed a innocent the people he killed were servents
of imperialist in cuba,bolivia or even cong.

"He is the most complete human being of our age"-sartre