Che knew Soviets would return to Capitalism

[CHE with an AK]

"Marx characterized the psychological or philosophical manifestation of capitalist social relations as alienation and antagonism; the result of the commodification of labor and the operation of the law of value. For Guevara, the challenge was to replace the individuals' alienation from the productive process, and the antagonism generated by class relations, with integration and solidarity, developing a collective attitude to production and the concept of work as a social duty."


— Helen Yaffe, author of Che Guevara: The Economics of Revolution



http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0230218202.01._SX240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

In Yaffe's excellent new book, she truly shows just how well Che had begun to understand Marxism in the years before his death. In Guevara's private writings from 1964 (since released), he displays his growing criticism of the Soviet political economy, believing that they had "forgotten Marx". This led Guevara to denounce a range of Soviet practices including what he saw as their attempt to "air-brush the inherent violence of class struggle integral to the transition from capitalism to socialism", their "dangerous" policy of peaceful co-existence with the United States, their failure to push for a "change in consciousness" towards the idea of work, and their attempt to "liberalise" the socialist economy. It was Guevara's desire to see the complete elimination of money, interest, commodity production, the market economy, and "mercantile relationships"; all conditions that the Soviets argued would only disappear when world communism was achieved. Disagreeing with this incrementalist approach, Guevara's critique of the Soviet Manual of Political Economy was encapsulated with him correctly predicting that since the Soviets were not willing to abolish the law of value (as Guevara desired), they would eventually return to capitalism.

[Geiseric]

I wonder if he knew this before or after he visited Stalin's grave.

[CHE with an AK]

I wonder if he knew this before or after he visited Stalin's grave.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be cute/smug here, but it was after.

Che visited Stalin's grave while on a state visit in November 1960 (usual protocol for the time). However, this "prediction" was 4 years later after Che had a falling out with the Soviets for an array of reasons - including the 1962 Missile Crisis when they pulled the nukes without Cuba's approval and because Che sided with the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet split in 1964-1965.

[flobdob]

I'm not sure if you're trying to be cute/smug here, but it was after.

I'm sure it's the latter.

An excellent book which covers Che's conception of the political economy of socialism - and certainly worth a read to understand the theory and practice influential to changes in the structure of Cuban socialism since the victory of the revolution. Glad somebody else has read it!

[Geiseric]

I wasn't trying to be either to be honest, i was actually wondering. did his personal politics change much after the split?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I wasn't trying to be either to be honest, i was actually wondering. did his personal politics change much after the split?

Probably not his personal politics, but his outlook on the whole situation must have been deeply affected, like everyone else.

Cuba hosted the Tri-Continental Congress in Havana, which isolated both the SSSR and the PRC from the Executive Secretariat, and instead included Cuba, DPRK, and North Vietnam. Cuba's response to the split was their initiative to become a new independent center, more dedicated to world revolution than either the SSSR or PRC. Of course they failed, but that's beside the point.

Contrary to a rather popular myth:


....and because Che sided with the Chinese in the Sino-Soviet split in 1964-1965.
neither Che or Fidel took sides. Instead they criticized them both.

In a 1965 speech, Fidel stated:


Without a doubt, the South Vietnamese people and the people of North Vietnam are suffering all this and suffering it in their own flesh, because there it is men and women who die, in the south and in the north, victims of the shrapnel and Yankee bombings. They do not have the slightest hesitancy in declaring that they intend to continue to carry all that out because not even the attacks against North Vietnam have resulted in overcoming the divisions in the bosom of the socialist family.

“And who can doubt that this division is encouraging the imperialists? Who can doubt that a united front against the imperialist enemy would have made them hesitate–would have made them think a little more carefully before launching their adventurist attacks and their increasingly more brazen intervention in that part of the world?

When we analyze the lonely situation of the Vietnamese people, we are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment of humanity.



U.S. imperialism is guilty of aggression — its crimes are enormous and cover the whole world. We already know all that, gentlemen! But this guilt also applies to those who, when the time came for a definition, hesitated to make Vietnam an inviolable part of the socialist world; running, of course, the risks of a war on a global scale-but also forcing a decision upon imperialism. And the guilt also applies to those who maintain a war of abuse and snares — started quite some time ago by the representatives of the two greatest powers of the socialist camp.



We must ask ourselves, seeking an honest answer: is Vietnam isolated, or is it not? Is it not maintaining a dangerous equilibrium between the two quarrelling powers? Message to the Tri-Continental


The book does seem interesting though. i'm not interested in getting it simply because someone is proclaiming the "Che knew" :rolleyes: about the Soviets and their rather unfortunate economic tendencies; but because we rarely get an economic perspective from Che in most of his other works.

[flobdob]

Contrary to a rather popular myth:


neither Che or Fidel took sides. Instead they criticized them both.

While it's certainly true to say that Che and Fidel didn't explicitly "take sides" in the Sino-Soviet split, that's not to say that they didn't hold positions which put them in contrast at points to one or the other side, or even both. On his tours of the socialist countries for example we know that Che expressed particular fondness for the DPRK and the PRC - however, this is within the context of the dual emphasis on creative experimentation, but ensuring the unity of the socialist bloc to strengthen the fight against imperialism. Chapter 9 of Yaffe's book deals with this when discussing Che's Critique of the Soviet Manual of Political Economy. In lieu of anything else I think it's worth quoting a selection of what Yaffe writes here:

In some ways what most irritated Guevara was the absence of a forum for international debate on the political economy of transition to socialism. By the early 1960s, the Sino-Soviet split formed a vociferous backdrop which reverberated through communist parties around the world, not least in Latin America, compounding existing divisions between so-called Trotskyists and Stalinists. Within Cuba, debate and comparative experimentation had been encouraged. But outside Cuba, Guevara's critical analysis had led to accusations that he was variously a revisionist, a Trotskyist and a Maoist, name-calling which he regarded as dangerous politicking, machinations aimed to disrupt the tenuous fraternity of socialist countries and censure debate....Consequently, explained Guevara, he was accused of factionalism, in an environment in which competing interpretations had become a bitter and violent fight resulting in the refusal to recognise different opinions.



The book does seem interesting though. i'm not interested in getting it simply because someone is proclaiming the "Che knew" :rolleyes: about the Soviets and their rather unfortunate economic tendencies; but because we rarely get an economic perspective from Che in most of his other works.

The book isn't really about Che predicting the fall of the USSR. Rather, it is about Che's contribution to the political economy of socialism; it covers his roles and work in MININD and the National Bank, his involvement in the "great debate" and his contributions to theory of the political economy of socialism. In this respect it's got a lot of parallels with Brun and Hersh's brilliant book on the DPRK, but obviously more focused on Che in particular rather than Cuba as a whole. Perhaps most useful of all is the final chapter which assesses the legacy of Che, the BFS and so on in Cuba today - it gives a nice potted history of changes in the Cuban economy and is definately worth a read in the context of recent adjustments. I'd definately recommend it!

[mykittyhasaboner]

The book isn't really about Che predicting the fall of the USSR. Rather, it is about Che's contribution to the political economy of socialism; it covers his roles and work in MININD and the National Bank, his involvement in the "great debate" and his contributions to theory of the political economy of socialism......

This is what i meant, and exactly why im going to get this book. Thanks for the recommendation!

[Rakhmetov]

He was reading Trotsky in the last years before he died. :D

[Fopeos]

I'll have to read that. I've read Carlos Tablada's "economics and politics in the transition to socialism" in which Che's short and long-term economic goals are outlined. He also points out that many pro-soviet functionaries within Cuba's ministry of industry actively opposed and later reversed many of Che's programs. With Che gone, Cuba's economy was brought into line with the Russian system which, in my opinion, has impeded Cuba's developement both politically and economically

[flobdob]

He was reading Trotsky in the last years before he died. :D

He was also reading Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung. Indeed, marginal notes he took on the soviet manual of political economy indicate stuff as diverse as Lin Piao and Paul Sweezy were being read by Che at the same time. This isn't suprising, as he was very much determined to research, experiment and challenge given assumptions as part of a debate and discussion into the transition to socialism.

That doesn't make him a Trotskyist, a Maoist, or a Monthly-Review-ist though.