Che not so good?

[COMPLEXproductions]

I was a Che fan, but some people that I do find somewhat knowledgeable, at least enough to hold a good argument on occasion, have brought me to the attention of some things that make me reconsider my support. Now, I don't know enough at the moment to conclude my stance on the matter of this undeniably, historically significant figure. What I mean to ask is what Che's political views actually were. These individuals that I speak to say Che was in favor of the nationalistic Stalin-type governmental structure. I find this concerns me. I did very minimal research, if google-ing can even be considered so, and found SOME articles that supported this claim. But not enough knowledge in my head to conclude anything. Help, señores y señoras?

[Qayin]

Che's opinions on "stalinism" are irrelevant. He risked his life fighting colonialism and imperialism for a socialist world free from the shackles of the US and was murdered for it. He is loved throughout the world today and is even regarded as a Saint. Anyone who says anything less is irrelevant

[COMPLEXproductions]

But that doesn't give me the information I wish to know. Not to sound like a douche, but your answer is irrelevant to my question.

[hardlinecommunist]

Comrade Che Guevara was a Revolutionary Marxist Leninst Communist who upheld and revered Stalin very much.

[Comrade Gwydion]

I honestly do not know what Che's final picture for a socialist society was. The fact that he, throughout his whole life travelled and fought in many different countries suggests that he's probably not a nationalist. However, his willingness to work on the prison systems and executions of -alleged or actual- counterrevolutionairies does show that he was an authoritarian like Fidel and Stalin. Wether this makes him Marxist-Leninist ('Stalinist'), Maoist or Trotskyist I can not say.

The one 'theory' that is attributed to him and Fidel is, IRC, 'Focoism', revolution by guerilla-warfare. This means that a revolutionairy minority will wage guerilla war against the state, and that the 'people' or working class will realise by itself that the guerilla group is on their side.

[Uppercut]

Che was a Marxist-Leninist who upheld, Stalin, and in some cases Mao and Kim il-sung. He encouraged democratic central planning methods and industrialization of the Cuban economy, whereas Castro encouraged dependence on the USSR through the sale of sugar cane at above-market prices.

His foco theory, however, is very idealist. In its attempts throughout Africa, the lack of overall structure and strategy of the many small guerrila groups led to defeat. Even despite this, Che was an authentic Marxist guerilla who deserves to be commemorated for fighting the economic domnation of Cuba, by America and later the USSR.

[revolution inaction]

Che's opinions on "stalinism" are irrelevant. He risked his life fighting colonialism and imperialism for a socialist world free from the shackles of the US and was murdered for it. He is loved throughout the world today and is even regarded as a Saint. Anyone who says anything less is irrelevant

what the fuck is an anarchist doing suporting che? or promoting deferance to saints! che was involved in the suppression of the cuban anarchist movement and while he may have intended to fight for freedom his politics led him to take part in the creation of an authoritarian bureaucratic state.

[Victory]

Yes Che was pro-stalin and considered the Soviet Union after Stalin revisionist.
He also prefered Mao's model of Socialism compared to the Soviet Union, so there is certainly an argument for him being a Maoist.

Before I start, you have a warped incorrect idea of Socialism in one country, claiming it to be "Nationalistic".
Socialism in one country is about building a Superpower in one country through Socialist development, and when the country in question becomes a superpower, you use it to spread revolution abroad through finance, propaganda and arms.
It was Lenin who coined the idea of Socialism in one country and staunchly opposed Trotskyists theory of Permanent Revolution - If you want to writings by Lenin on Socialism in one country, request it and I will find it.

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."

"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

"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."

Yeah, so I'm showing you this because I'm fed up of Trotskyists who know nothing about Che, wear his T-Shirt and speak of him as if he was a Trotskyist and considered Stalin a mass murderer, because he did not.



His foco theory, however, is very idealist. In its attempts throughout Africa, the lack of overall structure and strategy of the many small guerrila groups led to defeat. Even despite this, Che was an authentic Marxist guerilla who deserves to be commemorated for fighting the economic domnation of Cuba, by America and later the USSR.

Che's theory of Focoism is not idealist in any way, it's worked, unlike the method which you use in the USA.
The Cuban Revolution was based on the Focoist approach, and as you can see, worked. The FARC is still based on the Focoist approach. - If anybody would like to protest that statement, I'd like to correct you're warped incorrect view.

I find it fucking both sad and funny, that you can claim Che's revolutionary theory of Focoism to be "idealist", when the vast majority of countries hasn’t succeeded in a revolution using the tradition approach of education.
Che's theory has actually worked, and it did it faster than any other country.

It's working on Colombia, both with the ELN and the FARC. It worked with the sandistas. It worked in the Congo.
Just because people don't post a statement out to everything saying "We submit to the Focoist strategy" does not mean it doesn't work.

The FARC started out as a small group of revolutionaries and up rose against the government. Through the uprising they became the focus of attention and gained support from much of the masses, in-turn gaining power over much of the Colombian territory. - That’s Focoism! -
The idea that a small group of revolutionaries can be the inspiration to a popular masses, in-turn gain support, create revolutionary conditions and then challenge the state. It's worked many times and I hate idiots who haven't studied Focoism or other movements claim that it doesn't work, or hasn’t worked, or that it's idealistic, because it isn’t.

Foco means “Focus”, meaning, a small group of revolutionaries who launch an uprising, can become the “Focus” of attention and create conditions for revolution.

[COMPLEXproductions]

Thank you all. Focoism is a new term for me, but I believe I've gotten some understanding. I think I does work, but I live in the United States and here, I'm afraid, such a tactic will never work. The media strategy is far too advanced for a small group of militants to attempt guerilla attacks, even sophisticated ones. They will be seen and declared outright terrorists. And they won't have a say because they'll be in hiding. Now in such places as the pueblos of Mexico, that is a different story. Now of Che, I guess he is right to in extent, but I don't believe his methods would work throughout the world. Only is cases such as pueblos and the like. If you all have more information on the matter of where he stood with the deaths he has been attributed responsible for, post.

[Stephen Colbert]

Che Guevara assumed the responsibility of overseeing the executions of some several hundred Batista loyalists. Charges against these people were as follows: Raping, killing, torturing, putting hot irons into women's vaginas, mutilation.. All of these acts were done towards people who were not supportive of the U.S. backed Batista regime. Because Batista supported the use of market trade, was authoritarian, and did not represent the interests of Cuban citizenry at the time(who were vehemently anti-US)-- he was optimal for U.S. instatement. Naturally, the people of Cuba hated the idea of imperialism and domination in South America because they had witnessed the throwing out of elected leaders and the instating of right-wing military leaders because it was politically convenient for the West to do so during the Cold War. So its ironic that people find Che a mass murderer, when he simply executed those who committed war crimes under the guise of U.S./Batista approval and against the will of the public.

[Nolan]

Che, like all Marxist-Leninists, was not some "nationalist."

Some anarchists hate him because he made Durruti and Makho look like pathetic little jokes.


I also love how Che is called a mass murder for killing state officials during a time of revolution when the Cuban public strongly supported his actions, but George Washington who was called "town burner" by the natives and crushed anti-tax rebellions is some hero for patriotic idiots.

[Qayin]

what the fuck is an anarchist doing suporting che? or promoting deferance to saints! che was involved in the suppression of the cuban anarchist movement and while he may have intended to fight for freedom his politics led him to take part in the creation of an authoritarian bureaucratic state. Or I was merely showing his reverence in the world that he is called a Saint.
I support Che regardless of his faults, he was an anti-imperialist more then anything else

[28350]

EDIT: oops AMK slipped in and responded before I could for him.


what the fuck is an anarchist doing suporting che?
Because sometimes action is more important than theory.



or promoting deferance to saints!
S/he's not. S/he's using the evidence of popular (as opposed to vatican) canonization of Che to support the fact that people think he's a pretty cool dude.


che was involved in the suppression of the cuban anarchist movement
I don't know if this is true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is. I think this is unfortunate.

According to a Cuban Anarchist, emphasis added:

An infinity of manifestos were written denouncing the false postulates of the Castro revolution and calling the populace to oppose it... plans were put into effect to sabotage the basic things sustaining the state.
I think that merits opposition.



and while he may have intended to fight for freedom his politics led him to take part in the creation of an authoritarian bureaucratic state.
He helped fight for and win the freedom of the Cuban people.



Paraphrased quote:
1. Che disagreed with Trotsky and sided with Stalin
2. What Focoism is, why it works


1. Of course, the entire validity of Che's contribution to geopolitics depends on whether or not he got friendly with Trotsky.

2. Focoism is a pretty blanquist theory. There's nothing wrong with guerrilla action, but it shouldn't be something that stands on its own. IMHO.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have a fairly nuanced view on Che, but I think that this is somewhat interesting, regarding the Argentian backdrop that Che came from (the rest of the Gambone piece isn't very good, and is mostly a rehash of old anti-Che arguments):



During Che Guevara's formative years, Argentina was dominated by the Peronist Movement. Peronismo, largely the invention of Peron's brilliant wife, Eva, was the nearest thing to perfect fascism that ever existed.

Forget about all the propaganda and foolishness that has encrusted around the word “fascist.” Forget about Nazi-fascism and the clerical fascism of Franco and Salazar. By fascism I mean the true essence of what was a revolutionary movement — or left-wing fascism.

True pure fascism, as envisaged by Mussolini, grew out of the militant left-wing of Italian Socialism. It was an attempt to impose the Social Democratic program through dictatorship and armed force. The movement dispensed with the sterile positivism and evolutionism of Orthodox Marxism, substituting romantic emotionalism, extreme nationalism, a cult of the will and of the “man of action.” The goal was to nationalize industry and subordinate all classes to the needs of the State. The working classes were to benefit from this revolution — but only so long as they remained subservient to the Fascist State. Mussolini's problem was that he never had the support of the working class and thus had to turn to the traditional middle classes. Thus much of his revolution only remained on paper.

This was not the situation which faced the Perons. More than 15 years before they took power, the generals smashed the powerful anarcho-syndicalist trade unions and only small remnants remained. The workers were poor, unorganized and voiceless. Eva Duarte-Peron was able to build a labour movement by filling an organizational vacuum (and where necessary smashing her weakened opponents). Thus Peronism (Argentine fascism) had a solid base among the workers. With prodding from the ever-energetic Evita, the movement nationalized the banks, insurance companies, mines and railroads. As a result, Argentina had probably the largest state-capitalist sector outside of a Stalinist regime. Wages were forced up by decree and a host of social benefits introduced for Los Descamisados (literally “the shirtless ones,” the working class followers of the Perons). Even the Church was attacked. The “anti-imperialist” game was played to an excess, alternating between violent anti-Americanism and anti-British sentiment. The foreigner was made the scapegoat for all of Argentina's problems.

Che Guevara was sympathetic to Peronism and imbibed most of its ideas. In many ways he was to remain under the spell of Peronist ideology all his life. In 1955, after he had opted for Stalin, he could also claim that “we have to give Peron all possible support...” (p. 127) [1] (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Larry_Gambone__Saint_Che__The_Truth_Behind_the_Leg end_of_the_Heroic_Guerilla__Ernesto_Che_Guevara.ht ml#fn1) When Peron fell he stated: “I will confess with all sincerity that the fall of Peron deeply embittered me...Argentina was the Paladin of all those who think the enemy is in the North.” (p. 182) During the Cuban revolution, Che called his new guerrilla recruits Los Descamisados (p. 231), the name Peron gave to his followers.

This affection for Peronism never ceased. Che told Angel Borlenghi (Peron's former Minister of the Interior) in 1961, that Peron was the most advanced embodiment of political and economic reform in Latin America. [2] (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Larry_Gambone__Saint_Che__The_Truth_Behind_the_Leg end_of_the_Heroic_Guerilla__Ernesto_Che_Guevara.ht ml#fn2) In 1962 Che declared the Peronistas had to be included within Argentina's revolutionary front. Fidel asked Peron to visit Cuba. John Cooke, Peron's personal representative, visited Cuba and lauded the Revolution. (p. 539)

[Sir Comradical]

Che, like all Marxist-Leninists, was not some "nationalist."

Some anarchists hate him because he made Durruti and Makho look like pathetic little jokes.


I also love how Che is called a mass murder for killing state officials during a time of revolution when the Cuban public strongly supported his actions, but George Washington who was called "town burner" by the natives and crushed anti-tax rebellions is some hero for patriotic idiots.

Good point. The executions in Cuba were most probably justified. Killing hundreds of Batista's officers doesn't really make me lose sleep at night. Revolution is an authoritarian act after all.

[Homo Songun]

Lies. Che was a true revolutionary therefore he was an Anarchist, even if he didn't know it.

[scarletghoul]

Lies. Che was a true revolutionary therefore he was an Anarchist, even if he didn't know it.
lol

[F9]

People talking about che, and describing his politics, as an 100% finished deal, "marxist-leninist" with maoist and stalinist sympathies etc, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.
Che's ideology is obvious from his diarys etc, that was in continual transition, and each and every day, had something new to learn, something new to read, and was affected by various of things.His passion of action and fighting for freedom and equality, "forced" him, to take up every chance he was given to fight for those things, even if those chances were minimal, to the point of stupid..The fact that he was in Cuba, dont directly connects him to what happened, he aint loke Castro.. he gave up to continue fighting.Im obviously not saying, he was an Anarchist, he was great, a saint etc etc. He wasnt!I am just saying that its a bit stupid calling him a Stalinist-Maoist etc, when from his writtings, he phrased his concerns not just one or two.I dont disagree that he was close to Maoism, but i disagree that he was a Maoist, there is big difference between the 2, and people just fell for it, just to "adopt" che to their ideologies.

As for killer, depressor, dictator etc, in a revolution what you expect to have?Peace riots?If the revolution had wrong goals, or was heading to a wrong direction, is irrelevant to any of this.
As for him persuing Anarchists, i heard it a lot times, but still havent seen a decent article on what Che was doing wrong, maybe beside the left communists one, which i dont remember really well, it has been few years since i read it, it was soon from my signing but i remember it had some good points, i was a heavy guevarist-anarchist(yeah:lol:) back then.

[Nolan]

I have a fairly nuanced view on Che, but I think that this is somewhat interesting, regarding the Argentian backdrop that Che came from (the rest of the Gambone piece isn't very good, and is mostly a rehash of old anti-Che arguments):

The authors first statement about "true pure fascism" is incorrect. Fascism didn't "grow out of" socialism: its birth marked Mussolini's complete break with the left.

Everyone seems to forget that there's a big difference between the rhetoric the fascists spewed in speeches in front of trade unions and what their actual program (and social function) would turn out to be.

Peronism wasn't really fascism, nor was it leftist. It was more of a corporatism without the fascist ideological venom or a centrist social democracy. While Hitler and Mussolini privatized previously state-held assets once they took power, Peron did the opposite. That's why I'd put him in more of the social democracy camp than the corporatist one.

[hardlinecommunist]

Lies. Che was a true revolutionary therefore he was an Anarchist, even if he didn't know it. Do you have any proof for your Statement here that Che was an Anarchist everybody knows that he was not Che was a Marxist Leninist Communist and a proud and committed Authoritarian who upheld JV Stalin and Mao Zedong among other great Autoritarians.

[Weezer]

Che was a revolutionary humanist.

[F9]

Do you have any proof for your Statement here that Che was an Anarchist everybody knows that he was not Che was a Marxist Leninist Communist and a proud and committed Authoritarian who upheld JV Stalin and Mao Zedong among other great Autoritarians.

This post its just as stupid as the one you quoted.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Che, like all Marxist-Leninists, was not some "nationalist."

Some anarchists hate him because he made Durruti and Makho look like pathetic little jokes.

Could you explain what you mean by this please?

[Tablo]

Che had some positive aspects and he is certainly a romantic figure, but I would never really admire him in a political sense. Plus he was a prick.

[Qayin]

Do you have any proof for your Statement here that Che was an Anarchist everybody knows that he was not Che was a Marxist Leninist Communist and a proud and committed Authoritarian who upheld JV Stalin and Mao Zedong among other great Autoritarians. baaaaabaaaaa



Che wasn't a Stalinist, and that's why Castro sent him off to get killed. He knew which way things were going

Quite the intellectual.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The authors first statement about "true pure fascism" is incorrect. Fascism didn't "grow out of" socialism: its birth marked Mussolini's complete break with the left.

Everyone seems to forget that there's a big difference between the rhetoric the fascists spewed in speeches in front of trade unions and what their actual program (and social function) would turn out to be.

Peronism wasn't really fascism, nor was it leftist. It was more of a corporatism without the fascist ideological venom or a centrist social democracy. While Hitler and Mussolini privatized previously state-held assets once they took power, Peron did the opposite. That's why I'd put him in more of the social democracy camp than the corporatist one.

I dunno, annihilating powerful and threatening class struggle worker's organizations, virulent nationalism and the promotion of class collaboration seems pretty fascistic to me, specifically fascism of the Ernst Rohm "class struggle fascism" variety.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Could you explain what you mean by this please?

That, in his very humble opinion, Durruti and Makhno are pathetic compared to Che?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Che wasn't a Stalinist, and that's why Castro sent him off to get killed. He knew which way things were going

Yeah bro, Castro totally just sent him off to get killed. Che didn't go to Bolivia on his own accord or anything....he didn't even want to go..:rolleyes:

Do you realize how stupid that suggestion is?

[Victory]

Che wasn't a Stalinist, and that's why Castro sent him off to get killed. He knew which way things were going

Did you not read my post?
It's well-documented that Che Guevara supported Stalin and prefered the Chinese model of Socialism compared to the Soviet model after 1953, in his words, Che Guevara considered the Soviet Union revisionist after 1953.

You are in denial because you don't want to believe you're beloved Che Guevara stuanchly opposed Trotskyism and everything it stands for.

If you had read anything about Che Guevara's journey to Bolivia, you would understand that Che Guevara went to Bolivia on his own accord, and that it was the Cuban Government that was the only other country that supported the revolutionary task of creating a revolution in Bolivia.

[Qayin]

You are in denial because you don't want to believe you're beloved Che Guevara stuanchly opposed Trotskyism and everything it stands for.
Oh here we go..

[28350]

Guevara was a cool guy and nothing more. Even if he were alive today, nothing would change.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That, in his very humble opinion, Durruti and Makhno are pathetic compared to Che?

I agree that's what I took from the statement made.

As if, comparing an organizer in a European nation fighting fascists, with large Nazi support, to another organizer generations later battling despotism in the third world seems a bit strange. But perhaps the more annoying trend is the idea of a M-L hero vs Anarchist hero, both of whome died fighting fascism.

Furthermore, nobody wil know obviously, but the image of Che taking part in the Barcelona May Days is a hard one to find plausible.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Oh nooooooeeeezzzzz!!!!11!!!1!! Che(or Jesus Christ 2.0 to some people) might have been a $+AliNi$+?????

It doesn't fucking matter what Che's preferred ideology was. As it has already been pointed out, he wasn't really someone who would bindly adhere to any specific doctrine. He changed almost constantly. So all of this bickering is really just pointless.

What DOES matter, however, is what Che accomplished in his multiple battles against Capitalism/Imperialism in the name of Socialism. You can whine about his ''authoritarian imperfections'' all you want, it doesn't change the fact that he spent his life fighting for the liberation of the workers all over the world(nationalistic? No).

[COMPLEXproductions]

GOD people. Please answer my question! I ALREADY like Che, damn it! What I want to know ARE his specific ideologies! I understand he spent and gave his life for the struggle! He was a a fucking beast(in a the good way, like awesome)! What WERE his ideologies?

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

GOD people. Please answer my question! I ALREADY like Che, damn it!
This doesn't seem to fit with what you named the thread. Forgive us for assuming you would lose respsect for Che simply because he liked Stalin(OH THE HORROR!).

[COMPLEXproductions]

This doesn't seem to fit with what you named the thread. Forgive us for assuming you would lose respsect for Che simply because he liked Stalin(OH THE HORROR!).

Well, I've learned to see him differently since then, forgive me. I don't know much of Stalin, but so far I'm very skeptical of him(forgive me for that too, God forbid you don't).

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It's possible he saw who he needed to be friends with in order to be provided weapons to fight imperialism, who knows.

I mean, back in the day, if you weren't liked by the US there was another power that would provide aid.

[COMPLEXproductions]

It's possible he saw who he needed to be friends with in order to be provided weapons to fight imperialism, who knows.

I mean, back in the day, if you weren't liked by the US there was another power that would provide aid.

This is an interest thought, thanks. I mean, the soviets gave anyone fighting against the global powers weapons, vietnam for example.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Exactly. While Che was obviously a Marxist, there can be little doubt much of the schmoozing had an alterior motive and, face it or not, no doubt when Che began to question the USSR fidel got very worried.

It seems similar to Afghan guerrillas insomuch as many are probably only jihadis because jihadis are the only ones organized.

[ZombieGrits]

As previously stated, Che was not strictly maoist, nor strictly leninist, nor strictly anything really. we can be sure that he was an authoritarian-leaning marxist, its best just to leave it at that and ignore the sectarian shit

also, That article about peronism was pretty interesting, i could definitely see some peronist ideas influencing che. what most people dont realize about peronism is that within the movement there was a HUGE variety of political views, from the populist corporatism of peron himself, to the more orthodox fascism of the Triple-A, to the marxist(!) Montoneros. fascinating stuff imho :thumbup1:

[COMPLEXproductions]

I guess, when it's all said and done, no one is truly 100% Maoist or anything because they aren't Mao. Influence and interpretation are a different story. I still think his decisions are within the context of his situation, which is different than my american one. I see I cannot implement Che's ideas in my situation in any other form than small scale tactics(or other like situations where relevant). In any case, thanks to all.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Wasn't Che a homophobe?

[IndependentCitizen]

Wasn't Che a homophobe?
No way, he loved my lovin'.

[Rafiq]

what the fuck is an anarchist doing suporting che? or promoting deferance to saints! che was involved in the suppression of the cuban anarchist movement and while he may have intended to fight for freedom his politics led him to take part in the creation of an authoritarian bureaucratic state.


You sound like some kind of Trot, *****ing out yet another Hero of World Revolution.

Che has done much more for the world then any Anarchist has.

[Geiseric]

personally I think Che was an increadibly complicates character, he had tons of anger built up inside and I think that clouded his judgement when he was working on his foco tactics. He and Fidel killed alot of peaceful protesters and I also think that is questionable. They suppressed alot of political opposition, and turned Cuba into a beurecratic police state. When it comes down to it, I don't think pure marxist leninism calls for an autocratic, no free press, beurecratic, basically stalinist revolutionary government. I can appreciate what he stood for, by all means, but the methods he used I don't particularly agree with. With todays media, somewhat of a cult of personality has grown about him and I think people who think che is the knight in shining armor need to rethink their position.

[malthusela]

Che was a revolutionary humanist.

As long as those humans weren't black, gays, women or citizens of New York.

Or anyone who opposed Authoritarian revolution of course.

[Volcanicity]

As long as those humans weren't black, gays, women or citizens of New York.

Or anyone who opposed Authoritarian revolution of course.
If Che had such a problem with black's and women why did he fight alongside them and treat them as fellow revolutionaries?Yes he made racist and homophobic comments when he was younger but that was when he was less enlightened.The younger Che was vastly different to the elder.

[malthusela]

Oh well that excuses everything else he did. The mass executions, the continued hatred for homosexuals, the proposition of dropping nuclear weapons on America, and those weren't in the motorcycle diaries, they were very much the 'elder' Guevara.

[Nolan]

Oh well that excuses everything else he did. The mass executions, the continued hatred for homosexuals, the proposition of dropping nuclear weapons on America, and those weren't in the motorcycle diaries, they were very much the 'elder' Guevara.

"Oh well I just got my ass handed to me so I'ma move the goal posts."

God not this line of argument again.

Mass executions? Who did he execute again, liberal? Puppies, beautiful poets and babies? This should be entertaining.

The nuke issue was war talk, not a matter of "hey Russians I got an idea. Let's nuke America!" which is how a lot of people try to paint it. What he actually said was something along the lines of "if they had been in Cuban hands we would have used them" which was in response to American aggression.

[malthusela]

"Oh well I just got my ass handed to me so I'ma move the goal posts."

No actually, I mentioned those issues in my original post, but considering he did hate gays, and want to Nuke America, there was no retort.


liberal

Lol. In answer to your question, how about all of the 'suspected traitors' You know, all of those people he handed the death penalty to, for simply not supporting the revolution. Of which many were send without evidence:


To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!


The nuke issue was war talk, not a matter of "hey Russians I got an idea. Let's nuke America!" which is how a lot of people try to paint it. What he actually said was something along the lines of "if they had been in Cuban hands we would have used them" which was in response to American aggression.

Oh, that's acceptable then. Just war talk. Cool.

[Nolan]

Lol. In answer to your question, how about all of the 'suspected traitors' You know, all of those people he handed the death penalty to, for simply not supporting the revolution. Of which many were send without evidence:



Show me where Che killed people for "simply not supporting the revolution." Che killed police, military officers, bureaucrats, mobsters, and other such people.

[Nolan]

I must have missed it or you came back and added it:



To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!

This quote originates with a book written by Humberto Fontava. You will not find it in any work by Guevara or any serious biography.

[Volcanicity]

Oh well that excuses everything else he did. The mass executions, the continued hatred for homosexuals, the proposition of dropping nuclear weapons on America, and those weren't in the motorcycle diaries, they were very much the 'elder' Guevara.
Do you have a source to back this up?You said earlier that Che was a racist well this is what he said in 1964 at the UN assembly."How can the country that murders it's own children and discriminates between them daily because of the colour of their skins,a country that allows the murderers of Negroes to go free,actually protects them and punishes the Negroes for demanding respect for their lawful rights as free human beings,claim to be a guardian of liberty?"

[BIG BROTHER]

Ideologically speaking Che was an independent Marxist who through his life experiences and reading formulated his own views.

The success of the Cuban revolution did convince him of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and this brought Che close with Maoism.

However he was not a Maoist I'd say. He did recognize the privileged bureaucracy that existed in the Soviet Union and in his critique of the Soviet Economic manual, just like Trotsky he pointed out that Capitalism would return to Russia.

When Che Guevara died, it was known he had been reading Trotsky. Now I am not saying that means he was turning into a Trotskyist, there is no way to know what he was thinking for sure. After having problems with the Russian and later the Chinese communist he seemed to be looking for answers.

So I think its safe to say that Che was still developing his political views when he died.

One thing that I believe every Revolutionary can agree on is that Che was indeed a new human with a real Socialist spirit, he was committed for life, had an iron discipline, loved the people and hated the oppressors with all his heart.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Ive allways thought that Che was admired by all socialist tendencys because of his good examples which is worth following, no matter what he personaly called himselfe.

[Geiseric]

I would probably support him if he wasn't such an authoritarian, and the cult of personality that has grown around him makes it impossible for anybody to deduct an opinion of him without a preconconcived notion of him being a white knight of socialism. Also was it necessary to kill so many people? I mean couldn't he just exile them or integrate them is what i'm saying.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Wether this makes him Marxist-Leninist ('Stalinist'), Maoist or Trotskyist I can not say.

I wanted to briefly point out that Marxist-Leninists are not necessarily Stalinists

[BIG BROTHER]

I would probably support him if he wasn't such an authoritarian, and the cult of personality that has grown around him makes it impossible for anybody to deduct an opinion of him without a preconconcived notion of him being a white knight of socialism. Also was it necessary to kill so many people? I mean couldn't he just exile them or integrate them is what i'm saying.

The people of Cuba during that period literally had nothing but hatred towards the members of the Batista Regime. Even if Che himself didn't support the executions the people would have pressured him to do them anyways.

[Geiseric]

sometimes mob mentality isn't always the best thing. I mean I understand why they wanted them dead, batista's regime was terrible, but mob mentality leads to idiot Black Bloc, senseless violence.

[Nolan]

I would probably support him if he wasn't such an authoritarian, and the cult of personality that has grown around him makes it impossible for anybody to deduct an opinion of him without a preconconcived notion of him being a white knight of socialism. Also was it necessary to kill so many people? I mean couldn't he just exile them or integrate them is what i'm saying.

Any account will tell you the Cuban public wanted blood at that time. The executions, in addition to meting out justice, sealed the deal on the revolution. Many were exiled. That's why they've been in Miami to say stupid things about Che and Cuba for all this time, and I don't mean the people that have been coming to Florida on boats since the special period and the era of the U.S. giving citizenship to Cubans like candy, relatively speaking.

And there's really no cult of personality around Che unless you define personality cult as admiration of a figure. Then everyone from George Washington to Durruti would have a cult. I'd be willing to bet that most people who wear his face on a t-shirt know little of the man or his politics. It's a great opportunity to spread our message, actually.

Che's detractors, though they are less in number, are ten times more obsessed with dragging his legacy through the mud than anyone is with vindicating him, so to speak of a Che cult is not really meaningful. A Che-hating cult, on the other hand...

[Nolan]

I wanted to briefly point out that Marxist-Leninists are not necessarily Stalinists

Actually "stalinism" is a trotskyist slur they use to push their analysis. It has since been taken up by other tendencies and non-leftists to some extent. In practice it means "not trotskyist and not ultraleft" and they apply it very loosely, in my experience even modern Russia.

[The American]

Although I completely support the Cuban government, and I suppose I can't blame Che for this, but I cringe when I see those Che shirts and I hate the image che has become.
The people who wear his face have no idea what he is or what he stands for and that type of conspicuous consumerism goes completely against what Che stood for.
So I guess I would have supported Che, but his legacy is forever ruined in the west.

[theAnarch]

I think Che was a revolutionary exemple for our time....that said we do however need to understand that the Cubans took alot of very bad ways of doing things from the Soviets from economics to the government stance on homosexuality and Che was not immune to this. Thankfully the Revolutionary Rectification in the 80s put Cuba back on the right coarse even if there is still room for improvement.

Che saw many of the problems of the buracratic system in the USSR and the pain it caused working people and he believed and hoped the masses of China would find a better road.

[Devrim]

but still havent seen a decent article on what Che was doing wrong, maybe beside the left communists one, which i dont remember really well, it has been few years since i read it, it was soon from my signing but i remember it had some good points, i was a heavy guevarist-anarchist(yeah:lol:) back then.

I think the one that you are referring to is
here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara).

I can't imagine what a 'guevarist-anarchist' is to be honest. I am quite shocked to see people who call themselves anarchists on this thread supporting him.

For the communist left, and I would imagine the majority of real anarchists Guevara was just another Stalinist third worldist.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Any account will tell you the Cuban public wanted blood at that time. The executions, in addition to meting out justice, sealed the deal on the revolution. Many were exiled. That's why they've been in Miami to say stupid things about Che and Cuba for all this time, and I don't mean the people that have been coming to Florida on boats since the special period and the era of the U.S. giving citizenship to Cubans like candy, relatively speaking.

And there's really no cult of personality around Che unless you define personality cult as admiration of a figure. Then everyone from George Washington to Durruti would have a cult. I'd be willing to bet that most people who wear his face on a t-shirt know little of the man or his politics. It's a great opportunity to spread our message, actually.

Che's detractors, though they are less in number, are ten times more obsessed with dragging his legacy through the mud than anyone is with vindicating him, so to speak of a Che cult is not really meaningful. A Che-hating cult, on the other hand...

I mean exactly that a cult has surrounded him in the same way that it has for washington, naopleon, or stalin. I disagree with people when they say that Che was the face of world revolution because with all things aside, he could be seen as a bloodthirsty butcher who doesn't want to work with the working class. Cuba was the counter example of this, however keep in mind that anything except for Batista or the U.S. Would have been accepted, for example even a socio democrat revolution, or a nationalist revolutiin would be accepted more then Batistas regime.

Everywhere else, Che's foco tactics were somewhat detrimental because in the end, in my opinion, he was working for the working class and not with them.

[F9]

I think the one that you are referring to is
here (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara).

yep


I can't imagine what a 'guevarist-anarchist' is to be honest. I am quite shocked to see people who call themselves anarchists on this thread supporting him.


i was 15, i can hardly say i really knew what Anarchism or Communism was...Thats what i thought i was, i was basically a confused kiddo if you prefer.As for Anarchists supporting him, and imaging how i could fall in that category, my support(i wouldnt call it like that) is based on some different criteria than most people around here and not purely ideologically(actually almost not at all ideologically).


For the communist left, and I would imagine the majority of real anarchists Guevara was just another Stalinist third worldist.

He wasnt a Stalinist.


Devrim

Fuserg9:star:
:D

[Devrim]

He wasnt a Stalinist.

Guevara believed in 'real existing socialism' and that the Soviet block was socialist and progressive, or in his own words that "the accomplishments of the socialist countries are extraordinary. There's no possible comparison between their systems of life, their systems of development and those of the capitalist countries".

Yes, I would put him down as a Stalinist.

Devrim

[DaringMehring]

Guevara believed in 'real existing socialism' and that the Soviet block was socialist and progressive, or in his own words that "the accomplishments of the socialist countries are extraordinary. There's no possible comparison between their systems of life, their systems of development and those of the capitalist countries".

Yes, I would put him down as a Stalinist.

Devrim

You don't have to be a Stalinist, to believe that the property relations in the USSR were of a superior form to capitalist ones (ie, that degenerated workers state > capitalism), or that the accomplishment of the so-called socialist countries, namely the USSR, in industrialization, was extraordinary.

All things are multi-sided and dynamic, and so was the USSR.

[Tablo]

I do like Che to some degree and see him as an overall positive revolutionary figure, especially for his time. He certainly had what I would consider a shit ideological perspective and some reactionary views, but he ultimately wanted what was best for the working class. Like many on this site I hate most of your politics, but I see most of you as being mostly good individuals. It is hard at times to accept people with some shit views as good people, but even some of the best people have shit views. Some of the people I look up to and love most in my life have expressed views that could be arguably considered racist or homophobic. I disagree with them, but realize where they get their views and understand that despite certain flaws in their views of the world they still truly are some of the kindest most loving people alive.

Post might sound a bit stupid or emotional, but I blame that on the alcohol. My dad says some things I would consider racist and homophobic, but he supports gay and black/hispanic/etc people in their struggle for equality, he is a good person with some poorly thought out views.

[Rooster]

Although I completely support the Cuban government, and I suppose I can't blame Che for this, but I cringe when I see those Che shirts and I hate the image che has become.
The people who wear his face have no idea what he is or what he stands for and that type of conspicuous consumerism goes completely against what Che stood for.

There's nothing in Capital about not having faces on t-shirts.

[Devrim]

You don't have to be a Stalinist, to believe that the property relations in the USSR were of a superior form to capitalist ones (ie, that degenerated workers state > capitalism), or that the accomplishment of the so-called socialist countries, namely the USSR, in industrialization, was extraordinary.

All things are multi-sided and dynamic, and so was the USSR.

No you don't. You could be a Trotskyist. However, that would mean in this particular case that you are suggesting that Guevara was. I don't think that there is any evidence at all to back this up.

Devrim

[Devrim]

I do like Che to some degree and see him as an overall positive revolutionary figure, especially for his time. He certainly had what I would consider a shit ideological perspective and some reactionary views, but he ultimately wanted what was best for the working class. Like many on this site I hate most of your politics, but I see most of you as being mostly good individuals. It is hard at times to accept people with some shit views as good people, but even some of the best people have shit views. Some of the people I look up to and love most in my life have expressed views that could be arguably considered racist or homophobic. I disagree with them, but realize where they get their views and understand that despite certain flaws in their views of the world they still truly are some of the kindest most loving people alive.

Post might sound a bit stupid or emotional, but I blame that on the alcohol. My dad says some things I would consider racist and homophobic, but he supports gay and black/hispanic/etc people in their struggle for equality, he is a good person with some poorly thought out views.

It is not about whether he was a good or a bad guy, but what class interests his actions supported. He may well have "wanted what was best for the working class", but his politics had nothing to do with working class self emancipation, but were all about the self proclaimed 'leaders' of the working class fighting guerilla wars in jungles.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

I can't imagine what a 'guevarist-anarchist' is to be honest. I am quite shocked to see people who call themselves anarchists on this thread supporting him.

For the communist left, and I would imagine the majority of real anarchists Guevara was just another Stalinist third worldistI think its clear, if only from this thread, that Guevara has long ceased to be a simple historical figure. He's now a "true revolutionary" or a "saint", a romantic hero who is the very paragon of what a revolutionary should be. His own views or actions are almost entirely irrelevant to this status. In this context, one almost entirely divorced from the historical record, it makes perfect sense to a 'guevarist-anarchist' or whatever

That said, I do find it anachronistic to apply the labels of 'Stalinist' to Che on the basis of a few quotes. Someone who says today that the USSR was "real existing socialism" is a Stalinist; someone who believed the same in the '50s or '60s was merely mistaken

[Devrim]

I think its clear, if only from this thread, that Guevara has long ceased to be a simple historical figure. He's now a "true revolutionary" or a "saint", a romantic hero who is the very paragon of what a revolutionary should be. His own views or actions are almost entirely irrelevant to this status. In this context, one almost entirely divorced from the historical record, it makes perfect sense to a 'guevarist-anarchist' or whatever

I'd agree with this completely. What it means though is that the people saying it don't really have well thought out political ideas, as Fuserg said he was 'basically a confused kiddo'.


That said, I do find it anachronistic to apply the labels of 'Stalinist' to Che on the basis of a few quotes. Someone who says today that the USSR was "real existing socialism" is a Stalinist; someone who believed the same in the '50s or '60s was merely mistaken

No, I don't really think so at all. People who said it in the late 1920s were mistaken, but very wrong. People who said it in the late 1950s after Hungry were Stalinists.

Devrim

[F9]

Guevara believed in 'real existing socialism' and that the Soviet block was socialist and progressive, or in his own words that "the accomplishments of the socialist countries are extraordinary. There's no possible comparison between their systems of life, their systems of development and those of the capitalist countries".

Yes, I would put him down as a Stalinist.

Devrim

That is not proof that he was a Stalinist, i think you just get to throw him the label so you can attack him even more.Just like most kiddos tend to attach him to their label to feel cool, you decided to attach him to the "worst leftist" opposite ideology to strength your argue against him.And while i can understand arguments against him, this particular accusation of him been a Stalinist and labeling him undoubtedly as that, is not based on proofs or the proofs used are wrong. Many could have said that quote and never be associated directly with Stalinism.Also, that was not the only thing he had to say about USSR etc, and as i said earlier it is quite obvious from his writings that he was in a continual ideological transition all the time.

[Devrim]

What do you think defines a Stalinist then?

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

I'd agree with this completely. What it means though is that the people saying it don't really have well thought out political ideas, as Fuserg said he was 'basically a confused kiddo'Agreed, but then it never does to look too closely at a saint's life ;)


No, I don't really think so at all. People who said it in the late 1920s were mistaken, but very wrong. People who said it in the late 1950s after Hungry were StalinistsFor the full bankruptcy of the Soviet model to be apparent I'd apparent that you'd need both Soviet crimes and a viable alternative. I'd argue that this second criterion didn't become really viable until the late 1960s. It was only around this time that it was possible to be a mainstream communist while in opposition to the official Moscow parties. But then that's just my reading of it

[F9]

What do you think defines a Stalinist then?

Devrim

Even you agreed above that what you said can be words coming out from a non-stalinist, a trotskyist for example as you said.But as there is no proof that he was a trot, just like that there is no proof that he was a stalinist either.
Most things that you said are included in "mine" definition of Stalinism, but of course besidesthe authoritarianism part, and soviet admiration, Stalinism "requires" and a Stalin personal admiration, something that indeed che had at one point, but dismissed later.We all know that political ideology is not as simple as getting along with the definition, there are lots of other things need to be met to be truly and correctly labeled as a part of a political ideology, otherwise we could easily be fall on lots of ideologies, and if we take your word on Stalinism and as easily attach Che to it, we can attach him to lots of other ideologies too as easily, and like that it can happen to any of us be "fitting" to a number of ideologies.

[Devrim]

To be honest, I think that he fits your definition pretty well. I would really like to see you put him into any other ideology, unless you went for the smaller differences within Stalinism.

I think if you need evidence of him being an admirer of Stalin then Stalinist posters on here could provide heaps of it.

Devrim

[Black Sheep]

I've heard of this little tale, don't know if it's true:
That when che visited the USSR, he was served a beverage in porcelain cups and stuff, Che said ironically "it's remarkable that every single citizen of USSR has his [beverage] in porcelain cups"

Fact or leftist little urban legend?

[Volcanicity]

I've heard of this little tale, don't know if it's true:
That when che visited the USSR, he was served a beverage in porcelain cups and stuff, Che said ironically "it's remarkable that every single citizen of USSR has his [beverage] in porcelain cups"

Fact or leftist little urban legend?
According to Jon Lee Anderson's biography of Che it was something he said while having dinner at a Soviet agent's flat during his first visit to the Soviet Union in 1960.What he supposedly uttered was "So the proletariat here eat off of French Porcelain eh?"because his host's used to live in Paris and brought the plate's back with them.It was also when he started to become dismayed with the lavish lifestyles of the Soviet elite in comparison to the way of living of the ordinary working class person.

[Redstar226]

sometimes mob mentality isn't always the best thing. I mean I understand why they wanted them dead, batista's regime was terrible, but mob mentality leads to idiot Black Bloc, senseless violence.

I don't see how the execution of counter-revolutionaries has anything to do with the Black Bloc, which is an anarchist tactic, nothing to do with Ché Guevara whatsoever. And Black Bloc has nothing to do with "mob mentality" its about avoiding arrest, plain and simple.

[Geiseric]

Alright, fair enough. Anyways, I think imprisoning counter revolutionaries or killing them is hypocritical because that's the kind of government that Batista ran, and it was usually, according to some cubans I talk to fairly regularly, killing protesters and free speech advocates. I'm really against killing anybody unless they have a chance, so that's just the pacifist in me talking.

[CHE with an AK]

The degree of sectarian reactionary revisionism on this thread and in general towards Che amongst many on the “left” (particularly some in the anarcho left) is disappointing and disconcerting. I am amazed when I see right-wing libel that was infused into the political biographical blood stream to discredit Che – pop up in a forum that literally links to the Che-lives website.

Che encountered this sort of tribal fractionalization all throughout his life and was turned off by it (he also usually refused to be identified with political parties for this specific purpose).

The heroic Che was above all else a Marxist, anti-imperialist with some Leninism (his views on Imperialism), Maoism (his foco theories and desire for rapid industrialization), and Trotskyism (his ideas around World Revolution) thrown in of equal measure. Why he wouldn’t be viewed at least positively by any self respecting person claiming to be of the radical political “left” is beyond me and does not bode well for the potential chances we ever have of organization and collective emancipation from the insidious nature of capitalism.

I also find it ironic that this forum bans “fascists”, and does not welcome the contributions of capitalists, objectivists, anarcho-primitivists, etc – but allows some of the ridiculous tripe to be parroted against El Che.

[revolution inaction]

Che was involved with repressing anarchists and workers, and helped to set up a state, why would any revolutionary have a positive view of him?

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

THESE ARE CHE'S POLITICAL VIEWS

•when he was a young man he was Stalinist/Marxist

•in Cuba he became anti soviet and moved away from Stalinism

•in the end Che was a pick an choose Marxist, his views were a mix of classic Marxism, Maoism and Trotskyism

[-marx-]

I was a Che fan, but some people that I do find somewhat knowledgeable, at least enough to hold a good argument on occasion, have brought me to the attention of some things that make me reconsider my support. Now, I don't know enough at the moment to conclude my stance on the matter of this undeniably, historically significant figure. What I mean to ask is what Che's political views actually were. These individuals that I speak to say Che was in favor of the nationalistic Stalin-type governmental structure. I find this concerns me. I did very minimal research, if google-ing can even be considered so, and found SOME articles that supported this claim. But not enough knowledge in my head to conclude anything. Help, señores y señoras?

There is no dogma in Marxism. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Che etc are not "gods" and their words and actions are not infallible.

So long as you stick with the fundamentals of communism, you take what is necessary from each, discard the rest, and if you're so inclined, add to it yourself.

[RedRaptor]

Stupid question I know but wasnt he a racist? Just asking. I read he siad some horrible stuff.