Che the Trotskyist.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Trotskyism advocates establishing a revolutionary state within one country when revolution occurs, yet they see that unless the revolution spreads, they are doomed to isolation and destruction by the capitalist antagonist forces.

This is Exactly what Che seems to have believed, he was loyal to the cuban Revolutionary government, yet he believedit was nescesarry to spread the revolution.

He was also against Cuba becoming dependent on selling russia its sugar cane, and believed cuba needed a rounded and varied economy, like trotskyists and maoists do.

Wasnt this man a trotskyist, i think there is enough to make us think so, and when he was captured, he had a copy of trotskys permanent revolution.

Im not saying he became a fully converted trotskyist, but i think the dependance of cuba to the USSR was causing che to look for new modes of revolution, what is your take.

Cheers.

[vyborg]

El Che was a revolutionary. He was horrified by the russian methods in Cuba, he didnt fully understand why the "communist" leadership of the CPSU treated cuban as dogs, using them for their foreign policies etc.

He helped trotskyst to be released from prison stating that the differenes inside the labour movement cannot be solved by the sticks.

at the end he was aware that something were not right but not able to grasp the problem and decided to go away and start anew. It was a big mistake, but Ernesto Guevara is miles above Castro and the stalinists

[scarletghoul]

Che was not a Trotskyist. He upheld the legacy of Stalin. His differances with Fidel and Khruschev were because of their revisionism, not their Marxism-Leninism. He leaned towards the Maoist current, upholding Stalin against revisionism -


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 series of things that are very good.

He came to a lot of similar conclusions to Mao, and would have liked Cuba to fall into the Chinese camp. Incidently during the GPCR Mao himself was accused of Trotskyist "permanant revolution" by the North Koreans for some reason.

Honestly I don't know what his thoughts were on Trotsky.. But spreading the revolution isnt something unique to trotskyism, i mean just look at all the historical revolutions in easten europe and asia led by not just MLs but proper anti-trots. We are all 'internationalist' and we all hope for an eventual worldwide revolution.

So yeah I dont really know, but would say he was more of an antirevisionist internationalist who wanted to help bring revolution where he could.

btw I remember a while back in the chat, when Radical was going through a trot phase (but still described himself as 'guevaraist') he said the SWP should send some of its members to Chile to start a guerrilla war in the spirit of permanant revolution :lol:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Trotskyism advocates establishing a revolutionary state within one country when revolution occurs, yet they see that unless the revolution spreads, they are doomed to isolation and destruction by the capitalist antagonist forces.

Not only the 'Trotskyists' advocate this, every revolutionary Marxist does.


This is Exactly what Che seems to have believed, he was loyal to the cuban Revolutionary government, yet he believedit was nescesarry to spread the revolution.

He was also against Cuba becoming dependent on selling russia its sugar cane, and believed cuba needed a rounded and varied economy, like trotskyists and maoists do.
Great. However none of this would imply that Che was a 'Trotskyist'.



Wasnt this man a trotskyist, i think there is enough to make us think so, and when he was captured, he had a copy of trotskys permanent revolution.I doubt we can know this for sure, but even if it's true, that's not proof that he was a Trotskyist.


Im not saying he became a fully converted trotskyist, but i think the dependance of cuba to the USSR was causing che to look for new modes of revolution, what is your take.

Cheers.
Eh, not really? Che wanted to personally take part in revolutionary movements all over the world. This does not automatically mean he was a 'Trotskyist'. He may have disagreed with the 'dependency' on trade with the USSR--but he never looked for "new modes" of revolution because of that. Che pretty stuck with 'foco theory', and was probably criticized by many Trots because of it. (Although I'm not sure if there are Trots who recognize 'foco theory' as valid)






El Che was a revolutionary. He was horrified by the russian methods in Cuba, he didnt fully understand why the "communist" leadership of the CPSU treated cuban as dogs, using them for their foreign policies etc.

He helped trotskyst to be released from prison stating that the differenes inside the labour movement cannot be solved by the sticks.

at the end he was aware that something were not right but not able to grasp the problem and decided to go away and start anew. It was a big mistake, but Ernesto Guevara is miles above Castro and the stalinists

Yeah, OK. :rolleyes: I'm sure it's appropriate to place an individual above all the other evil doers. It makes so much sense.

[mykittyhasaboner]

He came to a lot of similar conclusions to Mao, and would have liked Cuba to fall into the Chinese camp.

Where does he say this?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

I cant believe radical ever said a kind word about trotskyists, he pummels them and drinks them in a smoothie before his rap sesions :)

At least he is active though, more than alot of people can say.

[RedSonRising]

Where does he say this?

He sided with the Chinese during the Sino-Soviet split due to his belief that Russia was degrading into a more hierarchical bureaucracy and for his enthusiasm for Chinese developments, but expressed this opinion with reservation for fear of losing the USSR as a political ally and trading partner.

As far as him being a Trotskyist, I think he probably valued the theoretical and historical importance of Trotsky and his theories but I don't think he subscribed to that or any other particular trend of Marxism. He saw the value in adaptation and so formed his own practical ideas on the conditions of Latin America and the third world.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, pg. 126;

"My life has been a sea of found resolutions until I bravely abandoned my baggage and, back pack on my shoulder, set out with el compañero García on the sinuous trail that has brought us here. Along the way I have had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated. In Guatemala I will perfect myself and achieve what I need to be an authentic revolutionary."

By Che Guevara, December 10 1953

hmmm...very un-Trotsky of him. Che is definitely not a Trot!

[Comrade B]

The Stalinist argument tends to simply be that Che said things in support of Stalin and that he used Maoist revolutionary tactics. Aside from that they really can't link it to his actions.

When you are bidding for the support of the Soviet Union, typically you try to make the Soviet Union happy, doing such things as praising their historic leaders. Were Che to declare himself anti-Stalin, I think it would have had some negative effects on Cuban-Soviet international relations

[bailey_187]

When you are bidding for the support of the Soviet Union, typically you try to make the Soviet Union happy, doing such things as praising their historic leaders. Were Che to declare himself anti-Stalin, I think it would have had some negative effects on Cuban-Soviet international relations

Not really, considering that it was Krushchev in power at the time.

[Comrade B]

Krushchev was opposed by many of the members of the Party because of his anti-Stalin statements. Political power was still in Stalin's name

[LeninBalls]

Political power was still in Stalin's name

Therefore the USSR was technically under Stalin and Che wanted to impress the USSR by praising Stalin...?

[Q]

hmmm...very un-Trotsky of him. Che is definitely not a Trot!

A quote 6 years before the Cuban revolution and 14 years before he died. Hard proof there...

I frequently hear the point made that when he died he had a copy of The Revolution Betrayed with him, is that actually true or just some urban legend?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Che said there was a higher socialist morality in the Sino camp, he also publicly criticized USSR for not aiding revolutionaries around the world.

After this a chinese official kept following him around the hotels and world summits.

The KGB guy che knew since mexico asked him about it, che assured him he was in full support with the USSR, but then again what could he of said, err yeah i know the USSR are giving us all this stuff, but we like those guys you call radical maoists :)

[Homo Songun]

I was told that Che imprisoned a local Trot outfit for counterrevolutionary activity in the early years of the Cuban revolution.

In his work Apuntes críticos a la Economía Política, written in 1964, Che wrote: "I believe that on the fundamentals, Trotsky was wrong, that his behavior was wrong and even obscure in his later period. Trotskyists haven't contributed anything anywhere and where they do more, as in Peru, they ultimately failed because their methods are bad." (my translation from the Spanish)

In a letter to Armando Hart, a Trotskyist, he said that it is "necessary to publish the complete works of Marx and Engels, Lenin, Stalin (Che's emphasis) and other great Marxists", whereas in the same place he calls Trotsky a "big revisionist".

[Kléber]

I was told that Che imprisoned a local Trot outfit for counterrevolutionary activity in the early years of the Cuban revolution.
Guevara was not personally involved in the suppression of the Revolutionary Workers' Party (Trotskyist) [POR(T)] but he did apologize for the destruction by PSP goons of their printing press, which was being used to print a copy of The Permanent Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm):
"That did happen. It was an error. It was an error committed by a functionary of second rank. They smashed the plates. It should not have been done. However, we consider the Trotskyist party to be acting against the revolution. For example, they were taking the line that the revolutionary government is petty bourgeois, and were calling an the proletariat to exert pressure on the government, and even to carry out another revolution in which the proletariat would come to power. This was prejudicing the discipline necessary at the time."

He responded to Moscow's accusations of "Trotskyism" in 1964 as follows:
"In this regard, I think that either we have the capacity to destroy contrary opinions with arguments or we should let them be expressed….It is not possible to destroy opinions by force, because that blocks any free development of intelligence. There is much that is worthwhile in Trotsky’s thinking, although it seems to me that his fundamental conceptions were wrong and his later action mistaken."

Che initially covered for the actions of revisionist PSP bureaucrats and dutifully acknowledged Stalin as a righteous patriarch but after his Maoist "change of heart" in 64/65 he personally defended Trotskyists. The POR(T) was not banned until he had left the island.

http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#sec71

Guevara had attempted to justify the suppression of the Cuban Trotskyists in 1961, loyally repeating the criticisms of the pro-Moscow PSP members. However, his disillusionment with the Soviet Communist Party and the 'Sovietisation' of the direction of the Cuban Revolution had become increasingly apparent in the period following the Missile Crisis of October 1962. Not only had he vented his anger at the USSR's unwillingness to fulfil their commitment to send and, if necessary, use the nuclear missiles,(70) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote70) but he had partially broken with Stalinism over the issue of 'peaceful coexistence' and spreading the revolution to other countries. As described in Section 3.4.2, Guevara's criticisms of the Soviets' strategy led the more ardent pro-Moscow communists to characterise him privately as a Maoist if not Trotskyist. As it became evident that Fidel Castro was beginning to align Cuba with the Soviet Union in the Sino-Soviet dispute, at the same time as Guevara's economic strategy was also losing ground in favour of the policy options desired by the pro-Soviet wing of the Cuban leadership, so Che's personal position towards the Cuban Trotskyists softened. A number of Latin American Trotskyists had been incorporated into his various guerrilla projects,(71) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote71) and Guevara simply no longer had any need to support the suppression of the dissident Trotskyist communists in order to defend a wider political position which he had evidently lost. Ricardo Napuri, a Peruvian who worked with Guevara in Cuba between 1959-64 in his various guerrilla projects, has gone so far as to argue that Guevara initially supported the suppression of the Cuban Trotskyists more out of the need to avoid losing positions in the leadership in the face of pressures from Moscow and the advance of the pro-Moscow PSP members in the G-2, the State Security services, and other revolutionary institutions, rather than out of any personal anti-Trotskyist conviction.(72) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote72)
Disillusioned with Moscow and finding himself on the losing slope in the internal leadership struggles, Guevara increasingly expressed and acted upon his own personal convictions. No longer having any particular axe to grind against the Trotskyists, who themselves shared Guevara's sympathies for the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet dispute, he was instrumental in freeing a number of the POR(T) members imprisoned in La Cabaña jail in Havana. Roberto Tejera was released on the orders of Guevara the day after he had been interviewed by Che personally about his supposed crimes.(73) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote73) Similarly, Armando Machado was released from prison in Havana on Guevara's initiative.(74) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote74)
However, in Oriente where Guevara had little influence over which individuals remained imprisoned, the repression against the POR(T) continued. It culminated in the arrest of the Guantánamo section of the POR(T) in late 1964 and early 1965, less than a year before the formal founding of the new Cuban Communist Party. With the Trotskyists' mimeographed bulletin Voz Proletaria having ceased publication and their small but symbolic intervention in revolutionary institutions having been broken, the members of the POR(T) found themselves in prison en masse. The political nature of this clamp-down in 1964-65 was demonstrated by the sensitivity which the authorities displayed in not arresting Mary Low Machado, a participant in POR(T) meetings, due to the protection which her foreign passport granted her,(75) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote75) or Juan León Ferrera Ramírez because he had worked in Guevara's own exemplary voluntary quartet of cane cutters.(76) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote76)
In Santiago de Cuba, José Medina Campos, Idalberto Ferrera Ramírez, Luciano García, Elías Suárez, Antonio Medina Campos, and Guido Brañas Medina were all charged with alleged crimes against the state. The tribunal which heard their case in March 1965 found them guilty of coming to agreement among themselves and with as yet unknown third persons to conspire against the Cuban government, and having "organised a counter-revolutionary movement called the 'Partido Obrero Revolucionario Trotskista'" in Guantánamo.(77) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote77) In language similar to that employed during the Moscow Show Trials in the 1930s, the Sentencing Report stated that "following the orientations of Yankee imperialism they formed a study circle in which they discussed the best way to sow confusionism and divisionism among the Cuban population [....] as well as publishing a counter-revolutionary bulletin [....] called 'La Voz Proletaria' in which they published false news and information and circulated a large amount of counter-revolutionary propaganda [....], defaming the leaders of the Revolution and criticising the Revolutionary Laws."(78) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote78) According to the tribunal, all this activity was apparently undertaken while the Trotskyists awaited the landing of mercenaries who sought to overthrow violently the Cuban government. Again demonstrating the political nature of the alleged crimes, Idalberto Ferrera Ramírez was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, José Medina received five years, and Luciano García, Elías Suárez, Antonio Medina and Guido Brañas each received three year sentences.(79) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote79)
In Havana, Roberto Acosta was also arrested in early 1965 after a mimeographed version of Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed with a new Cuban introduction was printed in his house.(80) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote80) When Guevara returned from Africa he apparently became aware of Acosta's arrest and detention because of the Trotskyist's absence from his post in the Ministry of Industry. Having already lost the strategic arguments over revolutionary strategy, Guevara convened a meeting with Acosta.(81) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote81) According to Roberto Acosta, although the meeting took place in the presence of officials from G-2, Guevara expressed the view that Acosta was a revolutionary, that if the Trotskyists thought they were right then they should continue the struggle to obtain what they were fighting for, and that at some point in the future Trotskyist publications would be legal.(82) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote82) As Guevara said, "Acosta, you can't kill ideas with blows".(83) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote83) Assuring Acosta that he would be freed shortly,(84) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote84) Guevara apparently closed the meeting with an embrace and the words: "See you in the next trenches".(85) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote85)
A few days later, officials of G-2 returned with the proposal that all the Trotskyists would be released on condition that they agreed to cease all organised activity and refrain from publishing any material.(86) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote86) While during previous periods of imprisonment the Trotskyists had carried out political work amongst other prisoners, drawing up re-educational plans which defended the Revolution at the same time as defending their own programme and the POR(T)'s right to legal existence,(87) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote87) other political considerations appear to have taken precedence. Specifically, with questions being raised about Guevara's whereabouts as his disappearance from public life became evident, the Trotskyists knew that they no longer had any protection from the prospect of lengthy periods of incarceration.(88) (http://www.cubantrotskyism.net/PhD/chap7.html#footnote88)

[Saorsa]

Kleber beat me to most of the points I wanted to make. Che wasn't a Trotskyist, and while he wasn't a Maoist he was probably closer to it than anything else. He was certainly a friend of Mao and China. Che Guevara was Che Guevara - why must we assume he would have to be anything else? Che's main 'contribution' to Marxist theory, foquismo, got him killed in Bolivia and doesn't reflect what actually took place in Cuba. Che was a great leader, a great fighter and a great revolutionary, but he isn't on the level of a Lenin or a Mao.

I don't think anyone should assume that Trotskyism provides the best explanation, let alone alternative, to what happened in the USSR. And one certainly shouldn't assume that just because someone like Che became disenchanted with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, they have to be some kind of Trotskyist.

If Che's political path swung towards anyone, it was Mao.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Unbiased reporting there from the marxist leninist maoist :)

Just kidding.

BTW i am not a trotskyist, i just thought che seemed to inhibit many trotskyist traits

[Q]

Unbiased reporting there from the marxist leninist maoist :)

Just kidding.

BTW i am not a trotskyist, i just thought che seemed to inhibit many trotskyist traits

Yes, but there were also differences. The CWI just wrote a new introduction (http://socialistworld.net/doc/4197) to the book Che Guevara – symbol of struggle (http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/che/00.html).

[vyborg]

Kleber beat me to most of the points I wanted to make. Che wasn't a Trotskyist, and while he wasn't a Maoist he was probably closer to it than anything else. He was certainly a friend of Mao and China. Che Guevara was Che Guevara - why must we assume he would have to be anything else? Che's main 'contribution' to Marxist theory, foquismo, got him killed in Bolivia and doesn't reflect what actually took place in Cuba. Che was a great leader, a great fighter and a great revolutionary, but he isn't on the level of a Lenin or a Mao.

I don't think anyone should assume that Trotskyism provides the best explanation, let alone alternative, to what happened in the USSR. And one certainly shouldn't assume that just because someone like Che became disenchanted with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, they have to be some kind of Trotskyist.

If Che's political path swung towards anyone, it was Mao.

Guevara was searching desperately for an explanation of the bureaucratic degeneration of the USSR that threatened also Cuba. That's the point. Only Trotsky explained sceintifically and using the marxist theory what happened in the USSR and what took it to the stalinist political counter-revolution.

Thats' why Guevara was interested in trotskysm.

[Saorsa]

Unbiased as always SS ;)


BTW i am not a trotskyist, i just thought che seemed to inhibit many trotskyist traits

I know that. And it's not like there's anything wrong with that, revolutionaries today can learn a lot from studying Trotsky. Chavez and Baburam Bhattarai have both spoken of their respect for some Trotskyist ideas.


Yes, but there were also differences. The CWI just wrote a new introduction to the book Che Guevara – symbol of struggle.

Part of which I have responded to here... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cwi-gets-wrong-t133955/index.html?t=133955)

[Q]

Part of which I have responded to here... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cwi-gets-wrong-t133955/index.html?t=133955)

Yes, but that's a somewhat different discussion :)

[mykittyhasaboner]

He sided with the Chinese during the Sino-Soviet split due to his belief that Russia was degrading into a more hierarchical bureaucracy and for his enthusiasm for Chinese developments, but expressed this opinion with reservation for fear of losing the USSR as a political ally and trading partner.

This doesn't answer my question, and I highly doubt he would have sided with China because he thought the Soviet Union was "degrading into a more hierarchical bureaucracy".

I've always heard that Che "sided" with China, yet I've never seen where he wrote or said this.




Only Trotsky explained sceintifically and using the marxist theory what happened in the USSR
Yeah right. Only Trotsky was intelligent and revolutionary enough to analyze the USSR correctly. What a load of crap.

Besides, how do you know the Che was "desperately" seeking to an explanation to supposed "bureaucratic degeneration"? He openly stated that he thought Trotsky's analysis was in largely incorrect.

[vyborg]

Besides, how do you know the Che was "desperately" seeking to an explanation to supposed "bureaucratic degeneration"? He openly stated that he thought Trotsky's analysis was in largely incorrect.

He wrote a lot about the danger of bureaucratism as anyone that reads Guevara knows. Unfortunately he didnt think possible to avoid the degeneration and as he didnt want to be a partner in this process, he escaped to another revolutionary adventure.

[The Vegan Marxist]

He wrote a lot about the danger of bureaucratism as anyone that reads Guevara knows. Unfortunately he didnt think possible to avoid the degeneration and as he didnt want to be a partner in this process, he escaped to another revolutionary adventure.

Can you provide any quotes or sources for us please?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1BGExB_cg

Watxh it to the end it shows beyong doubt che was anti ussr toward the end ofhis life, he looks so beautifull when he says we shall overcome

Man crush alert haha

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1BGExB_cg

Watxh it to the end it shows beyong doubt che was anti ussr toward the end ofhis life,



Beyond doubt? You've got to be kidding. Just because the narrator said he criticized the Soviet Union for "complicity in imperialist exploitation" and demanded the "Soviets not charge Third World countries market prices", "and should not charge for weapons but should give them away", doesn't mean that Che actually made these critiques in such a manner.

For that matter, it doesn't mean such critiques are correct either, because they surely aren't. A case could be made that the Soviet economic and military assistance was quite generous on part of the Soviets, and allowed the revolutionary Cuba to consolidate the gains they have made so far by stepping in to prevent Cuba's economy from collapsing.

Edit:


"Arms cannot be commodities in our world. They must be delivered to the peoples asking for them to use against the common enemy, with no charge and in the quantities needed and available. That is the spirit in which the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have offered us their military aid. We are socialists; we constitute a guarantee of the proper utilization of those arms. But we are not the only ones, and all of us should receive the same treatment."

-Che, At the Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria (http://marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/02/24.htm)
For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another. As long as this has not been achieved, if we think we are in the stage of building socialism but instead of ending exploitation the work of suppressing it comes to a halt — or worse, is reversed — then we cannot even speak of building socialism.[23] We have to prepare conditions so that our brothers and sisters can directly and consciously take the path of the complete abolition of exploitation, but we cannot ask them to take that path if we ourselves are accomplices in that exploitation. If we were asked what methods are used to establish fair prices, we could not answer because we do not know the full scope of the practical problems involved. All we know is that, after political discussions, the Soviet Union and Cuba have signed agreements advantageous to us, by means of which we will sell five million tons of sugar at prices set above those of the so-called free world sugar market. The People's Republic of China also pays those prices in buying from us.

Che - At the Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria (http://marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/02/24.htm)

Many underdeveloped countries, on analyzing their troubles, arrive at what seems a logical conclusion. They say that the deterioration in the terms of trade is an objective fact and the underlying cause of most of their problems and is attributable to the fall in the prices of the raw materials which they export and the rise in the prices of manufactures which they import -- I refer here to world market prices. They also say, however, that if they trade with the socialist countries at the prices prevailing in those markets, the latter countries benefit from the existing state of affairs because they are generally exporters of manufactures and importers of raw materials. In all honesty, we have to recognize that this is the case, but we must also recognize that the socialist countries did not cause the present situation -- they absorb barely 10 per cent of the underdeveloped countries' primary commodity exports to the rest of the world -- and that, for historical reasons, they have been compelled to trade under the conditions prevailing in the world market, which is the outcome of imperialist domination over the internal economy and external markets of the dependent countries. This is not the basis on which the socialist countries organize their long-term trade with the underdeveloped countries. There are many examples to bear this out, including, in particular, Cuba. When our social structure changed and our relations with the socialist camp attained a new level of mutual trust, we did not cease to be underdeveloped, but we established a new type of relationship with the countries in that camp. The most striking example of this new relationship are the sugar price agreements we have concluded with the Soviet Union, under which that fraternal country has undertaken to purchase increasing amounts of our main product at fair and stable prices, which have already been agreed up to the year 1970.

Che - On Development (http://marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/03/25.htm)

[vyborg]

Can you provide any quotes or sources for us please?

just searching rapidly

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1963/02/against-bureaucratism.htm

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm (this is against the soviet style "material incentives")

Unfortunately many more are not on line but I can quote them nontheless

[mykittyhasaboner]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guev...-socialism.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm) (this is against the soviet style "material incentives")He never mentions the SU once in this article. Having read this before, I got the impression that the article was sort of an expose on the situation in Cuba and his thoughts on it. It has little to do with criticizing the use of material incentives.

It's obvious Che was against "bureaucratism", because every Marxist is. He didn't think it was impossible to "avoid the degeneration" as you claim, he clearly states:


If we manage to unravel the massive amount of red tape, the intricate relationships among institutions and among departments, the duplication of functions and frequent “potholes” into which our institutions fall, we will find the roots of the problem. We will develop organizational norms, elementary at first and later more complex. We will wage a head-on battle against those who are confused, indifferent, or lazy. We will educate and reeducate that mass of people, incorporate them into the revolution and eliminate what should be thrown out. At the same time we will tirelessly continue the great task of education at all levels, whatever obstacles we may face. If we do all this, we will be in a position to do away in a short time with bureaucratism.

[RedSonRising]

This doesn't answer my question, and I highly doubt he would have sided with China because he thought the Soviet Union was "degrading into a more hierarchical bureaucracy".

Both are stated in his biography by John Lee Anderson, which is the most complete and most thoroughly researched one. His many diaries and personal thoughts are examined alongside his behavior militarily and diplomatically, so there is more private information there besides what was officially stated as opinion. If I had the book on me at this moment I'd find the pages.

[Znamya]

A lot of venal hack-writers not content with Che's murder are now trying to obliterate him politically. He's made out to be an isolated super-hero, a revolutionary-suicide, and others dress him up as an anarchist and Trotskyist. But Che could not tolerate revolutionary posing, pseudo-heroics, sectarians, Trotskyites, and other low-life scum. He was a Communist and a friend of the Soviet Union.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

cool story bro

[vyborg]

The stalinist never talked about bureaucratism in Ussr or other “socialist” countries. Guevara honestly did.

Guevara talked about the need to plan on a sovra-national scale. The Stalinist cliques that ruled these countries never allowed such thing.

On Granma in 1967 were published articles against bureaucratism considered even worse than imperialism. They talked about a anti-bureaucracy revolution. Guevara end the article writing: war to bureaucratism. Streamiline the apparatus.”

Of course Guevara was not able to come out openly against Ussr that protected militarly Cuba, but his thought was clear. He was against Stalinism for a socialist country. That’s why he is dead and Castro or Kim Il Jong are alive

[Homo Songun]

The stalinist never talked about bureaucratism in Ussr or other “socialist” countries.Wrong.

"The task of combating bureaucracy, commandism and violations of the law and of discipline should arouse the attention of our leading bodies at all levels."

--Mao Zedong

"The struggle against corruption, waste and bureaucracy should be stressed as much as the struggle to suppress counter-revolutionaries."

--Mao Zedong

"Subjectivism, bureaucracy and sectarianism are all bourgeois phenomena."

--Mao Zedong

"We must not be bureaucratic in our methods of mobilizing the masses."

--Mao Zedong

"one of the most serious obstacles, if not the most serious of all, is the bureaucracy of our apparatus. I am referring to the bureaucratic elements to be found in our Party, government, trade-union, co-operative and all other organisations. I am referring to the bureaucratic elements who batten on our weaknesses and errors, who fear like the plague all criticism by the masses, all control by the masses, and who hinder us in developing self-criticism and ridding ourselves of our weaknesses and errors. Bureaucracy in our organisations must not be regarded merely as routine and red-tape. Bureaucracy is a manifestation of bourgeois influence on our organisations."

--Joseph Stalin.

"Bureaucracy is one of the worst enemies of our progress. It exists in all our organisations."

--Joseph Stalin

etc. etc.



Of course Guevara was not able to come out openly against Ussr that protected militarly Cuba, but his thought was clear. You can read the thoughts of the dead? Amazing!


He was against Stalinism for a socialist country.Serious question: have you even read any of the other posts in this thread?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

You know just because Mao wrote it dosent mean it happened Bro

[mykittyhasaboner]

You know just because Mao wrote it dosent mean it happened Bro

That wasn't the point, "bro". What was claimed:



The stalinist never talked about bureaucratism in Ussr or other “socialist” countries. Guevara honestly did. Wang Ji correctly showed that this poster was incorrect.

Try some critical thinking, bro.

Also, how about responding and addressing other people's arguments? Since it's "beyond doubt che was anti-ussr", just because some fucking narrator said he was, I would like to see what you think of the facts that strongly suggest otherwise.

The fact is, nobody has posted conclusive evidence that Che had any of the sentiments so popularly put in his mouth here as of late. Like that he was some kind of closet trot or a Maoist who sided with China against the USSR. If someone actually can post evidence to suggest or prove this, I would advise them to do so, so we can actually evaluate if he was right or not. The way I see it, since the USSR and PRC acted graciously towards Cuba, as far as the relationship with Cuba goes, I don't see why he would have desired to pick either side.

[A.R.Amistad]

A quote 6 years before the Cuban revolution and 14 years before he died. Hard proof there...

I frequently hear the point made that when he died he had a copy of The Revolution Betrayed with him, is that actually true or just some urban legend?

No no, this is a very true statement, except the book was The History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky, not The Revolution Betrayed.

The basis of the compatibility lies in Che's economic and political writings, where he realizes the necessity of permanent revolution (without completely stating it in those words, but alluding explicitly to it) and in the fact that he realized and upheld the reality that socialism is impossible in one country. Che was far more of an internationalist than any Stalinist could ever dream of pretending to be.

[manic expression]

No no, this is a very true statement, except the book was The History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky, not The Revolution Betrayed.

The basis of the compatibility lies in Che's economic and political writings, where he realizes the necessity of permanent revolution (without completely stating it in those words, but alluding explicitly to it) and in the fact that he realized and upheld the reality that socialism is impossible in one country. Che was far more of an internationalist than any Stalinist could ever dream of pretending to be.
:rolleyes: Che was more of an internationalist than most everyone...but yeah, let's pretend heroes like Enrique Lister were un-internationalist, just because they had the audacity to support the Soviet Union. :rolleyes:

Anyway, on Che believing in Trotsky's "permanent revolution", I call BS. Show us some text and context. But more importantly: if Che thought socialism impossible in one country, why did he spend a considerable amount of time building the socialist economy of one country?

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

:rolleyes: Che was more of an internationalist than most everyone...but yeah, let's pretend heroes like Enrique Lister were un-internationalist, just because they had the audacity to support the Soviet Union. :rolleyes:

Anyway, on Che believing in Trotsky's "permanent revolution", I call BS. Show us some text and context. But more importantly: if Che thought socialism impossible in one country, why did he spend a considerable amount of time building the socialist economy of one country?

He thought socialism in one country wouldnt work, as we all do, we all know revolution must spread

He just didnt know what to do about it.

What pissed che off is that the USSR stopped communist parties in the third world initiating armed struggle and wouldnt fund most guerrilla movements, he criticized this in a speech in cuba and praised mao for showing true socialist morality

[manic expression]

He thought socialism in one country wouldnt work, as we all do, we all know revolution must spread

He just didnt know what to do about it.
Knowing the Revolution must spread and claiming socialism is impossible if it fails to in the short-term are two very different things. The issue is that Che became a minister to build a socialist economy in Cuba without a worldwide revolution, which would seem to contradict the idea that he adhered to "permanent revolution". Why would he become Minister of the Economy if it was an impossible task anyway?


What pissed che off is that the USSR stopped communist parties in the third world initiating armed struggle and wouldnt fund most guerrilla movements, he criticized this in a speech in cuba and praised mao for showing true socialist morality
I side with Che on that. However, that simply makes Che an honest communist, not a Maoist necessarily and definitely not a Trotskyist (in case anyone's wondering, upholding or sympathizing with Trotsky does not alone make one a Trotskyist).

[Kléber]

way to troll the thread "manic expression," you lying sectarian sack of shit

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

Im not a great marxist, im just a normal working class guy, but anyone who thinks that socialism in one country and peacefull coexistence is the answer is no friend of the working class and is letting dogma damage their outlook.

The thing is, hte USSR could of helped numerous guerrilla struggles and spred the revolution, but it was too busy selling out to the yankee imperialists.

I guess the Bueracrats prevailed in the end.

We must not follow the road if greece has a revoolution or nepal has one.

[mykittyhasaboner]

What pissed che off is that the USSR stopped communist parties in the third world initiating armed struggle and wouldnt fund most guerrilla movements, he criticized this in a speech in cuba and praised mao for showing true socialist moralitySo I guess the fact that China cut Cuba off from trade for not siding with them in the split, was just left out from Che's prospective opinion on "mao's true socialist morality"? Could you please give link to the speech in question, for reference? Surely it would help your case, if you even have one.

Both the USSR and China were looking to emerge from the 1966 Tricontinental Congress in Havana by seeking to win over the most allies, yet were both largely isolated from the congress. An alliance of the Cuban government, north Korea, north Vietnam and the NLF were the only parties to have representatives in the the Executive Secretariat. The Soviets and Chinese were still encouraged to aid liberation movements but were denied a leading or directing role. Neither were happy with the result, but here's the kicker--the Soviets resorted to political pressure, but China cut off trade with Cuba within the very month of the congress. Cuba was nobody's pawn, and criticized both the USSR and PRC--who's split, seemed to have been avoidable, or if anything less counter-productive and damaging to the world revolutionary movement.

The Soviet position on withholding aid to third world movements may have been incorrect to some degree, however the Soviets were not doing this because they were imperialists or whatever but because the threat of nuclear attack by NATO was a real threat and probably the central issue in the Sino-Soviet split (along with the degree which 'peaceful co-existence' should be practiced). In the end the operations in Bolivia failed, largely because the CIA and American government stepped in to aid the Bolivian military. Che was executed and I believe it was only 3 Cubans who made it out alive.

The support should have definitely been given by the Bolivian CP and aid from the SU itself, since it could have made a decisive difference in the fight against the military. This was a clear case of Soviet hegemonism and demonstrates the real threat of US atomic bombs and how cautious the Soviets were. This however does not mean that China gave the Bolivian guerrillas aid or that they relationship with Cuba was any better, it was actually worse. Further more because of potential attack by the US, China eventually became close with the US and supported the US backed Khmer Rouge. So much for "true socialist morality".

[Robocommie]

Im not a great marxist, im just a normal working class guy, but anyone who thinks that socialism in one country and peacefull coexistence is the answer is no friend of the working class and is letting dogma damage their outlook.

The thing is, hte USSR could of helped numerous guerrilla struggles and spred the revolution, but it was too busy selling out to the yankee imperialists.


Socialism in one country is not necessarily the same thing as simply abandoning internationalism, nor is peaceful co-existence the same as simply recognizing capitalism as legitimate. The USSR never did either of those things. It's true, many revolutions that could have been supported were not, and I don't agree at all with the way the Soviets under Stalin abandoned the Greeks, nor do I like how Stalin handled the Spanish Civil War. But they did support revolutions, and they supported revolutionaries. Both Cuba and Vietnam, for example, relied heavily on the aid the Soviet Union offered them. The Soviet Union gave safe haven to Communist revolutionaries around the world when the situation became too dire for them.

It's just that the Soviets were not hell bent on declaring open war or getting involved in risky situations that would have exploded into open war, because war is extremely ugly and not to be embraced - ESPECIALLY since the Cold War was a potential nuclear war which would have annihilated the earth and made the revolution irrelevant.

[manic expression]

:lol: It seems a nerve has been touched.

Anyway, OBD, we're getting off-topic. The question is whether or not Che thought socialism could survive without a worldwide revolution. As a key figure in the building of Cuban socialism from 1959-1965, Che helped build socialism without that worldwide revolution, which would put him at odds with the theory of "permanent revolution". That's really the first issue. The second issue is that although Che disagreed with Soviet policy at times, that does not make him anything but an honest communist. Fidel flagrantly went against the position of Brezhnev when he sent Cuban soldiers to defeat apartheid in Angola, but does that make Fidel a Maoist or Trotskyist? No, it doesn't, and the same holds true here. In my opinion, Che couldn't have possibly agreed with the totality of Maoism as he did not see some of Maoism's most defining events take place (the Cultural Revolution especially after 1970, the support of Pinochet, FNLA, etc.). But that's another story.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Im not a great marxist, im just a normal working class guy, but anyone who thinks that socialism in one country and peacefull coexistence is the answer is no friend of the working class and is letting dogma damage their outlook.

The thing is, hte USSR could of helped numerous guerrilla struggles and spred the revolution, but it was too busy selling out to the yankee imperialists.

I guess the Bueracrats prevailed in the end.

We must not follow the road if greece has a revoolution or nepal has one.

troll somewhere else.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

you moron how am i trolling

Go gargle

[Durruti's Ghost]

the support of Pinochet

Not to hijack the thread, but Mao supported PINOCHET? Why?

[manic expression]

Not to hijack the thread, but Mao supported PINOCHET? Why?
Everything I've seen indicates the PRC was one of the governments to first recognize Pinochet's military government. It was because the PRC saw the USSR as social-imperialist, and since Allende had support from the USSR, that made him an imperialist.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Everything I've seen indicates the PRC was one of the governments to first recognize Pinochet's military government. It was because the PRC saw the USSR as social-imperialist, and since Allende had support from the USSR, that made him an imperialist.

I hope the Maoists here view this as a mistake.

[Buddha Samurai Cadre]

viva pinochet lol

[Crux]

I hope the Maoists here view this as a mistake.
What? Allying with the National Bourgeoisie against Social Imperialists is fully permissible!

[Homo Songun]

Clearly, the politics of Che as symbol transcends the politics of the man. Che-the-symbol is enormous and owned by nobody in particular. As such, it is not completely unexpected that various trends would try to claim Che-the-symbol as "one of their own". In an important sense, this is natural and it would be somewhat futile to try to prevent. I don't blame any one for this. Che is pretty awesome after all.

Nevertheless, taking political inspiration from Che-the-symbol and locating the politics of Che-the-man are two separate things. It is a rank fallacy to mix up the two things. At this point, it is pretty clear where the politics of Che-the-man is situated, which is to say within Marxism-Leninism, specifically a kind of left-wing back-to-Stalinism that arose prior to the full articulation of Maoism. Any one claiming otherwise is either guilty of errors in logic or is engaging in simple political opportunism -- perhaps some combination of the two. That said, some of the guilty parties represented in this thread have a pretty established track record in this sort of thing. No offense intended.

[RedSonRising]

The fact is, nobody has posted conclusive evidence that Che had any of the sentiments so popularly put in his mouth here as of late. Like that he was some kind of closet trot or a Maoist who sided with China against the USSR. If someone actually can post evidence to suggest or prove this, I would advise them to do so, so we can actually evaluate if he was right or not. The way I see it, since the USSR and PRC acted graciously towards Cuba, as far as the relationship with Cuba goes, I don't see why he would have desired to pick either side.

Here are some excerpts I pulled after grabbing that book off the shelf to look for some conclusive specifics to retype on his beliefs on the USSR and CHina. John Lee Anderson is a great objective author and made the most complete version of his biography.

-On a diplomatic visit to Russia:

"...seated at the magnificently prepared table, Che began tapping on the plates and looking around pointedly at his dinner companions; the Alexievs, who had once lived in Paris, were showing off their best china. Lifting an eyebrow, Che remarked: 'So, the proletariat here eats off the French porcelain, eh?'

Che never said so publically, but those who knew him say he returned from his first trip to Russia privately dismayed by the elite lifestyles and evident predilection for bourgeois luxuries he saw among Kremlin officials, in contrast with the austere living conditions of the average Soviet citizen. Four and a half decades of socialism had obviously not created a new Socialist Man, at least not among the party elite, and this was not what he had expected to find in the madre patria of global socialism."

-Describing how he implemented his utopian ideals as bases for economic practice within the Cuban revolution with inspiration from the Chinese:

"Volunteer labor" had become Che's latest battle standard in his quest to create a "new socialist man" in Cuba. He had initiated the practice on a small scale shortly after Camilo's death, in the construction of a school built in his late comrade's memory, but, after seeing the volunteer work brigades in Mao's China, he had taken to the idea of replicating it en masse in Cuba with genuine conviction."

In meeting with a Poet he admired:

"Back in Havana, Mora arranged for Padilla to meet with Che, an admirer of his poetry. Mora was still minister of foreign commerce and was then engaged in a collegial polemic with Guevara over the economy, at odds with Che's insistence on a centralized Soviet-style economy, favoring one that was more market-oriented. Since Padilla (the poet) had returned with a jaundiced view of what he had seen in the Soviet Union, Mora wanted him to tell Che his views.
Padilla and Mora found Che in the midst of a bout of asthma; he was shirtless and prostrate on the floor of his office, trying to regulate his breathing, and he remained there as his visitors began talking. He cut off Padilla's critical appraisal of the USSR straight away, saying: 'I must tell you I don't need to listen to what you have to say because I already know all of that is a pigsty, I saw it myself.'

Che went on to tell him that China, not Russia, was the model to be studied, for they were making a genuine effort toward the realization of Communism. 'Many people criticize me because they say I put too much emphasis on sacrifice, but sacrifice is fundamental to a Communist education. The Chinese understand that very well, much better than the Russians do.'"

-Recounting his visit to China:

" Che's fraternal remarks did not go unnoticed by the Americans either. In a secret US Intelligence report about his mission, his Chinese sojourn was mentioned with interest. 'A noteworthy feature of Guevara's visit to Beijing was his apparent siding with the Chinese on several key points in the Sino-Soviet dispute. Speaking at a November 20 reception, Guevara praised Communist China's commune movement (which has come under Soviet attack) and two days earlier held up the Chinese Communist revolution as an 'example' that has "revealed a new road for the Americas." Guevara made no such statement about the USSR's example while in Moscow.
While Che's statements may have betrayed his personal sympathies, he and Fidel were taking pains not to take sides openly in the festering quarrel between the two Communist giants."


Again, I do not think Che was necessarily a Maoist or Trotskyist, but could relate better to the approach the Chinese took in developing a third world socialist nation. What he saw in Russia didn't seem to speak to his very committed belief of transforming social relations and the psychology behind labor itself. He had his own unique theories that borrowed from different Marxist interpretations, and clearly valued the strategic aid of the Soviet Union despite these differences in ideology. He was quite intolerant of sectarianism actually and put politics before personal opinion:

"Che put his own views forth in some public remarks he made in August, calling the Sino-Soviet quarrel "one of the saddest developments for us," but stressing that Cuba had not taken sides. "Our party's position is not to say who is right and who is wrong. We choose our position, and, as they say in American films, 'any resemblance is purely coincidental'..........His repulsion for the Communist party's sectarianism was well known. Beginning with his selection of Jose Manresa, former Batista army sergeant, as his personal secretary, he had set forth a precedent and thereafter stood up for anyone he felt was sincere and willing to work for the revolution despite their past jobs or affiliations."

[mykittyhasaboner]

So basically, according to the book you took that out of, Che did not pick sides, like I already argued. Thanks for that I guess.

[chegitz guevara]

:lol: It seems a nerve has been touched.

Anyway, OBD, we're getting off-topic. The question is whether or not Che thought socialism could survive without a worldwide revolution. As a key figure in the building of Cuban socialism from 1959-1965, Che helped build socialism without that worldwide revolution, which would put him at odds with the theory of "permanent revolution".

Hmmm, Trotsky helped build the economy in the USSR. Obviously that puts him at odds with his own theory ... or at least the distortion of his theory that you are peddling.

[RedSonRising]

So basically, according to the book you took that out of, Che did not pick sides, like I already argued. Thanks for that I guess.

Not publically nor definitively, but his preferences were obvious.

[Lulznet]

Wasn't Che originally a Stalinist?


Also, this belongs belongs in History not Politics. :rolleyes:

[RedSonRising]

Wasn't Che originally a Stalinist?


Also, this belongs belongs in History not Politics. :rolleyes:

Read the whole thread before asking that question.

Making a vague statement in support of Stalin as a broad gesture declaring a dedication to Marxism years before any real engagement in political leadership does not make him a Stalinist. He was a Marxist-Leninist with his own philosophies and opinions regarding correct revolutionary methodology.

[manic expression]

Hmmm, Trotsky helped build the economy in the USSR. Obviously that puts him at odds with his own theory ... or at least the distortion of his theory that you are peddling.
This is what I was referring to, which wasn't the theory of Permanent Revolution, after all, but rather just Trotsky's answer to "Socialism in One Country":

The “theory” of socialism in one country – a “theory” never expounded, by the way, or given any foundation, by Stalin himself – comes down to the sufficiently sterile and unhistoric notion that, thanks to the natural riches of the country, a socialist society can be built within the geographic confines of the Soviet Union.

[...]

The longer the Soviet Union remains in a capitalist environment, the deeper runs the degeneration of the social fabric. A prolonged isolation would inevitably end not in national communism, but in a restoration of capitalism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch12.htm

If the Soviet Union is too isolated and with too few resources to build a socialist society, how could one who ascribes to such a position try to build a socialist society in Cuba?

[RATM-Eubie]

This is how i see it when Che was young he was a Stalinist then has he grew older and grew a brain he became a Trostkyist

[chegitz guevara]

This is what I was referring to, which wasn't the theory of Permanent Revolution, after all, but rather just Trotsky's answer to "Socialism in One Country":

I wasn't talking about PR, but SiOC.

While it's impossible to build socialism in one country (according to Marx and Trotsky and Lenin), it is not impossible to begin building socialism in a single country. In other words, you can, and indeed, must, begin the journey. You just cannot complete it. In order to actually have a socialist economy, you must have a very high level of development. If the proletariat comes to power in an isolated revolution, and despite their best attempts, fail to spread the revolution, they cannot sit around with their thumbs up their asses nor simply retreat from power and hand everything back over to the bourgeoisie.

The debate between Trotsky and Stalin on the question was actually more nuanced. It was never an either or proposition, but, how much of each and which takes precedence. Dogmatic Trots and Stalinists aren't terribly interested in such details.

In any event, the debate over whether Che was a Trot or not is a sterile one. If he was, so what? If he wasn't, so what? Che was an important internationals, Marxist revolutionary in his own right and attempts to pigeon hole him into or against one tendency or another diminishes his accomplishments.

[28350]

I side with Che on that. However, that simply makes Che an honest communist, not a Maoist necessarily and definitely not a Trotskyist (in case anyone's wondering, upholding or sympathizing with Trotsky does not alone make one a Trotskyist).

I'm sorry, but what exactly are the criteria for being an honest communist?

[the last donut of the night]

guys the CEO of BP just called me; he says you should keep up the good work -- tony says the thread is distracting people from the gulf spill

[mykittyhasaboner]

Not publically nor definitively, but his preferences were obvious.

His preferences on what kind of model to aspire to for building socialism in the third world, yes they are obvious and were always obvious.

That doesn't mean he preferred Chinese geo-politics or would have approved of the Chinese government throwing troops at the Soviet border, sending them to die pointlessly.

Does the book have any kind of quotes about the reaction of the fSU and China to the 66 Tri-Continental Congress?





This is how i see it when Che was young he was a Stalinist then has he grew older and grew a brain he became a Trostkyist


I'm sorry, but what exactly are the criteria for being an honest communist?

I'll tell you the criteria for being a dishonest communist, read the quote above.



It was never an either or proposition, but, how much of each and which takes precedence.

Same thing with the Chinese and the Soviets. How much overt support should be given to revolutionary movements without pissing off the US to the point of nuclear war? Should China receive nuclear weapons from the USSR (which would necessitate the Soviets get involved in a possible war that the Chinese could have started) etc.

[manic expression]

I wasn't talking about PR, but SiOC.
I was talking about PR. I was wrong on that, so I wanted to clarify.


While it's impossible to build socialism in one country (according to Marx and Trotsky and Lenin), it is not impossible to begin building socialism in a single country. In other words, you can, and indeed, must, begin the journey. You just cannot complete it. In order to actually have a socialist economy, you must have a very high level of development. If the proletariat comes to power in an isolated revolution, and despite their best attempts, fail to spread the revolution, they cannot sit around with their thumbs up their asses nor simply retreat from power and hand everything back over to the bourgeoisie.

The debate between Trotsky and Stalin on the question was actually more nuanced. It was never an either or proposition, but, how much of each and which takes precedence. Dogmatic Trots and Stalinists aren't terribly interested in such details.

In any event, the debate over whether Che was a Trot or not is a sterile one. If he was, so what? If he wasn't, so what? Che was an important internationals, Marxist revolutionary in his own right and attempts to pigeon hole him into or against one tendency or another diminishes his accomplishments.True, but it's important, to me, to show that Che's ideals went beyond these tendencies. I don't see him as either pro-Stalin or pro-Trotsky, pro-USSR or pro-PRC...he was critical of what he disagreed with and supportive of what he agreed with, regardless of the label. That's part of his legacy, so the argument might not be all that immediately important, but it's worth having anyway.

And on edit, I'm sure Trotsky was more nuanced than reputation would have it, but this isn't really about Trotsky, as Trotsky and Trotskyism don't always agree.

[Homo Songun]

This is how i see it when Che was young he was a Stalinist then has he grew older and grew a brain he became a Trostkyist
Does anyone else see the savage irony in this statement?

[Commiechu]

No, he wasn't a Trotskyist (Although he did later become interested in Trotsky). He was however leaning towards the idea of Permanent Revolution long before he first read Trotsky as well as having been quite critical of the Russian bureaucracy. If you would like to hear a good Trotskyist analysis of Che and the Cuban revolution I would recommend you search for this on youtube:
"Alan Woods on Latin America, Che Guevara, and the Cuban Revolution"
(I can't post links)
This is a four part speech by Alan Woods, one of the leaders of the International Marxist Tendency.

[bcbm]

fucking gravediggers

[Saorsa]

It walks! Kill it! Kill it with fire!

[Peter The Painter]

why the CHE worship, I mean, yeah he died in the name of revolution, but whos?

I recently read John L Andersons A revolutionary Life, it has some terrible stuff in about che.


He practically raped his family maid, He said to a peasant learning to read, "maybe in a thousand years you will be as clever as this donkey", which made the peasant break down in tears.

He sent guerrillas to greet his wife at the airport, after leaving her for a younger model, he advocated using nukes against America, thus being ok with killing US proles, he repressed fellow revolutionaries of differing tendencies, he was racist while younger, though to be fair grew out of it, he refused to march for the release of alberto, when imprisoned by the government, and said he would only march if he was given a gun.


The worship is pretty stupid IMO.


though his sacrifice was brave.

[Saorsa]

um who's worshipping Che?

[Peter The Painter]

Well, this site came out of che lives, no?

[Volcanicity]

why the CHE worship, I mean, yeah he died in the name of revolution, but whos?

I recently read John L Andersons A revolutionary Life, it has some terrible stuff in about che.


He practically raped his family maid, He said to a peasant learning to read, "maybe in a thousand years you will be as clever as this donkey", which made the peasant break down in tears.

He sent guerrillas to greet his wife at the airport, after leaving her for a younger model, he advocated using nukes against America, thus being ok with killing US proles, he repressed fellow revolutionaries of differing tendencies, he was racist while younger, though to be fair grew out of it, he refused to march for the release of alberto, when imprisoned by the government, and said he would only march if he was given a gun.


The worship is pretty stupid IMO.


though his sacrifice was brave.
So what?Nobodys claiming Che was a saint.Are you going to write him off for a few things he said or did mostly when he was young?He was a revolutionary who literally fought and died for his beliefs and that deserves complete respect,but nobodys worshipping him.

[Peter The Painter]

most people on revleft would die for the revolution, any Anarchist/communist/leninist would, otherwise we would not be revolutionaries.

Only difference is, we are working class men and women, who do not have the cash to go round the world, end up in mexico, and go play heroic guerrilla.

Focoism is elitist, and to quote a wise man

I SHIT ON THE VANGUARDS OF THIS EARTH

The guy who does voluntary work, and tries to raise class conciousness, and helps the homeless proletarians in shelters, and tries to organise the workers, is a hero, che was just another John Rambo of the guerrilla era.

Was he brave, yes of course.

Does he deserve respect, sure.

was he an elitist, who came up with a failed idea called foco?

YES

The only reason it worked in cuba, was because there was already a movement, and funds and recruits were not a problem, trying it in the congo and bolivia showed it for what it was, useless, unless conditions are already there, which he argued against.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Focoism in Cuba actually succeeded.

So much for "bottom-up" revolution that failed to survive even not more than 5 years in the name of preserving "freedom" and "workers' democracy," that bourgeoisie tend to practice "it" too.

[Victory]

People stop being boring.

I know many Troskyists dream of being able to claim that Che Guevara was one of them... But face it, he wasn't..


Che -

"Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists" - (December 4, 1965: Letter to Armando Mart) - Che Guevara

"Trotsky was fundamentally wrong... Trotskyites ultimately failed because their methods are bad. - (Apuntes criticos a la Economia Politica, 1964.) - Che Guevara

After the repression of the Cuban Trotskyites, Che Guevara attempted to justify the repression at a speech in 1961 saying; "I have sworn before a picture of our old and mourned comrade Stalin, that I will not rest until I see these Capitalist octopuses annihilated."

"In November of 1960, Che insisted on depositing a floral tribute at Stalin’s tomb even against the advice of the Cuban ambassador to the Soviet Union. This was more than four years after Khrushchev’s anti-Stalin policies had started."I'm sorry, I don't accept this at all


most people on revleft would die for the revolution, any Anarchist/communist/leninist would, otherwise we would not be revolutionaries.

Only difference is, we are working class men and women, who do not have the cash to go round the world, end up in mexico, and go play heroic guerrilla.


What Revolution? Most people in Britain only pay lip-service to that word.

Don't give me the bullshit that you're "Working Class" and can't get to another country because of "money problems".
It's easy to find ways and means of gaining money (Especially if you are willing to go to join a revolutionary movement in the Third World.) It just depends how dedicated you are to 'revolution'
You are like the 'revolutionary' middle class in Britain who call themselves Communists. -"I won't join a revolutionary movement in the third world because we need a revolution in Britain" - How fucking convenient.

Most people who claim to be revolutionaries are not revolutionaries at all.
People like to feel noble and believe that they are good people in the world. But when faced with sacrifice, the veil is instantly unleashed.
Revolutionaries in Latin America are laughing at so-called revolutionaries in Britain and USA, with their fucking marches and their parades, raising their fists to a revolution which only exists inside their minds.



Focoism is elitist, and to quote a wise man


Also, I think you should read my article on Focoism. It's succeeded and is succeeding much more than the strategy you use of talking about revolution on the internet.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/focoism-iti-can-t140321/index.html

[Peter The Painter]

Your such a fucking anti first world prick i wish you would go join the FARC and kidnap some poor guy, or join the shining path and kill villagers and pour scolding water over them.

Like Ian bone said, whats the point in banging on about Bolivia or Colombia, when we need to be fighting in our own backyard.

A revolution in a first world nation, would help bolivia and colombia, more than us protesting embasies and becoming third worldist morons, who think just because we are not starving to death we are not proletariat, weve only got things like healthcare and benefits, because of hundreds of years of workers struggles.

The MLM groups in the third world do not have the peoples backing, revolutions are carried out by the workers, not a small band of romantic revolutionaries, who achieve fuck all, and just basically, make the workers lives far more war torn and troubled.

I SHIT ON THE VANGUARDS OF THIS EARTH

And take your Mao picture down, you juvenile imbecile.

How fucking active are you, gap year traveler

[Victory]

Your such a fucking anti first world prick i wish you would go join the FARC and kidnap some poor guy, or join the shining path and kill villagers and pour scolding water over them.

Like Ian bone said, what’s the point in banging on about Bolivia or Colombia, when we need to be fighting in our own backyard.

A revolution in a first world nation, would help bolivia and colombia, more than us protesting embasies and becoming third worldist morons, who think just because we are not starving to death we are not proletariat, weve only got things like healthcare and benefits, because of hundreds of years of workers struggles.

The MLM groups in the third world do not have the peoples backing, revolutions are carried out by the workers, not a small band of romantic revolutionaries, who achieve fuck all, and just basically, make the workers lives far more war torn and troubled.



Your such a fucking anti first world prick i wish you would go join the FARC and kidnap some poor guy, or join the shining path and kill villagers and pour scolding water over them.

It's sad that you think that about the FARC. You obviously haven't been to Colombia.



Like Ian bone said, whats the point in banging on about Bolivia or Colombia, when we need to be fighting in our own backyard.

This is a very reactionary and nationalistic argument - "Revolutionaries should be fighting in our own backyard" - How very convienant for somebody living in the first world to say that.
You argue that because we were born in a particular country, that we simply should necessarily fight for revolution in that country. - A very warped anti-marxist, reactionary and nationalistic unthought through idea.
God help the people if there is a revolution in requirement of assistance.


A revolution in a first world nation, would help bolivia and colombia, more than us protesting embasies and becoming third worldist morons, who think just because we are not starving to death we are not proletariat, weve only got things like healthcare and benefits, because of hundreds of years of workers struggles.The problem is; There isn't a revolution happening in any first world nations, whereas there are many advanced revolutions in third world countries occuring right now, and if successful, would increase the chances of revolution spreading. It's very convenient for you to believing you should support the people whilst being able to live in luxury, instead of living in severe hardship and helping people.



The MLM groups in the third world do not have the peoples backing, revolutions are carried out by the workers, not a small band of romantic revolutionaries, who achieve fuck all, and just basically, make the workers lives far more war torn and troubled.This leads me to say you don't know what you are talking about.
If you had ever been to the rural areas of Colombia, you would know that there is massive support for the FARC and the ELN.
And how you can say the Maoists in India do not have support is beyond me. A revolutionary organisation cannot survive without the peoples support. - Therefore you're entire argument that MLM movements do not have the peoples backing is completely void.

Also, you make the mistake of singling out people who are willing to risk their lives as romantic, but fail to mention how vast amounts of people who claim to be Communists living in first world nations, are also only 'communists' because they are attracted to the romanticism of 'fighting for the liberation of mankind'

You don't have to be willing to sacrifice you're life and pick up the gun in order to be attracted to romanticism.
Also; I don't see what's romantic about having to live in the most disgusting conditions, never seing you're family again and having to face death and the most severe misery everytime you wake up. Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's just you having a deluded idea of 'romantisism'.

PS; The FARC are not Maoists, the organisation mainly consists of a mixture of Socialists and Marxist-Leninists.

[Peter The Painter]

First off, If they are so popular in the third world, why do they need foreigners to join.

How would i be able to help FARC, if I, cannot speak spannish, am very unfit, never fired a gun in my life, am white, so would stick out in a very non colombian way.

Fine, If FARC are so great join them, its your call,and if you do, i would hope you will be OK out there, but seriously, do not just join, because you wanna fire guns and fight in a revolution, rather than agitating in your own country, they are already having revolutions you said, so your not self important enough to think you will make so much difference, If you really have balls, start a revolution where you are, and FYI, we do not live in luxury.

And actually, greece is very near revolution, its people are first world, and are taking to the streets, not just some isolated guerrillas, trying bravely, but for what, a state capitalist, beauracratic state?

[Saorsa]

This thread is stupid. Please stop posting in it.