Che killed "innocent" people

[Radical]

This is something Conservatives like to "make-up" and spread to the masses. I hear it a lot, "Che is a murderer", "Che was evil", "Che was bloodthirsty"

Heres something from * Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed "an innocent". Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

[ls]

An liberals too http://www.revleft.com/vb/che-evil-maoist-t111917/index.html?t=111917.

[Cael]

As Robespierre put it, some people want revolution without the revolution.

[cb9's_unity]

As Robespierre put it, some people want revolution without the revolution.

Don't make a habit of quoting Robespierre...

I know relatively little about Che. However I have noticed that capitalists make a point of talking about how he killed dissidents while forgetting that he was a military commander...

[h0m0revolutionary]

He may not have killed innocents, im not sure, but he did oversee the establishment of UMAPs (Cuban labor camps) to "re-educate" homosexuals, rockers (this was a huge fad back then in Cuba) and other "undesirables".

[Cael]

Don't make a habit of quoting Robespierre...

I know relatively little about Che. However I have noticed that capitalists make a point of talking about how he killed dissidents while forgetting that he was a military commander...


Why, what was wrong with Robespiere?

[Revy]

He may not have killed innocents, im not sure, but he did oversee the establishment of UMAPs (Cuban labor camps) to "re-educate" homosexuals, rockers (this was a huge fad back then in Cuba) and other "undesirables".

Che left Cuba before those camps were created, actually. Therefore the responsibility rests on Fidel, not Che (Fidel began to be more outwardly pro-gay later). I don't think you're correct as to why the UMAPs were created. They were a labor alternative for able-bodied men who for some reason would not be accepted into the military during the national emergency. Hence the name, Military Units to Aid Production, and why Jehovah's Witnesses (that refuse to serve in war) were grouped together with gays.

There was still homophobia in that policy, yes, but not on the level you describe.

[Bitter Ashes]

Che's ideoligy I've come to accept and admire, (my personal favorate is him berrating the USSR's leaders about them eating better than the working class). Some of his methods though, I do most certainly disagree with. Several farmers seem to have been shot by Bastila's forces for supplynig the revolutionaries with food under duress We know that's wrong. What shocks me though is that when another farmer was co-ercerd by Bastila's forces to supply them with food, the revolutionaries, Che in particular, would punish them for it. It was cold blooded, closed minded, ruthless and didnt even have any tactical or strategic benefit. That all bieng said though, I'd be prepared to accept that Che was under the orders of Fidel and Rual to do all this and Che was very loyal at that point and would have listened to them.

[h9socialist]

For a group of supposed "left-wingers" we sure do spend a lot of time reciting horror stories about Comandante Guevara -- I'm sure the US Chamber of Commerce and the Miami Mafia would be delighted! I think it would be far better to continue debates on issues Che raised in "Socialism and Man inCuba" or the Tricontinental Letter. We need not be so obsessed about nasty things that happened during war. Our opponents sure don't worry about such things -- or they'd skewer Generals MacArthur, Eisenhowere, Schwarzkopf and Franks. Unfortunately, they applaud the atrocities committed by those folks. Che had some rough edges, and did some things we might be uncomfortable with. End of story. Let's move on to the rich legacy of revolutionary socialist ideas that Companero Che left us with.

[cb9's_unity]

Why, what was wrong with Robespiere?

I really want to just ignore this but please just tell me your being sarcastic. I can't imagine anyone on this site really looking at Robespierre favorably and getting any guidance from him.

[pastradamus]

I really want to just ignore this but please just tell me your being sarcastic. I can't imagine anyone on this site really looking at Robespierre favorably and getting any guidance from him.

Ah, Well thats a context issue here. But just because Cael Quoted Robespierre does not make the said quote any less valid.

[cb9's_unity]

Ah, Well thats a context issue here. But just because Cael Quoted Robespierre does not make the said quote any less valid.

Haha, I'm more worried about the "whats wrong with Robespierre" comment. Most of the atrocities people think Che committed during a communist revolution Robespierre actually did during the bourgeois french revolution.

[Zolken]

As Robespierre put it, some people want revolution without the revolution.

There is no such thing as a bloodless revolution.




Braun

[mannetje]

I believe that che did what he had to do for the cause, and I'm on his side.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

For a group of supposed "left-wingers" we sure do spend a lot of time reciting horror stories about Comandante Guevara -- I'm sure the US Chamber of Commerce and the Miami Mafia would be delighted! I think it would be far better to continue debates on issues Che raised in "Socialism and Man inCuba" or the Tricontinental Letter. We need not be so obsessed about nasty things that happened during war. Our opponents sure don't worry about such things -- or they'd skewer Generals MacArthur, Eisenhowere, Schwarzkopf and Franks. Unfortunately, they applaud the atrocities committed by those folks. Che had some rough edges, and did some things we might be uncomfortable with. End of story. Let's move on to the rich legacy of revolutionary socialist ideas that Companero Che left us with.
This is a really unhealthy attitude to take. When people "do things we might be uncomfortable with" (like, y'know, expelling anarcho-syndicalists from the Confederacíon de Trabajadores de Cuba, shutting down the anarchist press, stuff like that"), we can't just "move on" - we need to critically consider what they did, why they did it, whether it was necessary, and if not, how we can avoid repeating their mistakes. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and if repeating history means ending up with a society that jails or exiles people with my beliefs then I am not cool with that.

[red cat]

This is something Conservatives like to "make-up" and spread to the masses. I hear it a lot, "Che is a murderer", "Che was evil", "Che was bloodthirsty"

Heres something from * Jon Lee Anderson, author of Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed "an innocent". Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

Well.. from an imperialist point of view, the people who uphold imperialism and maintain the colonies as they are will naturally be "innocent", and their opponents, the revolutionaries, "evil".

[Zoev]

Che only worked as a warden for a short time in Cuba before he became Minister for Industry, and even that position he kept for only a few years before heading to the Congo.
For all these allegations about persecuting innocents and gays and rockers I have not seen a shred of proof.

Che's assassins executed many POWs that they captured during his Bolivian Army's last stand. The only diffrence was that they were killing guerillas not american-lovers

[RHIZOMES]

Don't make a habit of quoting Robespierre...

Why? Read a bit on "revolutionary terror" and get back to me on that.

[Robocommie]

For a group of supposed "left-wingers" we sure do spend a lot of time reciting horror stories about Comandante Guevara -- I'm sure the US Chamber of Commerce and the Miami Mafia would be delighted! I think it would be far better to continue debates on issues Che raised in "Socialism and Man inCuba" or the Tricontinental Letter. We need not be so obsessed about nasty things that happened during war. Our opponents sure don't worry about such things -- or they'd skewer Generals MacArthur, Eisenhowere, Schwarzkopf and Franks. Unfortunately, they applaud the atrocities committed by those folks. Che had some rough edges, and did some things we might be uncomfortable with. End of story. Let's move on to the rich legacy of revolutionary socialist ideas that Companero Che left us with.

I appreciate this, and I personally consider Che as a hero, and I think his use as an icon for Leftists of all varieties is invaluable. He's like a Communist warrior saint, if you catch my drift.

But it's vitally important that all Leftists second guess themselves and our icons, and constantly self-analyze. All revolutions run the risk of being swept up by passion, fervor, and the intense desire to set the world right, and bad things CAN happen. The thing that sets us apart from the fascists, I should hope, is that while they will deny the Holocaust, we have the courage of our convictions to admit when bad things have been done by people who claim to be Leftists and answer to them.

If we truly believe in our ideals, we should not be afraid of that.

[Nolan]

On top of killing innocent people the man stole money from them as well. The guy is built on a photo, that's all he ever was imo.

You're right. There was no revolution, it's all a communist lie!

[Nolan]

Ok, and after that the country went to shit. I'm not saying the guy didn't do anything, but he doesnt deserve to be on every stoners shirt from here to NYC.

It did did it? Please educate yourself about Cuba-and Che.

[the last donut of the night]

Ok, and after that the country went to shit.

I know, right?

Especially all that shit about Cuba eliminating child malnutrition. (http://socyberty.com/issues/unicef-confirms-0-child-malnutrition-in-cuba/)

[Red Commissar]

Che was a revolutionary. It's hard to be a revolutionary and not get uninvolved people killed in the process. This is pretty much true for armed conflict from a revolutionary and conventional stand point.

By this reasoning the same conservatives should blame George Washington for British Loyalists that were killed in the process of the American Revolution.

But I doubt Che was "blood thirsty" and simply killed people for the heck of it.

[Nolan]

What is this? You posted a blog. I know people who have been there as recently as last year and they say people still wipe their butts with their hands. The place is in a horrible state, and has been for years.

Only in some places. And it was different before? You should go to the mountains in Venezuela and see how they live.

[Nolan]

Maybe... I just dont think they are as good as you make them out to be.

Maybe you're putting words in our mouths.

[the last donut of the night]

What is this? You posted a blog. I know people who have been there as recently as last year and they say people still wipe their butts with their hands. The place is in a horrible state, and has been for years.

And the blog links you to UNICEF data.

[the last donut of the night]

The only problem with that is Cuba went to communism and America went to Democracy. I never said he wasn't an important figure, its just hes not that important in the grand scheme of things.

“On what moral grounds can the rulers of a nation in which millionaires and beggars exists; Indians are exterminated; Blacks are discriminated against; women are prostituted; and huge numbers of Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and other Latin Americans are scorned, exploited, and humiliated, speak of human rights?

“How can the representatives of a capitalist and imperialist society based on the exploitation of man by man, combined with egoism, individualism, and a complete lack of human solidarity, do this?

“How can those that train and provide military supplies to the bloodiest, most reactionary, and most corrupt governments in the world, such as those of Somoza, Pinochet, Stroessner, the gorillas in Uruguay, Mobutu, and the shah of Iran, just to name a few, mouth this slogan?

“How can the leaders of a state whose intelligence agencies organized assassination attempts against the leaders of other countries and whose armies dropped explosives in Vietnam equivalent to hundreds of atom bombs, such as those that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and who murdered millions of Vietnamese without even deigning to apologize to the country or pay indemnity for the lives lost – the leaders of a state that has traditionally intervened in Latin America, subjects the people of this part of the world to its exploiting yoke, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children every year due to illness and starvation – how can they speak of human rights?"

-Comrade Fidel

[the last donut of the night]

So you quote a dictator to try and make a point... he's worse than all the politicians in america.

It doesn't matter if Fidel is a dictator or not. His words, regardless of your opinions, are valid. And is he really worse than every American politicians? Is he worse than Andrew Jackson, who led the genocide of numerous Indian tribes? Or is he worse than McCarthy, who destroyed numerous lives and crippled the American left through his red scare? Is he worse than all the presidents who approved the military domination of the world.

I don't think so. America and its imperialism are dripping head to toe with the blood of Iraqis, Afghans, Indians, Blacks, Latinos, and many more. And you consider America to be a democracy? How can this be a democracy when children starve in Detroit as CEO's in Manhattan eat caviar? How can this be a free country when you have Mexican laborers in California working in horrible conditions for the rule of capital? Or how is it a democracy for the dead victims of the Pinochet regime, or the dead under the military dictatorship in Brazil? Is it a democracy for the dead anarchist martyrs of the Haymarket Massacre?

Don't fool yourself: The US is a democracy -- a democracy for the rich and powerful.

[the last donut of the night]

Doesn't matter unless they have freedom. I would rather live in poverty than live in fear.

Freedom in what aspect?

The freedom of choosing between healthcare and food? Or how about the freedom of going to either a Catholic soup kitchen or a Protestant one? What about the freedom of choosing to go into the army or the gang, as many youths in the ghettos of your democracy are forced to do?

Yeah, so much for democracy.

PS: You should know that there's no such thing as democracy tied with poverty. You can't have a socially stratified society and say democracy is possible. Democracy can only be reached with a fundamental change in property relations.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The only problem with that is Cuba went to communism and America went to Democracy. I never said he wasn't an important figure, its just hes not that important in the grand scheme of things.

Although I'm for Fidel & Cuba, & the goal towards Communism, but you're wrong when you said they went to Communism. They didn't go to that, Communism hasn't even been achieved over there. At most, it's a state-capitalist with socialist leanings right now. And you say you'd rather want freedom than to be running in fear, then why are you against Communism? You do know what Communism represents right?

[sarmchain]

one thing i don't like about che is the fact he had people shot for desertion , if someones never been in a battle before and all the sudden people are being blowen up and killed all around them freaking out and running away is a normal human reaction

[Nolan]

Communism is the rise of fear in my opinion.

Why? Things like the "tea party" are based on fear.

[The Ben G]

My math substitute today saw my Che Biography and told me he was a "Blood thirsty, Cold blooded Murderer". Thats similar to calling George Washington a "Cold blooded Killer with No respect for the common man", which of course is outrageious, even though his polocies were not the greatest.

[Die Rote Fahne]

On top of killing innocent people the man stole money from them as well. The guy is built on a photo, that's all he ever was imo.

Your opinion doesn't count, cause you're an idiot.

[the last donut of the night]

Communism is the rise of fear in my opinion.

And in my opinion, oranges have wings and fly through the blue skies of Pandora while singing "Shadrack" by the Deep River Boys.

Idiot troll.

[Scary Monster]

Communism is the rise of fear in my opinion.

:lol: You would rather live in poverty than fear? :lol: Man, you sure do have to READ. Regardless of where your politics lies, you seriously need to become aware of world events and history, and especially read up on the Communist Manifesto if youre goin to make presumptions about communism. It seems like your beliefs are rooted in pessimism. After you see that workers, who make up 90% of the world population and are exploited and killed by the bourgeoisie through imperialism (which is a vital part of capitalism's sustainance), can take control of their own lives (which is the basic premise and goal of communism), you will see that you wouldnt have to live in poverty nor fear.

[the last donut of the night]

Thats fucking stupid of you, just because I have a different opinion you call me an idiot? Go fuck off with an ove glove.

Well, seeing your avatar is symbol of white supremacism, you now deserve to have the utter shit beat out of you.

[Scary Monster]

Not supremacy, pride. Something you obviously no nothing of.

ban this nazi fuck

[the last donut of the night]

in before trash

[RadioRaheem84]

ban this nazi fuck

BobDole wouldn't like that. :lol:


Seriously, glad to see this guy off the boards.

Back to the main topic. IMO, and I hope this doesn't get me banned, but from reading the books Che penned the man was a tactical genius, a plain genius at nearly everything he tackled but he also seemed to me like a bit of a megalomaniac. He wanted to be and do too much. He was authoritarian in his methods and couldn't stand dissent. From the p.o.v. of the military man he was perfect. From the p.o.v. from the losers that came into contact with him, he was a butcher. But he never made a claim to play nice with imperialists in the first place and never set out to deal with traitors, robbers, murderers and plants in his ranks with kid gloves. He was who he was and he made no apologies about it.


He got on the freaking UN Stage and admitted to executions for fucks sake! Why are capitalists crying out that Che was a butcher now? People knew it back then and they know about it now. That's why they loved him, because he killed imperialists. George Washington killed loyalists, redcoats and even brought down mutinies with twice the manpower Che could've only dreamed of! It's ridiculous to call Che a murderer of innocents without calling Washington one.

[Kassad]

To summarize my point: BobDole has been taken care of, Nazis are assholes, let's get back on topic.

[The Ben G]

To summarize my point: BobDole has been taken care of, Nazis are assholes, let's get back on topic.

Exelent.

[Barry Lyndon]

In response to the article about Che Guevara written in the 'Independent' by Johann Hari:

Most of the specific charges against Che Guevara falls into three categories: 1) True, but hypocritical, since same charges could be made against individuals right-wing/liberal capitalist admires 2) True, but grossly taken out of context 3)Outright lies and fabrications, usually taken straight from CIA propaganda and falsehoods peddled by right-wing Cubans.

In the first category, Johann Hari attacks Che Guevara for his support and admiration of Mao Tse-Sung, citing the Great Leap Foward famine. This is a completely ahistorical charge that can be made only with 20/20 hindsight. China at that time was a very isolated country, and under an international embargo. Very little information was getting out about what was going on in China at the time, and what negative information Che Guevara did hear about China he probably assumed(reasonably) that it was capitalist propaganda, given the intensity that the capitalist media was lying and continues to lie about the Cuban revolution(Hari himself being a prime example).
Hari is not ones to throw stones at accusing others of supporting mass murder, given that he himself championed the US invasion of Iraq, which has to date caused 1.2 million deaths. He has, of course retracted such support long after it didn't matter anymore. He doesn't even have the excuse of not having access to the information, since in Britain 3/4 of the public was against the war before it even started and 750,000 marched against it in London, while Hari showed his respect for 'democracy' by trashing the protesters as naive idiots, Stalinists and Saddam-lovers.

In the second category, Hari accuses Che Guevara of executing 'low level functionaries' of the Batista regime, 'without trial'. Not a word in Hari's article about the thousands of men, women. and children that Batista's 'low level functionaries' killed, raped, and tortured for years. Many of them were, in fact, identified in public by the families of the victims, since under the old regime they had no need to hide their faces. But Hari, good liberal that he is, prefers that the countless victims of imperialist-backed torturers and killers should have the 'Truth and Reconciliation' farces where they kiss and make up with the people who murdered their loved ones, like in Argentina, Chile, and South Africa.

In the final category, some of the things that Hari asserts are just preposterous, like the implication that the Soviet Union transported its nuclear missiles to Cuba 'on Che's instructions'. I had no idea Che Guevara had the power to dictate to a superpower where to deploy its nuclear arsenal. This is so ridiculous it is hardly worth refuting.

For millions across the world, Che Guevara remains, decades after his death, a symbol of the fight for a new and better world. Che Guevara may not have been perfect, but he fought and died for the poor and oppressed, and for that I salute him. People like Hari who try to tear him down are moral midgets squealing at a giant.

We will be like Che! Hasta la victoria siempre!:hammersickle:

[RadioRaheem84]

Johan Hari is a good journalist but a lousy leftist, as he claims to be. I really dislike the liberal-left in the United Kingdom, though. They really think that they're somehow the inheritors of George Orwell's mantle. Hari had a brilliant article on Dubai and another brilliant article dismantling the arguments of the pro-war "left". On Che though he is obvioulsy talking out of his liberal ass.

[h9socialist]

Is there any way to invoke "cloture" on this thread? It has long since lost it's capacity for shedding any new light on history, and for those of us who admire Comandante Guevara it is painful to read the nit-wit blather that some people allow themselves to be infected with. The historical accounts may differ on some events and incidents, but Ernesto Che Guevara's dedication to social and economic justice and to alleviating the misery of the world's exploited masses is beyond question!

[chegitz guevara]

I really want to just ignore this but please just tell me your being sarcastic. I can't imagine anyone on this site really looking at Robespierre favorably and getting any guidance from him.

You should read Mark Steel's Vive la Revolution: A Stand-up History of the French Revolution.1, its hysterical. 2, it will disabuse you of a lot of the bourgeois myths about Robespierre.

I also highly recommend his audio and video. http://www.marksteelinfo.com/audiovideo/audio/TheFrenchRevolution.mp3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHsdGdrAPWw&feature=player_embedded

[Agnapostate]

Anderson's quote holds true. While effectively all opponents of Che Guevara seem to comically believe that they're "in the know," as opposed to all the "useful idiots" (Humberto Fontova's statement) that wear shirts with his image on them, I've not encountered a single one that can prove that he murdered innocents. Most of the comments I hear are anecdotal claims of this nature (http://www.debatepolitics.com/history/67722-che-guevara-hero-menace-5.html#post1058614011):


Che was a f***ing murder. Screw him. Seriously. Let's never glorify a murderer. Glorifying him is like doing the same for Stalin. Evil is evil, and Che was evil.

Cuba was better off before the revolution and he killed people in the process. My family lost all of their wealth that my grandfather had built him. Screw the revolution.

Naturally, that's a somewhat ambiguous description of the nature of Cuban emigrants' hostility toward the Revolution and the current state of affairs. The more explicit anecdotes go something like this (http://www.***************/forum/showpost.php?p=6443330&postcount=10).


I am in the upper middle class and my parents are both upper class and in the top tax bracket.
Most of our Cuban friends also have advanced degrees from American Universities and are upper middle class or higher up.

When Communism came to Cuba my family lost a lot. My great grandfather had owned a sugar mill and even had his own trains to carry sugar cane from the fields to the mill.
When he passed away the family sold the mill and invested the money in real estate and farmland. By the time Castro came to power our family had a lot of property, but the government seized it all.

That is what destroyed the White Cuban population and the reason most have left the country. Do you think a white man wants to live in the country that took everything his family had and gave it away to negroes and mullatos?
Do you know how I felt every time I walked by a house which my family had owned and saw a bunch of Negroes living in it? Negroes who never worked to own that house, who were only living there because those Cummunist pigs stole it from us and gave it to them. That is unforgivable.

But wholly aside from the true nature of many of the Cuban rightists, a laughable double standard is seen when it comes to our good ole' Yankee heroes. How many have condemned George Washington as a murderer for overseeing the execution of insubordinate members of the military? As put in A People's History"


Shortly after this, a smaller mutiny took place in the New Jersey Line, involving two hundred men who defied their officers and started out for the state capital at Trenton. Now Washington was ready. Six hundred men, who themselves had been well fed and clothed, marched on the mutineers and surrounded and disarmed them. Three ringleaders were put on trial immediately, in the field. One was pardoned, and two were shot by firing squads made up of their friends, who wept as they pulled the triggers. It was "an example," Washington said.

How many have condemned Jefferson's fear of the Haitian Revolution or Lincoln's fundamental support of slavery?