What were Che Guevara's Political Beliefs?

[Mitja]

I read so many thinks about che how he lived, about his life i read about 100 pages about him. But i still cant get what were his political views. What did he stand for? I read that he was a stalinist but i cant trust that. (i would be so depressed if he was an stalinist)

so if you know what were his political views pleas tell me i realy want to know. (and i searched google) i only get that he was an bucher, hitler 2, idiot,... ( i know only right wingers write this shit)


so thanks in advantage


now good night every bothy :thumbup:

[MustCrushCapitalism]

He was a Marxist-Leninist.

[Ocean Seal]

Che's political theory can best be described as Focoism. In implementation it is uncertain what it would look like, but in principle it is essentially about the vanguard disappearing after the revolution. In practice he collaborated with several Marxist-Leninist and Maoist organizations. Why would you be so depressed if he was a Stalinist by the way? Stalinism is essentially just a buzzword.

[Grigori]

Che's political theory can best be described as Focoism. In implementation it is uncertain what it would look like, but in principle it is essentially about the vanguard disappearing after the revolution. In practice he collaborated with several Marxist-Leninist and Maoist organizations. Why would you be so depressed if he was a Stalinist by the way? Stalinism is essentially just a buzzword.

I thought foquismo was a revoltionary strategy of inciting various uprising in far flung places at the same time in order to overwhelm the offensive capabilities of imperialist scum ( in this like most cases, the U S and her allies.) Instead of taking urban centers they would focus on the rural core of the nation and create a vicegrip on cosmopolitan areas coinciding with urban uprisings that would eventually lead to foreigners and their stooges losing the will to remain and causing the revolutionaries to take control in the power vacoom. Although 3 out of 4 countries would fail, the 4th could gain victory. Places that have utilized foquismo guerrilla tactics include Cuba, the FARC in Colombia, shining path guerrillas of Peru and hate to say it but the increasingly powerful Taliban of Afghanistan. Also Che was clearly in the Chinese camp of the Sino-Soviet split. He incorporated alot of maoism in his beliefs

At least i think:blushing:

[Koba1917]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/enver-hoxha-che-t151337/index.html

Che was a Marxist-Leninist with a few mistaken ideas. Though saying that, he was still a hero who fought in many Countries for the Liberation of its people. Also "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." - Che Guevara. Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=aCw19CUXpqkC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=I+have+sworn+before+a+picture+of+the+old+and+mo urned+comrade+Stalin+that+I+won't+rest+until+I+see +these+capitalist+octopuses+annihilated.&source=bl&ots=JS-G7ofYnM&sig=mF2iYdAnyKoI9YdLL8RkwzKOU4c&hl=en&ei=Pd2tTqjaKuTy0gHk8qmWDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[Commissar Rykov]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/enver-hoxha-che-t151337/index.html

Che was a Marxist-Leninist with a few mistaken ideas. Though saying that, he was still a hero who fought in many Countries for the Liberation of its people. Also "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." - Che Guevara. Source (http://books.google.com/books?id=aCw19CUXpqkC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=I+have+sworn+before+a+picture+of+the+old+and+mo urned+comrade+Stalin+that+I+won%27t+rest+until+I+s ee+these+capitalist+octopuses+annihilated.&source=bl&ots=JS-G7ofYnM&sig=mF2iYdAnyKoI9YdLL8RkwzKOU4c&hl=en&ei=Pd2tTqjaKuTy0gHk8qmWDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Which was written in 1953 when he was finishing up his Motorcycle Trip. Hardly indicative of being a Stalinist. Che came down on the side of the Chinese after the Sino-Soviet Split and even began reading some Trotsky near the end as well.

[LeftAtheist]

He was something of a Maoist, at least after the Cuban Missile Crisis I believe. He definitely took the Chinese side in the Sino-Soviet split, as mentioned above.

[Koba1917]

Which was written in 1953 when he was finishing up his Motorcycle Trip. Hardly indicative of being a Stalinist. Che came down on the side of the Chinese after the Sino-Soviet Split and even began reading some Trotsky near the end as well.

Well Che is an interesting character, more or less I wouldn't call him a 'theory' kind of guy. Che was a great soldier but reading his theoretical works, he comes off kind of a confusing guy (Though I haven't read to much of Che).

[Commissar Rykov]

Well Che is an interesting character, more or less I wouldn't call him a 'theory' kind of guy. Che was a great soldier but reading his theoretical works, he comes off kind of a confusing guy (Though I haven't read to much of Che).
I don't think even Che himself would say he was a theorist. I think we was more interested in the application and emancipation than he probably was theory.

[Koba1917]

I don't think even Che himself would say he was a theorist. I think we was more interested in the application and emancipation than he probably was theory.
Pretty much, Hoxha stated
".....Che Guevara was killed. Such a thing is liable to happen, because a revolutionary may get killed. Che Guevara, however, was a victim of his own non-Marxist-Leninist views."Which is true that Che did act not upon Leninist views but 'Focoism'. Though Hoxha also states...

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

Pretty much sums of my view, great fighter for the people, but also made mistakes which got him killed.

[RED DAVE]

Fact is, Che had no concept of the working class as the independent, leading force in a revolution. Both his writings and his practice reveal this, rhetoric aside. In short, he was a Stalinist (regardless of which side he chose in the Sino-Soviet dispute).

The foco theory is an unwarranted extrapolation from the experiences of the Cuban Revolution. Without extensive help from the urban classes, and the virtual collapse of the Cuban Army from within, the revolution would not have occurred. To have attempted to reproduce this event linearly was political blindness.

Che was a brilliant petty-bourgeois (not a bourgeois as Hoxha said) revolutionary. The end-result of the Cuban Revolution was state capitalism which is steadily morphing into private capitalism under some of the same people (Fidel and Raul) who made the revolution in the first place.

RED DAVE

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Why don't you try reading what he actually wrote himself?

[Geiseric]

That's pretty pompious of Hoxha to say, that Che was killed as a result of non similar views? He was pretty Stalinist as it stands.

[Homo Songun]

Well Che is an interesting character, more or less I wouldn't call him a 'theory' kind of guy. Che was a great soldier but reading his theoretical works, he comes off kind of a confusing guy (Though I haven't read to much of Che).
I don't think even Che himself would say he was a theorist. I think we was more interested in the application and emancipation than he probably was theory.
I don't think this is particularly supportable, I mean didn't Debray make a name for himself from basically riffing/ripping off Che's ideas?

[GallowsBird]

I am going to try to break this to the OP gently as it will depress him.

Che was an Marxist-Leninist or Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (unsurprising for someone outside North America or Europe) who was specifically an "Anti-Revisionist" and of course a "Focoist"; If he was a member here he'd be labeled a "Stalinist" and mocked for having an image of Stalin he swears to. Many would say that unlike most "Marxist-Leninists" he had criticisms of Stalin and didn't see things as black and white which is of course nonsense as most M-Ls on this board aren't die-hard zealots either.

Some quotes by the great man:


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


“In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context. I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a series of things that are very good.


“Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. 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.”


“I think that the fundamental stuff that Trotsky was based upon was erroneous and that his ulterior behaviour was wrong and his last years were even dark. The Trotskyites have not contributed anything whatsoever to the revolutionary movement; where they did most was in Peru, but they finally failed there because their methods are bad.”


“We consider the Trotskyist party to be acting against the revolution.”


“Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists.”


“I agree with your statement, but the Cuban Trotskyists are not inside the Revolution, but only `divisionists.'...I won't say they are CIA agents — we don't know. They have no history of support to the revolution.”


"To be a vanguard party means to stand in the forefront of the working class in the struggle for the seizure of power”

[Ismail]

That's pretty pompious of Hoxha to say, that Che was killed as a result of non similar views? He was pretty Stalinist as it stands.Che adhered to "foco" views, not the building up of a vanguard party to wage revolutionary struggle. Hoxha was even more blunt at another time when he said, "From what we know, reading the 'theories' of Castro and others like him on the party, the armed struggle, the role of the peasantry and the confidence which the party should have in it, we see that all these 'theories' of theirs are not Marxist at all. In reading Che Guevara's notebook which was published in Cuba we ask the question: what sort of Marxist can live as a savage in the Sierra and organize the work in secrecy from the masses, in whom he has no confidence?" (Speeches, Conversations and Articles: 1969-1970, p. 208.)

[El Chuncho]

Well, yes Hoxhaists believe he isn't a Marxist (as Ismail shows), but Che considered himself a Marxist-Leninist Stalinist. I think that answers the OP's question.

[Homo Songun]

GallowsBird,

Can you direct me to the documents from which you took quotes #4 and #6 above?

[El Chuncho]

He can, but I also can and will! :cool:

“Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists.” is from a 1965 letter to Armando Hart.

“I think that the fundamental stuff that Trotsky was based upon was erroneous and that his ulterior behaviour was wrong and his last years were even dark. The Trotskyites have not contributed anything whatsoever to the revolutionary movement; where they did most was in Peru, but they finally failed there because their methods are bad.” was from ''Stalin II'', a letter Che sent to his aunt. You can find them in the annexes.

[GallowsBird]

GallowsBird,

Can you direct me to the documents from which you took quotes #4 and #6 above?

The first ("I think that the fundamental stuff that Trotsky was based upon was erroneous and that his ulterior behaviour was wrong and his last years were even dark. The Trotskyites have not contributed anything whatsoever to the revolutionary movement; where they did most was in Peru, but they finally failed there because their methods are bad.”) is quoted in “Comments on ‘Critical Notes on Political Economy’ by Che Guevara,” from Revolutionary Democracy Journal; This is quoting the [I]"Stalin II" letter to his aunt from 1955.

“Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists.” is from a letter to Che Guevara, Armando Hart Davalos published in Contracorriente, Havana, September 1997.

I hope that helps.;)

[Zealot]

He was a "Stalinist". Either be depressed or face reality, join the ranks and call yourself what Che would have called himself; Marxist-Leninist.

As noted he held some idealistic views (Focoism) which ended up getting him killed but that's beside the point and apart from that you can be depressed about the rest of his politics.

[Agathor]

"they took Che before the prosecutor, the prosecutor interrogated him, and Che even started arguing about the cult of personality, doing a critique of Stalin.... He was a Marxist ... He defended Marx, he defended Lenin, and he attacked Stalin."

My Life, Fidel Castro, pg 188-9.

[El Chuncho]

"they took Che before the prosecutor, the prosecutor interrogated him, and Che even started arguing about the cult of personality, doing a critique of Stalin.... He was a Marxist ... He defended Marx, he defended Lenin, and he attacked Stalin."

My Life, Fidel Castro, pg 188-9.

Fuller quote:

''He was a Marxist. He defended Marx, he defended Lenin and attacked Stalin - or rather, he criticized the cult of personality, Stalin's errors.... I never heard him talk about Trotsky''.

Castro is probably slightly incorrect about Che if we are to weigh his diaries and his notes with the brief recollection in 'My Life' (which seems confused and mistranslated...Castro says he has more criticisms of Stalin, then pretty much says why Stalin was great, whilst claiming that Che even found merit in Stalin but was a Leninist). I'd prefer to read it in Spanish for that reason, it seems too rambling and contradictory in the English translation.

Castro then pretty much goes on to say what Che agreed with and what he didn't in regards to Stalin and then he goes on to what he himself agrees with (industrialization, Siberia etc.) and what he doesn't agree with (Molotov pact, believing too readily in NAZI misinformation.


''Q: Fidel, for most Latin American revolutionary leaders, the current crisis of socialism has a mastermind: Josef Stalin.

A: I believe Stalin made big mistakes but also showed great wisdom.

In my opinion, blaming Stalin for everything that occurred in the Soviet Union would be historical simplism, because no man by himself could have created certain conditions. It would be the same as giving Stalin all the credit for what the USSR once was. That is impossible! I believe that the efforts of millions and millions of heroic people contributed to the USSR's development and to its relevant role in the world in favor of hundreds of millions of people.

I have criticized Stalin for a lot of things. First of all, I criticized his violation of the legal framework.

I believe Stalin committed an enormous abuse of power. That is another conviction I have always had.

I feel that Stalin's agricultural policy did not develop a progressive process to socialize land. In my opinion, the land socialization process should have begun earlier and should have been gradually implemented. Because of its violent implementation, it had a very high economic and human cost in a very brief period of history.

I also feel that Stalin's policy prior to the war was totally erroneous. No one can deny that western powers promoted Hitler until he became a monster, a real threat. The terrible weakness shown by western powers before Hitler cannot be denied. This at encouraged Hitler's expansionism and Stalin's fear, which led Stalin to do something I will criticize all my life, because I believe that it was a flagrant violation of principles: seek peace with Hitler at any cost, stalling for time.

During our revolutionary life, during the relatively long history of the Cuban Revolution, we have never negotiated a single principle to gain time, or to obtain any practical advantage. Stalin fell for the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at a time when Germans were already demanding the delivery of the Danzig Corridor.''

No true Marxist-Leninist thinks we should just worship comrade Stalin. We all have criticism of some of his policies - but we often have no chance to discuss or criticize any of them because the ''anti-Stalinists'' are always on the attack - but we all believe that he carried on the truest and most successful form of Marxism. Castro has a few more criticisms of Stalin than I do (the pact Castro mentions is justified in my view, because stalling the war was the best option), but he is not ashamed to be a Marxist-Leninist and have criticism of Stalin. Stalin is not a god, he was a wise but sometimes faulted leader. As are all the leaders of any socialist states, including Castro himself!

[Zealot]

Adding to what El Chuncho has already contributed, the fact that Che may have criticized Stalin's cult of personality makes no difference since there is evidence to suggest that Stalin himself wasn't a fan of it. And if we were to pass judgement based on one quote from Fidel, it flies in the face of what Che himself has said, multiple times, about his own politics.

[Ismail]

Hoxha criticized personality cults and referred to the situation in Albania in the following manner in 1977: "We have condemned the cult of the individual and condemn it to this day about anybody at all. On this question we follow the view of Marx, and for this reason amongst us, in our leadership, there is Marxist-Leninist unity, affection, sincerity, Marxist-Leninist respect towards comrades on the basis of the work which each does and his loyalty to the principles of the Party. Amongst us there is no idolâtrie. Above all we speak about the Party, while we speak about Enver only as much as the interests of the Party and country require, and when from the base and the masses there has been some excess in this direction, the Central Committee, the leadership of the Party and I personally, as much as I can and to the extent that they have listened to me about it, have always taken and always will take measures to proceed on the right course." (Reflections on China Vol. II, pp. 419-420.)

There are various instances of Hoxha criticizing the cult of personality around Stalin and noting that he could have done more to criticize it. Unless someone wants to claim that Hoxha was secretly a non-"Stalinist," then, well, yeah.

[blake 3:17]

From Michael Lowy's essay Che Guevara in Search of a New Socialism


Che’s death in October 1967 interrupted a process of independent political maturation and intellectual development. His work is not a closed system, a polished system of thought with an answer to everything. On many questions, such as planning, the struggle against bureaucracy, and so on, his thinking remains incomplete. [3]

The driving force behind this quest for a new road — over and above the specific economic issues — was the conviction that socialism is meaningless and consequently cannot triumph unless it holds out the offer of a civilization, a social ethic, a model of society that is totally antagonistic to the values of petty individualism, unfettered egoism, competition, the war of all against all that is characteristic of capitalist civilization, this world in which “man eats man.”

The construction of socialism for Che is inseparable from certain moral values, in contrast to the “economistic” conceptions of Stalin, Krushchev and their successors, who consider only the “development of the productive forces.” In a famous interview with the journalist Jean Daniel, in July 1963, Che was already developing an implicit critique of “actually existing socialism”: “Economic socialism without a communist morale does not interest me. We are fighting poverty, but at the same time alienation….If communism is dissociated from consciousness, it may be a method of distribution but it is no longer a revolutionary morality.” [4]

Full article here: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1712

There's a good biography of Che by Jorge Castaneda, a former Communist who has moved to the absolute centre.

[Ismail]

That is probably what attracted him towards Chinese efforts which emphasized "revolutionary consciousness" (and "putting politics in command") over economic arguments. Stalin didn't "only consider the 'development of the productive forces'" though.

[Agathor]

I didn't include the part where Castro claims that Che endorsed Krushchev's secret speech.

Anyway, I don't think or care much about Che. A sadist, a traitor, a failure, and a pop icon. The left's obsession with Che is one of it's least endearing traits.

[balls deep in revolution]

Che Guevara was a pretty standard Marxist-Leninist for his time, except more openly supportive of Stalin. He supported all the self described socialist states (ranging from uncritical support to critical support but support nonetheless) as well as left wing states that didn't identify as socialist as long as they were center-left anti-imperialist states.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I was actually unaware that Che was a Maoist.

[Ismail]

I didn't include the part where Castro claims that Che endorsed Krushchev's secret speech.It's worth noting that Castro's view of Che probably isn't the most unbiased view of him. Evidently he'd want to turn Che after his death into someone inoffensive to the Soviets and more "romantic" than ideological.

But it is true that as far as actual practice went, he didn't fight as a Marxist-Leninist.

[Ostrinski]

His beliefs aren't that important, as he didn't have a very deep understanding of Marxism. He was inspired more by his own personal experiences and interactions with the Latin American peasants and workers that led to his revolutionary conclusions than any actual theory. He was essentially just an idealist who wanted to change the world. Why some people think he's Jesus or some kind of savior of the global poor idk. He failed at pretty much everything he did.

[Homo Songun]

His beliefs aren't that important, as he didn't have a very deep understanding of Marxism. He was inspired more by his own personal experiences and interactions with the Latin American peasants and workers that led to his revolutionary conclusions than any actual theory. He was essentially just an idealist who wanted to change the world.

I apologize in advance if this offends you, but you sound incredibly pretentious here. Practice is the sole criterion of knowledge, and Che had miles of practice. We should all strive to be like Che.

[Homo Songun]

The first ("I think that the fundamental stuff that Trotsky was based upon was erroneous and that his ulterior behaviour was wrong and his last years were even dark. The Trotskyites have not contributed anything whatsoever to the revolutionary movement; where they did most was in Peru, but they finally failed there because their methods are bad.”) is quoted in “Comments on ‘Critical Notes on Political Economy’ by Che Guevara,” from Revolutionary Democracy Journal; This is quoting the [I]"Stalin II" letter to his aunt from 1955.

“Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists.” is from a letter to Che Guevara, Armando Hart Davalos published in Contracorriente, Havana, September 1997.

I hope that helps.;)

I obviously miscounted, what I meant was these two quotes:


“We consider the Trotskyist party to be acting against the revolution.”

and:

“I agree with your statement, but the Cuban Trotskyists are not inside the Revolution, but only `divisionists.'...I won't say they are CIA agents — we don't know. They have no history of support to the revolution.”

Thanks!

[GallowsBird]

I obviously miscounted, what I meant was these two quotes:


“We consider the Trotskyist party to be acting against the revolution.”

Sorry, this is from the September 14, 1961, interview with Maurice Zeitlin, first published in (I think) Root and Branch. It is the same interview from whence comes this quote:


"What is to be condemned is that after free discussion and a majority decision, a defeated minority works outside of and against the party - as Trotsky did, for example. To do so is counter-revolutionary."



and:

“I agree with your statement, but the Cuban Trotskyists are not inside the Revolution, but only `divisionists.'...I won't say they are CIA agents — we don't know. They have no history of support to the revolution.”

Thanks!


It was hard to find the source of that. It seems to have been first published in the article 'Freedom for Cuban Trotskyists!' (Spartacist No. 3, January-February 1965) and was something Guevara said to a Spartacist supporter who confronted him while in Cuba saying that staunch defenders of the Revolution shouldn't be suppressed.

[daft punk]

I read so many thinks about che how he lived, about his life i read about 100 pages about him. But i still cant get what were his political views. What did he stand for? I read that he was a stalinist but i cant trust that. (i would be so depressed if he was an stalinist)

so if you know what were his political views pleas tell me i realy want to know. (and i searched google) i only get that he was an bucher, hitler 2, idiot,... ( i know only right wingers write this shit)


so thanks in advantage


now good night every bothy :thumbup:
He wasn't a Stalinist he was just a bit of a Marxist. He was not an active revolutionary Marxist in any organisation before the revolution. He mingled with the rich and also with revolutionaries.

Regarding Cuba, he was one of the more socialist-minded of the revolutionaries, but in general they were not aiming for socialism they were aiming for capitalism, though I think Che wanted it to go further eventually. He said it would depend on what America did, and in the end America refused to deal with Cuba so Russia helped them out. Castro fell out with the right wing of his government, so he basically had little choice but to become a Stalinist-type state.

The best book on Che is probably one by John Lee Anderson.

or try this short free one

Che Guevara

Tony Saunois
http://www.socialistworld.net/pubs/che/00.html

[khad]

His beliefs aren't that important, as he didn't have a very deep understanding of Marxism. He was inspired more by his own personal experiences and interactions with the Latin American peasants and workers that led to his revolutionary conclusions than any actual theory. He was essentially just an idealist who wanted to change the world. Why some people think he's Jesus or some kind of savior of the global poor idk. He failed at pretty much everything he did.
Have you ever read his economic theory? Nothing but lies and perfidy and not worth the paper it was written on. He, along with the Castros, are personally responsible for the gross mismanagement of the Cuban economy, and no amount of petulant scapegoating will mitigate that fact.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Che Guevara was a inspiring revolutionary but he appears to have been politically confused. I don't think he fully understood Marxism. He was a "focoist", the term and theory was developed by the radical French journalist Regis Debray in his "Revolution In The Revolution" to describe the guerrilla war in the Sierra Maestra initiated by the Granma.Interestingly Debray, Che's "theoretician" himself later moved more to the right, worked for the Mitterrand gov't and today (I believe) he works as a math lecturer. He denies he was ever a socialist.

Focoism-a peasant based guerilla warfare strategy, has only worked in Cuba, no place else.Interestingly many liberal NGOs and "non-profits" today use a version of this. "Be the change you're working towards", that is don't engage with workers movements but be a small isolated group based on liberal identity politics.

Che later seems to have politically isolated himself. He fiercely criticized the bureaucrat ism and opportunism of the traditional Khrushchev/Brezhnev CPs in Latin America and elsewhere and the bureaucrat ism of the Cuban Revolution.He was looking for another direction.He developed an interest in both Maoism and Trotskyism. Supposedly he was in contact with the Posadists (then the largest Trotskyist group in Latin America) and (according to some accounts) was reading Trotsky when he was captured in Bolivia.

The Castro brothers and Che were responsible for horrible mismanagement, ignoring the advice of workers themselves in cane harvests and other areas.Cuba sunk into bureaucratic lassitude. The Cuban people though have the nearby examples of the nightmares of Haiti and the Domincan Republic, what US imperialism has in store for them, and constant and viscious attacks from the US. This has kept the Cuban Revolution alive.

The Tony Sanois book is very good. I haven't read the Anderson book yet, its on my list.

[GallowsBird]

He wasn't a Stalinist he was just a bit of a Marxist. He was not an active revolutionary Marxist in any organisation before the revolution.

He wasn't a "Stalinist". But he would be called one on RevLeft if he were a member. He respected Stalin (saluting and swearing over images of him, which I wouldn't do personally) but was a Marxist-Leninist, more a Maoist than anything as his writings, speeches et cetera attest.

I am not a "Stalinist" by the way (not usually anyway... only when I am being jocular).

[Homo Songun]

Lenina, I must say that your last post is uncharacteristically bad. I have no idea how you could call Che confused, quite apart from whether he was right or wrong. As for Debray and liberal NGOs, Che can hardly be considered responsible for them, can he?

I browsed that pamphlet and it is basically "automatic writing", not good at all. The author seems to spend as much time reiterating basic Trotskyist talking points as he does talking about Che.

One thing you are right about, though. He was in "contact" with the Cuban Posadistas, seeing how he threw them in jail. Rightly, I might add: they were calling for a frontal assault on the US' Guantanamo base, during the time of the Cuban missile crisis! I think Che was smart enough to see how a group that advocated for preemptive nuclear war on the part of the socialist camp might need to be curtailed at a time like that.:D

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Lenina, I must say that your last post is uncharacteristically bad. I have no idea how you could call Che confused, quite apart from whether he was right or wrong. As for Debray and liberal NGOs, Che can hardly be considered responsible for them, can he?

I browsed that pamphlet and it is basically "automatic writing", not good at all. The author seems to spend as much time reiterating basic Trotskyist talking points as he does talking about Che.

One thing you are right about, though. He was in "contact" with the Cuban Posadistas, seeing how he threw them in jail. Rightly, I might add: they were calling for a frontal assault on the US' Guantanamo base, during the time of the Cuban missile crisis! I think Che was smart enough to see how a group that advocated for preemptive nuclear war on the part of the socialist camp might need to be curtailed at a time like that.:D

Okay, first the Posadists.Today there are widely derided as a flying saucer cult. They had this element but the Posadists also had many good labor activists in Latin America, most of whom were tortured or killed by the dictatorships in the 70s and 80s.

There is a story that the Posadists tried to incite local residents in Guantanamo into an attack on the US base there, making it nessecary for Castro to shut them down.


The Posadist group took an ultra-left, provocative position arguing that the Cuban government should forcibly expel the American military base at Guantanamo Bay and going to the extent of trying to organise workers in the town of Guantanamo to march on the nearby military base.


I do not know whether this is true or not. I've seen this passage scattered around the internet without documentation. This very well may be true but on the other hand this was a time when the Cuban Revolution depended on Soviet economic and political aid and the Soviet bureaucracy, for obvious reasons, intensely disliked and feared Trotskyist ideas, which challenged their right to power.The story might have been concocted as an excuse to ban that tendency to please the Soviets.

BTW I'm not a Posadist myself, I'll be the first to admit they had irrational elements and the Guantanamo story may very well be true, its just that I think things are bit more complicated.

It is known that Che had talks with the Trotskyist economist and activist Ernst Mandel, who came from a different but related current of the Trotskyist movement.

There are Posadists today who claim that Che had been in contact with them, had been reading Trotsky when he was captured, and even that he was a Posadist himself (which I would doubt),.

Che is on record as fiercely denouncing what he regarded as the bureaucratic elitism, class collaborationism (the Cuban CP was a part of Batista's gov't for a time) and fossilization. The Soviets had become increasingly uncomfortable with this.After Che's speech in Algiers (in which he criticized the USSR for its lack of solidarity with the Third World) it appeared that his political position in Cuba had become untenable and he had to leave.It is interesting that before he left Cuba he renounced his Cuban citizenship.

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/che2.htm

The intervention in Congo and especially Bolivia were horribly botched.

It appears that Che had been looking for a different political direction and he never quite found it.It may be that by the time he died he was leaning towards Maoism.

As far as focoism goes, it would be absurd to accuse Che of being a liberal, but the fact is that "foco-ism" is not the Marxist method. It relies on the primacy of the organisation rather than the masses, so it is easy to see how this philosophy could be used for liberal identity politics.

[khad]

Che is on record as fiercely denouncing what he regarded as the bureaucratic elitism, class collaborationism (the Cuban CP was a part of Batista's gov't for a time) and fossilization. The Soviets had become increasingly uncomfortable with this.After Che's speech in Algiers (in which he criticized the USSR for its lack of solidarity with the Third World) it appeared that his political position in Cuba had become untenable and he had to leave.It is interesting that before he left Cuba he renounced his Cuban citizenship.
That was just Che being a petulant and immature. It was a tendency of his to lash out at everyone like a child whenever he didn't get his way. Right before he was executed, he whined about how Fidel supposedly "betrayed" him by giving in to Soviet pressure to cut off their operations in Bolivia.

However, as the diplomatic record shows, the USSR essentially agreed to look the other way regarding Cuba's adventures in Latin America, and Cuba had been organizing a reinforcement group. It's that Che merely got himself stupidly killed so fast, as he demanded complete control of the Bolivian movement despite repeated warnings from the Bolivian communists that people would not follow a foreigner.

Che's greatest skill was to turn the routine frustrations of government bureaucracy into perceived insults that fed into his vast persecution complex. Many, many people, including Egypt's President Nasser, begged him to continue his work in Cuba, but the fool was too fixated on his own death wish.

[Rafiq]

Che was a bourgeois romanticist.

[Ismail]

There's a good article titled "Che Guevara and the Political Economy of Socialism" which outlines some of his views on economics: http://revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/che.htm

Also in September 1968 a number of American leftists mainly from the SDS visited Cuba and had a talk with members of the Albanian embassy (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n1/cubaalb.htm) there. Che was mentioned:

[The Albanian ambassador] said very clearly that Cuba is a revolutionary country and that Albania never attacks her in public, especially on the question of armed struggle in the revolutionary movements, but that they don’t agree with Cuba’s line. He said that Che was a very great man and a heroic revolutionary, but that 1, 10, 100 or even 1,000 men in the hills can do nothing. There must be organisation, i.e. a party, which can mobilise masses in the countryside and in the city, and he said that in the Albanian liberation war they had at the end 53,000 men fighting, although 28,000 had died and been replaced (out of a population then of about 1 million). In private they tell the Cubans ‘Listen, comrade, the way you are doing it is wrong.’ He said that the Cubans say that Fidel had only 12 men [left alive from the boat Granma that landed in Cuba in 1956 at the beginning of the armed struggle against Batista – editor’s note] but he said that everyone supported him and he had the support of the 26th of July Movement, etc. ...

He also objected to the modern art style paintings and posters, that he was discussing with two soldiers a painting representing Che in Bolivia, and he (or they, it wasn’t quite clear) said, ‘But where is Che?, why don’t they show him, with a rifle, in Bolivia?’

[Rafiq]

Ismail that last paragraph is confusing me beyond bearability. Where is Che? What the fuck does that mean?

[Sir Comradical]

Che was what can best be described as a marxist-leninist anti-revisionist who accused the USSR of 'social-imperialism' and sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split, of course he didn't live to see China cosying up to American imperialism. On the question of economic development, he for example wanted Cuba to be industrialised whereas Castro wanted to sell sugar to the USSR (correct me if I'm wrong), this was another reason why he was critical of the USSR as he felt such economic relations made Cuba dependent. He also got mad at the USSR for failing to set off an international nuclear war which he felt could potentially lead to world revolution. As a guerrilla leader he was overrated and he was a big Stalin fan.

"Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. 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." - Che.

Che get's an A for revolutionary zeal but he was also insane. I still think he was a hero though.

[soviechetnik]

Che was a very brave fighter but I think that he was also too violent and too "easy" on the trigger.

[khad]

Che was what can best be described as a marxist-leninist anti-revisionist who accused the USSR of 'social-imperialism' and sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split, of course he didn't live to see China cosying up to American imperialism. On the question of economic development, he for example wanted Cuba to be industrialised whereas Castro wanted to sell sugar to the USSR (correct me if I'm wrong)
Cuba's economy was sugar, and with the embargo hit the USSR came in and bought it to keep the economy from collapsing. Eventually the USSR paid up to 11x global market value for Cuban sugar. There was nothing in the agreement that specifically prevented them from diversifying their economy, especially with all the cash that they were raking in, and over the years the Cuban government had made various promises to build steel and power plants which they never fulfilled.

Che's primary contribution to economic development during his tenure as minister of industries was a household appliance complex, which should have been the dead last thing on the agenda. 90% of the materials that they used to build those appliances had to be imported.

So, no, I don't think a man who preferred to build toasters ahead of steel mills was better suited to run the economy. He is every bit as responsible for economic mismanagement as the Castros.

[Ismail]

Ismail that last paragraph is confusing me beyond bearability. Where is Che? What the fuck does that mean?After Che left Cuba the Soviets and the Cuban Government rarely reported on his activities abroad since Che was increasingly critical of the USSR.

[Sir Comradical]

Cuba's economy was sugar, and with the embargo hit the USSR came in and bought it to keep the economy from collapsing. Eventually the USSR paid up to 11x global market value for Cuban sugar. There was nothing in the agreement that specifically prevented them from diversifying their economy, especially with all the cash that they were raking in, and over the years the Cuban government had made various promises to build steel and power plants which they never fulfilled.

Che's primary contribution to economic development during his tenure as minister of industries was a household appliance complex, which should have been the dead last thing on the agenda. 90% of the materials that they used to build those appliances had to be imported.

So, no, I don't think a man who preferred to build toasters ahead of steel mills was better suited to run the economy. He is every bit as responsible for economic mismanagement as the Castros.

So the Cuban government used the revenues from the sale of sugar to develop light industry when they didn't have an industrial base to begin with, right? Off-topic, but I think the DPRK's economic development during the Soviet era was probably the path that Cuba should have taken - that is prioritising heavy industry. What do you think?

[blake 3:17]

From what I understand, the jailed Cuban Trotskyists continued to support the revolution after being freed.

[gorillafuck]

Che is on record as fiercely denouncing what he regarded as the bureaucratic elitism, class collaborationism (the Cuban CP was a part of Batista's gov't for a time) and fossilization. The Soviets had become increasingly uncomfortable with this.After Che's speech in Algiers (in which he criticized the USSR for its lack of solidarity with the Third World) it appeared that his political position in Cuba had become untenable and he had to leave.It is interesting that before he left Cuba he renounced his Cuban citizenship.I seriously doubt that Che actually thought that Cuba was class collaborationist considering that he supported Lumumba and Nasser.

[Hiero]

I seriously doubt that Che actually thought that Cuba was class collaborationist considering that he supported Lumumba and Nasser.

Often misunderstood is Che's actually politics, which were pro- third world liberation. Che went around the world given support to anti-imperialist governments regardless of their actually class character (in a socialst - capitalist dichotomy.

It was interesting in the Ghaddafi thread, someone with a Che avator so thoroughly condemning Ghaddafi, when Che like position would have been to support Ghaddafi.

[khad]

So the Cuban government used the revenues from the sale of sugar to develop light industry when they didn't have an industrial base to begin with, right? Off-topic, but I think the DPRK's economic development during the Soviet era was probably the path that Cuba should have taken - that is prioritising heavy industry. What do you think?
Yes, they would be laughing in the face of the embargo to this very day.

[Ismail]

I seriously doubt that Che actually thought that Cuba was class collaborationist considering that he supported Lumumba and Nasser.What's wrong with supporting Lumumba? No one was claiming he was a communist, and in fact Lumumba explicitly denied being a communist. Those conscious of matters in the Congo supported Lumumba both within and outside of the country.

Nasser, on the other hand, jailed and murdered communists. Different situation there.

[Sir Comradical]

Yes, they would be laughing in the face of the embargo to this very day.

Having said that, Cuba didn't suffer the kind of famine the DPRK endured post-USSR. Or is that simply because Cuba is more agricultural?

[khad]

Having said that, Cuba didn't suffer the kind of famine the DPRK endured post-USSR. Or is that simply because Cuba is more agricultural?
Or maybe because they weren't such international pariahs that they could immediately get investment opportunities from countries like Israel.

Cuba's agriculture, because it was so petrol based, suffered a 50% decline in the post-Soviet shock. It was necessity that taught them to be efficient, and even then they still aren't self sufficient.

[gorillafuck]

What's wrong with supporting Lumumba? No one was claiming he was a communist, and in fact Lumumba explicitly denied being a communist. Those conscious of matters in the Congo supported Lumumba both within and outside of the country.

Nasser, on the other hand, jailed and murdered communists. Different situation there.what I said was that it would be really obviously inconsistent for Che Guevara to view Cuba as class collaborationist and oppose it on those grounds, but to support Lumumba.

[Ismail]

what I said was that it would be really obviously inconsistent for Che Guevara to view Cuba as class collaborationist and oppose it on those grounds, but to support Lumumba.Except Cuba claimed to be a wonderful Marxist-Leninist vanguard state building socialism while in fact it was constructing state-capitalism and becoming agents of Soviet social-imperialism.

Lumumba, by contrast, was a bourgeois-democratic and anti-imperialist leader who was Pan-African back when he word actually meant something. The Soviets practically sacrificed the Congo to US imperialism in the interest of "peaceful co-existence" by endorsing the UN's decision to intervene.

[Imposter Marxist]

che guevara was a state capitalist, stalinist, tyrant. he just constructed capitalism in Cuba to be dominated by Russian Capitalism. He's a monster. You should read what Tony Cliff had to say on the issue

[Imposter Marxist]

Except Cuba claimed to be a wonderful Marxist-Leninist vanguard state building socialism while in fact it was constructing state-capitalism and becoming agents of Soviet social-imperialism.

Lumumba, by contrast, was a bourgeois-democratic and anti-imperialist leader who was Pan-African back when he word actually meant something. The Soviets practically sacrificed the Congo to US imperialism in the interest of "peaceful co-existence" by endorsing the UN's decision to intervene.


Exactly right, Hoxha in some ways is a lot like Tony Cliff, expect he was a stalinist state capitalist too.