Was Che a Sralinist? - Well, was he?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I've heard all sorts of things on the boards about weather or not Che was a Stalinist. So now I've decided to make a thread about it.

Anyone have any input whatsoever on weather Che was or wasn't a Stalinist. Was he a Marxist-Leninist, or what, anyone?

[Pete]

Castro called him a "good Marxist" and Che believed that it was through the peasants (campensenos or something like that) that the revolution should come, not with the urban population.

Stalinist. I don't know. Marxist Leninist. Because of the above position that he took I question this, although I may not correctly understand the Leninist aspect (which I take as the Vangaurd fitted into Marxist theory).

[Larissa]

In my opinion he was more marxist-leninist and later on maoist.

[Wolfie]

definatly not a stalinist, che was more liberatarian.

[Waterfish 2]

Trotskyist.

[Severian]

No, he made it reasonably clear that in his opinion the official Communist Parties were mostly obstacles to revolution.

[thursday night]

What is a Stalinist? A person with respect for Comrade Stalin? Then yes, Che was a Stalinist. Is it (as the ultra-left would like us to think) a blood thirsty maniac? Then no, Che was not.

Che Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist. A supporter of the Soviet Union, but also critical of it.

[redstar2000]

It's one thing when people attach labels to themselves. Then, you can look at what they say and do, and decide if the label is accurate.

It's another to attach the label to someone else...then, you need evidence to support the label's accuracy.

Finally, what is the meaning of the label itself? In the case of political labels, there is usually both a set of ideas and a historical context.

All of which is a long-winded prelude to this:

Marx & Engels-->Kautsky-->Lenin-->Stalin-->Mao-->Che.

That is, you can trace Che's ideas back to those figures in a more or less clear way.

But you have to remember that a "Stalinist" in 1959 was not the same as a Stalinist when Stalin was alive. Indeed, there are modern "Stalinists" that Stalin himself would hardly recognize.

I really think it is more fruitful to discuss actual revolutionary ideas--their strengths and weaknesses--than to worry about labels.

:cool:

[RedCeltic]

What is a Stalinist? A person with respect for Comrade Stalin? Then yes, Che was a Stalinist. Is it (as the ultra-left would like us to think) a blood thirsty maniac? Then no, Che was not.

If by Ultra-Left You mean Anarchists.. than I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you. It's better to be ultra-left than mediocre left. :biggrin:

[peaccenicked]

Thee are labels that clear up things when they have hisorical context. However most labels are out of context and carry an ideological baggage that is usually has different meaning from one person to the next.
One of the philosophical demands of Marx and that is one of rigour in the academic diciplines and is to look at historicl specificness, look behind labels and even what
peole say about themselves and others, Look at the balance of class forces within the context of World history.
Che and Fidel knew about the deficiences of the Stalinist dominated World communist movement thats why they did not join it to begin with. It was US paranoia that dragged Fidel into the Stalinist bloc. They were perfectly willing to play one of the other. Che criticesed Bureacratism in the ''actually existing socialist states''. In one of his most famous speeches he accused these goverments of being complicit with imperialist domination of the third world.

[SwedishCommie]

Che was a great man!
Isnt that enough?

[thursday night]

"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context … I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."

-Che.

To say Che was anything but an admirer of Comrade Stalin is stupidity.

[lostsoul]

i read that in a letter to his family(maybe parents or aunt), he wrote when he saw all the poverty, he wrote something like "i swear on stalin's soul i will..."

i think he admired stalin. Everyone says he admired Mao, and mao admired stalin also. I think later on in his life he critized the ussr because their leader(can't spell his name..the fat bald guy) was so different as stalin.

i am not a stalinist, but to me it seems that stalin made his country strong, and did one of the best jobs to fight capitalism. Since at that time no one really knew about stalin's killings, its pretty easy to admire stalin. Look at this world right now, everyone know's about stalin's killings and people still respect him, i would think communists at that time would have respected him even more.

[Cassius Clay]

Redstar you mean to say Comrade Stalin would not of regonised me? Oh I'm heartbroken.

And Peacenicked Stalin never fought or said anything against beuracracy did he?

Che criticised (rightly) the Imperialism and revisionism of the Soviet Union, which although by no means comparible with the U$ was there and became worse as time wen't on. Nowhere does he criticise Stalin, only praises him.

[lostsoul]

"Once more I could convince myself how terrible the capitalist octopuses are. I swore on a picture of our old and bewailed comrade Stalin, I swore not to rest before these capitalist octopuses are destroyed."

http://www.el-comandante.com/polit.htm

i read something simlair not extactly in the same word, in a letter.

maybe it was a phase in his youth, but i am postive when he was younger he admired stalin highly.

[Malvinas Argentinas]

At those times being a stalinist was different than being a stalinist nowadays. before che became a hero, when he was younger, in his trips throw soth america, he signed many letters as "Stalin II". This shows that he had some admniration to the imge of stalin that was promoted in those times.
As time pased, horrible things that stalin did were revealed. he created his own cult of personality, he made the purges, and so on. Im sure che wouldnt have signed as "Stalin II" if he knew those things.

[Kapitan Andrey]

...If only Che could know, what sTalin had done with people of Russia...I'm sure that Che immidiatley started to HATE him!!!

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 1:45 am on April 21, 2003
...If only Che could know, what sTalin had done with people of Russia...I'm sure that Che immidiatley started to HATE him!!!

that is a question i have actually been wondering for a long time.

Che was a very kind hearted guy who didn't like to see innocents harmed.

on the other hand, Russia was very powerful and they did have stalin to thank for bringing them up to that level.

so what would che pick? progress? or human life?

[Kapitan Andrey]

...human lives!!!

[thursday night]

Every time Kapitan Andrey enters a thread it can be promised that the IQ of the discussion drops like a stone cast from the top of the Grand Canyon.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from thursday night on 5:43 am on April 22, 2003
Every time Kapitan Andrey enters a thread it can be promised that the IQ of the discussion drops like a stone cast from the top of the Grand Canyon.

i think everyone has a right to voice their opinion, regardless of what we feel about it, we should be thankful that they are contributing to our community. More opinions(and hopefully different ones) the more we can experiment with different thoughts and test them against other's view points.

++++++++++

on my question i asked above im a bit divided, i think che would have acted simlair to stalin, except he would have tried the min. the loss of human life.

[nz revolution]

Stalinist, hehe.

He did say those things about Stalin is his youth. I don't recall him saying anything about him in the years after.

I bet the first thing Che wanted to do when he got back to Cuba after Bolivia was to purge and kill the left-oppostion, himself...

[Saint-Just]

'Indeed, there are modern "Stalinists" that Stalin himself would hardly recognize.' - Redstar2000

I have never met any "Stalinist" that I have thought Stalin would not now recognise. What kind of "Stalinists" are you referring to?

Che obviously supported Stalin as we can see from quotes such as the one thursday night used. He supported Stalin to his death. Why would he not?

[Kapitan Andrey]

Quote: from nz revolution on 7:30 am on April 22, 2003
I bet the first thing Che wanted to do when he got back to Cuba after Bolivia was to purge and kill the left-oppostion, himself...


Ha, why do you think so?

[Charred Phoenix]

Che believed that it was through the peasants (campensenos or something like that) that the revolution should come, not with the urban population.


Wouldn't that make him an agrarian socialist??

Also, Che supported Lenin through his whole life, and Lenin opposed Stalin, so it is hard to believe that Che was a Stalinist.

[nz revolution]

I wouldn't say he opposed Stalin or Stalin couldn't have got anywhere in the party...

[lostsoul]

i don't think you all understand that being a stalinist in those times was not a bad thing.

We all agree that his crimes did not surface until near the end of Che's life. So che was merly a follower of that image which was painted of Stalin(and from the stuff i read, they make him look like a hero, a strong leader who made his country strong and is not scared of anyone else).

then i think when krusheve started to dinounce stalin, everyone got pissed because they thought he was lying and really believed in stalin that much. That is why he probally sided with China in their problems with the soviet union. (its like right now you find out that pope is a rapist, many people around the world will never believe it, no matter how much proof you give them)

So i don't really think it matters if he was a stalinist or not, he simply respected and at times was motivated by the image projected for Stalin, which was very good.

[Cassius Clay]

OMG, I've never seen such poor responses. Are you all in denial or something. Che Guavera was a supporter of Josef Stalin, this is a FACT. Lostsoul first of all Khruschev was a liar (this was why people throughout the Soviet Union reacted with uproar against the speech and were prepared to fight in Stalin's name) he said Stalin locked himself up for 10 days at the beggining of the war. Yet the testimony of everybody from Molotov and Zhukov to secretary's proves him WRONG. Second of all please tell what 'crimes' have 'surfaced' since 1968. That great spokesman of Capitalists at the time Adolf Hitler was declaring that Stalin had murdered millions, much like Churchill and Reagen would do later. Anybody see a pattern here.

Oh well that's right kids Stalin was the antichrist.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:59 am on April 26, 2003
OMG, I've never seen such poor responses. Are you all in denial or something. Che Guavera was a supporter of Josef Stalin, this is a FACT. Lostsoul first of all Khruschev was a liar (this was why people throughout the Soviet Union reacted with uproar against the speech and were prepared to fight in Stalin's name) he said Stalin locked himself up for 10 days at the beggining of the war. Yet the testimony of everybody from Molotov and Zhukov to secretary's proves him WRONG. Second of all please tell what 'crimes' have 'surfaced' since 1968. That great spokesman of Capitalists at the time Adolf Hitler was declaring that Stalin had murdered millions, much like Churchill and Reagen would do later. Anybody see a pattern here.

Oh well that's right kids Stalin was the antichrist.

i don't think you understood me, i was trying to say that che was a follower of stalin, and it isn't nessarily a bad thing.

[redstar2000]

"Stalinists today that Stalin would hardly recognize..."

Well, CM, the obvious candidate would be the Progressive Labor Party (U.S and England) which vigorously defends Stalin's historical reputation but has a completely different position on the transition from capitalism to communism (no intermediate "socialist" stage).

Speaking more loosely, although all (as far as I know) of the Maoist parties express respect for Stalin's role in the USSR, it's difficult to imagine Stalin himself endorsing a document like The East Wind Prevails Over the West Wind...the theory of peasant-based "socialist revolution" taking the historical initiative away from proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries.

Of course, a lot depends on what you actually mean by "Stalinist"--my definition would be based on what he actually said and did.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:00 pm on April 26, 2003)

[Cassius Clay]

''i don't think you understood me, i was trying to say that che was a follower of stalin, and it isn't nessarily a bad thing.''


Sorry. Although I was addressing the whole thread in general.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 8:58 pm on April 26, 2003
"Stalinists today that Stalin would hardly recognize..."

Well, CM, the obvious candidate would be the Progressive Labor Party (U.S and England) which vigorously defends Stalin's historical reputation but has a completely different position on the transition from capitalism to communism (no intermediate "socialist" stage).

Speaking more loosely, although all (as far as I know) of the Maoist parties express respect for Stalin's role in the USSR, it's difficult to imagine Stalin himself endorsing a document like The East Wind Prevails Over the West Wind...the theory of peasant-based "socialist revolution" taking the historical initiative away from proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist countries.

Of course, a lot depends on what you actually mean by "Stalinist"--my definition would be based on what he actually said and did.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:00 pm on April 26, 2003)


I am not familiar with the Progressive Labor Party. Neither can I fathom people professing themselves as Marxist-Leninists and propogating the theory of a Marxist-Leninist revolution without the socialist stage. I agree that Stalin would not recognise such people as followers of himself.

My definition of Stalin would be the same as your I suppose. It is in my regard that Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist, and what he said and did proved this, and demonstrated how a Marxist-Leninist should act and that he hewed the path for the first revolutionary Marxist-Leninist society.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 10:23 pm on April 26, 2003)

[Charred Phoenix]

I wouldn't say he opposed Stalin or Stalin couldn't have got anywhere in the party...


Lenin's biography disagrees, also, if any of you have read or know of What is to be done (Lenin, not Chernyshevski) you will note that while he presses the need for leadership, and hence, dictatorship he believes this is temporary, Stalin believed it should be permanent. Also, Stalin happily dealt with Hitler until he was attacked.

[Cassius Clay]

Redstar the PLP are based in the UK aswell? That's news to me.

Basically Chairman Mao the PLP point out that every socialist revolution so far has reverted back to Capitalism simply because the various society's kept 'Capitalist' things such as wages. SO their solution is to move straight to Communism. I don't think they even uphold Mao anymore, saying he basically betrayed the 'Ultra-Left Red Guards' during the GPCR.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Cassius Clay on 10:37 am on April 27, 2003
Redstar the PLP are based in the UK aswell? That's news to me.

Basically Chairman Mao the PLP point out that every socialist revolution so far has reverted back to Capitalism simply because the various society's kept 'Capitalist' things such as wages. SO their solution is to move straight to Communism. I don't think they even uphold Mao anymore, saying he basically betrayed the 'Ultra-Left Red Guards' during the GPCR.



Right, I see now.

[Domino]

I agree with lostsoul, but help me out here... wasn't Ché a Marxist above all?