Opinions on Che Guevara (12/28/2010)

[Grid]

Here's something I'd like to start doing. Everyday I will post a discussion in which we discuss and share opinions on important figures of past and present. Today's person is Che Guevara, what do you think of him? Che Guevara was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary, physician, author, intellectual, guerrilla leader, diplomat, military theorist, and major figure of the Cuban Revolution. He traveled the world to preach communism to whom he believed to be oppressed peoples. He was captured and later executed in Bolivia by a joint CIA-Bolivian task force. After his death, he became an international symbol of communism. What are your thoughts on Che Guevera, his life, his works, and his beliefs?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

There's a Che Guevara section in the History sub-forum isn't there?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

A great anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. Cuba lost any hope of being socialist the day Castro forced him out under Soviet pressure. On first sight his Foco theory seems to have been a bit flawed, but I'd like to read some of his writings on it before I make a complete decision on it.

[Ned Kelly]

An inspirational Marxist-Leninist and true internationalist.

[Wanted Man]

A great anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist. Cuba lost any hope of being socialist the day Castro forced him out under Soviet pressure.

Cool Hoxhaite story, bro.

[Joe Payne]

He held contempt for the working class, focusing on the peasantry as the sole agent of revolution. He also didn't believe in self-management or democracy, as he believed an "El Jefe" must rule with an iron fist because he also didn't really believe in an international revolution, but a coalition of third world nations to act as a front against Soviet and US imperialism.

He imprisoned and executed many anarchists because of their enormous influence in the unions as well as their continued organizing for a real working class revolution in Cuba, organizing strikes against Castro's regime.

He was also a sexist, as well as homophobic, but I don't think those two things are any secret.

But I wouldn't call him a Marxist, or even an internationalist (he had no love of American or European, or even Soviet, workers). I would call him an anti-imperialist, and that's about it.

However even though I hold a low opinion of him, many Latin American anarchists do have a soft spot for him, and the zapatistas even have a municipality named after him, so I won't denounce that, but I'm personally not a fan of the guy.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Cool Hoxhaite story, bro.


"Che roundly castigated the Russians as 'revisionists'" "Che's embrace of a kind of Maoism and his search for ideas that led him outside (Soviet) Marxism-Leninism could be, and were, construed in Moscow to be be anti-Soviet. Che had to go. His repeated public attacks upon the Soviet Union had finally become intolerable to the Kremlin, whose representatives had served notice of their displeasure on Premier Fidel Castro, leaving Castro with no real choice, since Moscow's economic aid kept his government and economy afloat." "Che himself was not seen anywhere in public after returning from Africa, excepting one appearance at a lecture he gave towards the end of March (1965). Che never turned up again at the Ministry of Industry following his March lecture there.. He... had suddenly and mysteriously disappeared from public view."
You disagree?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

He held contempt for the working class, focusing on the peasantry as the sole agent of revolution.

Source?

[Wanted Man]

You disagree?

Yup.

What does that citation prove? It just names a series of events and then draws a conclusion in a connecting-the-dots style.

I suppose next we're going to get the old tale of how Fidel had Che killed?

[ed miliband]

I don't understand why he is so overwhelmingly popular tbh. Aside from nutty right-wingers who rant on about how he was a baby-eating murderer, Che seems to be the 'acceptable' face of revolution. Shit, even Murray Rothbard said nice things about him (I think).

I suppose his looks have something to do with it, though young Stalin was very handsome and you don't see him on t-shirts. :confused:

[malthusela]

Yeah, the man was oh so great. He wanted Castro to Nuke Los Angeles. This may not garner me friends, but fuck Che Guevara. He was also, as pointed out, an authoritarian.

[Le Libérer]

Moved to the Che Forum

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Che Guevara: Great military commander. I have no idea why that translated to his ability to run a country or successfully oversee the transition to communism.

[The Hong Se Sun]

He was what got me to get over dogma of most communist. In his diaries he talks about his travels to both China and the USSR which convinced me the USSR was indeed social imperialist and generally changed classes from being money based to where government officials were the oppressor/upper class and the working class and peasants were treated like trash. and he also turned me onto Mao. A true internationalist!

To the person who said something about him being horrible for saying Castro should nuke LA. If you were in his place as the oppressed and saw the shit he saw you would say the same so get out of here with that nationalist crap. I say fight imperialist anyway you can. He was thinking about the betterment of a whole world not keeping the privilege of the US over the world.

As far as HIM executing anarchist because of their influence in the unions? try again those people where tried in a trial not a one on one political persecution. And even then the communist were most influential among unions.

[Cane Nero]

To the person who said something about him being horrible for saying Castro should nuke LA. If you were in his place as the oppressed and saw the shit he saw you would say the same so get out of here with that nationalist crap. I say fight imperialist anyway you can. He was thinking about the betterment of a whole world not keeping the privilege of the US over the world.


So, what about the workers living in LA?

[The Hong Se Sun]

They were mainly anti-communist and super reactionary as most US citizens are but you're adding points to my statement that I did not make. I didn't say that it was cool he said that just that i could understand from an internationalist point that the toppling of the US government would have been better for the world as a whole so I see why he would want that.

[Palingenisis]

I don't understand why he is so overwhelmingly popular tbh. Aside from nutty right-wingers who rant on about how he was a baby-eating murderer, Che seems to be the 'acceptable' face of revolution. Shit, even Murray Rothbard said nice things about him (I think).

I suppose his looks have something to do with it, though young Stalin was very handsome and you don't see him on t-shirts. :confused:

Che was a bit of a mad gun man....I have met them and I dont think they are genuinely revolutionary.

Murray Rothbard actually tried to suck up to the left at one point...And so do some Libertarians today...Which is insane but than again you would have to be insane to a Liberatarian!

[Sir Comradical]

His positions were better than Castro's. Che argued for the industrialisation of Cuba while Castro's plan was for Cuba to focus on sugar exports.

[Sir Comradical]

Yeah, the man was oh so great. He wanted Castro to Nuke Los Angeles. This may not garner me friends, but fuck Che Guevara. He was also, as pointed out, an authoritarian.

Yes he was, because revolution is an authoritarian act.

[FreeFocus]

I agree with Sartre that Che was one of the most complete human beings of his time. He was a heroic figure whose story is unlikely. His principled anti-imperialism and dedication to building socialism are not only admirable, but inspirational.

Seremos como el Che.

[theAnarch]

Che Guevara talks to young people by Pathfinder press and Che Guevara: Economics and Politics in the Transition to Socialism by Carlos Tablada are some of the best books youll find on the subject of what Che belived.

[Sensible Socialist]

He is such an iconic, almost religious figure, that it is hard to see him in a very negative light. He fought actively against U.S. imperialism for the oppressed and tried to inspire revolutions elsewhere.

Plus, any revolutionary assassinated with help from the CIA must have done something right. ;)

[Cane Nero]

They were mainly anti-communist and super reactionary as most US citizens are but you're adding points to my statement that I did not make. I didn't say that it was cool he said that just that i could understand from an internationalist point that the toppling of the US government would have been better for the world as a whole so I see why he would want that.

So that gives you the right to kill them? Correct me if I'm wrong but communism has to do with freedom of the working class, not with their slaughter.
I was born and live in third world and also saw a lot of shit here too. But I do not think exploding a nuclear bomb in LA is a solution to the problems here, nor to destroy U.S. imperialism.

[The Hong Se Sun]

Well I guess you guys believed different things? Communism is also about anti-oppression and anti-imperialism. And Brazil is a developing nation who did the best through out the world ression so yes you are correct that you wouldn't benefit maybe from the destruction. But strawing every argument to "they are working class" is silly. I don't support Israels right to exist just because they have workers there. I don't support the US military because they have working class members in it. so yes I do see why he would have said that especially while under constant threat of US invasion

[Cane Nero]

Well I guess you guys believed different things? Communism is also about anti-oppression and anti-imperialism.

I agree with that too.



And Brazil is a developing nation who did the best through out the world ression so yes you are correct that you wouldn't benefit maybe from the destruction.
Brazil is capitalist and therefore there remains a huge socio-economic imbalance.



But strawing every argument to "they are working class" is silly. I don't support Israels right to exist just because they have workers there. I don't support the US military because they have working class members in it. so yes I do see why he would have said that especially while under constant threat of US invasion

My friend, My point is that he would throw a nuclear bomb that would kill hundreds of bourgeois but would kill thousands of workers, you understand?

If he had said "I want to crucify the president and all the bourgeois politicians of the USA in front of the White House, " I would fully support him.:D

Correct me if I'm wrong again, but Che was fighting against the oppressive U.S. imperialism in favor of freedom of all workers. So what is the logic of it to kill thousands of workers with a nuclear bomb?

I understand he was nervous with the constant threat of invasion, but this does not justify him putting his feelings above the reason.

[Bardo]

While I admire his revolutionary spirit and I acknowledge his impressive accomplishments, I do not admire the man himself. I think to focus soley on his positive influence while ignoring his gruesome actions after the revolution is a bit naive. I believe in the ideals he was fighting for but I cannot praise him as a human being.

[BIG BROTHER]

He held contempt for the working class, focusing on the peasantry as the sole agent of revolution. He also didn't believe in self-management or democracy, as he believed an "El Jefe" must rule with an iron fist because he also didn't really believe in an international revolution, but a coalition of third world nations to act as a front against Soviet and US imperialism.



I would argue against the whole not believing in self-management or democracy.

He did try to implement some form of workers councils/militia in Cuba but since the workday in Cuba was not cut, and there wasn't much support they didn't carry through.

And yea he did share that trait with Maoism in that he believed the Peasantry was to be the leader of the Revolution in Latin-America.




He imprisoned and executed many anarchists because of their enormous influence in the unions as well as their continued organizing for a real working class revolution in Cuba, organizing strikes against Castro's regime.



Che protected different left groups in Cuba for example some Trotskyst group even though they were stupid enough to provoque US imperialism by trying to march to guantanamo base.

To be honest those anarchist if they were indeed incarcerated probably asked for it by trying to organize at a time were the regime had lots of popular support and their actions at that point amounted to nothing more than sabotage.



He was also a sexist, as well as homophobic, but I don't think those two things are any secret.


Although I doubt he sent anyone to be shot just for being a homosexual but he wasn't and LGBT rights champion either, I do think that he was sexist to an extent, its true.



But I wouldn't call him a Marxist, or even an internationalist (he had no love of American or European, or even Soviet, workers). I would call him an anti-imperialist, and that's about it.

However even though I hold a low opinion of him, many Latin American anarchists do have a soft spot for him, and the zapatistas even have a municipality named after him, so I won't denounce that, but I'm personally not a fan of the guy.

He was a Marxist who fought around the world as an internationalist revolutionary. He admire those of us who lived and fought against US Imperialism from within, he had comrades from the Eastern soviet countries and despised the way the burocracy lived compared to the workers.

[L.A.P.]

I don't understand why he is so overwhelmingly popular tbh. Aside from nutty right-wingers who rant on about how he was a baby-eating murderer, Che seems to be the 'acceptable' face of revolution. Shit, even Murray Rothbard said nice things about him (I think).

I suppose his looks have something to do with it, though young Stalin was very handsome and you don't see him on t-shirts. :confused:

Che Guevara does seem like he's the least controversial therefore the only one people can get away with wearing a t-shirt on thus probably the most popular communist.

[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.

[Cane Nero]

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.

I'm sorry if I do not think Che was a reincarnation of Jesus Christ.