Che Guevera [Archive]

CHE with an AK

30th July 2011, 11:01

"Che is not only an intellectual, he was the most complete human being of our time."
— Jean Paul Sartre

The first faulty assumption of your question, is to look at Che as primarily being a Marxist "theorist", when he was more of a practitioner of and revolutionary fighter for Marxism. Not everyone can work on the “owner’s manual”, some have to actually build the “product”. In addition to being a Marxist revolutionary, Che was also a talented writer (authored dozens of books, diaries & essays), theorist of guerrilla warfare, internationalist statesman, self-taught economist, medical physician, and poetic intellectual who wrote some of the most impassioned pleas for battling against imperialism that you will ever read.

So, what are some of the things that he did?

Che Guevara:

- Traveled the length of South America and worked in a Leper colony where he treated lepers (as seen in the excellent film/memoir ‘The Motorcycle Diaries’).

- Was radicalized from living in Guatemala during the 1953 overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz by the CIA (Operation PBSUCCESS) on behalf of Secretary of State Dulles and the United Fruit Company. He tried to no avail to organize a resistance in the streets as U.S. planes bombed and strafed the capital city.

- Was named "the best guerrilla of them all" by their instructor General Bayo, despite having crippling asthma, during their training for invading Cuba.

- Tended to numerous sick campesinos in the Sierra Maestra as both a doctor and even at times as a dentist.

- Set up factories to make grenades, built ovens to bake bread, taught new recruits about tactics, organized schools to teach illiterate campesinos to read and write, established health clinics, workshops to teach military tactics, a newspaper to disseminate information, and set up the Radio Rebelde station – All as a guerrilla fighter in the Sierra Maestra.

- Won the Battle of Santa Clara where his men were outnumbered 10:1.

- Played a pivotal role in the victorious two year guerrilla campaign that deposed the Batista regime, rising from medic to second in command behind only Fidel Castro.

- Helped remove the Mafia and U.S.-backed dictatorship of Batista from Cuba which had killed 20,000 Cubans and tortured thousands more. He also saw to it that a few hundred of the worst war criminals received revolutionary justice by firing squad.

- Stopped American companies from owning 70 % of the arable land in Cuba and 1% of the Cuban population from controlling 46 % of the wealth.

- Helped spearhead a nationwide literacy campaign in Cuba, which brought the national literacy rate from 60 to 97 % in 1 year.

- Instituted agrarian reform as minister of industries and broke up the large estates, served as both national bank president and instructional director for Cuba’s armed forces, and traversed the globe to 40 + countries as a diplomat on behalf of Cuban socialism.

- Trained the militia forces who repelled the Bay of Pigs Invasion and brought the Soviet nuclear-armedballistic missiles to Cuba which won the agreement from Kennedy that the U.S. would never invade the island again.

- Composed a seminal manual on guerrilla warfare, which is still studied by military academies and insurgents all around the world even today. He also created his own military theory of Focalism (Foco Theory), which describes how rural peasants can utilize guerrilla warfare and class consciousness to overthrow a urban based dictatorship.

- Desegregated the schools and universities in Cuba before they were in the Southern U.S.

- Called out South Africa’s Apartheid in 1964 to the U.N., 30 years before the West!

- Denounced the racism and KKK in America in the 1960’s and denounced Patrice Lumumba’s assassination by the Belgians/CIA on the World stage.

- Warned of the dangers of the IMF, 3 decades before most of the developing world realized they had been scammed into debt slavery.

- Fought white mercenaries in the African Congo with an all black army in 1964.

- Battled 3 U.S.-backed dictators on 3 separate continents (Batista/Cuba, Mobutu/Congo, & Barrientos/Bolivia).

- Spoke out against US and eventually USSR Imperialism while demanding that the poor of the world be allowed to live a life of dignity.

- Gave his life to help bring down capitalism, imperialism, and neocolonialism by leaving a bourgeoisie comfortable life of the upper class, a potential well compensated career as a medical doctor, and a high regarded governmental position, each time to slog through the jungle and fight guerrilla wars against impenetrable odds. In fact, near the end it took 1,800 Bolivian and CIA assisted rangers to bring down his 25 men.

"Above all, always be capable of feeling most deeply any injustice committed against anyone in the world. That is the most beautiful quality in a revolutionary."
— Che’s last words to his children in a farewell letter

pluckedflowers

30th July 2011, 11:09

Are theoretical contributions the only reason to have respect for a revolutionary? I'm no expert on Che or his writings, but this was a man who dedicated, and sacrificed, his life for the emancipation of others. And, in Cuba, at least, his dedication helped secure the liberation of an entire nation. Even if he didn't make some grand theoretical contribution, is this really not enough?

CHE with an AK

30th July 2011, 11:16

why is he so revered
"Che’s life is an inspiration for every human being who loves freedom, we will always honor his memory."
— Nelson Mandela

"Che was not only a heroic fighter, but a revolutionary thinker, with a political and moral project and a system of ideas and values for which he fought and gave his life. The philosophy which gave his political and ideological choices their coherence, color, and taste was a deep revolutionary humanism. For Che, the true Communist, the true revolutionary was one who felt that the great problems of all humanity were his or her personal problems, one who was capable of feeling anguish whenever someone was assassinated, no matter where it was in the world, and of feeling exultation whenever a new banner of liberty was raised somewhere else."
— Michael Löwy, author of The Marxism of Che Guevara

"There was no person more feared by the CIA than Che Guevara because he had the capacity and charisma necessary to direct the struggle against the political repression of the traditional hierarchies in power in the countries of Latin America."
— Philip Agee, CIA Agent

RadioRaheem84

30th July 2011, 17:20

OhYesIdid

30th July 2011, 17:31

Silly american kids wear his face on a T-shirt without knowing what he was about, but that should not disqualify him as a role model for us all. My dad has even gone as far as to call him "the red christ." (he was being sarcastic, but I think it holds, even though Jesus Christ is already a red christ).

The Dark Side of the Moon

30th July 2011, 17:32

thanks for the information

TheCuriousJournalist

30th July 2011, 17:43

Could you possibly provide some easily accessible sources for this info? I'm going to use some of it for a publication so..

Comrade Trotsky

30th July 2011, 18:08

Could you possibly provide some easily accessible sources for this info? I'm going to use some of it for a publication so..

There is an entire section dedicated to Che around here somewhere.. Couldn't tell you where, though. I think it might be in history.

Che was a dedicated revolutionary and an all around good guy from what I'v read. He worked side by side with the workers that he fought for, never putting himself above any of them.

Alot of this "Che Hate" comes from the fact that all of the high school tweeny commies and campus hipsters like to sport his face on their shirt without really knowing too much about him, so alot of people on the left scoff at, not the idea of this, but (wrongly) at Che himself. It would seem that Che-Bashing has gotten to be more of a hipster thing and a sign of complete ignorace than anything else, these days.

Tommy4ever

30th July 2011, 18:10

I wasn't Che bashing myself, I appreciate that he was a good revolutionairy. But some people tend to treat him like the messiah. :glare:

Fulanito de Tal

30th July 2011, 18:11

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h111/durancm/Museum%20of%20the%20Revolution/DSCF1561.jpg

'The life of only one human being is worth a million more times that all of the properties of the richest person on the planet'

Comrade Trotsky

30th July 2011, 18:12

I wasn't Che bashing myself, I appreciate that he was a good revolutionairy. But some people tend to treat him like the messiah. :glare:

I feel ya. I have a Che poster on my wall, but that was a gift that I'v had for years.

I don't think I would ever buy any little Che key chains or shirts, because that just seems silly.

CHE with an AK

31st July 2011, 00:01

An upper middle class white medical doctor who gave up his comfortable life in the urban Buenos Aires to fight for the emancipation of other nations from colonialism.
If any user hasn’t seen the excellent film The Motorcycle Diaries (about Che’s transformative youthful travels through Latin America), I would highly recommend it ...

7u0U3dbVMHk

"After graduation, due to special circumstances and perhaps also to my character, I began to travel throughout America, and I became acquainted with all of it. Except for Haiti and Santo Domingo, I have visited, to some extent, all the other Latin American countries. Because of the circumstances in which I traveled, first as a student and later as a doctor, I came into close contact with poverty, hunger and disease; with the inability to treat a child because of lack of money; with the stupefaction provoked by the continual hunger and punishment, to the point that a father can accept the loss of a son as an unimportant accident, as occurs often in the downtrodden classes of our American homeland. And I began to realize at that time that there were things that were almost as important to me as becoming a famous or making a significant contribution to medical science: I wanted to help those people."

— Che Guevara, August 19, 1960
http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1960/08/19.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1960/08/19.htm)

Aspiring Humanist

31st July 2011, 00:15

Yeah so this is what I mean by idol worship

CHE with an AK

31st July 2011, 02:14

Could you possibly provide some easily accessible sources for this info? I'm going to use some of it for a publication
A good deal of it is derived from the 3 Main Biographies on Che Guevara: (1) Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson, (2) The Life and Death of Che Guevara by Jorge G. Castaneda, and (3) Guevara, Also Known as Che by Paco Ignacio Taibo II.

Other information stems from different Che-related books and news articles (read over the years), and should be easily found through a keyword google search. If you need a reference for a specific bullet point, then feel free to private message me and I'll be glad to help a comrade out.

There is an entire section dedicated to Che around here somewhere

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ernesto-che-guevara-f13/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ernesto-che-guevara-f13/index.html)

:cubaflag: :che: :cubaflag:

campus hipsters like to sport his face on their shirt without really knowing too much about him
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Flags_of_the_world_with_Che.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Flags_of_the_world_with_Che.jpg)
"I don’t disdain the impact of Che as a romantic image, especially among newly radicalized youth in the United States and Western Europe; if the glamour of Che’s person, the heroism of his life, and the pathos of his death, are useful to young people in strengthening their disaffiliation from the life-style of American imperialism and in advancing the development of a revolutionary consciousness, so much the better."
— Susan Sontag

:star3:

RED DAVE

31st July 2011, 02:18

Whatever else he may have been, he wasn't a Marxist. Marxists base their theory of revolution on the working class. Societies that Marxists create are based on the revolutionary democratic power of the working class and are based on workers control of industry.

That's not was Che did. He can best be compared to the great Latin American bourgeois revolutionaries, such as Bolivar as opposed to Lenin.

RED DAVE

AnonymousOne

31st July 2011, 02:23

I think Che Guevara is a pretty cool guy, eh kills reactionaries and doesn't afraid of anything

Tim Cornelis

31st July 2011, 02:27

There are leftists in here that find some redeemable qualities in old classical liberals from the Enlightenment era, who stood around and wrote scathing critiques of the Church and Monarchy from their desks, while workers fought for liberal freedom BUT Che-bashing among the left is hip because so many teenagers bear his image on their t-shirts?

Che was a revolutionary hero and among the most self sacrificial men out there to the cause of freedom and socialism. An upper middle class white medical doctor who gave up his comfortable life in the urban Buenos Aires to fight for the emancipation of other nations from colonialism.

I mean good grief, even anarcho-capitalist nutjob Murray Rothbard sung his praises when he died because even he knew just how much a blow he struck to the Empire.

I think critique of Che has more to do with his strict discipline, authoritarian commands and replacing a dictatorship with another one in Cuba. Remember:

"Following the 1959 revolution, Cuba's communist government embarked upon a pervasive effort to rid the nation of homosexuality, which was seen as a product of a capitalist society. Through the 1960s and 1970s this campaign included the frequent imprisonment of lesbians and gays (particularly effeminate males) without charge or trial, and confinement to forced labor camps. This period was dramatically documented by the 1980s documentary "Improper Conduct", Reinaldo Arenas in his 1992 autobiography, Before Night Falls, as well as his fiction, most notably The Color of Summer and Farewell to the Sea. The criminal laws against homosexuality were gradually liberalized, starting in 1979."

This is the Cuba Che endorsed and established.

OhYesIdid

31st July 2011, 02:34

Cuba's communist government embarked upon a pervasive effort to rid the nation of homosexuality,

Wait, what government, at that time, was tolerant of homosexuality? This also happened in China, as far as I know, and it probably took place regularly in the USSR. Che was a hero, goddammit, you're not cool for trying to think around that fact.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 02:44

I think critique of Che has more to do with his strict discipline, authoritarian commands and replacing a dictatorship with another one in Cuba. Remember:

"Following the 1959 revolution, Cuba's communist government embarked upon a pervasive effort to rid the nation of homosexuality, which was seen as a product of a capitalist society. Through the 1960s and 1970s this campaign included the frequent imprisonment of lesbians and gays (particularly effeminate males) without charge or trial, and confinement to forced labor camps. This period was dramatically documented by the 1980s documentary "Improper Conduct", Reinaldo Arenas in his 1992 autobiography, Before Night Falls, as well as his fiction, most notably The Color of Summer and Farewell to the Sea. The criminal laws against homosexuality were gradually liberalized, starting in 1979."

This is the Cuba Che endorsed and established.

I think I read on a thread about that topic a few months ago that before and around the time of the Cuban revolution there was a sense of ''machoism'' in Latin American men. These views were shared by Che and Fidel to name two and by many more when Castro established his government in Cuba, I'd say that ideals like that have died off in modern Cuba with new generations being born.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 02:48

Wait, what government, at that time, was tolerant of homosexuality? This also happened in China, as far as I know, and it probably took place regularly in the USSR. Che was a hero, goddammit, you're not cool for trying to think around that fact.

Why does he have to accept Che as a hero? I do but by my own choice, if he doesn't agree with Che's ideals and legacy then let him be

Leftsolidarity

31st July 2011, 02:58

Why does he have to accept Che as a hero? I do but by my own choice, if he doesn't agree with Che's ideals and legacy then let him be

He doesn't have to but he doesn't have to try to shit on Che for reasons that were common standards for that time period.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 03:00

Did Che Guevera contribute any significant ideas to Marxist theory? If not, why is he so revered by so many leftists? I understand that he was a succesful revolutionary, but I don't get why that alone would make him so popular.

Focalism was inspired by Che, its really just revolution with a heavy emphasis on guerrilla warfare. After Che's murder the theory, to my knowledge, died out.
In the 1970's the People's Revolutionary Army tried to establish a foco in the Tucuman Province of Argentina but the movement was defeated by government forces

Sensible Socialist

31st July 2011, 03:02

He helped overthrow a dictator and is beautiful. I'm not sure which one is more important, but it's two good reasons why he is regarded as an imporant figure. For all the theory that has ever been written, a book has never torn down an oppressive government. People do that, and Che's actions speak louder than many words.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 03:12

He doesn't have to but he doesn't have to try to shit on Che for reasons that were common standards for that time period.

Capitalism and Imperialism were ''common standards'' at that time but did Che support them????? It doesn't matter what time period it was, homophobia is unacceptable. He's not trying to shit on Che, without his opposition this would be another thread that just advocates idol worship of Che and in the long haul achieves nothing, and that is what some posters are trying to say, idol worship is fucking stupid. Figures such as Trotsky, Stalin, Lenin, Mao & Che are idolized on this forum and I bet that there has been countless threads that have turned into tendency wars because of idol worship and revolutionaries speaking ill of different people's ''hero's''. Grow Up

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 03:14

Sensible Socialist

31st July 2011, 03:18

The Communist Manifesto ring any bells for you?????
I wasn't aware that the pages took up arms. That must have been an interesting battle.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 03:24

I wasn't aware that the pages took up arms. That must have been an interesting battle.

If I didn't know any better that was a very poor form of sarcasm or you're just being a troll, maybe both. Obviously books cannot take up arms, in a metaphorical sense they can but my point was that The Communist Manifesto inspired countless revolutionaries since it was first published, it took up arms against Capitalism by spreading knowledge and enlightening people. That was my point you sarcastic prick

Sensible Socialist

31st July 2011, 03:25

If I didn't know any better that was a very poor form of sarcasm or you're just being a troll, maybe both. Obviously books cannot take up arms, in a metaphorical sense they can but my point was that The Communist Manifesto inspired countless revolutionaries since it was first published, it took up arms against Capitalism by spreading knowledge and enlightening people. That was my point you sarcastic prick
Why did you need to quote my post to get that point across? I don't contradict it. I never said the written word can't inspire, but it will never substitute for physical actions and deeds, something words cannot do. Unlike theorists, Che went out and did the deed.

OhYesIdid

31st July 2011, 03:26

I wasn't aware that the pages took up arms. That must have been an interesting battle.

Come on, now, you both know what the other one is talking about.
I wasn't trying to be childish, but I do consider him a hero.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 03:27

I didn't say you were contradicting yourself, I usually reply to posts that way. I was pointing out that there was no need for your pathetic attempt at sarcasm

Sensible Socialist

31st July 2011, 03:28

I didn't say you were contradicting yourself, I usually reply to posts that way. I was pointing out that there was no need for your pathetic attempt at sarcasm
My bad, it's been a long day. I apologize.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 03:30

My bad, it's been a long day. I apologize.

Ok, lets agree to disagree on any differences we have, I just didn't expect a sarcastic reply without the little '':rolleyes:'' lol

Aspiring Humanist

31st July 2011, 03:31

I respect the hell out of Che and I recognize the amount of good he's done for the working people, however there is a line between revolutionary and deity and I don't think some of you know where that line is

CHE with an AK

31st July 2011, 04:42

strict discipline … authoritarian commands
There isn’t any other way to run a guerrilla army. Are you going to lead an ambush by committee and ratify all frontal assaults with a 2/3 majority vote. Join the real world.

Following the 1959 revolution, Cuba's communist government embarked upon a pervasive effort to rid the nation of homosexuality, which was seen as a product of a capitalist society. Through the 1960s and 1970s this campaign included the frequent imprisonment of lesbians and gays (particularly effeminate males) without charge or trial, and confinement to forced labor camps.
Historically revised and false horse shit. What actually occurred was that following the 1959 revolution and the Bay of Pigs CIA backed invasion, conscription into the Cuban military became mandatory for all Cuban youths. By 1965 (when Che had already resigned all of his Cuban posts and citizenship and left Cuba) the Cuban government established Military Units to Aid Production camps, commonly called UMAP’s because of their Spanish acronym (Unidades Militares para la Ayuda de Producción). These were basically boot camps where youths who were rejected for military service would serve their mandatory stint in the military by making weapons and supplies etc. Since homosexuals were banned in the armed forces at this time (like they were in the U.S. up until 2011) then homosexuals also served their military stints in these camps. However, Fidel learned about mistreatment of gays in the camps in 1968 and sent in undercover people to investigate, and after finding mistreatment shut them down. However, Che was killed in 1967, and had not even stepped foot in Cuba during his last 2 years alive.

This period was dramatically documented by the 1980s documentary "Improper Conduct", Reinaldo Arenas in his 1992 autobiography, Before Night Falls, as well as his fiction, most notably The Color of Summer and Farewell to the Sea.
Once again, total crap. The eventual Cuban-exile Arenas wasn’t even “outed” as being gay until 1967, the year Che was killed. However, Che left Cuba for good in 1965. Moreover, Arenas was not even incarcerated or arrested until 1973 – 6 years after Che had been shot and had his hands chopped off by the CIA. When Arenas was allowed to leave Cuba during the Mariel boatlift for being homosexual, that was in 1980.

As for Che’s views on homosexuality – yes he displayed the “Latin-American machismo” that was prevalent during his era, but the only time he writes about someone being gay in his diaries, is during his Motorcycle Diary where he describes a “poor man” as being “homosexual and a first-rate bore” but “very nice to us”. He didn’t use any epithet or derogatory term against the man - which would have almost been expected from someone with the antipathy you accuse him of. There is also a passage later as a guerrilla where Che talks about how he “would cease to be a man if he didn’t like women”, but shit, how many heterosexual men at some point in their life haven’t said something like this before around their heterosexual male friends? (especially in the 1960’s)?

So, next time you feel like dropping in some copy and paste uniformed libel against Che, I would suggest you make sure you know what in the hell you are talking about.

RadioRaheem84

31st July 2011, 04:49

I already wrote a whole post on Arenas in the history forum and provided links.

Everyone brings up the homosexual persecution but everyone also forgets the incredible progress Cuba has made in acknowledging it's mistakes yet people still acts like Cuba of today is the Cuba of 1970. The past should be denounced and documented but the movie Before Night Falls did a great dishonor by painting the image that the Cuba Arenas lived under is the same Cuba today without referencing the progress, leaving the audience to believe that Cuba is still persecuting homosexuals and under such strict military control, i.e. the totalitarian angle.

CommieTroll

31st July 2011, 05:12

Hasta la Victoria Siempre!

CHE with an AK

31st July 2011, 05:42

Che-Bashing has gotten to be more of a hipster thing and a sign of complete ignorace than anything else, these days.
Although true, don’t discount the concerted and well funded efforts by the Miami mafia of embittered Cuban-exiles to put all sorts of bullshit about Che into the right-wing media echo chamber. Their prime point man is the laughable clown/propagandist Humberto Fontova who literally writes about 1 anti-Che article a week, where he blatantly lies and ties every single topic back to how Che was in his view worse than Satan. Since his wealthy Papi was arrested for a short time after the revolution for being tied to Batista, and his cousin died in state custody, he has made it his career to smear Che, Fidel, and the Cuban Revolution full time. Sadly, a good deal of his weekly lies, get picked up and copy and pasted through the internet, to the point where you have them pop up on sites like this by ignorant posters who don’t know any better. He's also been on Faux News with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

Luckily, Jon Lee Anderson is the definitive researcher on matters related to Che, however the quack right-wing sites never ask for his view (or that of the other 50 + biographers who have written factual books on Che) – who these Faux News blogs usually seek out is either the aforementioned shit-kicker Fontova or his right-wing side kick, the smarmy little prick Álvaro Vargas Llosa, son of son of reactionary writer Mario Vargas Llosa.

He doesn't have to try to shit on Che
Didn’t you get the memo? You’re not a cool post-modern leftist “intellectual” unless you now bash all famous leftist revolutionaries and try and instead back the most obscure figure you can think of ...

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/HIpster-earplugs-150x150.jpg
"Like, once they make it on the radio, and sell out, it’s like, time to find a new gnarly garage band bro. So, don’t bogart my revolutionary though bro, it’s not cool, and might kill my killer buzz. I'm the only one who even knows who Julio Jackson III the 19th century one-legged communalist vegan from the Canary Islands is, and I'd like to keep it that way. He's the only real Anarchic-organic-communicalist and all others are 'the man' from Orwell's 1948 (sic). Lame posers and their Che posters pfft. He like, shot guns and ate meat and stuff. Plus he didn't recycle or support wind power. That's worse than buying a non-limited release vinyl record from a Co-Op. Not cool dude. It's about peace and stuff man. More hugs and seedy nugs is what the world needs."

AnonymousOne

31st July 2011, 05:52

In seriousness, I do admire Che. He was a great revolutionary leader, and I think the life he led was exemplary and inspirational. I think the Cuban revolution was on balance, a positive thing for the people of Cuba

However, my perception of him is always going to be tinged by the fact that I'd be living in an internment camp that he helped setup. Politics is always personal, and that feeling will always be there. Kind of the same reason I've never found myself all that enamored by Stalin or the later Soviet Union.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tim Cornelis

31st July 2011, 16:22

He doesn't have to but he doesn't have to try to shit on Che for reasons that were common standards for that time period.

Forced labour camps were common standards?

That is the Cuba Che endorsed.

RadioRaheem84

31st July 2011, 17:24

I feel like the ghost of Paul Berman's credibility has arisen here in this thread?

Comrade Trotsky

31st July 2011, 18:37

Forced labour camps were common standards?

That is the Cuba Che endorsed.

That's a mighty strong accusation there, comrade.

Source?

Leftsolidarity

31st July 2011, 18:46

Forced labour camps were common standards?

That is the Cuba Che endorsed.

No, homophobia (while terrible) was very common place for those times. I'm not excusing it but I am saying that you should not completely dismiss a great revolutionary because he was mildly homophobic.

I think Che With An AK already addressed what you are talking about though.

Tim Cornelis

31st July 2011, 19:42

No, homophobia (while terrible) was very common place for those times. I'm not excusing it but I am saying that you should not completely dismiss a great revolutionary because he was mildly homophobic.

I think Che With An AK already addressed what you are talking about though.

Well, you're right that I shouldn't dismiss someone or his political philosophy on a back then quite common 'phenomena', otherwise I should dismiss evolution theory, anarchism and Marxism as well. However, I cannot consider anyone a "hero" who actively supported and participated in a dictatorial government who sent people without trial to a forced labour camp, for whatever reason that may be.

My point an sich was not the Che was homophobic (I wouldn't call endorsing the purging Cuba of homosexuality "mildy homophobic"), but that he endorsed a dictatorial government.

Cuba was no workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat, it was a dictatorship of the Party. It was Stalinist, Che was Stalinistic.

That's a mighty strong accusation there, comrade.

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production

----------------------------------------------------------

I haven't heard or read anything significantly good Che has done.

Has didn't establish socialism. He didn't liberate anyone. What did he do to deserve such a good name? Rhetorically supporting socialism and dying in its name, but practically supporting state-capitalism?

He enforced strict discipline and ordered to shootings of many of his comrades he suspected of being disloyal, he killed one himself.

He also tried unsuccessfully to ban alcohol, rock music, pre-marital sex and whatnot in a city he had conquered (Sancti Spiritus).

But I suppose this is all post-modern pretentious petty-bourgeois leftism or something.

I simply do not consider anyone who does things like this heroic or admirable.

--------------------------------------------

As for the "CHE with an Ak47". How can you possibly say that homosexuals were not persecuted when even Fidel Castro admitted it happened and said in hindsight "it was a great injustice!" somewhere in 2010 or so?

CHE with an AK

31st July 2011, 19:53

My point an sich was not the Che was homophobic (I wouldn't call endorsing the purging Cuba of homosexuality "mildy homophobic"), but that he endorsed a dictatorial government.Cuba was no workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat, it was a dictatorship of the Party. It was Stalinist, Che was Stalinistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production I) I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production I) haven't heard or read anything significantly good Che has done. Has didn't establish socialism. He didn't liberate anyone. What did he do to deserve such a good name? Rhetorically supporting socialism and dying in its name, but practically supporting state-capitalism?He enforced strict discipline and ordered to shootings of many of his comrades he suspected of being disloyal, he killed one himself.He also tried unsuccessfully to ban alcohol, rock music, pre-marital sex and whatnot in a city he had conquered (Sancti Spiritus).But I suppose this is all post-modern pretentious petty-bourgeois leftism or something. simply do not consider anyone who does things like this heroic or admirable. As for the "CHE with an Ak47". How can you possibly say that homosexuals were not persecuted when even Fidel Castro admitted it happened and said in hindsight "it was a great injustice!" somewhere in 2010 or so?

5hfYJsQAhl0

Is someone going to ban this troll, or do I have to correct all of his lies in the above idiocy?

Tim Cornelis

31st July 2011, 20:13

5hfYJsQAhl0

Is someone going to ban this troll, or do I have to correct all of his lies in the above idiocy?

I hate people who cannot have arguments and resort to name calling, personal attacks, ad hominems, death treats. I have seen a few of your posts in discussions with several people before and they all contain the above.

I'm trying to respectfully put forward my views on the matter and am ready to stand corrected. You on the other hand seem to use the following "Law of the Internet": 'disagree with someone: call him a troll'.

Sad really how you cannot have a discussion on things without getting emotionally attached. If you have any arguments, please. I'm ready to stand corrected.

AnonymousOne

31st July 2011, 20:15

Is someone going to ban this troll, or do I have to correct all of his lies in the above idiocy?

Errr, what Goti said wasn't trolling. You may find what he said to be incorrect, but in that case the proper response would be to respond to his points. However, a lot of what he said is correct.For example Castro did take responsibility for the attempts to rid Cuba of Homosexuality; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11147157

There were several attempts during the 1960's and 1970's of attempting to reeducate and rehabilitate LGBTQ+ individuals, this ended in 1979 and modern Cuba is much, much more tolerant. But Goti is still correct.

CHE with an AK

31st July 2011, 20:36

what Goti said wasn't trolling. You may find what he said to be incorrect, but in that case the proper response would be to respond to his points. However, a lot of what he said is correct.
What would you call copy and pasting libel from right-wing hack propagandists then? Because much of his screed is word for word from the Humberto Fontova echo chamber?

As for correcting him, I already did the first time. However, he keeps posting unfounded bullshit about Che. I have no problem correcting him, but it would be nice if I didn’t have to devote so much time to correcting right-wing disinformation on a supposed revolutionary leftist site. And no he is not correct, the mistreatment of gays in UMAP camps began in 1965, by then Che was fighting a white mercenary army in the Congo. This thread is about Che (who was killed in 1967) not the treatment of gays in Cuba during the 1970's.

I'm trying to respectfully put forward my views on the matter and am ready to stand corrected.
No you are not, because I already corrected you’re nonsense about Arenas in a post on this thread, and yet you are now doubling down – without admitting that you were wrong. You are blaming Che for things that occurred years after he was killed and dumped in an unmarked grave by the CIA.

If you have any arguments, please. I'm ready to stand corrected.
Fine, I will work up another retort to your new post today. But it really would be helpful if you would fact check your assertions.

CommunityBeliever

31st July 2011, 20:38

Cuba was no workers' state or dictatorship of the proletariat, it was a dictatorship of the Party.

Yeah, Cuba was just a "dictatorship of the Party" and lets just ignore all of the countries achievements.

Che was StalinisticNo he wasn't because there is no such thing as a "Stalinistic."

I haven't heard or read anything significantly good Che has done.Read more then.

He did many things that were significantly good, like his work as a doctor, but you seem to ignore that.

Later on he dedicated his life to overthrowing capitalism, and the Cuban revolution which he participated in had enormous achievements (but you seem to ignore those as well).

He enforced strict disciplineSome discipline is needed in any successful revolutionary operation.

ordered to shootings of many of his comrades he suspected of being disloyal, he killed one himself.As far as I understand, the people that got executed got that because they abused the peasants or they committed some other serious crime not just that they were "suspected of being disloyal."

Forced labour camps were common standards?

That is the Cuba Che endorsed.

By that flawless logic we shouldn't support humanity, would you endorse a species that killed 60,000,000 million people in WW2?

You can lend support to something without believing in everyone of its deeds, which says nothing of the conditions of these "forced labor camps."

AnonymousOne

31st July 2011, 21:00

What would you call copy and pasting libel from right-wing hack propagandists then? Because much of his screed is word for word from the Humberto Fontova echo chamber?

As for correcting him, I already did the first time. However, he keeps posting unfounded bullshit about Che. I have no problem correcting him, but it would be nice if I didn’t have to devote so much time to correcting right-wing disinformation on a supposed revolutionary leftist site. And no he is not correct, the mistreatment of gays in UMAP camps began in 1965, by then Che was fighting a white mercenary army in the Congo. This thread is about Che (who was killed in 1967) not the treatment of gays in Cuba during the 1970's.

The problem I have is that it's not just the forced labor camps, but rather the attitude that the Cuban revolutionaries had towards LGBTQ+ people, for example Fidel Castro said,

"we have never believed that an homosexual could personify the character and behavior required to regard him as a true revolutionary, a real communist. This type of deviation crashes with our concept of a communist partisan. But, above all, I don't believe that anybody could have a definite answer about the causes of homosexuality. I think we should treat this problem carefully. But I'll be sincere and tell you that homosexuals should not be allowed to occupy functions where they could influence the youth. ... In the present state of affairs, we must instill in our youth the spirit of discipline, of self-sacrifice and hard work. This attitude might not be the correct one, but it is our sincere opinion on the issue".

http://www.lajiribilla.cu/2001/n1_abril/021_6.html

In the Motorcycle Diaries, Che writes,

“The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto.”

So, no, Che personally didn't incarcerate gays, but he did have homophobic attitudes, that clearly helped define Cuba's policy towards homosexuals.

Tim Cornelis

31st July 2011, 21:02

Tim Cornelis

31st July 2011, 21:28

Yeah, Cuba was just a "dictatorship of the Party" and lets just ignore all of the countries achievements.

No he wasn't because there is no such thing as a "Stalinistic."

Indeed, there is no such thing as a Stalinistic. However, there is being Stalinistic, it's someone who has Stalinist tendencies. Someone who has anarchist tendencies, is anarchic--but an anarchic does not exist, no.

He did many things that were significantly good, like his work as a doctor, but you seem to ignore that.

I do not dispute that he worked as a doctor, but that's not what I meant. People admire Che as a revolutionary and as a revolutionary he did not accomplish anything--unless you want to count establishing a state-capitalist tyranny.

Later on he dedicated his life to overthrowing capitalism, and the Cuban revolution which he participated in had enormous achievements (but you seem to ignore those as well).

No I didn't ignore that. Che fought to establish state capitalism and he also seemed to be a nationalist as evidenced things like crying out "Viva la Cuba!"

Some discipline is needed in any successful revolutionary operation.

Does that include the death penalty for desertion, suspected malingers and insubordinates?

As far as I understand, the people that got executed got that because they abused the peasants or they committed some other serious crime not just that they were "suspected of being disloyal."

In certain cases, yes. But not all.

By that flawless logic we shouldn't support humanity, would you endorse a species that killed 60,000,000 million people in WW2?

You can lend support to something without believing in everyone of its deeds

No and yes. One can advocate Leninism, Hoxhaism and Stalinism and simultaneously being disgusted by the crimes/atrocities (whatever) committed by these individuals--although this is seemingly rare. If their theories are correct their personality is irrelevant. However, I'm talking about idolizing and adoring Che Guevara as a person, not as a theorist.

which says nothing of the conditions of these "forced labor camps."

You get forcefully sent to a concentration camp, but at least you have a comfortable bed, aye.

CommunityBeliever

31st July 2011, 21:42

Indeed, there is no such thing as a Stalinistic. However, there is being Stalinistic, it's someone who has Stalinist tendencies. Someone who has anarchist tendencies, is anarchic--but an anarchic does not exist, no.There is no such thing as a "Stalinist" or "Stalinistic tendencies" these are just used as smear words.

Nobody seriously calls themselves a "Stalinist."

I do not dispute that he worked as a doctor, but that's not what I meant. People admire Che as a revolutionary and as a revolutionary he did not accomplish anything--unless you want to count establishing a state-capitalist tyranny.Oh so he didn't accomplish "a thing"? Really?

He fought against the incredibly corrupt Batista regime and he established an anti-imperialist state that opposed the U.S and that greatly improved literacy and health care. Relative to what preceded it, the revolutionary government was a drastic improvement

The Cuban revolution was a success so don't give me this "didn't accomplish a thing" nonsense.

No I didn't ignore that. Che fought to establish state capitalismChe never fought to establish state capitalism, he was a communist and an anti-revisionist, he fought to establish communism.

he also seemed to be a nationalist as evidenced things like crying out "Viva la Cuba!" I see that your flawless logic is at work again. If someone says a phrase such as "Viva la Cuba" that makes them a nationalist.

You get forcefully sent to a concentration camp, but at least you have a comfortable bed, aye.
Does that include the death penalty for desertion, suspected malingers and insubordinates?Show me examples of these things.

No and yes. One can advocate Leninism, Hoxhaism and Stalinism and simultaneously being disgusted by the crimes/atrocities (whatever) committed by these individuals--although this is seemingly rare.What?

Tommy4ever

31st July 2011, 21:59

I'm not sure what is worse in this thread. The couple of people clutching desperately at every straw with which to attack Che or ''Che with an AK'' 's petulence in confronting any criticism of his sacred idol.

CommunityBeliever

31st July 2011, 22:21

Giving an honest criticism of Che is one thing, but the criticisms in this thread are another thing entirely and they make CHE with an AK's "petulence" not entirely unwarranted.

Che is a nationalist?! I guess that would make him an African nationalist because he dedicated part of his life to revolution in the Congo and a Chinese nationalist for supporting Mao in the Sino-Soviet split, and obviously a Cuban nationalist ...

Che didn't accomplish anything significantly good? So I guess you are just ignoring his years spent as a doctor helping poor and sick people, his revolution efforts, his contributions to theory ...

Che didn't accomplish anything as a revolutionary? So I guess you are ignoring the successes of the Cuban revolution such as the increased literacy, improved health care, decreased infant mortality, the improved living standards ....

Che is a Stalinist? Yeah right, that is just a smear-word. Some of us just appreciate Stalins contributions to defeating the Nazis, his industrialization efforts, his contributions to world revolution ....

Che fought to establish a state-capitalist tyranny? Oh so he is not even a communist now?!? Wow, so all those years I guess he was just faking it.

Che made homophobic policies in Cuba? No because his homophobia, racism, and other bigotry were all gone long before the Cuban revolution succeeded. Yes he was a homophobe but only for part of his life.

AnonymousOne

31st July 2011, 22:27

RadioRaheem84

1st August 2011, 01:44

Quoting Che from the Motorcycle Diaries is dumb. The guy was a frat boy discovering the destitution of Latin America for the first time. He was not a paragon of leftist virtues then.

The Che bashing is ridiculous and I still stand by my initial concern that there is more admirable appeal and apologizing for being men of their time of liberal revolutionaries who had slaves and established nations under the rule of the bourgeoisie, yet is was Che who as the "Stalinist"?

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 07:47

Whatever else he may have been, he wasn't a Marxist.
I would hope that you realize how tautologically silly you sound. Guevara was the quintessential definition of a Marxist. At a time when many in the July 26th movement were bourgeoisie nationalists, progressives, liberals, socialists etc – it was Che who took all the heat for advocating Marx and Marxist principles. It was Che who made the guerrillas study Marx.

Hell, Che was even writing a large biography on Marx & Engels at the time of his death - part of the unfinished project is even available to read now ...

http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/27670000/27674521.JPG

In the end, Che was even overruled as President of the National Bank when he tried to eliminate all material incentives and replace the market economy entirely – and replace benefits with moral incentives based on a developed social consciousness. It would be accurate to say that Fidel did not always govern by Marx, but Che certainly wanted to. In fact he was one of the only early revolutionaries who had read Marx and Lenin and had to explain a lot of it to the others. It wasn’t as if Che could just snap his fingers and make a Marxist society – although he tried harder in my opinion than any human being in World History and gave his life for it.

You should read ...

http://i43.tower.com/images/mm100391028/marxism-che-guevara-philosophy-economics-revolutionary-warfare-second-michael-lswy-paperback-cover-art.jpg

So you can find out just how wrong you are.

He can best be compared to the great Latin American bourgeois revolutionaries, such as Bolivar as opposed to Lenin.
Although I am sure he would be honored by the comparison to Bolivar, in many ways Che was actually to the left of Lenin. By 1964 Che came to see Lenin’s usage of the NEP (New Economic Policy) as a large mistake, believing that it would eventually open the door to capitalism. It seems as if many of your Che “facts” are exactly upside down, which is not surprising when one considers just how much false information is out there about Che.

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 08:10

The problem I have … the attitude that the Cuban revolutionaries had towards LGBTQ+ people, for example Fidel Castro said,
So now Che is responsible for everything Fidel Castro says, even after Che is dead?

“The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto.”
The right-wing blogs love to point out this passage to besmirch Che, but what is actually wrong with it. He doesn’t call the man an epithet like a “faggot”, “queer”, etc in regards to his homosexuality (as you would expect from an obvious homophobe). In its full context, you would see that Che is describing them meeting a gay boring man who happened to be nice and gave them money. How is this homophobic again?

So, no, Che personally didn't incarcerate gays, but he did have homophobic attitudes, that clearly helped define Cuba's policy towards homosexuals.
So, in your view, because Che referred to a man as a “homosexual” in his diary as a 23 year old non-Marxist youth in 1953, Che is thus responsible for Cuba making gays serve their mandatory military service in boot camps in the 1970’s, years after Che was dead? Brilliant!

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 08:29

but I do have issues with Che with an Ak's white-washing of history.
What have I “white-washed”? I take offense at the accusation, and would ask you to support it, or retract it. The problem is that we have some posters here who have clearly read Che biographies, and studied the material – and then we have “low information posters”, who merely repeat random crap they read somewhere on the internet.

Quoting Che from the Motorcycle Diaries is dumb … He was not a paragon of leftist virtues then.
True, but even in this case, the accusation is unfair.

''Che with an AK'' 's petulance in confronting any criticism of his sacred idol.
Is it too much to ask that posters on a revolutionary leftist forum, not spread unfounded right-wing lies about one of the most famous and notable leftist revolutionaries in World History?

Moreover, Che is not just a name in a book to me, or an ancient dusty figure. As someone with an interest in Cuban Revolutionary History - I’ve read all of his diaries, read his biographies, visited his mausoleum in Santa Clara, Cuba, spoken to his daughter and met his wife, had a long conversation with 3 men who worked with him at the minister of industries during his time in Cuba, and spoken to several men who fought with him in the Sierra Maestra. I’ve stood in his house in Havana, his office where he reviewed the revolutionary tribunals, and his cave he used during the Cuban Missile Crisis, So yeah, perhaps I get overly excited when confronted with such obvious nonsense – but that is mainly because I have encountered all of these blatant lies before, and it is obvious that they are merely being regurgitated without any true investigation.

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 09:40

[/URL]

DEBUNKING GOTI123 [Vol 1]

I'm trying to respectfully put forward my views on the matter
It would be fine if you identified them from the outset as your unfounded and little-researched opinions, which you read somewhere on the internet and regurgitate without much investigation. But that is not what you did …

I cannot consider anyone a "hero" who actively supported and participated in a dictatorial government
Che actively battled 3 U.S.-backed dictators on 3 separate continents (Batista/Cuba, Mobutu/Congo, & Barrientos/Bolivia) – which might be a record.

As for Cuba being a “dictatorship” up until 1967 when Che died, it clearly wasn’t. And anyone claiming it was clearly has no idea what they are talking about. As for whether it is now in 2011, that is immaterial to Che who's been dead for 44years.

who sent people without trial to a forced labor camp
Once again a lie - you're on a roll! Anyone sentenced to a work camp in the place of prison (this was used for small crimes where Che believed the men could be rehabilitated quickly) received a trial. Part of this was also because Che didn’t want to merely incarcerate someone in a cell, and not try and show them how their actions were against revolutionary morals. If anything, Che took the less harsh position, as it is a lot easier to dismiss all minor criminals as delinquents and merely lock them away for decades in a box.

Che was Stalinistic.
The irony of your remark is that the Soviets often accused him of being a Trotskyite in 1963, and a Maoist in 1964. Che always only referred to himself however as a Marxist, and really didn’t subscribe to any of the other varying tendencies and borrowed a little from each (agrarian guerrilla warfare from Mao, World revolution from Trotsky, rapid top-down industrialization from Stalin etc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Units_to_Aid_Production (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:CheHigh.jpg)
... I would hope you realize that nothing at this link contradicts my first debunking of your accusations … and in fact, it corroborates everything I said earlier.

Has didn't establish socialism.
Now you are just making a fool of yourself.

You should read Che’s famous essay Socialism and Man in Cuba, written in March of 1965
[URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm

He didn't liberate anyone.
On this he would actually agree …

“I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves.”
— Che Guevara, 1958

Che did set up the first concentration camp in Cuba.
Would you quit idiotically using the phrase “concentration camp”, it is actually quite offensive in relation to the actual concentration camps where the Nazi fascists killed millions of Jews.

Every military outpost, military base, boot camp, or even labor camp – is not a fucking concentration camp in the usual sense of the word. Hell, you probably think teenager summer camps are Auschwitz at this rate. Nobody was killed in any of these camps, there was no plan for extermination, and people were not brought there in large numbers. Many countries prefer to use teenage boot camps for criminal youth rather than incarceration … Che was no different in this regard. As for the attempts to reform homosexuals, that started after Che was dead.

He also tried unsuccessfully to ban alcohol, rock music, pre-marital sex and whatnot in a city he had conquered (Sancti Spiritus).
This is an absurd out of context straw man. The reality is that during his guerrilla campaign against the Batista dictatorship, his men captured a town and many of the local women were throwing themselves at Che’s young troops (many of them teenagers or early 20’s). As a result, Che did not want his men to lose focus of the actual war they were fighting, and so he banned them from getting drunk and told them not to run around screwing all of the women. As for “rock music” that is absurd, as none really existed in 1958 Cuba for all intents and purposes. However, he was not in this city for long, and this was nothing more than a military leader trying to instill discipline on his young and impressionable troops. You make it sound like he was a fucking Puritan, which he wasn’t. He drank wine himself, and had pre-marital sex throughout his life.

He ordered to shootings of many of his comrades he suspected of being disloyal, he killed one himself.
You’re talking about their peasant guide Eutimio Guerra, who was executed for treason during the guerrilla war against Batista by Che personally. However, I would contend it was more than justified, since Eutimio Guerra, admitted treason when it was discovered he accepted the promise of ten thousand pesos for repeatedly giving away the rebel's position for attack by the Cuban air force. Such information also allowed Batista's army to burn the homes of rebel-friendly peasants. Upon Guerra's request that they "end his life quickly" Che stepped forward and shot him in the head. That is warfare, and executing spies or traitors is par for the course.

he also seemed to be a nationalist as evidenced things like crying out "Viva la Cuba!"
Of all of your various lies, this one is perhaps the most comical and blatantly false. I really hope you are a right-wing troll and not an actual leftist.

Che was an internationalist to his core, and perhaps to his fault. He was an Argentine who fought guerrilla wars in Cuba, the Congo, and Bolivia. He traveled to dozens of countries as a civilian and diplomat on behalf of international socialism …

[see this map], countries visited by him are in red, those he fought guerrilla wars in are in green
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/CheGuevaraCountries.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/CheGuevaraCountries.jpg)

Additionally, when asked his nationality before his execution in Bolivia, Che famously stated: "I am Cuban, Argentine, Bolivian, Peruvian, Ecuadorian, etc ... You understand."

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 10:06

DEBUNKING GOTI123 [Vol 2]

as a revolutionary Che did not accomplish anything

I haven't heard or read anything significantly good Che has done.

Che Guevara:

- Traveled the length of South America and worked in a Leper colony where he treated lepers (as seen in the excellent film/memoir ‘The Motorcycle Diaries’).

- Was radicalized from living in Guatemala during the 1953 overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz by the CIA (Operation PBSUCCESS) on behalf of Secretary of State Dulles and the United Fruit Company. He tried to no avail to organize a resistance in the streets as U.S. planes bombed and strafed the capital city.

- Was named "the best guerrilla of them all" by their instructor General Bayo, despite having crippling asthma, during their training for invading Cuba.

- Tended to numerous sick campesinos in the Sierra Maestra as both a doctor and even at times as a dentist.

- Set up factories to make grenades, built ovens to bake bread, taught new recruits about tactics, organized schools to teach illiterate campesinos to read and write, established health clinics, workshops to teach military tactics, a newspaper to disseminate information, and set up the Radio Rebelde station – All as a guerrilla fighter in the Sierra Maestra.

- Won the Battle of Santa Clara where his men were outnumbered 10:1.

- Played a pivotal role in the victorious two year guerrilla campaign that deposed the Batista regime, rising from medic to second in command behind only Fidel Castro.

- Helped remove the Mafia and U.S.-backed dictatorship of Batista from Cuba which had killed 20,000 Cubans and tortured thousands more. He also saw to it that a few hundred of the worst war criminals received revolutionary justice by firing squad.

- Stopped American companies from owning 70 % of the arable land in Cuba and 1% of the Cuban population from controlling 46 % of the wealth.

- Helped spearhead a nationwide literacy campaign in Cuba, which brought the national literacy rate from 60 to 97 % in 1 year.

- Instituted agrarian reform as minister of industries and broke up the large estates, served as both national bank president and instructional director for Cuba’s armed forces, and traversed the globe to 40 + countries as a diplomat on behalf of Cuban socialism.

- Trained the militia forces who repelled the Bay of Pigs Invasion and brought the Soviet nuclear-armed ballistic missiles to Cuba which won the agreement from Kennedy that the U.S. would never invade the island again.

- Composed a seminal manual on guerrilla warfare, which is still studied by military academies and insurgents all around the world even today. He also created his own military theory of Focalism (Foco Theory), which describes how rural peasants can utilize guerrilla warfare and class consciousness to overthrow a urban based dictatorship.

- Desegregated the schools and universities in Cuba before they were in the Southern U.S.

- Called out South Africa’s Apartheid in 1964 to the U.N., 30 years before the West!

- Denounced the racism and KKK in America in the 1960’s and denounced Patrice Lumumba’s assassination by the Belgians/CIA on the World stage.

- Warned of the dangers of the IMF, 3 decades before most of the developing world realized they had been scammed into debt slavery.

- Fought white mercenaries in the African Congo with an all black army in 1964.

- Battled 3 U.S.-backed dictators on 3 separate continents (Batista/Cuba, Mobutu/Congo, & Barrientos/Bolivia).

- Spoke out against US and eventually USSR Imperialism while demanding that the poor of the world be allowed to live a life of dignity.

- Gave his life to help bring down capitalism, imperialism, and neocolonialism by leaving a bourgeoisie comfortable life of the upper class, a potential well compensated career as a medical doctor, and a high regarded governmental position, each time to slog through the jungle and fight guerrilla wars against impenetrable odds. In fact, near the end it took 1,800 Bolivian and CIA assisted rangers to bring down his 25 men.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/CheMuleFull.jpg/785px-CheMuleFull.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/CheMuleFull.jpg)

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice. The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to call their fathers by name; wives, from whom they have to be separated as part of the general sacrifice of their lives to bring the revolution to its fulfilment; the circle of their friends is limited strictly to the number of fellow revolutionists. There is no life outside of the revolution. In these circumstances one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force. "

— Che Guevara, 1965

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 10:32

Since this is the learning section of our forums, 3 book recommendations ...

Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life by Jon Lee Anderson
http://ecimages.kobobooks.com/Image.ashx?imageID=-zgO_lL2Xku6DwADxp95BA&Type=Full
The exhaustive definitive biography at over 800 pages.

Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, And The Pedagogy Of Revolution by Peter Mclaren
http://images.word-power.co.uk/images/product_images/9780847695331.jpg
Amazing work. One of the best books I have ever read. Looks at Che, Freire and Comandante Marcos.

Che Guevara Reader by Che Guevara
http://images.word-power.co.uk/images/product_images/9781876175696.jpg
A compilation of most of his popular writings and speeches.

∞

1st August 2011, 10:36

He was great and all, just don't make him a symbol of semi-religious iconography. If Che was as mild-mannered and selfless as I am led to believe he was, he wouldn't like this. Of course maybe because hes dead is why we venerate him so much.

His courage should always inspire those who fight oppression. Not 'cuz his face looks cool.

RED DAVE

1st August 2011, 10:38

But he was not a Marxist. His legacy with regard to modern revolution is ambiguous as he did not understand the crucial relationship between conflict in he countryside and in the cities, between the rural classes and the urban and rural proletariat.

RED DAVE

Madvillainy

1st August 2011, 11:01

the good lookin' face of stalinism. sorry people but a few dozen peasants in the jungle cant negate capitalism.

hatzel

1st August 2011, 11:22

good lookin' face

Hitting the nail on the head right there. Not to say that he wasn't a good guy or anything, that he didn't do this or that for the movement, or wider humanity, or whatever other miracles some people in this thread want to accredit to him, but...well, plenty of people did much the same, but they weren't as pretty as he was, and they didn't have his long hair in a time when young men growing their hair longer was a sign of a certain rebellious spirit. He had a certain look which resonated, and continues to resonate, with young people, making him a perfect candidate for 'figurehead' of young progressive-orientated types who felt like breaking out of the shackles laid on them by their parents or society or the State or capitalism or anybody else. And, let's not forget, it was this same look that lead to the complete and utter recuperation of his image. Who wants some ugly face on a t-shirt when you can have a prettyboy? Guy had a face that sells, maaaaan :)

AnonymousOne

1st August 2011, 15:56

So now Che is responsible for everything Fidel Castro says, even after Che is dead?

Errr, no that was just to provide some context of the attitude that a leading member of the Cuban Revolution had. I don't think Che is necessarily responsible for Castro's words, but combined with earlier homophobic sentiments that Che expressed it's likely he had a similar view. This is not necessarily his fault, pressures from the Catholic Church and the idea of machismo twisted society this way.

The right-wing blogs love to point out this passage to besmirch Che, but what is actually wrong with it. He doesn’t call the man an epithet like a “faggot”, “queer”, etc in regards to his homosexuality (as you would expect from an obvious homophobe). In its full context, you would see that Che is describing them meeting a gay boring man who happened to be nice and gave them money. How is this homophobic again?

It's the "apart from" line that is the problem. For example if I say, "Apart from being a hispanic, he was an honest person." that's offensive as it implies that hispanics are not honest people inherently. In Che's usage it's implying that something about homosexuals makes them unkind, or not nice. It's used in a subtle way of insulting that characteristic.

So, in your view, because Che referred to a man as a “homosexual” in his diary as a 23 year old non-Marxist youth in 1953, Che is thus responsible for Cuba making gays serve their mandatory military service in boot camps in the 1970’s, years after Che was dead? Brilliant!

No, stop saying that. The UMAP camps were in the 1960's and they were internment camps for LGBTQ+ individuals, because to the Cuban revolutionaries, LGBTQ+ people could not be considered true communists. It's not that they were "boot camps" for an egalitarian draft.

He is partly responsible, I think it's obvious that most of the Cuban revolutionaries had this view of machismo for a variety of reasons. Did he personally enact the policies? No, but he definitely could have clarified that LGBTQ+ people could be revolutionaries.

They were used because LGBTQ+ people could not be revolutionary, they were sent without trial to a concentration camp. Please, stop trying to defend this.

RED DAVE

1st August 2011, 18:13

The UMAP camps were in the 1960's and they were internment camps for LGBTQ+ individuals, because to the Cuban revolutionaries, LGBTQ+ people could not be considered true communists. It's not that they were "boot camps" for an egalitarian draft.

He is partly responsible, I think it's obvious that most of the Cuban revolutionaries had this view of machismo for a variety of reasons. Did he personally enact the policies? No, but he definitely could have clarified that LGBTQ+ people could be revolutionaries.

They were used because LGBTQ+ people could not be revolutionary, they were sent without trial to a concentration camp. Please, stop trying to defend this.Right on! The whole stalinist/maoist/fidelista left was infected with machismo at the time. Very few groups had a position as progressive as that of the Bolsheviks back in the early 1920s. There was no excuse for this crap. They should have known better by then.

RED DAVE

RadioRaheem84

1st August 2011, 18:30

Yes, they should have but what's the entire point? That Che's accomplishments were no good because of it?

~Spectre

1st August 2011, 19:10

In the end, Che was even overruled as President of the National Bank when he tried to eliminate all material incentives and replace the market economy entirely – and replace benefits with moral incentives based on a developed social consciousness.

Mystical nonsense. Marxists are supposed to be materialists.

The working class needs to be more materialistic, not less.

~Spectre

1st August 2011, 19:18

Yes, they should have but what's the entire point? That Che's accomplishments were no good because of it?

This is another thing that pisses me off. It's one thing when an obvious idiot like Che with an AK uses that kind of language, but it's quite another when even smart guys like you fall into it.

People talk about this guy the way the bourgeoisie talk about George Washington.

I.e. instead of a "group X won" it becomes "He won" "Washington beat..." "Washington captured" etc.

Instead of "The Fidelistas won" "The group won" It becomes "Che won" "Che fought" "Che set up" "Che did this..."

He was 1 fucking man dawg. You're bordering on a "great man theory of history", which is totally un-marxist.

It's bad enough when people try to subvert the power of the working class by fetishizing guerilla warfare, but it's even worse when people then change it from guerilla worship, to hero worship.

A tactic, btw, that has ended in failure almost everywhere it has ever been implemented throughout Latin America.

~Spectre

1st August 2011, 19:26

As for why the personal like and dislike of Che, it's certainly easy to see both sides of the coin.

He was very brave and determined. Very admirable in those regards, he could've certainly lived out his days drinking mojitos in Cuba with Castro but chose not to.

OTOH

He was an authoritarian. Despite his feelings of solidarity, he also happened to be a humongous asshole.

If life were a book, Che would be what's known as a "grey" character. Has great qualities, but also has major flaws to balance them.

His myth and image gets so morphed and mutated, that often his supporters try to his image to instill conformity to some authoritarian archtype. It's the most absurd irony.

Leftsolidarity

1st August 2011, 20:04

the good lookin' face of stalinism. sorry people but a few dozen peasants in the jungle cant negate capitalism.

Well....umm...looks like you never read a history book. In case you were wondering, Che and Fidel won in Cuba.

Smyg

1st August 2011, 20:45

I believe his point is that Cuba never negated capitalism, not that they didn't win the revolution. :rolleyes:

CHE with an AK

1st August 2011, 23:00

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_e7uROeZdvo/TcrNl0gSXZI/AAAAAAAAAhA/Q_1zFGoOlTs/s400/Che-Guevara-Wallpapers-2011-.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_e7uROeZdvo/TcrNl0gSXZI/AAAAAAAAAhA/Q_1zFGoOlTs/s1600/Che-Guevara-Wallpapers-2011-.jpg)
"Who invited the reactionary hacks?"

So I guess the anti-Che contingent is taking new members … I can just imagine AnonymousOne, RED DAVE, Tommy4ever, Madvilliany, Spectre et al and their fearful leader Goti123 are all gathered at the local Starbucks – bashing those savage meanie revolutionaries, who “like used gunz and stuff” (sips latte) … thankfully they are all going to show us how to peacefully defeat global capitalism and imperialism through their MySpace pages, while bashing nearly all historical revolutionary leftists on these forums as “Stalinizzzts” and "Authoritarianzz" just because their parents used to give them a curfew. Can’t wait. :rolleyes:

His courage should always inspire those who fight oppression. Not 'cuz his face looks cool.
They are not mutually exclusive? You can be inspired by his life story, and then the fact that he was attractive is just a bonus. Likewise, some people are first drawn to his visage and then research his life story, and their admiration gains substance behind it.

the good lookin' face
Blaming him for being “good looking” would be as silly as blaming him if he were ugly. He can’t help the way he looked. In fact, if anything, he was notorious for not caring about his appearance at all, would wear clothes for a week at a time, hardly bathed as a guerrilla because the cold river water badly affected his asthma etc. It’s almost like subconscious envy or jealousy the way some males on the left scoff at him for his appearance.

he did not understand the crucial relationship between conflict in he countryside and in the cities
Haha, yeah right … and let me guess, you do? A revolutionary who literally battled from the countryside and the cities, knows less about the issue than some pontificator on a leftist message board.

plenty of people did much the sameWho are some historical figures who you think have a similar or more impressive “resume”? I’m curious?

Guy had a face that sells, maaaaan
Oh, Noooz! The left can’t have a dashing handsome man leading the revolution … we need a hunchback with an overbite … that will give us more “street cred” with the working class.

combined with earlier homophobic sentiment(s) that Che expressed
I notice you use the plural here? So what is another “homophobic sentiment” that Che ever expressed other than his youthful diary entry where he said the word “homosexual once”?

pressures from the Catholic Church
Although Che was baptized Catholic as a baby per cultural custom, he was raised atheist as his parents requested he even be removed from religious classes in school. As a kid he would play on the badly outnumbered atheist soccer team against the ‘believers”. Now, later in life, he embraced Marxist humanism and gained a spiritual component, but I would still call him agnostic.

infected with machismo at the time.
So you mean to tell me that a group of men in the jungle with guns who has been climbing mountains for months and leading violent ambushes against enemy troops – began to feel “macho”? Who the hell knew! By the way, Che worked closely with his future second wife during the Cuban revolution, and the guerrilla Tamara Bunke played an important role in his Bolivian mission. He was not averse to women in combat.

The working class needs to be more materialistic, not less.
There is a big difference between dialectical materialism, and standing in line for the latest XBOX game.

when an obvious idiot like Che with an AK
I guess you are still pouting from our virtual tussle on the Norway shooter thread. Ah well, a dog usually returns to his vomit.

he also happened to be a humongous asshole.
I love the delicious irony of this statement.

guerilla warfare, … A tactic, btw, that has ended in failure almost everywhere it has ever been implemented throughout Latin America.
And how is the whole internet organizing going there Mr. self named “revolutionary”?

Guerrilla warfare has several victories under their belt around the world when it comes to revolutions … how many does your smarmy, pseudo-intellectual, reactionary revisionism from the so called "left" have? I don’t think you could organize a lemonade stand of 10 year olds, much less raise a guerrilla army. Hell, I’m surprised you figured out how to turn on your computer.

∞

1st August 2011, 23:10

~Spectre

2nd August 2011, 00:29

There is a big difference between dialectical materialism, and standing in line for the latest XBOX game.

Just like there's a big difference between evolutionary theory and the physical process of evolution. That's just literally true. One is a style of inquiry, the other is what the former is inquiring about.

That has nothing to do with how idiotic it is to "replace material incentives" with "moral incentives".

It's mysticism and bullshit.

And how is the whole internet organizing going there Mr. self named “revolutionary”?

I'm not sure anyone has ever advocated "internet organizing" as anything more than one of various small tools in the toolbox.

The lack of self-awareness on your part though is astounding. You constantly go back to this "internet" thing, as if you yourself are not currently writing this on the internetz.

Guerrilla warfare has several victories under their belt around

More losses than victories. And of those victories, none of them ever succeeded in establishing socialism. So it seems odd to posit them as a model on a site for revolutionary Marxists.

AnonymousOne

2nd August 2011, 00:30

And we all see what happens when Che and the legacy of the Cuban revolution is challenged, rather than responding in a rational way with evidence or explaining his arguments in a more coherent manner, CHE with an AK simply flames back and insults.

I'll just briefly go over the sections he disagreed with me on in his latest post, assuming he found no issue with my other points.

I notice you use the plural here? So what is another “homophobic sentiment” that Che ever expressed other than his youthful diary entry where he said the word “homosexual once”?

First, I explained why what Che wrote was homophobic, I don't object to his use of the word. The problem is with what came before it's the "apart from" that I object to. Take the following sentences and tell me if you think they're offensive:

She was very kind, apart from being a woman.

He was very honest, apart from being a black man.

He was very brave, apart from being a jew.

Those sentences are obviously offensive and that's the same way Che's sentiment is worded.

Second, my use of the word sentiments is correct:

Sentiments:

1. A view of or attitude toward a situation or event; an opinion
- I agree with your sentiments regarding the road bridge

I was only referring to his view/attitude/opinion, not multiple instances of his homophobia.

However, if you still think I'm incorrect we can look back at the Castro quote where he refers to the plural, I wonder who else he could be talking about with that we... maybe the revolutionaries in Cuba?

Third, considering Che's only expression or discussion of homosexuals is a negative one, and he never corrected himself, I believe that Che was a homophobic person.

Although Che was baptized Catholic as a baby per cultural custom, he was raised atheist as his parents requested he even be removed from religious classes in school. As a kid he would play on the badly outnumbered atheist soccer team against the ‘believers”. Now, later in life, he embraced Marxist humanism and gained a spiritual component, but I would still call him agnostic.

I was referring to the general state of Latin American society at that time, I don't subscribe to the "great man theory" of history, so I could care less about who Che played soccer with.

RED DAVE

2nd August 2011, 01:36

So I guess the anti-Che contingent is taking new members … I can just imagine AnonymousOne, RED DAVE, Tommy4ever, Madvilliany, Spectre et al and their fearful leader Goti123 are all gathered at the local Starbucks – bashing those savage meanie revolutionaries, who “like used gunz and stuff” (sips latte) … thankfully they are all going to show us how to peacefully defeat global capitalism and imperialism through their MySpace pages, while bashing nearly all historical revolutionary leftists on these forums as “Stalinizzzts” and "Authoritarianzz" just because their parents used to give them a curfew. Can’t wait. :rolleyes:I strongly recommend that you engage in winged sex with Earth's large, natural satellite. Or, better yet, go and join one of those uprisings that you favor. I suggest the one in Nepal because (a) it's halfway around the world and (b) they are in the process of selling out, so you can drop your adolescent rageful pose and join the bourgeosie, which is probably your wet dream.

RED DAVE

CommunityBeliever

2nd August 2011, 02:50

Take the following sentences and tell me if you think they're offensive

I see that you are still referring to what he wrote before he was even a leftist.

I was referring to the general state of Latin American society at that time, I don't subscribe to the "great man theory" of history, so I could care less about who Che played soccer with.

The Catholic church helped to twist society, however, blaming Che for that is wrong as he was not a believer. You shouldn't believe in the "great man theory" of history by blaming Che for the homophobia in Cuba or accrediting him with all of the countries achievements.

But he was not a Marxist.

This is a legitamate criticism, although, I wouldn't outright say that he was "not a Marxist" although he probably had non-Marxist-Leninist views. Have you read comrade Hoxha's 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)?

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution.

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.

On the other hand, I think though that Che definitely had good intentions and he probably would've opposed this consumer culture and personality cult built around him himself if he were still alive.

Weezer

2nd August 2011, 02:58

I think critique of Che has more to do with his strict discipline, authoritarian commands and replacing a dictatorship with another one in Cuba. Remember:

"Following the 1959 revolution, Cuba's communist government embarked upon a pervasive effort to rid the nation of homosexuality, which was seen as a product of a capitalist society. Through the 1960s and 1970s this campaign included the frequent imprisonment of lesbians and gays (particularly effeminate males) without charge or trial, and confinement to forced labor camps. This period was dramatically documented by the 1980s documentary "Improper Conduct", Reinaldo Arenas in his 1992 autobiography, Before Night Falls, as well as his fiction, most notably The Color of Summer and Farewell to the Sea. The criminal laws against homosexuality were gradually liberalized, starting in 1979."

This is the Cuba Che endorsed and established.

Che left Cuba before these camps for homosexuals were started...

You missed the point about Castro.

I'm simply saying: Che established a dictatorial government, agreed?
I don't like dictatorships. Therefore I don't like Che.

As for the camp thing. Che did set up the first concentration camp in Cuba as far as I remember.

I don't like ignoramuses. Therefore I don't like you.

AnonymousOne

2nd August 2011, 03:11

I see that you are still referring to what he wrote before he was even a leftist.

That's all I have to go on, and inferences from what the majority of the Cuban revolutionaries thought. Che never wrote, "Oh wait, actually LGBTQ+ people are cool." So I'll just stick with the evidence I have, if you have something from Che that contradicts me, please provide it.

The Catholic church helped to twist society, however, blaming Che for that is wrong as he was not a believer. You shouldn't believe in the "great man theory" of history by blaming Che for the homophobia in Cuba or accrediting him with all of the countries achievements.

All I wrote was that the Catholic Church played a role in the creation of machismo, I never blamed Che for being Catholic. Go back and read what I actually wrote.

I do blame Che for homophobia in Cuba because he was one of the most prominent revolutionary leaders and he at worst did nothing about the situation, and at worst passively enabled it. That doesn't mean I don't see why it occurred, there were other forces such as the Catholic Church which I mentioned above.

EDIT: Misunderstood CommunityBeliever, he wasn't implying what I thought he was implying at all.

Weezer

2nd August 2011, 03:21

CommunityBeliever

2nd August 2011, 03:29

That's all I have to go on, and inferences from what the majority of the Cuban revolutionaries thought. Che never wrote, "Oh wait, actually LGBTQ+ people are cool."I have never said that "LGBTQ+ people are cool" yet I am not homophobic.

So I'll just stick with the evidence I have, if you have something from Che that contradicts me, please provide it. Many of Che's old beliefs were contradicted when he became a leftist, I also believe his homophobic sentiments were reduced.

All I wrote was that the Catholic Church played a role in the creation of machismo, I never blamed Che for being Catholic. Go back and read what I actually wrote.And I never blamed you for blaming Che for being Catholic. Go back and read what I actually wrote.

I do blame Che for homophobia in Cuba because he was one of the most prominent revolutionary leaders and he at worst did nothing about the situation, and at worst passively enabled it. Okay. I will give you that, he didn't do enough to stop it but remember what comrade In Utero said, nobody was going around stopping it.

He didn't help LGBTQ+ people as much as he should of, on the other hand I don't believe that he supported oppressing or imprisoning them or really anybody else for that matter.

Revolutionary_Change

2nd August 2011, 03:33

There was not a radical call for the legalization of homosexuality and rights for homosexuals in the 1950's, really anywhere.. The earliest radical movements for homosexual rights wasn't until after Che died.

Was Che homophobic? Probably. But so was Engels, but people rarely bring up that fact. This was a time before a call homosexual rights was picked up by revolutionary movements.

while it wasn't as broad a movement as it became post 1960's some anarchists, such as Emma Goldman, were advocating for homosexual equality back at the beginning of the century.

AnonymousOne

2nd August 2011, 03:41

I have never said that "LGBTQ+ people are cool" yet I am not homophobic.

No, but you also never insulted people LGBTQ+ individuals either, as I've explained twice now the only time Che mentions homosexuality it's viewed as a negative thing. I have no reason to believe that Che suddenly, or magically abandoned his homophobia and never corrected himself or wrote something contrary to his earlier opinion. I'll stick with the only evidence I have regarding Che's views, and that evidence points me to Che being homophobic.

Many of Che's old beliefs were contradicted when he became a leftist, I also believe his homophobic sentiments were reduced.

Okay, cool. Show me some evidence that his homophobic sentiments were reduced. You don't get to just claim people's characteristics as being different from what they state just because you like that person.

And I never blamed you for blaming Che for being Catholic. Go back and read what I actually wrote.

You're right, sorry, I worded that section weird. What I was trying to say is that I didn't blame Che for what the Catholic Church did, or for Machismo. Both were beyond his control this doesn't, however, cleanse him of homophobia.

Okay. I will give you that, he didn't do enough to stop it but remember what comrade In Utero said, nobody was going around stopping it.

That's untrue, in the 1920's the Bolsheviks strived for equality and decriminalized homosexuality. It's not like revolutionaries had never come across the concept of not hating and discriminating against LGBTQ+ people.

He didn't help LGBTQ+ people as much as he should of, on the other hand I don't believe that he supported oppressing or imprisoning them.

Okay, that's cool. Please explain to me what evidence you have of that. Considering Che's previous remark, the fact that he never felt the need to correct it, and the general attitude of Cuban revolutionaries at that time towards the LGBTQ+ community, I think he would have supported the UMAP camps.

He certainly didn't say anything against them.

Sensible Socialist

2nd August 2011, 04:38

AnonymousOne

2nd August 2011, 04:58

Anonymous, you're basing your belief on a single ambiguous statement. In the abscense of substantial prove, I'd rather people don't draw any signifigant conclusions about a person's beliefs toward a specific group.

Alone, no the statement wouldn't be enough. However, combining that statement, the attitudes of Cuban Revolutionaries, the culture of Machismo, the actions taken by the Cuban Government, it seems clear that at best Che was passively enabling the abuse and oppression of LGBTQ+ people.

Do I know what his exact views were, no. Do I really care? No. He still allowed or enabled the abuse of LGBTQ+ people while wielding significant power in post-revolutionary Cuba.

I think he was homophobic, just as Castro was.

CHE with an AK

2nd August 2011, 06:21

Yes they are, and nothing states that it could just be a bonus.
So under your (il)logic, one can only admire the life stories of non-attractive people?

That has nothing to do with how idiotic it is to "replace material incentives" with "moral incentives".
You’re free to believe whatever you want, but I would contend that in order to bring down capitalism, that individuals need to acquire a new consciousness towards the idea of work, and see it as a social duty. Che spoke of this often, remarking that the goal was not to just produce more stuff, but to help forge new human beings.

You constantly go back to this "internet" thing, as if you yourself are not currently writing this on the internetz.
Sure I am on the internet, but I realize that capitalism will never be brought down through the internet. In my view, real revolutions take arms and violence. Sure, facebook can organize some crowds, and maybe cause one puppet to step down for another puppet, but in my view none of these recent “internet” revolutions are genuine. I don’t philosophically think that you can “talk down” the levers of capitalist power. You have to fight to take them down, and be willing to die in doing so. Che was willing as many great revolutionaries have been in the past – however, I am not sure how solely internet revolutionaries share that commitment.

More losses than victories. And of those victories, none of them ever succeeded in establishing socialism.
I would contend that guerrilla warfare is responsible for nearly ALL the victories to some extent. As for your fantasy version of “socialism”, that has never existed and never probably will.

when Che and the legacy of the Cuban revolution is challenged
None of you are “challenging” it. All you are doing is spreading a range of right-wing lies and propaganda, mixed with your usual fantasy left criticisms - against people who have actually put their life on the line, for the ideals you supposedly hold. It’s not hip … it’s reactionary.

rather than responding in a rational way
I have replied numerous times to nearly everything. However, nobody seems to acknowledge they were wrong, when proven wrong, so as a result to entertain myself I add in some humor – to hopefully show you how ridiculous some of you are.

Third, considering Che's only expression or discussion of homosexuals is a negative one, and he never corrected himself,
Have you read The Motorcycle Diaries? Of course not.
If you had, you would know that Che specifically states at the end that he is “not the same me as I once was” and that he was an entirely changed person (from the one who wrote the earlier diary).

There was not a radical call for the legalization of homosexuality and rights for homosexuals in the 1950's, really anywhere. The earliest radical movements for homosexual rights wasn't until after Che died.
Apparently we should all blame Che for not being involved in the 1969 Stonewall riots. I mean sure, he had the minor inconvenience of being shot 9 times, having his hands chopped off, and being dumped in the ground two years earlier … but where was the rainbow flag Che! What the hell!

Let’s say for instance, that in 40 years, vegetarianism is almost universal. Can you imagine all the fantasy lefties of 2050 criticizing every Marxist up until then for not being a vegetarian, based on their perceptions of meat eating in 2050?

anarchists, such as
Che wasn’t an anarchist, so I doubt he cared about historical anarchist figures.

evidence points me to Che being homophobic.
Although I would dispute that he was, where exactly in the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin does it mention homophobia or gay rights as an issue? Where do you derive the idea that homophobia is contradictory to Marxism? I believe all of us would recognize gay rights as important and humane, but I wouldn’t say they are Marxist in nature – if anything they come from a bourgeoisie understanding of “human rights”. How is the gender you have sexual relations with relevant to class struggle or dialectical materialism?

Anonymous, you're basing your belief on a single ambiguous statement.
Exactly! And sadly this could be done with nearly every historical figure in World history. However, if you haven’t actually read a biography on Che, then I guess a few out of context quotes suffice for the intellectual lazy.

CommunityBeliever

2nd August 2011, 06:38

You don't get to just claim people's characteristics as being different from what they state just because you like that person.I think that his leftism would result in an increased tolerance of all peoples, including homosexuals.

I think he was homophobic, just as Castro was.The best that you can establish is that he was apathetic or ignorant of queer liberation, but lets say perhaps he held some homophobic sentiments.

I still highly doubt that he would support the oppression or imprisonment of LGBT people judging by his strong leftist beliefs and his desire for the humane treatment of all people. I think if Che was here today and he knew about queer liberation he would be the first to support it.

"Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary." - Che Guevara

CHE with an AK

2nd August 2011, 07:34

Che was a dedicated revolutionary

I do consider him a hero.

I respect the hell out of Che and I recognize the amount of good he's done for the working people

“'Revolutionaries are not normal people': an understatement in relation to Ernesto Che Guevara. Physician, brilliant intellect, competent soldier, charismatic leader, developed—and eventually creative-Marxist economist, always a man able to capture the spirit of an experience in his own being, Che remains one of the four or five greatest revolutionaries in modern history.”
— Alfredo López

FI1ixHnDo6I

AnonymousOne

2nd August 2011, 07:54

None of you are “challenging” it. All you are doing is spreading a range of right-wing lies and propaganda, mixed with your usual fantasy left criticisms - against people who have actually put their life on the line, for the ideals you supposedly hold. It’s not hip … it’s reactionary.

We have, actually, challenged you multiple times with a variety of different sources and you keep repeating yourself. A jack-in-the box which called me a reactionary everytime it popped out would result in the same level of discourse I'm afraid.

Actually, you know what's reactionary? Upholding as some brilliant shining idol an individual who helped create concentration camps for LGBTQ+ individuals, and then engaging in the equivealent of Holocaust denial on the subject.

Perhaps it's the fact that you have heterosexual privlege and you wouldn't have been forced to go to a forced labor internment camp. Failure of empathy I suppose. I don't know, but for some reason you can't seem to grasp the idea of why this was wrong, which is both depressing and frustrating.

It's sad that a supposed, leftist, a "revolutionary" is taking the side of oppression and bigotry. The part of your post where you attempt to justify Marxism without a conception of LGBTQ+ rights is quite telling of just where you stand. :/

I'll explain, as I go through your post the problems of your analysis, and why LGBTQ+ rights matter in terms of Marxist discourse. Buckle your seat-belt.

I have replied numerous times to nearly everything. However, nobody seems to acknowledge they were wrong, when proven wrong, so as a result to entertain myself I add in some humor – to hopefully show you how ridiculous some of you are.

As I mentioned above, you have essentially responded with nothing. You say I don't provide context, I explain why Che's comment is homophobic and discuss the impact of both Che's and Castro's homophobia and what the problem with it is. You then repeat "you didn't provide context"

Well, I'm clearly missing it then. Why don't you start showing me a different context. Please, prove me wrong. I'm not unreasonable here, I admit when I'm wrong. I acknowledged when I was wrong in my discussion with CoummunityBeliever, I'll do the same if you can start engaging me and not repeating.

Have you read The Motorcycle Diaries? Of course not.
If you had, you would know that Che specifically states at the end that he is “not the same me as I once was” and that he was an entirely changed person (from the one who wrote the earlier diary).

Yes, I have read the Motorcycle Diaries. It's been about ten years since I read it in high school. I'll admit I'm not familiar with it, which is why I read the section where Che makes the remark. It's a homophobic remark, you may not see it, but it's there.

I also do remember that he wrote that, and he did change. He became politically and socially aware of the exploitation that was ocurring across Latin America. He did change as an individual, and I won't deny it. However, I have no reason to believe that his views on LGBTQ+ people had changed either.

If you believe that he had some big epiphany (for which there is no evidence), than you have to accept that he remained silent about the forced labor internment camps created by Cuba. He also failed to speak out regarding homophobic attitudes in Revolutionary Cuba. UMAP camps were established in 1965, during Che's lifetime.

Apparently we should all blame Che for not being involved in the 1969 Stonewall riots. I mean sure, he had the minor inconvenience of being shot 9 times, having his hands chopped off, and being dumped in the ground two years earlier … but where was the rainbow flag Che! What the hell! [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

http://dancleary.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5540ff48a88340112790efe3028a4-800wi

There is a huge difference between critiquing someone for creating FORCED LABOR CAMPS to try to remove Homosexuality from Cuba, and saying that because Che wasn't an active supporter of gay rights he didn't matter.

So far all of your responses have worked to belittle the impact that Che's policies had on LGBTQ+ individuals. Once again, I guess it's easier to do when you have heterosexist privlege. You wouldn't have had to go to the forced labor camp, you wouldn't have had your characters a revolutionary questioned.

Let’s say for instance, that in 40 years, vegetarianism is almost universal. Can you imagine all the fantasy lefties of 2050 criticizing every Marxist up until then for not being a vegetarian, based on their perceptions of meat eating in 2050?

Adressed this point with the above. Would I have expected a queer rights activist Che? No, of course not.

Would I expect him not to set up a series of concentration camps to purge Cuba of homosexuality? YES.

Although I would dispute that he was, where exactly in the works of Marx, Engels or Lenin does it mention homophobia or gay rights as an issue? Where do you derive the idea that homophobia is contradictory to Marxism? I believe all of us would recognize gay rights as important and humane, but I wouldn’t say they are Marxist in nature – if anything they come from a bourgeoisie understanding of “human rights”. How is the gender you have sexual relations with relevant to class struggle or dialectical materialism?

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You don't believe that LGBTQ+ rights are important to revolutionary struggle. Here's the thing, the capitalist class must continue to divide the working class in order to maintain a system where 1% own more than the bottom 90%. They use discrimination and hatred as a way to distract the population from the crisis of their system. In 2004, Bush and the Republicans used gay marriage as an issue to divert people’s attention away from the wars abroad and the harshness of life facing the working class here.

The middle class leadership of the LGBT political organizations put all their focus on the struggle for democratic rights. LGBT workers and youth need to see that the real struggle for genuine and full equality can only truly be won as part of a united working class movement, with the slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all!”

That's why Queer Rights matter. Because the working class needs to unite, and we can't have a united working class if we divide ourselves by sexuality, race, religion, w/e.

I hope you'll read this post can reconsider your reactionary views on LGBTQ+ rights, but I can't say I'm all that optimistic.

∞

2nd August 2011, 07:57

"Pol Pot was a cool guy, because I said so,"
-∞ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=28130)

AnonymousOne

2nd August 2011, 07:58

I think that his leftism would result in an increased tolerance of all peoples, including homosexuals.

I thought so too. But I guess not.

The best that you can establish is that he was apathetic or ignorant of queer liberation, but lets say perhaps he held some homophobic sentiments.

I still highly doubt that he would support the oppression or imprisonment of LGBT people judging by his strong leftist beliefs and his desire for the humane treatment of all people. I think if Che was here today and he knew about queer liberation he would be the first to support it.

"Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary." - Che Guevara

Funny story, that last quote was written the year that the UMAP camps got set up.

I can't really say anymore. I think he's at worst a homophobe, at best someone who passively enabled/allowed Castro to engage in a campaign to wipe homosexuality out in Cuba.

That still doesn't change who Che is though for me, he's a cool guy who did some great things. It sucks that he screwed up so bad on this issue though. As I mentioned earlier, it is personal. I would've been stuck in a forced labor camp as part of Cuba's mission to eliminate a part of my identity.

CommunityBeliever

2nd August 2011, 08:53

Would I expect him not to set up a series of concentration camps to purge Cuba of homosexuality? YES.

What evidence do you have though that Che had anything to do with this other then his pre-leftist ramblings? Was this not an inevitable result of traditional Spanish machismo and Catholicism?

If you can demonstrate that Che himself had anything to do with the actual oppression of people based upon their sexual orientation then that will certainly deal a blow to my view of him.

ComradeGrant

2nd August 2011, 09:17

Well this thread got good pretty fast. I can appreciate the things Che accomplished, but I am also able to realize that he was flawed and a product of his time. This does not excuse his actions which have been highlighted well by AnonymousOne. I must pose a question to CHE with an AK though. In your opinion, did Ernesto 'Che' Guevara ever do anything wrong as a revolutionary?

#FF0000

2nd August 2011, 09:19

Yeah I think the Che's story is hella entertaining and all buuuut that's about it. Red Dave hit it on the head with the whole "bourgeois revolutionaries" bit.

#FF0000

2nd August 2011, 09:22

"Like, once they make it on the radio, and sell out, it’s like, time to find a new gnarly garage band bro. So, don’t bogart my revolutionary though bro, it’s not cool, and might kill my killer buzz. I'm the only one who even knows who Julio Jackson III the 19th century one-legged communalist vegan from the Canary Islands is, and I'd like to keep it that way. He's the only real Anarchic-organic-communicalist and all others are 'the man' from Orwell's 1948 (sic). Lame posers and their Che posters pfft. He like, shot guns and ate meat and stuff. Plus he didn't recycle or support wind power. That's worse than buying a non-limited release vinyl record from a Co-Op. Not cool dude. It's about peace and stuff man. More hugs and seedy nugs is what the world needs."[/CENTER]

hey can you get your stereotypes straight before going off on lame ad-hom tirades thanks

Tommy4ever

2nd August 2011, 10:40

I made it into the ''anti-che contigent'' :p, he also thinks dislike of the Che cult is to do with pacifism rather than the fact it is a personality cult. :rolleyes:

∞

2nd August 2011, 10:58

We've talked about Che enough. Theres plenty of threads about him. What we need is a thread about Based God.

maskerade

2nd August 2011, 11:22

You missed the point about Castro.

I'm simply saying: Che established a dictatorial government, agreed?
I don't like dictatorships. Therefore I don't like Che.

As for the camp thing. Che did set up the first concentration camp in Cuba as far as I remember.

You're the type of leftist that will support all revolutions except those that succeed.

Ostrinski

2nd August 2011, 11:29

We've talked about Che enough. Theres plenty of threads about him. What we need is a thread about Based God.New record is ill.

#FF0000

2nd August 2011, 11:35

You're the type of leftist that will support all revolutions except those that succeed.

the counter to this would be "you're the type of leftist that will support anything wrapped in a red flag".

So yeah can we have actual constructive discussion here instead of dumb comments like this please.

RED DAVE

2nd August 2011, 12:11

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but I would contend that in order to bring down capitalism, that individuals need to acquire a new consciousness towards the idea of work, and see it as a social duty.Pure Stalinism and exactly the kind of shit that Che and Fidel were into: state capitalism.

Che spoke of this often, remarking that the goal was not to just produce more stuff, but to help forge new human beings.By making sure that they fulfill their labor quotas.

Sure I am on the internet, but I realize that capitalism will never be brought down through the internet. In my view, real revolutions take arms and violence. Sure, facebook can organize some crowds, and maybe cause one puppet to step down for another puppet, but in my view none of these recent “internet” revolutions are genuine. I don’t philosophically think that you can “talk down” the levers of capitalist power. You have to fight to take them down, and be willing to die in doing so. Che was willing as many great revolutionaries have been in the past – however, I am not sure how solely internet revolutionaries share that commitment. And I am not certain how many people who posture and rant about arms and violence have any idea how revolutionary organizing is done.

I would contend that guerrilla warfare is responsible for nearly ALL the victories to some extent. As for your fantasy version of “socialism”, that has never existed and never probably will.Tell that to the Bolsheviks who were able to win over huge sections of the urban working class, the army and peasantry.

RED DAVE

AnonymousOne

3rd August 2011, 03:38

Let’s say for instance, that in 40 years, vegetarianism is almost universal. Can you imagine all the fantasy lefties of 2050 criticizing every Marxist up until then for not being a vegetarian, based on their perceptions of meat eating in 2050?

I forgot to mention this earlier, it slipped my mind, I find it very interesting you compare vegetarianism and homosexuality, do you view homosexuality as a lifestyle choice?

~Spectre

3rd August 2011, 04:19

I forgot to mention this earlier, it slipped my mind, I find it very interesting you compare the two, do you view homosexuality as a lifestyle?

He's very confused. I don't think he is a materialist. Between this and his comment about "moral incentives" needing to replace material incentives, I'm pretty sure he hasn't actually read anything except Che biographies.

But here goes:

Let’s say for instance, that in 40 years, vegetarianism is almost universal. Can you imagine all the fantasy lefties of 2050 criticizing every Marxist up until then for not being a vegetarian, based on their perceptions of meat eating in 2050?

There is nothing that exists in objective material reality that indicates that a homosexual is inferior to a heterosexual. Despite any personal bias, that same analysis was doable back in Che's day. In fact, many people to their credit, even other authoritarians, did it decades before.

CHE with an AK

3rd August 2011, 06:21

(C)he's a cool guy who did some great things. It sucks that he screwed up so bad on this issue though.
Under your standard wouldn’t almost every single heterosexual revolutionary figure pre-1960 have “screwed up” on this issue? If not, then who are some that you believe didn’t?

I can appreciate the things Che accomplished, but I am also able to realize that he was flawed and a product of his time.
Aren’t all of us flawed and a product of our time? I shudder to think about some of the things that society will find inhumane that we are currently doing in 100 years. Most want to be on the right side of history, but sometimes there isn’t a prevalent developed consciousness on some issues. If you look at our entire well of knowledge as one single brain being educated during all this time, then it seems unfair to judge historical figures by contemporary standards.

I find it very interesting you compare vegetarianism and homosexuality, do you view homosexuality as a lifestyle choice?
Considering that I don’t believe I consciously choose my heterosexuality, I wouldn’t say that people choose their homosexuality either. I would say that sexuality probably ranges along a scale similar to what Alfred Kinsey hypothesized with the Kinsey Scale i.e. (1-6).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Kinsey_Scale.gif

I choose vegetarianism, because I was trying to think of an issue that has changed drastically in my lifetime, and one that I think will continue to adapt and grow. For the record though, I love steak and bacon.

There is nothing that exists in objective material reality that indicates that a homosexual is inferior to a heterosexual. Despite any personal bias, that same analysis was doable back in Che's day. In fact, many people to their credit, even other authoritarians, did it decades before.
There is nothing that exists in objective material reality that indicates there is a god either, however a vast majority of every living person in human history has thought that there was one (myself not included). Sure it was “doable” for Che to be on the cutting edge of nearly ever issue we now see as self-evident, but that ignores the historical realities of places and cultures.

Sadly, in my travels through East Africa years ago in my youth, I encountered many self-professed Marxists, and communists – who culturally could not let go of the idea that gays were “unnatural” and thus in their view “sick” etc. They would wrongly claim that “homosexuality has never existed in Africa”, and that it was brought in by white colonialists and capitalism - but in reality it was just that open homosexuality had never been tolerated for as long as they could remember. Hell, I have had conversations with African Marxist professors at conferences and things who despite all of their other “progressive” leftist beliefs, still see homosexuality as either a lifestyle preference, or in worst cases, solely a residual case of sexual abuse as a child. I would hope that many of the revolutionary leftist users on these forums from Western Europe, the U.S., Australia etc – realize that a majority of the World, even the leftist parties in most of the world, do not have the same conception when it comes to many ideas that are almost universal in the left of our countries – such as homosexuality, women’s rights, sexual rights, animal rights, environmental rights and concerns etc. I would say that unfortunately, in the underdeveloped world, the sexual issues are usually combated last, and many still haven’t been.

CHE with an AK

3rd August 2011, 06:41

I must pose a question to CHE with an AK though. In your opinion, did Ernesto 'Che' Guevara ever do anything wrong as a revolutionary?
Sure, I would say that he made mistakes as every other person does. He was inflexible at times, intolerant of dissent from peers, and fatalistic in many ways. However, I would give him a very good batting percentage, all things and conditions considered.

Yeah I think the Che's story is hella entertaining and all buuuut that's about it.
Since you at least find him “entertaining”, did you bother to see either of the recent 2008 Che films starring Benicio Del Toro? I thought they were pretty good.

TRAILER
l38OFYpTVkY

Between this and his comment about "moral incentives" needing to replace material incentives, I'm pretty sure he hasn't actually read anything except Che biographies.
That’s interesting, considering Che himself had studied Marx for years and was even writing a biography on Marx, and he is the one who put forth the idea of moral incentives. Which I believe has validity. I think that in order to have communism, you also have to address our inner consciousness, and make people realize how their efforts contribute to the whole – and hence, not require any remuneration for them - but a sense of inner self-gratitude. This is why volunteering was so important to Che and the Cuban Revolution, and why youth all across Cuba still cut sugar cane in the Summers as a mass. If you can’t get individuals to do or realize this, then I believe that the only other way is through fear … and I’d rather utilize the former.

Vendetta

3rd August 2011, 06:54

Che's cool and all but...christ, dude.

Lay off a bit.

CommunityBeliever

3rd August 2011, 07:05

I forgot to mention this earlier, it slipped my mind, I find it very interesting you compare vegetarianism and homosexuality, do you view homosexuality as a lifestyle choice? He was meaning to compare speciesism (oppression of non-humans e.g from meat production) and homophobia (oppression of homosexuals). Society has managed to overcome their homophobia but not specieism yet, but they many do that in ~40 years.

Society consists mainly of heterosexuals, so it was hard for them to accept people unlike them, and that means homosexuals, and it is much harder for them to accept organisms that aren't even human.

CommunityBeliever

3rd August 2011, 07:10

Pure Stalinism and exactly the kind of shit that Che and Fidel were into: state capitalism.

This is nonsense. Che and Fidel were anti-imperialists and communists and they never said they were into "state capitalism."

I made it into the ''anti-che contigent'' :p, he also thinks dislike of the Che cult is to do with pacifism rather than the fact it is a personality cult.

Then attack the personality cult rather then using ridiculous arguments to attack Che.

AnonymousOne

3rd August 2011, 07:24

]Under your standard wouldn’t almost every single heterosexual revolutionary figure pre-1960 have “screwed up” on this issue? If not, then who are some that you believe didn’t?

I'd say that Lenin and Trotsky would be admirable. They took a very large step in decriminalizing homosexuality. That was truly revolutionary considering Russian society at the time.

I'm sure there are more, but at 1am those are two off the top of my head.

Once again, I'm not looking for Che to have been a queer rights activist/genderqueer scholar/critic of heteronormativity. My biggest problem was with the fact that he allowed, or at least didn't care, the UMAP camps to be set up.

Aren’t all of us flawed and a product of our time? I shudder to think about some of the things that society will find inhumane that we are currently doing in 100 years. Most want to be on the right side of history, but sometimes there isn’t a prevalent developed consciousness on some issues. If you look at our entire well of knowledge as one single brain being educated during all this time, then it seems unfair to judge historical figures by contemporary standards.[/COLOR]

Yes, we are all a product of our times and historical forces beyond our control. However, we need to recognize a few things.

First, it's not like legalizing homosexuality/not viewing it as bad was already a well established Leninist concept. Lenin decriminalized homosexuality, so it's not like it didn't happen before.

Second, I really don't think critiquing Che fore creating forced labor camps, is taking him by today's standards. I'm already a Libertarian Socialist, so to me the idea of a forced labor camp is already atrocious but add on to it the fact that the camps were designed to purge Cuba of homosexuality? That crosses a line.

Considering that I don’t believe I consciously choose my heterosexuality, I wouldn’t say that people choose their homosexuality either. I would say that sexuality probably ranges along a scale similar to what Alfred Kinsey hypothesized with the Kinsey Scale i.e. (1-6).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Kinsey_Scale.gif

I choose vegetarianism, because I was trying to think of an issue that has changed drastically in my lifetime, and one that I think will continue to adapt and grow. For the record though, I love steak and bacon.

Okay, I was just wondering. Considering in your last post where you discussed why Marxism doesn't need to get involved in LGBTQ+ rights, I thought you may have had a mistaken view regarding sexual orientation.

There is nothing that exists in objective material reality that indicates there is a god either, however a vast majority of every living person in human history has thought that there was one (myself not included). Sure it was “doable” for Che to be on the cutting edge of nearly ever issue we now see as self-evident, but that ignores the historical realities of places and cultures.

Sadly, in my travels through East Africa years ago in my youth, I encountered many self-professed Marxists, and communists – who culturally could not let go of the idea that gays were “unnatural” and thus in their view “sick” etc. They would wrongly claim that “homosexuality has never existed in Africa”, and that it was brought in by white colonialists and capitalism - but in reality it was just that open homosexuality had never been tolerated for as long as they could remember. Hell, I have had conversations with African Marxist professors at conferences and things who despite all of their other “progressive” leftist beliefs, still see homosexuality as either a lifestyle preference, or in worst cases, solely a residual case of sexual abuse as a child. I would hope that many of the revolutionary leftist users on these forums from Western Europe, the U.S., Australia etc – realize that a majority of the World, even the leftist parties in most of the world, do not have the same conception when it comes to many ideas that are almost universal in the left of our countries – such as homosexuality, women’s rights, sexual rights, animal rights, environmental rights and concerns etc. I would say that unfortunately, in the underdeveloped world, the sexual issues are usually combated last, and many still haven’t been.

You're right that is true, but the answer to that isn't to simply say, "It's okay, because those homosexuals weren't put in forced labor camps in the West." The answer is to continue to engage and fight these false ideas with speech and action.

As I said earlier, for a revolution to succeed we need the working class as a whole, we can't divide up by gender, sex, orientation, race, or any other characteristic.

CHE with an AK

3rd August 2011, 07:28

My dad has even gone as far as to call him "the red christ." (he was being sarcastic, but I think it holds).

there is a line between revolutionary and deity

American kids wear his face on a T-shirt without knowing what he was about

Red Dave hit it on the head with the whole "bourgeois revolutionaries" bit.

What is ironic about this, is that anyone who has traveled through Latin America will tell you that Che is far more popular with indigenous farmers, impoverished teens in favellas, and the lower classes – than with the wealthy Latin Americans or the teen hipsters in the U.S.. In fact, if you meet an anti-Che person in Latin America, they are almost always from the middle to upper class, “white” skinned, – and hate communism in general.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/4094/PreviewComp/SuperStock_4094-15090.jpghttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0817-02.jpg

When I was in Bolivia, I was surprised at how many of the rural indigenous campesinos prayed to Che as "San Ernesto de La Higuera" (Saint Ernesto of La Higuera)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_in_popular_culture#Saint_Ernesto_in_Bo livia

But that could almost be expected when you look at the amalgamation of Catholic sainthood, their reliance on martyrdom and religious imagery, and the post-mortem photos of the dead Che in Bolivia – which resembled their ideal of what they had been told by the church that “Christ” looked like ...

http://www.ils.unc.edu/~michm/Che/SanErnesto.gifhttp://www.bible-topten.com/Copy_of_700px-Andrea_Mantegna_-_The_Dead_Christ.jpg
Dead Che vs. Andrea Mantegna's Lamentation of Christ (1480)

... So while people mock wealthy 'white' Western teens for so-called "worshipping" Che because they wear his face on their shirt, there are actually poor 'brown' campesino indians in Bolivia who literally worship Che and pray to him everyday. But, I think this is also because he gave a voice to their plight and soul-crushing poverty.

∞

3rd August 2011, 07:32

Its funny cuz he was an atheist.

CHE with an AK

3rd August 2011, 07:40

Its funny cuz he was an atheist.
I agree, although in his last years I would call him militantly agnostic - but you can't really blame Che for their misplaced worship.

∞

3rd August 2011, 09:06

what is ironic about this, is that anyone who has traveled through latin america will tell you that che is far more popular with indigenous farmers, impoverished teens in favellas, and the lower classes – than with the wealthy latin americans or the teen hipsters in the u.s.. In fact, if you meet an anti-che person in latin america, they are almost always from the middle to upper class, “white” skinned, – and hate communism in general.

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/wi/223/4094/previewcomp/superstock_4094-15090.jpghttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/0817-02.jpg

when i was in bolivia, i was surprised at how many of the rural indigenous campesinos prayed to che as "san ernesto de la higuera" (saint ernesto of la higuera)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/che_guevara_in_popular_culture#saint_ernesto_in_bo livia

but that could almost be expected when you look at the amalgamation of catholic sainthood, their reliance on martyrdom and religious imagery, and the post-mortem photos of the dead che in bolivia – which resembled their ideal of what they had been told by the church that “christ” looked like ...

http://www.ils.unc.edu/%7emichm/che/sanernesto.gifhttp://www.bible-topten.com/copy_of_700px-andrea_mantegna_-_the_dead_christ.jpg
dead che vs. andrea mantegna's lamentation of christ (1480)

... So while people mock wealthy 'white' western teens for so-called "worshipping" che because they wear his face on their shirt, there are actually poor 'brown' campesino indians in bolivia who literally worship che and pray to him everyday. But, i think this is also because he gave a voice to their plight and soul-crushing poverty.

8316

click to enlarge

RED DAVE

3rd August 2011, 18:20

That’s interesting, considering Che himself had studied Marx for years and was even writing a biography on Marx, and he is the one who put forth the idea of moral incentives.Which just goes to show that, as I have asserted, he was no Marxist.

Which I believe has validity.You would. Also, see below for AH ... AK's take on fear as an incentive.)

I think that in order to have communism, you also have to address our inner consciousness, and make people realizeRight. The role of lefties is to make people realize!

how their efforts contribute to the whole – and hence, not require any remuneration for them - but a sense of inner self-gratitude.Ah yes! I must be grateful to myself (and our fearless leaders) for the free labor I contribute. I have rarely read such hogwash. Even you had to soften it by putting in that "inner self-gratitude" crap. But actually, you're a wimp. Under the good old days (of Uncle Joe), we were supposed to be grateful to HIM for the right to do free labor.

This is why volunteering was so important to Che and the Cuban RevolutionYeah, all those young people marching gayly (Oops, sorry, no gays alloweds) off to the fields to do unremunerated labor. Made my skin crawl then and now. To say nothing of those masochistic US lefties who went down there to help cut the cane.

and why youth all across Cuba still cut sugar cane in the Summers as a mass. If you can’t get individuals to do or realize this, then I believe that the only other way is through fear … and I’d rather utilize the former. You'd motherfucking rather have volunteerism? Rather? But, just in case, fear is cool too. Note that it's YOU who are making decisions (in your mind) about using fear as a motivation.

I am amazed by the primitive level of politics that floats around here sometimes.

RED DAVE

~Spectre

3rd August 2011, 21:26

That’s interesting, considering Che himself had studied Marx for years and was even writing a biography on Marx, and he is the one who put forth the idea of moral incentives.

"Well he studied Marx!!!" Is not a rebuttal to the claim that "moral incentives over material incentives" is not Marxist.

Hint: Other people who have studied Marx disagree with him.

Then again, I think you're more interested in posting the trailer for Motor Cycle Diaries and Che, than you are in logical argumentation.

~Spectre

3rd August 2011, 21:29

There is nothing that exists in objective material reality that indicates there is a god either, however a vast majority of every living person in human history has thought that there was one (myself not included). Sure it was “doable” for Che to be on the cutting edge of nearly ever issue we now see as self-evident, but that ignores the historical realities of places and cultures.

Over 100 years before Che, Marxists already moved beyond the God superstition as well. Marxists before Che also overcame the "homosexuality=inferior!" nonsense as well.

None of this shit was cutting edge, for Marxists.

CHE with an AK

4th August 2011, 03:44

Which just goes to show that, as I have asserted, he was no Marxist.
Well, I am glad that Red Dave on the former Che-lives forum is the one who designates “real” Marxists from phony ones. Where does one apply for your approval?:rolleyes:

Right. The role of lefties is to make people realize!
Sure it is. It is our job to make people realize the disastrous effects of capitalism. It is our goal to make the public understand how imperialism rapes the underdeveloped world. It is our duty to make capitalism disappear from the annals of history. And if capitalism is ever defeated, it will be our mission to MAKE sure it never comes back and MAKE those who try to bring it back pay for it.

Ah yes! I must be grateful to myself (and our fearless leaders) for the free labor I contribute.
Volunteering has nothing to do with being grateful to leaders – as the leaders would take part in the voluntary labor themselves. Che was famous for always spending his day off cutting cane or building homes etc. There are stories of Western journalists going to interview or photograph him, and him making them do 2 weeks of sugar cane cutting with himself, before he gave them the interview. It is only “free” labor if you always expect to paid for your efforts in currency or money. But Che wanted to eliminate an economy based on money, and you can not only do that by having individuals not see their labor as something that is always for sale to the highest bidder. There have been numerous times where I have done volunteer work for someone and felt much more rewarded when they didn’t pay me, than those times that they did.

all those young people marching off to the fields to do unremunerated labor. Made my skin crawl then and now.
Well, then I would contend that you don’t understand what it takes to be a Marxist revolutionary then like Che was.

You'd motherfucking rather have volunteerism? Rather? But, just in case, fear is cool too.
Of course “fear” can be a necessary tool during and after a revolution. To think that it isn’t is asinine idealism. For instance, the puppet rulers of capitalism should FEAR the wrath of the people if the revolution is successful. Also, spies, infiltrators, saboteurs etc working on behalf of the right-wing or counterrevolution should fear the punishment and retribution if they betray the revolution. As for the society post-revolution, there is nothing wrong with people fearing the repercussions if they try and reinstate capitalism and reverse the gains of the revolution. Moreover, in a post-revolution society – you would have to have some sort of mechanism for ensuring that everyone only takes their fair share and doesn't work with enemies of the revolutoon, hopefully that would be class consciousness, but if not, then fear could work too for some reactionaries.

CHE with an AK

4th August 2011, 03:48

I think you're more interested in posting the trailer for Motor Cycle Diaries and Che
Yeah, that is exactly why I have bothered to respond to hundreds of posts on here with words – so that I could post a few video trailers … if that was all I wanted to do, then I would have just posted a thread with the trailers in it. :rolleyes:

Do you ever let up with your dickishness?

Marxists before Che also overcame the "homosexuality=inferior!" nonsense as well.
And who were these Marxists who connected homosexual rights to Marxism or class struggle? What Marxist texts pre 1950 mentioned homosexual equality as being an important component of Marxism? When did Marx himself ever mention homosexuality rights? Or Engels?

Also, I don’t believe that the Cuban revolutionaries saw gays as inherently “inferior”, but from what I have read about the Latin American machismo in the 1950’s, I would posit that they saw gay men (machismo isn’t really concerned with lesbians) as improperly raised or sexually abused by a male as a child. In this vein, it at least follows Fidel’s “logic” from his speech that gay men should be kept from positions where they would be around children. This view was unfortunately prevalent in the U.S. (and still is in some ways with the boy scouts etc).

For instance, I believe that the U.S. Medical association defined homosexuality as a “mental illness” up until the 1970’s. Thus, if one viewed it similar to how we now view schizophrenia or PTSD, then it is not a giant leap to say that you want to “reform” these people and help “cure” them of their “symptoms”. That is not to excuse present day homophobia where we now have access to more information and understanding that it is not a choice, or even a defect – but to just sit here 58 years after Che wrote his “homosexual” youthful remark (1953) and gage his words by ours in unfair in my view.

Che spoke out against racism and South African Apartheid throughout his time in Cuba, integrated the universities and schools etc because he saw race as an undeniable characteristic. However, it might be fair to say that most in Cuba in the 1960’s did not see homosexuality as an “undeniable” personality trait, but something that one acquires. Hence, Fidel in the late 60’s, after Che was dead, did believe that homosexuals could be reformed; however he now has said that view was wrong. I believe if Che were alive that he would say the same thing. However, he died fighting imperialism and thus doesn’t have the luxury to revise his views with the changing times.

AnonymousOne

4th August 2011, 04:01

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]
Also, I don’t believe that the Cuban revolutionaries saw gays as inherently “inferior”, but from what I have read about the Latin American machismo in the 1950’s, I would posit that they saw gay men (machismo isn’t really concerned with lesbians) as improperly raised or sexually abused by a male as a child. In this vein, it at least follows Fidel’s “logic” from his speech that gay men should be kept from positions where they would be around children. This view was unfortunately prevalent in the U.S. (and still is in some ways with the boy scouts etc). Che spoke out against racism and South African Apartheid throughout his time in Cuba, integrated the universities and schools etc because he saw race as an undeniable characteristic. However, it might be fair to say that most in Cuba in the 1960’s did not see homosexuality as an “undeniable” personality trait, but something that one acquires.

First, the Cuban revolutionaries did believe that homosexuality was inferior, I'll quote Castro again,

""we have never believed that an homosexual could personify the character and behavior required to regard him as a true revolutionary, a real communist. This type of deviation crashes with our concept of a communist partisan. But, above all, I don't believe that anybody could have a definite answer about the causes of homosexuality. I think we should treat this problem carefully. But I'll be sincere and tell you that homosexuals should not be allowed to occupy functions where they could influence the youth. ... In the present state of affairs, we must instill in our youth the spirit of discipline, of self-sacrifice and hard work. This attitude might not be the correct one, but it is our sincere opinion on the issue"."

If that doesn't show a belief that homosexuals are inferior I don't know what does. They can't be regarded as a true revolutionary, they can't be a real communist, and they can't be a partisan.

That, to me at least, sounds an awful lot like something someone would say if they viewed homosexuality as being inferior.

Also, for the last time, Che was still alive when the UMAP camps were created in 1965. Che died in 1967.

CHE with an AK

4th August 2011, 04:15

That, to me at least, sounds an awful lot like something someone would say if they viewed homosexuality as being inferior.
Nothing in your quote conflicts with my prior post. In fact, it backs it up in relation to his view on them not being around children and not being true revolutionaries because of their "mental illness" in his view. If he thought it was something one is born with, then he wouldn't think that you could reform it - however, Fidel (who went to Jesuit schools unlike Che growing up) I am sure had some of that Catholic thinking regarding homosexuality being a "sin" and correctable.

Also, for the last time, Che was still alive when the UMAP camps were created in 1965. Che died in 1967.

Still alive yes, but he had left Cuba in early 1965 and dropped out of all public life in late 1964 after his controversial Algiers speech where he called out the Soviet Union, Through all of 1965 he had resigned all his positions in the Cuban government, and was busy fighting guerrilla wars in the Congo and Bolivia from then on until his death in 1967.

Thus, I doubt when his last beleaguered 25 men were being surrounded by 1,800 Bolivian Rangers with CIA assistance and equipment – and had to eat their pack horses and drink their urine to stay alive - that homosexuality equality in Cuba or UMAP camps were on the top of his priority list. I understand why this issue is important and personal for you, and if I were gay myself I might feel the same way, but I don’t believe you are being objective in judging Che personally for the Cuban govt’s actions after he was no longer in Cuba.

CHE with an AK

4th August 2011, 04:24

1965 - Congo
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/CheInCongo1965.jpg/438px-CheInCongo1965.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/CheInCongo1965.jpg)

1967 Bolivia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/CheinBolivia1.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/CheinBolivia1.jpg)

AnonymousOne

4th August 2011, 04:38

Nothing in your quote conflicts with my prior post. In fact, it backs it up in relation to his view on them not being around children and not being true revolutionaries because of their "mental illness" in his view. If he thought it was something one is born with, then he wouldn't think that you could reform it - however, Fidel (who went to Jesuit schools unlike Che growing up) I am sure had some of that Catholic thinking regarding homosexuality being a "sin" and correctable.

I would disagree with you, if he had said behavior I'd probably agree to you. But he also said, "character" which is defined as: the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. This leads me down the path that Castro did believe that homosexuality was inferior, there is something about the traits of a homosexual that makes it impossible to be a true revolutionary.

But I'll be honest, I'm about wornout over the back and forth over Che's views on homosexuality. I think we can both agree that Che was homophobic, and bears some level of responsibility for UMAP as he still wielded considerable influence with the Cuban government. You can continue, however, to act as an apologist for the UMAP program to wipe out homosexuality. 'It's okay, because Castro didn't believe gays were inherently inferior, just temporarily inferior.'

However, I dislike Che for more reasons than his reactionary views on homosexuality. For example, the fact that he created forced labor camps, did not help install a workers' democracy in Cuba, and had a naive sense of idealism which was highlighted by the idea of "moral incentives".

∞

4th August 2011, 06:38

CommunityBeliever

4th August 2011, 07:11

some level of responsibility for UMAP as he still wielded considerable influence with the Cuban government.

He wieled considerable influence with the government well he was fighting in another country? Do you think he could personally have done anything to reverse the years of machismo and Catholicism in Cuba by himself?

As I said before, Che believed in the humane treatment of all people, including homosexuals, he would not have supported oppressing them. His primitive views on them may have led him to the belief that they should be "cured" but I don't think he would support the inhumane treatment of them, and no evidence has been provided which contradicts this.

~Spectre

4th August 2011, 08:19

And who were these Marxists who connected homosexual rights to Marxism or class struggle?

The Bolsheviks decriminalized homosexuality decades before.

Moreover, some of the pre-Marxian socialists already addressed the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

But then again, he lived in the 1700s. Apparently you'll want a thousand years of established writings before you'll concede this point.

manic expression

4th August 2011, 11:35

The Bolsheviks decriminalized homosexuality decades before.

Moreover, some of the pre-Marxian socialists already addressed the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

But then again, he lived in the 1700s. Apparently you'll want a thousand years of established writings before you'll concede this point.
Well, the Bolsheviks did decriminalize it, but I think the point is the state of the movement during Che's life. It was a truly unfortunate fact that communists at that time were not very pro-LGBT, and so Che was not an exception. When Che was murdered, it was still a few years before Stonewall, and the modern LGBT rights movement hadn't come into existence.

However, it was still a complete error and the PCC has admitted as much. Although we can't know for sure, I believe that Che would have come to strongly support LGBT rights had he not been killed. IMO, someone with that kind of dedication to universal human dignity would have come around as soon as it was proven that LGBT is a natural part of humanity.

AnonymousOne

4th August 2011, 13:40

He wieled considerable influence with the government well he was fighting in another country? Do you think he could personally have done anything to reverse the years of machismo and Catholicism in Cuba by himself?

As I said before, Che believed in the humane treatment of all people, including homosexuals, he would not have supported oppressing them. His primitive views on them may have led him to the belief that they should be "cured" but I don't think he would support the inhumane treatment of them, and no evidence has been provided which contradicts this.

Yes, he did wield considerable influence, he knew all the leaders and was a well respected individual within the revolutionary government. I think he could have been an active voice for the idea that homosexuals were not inferior, and were not bourgeois or counter revolutionary.

For example, Lenin and Trotsky in Russia in 1918 decriminalized homosexuality. This must have went against social norms at the time, but the important thing is that it is injustice and cowardice of the highest degree to allow the abuse of an entire population simply because fighting against it would have been difficult.

Except for the fact that Homosexuality for Stalinists/Maoists/Guevaraists (of that time) was that homosexuality was bourgeois and counter-revolutionary. Article, in spanish, gives a good explanation of what Homosexuality was to the cuban revolutionaries.
http://www.cubanet.org/CNews/y03/jan03/20o1.htm

To quote Che, "Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."

So engaging in some synthesis, taking the first part with LGBTQ+ people being counter-revolutionary and bourgeois, and the last part where Che says hatred is needed against the enemy.... 1+1=2.

CHE with an AK

4th August 2011, 21:46

Except for the fact that Homosexuality for Stalinists/Maoists/Guevaraists (of that time) was that homosexuality was bourgeois and counter-revolutionary.
Since most homosexuals stay in the closet for life in the rural underdeveloped world, where society is based on getting married and having children – who then become your unpaid labor, their still is a tendency to wrongly view homosexuality as a bourgeois luxury, that can only exist in the developed capitalist and colonial West. Thus, I can only imagine how prevalent this view was in the 1950’s.

To quote Che, "Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."

So engaging in some synthesis, taking the first part with LGBTQ+ people being counter-revolutionary and bourgeois, and the last part where Che says hatred is needed against the enemy.... 1+1=2.
This is why it is important for one to know the context of the quote that they throw out there. I have no doubt that you found this truncated quote from an anti-Che website, as this is one of their favorites to say “See, he was a terrorist with hate in his heart”. However, the reality is very different and not related in any way to life in Cuba, homosexuals, etc.

This passage comes from his 1967 Message to the Intercontinental sent from his jungle camp in Bolivia, to the Tricontinental solidarity organisation in Havana in the Spring of 1967, about 6 months before Che’s execution.

The letter is referring to the American destruction of Vietnam (which went on to kill 4,000,000 Vietnamese) and is Che’s rallying cry for taking on imperialism around the World. What he is basically saying is that the American soldiers of imperialism will be better armed, but that they will lack conviction - and to defeat their "brutal"ity - you must hate them with your very being.

Here are some passages from the letter that predate the “hatred” quote to give it context … (and I would recommend you read the entire letter)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1967/04/16.htm

"The solidarity of all progressive forces of the world towards the people of Vietnam today is similar to the bitter irony of the plebeians coaxing on the gladiators in the Roman arena. It is not a matter of wishing success to the victim of aggression, but of sharing his fate; one must accompany him to his death or to victory."

"We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism — and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals — instruments of domination — arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependence."

"We must not underrate our adversary; the U.S. soldier has technical capacity and is backed by weapons and resources of such magnitude that render him frightful. He lacks the essential ideological motivation which his bitterest enemies of today — the Vietnamese soldiers — have in the highest degree. We will only be able to overcome that army by undermining their morale — and this is accomplished by defeating it and causing it repeated sufferings."

"These battles shall not be mere street fights with stones against tear-gas bombs, or of pacific general strikes; neither shall it be the battle of a furious people destroying in two or three days the repressive scaffolds of the ruling oligarchies; the struggle shall be long, harsh, and its front shall be in the guerrilla's refuge, in the cities, in the homes of the fighters — where the repressive forces shall go seeking easy victims among their families — in the massacred rural population, in the villages or cities destroyed by the bombardments of the enemy."

"The beginnings will not be easy; they shall be extremely difficult. All the oligarchies' powers of repression, all their capacity for brutality and demagoguery will be placed at the service of their cause. Our mission, in the first hour, shall be to survive; later, we shall follow the perennial example of the guerilla, carrying out armed propaganda ... the great lesson of the invincibility of the guerrillas taking root in the dispossessed masses; the galvanizing of the national spirit, the preparation for harder tasks, for resisting even more violent repressions. Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy."