Enver Hoxha on Che

[A.J.]

".....Che Guevara was killed. Such a thing is liable to happen, because a revolutionary may get killed. Che Guevara, however, was a victim of his own non-Marxist-Leninist views.

"Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.

"The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.

"We cannot say that Che Guevara and his comrades were cowards. No, by no means! On the contrary, they were brave people. There are also bourgeois who are brave men. But the only truly great heroes and really brave proletarian revolutionaries are those who proceed from the Marxist-Leninist philosophical principles and put all their physical and mental energies at the service of the world proletariat for the liberation of the peoples from the yolk of the imperialists, feudal lords and others."

..........

"The authors of the theory that the "starter motor" sets the "big motor" in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up "wild" isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did."

"This trend brings the theses of the armed uprising into disrepute. What great damage it causes the revolution! With the killing of Guevara, the masses of common people, contaminated by the influences of these anarchist views, will think: "Now there is no one else to lead us, to liberate us!" Or perhaps a group of people with another Guevara will be set up again to take to the mountains to make the "revolution," and the masses, who expect a great deal from these individuals and are burning to fight the bourgeoisie, may be deceived into following them. And what will happen? Something that is clear to us. Since these people are not the vanguard of the working class, since they are not guided by the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninism, they will encounter misunderstanding among the broad masses and sooner or later they will fail, but at the same time the genuine struggle will be discredited, because the masses will regard armed struggle with distrust. We must prepare the masses politically and ideologically, and convince them through their own practical experience. That is why we say that this inhibiting, reactionary theory about the revolution that is being spread in Latin America is the offspring of modern revisionism and must be unmasked by the Marxist-Leninists."

The Fist of the Marxist-Leninist Communists Must Also Smash Left Adventurism, the Offspring of Modern Revisionism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm)

From a conversation with two leaders of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) of Ecuador
October 21, 1968 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I love these attempts to draw a theological exegesis from Marxist Leninism as if Communists were Catholics and Protestants arguing over who was the "truest Christian"

[Nolan]

I love these attempts to draw a theological exegesis from Marxist Leninism as if Communists were Catholics and Protestants arguing over who was the "truest Christian"

Right because this is anything like bickering between the pope and luther.

Hoxha explains why Che is revisionist:


"The authors of the theory that the "starter motor" sets the "big motor" in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up "wild" isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did."

All in all, Che was inspired by the Marxism-Leninism of previous revolutions - but he was not a Marxist-Leninist. He was a petty-bourgeois adventurist. His only "contribution," foco, is anti Leninist.

[Kassad]

I could probably get a more effective theoretical analysis out of a piece of dog shit. Hoxha whined so much about how everyone in the world who wasn't himself was a revisionist that he practically only had enough spare time to build bunkers. Authentic socialism was achieved in Albania, much like it was achieved in countries across the globe, but that doesn't mean Hoxha's contributions to the socialist movement helped construct other socialist revolutions.

On the other hand, Che Guevara was one of the leaders of the Cuban Revolution -- a revolution that still stands today. He struggled in the streets, among the workers and amongst the oppressed peoples of Latin America. He attempted to build revolutionary movements in several other countries and he likely lived with a constant fear of death, yet his resolve was unshakable, as he sought to spread revolutionary internationalism across the globe. He was in the middle of revolutionary struggles and he eventually died fighting for the working class.

So sit back in your computer chair and talk to be about how Che Guevara was petty bourgeois. He's seen more struggle than your anti-communist ass likely ever will.

PS: Until the American Party of Labor exists anywhere besides on the internet, I don't care about your opinion whatsoever. I wouldn't have even typed up this response if I had seen that in the first place.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nolan: oh right, I forgot the 8th Commandment that Moses-err, Marx brought down from the Mountain Top

"Thou shalt found a Workers Party to pursue revolution, and if you don't, then thou art a petit bourgeois anarchist"

:rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Authentic socialism was achieved in Albania, much like it was achieved in countries across the globe, but that doesn't mean Hoxha's contributions to the socialist movement helped construct other socialist revolutions.
So sit back in your computer chair and talk to be about how Che Guevara was petty bourgeois. He's seen more struggle than your anti-communist ass likely ever will.If genuine socialism was achieved in Albania from an ML party led by Hoxha then how was Hoxha an anti-communist?

[Ismail]

Hoxha pointed out that Che denied a basic tenet of Marxism-Leninism: the vanguard party as the leading force of the revolution.

A critique of Che's "foco" views can be found here: http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm

[Kassad]

If genuine socialism was achieved in Albania from an ML party led by Hoxha then how was Hoxha an anti-communist?

Because he considered petty bickering to be a priority in the socialist movement. Instead of attempting to build unity within the socialist bloc, Hoxha was too busy saying how everyone was a revisionist except him and there wasn't any authentic socialism anywhere else in the world. What was needed was a united socialist bloc against imperialism, but that was not Hoxha's priority. It wasn't the priority of a lot of revolutionary leaders at the time as well, but we're discussing Hoxha, which is why I am focusing on him.

[Roach]

Nolan: oh right, I forgot the 8th Commandment that Moses-err, Marx brought down from the Mountain Top

"Thou shalt found a Workers Party to pursue revolution, and if you don't, then thou art a petit bourgeois anarchist"

:rolleyes:


A much more in depth cristicism about this can be read here: http://ml-review.ca/aml/MLOB/GuerrilaEliteFIN.htm

But why bother reading that? Hoxhaite high-priests are wrong from the start since their pact with the Albanian devil...

Ooops Ismail already posted it.

[Ismail]

Of course what you define as a "socialist bloc" Hoxha defined as a collection of state-capitalist regimes. This issue is obviously a fair bit deeper than "Hoxha woke up one day and decided to be an asshole and denounce ACTUALLY EXISTING SOCIALISM™ to mislead the masses."

[gorillafuck]

Because he considered petty bickering to be a priority in the socialist movement. Instead of attempting to build unity within the socialist bloc, Hoxha was too busy saying how everyone was a revisionist except him and there wasn't any authentic socialism anywhere else in the world.So in your opinion he was an anti-communist communist?


Of course what you define as a "socialist bloc" Hoxha defined as a collection of state-capitalist regimes.What was so different in Albania from the rest of the Marxist-Leninist countries that made them all capitalist whereas Albania was socialist? Like what in the economy was so wildly different?

[Kassad]

Here's the part where I get swarmed by all the Hoxhaists on here because
1) They only exist on the internet (in the United States, at least).
2) They aren't actually engaged in the struggle, so they have plenty of time to kill.

Keep it coming, kids.

[Nolan]

Kassad's post, broken down by paragraph:

#1: HURRRRRRRRRR

#2: Completely irrelevant shit that, while commendable, has absolutely nothing to do with someone's theoretical substance.

#3: YOU ANTICOMMUNIST NICOMPOOP

#4: The APL is an internet party hurr durr!

[Roach]

Here's the part where I get swarmed by all the Hoxhaists on here because
1) They only exist on the internet (in the United States, at least).


I think you should low down this retoric, not only I am not American but I know other Hoxhaists who died or where tortured fighting the Brazilian military dictatorship.Also there are no ''Hoxhaists'' in the world who calls themselves like that apart from a small party in Germany, as a matter of fact in many places it is considered an insult.

[Kassad]

Kassad's post, broken down by paragraph:

#1: HURRRRRRRRRR

#2: Completely irrelevant shit that, while commendable, has absolutely nothing to do with someone's theoretical substance.

#3: YOU ANTICOMMUNIST NICOMPOOP

#4: The APL is an internet party hurr durr!

Effective response. So why don't you prove to me that you aren't an internet party?

Do you have members in Ohio to send to the Statehouse to struggle with the workers there? No? Well, okay.

Do you have members that can join the struggle in Wisconsin? No? Well, okay.

Do you have members that can join the strikes in San Francisco against anti-worker hotel owners? No? Or can you organize protests to demand immigrant rights? Fight the Tea Party and the Nazis? Struggle for marriage equality? Can you organize anti-war demonstrations? Could you hold meetings with more than five people there?

If you answered no to all of these questions, which I'm sure you did, you might be an internet party. I have really no interest in having five people respond to every post I make and having to respond to every single one of them, so I apologize if I don't give an in-depth theoretical analysis to someone who's post just says "hurr."

[Kassad]

I think you should low down this retoric, not only I am not American but I know other Hoxhaist who died or where tortured fighting the Brazilian military dictatorship.

Note why I said in the United States. I believe Ismail pointed out a, though relatively small, list of relatively active Hoxhaist parties that are active across the world. The problem is that the United States is not a country where there is an active or even existent Hoxhaist party.

[Ismail]

What was so different in Albania from the rest of the Marxist-Leninist countries that made them all capitalist whereas Albania was socialist? Like what in the economy was so wildly different?For one there were no "market mechanisms" like those adopted in the USSR and in the Eastern Bloc states from the 1950's onwards. In Poland about 80% of agriculture was privately owned, while Romania was an IMF member after the 1960's. Albania had the world's most equal wage ratios, enjoyed pretty much complete collectivization, had undeterred central planning up until 1990, and had a vanguard party which stressed the dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to the "state of the whole people" which the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states expounded in the 1960's onwards.

This link contains Albanian articles (in English), many having to do with the Soviet Union: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/index.htm#Albania

Here are three in particular:
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/sovwc.htm
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/sovcap.htm
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/nano.htm

[gorillafuck]

For one there were no "market mechanisms" like those adopted in the USSR and in the Eastern Bloc states from the 1950's onwards. In Poland about 80% of agriculture was privately owned, while Romania was an IMF member after the 1960's. Albania had the world's most equal wage ratios, enjoyed pretty much complete collectivization, had undeterred central planning up until 1990, and had a vanguard party which stressed the dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to the "state of the whole people" which the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states expounded in the 1960's onwards.Oh wow. I'm gonna be totally honest, I was a bit prejudiced and expected it to be a stupid response about how they didn't act just like Stalin but that was a very good response. Kudos to you.

[Roach]

Note why I said in the United States. I believe Ismail pointed out a, though relatively small, list of relatively active Hoxhaist parties that are active across the world.

It is called International Conference of Marxist Leninists Parties and Organizations and is pretty active in third world contries, like Ecuador and Tunisia.


The problem is that the United States is not a country where there is an active or even existent Hoxhaist party.

This is not a big problem.The left as a whole is pretty much irrelevant in the United States.Especially compared to the places where the ICMLPO is active.

Their website (mostly in spanish) : http://www.cipoml.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=38&Itemid=27&lang=en

[Bright Banana Beard]

In Albania, all of the high quality goods or vacation spots actually belong to the workers. It was absolute illegal for the bureacrats (A.K.A. government officials) to buy or be there and for the foreign tourists, they need permission from the worker's council to buy these goods or take vacation on these places.

[Ismail]

In Albania, all of the high quality goods or vacation spots actually belong to the workers. It was illegal for the bureacrats (A.K.A. government officials) and the tourists to buy or take vacations on these places.That isn't really an indication of socialism though. The USSR and the Eastern Bloc states had similar things.

But yeah, Jan Myrdal noted that in his book Albania Defiant, when he tried visiting one (pp. 14-15):

At Dhermi we bathe. We've come from Vlora and have passed through the mountains. The Ionian Sea is as blue as can be, its waters are clear, its beaches lovely. We'd have nothing against staying on here.

"Impossible. It's forbidden."

"But the season hasn't started yet. There's plenty of room."

"Comrades, it's forbidden."

"Lots of things are forbidden here in Albania."

"Not at all. Dhermi is the trade unions' bathing resort. Only trade union members are allowed to come here. Because this is the best beach in Albania. No foreigners and no bureaucrats."

"Make an exception. There's plenty of room, isn't there?"

"If we make an exception for one, we'll have to make an exception for two. If we make an exception for two, then we'll have to make an exception for four. If we make an exception for eight, we'll have to make an exception for sixteen, and then thirty-two, sixty-four, a hundred and twenty-eight, two hundred and fifty-six, five hundred and twelve, one thousand and twenty-four, two thousand and forty-eight, four thousand and ninety-six, eight thousand one hundred and ninety-two, sixteen thousand three hundred and eighty-four, thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight, sixty-five thousand ... "

"But I was only asking whether we could stay here for the night."

"Sixty-five thousand five hundred and thirty-six, one hundred and thirty-one thousand and seventy-two. No, you can't stay the night here. We've made a decision of principle. It applies to everyone. Only trade union members who are in production, right in production, can live here. We make no exceptions for anyone. A member of the central committee tried to stop the night here, but we didn't make an exception. Tourists and bureaucrats can bathe at Durres or Saranda. Dhermi is for the workers."

"Oh come—surely there's some point in between no exceptions at all and one hundred and thirty-one thousand and seventy-two exceptions!"

"There are no points in between. Look at the revisionist countries. Look at their bathing resorts. We've learned from the way things have turned out there. They're not going to turn out that way here. You begin with one exception, and in the end there are only exceptions and no workers...

Khrushchev came here and had a look. 'Don't spoil the landscape with industries,' he said. 'Let's have a socialist division of labor. We'll industrialize ourselves, and you can grow lemons. Then we'll come here to you and swim.' But then our government said, 'Comrade Khrushchev, we've no intention of becoming a spa for Soviet functionaries. We've in mind to follow Comrade Stalin's advice and industrialize our country.'"

[Nolan]

Effective response. So why don't you prove to me that you aren't an internet party?

Do you have members in Ohio to send to the Statehouse to struggle with the workers there? No? Well, okay.

Do you have members that can join the struggle in Wisconsin? No? Well, okay.

Do you have members that can join the strikes in San Francisco against anti-worker hotel owners? No? Or can you organize protests to demand immigrant rights? Fight the Tea Party and the Nazis? Struggle for marriage equality? Can you organize anti-war demonstrations? Could you hold meetings with more than five people there?

If you answered no to all of these questions, which I'm sure you did, you might be an internet party. I have really no interest in having five people respond to every post I make and having to respond to every single one of them, so I apologize if I don't give an in-depth theoretical analysis to someone who's post just says "hurr."

I'm not a member first of all. I agree with the party's line and have been in contact with several members.

The APL is a small, young party. Most of the membership is concentrated around Atlanta, I believe.

I'm in Ohio, yeah, and while I couldn't go to the statehouse I took part in a local march.

And don't try to condescend now. Hurr is all your shit deserves.

[Kassad]

I'm not a member first of all. I agree with the party's line and have been in contact with several members.

The APL is a small, young party. Most of the membership is concentrated around Atlanta, I believe.

I'm in Ohio, yeah, and while I couldn't go to the statehouse I took part in a local march.

What I'm trying to make clear to you is that the APL isn't doing anything at these kinds of events. Take the situation in Ohio, for example. We've had some of our members in Ohio at the Statehouse at least a dozen times in the last month. We've distributed thousands of copies of Liberation Newspaper, made hundreds of contacts and reached many people who are truly interested in a revolutionary alternative to capitalism. We are a party of action. This isn't even a political line debate, to be honest. The PSL is about six years old and we have members across the country. We have over 30 branches. Our national conference pulled over 500 people in Los Angeles. The APL can't even dream of doing half the things we do because they aren't a party of action and likely never will be.

[Roach]

It is pretty impressive that there are ''Hoxhaists'' parties at all, Albania could not really give any substantial political and military support, all of Hoxha's works had to be translated from an obscure mediterranean language, they faced hostilities from all other leftists and of course had to deal with persecution from the western imperialists. All that moved them was the theoretical validity of Enver Hoxha's works.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm not a Hoxhaist by any standard (I dont think I even know enough about Hoxha, I just know he liked pillboxes and hated Khrushchev), but to give credit where credit is due, the Communist Party of Tunisia is Hoxhaist and seems to have had some role in the protests there. Perhaps they won't survive the coming transition into "democracy", but that's another matter.

[Ismail]

In the 1980's there were pro-Albanian rebels in Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, Ethiopia and Colombia. The pro-Albanian Nicaraguans fought alongside the FSLN, though they sharply criticized the FSLN once Ortega was in power. There were a few urban militants in Afghanistan. There still are (http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/from-the-peoples-liberation-army-of-colombia-epl-40-years-of-struggle-for-revolution-and-socialism/) a few pro-Albanian rebels in Colombia.

The Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, Benin and Mali also had notable pro-Albanian parties.

Today notable pro-Albanian parties are in Ecuador still (PCMLE/MPD), the Ivory Coast (PCRCI), Brazil (PCR), Turkey (the EMEP) and Tunisia (PCOT).

[mosfeld]

Guevara's military strategy of "Focoism" is armed struggle divorced from participation of the masses -- simply put, it's armed revisionism. Focoism has had terrible results all over Latin America, and this theory should be abandoned by all genuine communists.

For more on Focoist revisionism, take a look at "Guevara, Debray, and Armed Revisionism (http://www.bannedthought.net/Cuba-Che/Guevara/Guevara-Debray-Wolff.pdf)" and "On ’Super-Revolutionaries’ – Why Che Had to Fail (http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/1960-1970/whyche.htm)"

[manic expression]

Not surprisingly, Hoxha's blather on Che reveals far more about Hoxha and his mindset than it does about anyone else. Hoxha peddled petty slander that did nothing but distract the communist movement on its best day.


In the 1980's there were pro-Albanian rebels in Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, Ethiopia and Colombia. The pro-Albanian Nicaraguans fought alongside the FSLN, though they sharply criticized the FSLN once Ortega was in power. There were a few urban militants in Afghanistan. There still are (http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/from-the-peoples-liberation-army-of-colombia-epl-40-years-of-struggle-for-revolution-and-socialism/) a few pro-Albanian rebels in Colombia.

The Dominican Republic, Burkina Faso, Benin and Mali also had notable pro-Albanian parties.
Wait a second. So Che is a revisionist for leading armed struggles against bourgeois regimes...but you're waving around a bunch of marginal rebel groups (most of whom were operating on the coat-tails of non-Hoxhaist revolutionaries) using essentially the same set of tactics and strategies as an accomplishment of your "movement". So guerrilla warfare against capitalism is only revisionism when you say so?


Today notable pro-Albanian parties are in Ecuador still (PCMLE/MPD)Just so we're clear, was that the party that supported the coup attempt against Correa?


For one there were no "market mechanisms" like those adopted in the USSR and in the Eastern Bloc states from the 1950's onwards. In Poland about 80% of agriculture was privately owned, while Romania was an IMF member after the 1960's. Albania had the world's most equal wage ratios, enjoyed pretty much complete collectivization, had undeterred central planning up until 1990, and had a vanguard party which stressed the dictatorship of the proletariat as opposed to the "state of the whole people" which the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states expounded in the 1960's onwards.Of course, this is pure cherry-picking at best. For example, You cite Romania, but fail to note that Romania was quite the renegade within the so-called "bloc", and that using Romania to bad-mouth the USSR and other socialist states is just a side-step. Then, you use equal wage ratios as evidence of "real" socialism, which is complete hogwash and a detour around the issue at hand. Then, just to top it all off, you take rhetoric and try to extrapolate social relations from it. In short, there's nothing here that backs up your impossible proposition.

[Optiow]

I disagree. Hoxha in my mind was a gray bureaucrat, who (in my mind) just lead another crappy little 'communist' dictatorship. Che, on the other hand, took up armed struggle in three different countries to forward socialism. While Hoxha sat in his gray suit building pillboxes and praising his secret police, Che was out there firing bullets at the capitalists.

I do not think he was bourgeois. If anything, Hoxha was closer to bourgeois, as I don't think he ever stood up for the people and made their lives better.

[Ismail]

Wait a second. So Che is a revisionist for leading armed struggles against bourgeois regimes...but you're waving around a bunch of marginal rebel groups (most of whom were operating on the coat-tails of non-Hoxhaist revolutionaries) using essentially the same set of tactics and strategies as an accomplishment of your "movement". So guerrilla warfare against capitalism is only revisionism when you say so?Che's views departed from Marxism-Leninism. There's a difference between Che's "foco" views and such rebellions.


Just so we're clear, was that the party that supported the coup attempt against Correa?According to Correa it wasn't a "coup attempt."

For the PCMLE/MPD position on Correa see: http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/clarity-on-the-marxist-leninist-hoxhaist%E2%80%9D-pcmle-and-mpd-position-on-ecuador/


Of course, this is pure cherry-picking at best. For example, You cite Romania, but fail to note that Romania was quite the renegade within the so-called "bloc", and that using Romania to bad-mouth the USSR and other socialist states is just a side-step.Okay then, Poland also aspired to join the IMF, as did Hungary, and no matter how many petty nationalist disputes Ceaușescu got into with the USSR and Hungary, Ceaușescu still had no problem with Soviet revisionism.


Then, you use equal wage ratios as evidence of "real" socialism, which is complete hogwash and a detour around the issue at hand.The Brezhnevites (like Albert Szymanski) would point to how Soviet bureaucrats supposedly made "less" than they did under Stalin to show how the USSR was even more "socialist" than it was under Stalin. My point was to give a random example how the PLA had a correct Marxist-Leninist line (in this case, equalization of wages) which persisted up until the 1988-1990 period. If you want economic analyses of the USSR after Stalin's death then you can see my signature for details, particularly the "Open Letter" link for a start.


If anything, Hoxha was closer to bourgeois, as I don't think he ever stood up for the people and made their lives better.Then you don't know anything about Albania from 1944-1985, either domestically or in foreign policy. For what it's worth if you're going to lionize Che, Hoxha himself was a partisan fighter. In fact, as noted in one work (OSS in World War Two Albania, p. 5): "The Americans and the British supplied Hoxha with weapons, food, intelligence, fighting men and advisors. They called in air strikes to help Hoxha's forces, and fought with the Partisans when the need arose. Despite the fact that Hoxha worshiped Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union, the Soviets failed to provide the Partisans with any military assistance throughout the war. Yet this lack of material support did little to diminish Hoxha's admiration of Stalin. Although the Allied operation (minus the Soviets) was a success, it later proved to be an embarrassment to the United States because the American-supported Communist victory emboldened Hoxha to turn his back on the west..." So yeah, Hoxha had some principles too.

Also what's with the fixation on pillboxes? Albania had just about the worst relations with the USA and UK (both severed completely in 1946), while Greece and Albania were technically in a "state of war" until the mid-1980's. Albania also had very bad relations with Yugoslavia, not to mention it left the Warsaw Pact in 1968 (due to Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia) and Hoxha feared either NATO or the Soviets taking advantage of this (relations with the USSR were completely severed in 1961). Pillboxes weren't some huge drain on the economy.

As Jan Myrdal pointed out (Albania Defiant, p. 17):

The entire Albanian people are armed, but the navy, the air force, and armored units are—naturally enough—not particularly strong. In May 1961 the Soviet leaders tried to undermine Albania's defenses by giving their officers orders to steal Albania's eight submarines. Naturally, this theft irritated the Albanians. But it hardly undermined Albania's defenses, which are based on the ability of its totally armed population to defend its mountains.p. 146:

Chinese support is important, but crucial to Albania's defense is that the entire Albanian people are armed, have weapons. There are weapons in every village. Ten minutes after the alarm sounds, the entire population of a village must be ready for combat. There has never been any shortage of weapons in Albania, but never have the people been as armed as they are today.Albania's military doctrine was a variant of the Chinese "People's War," and ranks were abolished. Pillboxes where military forces and militia could set up shop didn't really not make sense under these circumstances.

[Roach]

Che's views departed from Marxism-Leninism. There's a difference between Che's "foco" views and such rebellions.


http://www.marxists.org/portugues/tematica/misc/analise-arag-pcdob.htm

In this document about their guerrila against the Brazilian military dictatorship the PCdoB listed as a mistake :


5-THE PARTY IN THE OUTSKIRTS

There was no party in the states of Goiás,Pará e Maranhão, only a small cell.During the preparation for the guerrila, no party organizations were created in the outlying towns of the guerrila zone.From an organic point of view,the guerrila became isolated from the party as a whole.The absence of party organizations in the vicinity of the area, reflected negatively in the expansion of the struggle, with the masses and in all directions.

The existence of a party could help with information, communication, enlightenment of the people, raising their political consciusness, recruit more people into the guerrilla movement and opening of other fronts.

A working party of the people, there would have been greater cooperation and also would have increased the impacting of the fighting in the outskirts.Experience shows that it is necessary to organize the party in these hazardous areas, without the its existence the enemy finds it easier to territorally isolate the guerrillas.

Che Guevara and Debray did not recognise the ability of the leninist party to organize the masses, which clearly differs from the ''hoxhaists'' who consider it essential, even though, initially, they made the same mistake as Che.

[Tim Finnegan]

I've always found Hoxha's casual retention of feudal iconography on the Albanian flag rather odd, given his love of One True Socialism rhetoric.

/all i have to say about that

[Ismail]

I've always found Hoxha's casual retention of feudal iconography on the Albanian flag rather odd, given his love of One True Socialism rhetoric.That's because the "feudal iconography" was the flag of Skanderbeg, the national hero of Albania who could certainly be considered progressive for his time considering he united the warring tribal and feudal entities into one united quasi-state against the Ottoman invaders.

In any case Hoxha criticized those who used national sentiments for the sake of them. Thus (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1965/10/26.htm), "Every creative work, in whatever epoch, has been tendentiously inspired by the ideas of the time, by the social situation of that epoch. Many works have resisted the passage of time, have foreseen the future, prepared it, but they cannot be considered perfect in their entirety and models for every period, for every epoch. There are people who are passionately devoted to certain of their idols and who, with non-Marxist judgment, seek to introduce these idols everywhere, to adopt them for every period, to copy them in place and out of place. To dress them up in some garments of our time and pass them off as socialist works." Also as Lenin pointed out (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/oct/08.htm) in 1920, "Marxism has won its historic significance as the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat because, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch, it has, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two thousand years of the development of human thought and culture." I'd say Skanderbeg's leadership was a positive event, and a fine person to use as a symbol for all Albanians as they have used it since Skanderbeg's death.

So I don't see the issue with retaining a well-known symbol of national unity and resistance to foreign occupation. Tannu Tuva initially had a Buddhist wheel on its flag.

[Roach]

I've always found Hoxha's casual retention of feudal iconography on the Albanian flag rather odd, given his love of One True Socialism rhetoric.

/all i have to say about that

A lot of Communists in the time wanted to combine Socialist ideology to the national identity of their respective countries, almost all of Ceaucesco's rule was based on this idea, there was really no reason to substitute the old flag since it simbolized Albanians thirst for indepence, therefore valueing anti-imperialism.

I personally dont see anything bad about this if it does not enter the territory of national-chauvinism.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's because the "feudal iconography" was the flag of Skanderbeg, the national hero of Albania who could certainly be considered progressive for his time considering he united the warring tribal and feudal entities into one united quasi-state against the Ottoman invaders.
Well, it may have been the flag used by Skanderberg, but the two-headed eagle itself was the symbol of the Byzantine emperors, and derived uses (in that part of the world) were rooted in attempts to borrow some legitimacy from that regime, just as, more generally, the use of eagles was intended to establish oneself as a successor of Rome.

But, then, given Roach's comments, maybe I'm being pedantic; I can see that, within Albania, the symbol may have significantly different enough associations for use to be compatible with socialism.

[Ismail]

But, then, given Roach's comments, maybe I'm being pedantic; I can see that, within Albania, the symbol may have significantly different enough associations for use to be compatible with socialism.As noted by Edwin E. Jacques in his work The Albanians, p. 179: "In place of the Turkish banner Skanderbeg raised his family banner, a red flag with a superimposed black double-headed eagle." In fact, the actual name of Albania in Albanian (Shqipëria) means "Land of the Mountain Eagle." The origin is indeed Byzantine, but yeah.

Bit difficult to remove the symbolism, and it doesn't hurt anyone anyway. In his work Laying the Foundations of the New Albania Hoxha recalled saying during the war that, "Our star is the star of freedom, of that freedom which is won at the cost of blood by fighting, it is the symbol of the new world, of a democratic Albania. Our red star is the distinctive badge of partisans who are fighting with the star on their brow and the flag of Albania in their hand, with the red star over the eagle. When our people want to define a valiant fighter they call him an eagle, a brave man with a star on his brow."

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Speaking of symbols, the hammer and sickle, archtypal symbol of communism, seems to have been derived at least in part from the Russian Orthodox crooked cross.Even earlier Marx and Engels wrote a socialist "catechism" based on the Lutheran catechism of that time.

Anyway regardless of the Hoxhaist's activities off the Internet, and pissing contest between the PSL and the HU not withstanding, Hoxha's critique of Che is spot on. He saluted Che's bravery and courage while in essence saying that Che did not use the Marxist method, revolution based on the working class.Che despised the ruling Soviet bureaucracy. In his last years Che was showing interest in both Maoism and Trotskyism. After the Tri-Continental speech he basically forced himself out of Cuba.He was clearly looking for a way out, another path. Tragically a CIA sponsored bullet found him before he could.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

Che despised the ruling Soviet bureaucracy. In his last years Che was showing interest in both Maoism
True

and Trotskyism.
:confused:

Trotsky, along with Khrushev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists.

Trotsky was fundamentally wrong...Trotskyists ultimately failed because their methods are bad.

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.
As for the topic, Che fucked up pretty badly with "Foco" but other than that he was quite a cool guy :thumbup1:

[Kassad]

Let it be noted that there's no "pissing contest" between the PSL and the Hoxhaist Union/American Party of Labor. Comparing an active communist party in the United States to an internet party consisting of people who take their fetish of Stalin to a sexual level is ridiculous.

[Bright Banana Beard]

people who take their fetish of Stalin to a sexual level

Evidence? This is quite an accussation you have there.

[Nolan]

Evidence? This is quite an accussation you have there.

Kassad is just a pathetic troll.

[28350]

I for one find Stalin physically attractive.

[Kassad]

Kassad is just a pathetic troll.

Troll? That's cute. I pointed out the American Party of Labor's utter lack of activity and the fact that calling Che petty bourgeois was absolutely baseless. I never got any response, as we both know that my assertions were correct, thus I've reverted to being comical about the issue. I'm not trolling anything by pointing out the fact that the PSL is an active, growing communist party in the United States, while the American Party of Labor is busy posting Stalin's works on its blog. The comparison is laughable.

[Roach]

Troll? That's cute. I pointed out the American Party of Labor's utter lack of activity and the fact that calling Che petty bourgeois was absolutely baseless. I never got any response, as we both know that my assertions were correct, thus I've reverted to being comical about the issue. I'm not trolling anything by pointing out the fact that the PSL is an active, growing communist party in the United States, while the American Party of Labor is busy posting Stalin's works on its blog. The comparison is laughable.


I dont see how the lack of activity by the APL disproves Enver Hoxha critique of Che, actually I dont see how the APL relates to the this discussion at all, it is a small and young party, which did not even had the opportunity to enter the ICMLPO(aka ''hoxhaist'' international).

Enver Hoxha, me, Ismail and Mosfeld pointed out that Che Guevara's ''foco'' theory is petty-bourgeois because it ignored the role of the mass vanguard party and instead focused on the role of a small ''guerrila elite''.This and not the APL's activites is the core of the anti-revisionist criticism of Guevara.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Che was far from being a Trotskyist, it is known that he was reading a work by Trotsky, I believe it was his "History of the Russian Revolution", a masterpiece by any account. Che did not follow the Marxist method, not for his rejection of a vanguard party, but for not emphasizing the working class as the vanguard of the revolution. Yes his work was irreplacable in the Cuban revolution but Cuba is rapidly restoring capitalism. Something was and is wrong in the methodology. What could this be...revisionism perhaps? (I might use a different term)

It is interesting to speculate what direction Che muight have gone in if he had lived longer and had been able to use his alienation from Soviet bureaucratism to develop a different revolutionary strategy.

The Posadists (derided for being a UFO cult but they did have many good labor activists in Latibn America claim Che was one of them. Who knows.



I for one find Stalin physically attractive.

Umm...so did that sweet Irish girl Palinigenesis and look what happened to her. I tried to warn her before it was too late, but some people's taste in men just can't be helped I suppose.

[Property Is Robbery]

Does it really matter if he wasn't strictly a ML? He was a Marxist and Cuba did achieve and have maintained revolution. Isn't that what matters?

[Roach]

Che did not follow the Marxist method, not for his rejection of a vanguard party, but for not emphasizing the working class as the vanguard of the revolution.


I dont see how both things differ.The anti-revisionists do not advocate a vanguard party of the peasantry.(at least not in words)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The answer is not to slam Che for being a "revisionist" but salute his very real courage and heroism but also point out his very real errors.I do not uphold Iosif "Gravedigger of the Revolution" Djugashviliu, but otherwise I find myself in agreement with Enver Hoxha's take on Che.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The era of a single vanguard party is over, at least in the developed world. I would like to see a working class US Labor Party solidly rooted in the working class. This party would have participation from the various socialist groups and tendencies.History repeats itself but never exactly the same. "Vanguardism" today is different from 1917 Russia.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Does it really matter if he wasn't strictly a ML? He was a Marxist and Cuba did achieve and have maintained revolution. Isn't that what matters?

Why is the Cuban revolution now being pushed back? Yes the embargo is a big part of it but their are internal reasons as well.

[RED DAVE]

I love it when stalinists, maoists, hoxhaists, guevarists, fall out over who is the "real" Marxist. It's sort of like a game of musical chairs where everyone is trying to get everyone else to fall on their asses.

The fact that every society formed by the above has morphed, without counter-revolution, into capitalism (Cuba is well on its way), after collectively controlling about 1/3 of the world, should tell people everything they need to know.

The sad thing is that in the rank-and-file of all these parties were and probably still are occasionally, real revolutionaries fighting for the liberation of humanity through the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the working class.

RED DAVE

[Tim Finnegan]

Enver Hoxha, me, Ismail and Mosfeld pointed out that Che Guevara's ''foco'' theory is petty-bourgeois because it ignored the role of the mass vanguard party and instead focused on the role of a small ''guerrila elite''.This and not the APL's activites is the core of the anti-revisionist criticism of Guevara.
I'm really not sure how that makes Che a small independent property-owner. Did he cart a newspaper stand around Bolivia with him or something?

Seriously, guys. These concepts are tools, not cudgels.


I love it when stalinists, maoists, hoxhaists, guevarists, fall out over who is the "real" Marxist. It's sort of like a game of musical chairs where everyone is trying to get everyone else to fall on their asses.
Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that they don't have a single chair between them. ;)

[Roach]

I'm really not sure how that makes Che a small independent property-owner. Did he cart a newspaper stand around Bolivia with him or something?

The foco theory is petty-bourgeois because it is founded upon individualism and adventurism.Read Hoxha's text in the first post of this thread and the links posted by me,Ismail and mosfeld if you want a more in depth analysis.

[Tim Finnegan]

The foco theory is petty-bourgeois because it is founded upon individualism and adventurism.
Are we using "individualism" in the proper sense, or in the pejorative sense? A lot of users here seem to prefer such terminology in the latter flavour.

[Dimentio]

*popcorn*

[Roach]

Are we using "individualism" in the proper sense, or in the pejorative sense? A lot of users here seem to prefer such terminology in the latter flavour.


As a pejorative of course! To be honest I dont really care about marxism and the workers struggle, I just read that stuff for the lulz. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Che's views departed from Marxism-Leninism. There's a difference between Che's "foco" views and such rebellions.
First of all, actions count for far more than anything else. Second, Che's actions and views fall under Marxism-Leninism as readily as any other revolutionary. Just because he recognized the fact that brutally repressive capitalist regimes can fall through urban and guerrilla struggle does nothing to change this. By the same warped logic, you might as well say Stalin's views departed from Marxism-Leninism when he was robbing banks to fund the Bolshevik Party. In short, your argument is silly because it's trying to retroactively justify a petty personal attack with no political substance.


Okay then, Poland also aspired to join the IMF, as did Hungary, and no matter how many petty nationalist disputes Ceaușescu got into with the USSR and Hungary, Ceaușescu still had no problem with Soviet revisionism.Ah, so Poland and Hungary (also not known for being too close to Soviet policy) now define the USSR's social relations. Quite a materialist analysis you got there. Of course, you can't at all define what this "Soviet revisionism" is, because it's a made-up fantasy in order to (once again) retroactively justify a petty personal spat.


The Brezhnevites (like Albert Szymanski) would point to how Soviet bureaucrats supposedly made "less" than they did under Stalin to show how the USSR was even more "socialist" than it was under Stalin. My point was to give a random example how the PLA had a correct Marxist-Leninist line (in this case, equalization of wages) which persisted up until the 1988-1990 period. If you want economic analyses of the USSR after Stalin's death then you can see my signature for details, particularly the "Open Letter" link for a start.And if you want to talk about material social relations in a vaguely useful manner, making comments about Soviet bureaucrats' wage levels isn't going to do it.


Then you don't know anything about Albania from 1944-1985, either domestically or in foreign policy. For what it's worth if you're going to lionize Che, Hoxha himself was a partisan fighter.:lol: So being a guerrilla is only non-revisionist when your name is Hoxha (or if you blindly support him). But if your name is Che...well then, mister, you're in big trouble! :laugh:


The foco theory is petty-bourgeois because it is founded upon individualism and adventurism.Again, employing similar (if not essentially identical outside of local conditions) tactics and strategies as Hoxha did is petty-bourgeois. A very curious line of reasoning, no doubt. Perhaps you could now explain to us how pillboxes are reactionary unless they're defending Albania. :laugh:

[Ismail]

By the same warped logic, you might as well say Stalin's views departed from Marxism-Leninism when he was robbing banks to fund the Bolshevik Party.Stalin robbed banks with the knowledge of the Bolshevik Party and as a way to raise funds for the Party. Not comparable.


Ah, so Poland and Hungary (also not known for being too close to Soviet policy) now define the USSR's social relations. Quite a materialist analysis you got there.Zeekloid asked me what made Albania different from other "Marxist-Leninist" states. I answered him. Also saying that Poland and Hungary were "not known for being too close" to the Soviets is stupid. Using this logic neither were East Germany ("consumer socialism"), Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.


And if you want to talk about material social relations in a vaguely useful manner, making comments about Soviet bureaucrats' wage levels isn't going to do it.I've already noted Albanian articles condemning the Soviets for various things.


So being a guerrilla is only non-revisionist when your name is Hoxha (or if you blindly support him). But if your name is Che...well then, mister, you're in big trouble!Partisan warfare against foreign occupation and led by a party is a bit different from Che's "foco" views. Try again.

[manic expression]

Stalin robbed banks with the knowledge of the Bolshevik Party and as a way to raise funds for the Party. Not comparable.
Yes, and Che fought a guerrilla war with the knowledge of the July 26 Movement and as a way to liberate Cuba from bourgeois oppression. Do you even know what you're arguing against? I mean beyond the fact that Hoxha didn't think Che was one of the cool kids.


Zeekloid asked me what made Albania different from other "Marxist-Leninist" states. I answered him. Also saying that Poland and Hungary were "not known for being too close" to the Soviets is stupid. Using this logic neither were East Germany ("consumer socialism"), Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.
The DDR was significantly closer to the Soviet line than Poland or Hungary. The events of 1956 should be enough to prove as much. But it goes to show that you can't appreciate the nuances of the subject: in your world, everything Romania does is the fault of the Soviet Union.


I've already noted Albanian articles condemning the Soviets for various things.
Without the slightest reason or justification, of course.


Partisan warfare against foreign occupation and led by a party is a bit different from Che's "foco" views. Try again.
So far, all you have are different labels for essentially the same tactics and strategies. Hoxha is "partisan" while Che is "foco". There is, as one must now expect, zero Marxist substance to this criticism, and no political substance at that. Just the blind continuation of a childish grudge. Further, Che's guerrilla campaigns were certainly led by a party. The July 26 Movement was the vanguard, or at least a very important part of the vanguard. I can hardly expect you to appreciate that which you refuse to understand, however.

[Red_Struggle]

Hoxha's views on Che Guevara is something debatable. He definately recognizes him as a socialist and guerilla fighter, who, in my opinion, was a Marxist-Leninist at heart but not necessarily in practice. At least he tells the Ecuadorians not to take his words to heart. Yes, he was excellent in combat and earned himself a great deal of experience throughout his years, but his idea of jumping from nation to nation applying his foco theory was a big mistake. He was a bit of an idealist who made theoretical mistakes. At the same time, he criticized Soviet revisionism and later criticized Castro for his appealing to the Soviets.

So overall, I view Che as a Marxist-Leninist at heart who simply made mistakes and went and got himself killed.

[Ismail]

Yes, and Che fought a guerrilla war with the knowledge of the July 26 Movement and as a way to liberate Cuba from bourgeois oppression.Hoxha clearly noted the importance of a vanguard party to lead a revolution, not a bunch of "heroic" personalities. The "26th of July Movement" publicly disdained communism and merely presented itself as a nationalist rebellion. It wasn't Marxist and had plenty of liberal types within it.


The DDR was significantly closer to the Soviet line than Poland or Hungary.And it also had "consumer socialism."


The events of 1956 should be enough to prove as much.Only if we live in an alternate history world where Imre Nagy won out.


Without the slightest reason or justification, of course.Besides the Soviets abandoning world revolution, embracing social-imperialist policies, and restoring capitalism?

[Leo]

It is pretty impressive that there are ''Hoxhaists'' parties at all, Albania could not really give any substantial political and military support, all of Hoxha's works had to be translated from an obscure mediterranean language, they faced hostilities from all other leftists and of course had to deal with persecution from the western imperialists. All that moved them was the theoretical validity of Enver Hoxha's works.

Actually, although Albania couldn't give any military support it did give some financial support to those who followed its line. Also, given the fact that it was actually a proper state with thousands of functionaries, it had quite a capacity for translation. The main factor, however, was that Albania actually wanted and tried to set up an international tendency of its own, and had been quite active among the pro-Chinese tendency, being the only pro-Chinese country before the Sino-Albanian split in Europe and basically in the West as such. Of course, nearly all of the historically pro-Albanian organizations came out of pro-Chinese organizations, and nearly due to the influence of the Albanians within the pro-Chinese movement, especially in the West (and by this I basically mean the west of the Far East), nearly all of the pro-Chinese organizations had splits over this question.


Today notable pro-Albanian parties are in (...) Turkey (the EMEP)

It ain't a party to brag about, it is a sort of nationalistic legally recognized party drawing most of its strength from the middle levels of the trade-union bureaucracy. Although still occasionally publishing nostalgic articles about Albania (notably on anniversaries), they don't really talk much about these issues - they basically function like your ordinary "revisionist" Communist Party. Incidentally, EMEP occasionally uses the Che Guevara image on its flags and posters.

I've always been amazed on how the Hoxhaists posting on these forums keep coming up with EMEP all the time, and are ignorant of the much more "militant" (not that I think those ones have got anything to offer the working class) Hoxhaist organizations in Turkey.


Stalin robbed banks with the knowledge of the Bolshevik Party and as a way to raise funds for the Party.

Those sort of actions were actually publicly condemned by the Bolshevik Party, even though Stalin did them.


He definately recognizes him as a socialist

No, he actually calls him a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftist/rebel, basically excluding the possibility of calling him a real socialist.


who, in my opinion, was a Marxist-Leninist at heart but not necessarily in practice

Ah, I see. It is a matter of faith then, not of conviction or methodology.


Besides the Soviets abandoning world revolution

Which happened, of course, with the declaration of socialism in one country, as opposed to the world revolution.


embracing social-imperialist policies

The roots (imperialism anyway - the "social" bit is quite obscure) of which can even be traced back to as early as the Rapallo treaty, and which was clearly in effect when the Soviets invaded Finland and the Baltic states and afterwards Poland jointly with Nazi Germany.


and restoring capitalism

Which, for the workers clearly started taking place with the introduction of Taylorism and the militarization of labor and was certainly in effect by the beginning of the first-five year plan, building massive industry at the expanse of the super-exploitation of the working class.


's critique of Che is spot on. He saluted Che's bravery and courage while in essence saying that Che did not use the Marxist method, revolution based on the working class.Che despised the ruling Soviet bureaucracy. In his last years Che was showing interest in both Maoism and Trotskyism. After the Tri-Continental speech he basically forced himself out of Cuba.He was clearly looking for a way out, another path. Tragically a CIA sponsored bullet found him before he could.

I find the efforts of some Trotskyist individuals or formations to reconcile the memory of Che Guevara to be quite absurd, to be honest. He was prosecutor of the Trotskyists as well as the anarchist revolutionaries in Cuba. He was quite clearly a Stalinist, he quite clearly idolized Cuba and praised the Stalinist regimes in China as well as, if I am not mistaken, the Democratic Republic of Korea. His disliking of the Soviet state bureaucracy was to an extent shared by his comrades back in Cuba, and it was rooted in the fact that the USSR saw Cuba as expandable, es evidenced by the Cuban missile crisis.

Also, I don't think Hoxha's criticisms are really that valid - I personally don't see all the biblical difference between the two which the Hoxhaists on the one and and the PSLites on the other seem to be seeing. Yes, Che Guevara was, quite probably a brave man. Yet bravery is not a political position. In fact it is not even something that is unique in any way. Great majority of soldiers, in any army are brave. This means that your ordinary American soldier in Iraq at the moment, or your ordinary Nazi soldier in France might be or might have been just as brave and heroic in battlefield as Che Guevara and his fellows were. This also means that being an epic hero fighting with gun in hand and meeting a noble end does not necessarily make one a revolutionary, and should not make one an idol anyway.

Did Che Guevara actually believe in what he was doing and was his heart in the right place? Probably, perhaps not. This does not matter either. Most people don't live thinking how evil they are, and how they are pretending to believe in something while pursuing a hidden agenda. Most people think what they are doing is fair and just in this or that way.

The question of how to evaluate someone, anyone politically can therefore only be a political question. It has got nothing to do with the individual heroics of the person in question, nor does it have anything to do with the given persons intentions. What matters is the politics of the person. What did Che Guevara believe in? He belied in a version of your ordinary Stalinism, the regional special feature of which was the idea that a national guerrilla army will overthrow the old regime and set up a new one. According to marxism, it is classes, not armies that can make revolutions, and it is the proletariat, not an army which will make the socialist revolution. According to marxism, the regime change brought by a military organization like Che Guevara's would be a putch, a coup d'etat, not a revolution. Marxism has always identified putches and coup d'etats, along with conspiracies and so forth with the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie. So by a marxist definition, Che Guevara was not a revolutionary, was not a socialist and was not a fighter for the proletarian cause. He might have believed that he was, but he wasn't. Neither was Hoxha any different, for that matter, whose coming into power was not that different than Castro's movement, he came to power with more foreign support, of course.

[Ismail]

I've always been amazed on how the Hoxhaists posting on these forums keep coming up with EMEP all the time, and are ignorant of the much more "militant" (not that I think those ones have got anything to offer the working class) Hoxhaist organizations in Turkey.The EMEP is the public face of the TDKP, which is an ICMLPO participant. Also there are RevLeft users from Turkey who support the EMEP. Also yes, the PCMLE/MPD in Ecuador also has members who use Che's image too.

I'm aware that Turkey has other pro-Hoxha groups.


Those sort of actions were actually publicly condemned by the Bolshevik Party, even though Stalin did them.Ian Grey noted in his biography of Stalin that although the Bolsheviks did indeed publicly condemn such activity (the Mensheviks were using it to criticize the Bolsheviks), they still approved of it or tolerated it in private.


Which happened, of course, with the declaration of socialism in one country, as opposed to the world revolution.Stalin noted that the final victory of socialism in the USSR could not occur without the rise of workers states in several or more countries, not to mention the victory of communism worldwide. Stalin viewed himself as having continued Lenin's line on this issue, more or less.

From the Yahoo Stalinist list, Grover Furr noted the following:

As Stalin lay dying his old comrades in the Politburo assembled at his bedside and unilaterally -- without any vote by the Central Committee - DID AWAY with the resolutions of the 19th Party Congress. Specifically, they did away with the expanded Presidium, the clear purpose of which was to bring new blood into Party leadership.

Then they set about abandoning the resolutions of the 19th Party Congress of just a few month's before (October 1952).

The new Party rules were never put into effect. Stalin's final work, _Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR_, which had been the main topic of discussion at the 19th Party Congress, was quickly dropped -- forgotten about, never referred to again.

The Korean War was soon settled and the South Korean fascists given 1/2 the country they had lost.

The Vietnam War was settled in 1954 when the USSR forced the North Vietnamese to retreat to the North for the promise of free elections in 1956 -- which the USA never permitted. A reign of fascist terror soon swept the South of Vietnam.

Lavrentii Beria, who -- whatever else he planned -- brought the Party leadership under the rule of law, was illegally arrested and shot, as were a number of his associates.

Khrushchev took power. Everything he said was, of course, lies. (That's what my book is about).

In short, the USSR leadership abandoned the struggle for revolution and communism.
The roots (imperialism anyway - the "social" bit is quite obscure) of which can even be traced back to as early as the Rapallo treaty, and which was clearly in effect when the Soviets invaded Finland and the Baltic states and afterwards Poland jointly with Nazi Germany.You've got your chronology mixed up. First Nazi Germany invaded Poland (then the Soviets moved in once the Polish Government fled), then the Winter War occurred when the Finnish Government refused to lease some ports to the USSR to defend Leningrad (even though actual Finnish negotiators had little issue with the proposals), then came the Soviets accusing the 3 Baltic bourgeois states of not adhering to the treaties they were more or less "forced" into signing, and thus the Soviets forced the resignation of each country's 3 governments.

Neither 3 actions could be called social-imperialist. The Baltic states became SSRs and were thus given a fair share of autonomy, not to mention that even into the 1980's they were among the highest funded SSRs.


Which, for the workers clearly started taking place with the introduction of Taylorism and the militarization of labor and was certainly in effect by the beginning of the first-five year plan, building massive industry at the expanse of the super-exploitation of the working class.If by "super-exploitation" you mean self-sacrifices towards building the necessary industry, then yes. During the Great Purges many workers began to mobilize against against managers, and the Stakhanovites in particular targeted what they saw as reactionary managers (as noted by Robert W. Thurston). Then came the "Stalin Constitution," of which things like multiple candidates were scrapped both due to national security concerns and also due to opposition from the managerial grouping within the Party.


His disliking of the Soviet state bureaucracy was to an extent shared by his comrades back in Cuba, and it was rooted in the fact that the USSR saw Cuba as expandable, es evidenced by the Cuban missile crisis.You might find this interesting: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm

On a semi-related note, in March 1965 Hoxha was already quite critical of Cuba:

Comrade Enver Hoxha: They are not and have never been Marxists. They are only a bunch of anarchists.

Comrade Zhou Enlai: They are bourgeois revolutionaries. They simply took a step toward Marxism-Leninism and then retreated.

[manic expression]

Hoxha clearly noted the importance of a vanguard party to lead a revolution, not a bunch of "heroic" personalities. The "26th of July Movement" publicly disdained communism and merely presented itself as a nationalist rebellion. It wasn't Marxist and had plenty of liberal types within it.
The Cuban revolutionaries, on the other hand, consistently applied the principles of the vanguard party. The July 26 Movement was not just a bunch of "'heroic' personalities", that is a severe and ill-educated misunderstanding of its history, it was a movement that depended on the involvement of militant workers and revolutionaries and the support of the working classes. Fidel publicly distanced himself from Marxism in order to stop the US from intervening and doing more to keep Batista in power. He played the imperialists like an old fiddle by keeping known communists (Che and Raul in particular) in positions of visible leadership while not revealing himself to be a Marxist-Leninist until in a position to do so. Any leader worth their salt would have done the same in his position.


And it also had "consumer socialism."
Basically a variant of what Khrushchev had been trying to implement. And how does this change the fundamental character of the DDR.


Only if we live in an alternate history world where Imre Nagy won out.
Keep pretending Hungary was consistently toeing the Soviet line. It suits you.


Besides the Soviets abandoning world revolution, embracing social-imperialist policies, and restoring capitalism?
Unsupported assertion, unsupported assertion and unsupported assertion (unless you mean the fall of the USSR, in which case you're in no better of a position, thanks to the course of Albanian socialism at around the same time). Care to try again?

[Ismail]

The July 26 Movement was not just a bunch of "'heroic' personalities", that is a severe and ill-educated misunderstanding of its history, it was a movement that depended on the involvement of militant workers and revolutionaries and the support of the working classes.How was it a Marxist-Leninist vanguard? Plenty of nationalist groups had the support of "militant workers and revolutionaries and the support of the working classes." That makes them progressive, not Marxist-Leninist.


Fidel publicly distanced himself from Marxism in order to stop the US from intervening and doing more to keep Batista in power. He played the imperialists like an old fiddle by keeping known communists (Che and Raul in particular) in positions of visible leadership while not revealing himself to be a Marxist-Leninist until in a position to do so. Any leader worth their salt would have done the same in his position.Of course Khrushchev himself once said in 1960, "Fidel Castro is not a Communist now, but United States policies will make him one within two years." (Fidel Castro Speaks, p. 169.) The Albanian Communists were, from the very start, open about their views. The Communist Party of Albania (its name until 1948) played a leading role not only in the National Liberation Front which it founded, but was also in charge of distributing Marxist-Leninist literature and theory to all military units. In 1943 the Front founded the Anti-Fascist National Liberation Council, which was a parallel government against the fascist occupation and quisling leaders.

Bit different.


Basically a variant of what Khrushchev had been trying to implement. And how does this change the fundamental character of the DDR.East Germany underwent the same sort of "reforms" as occurred in the rest of the Eastern Bloc, including the USSR. Of course you totally deny everything.


Keep pretending Hungary was consistently toeing the Soviet line. It suits you.Let's hear about the great divergences between Hungary and the USSR.

[manic expression]

How was it a Marxist-Leninist vanguard? Plenty of nationalist groups had the support of "militant workers and revolutionaries and the support of the working classes." That makes them progressive, not Marxist-Leninist.
Its leadership was revolutionary socialist and Marxist-Leninist. A vanguard is, of course, determined by actions first and foremost. The July 26 Movement consistently acted in the full interests of the workers, and that is most important to remember.


Of course Khrushchev himself once said in 1960, "Fidel Castro is not a Communist now, but United States policies will make him one within two years." (Fidel Castro Speaks, p. 169.) The Albanian Communists were, from the very start, open about their views. The Communist Party of Albania (its name until 1948) played a leading role not only in the National Liberation Front which it founded, but was also in charge of distributing Marxist-Leninist literature and theory to all military units. In 1943 the Front founded the Anti-Fascist National Liberation Council, which was a parallel government against the fascist occupation and quisling leaders.

Bit different.
Khrushchev said silly things from time to time...nevertheless, Fidel showed himself to be a communist through his actions.

The Albanian partisans could be far more open about their politics. The US and UK worked with openly communist forces during WWII, and so declaring oneself communist didn't mean an engraved invitation for imperialist intervention. That, though, was what the Cuban workers were facing in the 50's. So yes..."bit different".


East Germany underwent the same sort of "reforms" as occurred in the rest of the Eastern Bloc, including the USSR. Of course you totally deny everything.
And I'll repeat myself: "consumer socialism" was basically a variant of what Khrushchev had already tried to implement. But how does this change the fundamental nature of the DDR?


Let's hear about the great divergences between Hungary and the USSR.
No need. We're already talking about one.

[Ismail]

Its leadership was revolutionary socialist and Marxist-Leninist. A vanguard is, of course, determined by actions first and foremost. The July 26 Movement consistently acted in the full interests of the workers, and that is most important to remember."In the full interests of the workers"? Significant "socialist" reforms weren't even undertaken until the closing years of the 1960's.


The Albanian partisans could be far more open about their politics. The US and UK worked with openly communist forces during WWII, and so declaring oneself communist didn't mean an engraved invitation for imperialist intervention. That, though, was what the Cuban workers were facing in the 50's. So yes..."bit different".So because imperialism is a threat, a country has leaders who deny they're communist for two years and only form an actual Communist Party about two more years after that? The US and UK were still anxious about assisting the Communists in Albania, which is why many British officers also gave tacit support to the Balli Kombëtar and Legaliteti groups.


And I'll repeat myself: "consumer socialism" was basically a variant of what Khrushchev had already tried to implement. But how does this change the fundamental nature of the DDR?The same way it changed the USSR from constructing socialism to becoming state-capitalist. How was the working class in power, either 'represented' or actual, in the 1960's-80's GDR?

[manic expression]

"In the full interests of the workers"? Significant "socialist" reforms weren't even undertaken until the closing years of the 1960's.
Hogwash. Significant socialist revolutionary changes (perhaps you have them confused with "reform") were carried out within a few years. Collectivization of agriculture is a good example of this.


So because imperialism is a threat, a country has leaders who deny they're communist for two years and only form an actual Communist Party about two more years after that? The US and UK were still anxious about assisting the Communists in Albania, which is why many British officers also gave tacit support to the Balli Kombëtar and Legaliteti groups.
The July 26 Movement was a communist party. It merged with other communist parties to create the PCC that exists today.

The US and UK might have been "anxious about assisting" the Albanian communists, but they did not go out of their way to crush them. That was the reality of WWII compared to the 1950's. You just have to look at what happened in Greece just after the end of WWII to see the kind of threat the Cuban revolutionaries were facing. They simply and flatly could not declare themselves communist and not have the imperialism come down on them like a ton of bricks.


The same way it changed the USSR from constructing socialism to becoming state-capitalist. How was the working class in power, either 'represented' or actual, in the 1960's-80's GDR?
More unsupported assertions.

The DDR saw working-class representation through the vanguard party of the SEP. By the 1980's around 23% of all working-class adults were full members, IIRC.

[Ismail]

Hogwash. Significant socialist revolutionary changes (perhaps you have them confused with "reform") were carried out within a few years. Collectivization of agriculture is a good example of this.If one wants to read about the 1960's Cuban economy, they can: http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/Compass101-Cuba92.htm


The July 26 Movement was a communist party. It merged with other communist parties to create the PCC that exists today."The fact remains, however, that the July 26 Movement was a movement, not a party, and that it lacked homogeneity and a developed apparatus." ("Pro-Communist Revolution in Cuban Education," article by Joseph S. Roucek)


The DDR saw working-class representation through the vanguard party of the SEP. By the 1980's around 23% of all working-class adults were full members, IIRC.Party membership equals control by the working class? 23% at that. In Richard Felix Staar's book Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe (1982 Ed.) the following (p. 5) is given for the PLA: "In 1952 the membership could be classified by origin as 74.1 percent from the poorer class (probably from rural areas for the most part)... More recent statistics indicate that the proportion of industrial workers in the party had increased to 38.0 percent and the proportion of peasants on collective farms to 29.4 percent."

But party membership means little.

[Tim Finnegan]

The July 26 Movement was a communist party. It merged with other communist parties to create the PCC that exists today.
Wait, wasn't Camilo Cienfuegos an anarchist? They don't usually join Marxist-Leninist parties... :confused:

[manic expression]

If one wants to read about the 1960's Cuban economy, they can:
Or they can read the bare facts about revolutionary changes in Cuba from any half-reliable source on the subject.


"The fact remains, however, that the July 26 Movement was a movement, not a party, and that it lacked homogeneity and a developed apparatus." ("Pro-Communist Revolution in Cuban Education," article by Joseph S. Roucek)
Stop the dancing: do you have an actual way of telling a "party" from a "movement" or are you just making it up as you go along?


Party membership equals control by the working class? 23% at that. In Richard Felix Staar's book Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe (1982 Ed.) the following (p. 5) is given for the PLA: "In 1952 the membership could be classified by origin as 74.1 percent from the poorer class (probably from rural areas for the most part)... More recent statistics indicate that the proportion of industrial workers in the party had increased to 38.0 percent and the proportion of peasants on collective farms to 29.4 percent."

But party membership means little.
Party membership means working-class participation in the state. In case you haven't noticed, I don't deny that Albania was a socialist country, so I'm not sure for whom that blurb is intended.

[Gustav HK]

The DDR saw working-class representation through the vanguard party of the SEP. By the 1980's around 23% of all working-class adults were full members, IIRC. At that time, the SED was full of careerists and DDR was hopelessly indebted.

The official historic epokes of DDR were:

1945-1949: "The anti-fascist and democratic revolution".

1949-1961: "Transition to socialism".

1961-1971: "Construction(?) of socialism".

From 1971: "Real socialism, developed socialism".

While actually DDR became less and less socialist, and by 1971 a new state capitalist bourgeois class had been created. By saying that socialism had been build and secured, the "socialist" bourgeoisie could rule DDR in peace, without an athmosphere of class struggle. But you are probably going to deny the existence of such bourgeoisie.

P.S. The infamous Liberman reforms were introduced in DDR in 1963 "Neues Ökonomisches System".

[manic expression]

While actually DDR became less and less socialist, and by 1971 a new state capitalist bourgeois class had been created. But you are probably going to deny its existence.
I need do nothing of the sort. It's far easier to merely mention that you haven't presented evidence of an existence for me to deny.

[Gustav HK]

There is something here, if you can read german:

http://www.kpd-ml.org/

You can also try to find something here:

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/

And here:

http://www.mltranslations.org/


I think that Ismail can give you more (and better) sources.

[manic expression]

There is something here, if you can read german:
Not nearly well enough...aber danke jedenfalls. :p


You can also try to find something here:

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/

And here:

http://www.mltranslations.org/


I think that Ismail can give you more (and better) sources.Maybe I'll get into them this week or this weekend...but at the same time I would welcome a summary or illustration on the part of Hoxhaists here.

[Ismail]

Stop the dancing: do you have an actual way of telling a "party" from a "movement" or are you just making it up as you go along?Let's consult Lenin, an authority on the subject of vanguardism:

"It is Trotsky who is in 'ideological confusion' ... the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised by a mass proletarian organisation." (V.I. Lenin, Collected Works Vol. 32, 1970, p. 21.)

Now let us see how the 26th of July Movement is described:

"The 26th of July Movement, which quickly emerged as the dominant element in the revolutionary government after January 1, 1959, had not yet clearly decided what kind of a 'New Cuba' it wanted to build on the ruins of the fallen regime.

The 26th of July Movement was in fact a very heterogeneous group." (R.J. Alexander, A History of Organized Labor in Cuba, 2002, p. 170.)

"The 26th of July Movement was far from being a 'vanguard party' either in its programme or its social base." ("Dependency and Organized Labor in Latin America ," article by Daniel James in Radical History Review, Fall 1978, p. 159.)


Party membership means working-class participation in the state.The Communist Party of China is doing quite well membership-wise. Does this mean China is socialist? Does this mean the proletariat leads the state? I was making a point that your argument is stupid.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I find the efforts of some Trotskyist individuals or formations to reconcile the memory of Che Guevara to be quite absurd, to be honest.

Except...

"It is obvious that we can learn a series of things from Trotsky’s thinking." - Che

"...the terrible historical crime of Stalin: to have treated communist education with contempt and instituted the unlimited cult of authority." - Che

"Lenin clearly affirmed the universal character of the revolution, something which was subsequently denied.” - Che


According to marxism, it is classes, not armies that can make revolutions, and it is the proletariat, not an army which will make the socialist revolution. According to marxism, the regime change brought by a military organization like Che Guevara's would be a putch, a coup d'etat, not a revolution.

Is this the "marxism" of Lenin? 'Cause..

"The term ‘putsch’, in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses." - Lenin


Marxism has always identified putches and coup d'etats, along with conspiracies and so forth with the bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie.

Is it the "marxism" of Lenin this time? 'Cause...

"The exploiters can be defeated at one stroke in the event of a successful uprising at the centre, or of a revolt in the army." - Lenin


So by a marxist definition, Che Guevara was not a revolutionary, was not a socialist and was not a fighter for the proletarian cause.

Is this "marxism" anything Marx himself would recognize?

Marx recognized the European revolutions of his time. They weren't socialist but they were revolutions.

He also recognized that there were socialisms, each corresponding to different classes; not just proletarian socialism. See The Manifesto, letters, etc.

[manic expression]

Let's consult Lenin, an authority on the subject of vanguardism:
So the J26M was heterogeneous (although you give no indication as to what that actually means...as far as we know it means it was multinational), not yet openly declarative about what it wanted to build (with US imperialism ready to pounce on anything vaguely known as communist) and an opinion that it wasn't a vanguard party because it didn't come out and invite the US to intervene. Great stuff.


The Communist Party of China is doing quite well membership-wise. Does this mean China is socialist? Does this mean the proletariat leads the state? I was making a point that your argument is stupid.
The CPC's relation to the PRC is what preserves socialist characteristics and gives the opportunity for a roll-back of bourgeois influence. So yes, it does have a bearing on the subject, even if you'd like to simultaneously argue that parties have everything to do with socialism and yet nothing to do with it. You're essentially talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Nolan]

So the J26M was heterogeneous (although you give no indication as to what that actually means...as far as we know it means it was multinational), not yet openly declarative about what it wanted to build (with US imperialism ready to pounce on anything vaguely known as communist) and an opinion that it wasn't a vanguard party because it didn't come out and invite the US to intervene. Great stuff.

The guerrillas were supported by nearly all sectors of Cuban society. The 26th of July movement wasn't a workers movement in any sense.

The Cuban petit-bourgeoise and the ruling classes supported the guerrillas. One example that came up recently in a discussion of mine was the Bacardi family of rum fame who gave tens of thousands of dollars to the movement.

Even the US had a great deal of support for the rebels. This is because no one had any idea Castro would declare "communism" and turn the country into a Soviet colony. As far as anyone knew, Castro was simply to be the next in a long line of strongmen initially loyal to the US but then falling out with Cuba's ruling class.


The CPC's relation to the PRC is what preserves socialist characteristics and gives the opportunity for a roll-back of bourgeois influence. So yes, it does have a bearing on the subject, even if you'd like to simultaneously argue that parties have everything to do with socialism and yet nothing to do with it. You're essentially talking out of both sides of your mouth.

lol. He's making perfect sense. That you don't recognize China for what it is - a bourgeois state - and that you actually believe that says a lot about your politics. You're a reformist and have no business calling yourself a Marxist-Leninist.

[manic expression]

The guerrillas were supported by nearly all sectors of Cuban society. The 26th of July movement wasn't a workers movement in any sense.

The Cuban petit-bourgeoise and the ruling classes supported the guerrillas. One example that came up recently in a discussion of mine was the Bacardi family of rum fame who gave tens of thousands of dollars to the movement.

Even the US had a great deal of support for the rebels. This is because no one had any idea Castro would declare "communism" and turn the country into a Soviet colony. As far as anyone knew, Castro was simply to be the next in a long line of strongmen initially loyal to the US but then falling out with Cuba's ruling class.
More hogwash. The ruling class didn't side with the J26M, at the very most they distanced themselves from Batista in his last days. Many of them weren't mad to see the strongman go, but that's a far different thing than being a member of the J26M. The US certainly didn't have "a great deal of support for the rebels"...many in the US did, but the US government never supported the J26M in any significant manner. Just because they withdrew support from Batista (because the J26M fooled them) means little in this regard.

That Fidel didn't out himself as a communist in order to protect the Revolution from imperialist influence is only a testament to his leadership. The US imperialists got played like a five dollar banjo, and that's why the Revolution survives to this day. The imperialists were put in the dark as long as possible, which is the first rule of any warfare, class warfare included.

The Bolsheviks were heavily supported by non-workers, and even received some support from the German Empire. Are you going to condemn them as well? Didn't think so. Carry on.


lol. He's making perfect sense. That you don't recognize China for what it is - a bourgeois state - and that you actually believe that says a lot about your politics. You're a reformist and have no business calling yourself a Marxist-Leninist.:lol: If only saying it made it true. More Hoxhaist "materialism"! Go on, tell me why the PRC is bourgeois because of where they put their portraits. Do Hoxha proud.

[Gustav HK]

:lol: If only saying it made it true. More Hoxhaist "materialism"! Go on, tell me why the PRC is bourgeois because of where they put their portraits. Do Hoxha proud.

Yeah, it isn´t like they have a large income gap, market dominated economy with many private owned corporations, and capitalists in the C"C"P

[Nolan]

More hogwash. The ruling class didn't side with the J26M, at the very most they distanced themselves from Batista in his last days. Many of them weren't mad to see the strongman go, but that's a far different thing than being a member of the J26M. The US certainly didn't have "a great deal of support for the rebels"...many in the US did, but the US government never supported the J26M in any significant manner. Just because they withdrew support from Batista (because the J26M fooled them) means little in this regard.

If by distanced you mean imposed an arms embargo which crippled the military during a major insurrection and verbally supported the rebels then yeah, they "distanced" themselves.

And yes, the J26M was supported by most Cubans of all classes. It was as full of far-rightists as it was ostensibly Marxist commanders like Che. Americans also participated.


That Fidel didn't out himself as a communist in order to protect the Revolution from imperialist influence is only a testament to his leadership. The US imperialists got played like a five dollar banjo, and that's why the Revolution survives to this day. The imperialists were put in the dark as long as possible, which is the first rule of any warfare, class warfare included.Alright, prove to me Castro was any sort of "communist" before he declared it one fine morning. Because if my memory serves me correctly, he said the opposite.



The Bolsheviks were heavily supported by non-workers, and even received some support from the German Empire. Are you going to condemn them as well? Didn't think so. Carry on.I was unaware "surprise communism" was a tactic used by the Bolsheviks.

The comparison here is stupid because the Bolsheviks and the Germans only had one thing in common - they wanted Russia out of the war.

And yes, peasants supported them. :rolleyes: Now tell us how that's similar to taking money from alcohol and cigar barons who want you to seize power.


:lol: If only saying it made it true. More Hoxhaist "materialism"! Go on, tell me why the PRC is bourgeois because of where they put their portraits. Do Hoxha proud.What?

[manic expression]

If by distanced you mean imposed an arms embargo which crippled the military during a major insurrection and verbally supported the rebels then yeah, they "distanced" themselves.
Batista was becoming a liability. Since the J26M had successfully kept the imperialists in the dark, they thought it would be a wash to see Batista go. That's part of how Fidel and the revolutionaries of Cuba fooled imperialism and created socialism. I don't see why you're trying to demean that.


And yes, the J26M was supported by most Cubans of all classes. It was as full of far-rightists as it was ostensibly Marxist commanders like Che. Americans also participated.
Just like the Bolsheviks were by late 1917 (Americans even participated...which I guess means it's un-socialist; some internationalist you are).


Alright, prove to me Castro was any sort of "communist" before he declared it one fine morning. Because if my memory serves me correctly, he said the opposite.
Of course he said the opposite, he understood the foolishness of non-Marxists. Lacking the insight of materialist analyses, non-Marxists take words at face value instead of looking at actions and real-world dynamics. That's a big reason why the Cuban Revolutionaries were able to play the imperialists like a cheap violin.


I was unaware "surprise communism" was a tactic used by the Bolsheviks.
"Communism" wasn't a widely used label at that point, nor was it a death sentence for anyone the US could get their hands on.


The comparison here is stupid because the Bolsheviks and the Germans only had one thing in common - they wanted Russia out of the war.
And the J26M and US imperialism came to have one thing in common...they both wanted Batista out of the country. I await your condemnation of the Bolsheviks.


And yes, peasants supported them. :rolleyes: Now tell us how that's similar to taking money from alcohol and cigar barons who want you to seize power.
It's similar to taking aid from German imperialists who want you to seize power. Again, I await your condemnation of the Bolsheviks, lest you continue in your inconsistency.


What?
That was Hoxha's reasoning for why the DPRK was un-socialist...they didn't put portraits at the right angle. A stunning example of Hoxha's "materialism", which is otherwise known as childish antics with paper-thin arguments.

[Nolan]

Batista was becoming a liability. Since the J26M had successfully kept the imperialists in the dark, they thought it would be a wash to see Batista go. That's part of how Fidel and the revolutionaries of Cuba fooled imperialism and created socialism. I don't see why you're trying to demean that.

At least you cede the point. That's a start. Hell soon you just might be a recovering revisionist.


Just like the Bolsheviks were by late 1917 (Americans even participated...which I guess means it's un-socialist; some internationalist you are).Yes the Bolsheviks had to allow people with questionable politics into positions in the military. But doing that while being open Marxist revolutionaries is quite different from being a commander in a generic rebel army and denying being a communist. You draw the dumbest comparisons.

By Americans I am referring to people who were for all practical purposes mercenaries. There were plenty of them.



Of course he said the opposite, he understood the foolishness of non-Marxists. Lacking the insight of materialist analyses, non-Marxists take words at face value instead of looking at actions and real-world dynamics. That's a big reason why the Cuban Revolutionaries were able to play the imperialists like a cheap violin.You mean like you take Cuba's claim to Marxism at face value. Again, prove to me Castro was a communist before.


"Communism" wasn't a widely used label at that point,Moot point.


nor was it a death sentence for anyone the US could get their hands on.So there was no imperialist threat to the revolution? How on earth were they not at a greater threat of imperialist intervention, and how does your fantasy narrative about Cuba explain that?


And the J26M and US imperialism came to have one thing in common...they both wanted Batista out of the country.Among other things.


It's similar to taking aid from German imperialists who want you to seize power. Not really.


That was Hoxha's reasoning for why the DPRK was un-socialist...they didn't put portraits at the right angle. A stunning example of Hoxha's "materialism", which is otherwise known as childish antics with paper-thin arguments.Do you really think that's why Hoxha didn't see them as Marxist-Leninists?

[manic expression]

At least you cede the point. That's a start. Hell soon you just might be a recovering revisionist.
Ah, so that's how you ended up where you are. Accepting that only a "higher power" (aka your hero Hoxha) can save you from applying materialist analyses. Interesting.


Yes the Bolsheviks had to allow people with questionable politics into positions in the military. But doing that while being open Marxist revolutionaries is quite different from being a commander in a generic rebel army and denying being a communist. You draw the dumbest comparisons.You only think the comparison is "dumb" because you don't understand the importance of local conditions. I've already explained quite clearly why the J26M couldn't openly declare themselves to be Marxists and expect to survive. And yet you continue to squawk the same rhetoric long after it's been debunked.

I await your condemnation of the Bolsheviks.


By Americans I am referring to people who were for all practical purposes mercenaries. There were plenty of them.:rolleyes: Yes, it was just a Blackwater outfit.


You mean like you take Cuba's claim to Marxism at face value. Again, prove to me Castro was a communist before. Hardly. Cuba has been shaped by Marxism because of the society it had and has today. As for Fidel, his actions show him to be a communist. You're the one who cares more about the angle of portraits than about social relations.


Moot point.It is not. "Communism" meant something far different in 1917 than it did in 1957. In the former, it basically meant a flavor of Social Democrat; in the latter, it meant US imperialism would try to destroy you as quickly as possible. But I'm glad you think that's "moot". That's what we call conceding the point.


So there was no imperialist threat to the revolution? How on earth were they not at a greater threat of imperialist intervention, and how does your fantasy narrative about Cuba explain that?There was, of course, but only after the imperialists figured out what was being carried out in the former Russian Empire. Most importantly, the Bolsheviks pulled Russia out of the war, at which point the imperialists were out for blood...it wasn't because they called themselves communists before that point, though.


Among other things.Among nothing. But I appreciate your overactive imagination.


Not really.Right...because you said so. Typical Hoxhaist nonsense.


Do you really think that's why Hoxha didn't see them as Marxist-Leninists?It's pretty much the best piece of evidence he could come up with, which should tell you how materialist his ideology is.

[Red_Struggle]

That Fidel didn't out himself as a communist in order to protect the Revolution from imperialist influence is only a testament to his leadership. The US imperialists got played like a five dollar banjo, and that's why the Revolution survives to this day. The imperialists were put in the dark as long as possible, which is the first rule of any warfare, class warfare included.

Fidel actually wanted to meet with the U.S. President of the day (I think it was Eisenhower, could be wrong), but he decided to play golf instead of meet with the new Cuban president. When that failed, he appealed to the other superpower and he had more success.


The Bolsheviks were heavily supported by non-workers, and even received some support from the German Empire. Are you going to condemn them as well?

That's a pretty different situation. The Germans let Lenin and the others return to Russia in hopes of ousting Russia from World War 1, thus clearing room for German expansion eastword. Of course, the territories gained during the Czarist times were (mostly) restored and the versailles treaty fit into place.

As for the Cuban economy, do you know how it is run? Under Fidel, each enterprise was considered its own entity and the amount of centralized credit handed out by the state was determined by the amount of capital brought in. Of course, this leads management to report overfulfilled quotas in order to acquire bonuses, etc. A socialist economy, on the other hand, recognizes each enterprise as an inter-connected system of production, utilizing cross-subsidization and placing large emphasis on the production of the means of production, stimulating quanitative and qualitiative growth in the most viable method possible.
Fidel's economic policies is something Che criticized him for.

"I have always considered Fidel to be an outstanding leader of the Leftist bourgeoisie." - Che

also:

"In Cuba there is nothing published, if one excludes the Soviet bricks, which bring the inconvenience that they do not let you think; the party did it for you and you should digest it. It would be necessary to publish the complete works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and other great Marxists. Here would come to the great revisionists (if you want you can add here Khrushchev), well analyzed, more profoundly than any others and also your friend Trotsky, who existed and apparently wrote something." - Che


More Hoxhaist "materialism"! Go on, tell me why the PRC is bourgeois because of where they put their portraits. Do Hoxha proud.

Just stop.

[Leo]

The EMEP is the public face of the TDKP, which is an ICMLPO participant. Which is actually a defunct organization, basically swallowed by EMEP.

Makes you wonder what sort of an organization the ICMLPO is and how active it really is doesn't it?


Ian Grey noted in his biography of Stalin that although the Bolsheviks did indeed publicly condemn such activity (the Mensheviks were using it to criticize the Bolsheviks), they still approved of it or tolerated it in private.Doubtful, speculative at least.


Stalin noted that the final victory of socialism in the USSR could not occur without the rise of workers states in several or more countries, not to mention the victory of communism worldwide. Yes, this is why he closed down the Comintern, of course and declared socialism has been built in the USSR.


Stalin viewed himself as having continued Lenin's line on this issue, more or less.I don't think he did. Not because he saw himself as an anti-Leninist, but because he, among with Zinoviev and Kamanev had built the dogma of Leninism previously. For this reason he and Bukharin could not oppose Lenin's line that socialism can't be built in a singe country and was destined to die if the revolution did not spread to other countries. For the same reason, Trotsky and Zinoviev couldn't criticize Lenin's ban on fractions which was still in effect, of course and which the Stalinist faction used to the end.


You've got your chronology mixed up. Yes, you are right. I was actually thinking previously rather than afterwards in relation to Poland.


First Nazi Germany invaded Poland (then the Soviets moved in once the Polish Government fled)The Soviets moved in more or less 15 days after the Germans, they met in the middle of Poland, and their officers fraternalized. Of course the invasion was jointly planned during the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations.


then the Winter War occurred when the Finnish Government refused to lease some ports to the USSR
then came the Soviets accusing the 3 Baltic bourgeois states of not adhering to the treaties they were more or less "forced" into signing, and thus the Soviets forced the resignation of each country's 3 governments.

Neither 3 actions could be called social-imperialist. Yeah, cause invading countries based on juridical excuses has got nothing to do with imperialism.


If by "super-exploitation" you mean self-sacrifices towards building the necessary industry, then yes. Well yes, of course, because in true socialism workers sacrifice themselves for their states. Just like chess.


Then came the "Stalin Constitution," More the Bukharin constitution actually.

Have you, by any chance, read Raskolnikov's open letter to Stalin?

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/red-army/1918/raskolnikov/ilyin/ch08.htm

Interested in what you think.


Except...

"It is obvious that we can learn a series of things from Trotsky’s thinking." - CheWhich does not show any affinity to Trotsky's thinking. Guevara did not hide his opinions of Trotsky, nor declared that he changed them, as quoted by previous users.


"...the terrible historical crime of Stalin: to have treated communist education with contempt and instituted the unlimited cult of authority." - CheWhich does not show change from how he regarded Stalin previously and remains simply a criticism of one aspect of his regime.


"Lenin clearly affirmed the universal character of the revolution, something which was subsequently denied.” - CheWhich does not show anything, as we have a Hoxhaists here who claims it was Khrushchev, not Stalin who abandoned the idea of the world revolution.


Is this the "marxism" of Lenin? 'Cause..

"The term ‘putsch’, in its scientific sense, may be employed only when the attempt at insurrection has revealed nothing but a circle of conspirators or stupid maniacs, and has aroused no sympathy among the masses." - LeninNo, this is not the marxism of Lenin. I think Lenin on this issue clearly carried a heavy substitutionist baggage. On this point, it is the marxism of Marx, and of Rosa Luxemburg:

"For Lenin, the difference between the Social Democracy and Blanquism is reduced to the observation that in place of a handful of conspirators we have a class-conscious proletariat. He forgets that this difference implies a complete revision of our ideas on organization and, therefore, an entirely different conception of centralism and the relations existing between the party and the struggle itself. Blanquism did not count on the direct action of the working class. It, therefore, did not need to organize the people for the revolution. The people were expected to play their part only at the moment of revolution. Preparation for the revolution concerned only the little group of revolutionists armed for the coup."


Is it the "marxism" of Lenin this time? 'Cause...

"The exploiters can be defeated at one stroke in the event of a successful uprising at the centre, or of a revolt in the army." - LeninA revolt in the army does not mean an armed group taking over here, nor does it mean a group of generals or officers making a coup d'etat. It means soldiers refusing orders and revolting against their officers, as they did in 1917.


Is this "marxism" anything Marx himself would recognize?

Marx recognized the European revolutions of his time. And of course, Marx did not live in the epoch of wars and revolutions - he lived in the epoch of the ascendancy of capitalism.


They weren't socialist but they were revolutions. Yes, revolutions of a another class against a different class though.


He also recognized that there were socialisms, each corresponding to different classes; not just proletarian socialism. Again, he lived in an epoch, during which the bourgeois state did not swallow all civil society.

[Ismail]

Doubtful, speculative at least."Lenin had no problem condoning armed robbery undertaken to raise money in Georgia; other means of fund raising, such as the later melting down or selling off of priceless church treasures, were in his eyes also totally justifiable." (Helen Rappaport, Joseph Stalin: A Biographical Companion, p. 164.)


Yes, this is why he closed down the Comintern, of course and declared socialism has been built in the USSR.Of course he made a distinction between the view that socialism had been built in the main and his view that final socialism still required world revolution. Hence his 1938 reply (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1938/01/18.htm) to an inquiry.

As for the Comintern:

"We now know that on 20 April 1941, at a closed dinner at the Bolshoi Theater, Stalin... [r]effering to the fact that the American Communists had disaffiliated from the Comintern in order to avoid prosecution under the Voorhis Act... declared,

'Dimitrov is losing his parties. That's not bad. On the contrary, it would be good to make the Com[munist] parties entirely independent instead of being sections of the CI. They must be transformed into national Com. parties under various names—Labor Party, Marxist Party, etc. The name doesn't matter. What is important is that they take root in their own people and concentrate on their own special tasks. The situation and tasks vary greatly from country to country, for instance in England and Germany, they are not at all the same. When the Com. parties get strong in this fashion, then you'll reestablish their international organization.'

Stalin continued:

'The [First] International was created in the days of Marx in anticipation of an early world revolution. The Comintern was created in the days of Lenin in a similar period. At present the national tasks for each country move into the forefront. But the status of Com. parties as sections of an international organization, subordinate to the Executive of the CI, is an obstacle.... Don't hold on to what was yesterday. Strictly take into account the newly created circumstances... Under present conditions, membership in the Comintern makes it easier for the bourgeoisie to persecute the Com. parties and accomplish its plan to isolate them from the masses in their own countries, while it hinders the Com. parties' independent development and task-solving as national parties.'"
(Alexander Dallin & Fridrikh I. Firsov. Dimitrov and Stalin: 1934-1943. Hew Haven: Yale University Press. 2000. pp. 226-227.)


The Soviets moved in more or less 15 days after the Germans, they met in the middle of Poland, and their officers fraternalized. Of course the invasion was jointly planned during the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations.http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html

On the German invasion of Poland I can also add the following:

"The Germans went beyond the line where they were to have stopped under a Soviet-German understanding. They crossed the Western Bug and San and entered the Western Ukraine and Western Byelorussia, annexed by Poland in 1921...

The Soviet operation alarmed the Nazi command, General Nicolaus von Vormann, a member of Hitler’s Headquarters, recalls in his memoirs. The Headquarters debated whether to come to blows with the Red Army or to bide its time and retreat. In the end, it decided on the latter course."
(G. Deborin. Secrets of the Second World War. Progress Publishers: Moscow. 1972. p. 43.)

Furthermore, on the territory that the Soviets annexed:

"The annexed territories did not belong to the core of the Polish state and did have an anti-Polish national liberation movement. Before the war, five million Ukrainians lived in Poland as an oppressed minority....

Compared to 1939, the Poland of 1945 was 20 percent smaller, but no matter how badly the war had hit German Pomerania and Silesia, the basic infrastructure there remained superior to that of the eastern Polish provinces lost to the USSR, and the three-hundred-mile-long Baltic Sea coast offered opportunities for new industries such as shipbuilding."
(Constantine Pleshakov. There Is No Freedom Without Bread! 1989 and the Civil War That Brought Down Communism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2009. pp. 30-31.)


Yeah, cause invading countries based on juridical excuses has got nothing to do with imperialism.The end of a bourgeois state is not imperialism, nor was self-determination harmed seeing as how the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians entered into the USSR as autonomous republics.

One of the relatively few quotes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/red-white/ch09.htm) of Trotsky I'd agree with: "We do not only recognize, but we also give full support to the principle of self-determination, wherever it is directed against feudal, capitalist and imperialist states. But wherever the fiction of self-determination, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, becomes a weapon directed against the proletarian revolution, we have no occasion to treat this fiction differently from the other 'principles' of democracy perverted by capitalism."

Also:

"While opposed by the majority of the population, an urban-based, activist left-wing minority welcomed the Red Army occupation and demanded Soviet power and incorporation into the USSR. This radical mood among sections of the population prompted Moscow to rethink its opposition to 'sovietisation'..."
(Geoffrey Roberts. Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953. London: Yale University Press. 2006. p. 56.)


Well yes, of course, because in true socialism workers sacrifice themselves for their states. Just like chess."The workers have made great sacrifices, they have suffered epidemics, and mortality among them has increased. But they will prove that the workers did not rise up against the capitalists out of vengeance, but with the inflexible determination to create a social system in which there will be no land-owners and capitalists. It was for the sake of this that these sacrifices were made. It was only because of those unparalleled sacrifices that were made consciously and voluntarily and, were backed up by the discipline of the Red Army, without recourse to old methods of discipline—it was only because of these tremendous sacrifices that the advanced workers were able to maintain their dictatorship and earned the right to the respect of the workers of the whole world. Those who are so eager to slander the Bolsheviks should not forget that the dictatorship entailed the greatest sacrifice and starvation on the part of the workers who were exercising it. During these two years the workers of Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Petrograd and Moscow suffered more than anybody fighting on the Red fronts did." - Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/01.htm), 1920.

"We must be prepared for inconveniences, hardships and sacrifices; we must be ready to break our habits and possibly our addictions as well, for the sole purpose of working a marked change and improvement in the economic state of the key industries. This must be done at all costs." - Lenin again (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/11.htm), 1920.


More the Bukharin constitution actually."One of the persistent rumors of Soviet history is that former oppositionists Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Radek played a decisive role in drafting the new constitution... archival documents do not support this assertion... their names do not appear very often in the documents... the drafts produced by Bukharin's and Radek's sub-commissions were rejected or changed by the editorial subcommission (of which they were not members) in the redaction that immediately followed theirs. Finally, neither Bukharin nor Radek were members of the ad hoc group (Iakovlev, Stetskii, Tal') that, with Stalin, produced the authoritative draft."
("State and Society Under Stalin: Constitutions and Elections in the 1930s," article by J. Arch Getty in Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), p. 22.)


Interested in what you think.My opinions have not changed.

[manic expression]

Fidel actually wanted to meet with the U.S. President of the day (I think it was Eisenhower, could be wrong), but he decided to play golf instead of meet with the new Cuban president. When that failed, he appealed to the other superpower and he had more success.
And Stalin (the guy next to your username) met with Eisenhower's predecessor.


That's a pretty different situation. The Germans let Lenin and the others return to Russia in hopes of ousting Russia from World War 1, thus clearing room for German expansion eastword. Of course, the territories gained during the Czarist times were (mostly) restored and the versailles treaty fit into place.A different situation with similar acts of cooperation out of convenience. The Germans wanted to knock Russia out of the war so they could focus their efforts on the western front. That advantage was counterbalanced by US entry into WWI. Nevertheless, Lenin still accepted aid from imperialists to further the cause of the workers. You of all should know that moral purity is nothing but an abstract ideal in revolutionary situations.


As for the Cuban economy, do you know how it is run? Under Fidel, each enterprise was considered its own entity and the amount of centralized credit handed out by the state was determined by the amount of capital brought in. Of course, this leads management to report overfulfilled quotas in order to acquire bonuses, etc. A socialist economy, on the other hand, recognizes each enterprise as an inter-connected system of production, utilizing cross-subsidization and placing large emphasis on the production of the means of production, stimulating quanitative and qualitiative growth in the most viable method possible.
Fidel's economic policies is something Che criticized him for.You're trying to project and split hairs. The Cuban economy is run through centralized planning (as you recognized), which means it does see all enterprises as an inter-connected system of production. Your only argument here is your own characterization, putting words in the mouth of the Cuban Revolution.


"I have always considered Fidel to be an outstanding leader of the Leftist bourgeoisie." - CheWithout context, this means nothing.


also:

"In Cuba there is nothing published, if one excludes the Soviet bricks, which bring the inconvenience that they do not let you think; the party did it for you and you should digest it. It would be necessary to publish the complete works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and other great Marxists. Here would come to the great revisionists (if you want you can add here Khrushchev), well analyzed, more profoundly than any others and also your friend Trotsky, who existed and apparently wrote something." - CheAgain, context? Fidel upholds the contributions of Stalin to the communist movement...why would this signify a decisive split with the Cuban Revolution?


Just stop.In all honesty, that's the only explanation I've seen for Hoxha condemning every communist he could think of. If you have a more rational explanation, don't hesitate to post it...but until then it's hardly unreasonable for me to observe the glaring lack of materialism present in Hoxha's antics.

[gorillafuck]

Kassad is just a pathetic troll.No he's not a troll. You on the other hand seem to troll quite a bit.:lol:

[Roach]

No he's not a troll.

Do you have any evidence on the presumed secret ritualistic orgies dedicated to Stalin organised by the APL and other ''Hoxhaist'' organisations ?

[Nolan]

You on the other hand seem to troll quite a bit.:lol:

Not well enough because if I did I would be a mod by now.

[MarxistMan]

I think that intellectuals who critisize Che Guevara so much do that out of envy. Che Guevara was a superman. And supermen almost never happen. I mean you don't get to see too many leftists today doing what Che Guevara did. And remember that humans are full of passions like greed, envy, jelousy, etc. Besides the world out there is a jungle, it's almost impossible to wage a perfect orthodox marxist workers revolution in poor countries like South America around the time of The Che.

"Behold, I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of the great tide, and return to the animals rather than overcome man? What is the ape to men? A laughing stock or a painful embarassment. And just so shall man be to the Superman: a laughing stock or a painful embarassment." -Thus Spoke Zarathustra


.


I could probably get a more effective theoretical analysis out of a piece of dog shit. Hoxha whined so much about how everyone in the world who wasn't himself was a revisionist that he practically only had enough spare time to build bunkers. Authentic socialism was achieved in Albania, much like it was achieved in countries across the globe, but that doesn't mean Hoxha's contributions to the socialist movement helped construct other socialist revolutions.

On the other hand, Che Guevara was one of the leaders of the Cuban Revolution -- a revolution that still stands today. He struggled in the streets, among the workers and amongst the oppressed peoples of Latin America. He attempted to build revolutionary movements in several other countries and he likely lived with a constant fear of death, yet his resolve was unshakable, as he sought to spread revolutionary internationalism across the globe. He was in the middle of revolutionary struggles and he eventually died fighting for the working class.

So sit back in your computer chair and talk to be about how Che Guevara was petty bourgeois. He's seen more struggle than your anti-communist ass likely ever will.

PS: Until the American Party of Labor exists anywhere besides on the internet, I don't care about your opinion whatsoever. I wouldn't have even typed up this response if I had seen that in the first place.

[Agent Ducky]

I think that intellectuals who critisize Che Guevara so much do that out of envy. Che Guevara was a superman. And supermen almost never happen. I mean you don't get to see too many leftists today doing what Che Guevara did. And remember that humans are full of passions like greed, envy, jelousy, etc. Besides the world out there is a jungle, it's almost impossible to wage a perfect orthodox marxist workers revolution in poor countries like South America around the time of The Che.

"Behold, I teach you the Superman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All creatures hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and do you want to be the ebb of the great tide, and return to the animals rather than overcome man? What is the ape to men? A laughing stock or a painful embarassment. And just so shall man be to the Superman: a laughing stock or a painful embarassment." -Thus Spoke Zarathustra


.

In layman's terms: Stop hating on Che, you're just jellybro.