An interesting Anarchist's essay on Che.

[Bolshevika]

http://noleaders.net/anok/reports/chewasas...alinistfuck.htm (http://noleaders.net/anok/reports/chewasastalinistfuck.htm)

What hate.

[BuyOurEverything]

I love how disgusted they are that Che wanted to spread the revolution to the rest of Latin America. Him and all the Chinese Stalinists.

[nezvanova]

that was a totally contrived mess. Their facts weren't straight, and they took certain facts and twisted them around in order to make Che seem worse. oh well, it was a funny read, at least.

[FatFreeMilk]

Whew! Oh boy that was a knee slapper!

[Bolshevika]

Some of it was true. Che did outlaw the Trotskyite parties and was very critical of Khrushchevs phony socialism (that is why he got support from Comrade Chairman Mao in his voyages to spread socialism across the world, because the USSR was too cowardly to support more revolts against imperialism, and was becomming imperialistic itself). The stuff about the execution of an informant is also true (good riddance). He was quite a bit "authoritarian" by Che-Lives standards eh?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Yes, Che was very brave physically. Yes, he was single-mindedly devoted to what he saw as the revolution and socialism. Yes, he refused the privilege and luxury granted to other leaders of Castroist Cuba, taking an average wage and working hard in his various government jobs. But many militarists, fascists and religious fanatics share these characteristics of bravery and self-sacrifice.

Added emphasis is mine.

So Che is lumped in with warmongers, nazis, and fundamentalists...? A very biased account, from an anarchist quick to demonize Che as a "Stalinist." Malte has a pretty good article showing that Che was indeed skeptical of Stalin and state capitalist models...

[Bolshevika]

From all the evidence I'd come to the conclusion that Che definetly was a Stalin, Lenin, and Mao supporter. He opposed the Soviet Union during the 60's because it was overrun by revisionists.

Do you have any evidence stating otherwise?

[Bianconero]

Malte has a pretty good article showing that Che was indeed skeptical of Stalin and state capitalist models...

Malte has a pretty good article showing that Guevara was disgusted by Krushevite opportunism and imperialism.


When Juan and Eva Peron started on their rise to power, using populism and appeals to workers and peasants to install a regime that had many fascist characteristics (1944-1952) Guevara was still a youth. At this period he seemed remarkably disinterested in politics and failed to offer any opinions for or against the Peron regime.

These anarchist ignorants should do a little bit of research instead of speading useless drivel like this. Guevara was critical of Peronism to begin with. There is a letter in the book 'The Magic Feeling of Being Invulnerable - diary entries from the period of 1953-1956' in which this is to be seen.

Furthermore, Guevara was everything but 'disinterested' in politics throughout his youth. Quite the opposite. He actually read Marx and Lenin at the age of 16.

On the other hand, the article should be a warning to all of those who simply support Che for being a 'rebell' or a 'freedom fighter.' A lot of what these anarchist creatures put forward is correct.

[nezvanova]

Another guerrilla who dared to question Che was ordered into battle without a weapon!


From what I've read, the reason this soldier was stripped of his weapon was because he'd lost it. To me it seems that they're trying to exagerate this in order to make Che seem less respectable....

[FatFreeMilk]

Yeah, that's the whole purpose of the article. And then some.

[Fidelbrand]

Another guerrilla who dared to question Che was ordered into battle without a weapon!

is that true? i never read abt that....

[YKTMX]

Oh dear. Another slabbery mouthed anarchist throws around "authoritarian" like theres no tomorrow. Anyone who ever infringes anarchist "freedom" is an authoritarian you understand.

Half-hearted and thoroughly underwhelming.

[redstar2000]

He secretly worked towards an alliance with the Popular Socialist Party (the Cuban Communist Party).

If he did this "secretly", how is it known to have taken place?

And why? How would Che have known anything about the PSP? I don't imagine either Fidel or Raul would have had a high opinion of them...since they had opposed Fidel's initial rebellion.


They [the PSP] belatedly joined the guerrilla war.

I don't think this is true. They did engage in anti-Batista activities in the cities during 1958...but I do not think they were ever involved directly with the guerrillas.


This was followed in 1962 with the banning of the Trotskyists and the imprisonment of their militants.

This I can say from first-hand knowledge has to be false...or at least misleading. I met Cuban Trotskyists in Havana in 1964. As you might expect, they were a disgruntled lot...but expressed no fears regarding their personal safety.


...and had a key role in creating the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, which were locally and regionally based bodies for spying on and controlling the mass of the population.

The CDRs were established to defend the revolution against possible U.S. invasion on a "block by block" basis...they were and are the closest thing to a popular militia that any "stalinist" state has ever established.

Not very close, perhaps...but hardly a "spying" apparatus.


When the Russians backed down in the face of US threats, Che was furious and said that if he had been in charge of the missiles, he would have fired them off!

And?

By the way, Fidel was also "furious" and there is a good deal of bitterness towards Russia throughout Cuba today.

The Cubans feel that they were betrayed by their so-called "ally".


Che talked about spreading armed struggle through Latin America, if necessary using nuclear war to help this come about!

On its face, that makes no sense at all. Nukes are heavy...carrying one through a jungle or over a mountain would be extremely difficult.

And to what purpose? Would "nuking" Havana have accelerated the fall of Batista?


He went to the Congo, where he worked with the Congolese Liberation Army, supported by the Chinese Stalinists. This was a shambles of a campaign, and Che ended up isolated with many of his band dead.

Is this supposed to be suggesting that Che was an incompetent commander in the field?

It's my understanding, by the way, that the Cubans in Africa were able to inflict severe defeats on South African mercenaries. Perhaps that happened while Che was "on leave". (?)


Basing himself once more on old Castroist strategies, he failed to relate to the [Bolivian] industrial working class.

Well, that's true. How does a mistake make him a "stalinist fuck"? Particularly when the local "stalinist fucks" ignored his efforts (there were at the time four "communist" parties in Bolivia and none of them supported Che).


Che's good looks and 'martyr's' death turned him into an icon, an icon duly exploited by all those wanting to turn a fast buck selling 'revolutionary' chic.

Is that Che's fault?


Che may look like the archetypal romantic revolutionary.

To whom?


In reality he was a tool of the Stalinist power blocs and a partisan of nuclear war.

Neither of those views is actually supported by any kind of evidence...and the whole document is remarkably free of evidence of any kind.

I think it would certainly be possible to write a libertarian critique of Guevara's ideas and some of his practices...but this ain't it.

From what I can tell, this site is an "anarchist" business. Nothing wrong with making a buck, of course...everyone has to eat.

But it's a little difficult for me to avoid the conclusion that they are a bit envious of the "commercial success" of the "Che-icon".

It cuts too deeply into their "market share".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Red Louisiana]

Heh - Anarchists on this site have convinced me they have only one use: cannon fodder.

Then the worker-revolutionaries shove their "authoritarian" hammers up their snobish-student-blackflag asses ;)

[redstar2000]

Then the worker-revolutionaries shove their "authoritarian" hammers up their snobbish-student-blackflag asses.

Bold words...from someone who is a student himself.

Perhaps a bit more study of the matter would be appropriate on your part.

Just a friendly suggestion. :)

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

Originally posted by Bianconero+Nov 27 2003, 05:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bianconero @ Nov 27 2003, 05:37 AM)A lot of what these anarchist creatures put forward is correct.[/b]
I like the way you lump anarchist into a sub-human/non-human category. Arse.

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


Red Louisiana
Heh - Anarchists on this site have convinced me they have only one use: cannon fodder.

And look how all anarchists have been associated with this person&#39;s critque (no matter how bad it may be). I have come across the same article before, and rejected it, which was presented in criticism of this article (http://www.anarchist-action.org/dimitrovkyriakov/opinion/2003/september/shermanaustintheanarchistguevara.php) (which was also published in the Che-Lives Ezine). I did not even bother to read it -- once I saw &#39;stalinist fuck&#39;, I knew it was not an article to take seriously. So there goes your generalisation out of the window.

I believe Redstar2000 has nailed down that site: &#39;...this site is an "anarchist" business.&#39;

They don&#39;t seem too interested in what they put on the site -- as long as it sells. Another money-making scheme to lure radicals, I believe. Most of their content is copied and pasted from other sources to fill up space.

And what did anyone expect when they have such articles as &#39;The Hardcore/Punk Guide To Christianity&#39;? Also, notice that they link to several punk bansa, including one named &#39;Buzzcocks&#39;, most of which have no association with anarchists or Anarchism.

[Bianconero]

If he did this "secretly", how is it known to have taken place?

And why? How would Che have known anything about the PSP? I don&#39;t imagine either Fidel or Raul would have had a high opinion of them...since they had opposed Fidel&#39;s initial rebellion.

We should not forget that the Soviet Union and the PSP had already had direct contacts with Raúl and Ché in Mexico.

Furthermore, Ché was indeed working secretly towards an alliance with the PSP. He even &#39;invited&#39; a party member, who should be experienced in political work and educated in Marxist-theory, to teach his comrades the principles of Communism.

&#39;In February [1958], the National Comittee of the PSP had issued a document stating that &#39;in spite of the radical discrepancies it has with the tactics of the 26 de Julio in the rest of the territory of the country, [the party] justifies and comprehends the guerilla action in the Sierra Maestra.&#39; [Jon L. Andersons&#39; &#39;A Revolutionary Life&#39; - page 314]

&#39;What is certain is that by early 1958, more Communists had begun joining the rebel army, in particular Ché&#39;s and Raúl&#39;s columns.&#39; [Jon L. Andersons&#39; &#39;A Revolutionary Life&#39; - page 315]

What is true, tough, is that the PSP had everything but &#39;cozy&#39; relations to certain elemets within the &#39;26 de Julio&#39; movement. This is especially true for the conservative Ilano faction within Castro&#39;s organization, who refused to work together with the PSP. The PSP was indeed not ready to fully support Castro in the very beginning because of these reactionary elements. But because Ché, Raúl and Fidel turned to them during the war, they became involved lateron.


I like the way you lump anarchist into a sub-human/non-human category. Arse.

&#39;cannon fodder&#39; ...

[Don't Change Your Name]

I&#39;m surprised of seeing such a stupid article in an anarchist site.
Look at this mistakes or weird information:


Born in Argentina to a Cuban aristocratic family...

Cuban? I never heard that before... can someone confirm this?



When Juan and Eva Peron started on their rise to power, using populism and appeals to workers and peasants to install a regime that had many fascist characteristics (1944-1952) Guevara was still a youth
Peron ruled from 1946 to 1955.


Just before a trip to Guatemala he wrote: "I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won&#39;t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated".

I don&#39;t think Stalin was considered such an evil as he is right now by that time. Maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I would be surprised if even Trotskyites would call him comrade by that time.


In fact Che went about turning volunteer bands of guerrillas into a classic Army, with strict discipline and hierarchy.

Perhaps it is quite true.


A ruthless authoritarian and Stalinist, who expressed admiration for the Peronista authoritarian nationalists

Exaggeration. Che&#39;s family was anti-Peronist and he was glad to see the end of Peron&#39;s regime, although he knew what was coming next was worse, because all the pro-proletarian reforms he did we going to be abolished.

[redstar2000]

Furthermore, Ché was indeed working secretly towards an alliance with the PSP. He even &#39;invited&#39; a party member, who should be experienced in political work and educated in Marxist-theory, to teach his comrades the principles of Communism.

Well, what is "secret" about that? It might have been secret from the Batista regime or the CIA and perhaps even secret from the more conservative wing of the 26th of July Movement.

But if Che invited someone to talk to selected cadres about "Marxism"-Leninism...then obviously they knew what was happening.

Also note that no one (to my knowledge) has put forward any credible evidence that Che was actually a member of any Leninist party ever...until the Cuban Communist Party itself was formed (a merger of the 26th of July Movement and the Popular Socialist Party) after the victory of the revolution.

It seems to me that efforts to portray the Cuban Revolution as "socialist from the beginning" just don&#39;t make sense in the light of events themselves.

I&#39;m sure Che and others wanted things to go in a socialist direction...but there were obviously many members of the 26th of July Movement who either knew nothing of such matters (peasant fighters who wanted agrarian reform) or educated middle-class figures who thought the corrupt and tyrannical Batista regime was (to put it crudely) "bad for business".

I remain convinced that it was a combination of U.S. hostility and the offer of Russian assistance that "drove" the Cuban Revolution in a Leninist direction.

And indeed, the drive was not an easy one; to the best of my knowledge, Cuba never developed the grim, prison-like atmosphere characteristic of the USSR and its European possessions.

If Che or Fidel were "stalinist fucks"...they were never very good at it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

this site is published by the scum of the earth

traitors who are not worth the air they breathe



but those who lump in all anarchists with them are no better

[Bianconero]

redstar2000, your point is valid and taken. It is, up untill now, an often debated point whether the revolution was secretly communist from the beginning, or whether it turned to Marxism in the course of battle. I think that we can say that the July 26th movement had indeed elements that were Marxist in the beginning. How strong these elements were, I dont know. What is clear, however, is that these elements prevailed. Not only because of Ché and Raúl, but because of Fidel, too.


I remain convinced that it was a combination of U.S. hostility and the offer of Russian assistance that "drove" the Cuban Revolution in a Leninist direction.

These circumstances certainly helped the communist faction within the movement, but they didn&#39;t make the revolution turn to Communism on their own.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by El Infiltr(A)[email protected] 29 2003, 04:48 PM

Just before a trip to Guatemala he wrote: "I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won&#39;t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated".

I don&#39;t think Stalin was considered such an evil as he is right now by that time. Maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I would be surprised if even Trotskyites would call him comrade by that time.

I don&#39;t think Stalin was considered such an evil as he is right now by that time. Maybe I&#39;m wrong, but I would be surprised if even Trotskyites would call him comrade by that time.

I too would be surprised if Trotskysist called him comrade at that time. Do you mean you would not be surprised if Trotskyists were calling him comrade at that time? Trotsky was dead by this time and so had written all he would ever write, and he had been criticising the USSR and Stalin for over a decade, Trotskists then disliked Stalin as much as they do now. Did you miss the part of the article where it talks about Che getting rid of Trotskyist opposition in Cuba. In addition, anti-Stalin propaganda was in great circulation then too, the propaganda started in the 30&#39;s and there was a great amount of anti-Communism in general at that time. Stalin was dead, his crimes had supposedly all been exposed by Khrushchev, and Che opposed Khrushchev&#39;s stance at this time even though that was costly for Cuba.