Che was pro-Stalin

[Anti-Fascist]

He said:

"I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won’t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

Not to mention he completely supported the China, and greatly admired Mao Zedong & North Korea.

[Hampton]

zsiu:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 05:23 PM
He said:

"I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won’t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

Not to mention he completely supported the China, and greatly admired Mao Zedong & North Korea.
I guess you had to think really hard for that one ;)

[Anti-Fascist]

Is the contradiction intentional, that these Che enthusiasts, who are so fanatically anti-"Stalinist" -- well, are yet Che enthusiasts?

Yes, not much ratiocination is requisite to arrive at such a conclusion, for such a conclusion is obvious, as
you imply.

But is is an interesting contradiction nonetheless.

Speaking of thinking, if it does not require much "thought" to arrive at such an obvious conclusion, as you
say, then the anti-Stalin enthusiasts of Che have evidently not been doing much thinking.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

What is your point, Anti-Fascist?

That because Che was a great man, and he may have admired Stalin, that Stalin is thus a great man as well. Not necessarily.

Che was a man, and not a god. Men make mistakes.

I do not have to respect Stalin because I respect Che Guevara.

[Anti-Fascist]

That because Che was a great man, and he may have admired Stalin, that Stalin is thus a great man as well.

No. My point is in my previous post.


Men make mistakes.

Not liking Stalin and being a self-described Marxist is self-contradictory, a very grave mistake indeed.
Fortunately Che was informed enough not to make such a mistake.


I do not have to respect Stalin because I respect Che Guevara.

Likewise me - I do not have respect for Stalin because I respect Che Guevara. That would be quite
moronic. I have respect for Stalin because he was one of the greatest fighters of freedom, democracy, and
equality in the history of mankind.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:29 PM
Is the contradiction intentional, that these Che enthusiasts, who are so fanatically anti-"Stalinist" -- well, are yet Che enthusiasts?

Speaking of thinking, if it does not require much "thought" to arrive at such an obvious conclusion, as you
say, then the anti-Stalin enthusiasts of Che have evidently not been doing much thinking.
Not necessarily.

I admire Che. I admire him because he fought fearlessly to liberate the working class from capitalism. I admire him because he transcended nationalism--he fought to liberate Cuba because he had an opportunity. He was from Argentina, and I do not believe he had any ties at all to Cuba before he met the Castro brothers. After the triumph of the revolution, Che did not become a despot. He left Cuba to aid revolutions in other parts of the world.

None of the reasons I admire Che for have a damn thing to do with Stalin.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Che is more of a symboll then a big intellectual. I wear Che-shirts, not meaning that I am a stalinist.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Marxist in Nebraska+Oct 31 2003, 06:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Marxist in Nebraska @ Oct 31 2003, 06:35 PM)
[email protected] 31 2003, 12:29 PM
Is the contradiction intentional, that these Che enthusiasts, who are so fanatically anti-"Stalinist" -- well, are yet Che enthusiasts?

Speaking of thinking, if it does not require much "thought" to arrive at such an obvious conclusion, as you
say, then the anti-Stalin enthusiasts of Che have evidently not been doing much thinking.
Not necessarily.

I admire Che. I admire him because he fought fearlessly to liberate the working class from capitalism. I admire him because he transcended nationalism--he fought to liberate Cuba because he had an opportunity. He was from Argentina, and I do not believe he had any ties at all to Cuba before he met the Castro brothers. After the triumph of the revolution, Che did not become a despot. He left Cuba to aid revolutions in other parts of the world.

None of the reasons I admire Che for have a damn thing to do with Stalin. [/b]
Those are indeed good reasons for admiring Che.

And Che had good reasons for admiring Stalin.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Answer this question:

Is there a contradiction on my part for admiring Che (my reasons are above), and not admiring Stalin? You claim above that there is a contradiction in being pro-Che and anti-Stalin, but I think I manage to be both without contradicting myself. Does my personal example debunk your claim?

[Tevya The Dairyman]

Comrade "Anti-Fascist", I heard your argue before, and I understand it.
But this information you have is not fully said. Che did sworn before Stalin dead body that he wil avange his death by an impact against the capitalists.
BUT&#33; Mowt of the world this times knew almost nothing about Stalin&#39;s crimes, even in my country-Israel, the Kibutz&#39;s members (Kibutz=hebrew word for a communist village) cried because of the lost of their leader. So Che didn&#39;t knew back then the fully information about Stalin, but when his crimes was posted on the early 60&#39;s, Che abbandoned any belive or filling in Stalin, and after that in Mao to.
For that I admire Che, he saw the facts, even if they hearted him, and move on from his silly admiration for Stalin.
P.S.
-As a former Stalinist (What the hell was I thinking?), I know a lot of information on the subject, so from here I know about Che&#39;s feelings for Stalin.
-Why do you have Stalin&#39;s picture underneath your name?

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 31 2003, 06:45 PM
Answer this question:

Is there a contradiction on my part for admiring Che (my reasons are above), and not admiring Stalin? You claim above that there is a contradiction in being pro-Che and anti-Stalin, but I think I manage to be both without contradicting myself. Does my personal example debunk your claim?
No.

Define "Che".

It is contradictory to this extent: Many Che enthusiasts dislike people for being "Stalinists" and for no
other reason; indeed, this is the norm. But if they dislike people by reason of them being "Stalinists", to
be consistent, they must dislike Che Guevara as well. If all "Stalinists" are "misinformed individuals", it must
be conceded by the Che enthusiasts that Che was a "misinformed individual", to be consistent.

[Anti-Fascist]

But this information you have is not fully said. Che did sworn before Stalin dead body that he wil avange his death by an impact against the capitalists.

Yes.


BUT&#33; Most of the world this times knew almost nothing about Stalin&#39;s crimes,

He made similar remarks much later, long after Stalin&#39;s
so-called "crimes" had bee exposed. Moreover,
he continued to support the Chinese and North Korean
"Stalinists". He continued to admire Mao, who was very
much pro-Stalin.


So Che didn&#39;t knew back then the fully information about Stalin, but when his crimes was posted on the early 60&#39;s,

What crimes? Stalin is not responsible for any crimes.


Che abbandoned any belive or filling in Stalin, and after that in Mao to.

This is completely false.


-As a former Stalinist (What the hell was I thinking?), I know a lot of information on the subject, so from here I know about Che&#39;s feelings for Stalin.

You were never a "Stalinist". The fact that you use the
word "stalinist" is sufficient to evince this truth.


Why do you have Stalin&#39;s picture underneath your name?

Because I believe that Stalin was one of the greatest
champions of democracy and freedom of all time.

[Tevya The Dairyman]

Well than, it&#39;s impossible to talk to you.
You want to feel special, to tell everyone that whatever they know is false, and only you have the answer.
Ignoring Stalin&#39;s buracracy, Dictatorship, Missuse of comuunism, and Crimes, are just example for the person you are.
Someday, like when I lefted the Stalinism, you will find out that the world is not so much full of lies, that you didn&#39;t really had a reason beliving in ridiculous things as "stalinism", and you will accept other people facts, and won&#39;t make your argue to the strongest and truthiest words to come to the air.

On this day comrade, I will reach my hand to you, and will welcome you to the workers inrtenational&#33;

[Anti-Fascist]

Well than, it&#39;s impossible to talk to you.
You want to feel special, to tell everyone that whatever they know is false, and only you have the answer.

Very amusing, kid. A rather convenient way to avoid responding to good criticism. You make me laugh.


Ignoring Stalin&#39;s buracracy,

What is a "buracracy"? Learn to spell.


Dictatorship

What dictatorship? Must we really get into this debate again?


Missuse of comuunism,

Misuse of Communism? That doesn&#39;t make any sense. What are you talking about, boy? Give us some
examples.


and Crimes,

Which crimes, kid? Give us some examples.
I am an expert on Soviet history of the Lenin-Stalin era. I dare
you to respond to my request.


Someday, like when I lefted the Stalinism, you will find out that the world is not so much full of lies, that you didn&#39;t really had a reason beliving in ridiculous things as "stalinism", and you will accept other people facts, and won&#39;t make your argue to the strongest and truthiest words to come to the air.

That last sentence doesn&#39;t even make sense. :lol: :lol:

[Tevya The Dairyman]

See? that what I meant...
I don&#39;t need more enemies comrade, I have enouth already...
I just filling sorry for you:

Very amusing, kid. A rather convenient way to avoid responding to good criticism. You make me laugh.
You see? you alwys have to say the final word, to anger people, and to strech the debate, just to win it...thats&#39;s just childish...

P.S.

What is a "buracracy"? Learn to spell.
Sorry for not having English as mother language, or for leaving in a land which English is used often there. If you&#39;d like, I can talk hebrew...

[Anti-Fascist]

You see? you alwys have to say the final word, to anger people, and to strech the debate, just to win it...thats&#39;s just childish...

Wow, an even more convenient way to avoid responding to cricisim. Well done. And calling my statement names won&#39;t help.

[commie kg]

This thread is pointless. Who gives a damn if Che admired Stalin? I sure as hell don&#39;t.

[Saint-Just]

Che was an intellectual, arguably not one of the greatest intellects, but nonetheless an individual who had deep knowledge of economics, philosphy, science and so forth. Thus, you could expect his judgement of an individual to be accurate. One who admires Che as a complete person with his opinion on important political matters on everything from imperialism to Joseph Stalin, would likely take his opinions with some weight. Che thought greatly of Stalin, equally he followed the Leninist path.

I think you can admire what Leninism did for the working-class and what it did in the struggle against imperialism without being pro-Stalin. However, those who look up to Che should take into account his opinion of Stalin when judging Stalin.

This being true you would then have to criticise Che on this particular issue. I do not think you have to like Stalin because you like Che. The Huz knows this I think, and he knows you all know Che was pro-Stalin. I think what he is looking for and what would be more productive to talk about is why you think Che did support Stalin, why you think he was wrong and so forth. It has been touched upon in this thread, but not explored to the extent that it would constitute a valuable discussion.

I think what should be discussed here is the root of Che&#39;s views and criticisms of Che&#39;s views.

[SonofRage]

Well said Chairman Mao. I admire Che even though I have fundamental disagreements with his politics.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 31 2003, 08:12 PM
Che was an intellectual, arguably not one of the greatest intellects, but nonetheless an individual who had deep knowledge of economics, philosphy, science and so forth. Thus, you could expect his judgement of an individual to be accurate. One who admires Che as a complete person with his opinion on important political matters on everything from imperialism to Joseph Stalin, would likely take his opinions with some weight. Che thought greatly of Stalin, equally he followed the Leninist path.

I think you can admire what Leninism did for the working-class and what it did in the struggle against imperialism without being pro-Stalin. However, those who look up to Che should take into account his opinion of Stalin when judging Stalin.

This being true you would then have to criticise Che on this particular issue. I do not think you have to like Stalin because you like Che. The Huz knows this I think, and he knows you all know Che was pro-Stalin. I think what he is looking for and what would be more productive to talk about is why you think Che did support Stalin, why you think he was wrong and so forth. It has been touched upon in this thread, but not explored to the extent that it would constitute a valuable discussion.

I think what should be discussed here is the root of Che&#39;s views and criticisms of Che&#39;s views.
Chairman Mao is once again entirely correct.

But one of my points was that too many Che enthusiasts dislike comrades SOLELY for being "Stalinists" -
not for any other reason. If they were to carry this logic further, and not single out Che, they would
denounce Che as well. On the other hand, I agree with everyone who said that it is possible to like Che,
but to think Che wrong in his admiration of Stalin. This I do not deny. My point is simply this: if you are
going to be opposed to someone for reason of being a "Stalinist" - and for that reason only - you must be
opposed to Che Guevara. Again, this is not to say that just because you like Che, you have to like Stalin. I
am not saying that at all. Anyone who thinks that has greatly misunderstood what I have said.

[atlanticche]

your an idiot for thinking that che truely supported Stalin or china
he couldn&#39;t and didn&#39;t know the truth about purges or the cultural revolution or any of the situations in the countries that called themselves communist

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 08:26 AM
your an idiot for thinking that che truely supported Stalin or china

"He consulted... Josef Stalin on Marxism..." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 48, Paragraph 4)

"I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won&#39;t rest until I see those capitalist octopuses annihilated." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 126, Paragraph 6)

"...he expressed great admiration for the long struggle of the Chinese people to take power." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 136, Paragraph 5)

"In case poor Beatriz harbored any doubts about where he was coming from, he signed the letter &#39;Stalin II&#39;." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 167, Paragraph 6)

"As far as Dumont could see, Che seemed to be advocating an attempt to "skip stages" in Cuba&#39;s socialist transformation of society... much as Mao had tried to do in China..." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 479, Paragraph 7)

"In Che&#39;s critique of the Stalinist manual, he pointed out that since Lenins writings, little had been added to update the evaluations of Marxism except a few things written by Stalin and Mao." ("Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life", Pg. 697, Paragraph 3)


he couldn&#39;t and didn&#39;t know the truth about purges or the cultural revolution or any of the situations

So tell me, what is the "truth" about the purges or the cultural revolution not according to cold warriors or sensationalist western propaghandists? And if they were such "murderous tyrants" how was Che any less of one. Have you read about the revolutionary discipline he imposed during the battle against Batista, or the trials that took place afterwards which he was in charge of?


in the countries that called themselves communist

That line alone shows your ignorance towards Marxism. There is no such thing as a "communist country." According to Marxist theory, socialist states will develop and eventually combine to create a class-less and state-less, world society known as communism.

[YKTMX]

What exactly is the point of this thread? If the best Stalinists can come up with is "Che one said this about Stalin so na na na" then they are being even more spurious than usual.

[atlanticche]

El Brujo you nieve son of a smurf have you ever even heard of propaganda and censorship
che wasn&#39;t really that clever you know, he can&#39;t see things that are covered up
also the Soviet Union still called itself communist
espesially with as Stalin put it their COMMUNIST revolution

[atlanticche]

Ernesto Guevara de la serna even though he mentioned Stalin at certain points didn&#39;t really know who he was, neither did he know that Stalin use to be nothing more than a common thief

Stalin has and never will be anything more than a capitalist

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:11 AM
El Brujo you nieve son of a smurf have you ever even heard of propaganda and censorship


LOL. Yes I have. And Alexandr Solzhstein, Willian Randolph Hearst and Robert Conquest were experts at such a trade.


che wasn&#39;t really that clever you know

Then why are you debating about his ideology?


also the Soviet Union still called itself communist
espesially with as Stalin put it their COMMUNIST revolution

LOL. Yes Stalin was a communist. That does not mean he was running a communist "state". The ultimate goal of Marxism is to achieve communism, and that can only come AFTER the socialist transition. Please, do some research before soveling shit out of your mouth.


Ernesto Guevara de la serna even though he mentioned Stalin at certain points didn&#39;t really know who he was, neither did he know that Stalin use to be nothing more than a common thief

Stalin has and never will be anything more than a capitalist

Rhetoric not worth wasting my time with.

[atlanticche]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 1 2003, 01:37 AM

also the Soviet Union still called itself communist
espesially with as Stalin put it their COMMUNIST revolution

LOL. Yes Stalin was a communist. That does not mean he was running a communist "state". The ultimate goal of Marxism is to achieve communism, and that can only come AFTER the socialist transition. Please, do some research before soveling shit out of your mouth.

look you little shit, i was just pointing out certain places, that had coincidently called them communist, theres no need to have a fucking heart attack over it

[Anti-Fascist]

atlanticche - Do you want to discuss this rationally, or should you prefer name calling etc? Because I should
like to discuss properly this with you, my dear comrade. But you are not giving us a chance.

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by atlanticche+Nov 1 2003, 10:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (atlanticche @ Nov 1 2003, 10:08 AM)
El [email protected] 1 2003, 01:37 AM

also the Soviet Union still called itself communist
espesially with as Stalin put it their COMMUNIST revolution

LOL. Yes Stalin was a communist. That does not mean he was running a communist "state". The ultimate goal of Marxism is to achieve communism, and that can only come AFTER the socialist transition. Please, do some research before soveling shit out of your mouth.

look you little shit, i was just pointing out certain places, that had coincidently called them communist, theres no need to have a fucking heart attack over it [/b]
ROFL. Im a little shit, now. How old are you, boy?

You were clearly using Stalin&#39;s reference of a "communist revolution" to argue that the USSR was considered communist and I corrected you, Nothing more.

[FistFullOfSteel]

Stalin vas good at war strategic and tactics with the captain Zukov.

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 09:51 AM
Stalin vas good at war strategic and tactics with the captain Zukov.
which is completely irrelevant.

[FistFullOfSteel]

i saw that on a documentarie.

[Kapitan Andrey]

I told, that 10000...times :

" If only Che could knew, that stalin killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS innocent civilians, he would hate stalin with all his revolutionary passion&#33;&#33;&#33;" :angry:

[Hate Is Art]

is there a point to this argumeant?

I have kinda lost it ;)

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Kapitan [email protected] 1 2003, 10:18 AM
I told, that 10000...times :

" If only Che could knew, that stalin killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS innocent civilians, he would hate stalin with all his revolutionary passion&#33;&#33;&#33;" :angry:
Stalin did not kill "millions and millions".

[Hate Is Art]

oh yes they just dissapeared :blink:

[General A.A.Vlasov]

Anti-Fascist....danm you&#33; You are anti-fascist and STALINIST&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; You must be banned&#33; :angry:

Digital Nirvana...you&#39;re good man&#33; :) Thank you for understanding&#33;

Kapitan Andrey...may be...

[Anti-Fascist]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 1 2003, 11:31 AM
oh yes they just dissapeared :blink:
The burden of proof is on you.

[Edelweiss]

Here is a nice quote by Che, which proofs that Che was NOT the dogmatic Marxist-Leninist hardliner that sectarians like Chaiman Mao want to make out of him. (I already posted this some time ago in the CC).
This is from a self-portrait by Che, printed by the Geman magazine "Der Spiegel" in 1968. This will be pretty desillusionizing for some here I guess (Sorry about my poor translation):

"I don&#39;t want to be a Castro, no Bolivar, no Chruschtschow, I would like to be the Mao of my continent. I&#39;m a man who is able to nurse somebody for free, and I was doing that most of the time, but not for all gold in the world I could be out to kill somebody.

One may think I&#39;m a communist, but I don&#39;t want anybody to say that, because I fear to be lumped together with those who call themself communist, and who I despise. There are no more communists, especially since they use this word systematicly for the Russians. The Russians have abused those word, and made a petty-bourgois, stinking ragout out of it. It&#39;s the socialist larvas who swell with noble words, but who are lauching out nothing than sour milk.

Oh, when i think about how Fidel now lining up the same, rotten future; when I think about how he seriously making efforts to reach exatly this, I&#39;m getting sick&#33;

Basicly it&#39;s not the the revoution which actually is my cause. Of course, I will never have a very personal vision for the future, because in my own way, I&#39;m all at the same time: Christian, Marxist, Trozkyist, Maoist, but I&#39;m fighting for that man will find justice and equality in comparison with it&#39;s fellow man one day."

Source (http://www.wissen.de/xt/default.do?MENUID=40,156,538,547&MENUNAME=InfoContainer&OCCURRENCEID=.WD002180933497808001.TM01-FullContent&WissenID=P3mj8GM3lNA3I1ETM0KvW74eC1JSwgfyOJMNckI2H T2SJ0vlJe1w|-2565812980452920623/182718475/6/7062/7062/7003/7003/7062/-1|-4580702985895023074/182718489/6/7062/7062/7003/7003/7062/-1|1064936432572)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:29 PM
I&#39;m all at the same time: Christian

Source (http://www.wissen.de/xt/default.do?MENUID=40,156,538,547&MENUNAME=InfoContainer&OCCURRENCEID=.WD002180933497808001.TM01-FullContent&WissenID=P3mj8GM3lNA3I1ETM0KvW74eC1JSwgfyOJMNckI2H T2SJ0vlJe1w|-2565812980452920623/182718475/6/7062/7062/7003/7003/7062/-1|-4580702985895023074/182718489/6/7062/7062/7003/7003/7062/-1|1064936432572)
Nice lettre, but I am Christian ??

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 01:29 PM
Here is a nice quote by Che, which proofs that Che was NOT the dogmatic Marxist-Leninist hardliner that sectarians like Chaiman Mao want to make out of him. (I already posted this some time ago in the CC).
This is from a self-portrait by Che, printed by the Geman magazine "Der Spiegel" in 1968. This will be pretty desillusionizing for some here I guess (Sorry about my poor translation):
I know Che is not an ideologue. I have said before on this site that he was a man of action more than of theory, and that he followed M-L because it was what he considered best for the South American people. But, he was an intellectual, and he did favour the global M-L movement, favouring Mao&#39;s line on opposing the imperialists during the cold war instead of the Soviet line of cooperation.

Che even read Trotsky, he did not criticise it even, he just did not know what to make of it. Che does give a lot of evidnce of being tied to M-L theory though. This quote seems extremely out of place.

I am certainly not sectarian, I support all socialist states, and many states others would not consider socialist. My ideas may be different to those of Malte and so forth, however, I do not think mine are more exlusive (in terms of political ideas).

Whether Che professed to being Christain or not, I think the issue here that I cited earlier remains, to criticise Che on his views on Stalin. Although Che was purely interested in liberation, he did follow the M-L path to achieve it. In addition, Fidel Castro who was brought to his M-L outlook by Che, Che in effect helped shape Castroism.

Calling Che a communist may not be entirely true, however he did share many characteristics with communists and followed a communist path to liberation. I reject the notion that Che was dogmatic, however I would suggest he did practice Marxism-Leninism. I do not say you have to be a Marxist-Leninist to admire Che, but I think there must be acknowledgement of a disagreement with Che his analysis of Marxism-Leninism. I acknowledge that Che does not have precisely the same views as I, and I could produce a critique of him.

I think this topic is very abstract in terms of how it can be debated. Che was not dogmatic, however he did follow the Marxist-Leninist path. I think that view is true and is somewhere between the two theoretical opposites of Che&#39;s politics (those opposites being great pragmatism and &#39;Stalinesqe&#39; Marxism-Leninism).

[Bianconero]

My interpretation of Malte&#39;s Guevara-quotation would be that Guevara didn&#39;t want to be called a &#39;Communist&#39; along with Nikita K.&#39;s petty bourgeois revisionist gang. Instead, he saw himself as a true Communist, as a follower of the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Really, I don&#39;t know why Guevara shouldn&#39;t be seen as a Communist in the Marxist-Leninist sense. He studied Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. and made their theories his own. He clearly fought against Nikita, who was seen as a &#39;Communist&#39; by the world. That is, why he refused to be called a &#39;Communist.&#39; (i.e. Krushevist)

[Cassius Clay]

Che by most definitions was a &#39;Stalinist&#39;. In that he praised Stalin in words and generally followed a &#39;Stalinist&#39; line in terms of the international movement at the time aswell on how to build Socialism. Che favoured a policy of industrialisation to make Cuba a Socialist society, unfournatly Castro favoured closer ties with the USSR, Che correctly pointed out that Khruschev was giving &#39;aid&#39; which was effectively crap and designed to make Cuba a dependent and a colony of the USSR.

Che correctly fought against this. For a while he became pro-Mao although he later condemmed the Cultural Revolution (something which many &#39;Stalinists&#39; did and have later done).

Never the less Che made some mistakes, he should of went further in his crticism of the USSR and I think his policy of &#39;create one, two, three Vietnams&#39; was idealism. Hence why he failed. Although it&#39;s easy to crticise with the benefit of hignsight. Also this whole policy of &#39;Guerrilla warfare&#39; created something which was criticsied at the time as creating a &#39;Guerrilla Elite&#39;.

Anyway for those anti-&#39;Stalinists&#39; among us. All I can say is keep the letters going in to the Reichs propaganda ministry. The Bolshsevik conspiracy cant be defeated without your help.

[The Feral Underclass]

I only read the first few posts so I may be repeating what has been said already. I agree that in order to support Che Guavera you do not need to support Stalin. What is important about Che is that he was a full time revolutionary and activly attacked Capitalism at any given opportunity.

He dedicated his life as a revolutionary, trying to achieve a better world. For He gave up his life fighting for the prolateriate. He fought in the Cuban revolution, he fought in the Congo to smash the US backed Mobutu regime and then died fighting to overthrow the brutal military dictatership of Batista.

He was truly an internationalist and although i am his ideological enemy I respect his commitment and believe he was one of the greatest revolutonaries the world has seen. :ph34r:

[Bianconero]

...and then died fighting to overthrow the brutal military dictatership of Batista.

Well, no. Guevara died in Bolivia, not Cuba.


I agree that in order to support Che Guavera you do not need to support Stalin.

Did you ever read about how traitors to the revolution where handled during and after the revolution? Have you heard of the trials that took place in Cuba after the revolution prevailed?

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, now. Guevara died in Bolivia, not Cuba

I meant Barrientos.

Did you ever read about how traitors to the revolution where handled during and after the revolution? Have you heard of the trials that took place in Cuba after the revolution prevailed?

How do you define "traitors to the revolution"? I have not heard about these things and have not read alot about it but if you have information I would gladly read it&#33;?

[Bianconero]

How I define &#39;traitors to the revolution&#39; is not relevant. Guevara however always was the last one to hesitate when it came to people who sold information to the Batista army. He was the first to call for their immediate execution. After the revolution, there were more executions. The army for example was to be purged and Guevara led the trials with severe hand. He had hundreds of counter-revolutionaries executed.

For more information on this, I can recommend a book someone this thread already referred to. &#39;A Revolutionary Life&#39; by Jon L. Anderson

[Cassius Clay]

Great now we have a resident Nazi among us.

Spouting the same old anti-&#39;Stalinist&#39; rubbish. Is it really acceptable for someone to have a avator of General Vlasov who was friend with Himmler and whose troops took part in genocide of Jews and even appalled SS commaders in their brutality towards Polish civilians?

Oh but he&#39;s anti-&#39;Stalinist&#39; that makes it okay, he was only doing the best thing for Russia. Rubbish, either this guy is very naive of what Vlasov was or he&#39;s a Fascist. It shouldn&#39;t be tolerated.

[Bianconero]

Smells like Russian imperialism, i.e. Kapitan Andrey. Don&#39;t worry about him, he is just naive.

[The Feral Underclass]

What you define a traitor to the revolution as is very relevant. What you think a traitor is and what I think a traitor is could be too completely different things. Dont assume because you think one thing that is autmotically going to mean i do...from what you said those people deserved to be executed. When your trying to fight for a revolution and you have people selling over information to your enemy, a brutal fascits dictatorship enemy for that matter, they deserve to be executed&#33;

[Bianconero]

When your trying to fight for a revolution and you have people selling over information to your enemy, a brutal fascits dictatorship enemy for that matter, they deserve to be executed&#33;

We agree on this, then. I fail to see why you would call yourself an Anarchist then? Maybe I&#39;m getting old or something, but aren&#39;t you, as an Anarchist, totally opposed to authoritarianism, repressions etc. .. ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism is about, first and foremost, the creation of a society which is statless and void of hierarchical structures. I believe, as an Anarchist that a revolution must be led by the people, for the people to achieve a statless society, not a dictatership of a group of "intellectuals" working "on behalf" of the workers. I belief this is not only unnessacery but fundamentally against the whole purpose of fighting a revolution which as hisotry proves ultimatly leads to further forms of oppression, some may say even worse, than that of capitalism.

This is completely different from the need to defend the revolution. in a simple way the revolution has to be led by conscious workers. A mass of conscious workers. If you therefore have a small group of people who are selling you [the mass of people] out to a system which by principle whishes to oppress you and bind you to a wage, creating exploitation and alienation, they are ideologically evil, in my oppinion. you do not have the time to be sentimental about these things. You have to be blunt and quick. Bouregois forces have to be attacked at every corner, otherwise the revolution will collapse.

I do not think this contradicts the principles of anarchism. An authotarian would argue that this would have to be done by a centralised force controlled by the party. Bollocks. Defence of this kind can quite easily be co-orindated by local federations on a democratic level. of course if a federation voted not to use such drastic mesures then that would be the democratic right of that federation, and no party, or central commitee should have the power to say otherwise.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Cassius [email protected] 1 2003, 06:08 PM
Great now we have a resident Nazi among us.

Spouting the same old anti-&#39;Stalinist&#39; rubbish. Is it really acceptable for someone to have a avator of General Vlasov who was friend with Himmler and whose troops took part in genocide of Jews and even appalled SS commaders in their brutality towards Polish civilians?

Oh but he&#39;s anti-&#39;Stalinist&#39; that makes it okay, he was only doing the best thing for Russia. Rubbish, either this guy is very naive of what Vlasov was or he&#39;s a Fascist. It shouldn&#39;t be tolerated.
Who is defending Vlasov?

BTW Vlasov was anti-Hitler too.

[atlanticche]

Originally posted by El Brujo+Nov 1 2003, 06:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (El Brujo @ Nov 1 2003, 06:48 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 10:08 AM

El [email protected] 1 2003, 01:37 AM

also the Soviet Union still called itself communist
espesially with as Stalin put it their COMMUNIST revolution

LOL. Yes Stalin was a communist. That does not mean he was running a communist "state". The ultimate goal of Marxism is to achieve communism, and that can only come AFTER the socialist transition. Please, do some research before soveling shit out of your mouth.

look you little shit, i was just pointing out certain places, that had coincidently called them communist, theres no need to have a fucking heart attack over it
ROFL. Im a little shit, now. How old are you, boy?

You were clearly using Stalin&#39;s reference of a "communist revolution" to argue that the USSR was considered communist and I corrected you, Nothing more. [/b]
no you misunderstand me, im merly saying that it called itself communist, nothing to do with how people looked at it, neither was it the point to what i was saying in the first place, you&#39;ve just made a mountain out of well nothing

[atlanticche]

Originally posted by Kapitan [email protected] 1 2003, 10:18 AM
I told, that 10000...times :

" If only Che could knew, that stalin killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS innocent civilians, he would hate stalin with all his revolutionary passion&#33;&#33;&#33;" :angry:
this is the type of thing that i was trying to get at

i apologise for saying that che wasn&#39;t that clever as i have only today started reading "che guevara the motorcycle diaries", to realise that he did a 6 year medical course in three years to become a doctor