Che Guevara: Murderer or Hero

[Lei Feng]

Hello comrades

I am back once again, with a question that many of you would have heard many times before. Nevertheless, I think it should be pointed out and corrected.
Throughout my experiences with other people, many seem to have mixed views regarding Comrade Che. Some, like us Marxists revere him as a great revolutionary hero(regardless of tendency, for the most part). Others, call him a butcher who killed "countless numbers of innocent people". And some just know him as that guy on the t-shirts.
I got inspired to post this mostly because of a short debate I had with one of my classmates. They questioned why I was a communist to which i said that it liberates the Working Class. Then they asked why I supported Che(they couldnt pronounce his name right, a clue to their level of inteligence). I said because he was a hero. To which they responded with the "he was a murderer. He killed countless innocent people.". I explained that Revolution wasnt something that was gentle nor could it occur without death(as well as the fact that the Batista had killed temendously more than Castro or his men). They continued saying that Che murdered innocent people and that he was only the "lesser of two evils". I mentioned that many of the people killed were capitalists and landlords, to which they said "capitalists deserve life as much as the poor people" defending the exploitation of the Batista regime.
My main question is: What is your opinion on Che and why? Was he a murderer or a hero? Was there truth in the accusations against him? What is a good response when someone calls Che a "murderer"?

Thank you. :che:

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I like him, regardless of his exact political orientation he fought against U.S imperialism and was a dedicated comrade.

Working Class hero.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Those people who say Che was a murderer are usually the Miami radicals (Cubans) who heard their parents say it, and their parents in turn left before Che really did anything. I had a friend in camp whose grandmother was from Cuba who was trying to tell me that Che was a murderer. Then I asked him when she left, he said she left in 1960. Then I asked if she was rich. He said yes. Then I asked him if he knew that Che was really all over the world, like in Africa and South America, during the post-revolutionary age in Cuba. He said no, and I said "go away."

[Lei Feng]

Yeah, I'd really hate to meet one of those "cuban exiles" that are such "victims" of the Castro regime, just because they lost their land and couldn't exploit the peasantry any longer. However, the person mentioned in my OP calling Che a murderer was white and(to my knowledge) doesn't know anybody from Cuba during that period.

[Susurrus]

There are no perfect people. But yes, I think he was a great revolutionary.

And a word on those Miami cubans; the author who wrote the most recognized biography of Che said that even among the Miami Cubans, he could not find a real thing that Che had done after the revolution that was not consistent with international law(this deals primarily with the execution accusations against him).

[Bronco]

Eh I don't "revere" him and I wouldn't call him a "hero", he's important as a figurehead of resistance to Imperialism and Capitalism but I wouldn't go beyond that and get into all this hero worship stuff

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Cuban exiles:
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4563253_f520.jpg

The rest of the Latino community:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/15827779.jpg

I would know. I'm Dominican and Salvadoran.:laugh:

[Caj]

I don't regard him as a socialist, but I do find him an inspirational figure and somewhat of a hero/martyr.

[Comrade Samuel]

hero, hippies who don't understand/ like what he stood for wear his image on their T-shirts but it's ok because its some consolation that communism (Marx-Leninism in particular) can still be relevant to the next generation.

[Prometeo liberado]

I don't regard him as a socialist, but I do find him an inspirational figure and somewhat of a hero/martyr.

Here we go, the all important "what is socialism" thread. Let it go! The guy did what he could with what he had in a period of history in which he lived. I'd take him on my team all day, every day.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I voted for neutral, since none of the other choices expressed how I feel.

I don't think he was a "bloodthirsty killer" but I also don't like the hero worship of "hero and a martyr." He was a staunch anti-imperialist willing to risk his own life for his politics, and I can respect that.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

He was a fighter who killed people. People die in revolutions and the number of people he is alleged to kill are so miniscule compared to other revolutions that I think it's almost irrelevant, whether they were "innocent" or not. I mean how many people were executed during and right after the revolution? Like 200 people including people like generals of the old regime. That is so low when we compare it to other revolutions like the French, Bolshevik, Spanish, etc.

There might have been problems with Che and Fidel, but them being "blood-thirsty" is such a funny claim when compared to everybody else during and before their time. There revolution was so mildly violent in comparison that it should be hailed for how blood-less it was.

[Ostrinski]

Bourgeois romantic/idealist. Voted neutral.

I respect him as a human being, but he was certainly no Marxist or anything like that. I think there is non-political inspiration to be found in him, simply because he is the perfect figurehead for the Robert Jordan archetype that he fits under.

[Caj]

Here we go, the all important "what is socialism" thread. Let it go! The guy did what he could with what he had in a period of history in which he lived. I'd take him on my team all day, every day.

All I said is that I don't regard him as a socialist. Ironic that you would tell me to "let it go" when you're the one not actually responding to the OP's question.

[Krano]

I don't regard him as a socialist, but I do find him an inspirational figure and somewhat of a hero/martyr.
Che was more of a socialist then Fidel will ever be.

[Caj]

Che was more of a socialist then Fidel will ever be.

I don't consider either of them socialists, but I'm not going to engage in derailing this thread by arguing over whether or not they were.

Maybe you M-Ls should, you know, actually answer the OP's question for a change.

[RedAtheist]

I voted 'bloodthirsty killer', but I think a better description would be 'reckless idiot' and 'show off'. I think of him as a cross between Rambo (or any other stereotypical war hero) and Justin Bieber. He kills a bunch of bad guys without much thought, then pauses for the girls. Not the 'evilest guy who ever lived', but not remotely impressive as an intellectual or revolutionary.

[Ostrinski]

I think of him as a cross between Rambo (or any other stereotypical war hero) and Justin Bieber. He kills a bunch of bad guys without much thought, then pauses for the girls.Surprisingly accurate.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I voted 'bloodthirsty killer', but I think a better description would be 'reckless idiot' and 'show off'. I think of him as a cross between Rambo (or any other stereotypical war hero) and Justin Bieber. He kills a bunch of bad guys without much thought, then pauses for the girls. Not the 'evilest guy who ever lived', but not remotely impressive as an intellectual or revolutionary.
I think being compared to Justin Bieber is so much worse than being labeled "bloodthirsty killer." I wouldn't even say something that bad about Stalin, and I hate Stalin. :laugh:

[Prometeo liberado]

All I said is that I don't regard him as a socialist. Ironic that you would tell me to "let it go" when you're the one not actually responding to the OP's question.

Murderer or a hero? Both and neither.

[Zealot]

He was definitely not a "murderer". Jon Lee Anderson, who wrote the biography Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life, once said (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/november97/che1.html):

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

As for the hero part, I guess you could consider him as that. Martyr? Well, yes, he did die for his politics. But his focoism was kind of idealist, although under certain conditions it may work.

[Ostrinski]

That was a good bio.

[GallowsBird]

I think he was closer to a "hero" than a villain and not at all a murderer. Yes, we may all have criticisms of some of his ideas and tactics but he did do more for the global revolution than many others, and almost certainly more than anyone here... not that this is too big an issue as most people here don't have the chance to do anything like fighting in a revolution.

I just think it is easy for people to call him a "murderer" and "idealist" et cetera without having been in the positions he has been in and not knowing what it is like to be hunted (and in his case eventually killed) in the jungles... and the "he was a murderer" line should not be spouted by any leftist even if they dislike and disagree with Che Guevara on key issues; it is the Cuban exiles and the US government line which no revolutionary should ever parrot.

It is idealistic to consider him the ultimate messianic hero also without acknowledging he is just a man with flaws and weaknesses. Like all of us he is a mix of good and bad; like many of us however the good outweighs the bad as he actually cared about class struggle and tried to enhance the lives of the proletarians of two oppressed continents.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

He was definitely not a "murderer". Jon Lee Anderson, who wrote the biography Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life,

"I have yet to find a single credible source pointing to a case where Che executed an innocent. Those persons executed by Guevara or on his orders were condemned for the usual crimes punishable by death at times of war or in its aftermath: desertion, treason or crimes such as rape, torture or murder."

As for the hero part, I guess you could consider him as that. Martyr? Well, yes, he did die for his politics. But his focoism was kind of idealist, although under certain conditions it may work.

Yep. People also need to realize that Che was doing these acts inside the framework of a revolutionary WAR! Of course people will die in a WAR! If people are against his revolutionary tactics, then they should argue that. They shouldn't call him a "murderer or" or "villain." George Washington also executed deserters and soldiers under him dissenting against his rule, yet we never here of people calling Washington a villain! There were also tons of refugees from America going to Canada during the American Revolution, yet we never here how horrible this proves the American Revolution was like we do with Cuba! The double standards that appear just to please extreme anti-communists and a section in Miami is incredible!

[noble brown]

he lived and breathed the proletarian revolution. his adaptation of marxism and application is commendable. this highlighted his intelligence. an idiot he was not. headstrong and reckless, yes i'd say so but still not a murderer. the fact that he refused to tow the line with anyone including the ussr was probably not the most propitious of political traits but his ethical and moral continuity was impeccable. he was no politician though, that was fidels function, he was a revolutionary guerrilla and leader and he excelled at it. whether or not u want to call him a hero is on you but he sets an example to be followed not dogmatically but as someone who committed himself to the peoples struggles across borders and without reserve for sectarian politics which he correctly saw as crippling the proletariat struggles worldwide. you can diss him from your keyboard but he gave his life for the struggle in the way he saw fit...so how does that compare to what you've done.
i dont hero worship him, but when i look for inspiring figures of applied revolution, hes top 5. bottom line

[Prometeo liberado]

I have never heard a convincing argument to make the case that he was a villain. Whatever that means. He was so focused about what he did that it got to the point that he may have been blinded as to the fact that he may have harmed those he was fighting for. I have said this about Lenin and others, we may romanticize these people but if any of us were to have to spend time under their command I doubt that this idolatry would last.

[Grenzer]

It seems to me that Che was a petit-bourgeois romantic, but with that considered, he seems cool kind of in the same way that Emiliano Zapata is cool. Progressive? Yes. Working class hero and a model to emulate? Not in the least.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I'm shocked that 2 people actually voted for bloodthirsty killer...

In my opinion, Che was a good Marxist-Leninist. He'd said himself that he didn't believe the Cuban revolution would go beyond a national bourgeois revolution, and also didn't support Cuba becoming a neocolony of the USSR. I get the impression that he would have probably sided with Hoxha's Albania, were he to live to see Mao cooperating with the United States.

[blake 3:17]

I'll go with greatest socialist of the 20th century.

[Ostrinski]

rofl^

[blake 3:17]

But his focoism was kind of idealist, although under certain conditions it may work.

My understanding of focoist strategy goes beyond simple rural insurrection, but involves building the base over and over again, and building alliances of resistance between the city and the country.

The big blunder Guevara made in Bolivia was less tactical than strategic -- he didn't take objective property relations into account and he didn't build the base.

[revhiphop]

Che was a hero.

[noble brown]

It seems to me that Che was a petit-bourgeois romantic,

i'd be interested to here your qualification for this statement. please tell us how he was a petit-bourgeois romantic


Working class hero and a model to emulate? Not in the least.

so you see no reason for the working class to admire him? he only trudged thru various jungles and whatnot and thru various countries fighting for the working class and risked his life with no expectations of personal gain and ultimately gave his life to this struggle but yet hes no example because why?... because he was a doctor an yet he was just as poor as any working class person and even insisted on remaining such when he could have profited substantially from his position in cuba.

a person should not be defined by where he or she comes from but what he or she does with their life. i can only hope that i , and the rest of these so called revolutionaries, could be, at minimum, as dedicated and true to the uplifting of the people as che was. whether you're a doctor or a machinist or a janitor, a life given to the struggle is still a life.

[Ostrinski]

^He meant practically, not non politically inspirationally. Of course he was admirable figure but he didn't give anything worthwhile to us in terms of theory.

[Comrade Jandar]

Do I have ideological differences with the man? Yes. He is however a model for how one should conduct themselves as a revolutionary. There are few revolutionary leaders, especially ones of the marxist-leninist variety, that showed more discipline and virtue.

[Amal]

I'm shocked that 2 people actually voted for bloodthirsty killer...
Pretty good examples that a lot of brainwashed morons have infected this website.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Hero! It is true that he killed people, however this was in the heat of a war. I often tell Americans that anything can and will be implanted in a situation like this. If killing a few counter-revolutionaries liberates and saves millions, the let it be for the greater good. The US is currently responsible for the biggest one-time crime in history, so I tell them if this was justified, so is the killings of a few counter-revolutionaries.

[Zav]

He was a guerrilla warrior who fought against Imperialism. He killed people. He is therefore both murderer and hero.

[ABMarx]

Although he did kill people throughout the course of his revolutionary activities, I do think that he was a genuine hero in a revolutionary sense, and that he dedicated his entire life to the cause of furthering a path to socialism in Latin America and indeed the world.

[Doflamingo]

Although I myself am not a Marxist-Leninist, I see him as a hero more than I see him as a killer. It's a shame that liberals/hippies wear his t-shirts without knowing what he stood for, and that he has turned into a corporate logo for rebellion.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Although I myself am not a Marxist-Leninist, I see him as a hero more than I see him as a killer. It's a shame that liberals/hippies wear his t-shirts without knowing what he stood for, and that he has turned into a corporate logo for rebellion.

A excellent example of recuperation as described in the Situationist understanding of things.

To survive, the spectacle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectacle_%28critical_theory%29) must maintain social control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_control) and effectively handle all threats to the social order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order). Recuperation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_%28sociology%29), a concept first proposed by Guy Debord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Debord),[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International#cite_note-Chasse1969Faces-64) is the process by which the spectacle intercepts socially and politically radical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_radicalism) ideas and images, commodifies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification) them, and safely incorporates them back within mainstream society.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International#cite_note-Chasse1969Faces-64) More broadly, it may refer to the appropriation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation) or co-opting of any subversive works or ideas by mainstream media. It is the opposite of détournement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tournement), in which conventional ideas and images are commodified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodification) with radical intentions.[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International#cite_note-Chasse1969Faces-64)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

I have the belief that he is an everlasting hero. Would be nice to meet him, but, you know...

[marksist-leninist]

"What is odd is that Nancahuazu seems ever further away, while Che comes closer. Gradually, as that piece of history is buried in the past and time moves on, as life continues and the struggle is renewed, faithful to itself, the figure of Che stands out more and more clearly; with his quiet step, his gaze, and his clear voice, he seems to remind us of the reality of war, and to awaken us from the false dream of peace we find so tempting. Che seems to survive his last venture better every day, seeming how bigger than his own frustrated plans even though it was the whole of him-self that he put into them." Ché's Guerilla War, Regis Debray

[human strike]

Che was a hero.

And that is why he should be forgotten. There's no place for heroes in communist revolution.

Incidentally, there's also no place for martyrs and sacrifice.

[Ostrinski]

"During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the "consolation" of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it."- Vladimir Lenin

[MaximMK]

People that call him butcher are mostly right-wingers and as i see certain anarchists here criticize him as not-socialist. Che Guevara was a great man. Since his youth he fought for justice and cared about the poor exploited people of whole south America. Che was a pure-hearted revolutionary who was disgusted by injustice and poverty. He fought to protect the people of Cuba from the bloodthirsty soldiers of the regime. Even when he was appointed minister he left that position to fight in revolutions around the world. He was a pure freedom fighter we can see that in this action of leaving a secure future life in Cuba only to fight for freedom all around the world. By this he shows that he cares more about the people around the world than his personal welfare. And that he cannot sit idle while people in the rest of the world are suffering. That is a true revolutionary and people should consider this facts before criticizing a man like Che.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Those people who say Che was a murderer are usually the Miami radicals (Cubans) who heard their parents say it, and their parents in turn left before Che really did anything. I had a friend in camp whose grandmother was from Cuba who was trying to tell me that Che was a murderer. Then I asked him when she left, he said she left in 1960. Then I asked if she was rich. He said yes. Then I asked him if he knew that Che was really all over the world, like in Africa and South America, during the post-revolutionary age in Cuba. He said no, and I said "go away."

Yes, or Ultra-Left scum like Otto Rühle that think 'Bolshevism = Fascism'. Some anarchist sent me this book about how Che was a fascist, a "stalinist" and how Mussolini really was a Bolshevist and Fascism came from Bolshevism. LOL, stupid idiots.

[gorillafuck]

Yes, or Ultra-Left scum like Otto Rühle that think 'Bolshevism = Fascism'. Some anarchist sent me this book about how Che was a fascist, a "stalinist" and how Mussolini really was a Bolshevist and Fascism came from Bolshevism. LOL, stupid idiots.anarchists...

1. don't think bolshevism = fascism
2. don't think che guevara was a fascist
3. do think that che was a stalinist
4. don't think that mussolini was a bolshevist
5. don't think fascism came from bolshevism

[Brosa Luxemburg]

anarchists...

1. don't think bolshevism = fascism
2. don't think che guevara was a fascist
3. do think that che was a stalinist
4. don't think that mussolini was a bolshevist
5. don't think fascism came from bolshevism

Che was not a Stalinist. This is what I posted in the Guevarist group.

Che Guevara was not a Stalinist. To claim Che was a Stalinist is to look over some very compelling facts and take other facts out of context. To say Che was a Stalinist, many point to the fact that in some letters to his family Che signed the letters as "Stalin II". Che was also accused of saluting in front of a picture of Stalin and claiming to promise to fight capitalism until it was dead. Stalinists also claim that because in Che's early years he read some of Stalin's writings to try to understand Marxism that this makes him a Stalinist.

While out of context these arguments look convincing, in context they fall apart. When Che signed his name "Stalin II" in letters to his family, read some of Stalin's writings, etc. it was during a period in history when the Soviet Union and Stalin were still considered fighters of Nazism and heros of the Allied powers, helping win World War II. Life magazine in the United States even designated Stalin as their man of the year!

Also, if reading Stalin automatically makes someone apart of he Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist worldview then I, a Anti-Stalinist, Left Communist, would become automatically a Stalinist. Just because someone reads a certain viewpoint doesn't mean they subscribe to that viewpoint. Following this logic, any World War II historian that read Mein Kampf would be a Nazi.

Che looked at things in ways that weren't just "good" or "bad" but looked at things as having good and bad parts. For instance, Che claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist but criticized Lenin for his NEP policy, claiming, 30 years before the fall of the USSR, that Lenin's introduction of state capitalism into the Soviet Union would cause it's falling. This criticism of Lenin has been reserved mainly for those on the left Marxist, anarchist, and libertarian socialist/communist line of thought. For this criticism to be stated by a Marxist-Leninist is very interesting and shows Che didn't see things as all good or all bad.

Also, Stalin thought the NEP was a great accomplishment by Lenin and believed it helped build socialism in Russia. Wouldn't you expect "Che the Stalinist" to agree with this viewpoint then?

If Che, later in life, still showed respect for "comrade Stalin", it was respect for fighting against Nazism with the Allied forces, for being against capitalist imperialism, etc.

In fact, when Che visited the Soviet Union he became disturbed by what he was and thought the Soviet Union version of Marxism had failed. While it is true Che visited the USSR during the de-Stalinization period when Khrushchev was around, Che was a critic of the Soviet bureaucratic system and elitist leaders, developments that increased faster under Stalin.

It is also obvious that Che did not embrace the idea of "Socialism in One Country." His attempts to spread socialist revolution in other countries proves this.

Fidel Castro claims that Che, while giving Stalin some merit for industrialization, fighting the Nazis, etc., was not a Stalinist and criticized Stalin and Stalinism.

While it is true that Che admired some of Mao Zedong's policies, Che was neither a Maoist or a Maoist guerrilla. In fact, he felt that Maoism could not work in Latin America. His admiration for some of Mao's policies does not make him a Maoist either. Again, Che saw things as having good parts and bad parts. In fact, many anti-Leninist socialists have admired Maoist ideas such as Parecon visionary Michael Albert and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky.

[revolutionary student]

He witnessed the indemic poverty in south America came to the conclusion that imperialism and monopoly capitalism was to blame (which is right) and became a hero of the working class. Some of his ideas are outdated (his view on homosexuality) but apart from that he was a martyr for leftists everywhere.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Che Guevara was not a Stalinist.
"Stalinism" doesn't exist. It's Marxism-Leninism. And if it does, Che was undoubtably a "Stalinist".

"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"

"We consider the Trotskyist party to be acting against the revolution."


"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 Seri of things that are very good."


In November of 1960, Che visited Stalin's grave against the advice of a Cuban ambassador, admist the process of "destalinization".


"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 [underlined by Che in the original] 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."




Source: http://espressostalinist.wordpress.com/2011/08/06/burying-the-myth-che-guevara-was-not-a-trotskyist/

[Ostrinski]

Che was undoubtedly a Stalinist. I never understood why people tried to make the case otherwise. It doesn't matter.

[Grenzer]

It matters because people have to form an emotional attachments to historical figures and turn them into objects of pseudo-religious worship. Come on, bro, you've been on the forum for a year and a half and you haven't figure that one out! :rolleyes:

Che was a Stalinist, but from the theoretical point of view, a terrible one. Focoism seems to be fairly unmarxist in conception. He was basically a petit-bourgeois romantic, but so long as people admire him for what he fought for, as opposed to his actual views as a socialist; then I don't see what the problem is.

[WanderingCactus]

What a wonderful title. A perfect summary of the revolutionary left.

[El Oso Rojo]

Che was not a Stalinist. This is what I posted in the Guevarist group.

Che Guevara was not a Stalinist. To claim Che was a Stalinist is to look over some very compelling facts and take other facts out of context. To say Che was a Stalinist, many point to the fact that in some letters to his family Che signed the letters as "Stalin II". Che was also accused of saluting in front of a picture of Stalin and claiming to promise to fight capitalism until it was dead. Stalinists also claim that because in Che's early years he read some of Stalin's writings to try to understand Marxism that this makes him a Stalinist.

While out of context these arguments look convincing, in context they fall apart. When Che signed his name "Stalin II" in letters to his family, read some of Stalin's writings, etc. it was during a period in history when the Soviet Union and Stalin were still considered fighters of Nazism and heros of the Allied powers, helping win World War II. Life magazine in the United States even designated Stalin as their man of the year!

Also, if reading Stalin automatically makes someone apart of he Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist worldview then I, a Anti-Stalinist, Left Communist, would become automatically a Stalinist. Just because someone reads a certain viewpoint doesn't mean they subscribe to that viewpoint. Following this logic, any World War II historian that read Mein Kampf would be a Nazi.

Che looked at things in ways that weren't just "good" or "bad" but looked at things as having good and bad parts. For instance, Che claimed to be a Marxist-Leninist but criticized Lenin for his NEP policy, claiming, 30 years before the fall of the USSR, that Lenin's introduction of state capitalism into the Soviet Union would cause it's falling. This criticism of Lenin has been reserved mainly for those on the left Marxist, anarchist, and libertarian socialist/communist line of thought. For this criticism to be stated by a Marxist-Leninist is very interesting and shows Che didn't see things as all good or all bad.

Also, Stalin thought the NEP was a great accomplishment by Lenin and believed it helped build socialism in Russia. Wouldn't you expect "Che the Stalinist" to agree with this viewpoint then?

If Che, later in life, still showed respect for "comrade Stalin", it was respect for fighting against Nazism with the Allied forces, for being against capitalist imperialism, etc.

In fact, when Che visited the Soviet Union he became disturbed by what he was and thought the Soviet Union version of Marxism had failed. While it is true Che visited the USSR during the de-Stalinization period when Khrushchev was around, Che was a critic of the Soviet bureaucratic system and elitist leaders, developments that increased faster under Stalin.

It is also obvious that Che did not embrace the idea of "Socialism in One Country." His attempts to spread socialist revolution in other countries proves this.

Fidel Castro claims that Che, while giving Stalin some merit for industrialization, fighting the Nazis, etc., was not a Stalinist and criticized Stalin and Stalinism.

While it is true that Che admired some of Mao Zedong's policies, Che was neither a Maoist or a Maoist guerrilla. In fact, he felt that Maoism could not work in Latin America. His admiration for some of Mao's policies does not make him a Maoist either. Again, Che saw things as having good parts and bad parts. In fact, many anti-Leninist socialists have admired Maoist ideas such as Parecon visionary Michael Albert and libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky.

Where can i find readings of his, where he says that?

[VirgJans12]

Che Guevara was a hero of the people, and is a personal one of mine. He devoted his life to overthrowing dictators and governments exploiting the people and had the best heart. He never allowed his fellow revolutionaries to do anything immoral besides shooting the enemy. If you count that as "immoral". They were trying to get a revolution going, after all. Even at the worst of times, he told them to pay for the food they got from the farmers. To me, he's a hero because of his extreme honesty and integrity.

He did make some mistakes, though. Especially in Bolivia. He started his revolutionary campaign without the support of the Communist Party. The Communist rebels in Cuba joined Fidel's revolutionaries and that was a big help. It might have even been the decisive move. Perhaps if Mario Monje hadn't been such a coward not to take up arms...

Che was physically weak in Bolivia and the organization wasn't as good as it had been in Cuba. The group was split up and the people weren't the least bit educated about the rebels or their cause. That's why, even after a year, the group was still only like the size of twenty men, because no one wanted to join them, and they were sold out by a farmer.

He was flawed, like everyone is, but a great man.

[Comrade Trollface]

If the [nuclear] missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of America including New York.So yeah- fuck you too, Che.

[cynicles]

Che always came off as a revolutionary romantic with a petit-bourgeios ego to me, kind of reminded me of Norman Bethune and others like that. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he was a villain or anything, but I cringe to see him compared to some of the greats like Rosa or Lenin.

[znk666]

Most historical figures were neither good or bad.
He was both a hero and a murderer

[DasFapital]

I don't agree with most of his ideas but he did more good than bad

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I think hes a hero. He wasn't perfect, but he really wanted to help people.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

It's a big shame to call Che a murder, when he has fought the American Imperialists. Also, I wonder which are the seven people who voted the "He was a bloodthirsty killer" ?!

[Igor]

It's a big shame to call Che a murder, when he has fought the American Imperialists. Also, I wonder which are the seven people who voted the "He was a bloodthirsty killer" ?!

He was a murderer though. There has to be no moral judgement, either condemning nor approving, in that statement.

But yeah, Che Guevara isn't an interesting character in my opinion. He's more about revolutionary romanticism than anything else, and I don't really care if he fought American imperialists: a lot of people do that all the time, it doesn't make me want to put their pictures on my t-shirts.

[Ostrinski]

He was a murderer though. There has to be no moral judgement, either condemning nor approving, in that statement.

But yeah, Che Guevara isn't an interesting character in my opinion. He's more about revolutionary romanticism than anything else, and I don't really care if he fought American imperialists: a lot of people do that all the time, it doesn't make me want to put their pictures on my t-shirts.Though their faces don't look as good on t shirts.

[Sea]

War =/= murder, so not murderer.

But then again, war = murder so he was a bloodthirsty killer. :rolleyes:

Without stopping to think on the specifics of his politics I'd say Che was a smart albeit absurdly overrated son of a ***** who as far as warmongers go was top of the heap.

I think we can all sincerely agree with what was behind Ernie's goings-on, even if just vaguely.

I absolutely despise those shitheads with Che shirts, though.

[RRRevolution]

He was clearly a murderer. He murdered people. Whether or not it was justified murder is the actual question.

I guess he's a "hero" to marxist-leninists and left wing populists. Hero is such a subjective term that it's almost not worth debating.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

He was clearly a murderer. He murdered people. Whether or not it was justified murder is the actual question.

I guess he's a "hero" to marxist-leninists and left wing populists. Hero is such a subjective term that it's almost not worth debating.


He was a murderer though. There has to be no moral judgement, either condemning nor approving, in that statement.

But yeah, Che Guevara isn't an interesting character in my opinion. He's more about revolutionary romanticism than anything else, and I don't really care if he fought American imperialists: a lot of people do that all the time, it doesn't make me want to put their pictures on my t-shirts.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120604235641/dragonball/images/0/05/Jackie-chan-meme.jpg

[Igor]

hey nice answering with meme shit that's cool

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Well che,hmm this decision is really yours to make,because you must remember and get this to your head,there is no perfect human no ubermensch,we all make mistakes in our life,the only different is that some people made bigger ones and the others smaller.

My conclusion is:

In some ways good, in some ways bad. I'mma say overall good. Several reasons:

*His book "Motorcycle Diaries" highlighted what are still important issues.
*He is a symbol of resistance.
*He proved to the world that ordinary people can fight against oppression.
*Among some less desirable attributes, he was (for the most part) a genuinely compassionate person that cared.
*He not only stood up for people, but helped them stand up for themselves.
*Other stuff I can't think of right now.

I regret the loss of all life, but at the end of the day, it's difficult to criticise the deposition of a heartless dictator for the common good. As a person, he was as imperfect as you or I - and there is a danger that we idolise, that we overlook mistakes and flaws.


P.S: When Che was young he didnt wash and didnt keep with personal hygiene his friends call him Chancho (pig) but you cant judge a man on how he looks and smells :)

[brigadista]

Che was a guerilla fighter -


forget the motorcycle diaries and read his own writings -

you could start here :

http://www.pathfinderpress.com/s.nl/it.A/id.551/.f


he gave a lot of assistance to african nations under colonial rule

I cant stand the popularisation of el che...

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Killing somebody doesn't make you a murderer. Soldiers in war aren't murderers, if I kill someone in self-defense I'm no murderer, etc, etc. So you're going to have to prove Che murdered somebody before you call him a murderer...

[Amon]

I like Che, I can't help but see a good man who passionately believed in what he did, after witnessing the hideous conditions that were were exposed to in his travels in Latin America.

People who say he was just a killer and nothing else, are you telling me that you wouldn't kill if the revolution called for it to progress the world for the better? If the revolution shall be violent, which in all likelihood looks like it's going to be that way, then it is unfortunately a necessary evil that cannot be avoided.

[Comrades Unite!]

The executions committed by him were not for no reason, nor for his own personal,profitable or political gain.

Che Guevara is a symbol of the revolution to many, A symbol of ending oppression and a symbol of the worker.

His work ''On Guerilla Warfare'' is among one of the finest of its kind.

[Philosophos]

Well I don't think that there are bloodthirsty beasts in a war or a revolution. The nature of these two situations is bringing that beast that all humans have inside of us. Anyone (even the so "civilized" us from 2012) would kill and try to survive by any means necessary.

With all these things I'm saying I don't mean that I like the tortures or the killings of inoscent people or anything that has to do with unnecessary violence.

So yeah I believe Che was a great guy that fought capitalism and he had some actual results, not like all these secretarians that just talk about how good communism is.

[Niall]

I think he was a hero and a martyr. A great revolutionary he certainly was. Was he a murderer? I dont believe so and there is NO evidence to say that he was.

[Yazman]

Where does this "murderer" shit come from? He was a soldier in a revolutionary war, of course people are going to die. That's not murder, unless you consider everybody to have ever fought in any sort of armed conflict in all of history to be a murderer too.

[tachosomoza]

Che was an admirable character, a bit of a bourgeois thinking nob in his youth, but as an adult he was a symbol of ending oppression and imperialism. Hasta la victoria siempre.

[Prometeo liberado]

Where does this "murderer" shit come from? He was a soldier in a revolutionary war, of course people are going to die. That's not murder, unless you consider everybody to have ever fought in any sort of armed conflict in all of history to be a murderer too.

The only thing that I can think of is his activities concerning incarcerated enemies of the state after the revolution. He did execute convicted ex-policeman and spies of the old regime. As they were unarmed ex-combatants many see this as murder. Call him a murderer if you want, but he was our murderer, and acting on the orders of the legitimate revolutionary government.

This thread is old.

[Pravda]

Bloodthirsty killer- i like bombastic expressions like this :D

[Yazman]

The only thing that I can think of is his activities concerning incarcerated enemies of the state after the revolution. He did execute convicted ex-policeman and spies of the old regime. As they were unarmed ex-combatants many see this as murder. Call him a murderer if you want, but he was our murderer, and acting on the orders of the legitimate revolutionary government.

This thread is old.

If you're talking about prisoners, well:

1. He never executed anybody. Firing squads etc did that. Calling Che Guevara a "murderer" because he signed off on prisoners being executed would be like calling Bill Clinton a murderer because he signed off on Timothy McVeigh being executed. Guevara himself never took part in such executions. So when you say "He did execute convicted ex-policeman and spies of the old regime" - no, he didn't.

2. Execution isn't murder. If it was, then I can think of dozens of politicians that we can call murderers, from George W. Bush to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Allowing executions to take place doesn't make somebody a murderer, even if you disagree with their politics (which I certainly do in the case of Schwarzenegger and Bush, but they aren't murderers).

[Let's Get Free]

Che did indeed have his faults. We all do. But he was in no way similar to the way many make him out to be- the man was known for his caring ways towards the captured enemy and his hate for terrorism could not have been more different. He was a rebel to an entire U.S. nation, so of course, there will be a massive amount of propaganda and false accusations against him.

No, Che Guevara wasn't Jesus Christ, nor was he the opposite. Just a man who stood for something.

[Comrade #138672]

I can't figure out why Che Guevara would be a petit-bourgeois Idealist. As far as I can tell, he is the very opposite of an Idealist.

[Ostrinski]

I can't figure out why Che Guevara would be a petit-bourgeois Idealist. As far as I can tell, he is the very opposite of an Idealist.He saw himself as a sort of paternal figure of toiling masses. He thought that through his militant altruism he could usher in a wave of revolutionary zeal by instigating a world war that would force the Soviet Union and China into an alliance to destroy American imperialism and spread socialism across the world.

Solid analysis.

In the end, his self-righteousness was his tragic downfall.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Where is the romantic petite-bourgeois revolutionary option?

[Ismail]

To quote a post of mine made elsewhere:

Hoxha gave a good analysis of Che's work in 1968 (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1968/10/21.htm):

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. Who was Che Guevara? When we speak of Che Guevara, we also mean somebody else who poses as a Marxist, in comparison to whom, in our opinion, Che Guevara was a man of fewer words. He was a rebel, a revolutionary, but not a Marxist-Leninist as they try to present him. I may be mistaken—you Latin-Americans are better acquainted with Che Guevara, but I think that he was a leftist fighter. His is a bourgeois and petty-bourgeois leftism, combined with some ideas that were progressive, but also anarchist which, in the final analysis, lead to adventurism.

The views of Che Guevara and anyone else who poses as a Marxist and claims "paternity" of these ideas have never been or had anything to do with Marxism-Leninism. Che Guevara also had some "exclairicies" in his adoption of certain Marxist-Leninist principles, but they still did not become a full philosophical world-outlook which could impel him to genuinely revolutionary actions.

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.

We have defended the Cuban revolution because it was against US imperialism. As Marxist-Leninists let us study it a bit and the ideas which guided it in this struggle. The Cuban revolution did not begin on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and was not carried out on the basis of the laws of the proletarian revolution of a Marxist-Leninist party. After the liberation of the country, Castro did not set out on the Marxist-Leninist course, either, but on the contrary, continued on the course of his liberal ideas. It is a fact, which nobody can deny, that the participants in this revolution took up arms and went to the mountains, but it is an undeniable fact also that they did not fight as Marxist-Leninists. They were liberation fighters against the Battista clique and triumphed over it precisely because that clique was a weak link of capitalism. Battista was an obedient flunky of imperialism, who rode roughshod over the Cuban people. The Cuban people, however, fought and triumphed over this clique and over American imperialism at the same time...

In our opinion, the theory that the revolution is carried out by a few "heroes" constitutes a danger to Marxism-Leninism, especially in the Latin-American countries. Your South-American continent has great revolutionary traditions, but, as we said above, it also has some other traditions which may seem revolutionary but which, in fact, are not genuinely on the road of the revolution. Any putsch carried out there is called a revolution! But a putsch can never be a revolution, because one overthrown clique is replaced by another, in a word, things remain as they were. In addition to all the nuclei of anti-Marxist trends which still exist in the ranks of the old parties that have placed themselves in the service of the counterrevolution, there is now another trend which we call left adventurism.

This trend, and that other offspring of the bourgeoisie, modern revisionism, constitute great dangers to the people, including those of the Latin-American countries. Carefully disguised, modern revisionism is a great deceiver of the peoples and revolutionaries. In different countries it puts on different disguises. In Latin America, Castroism, disguised as Marxism-Leninism, is leading people, even revolutionaries, into left adventurism. This trend appears to be in contradiction with modern revisionism. Those who are ideologically immature think thus, but it is not so. The Castroites are not opposed to the modern revisionists. On the contrary, they are in their service. The separate courses each of them follows lead them to the same point.

The question whenever the Soviet revisionists fail to prevent the masses of the working class and the people from carrying out the revolution, this trend steps in and, by means of a putsch, destroys what the revisionists are unable to destroy by means of evolution. The Soviet revisionists and all the traitor cliques which led the revisionist parties preach evolution, coexistence and all those other anti-Marxist theories we know. From the terms it employs, left adventurism seems more revolutionary, because it advocates armed struggle! But what does it mean by armed struggle? Clearly—putsches. Marxism-Leninism teaches us that only by proceeding with prudent and sure steps, only by basing ourselves firmly on the principles of the Marxist-Leninist doctrine, only by making the masses conscious can victory be ensured in the preparation and launching of the armed uprising, and only in this way will we never fall into adventurism.

The authors of the theory that the "starter motor" sets the "big motor" in motion pose as if they are for the armed struggle, but in fact they are opposed to it and work to discredit it. The example and tragic end of Che Guevara, the following and prorogation of this theory also by other self-styled Marxists, who are opposed to the great struggles by the masses of people, are publicly known facts which refute their claims: We must guard against the people lest they betray us, lest they hand us over to the police; we must set up "wild" isolated detachments, so that the enemy does not get wind of them and does not retaliate with terror against the population! They publicize these and many other confusing theories, which you know only too well. What sort of Marxism-Leninism is this which advocates attacking the enemy, fighting it with these "wild" detachments, etc. without having a Marxist-Leninist party to lead the fight? There is nothing Marxist-Leninist about it. Such anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theories can bring nothing but defeat for Marxism-Leninism and the revolution, as Che Guevara's undertaking in Bolivia did.

This trend brings the theses of the armed uprising into disrepute. What great damage it causes the revolution! With the killing of Guevara, the masses of common people, contaminated by the influences of these anarchist views, will think: "Now there is no one else to lead us, to liberate us!" Or perhaps a group of people with another Guevara will be set up again to take to the mountains to make the "revolution," and the masses, who expect a great deal from these individuals and are burning to fight the bourgeoisie, may be deceived into following them. And what will happen? Something that is clear to us. Since these people are not the vanguard of the working class, since they are not guided by the enlightening principles of Marxism-Leninism, they will encounter misunderstanding among the broad masses and sooner or later they will fail, but at the same time the genuine struggle will be discredited, because the masses will regard armed struggle with distrust. We must prepare the masses politically and ideologically, and convince them through their own practical experience. That is why we say that this inhibiting, reactionary theory about the revolution that is being spread in Latin America is the offspring of modern revisionism and must be unmasked by the Marxist-Leninists.There are people who go on about how Che praised Stalin and tended to take the Chinese and Albanian side in their critiques of Khrushchev and Co. That's true, and all sides knew this, yet the fact is that he clearly did not fight as a Marxist-Leninist. As Hoxha pointed out a year later to the Peruvian Marxist-Leninists, "As we have heard, the elements whom you purged were influenced by Castroite leftist adventurists, whose efforts were directed especially at students. 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.)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Thanks Ismail. What i would disagree with on though is that in countries which have the proletariat stem the minority instead of majority, building a proletarian party to gain the majority is difficult. In the case of underdeveloped countries, i don't see why "left-bourgeois" Socialist revolutions should not be supported if they happen to have wide support.

[Ismail]

What i would disagree with on though is that in countries which have the proletariat stem the minority instead of majority, building a proletarian party to gain the majority is difficult. In the case of underdeveloped countries, i don't see why "left-bourgeois" Socialist revolutions should not be supported if they happen to have wide support.Hoxha wasn't opposed to the Cuban revolution, which was indeed a popular one. The difference is that it was a bourgeois-democratic and not a socialist revolution.

Furthermore saying that "building a proletarian party to gain the majority is difficult" has been refuted in the practices of both Russia and Albania. There was no sort of "peasant socialism" or placing the peasantry at the head of the revolution.

[Zealot]

Hoxha wasn't opposed to the Cuban revolution, which was indeed a popular one. The difference is that it was a bourgeois-democratic and not a socialist revolution.

Furthermore saying that "building a proletarian party to gain the majority is difficult" has been refuted in the practices of both Russia and Albania. There was no sort of "peasant socialism" or placing the peasantry at the head of the revolution.

But both used the class interests of the peasantry in order to advance a Socialist revolution since they made up the majority of the population. Hoxha's critique doesn't seem consistent either because, firstly, the Cuban Revolution did have mass support and, secondly, he says he supports the Cuban Revolution only to condemn it a paragraph later by stating that "one overthrown clique was replaced by another".

[Ismail]

But both used the class interests of the peasantry in order to advance a Socialist revolution since they made up the majority of the population.Obviously, but this is still quite different from "giving power to the peasants," as Mao advocated.


Hoxha's critique doesn't seem consistent either because, firstly, the Cuban Revolution did have mass supportHe wasn't denying that Batista was hated.


and, secondly, he says he supports the Cuban Revolution only to condemn it a paragraph later by stating that "one overthrown clique was replaced by another".A comprador-bourgeois regime was overthrown by a bourgeois-democratic regime. Both are capitalist, both do not represent the working-class.

As Hoxha noted in 1978, "The Latin-American peoples cherished many hopes, had many illusions, about the victory of the Cuban people, which became an inspiration and encouragement to them in their struggle to shake off the yoke of the local capitalist and landowner rulers and American imperialists. However, these hopes and this inspiration soon faded when they saw that Castroite Cuba was not developing on the road of socialism but on that of revisionist-type capitalism, and faded even more quickly when Cuba became the vassal and mercenary of Soviet social-imperialism." (Imperialism and the Revolution, 1979, p. 199.)

[Grenzer]

Castroites and Guevarists are awful. They tend to rely on moralistic and emotional arguments as to why Che is supposedly some kind of hero.

As much as I dislike Mao and consider China to always have been a capitalist state, I don't see how it could be considered democratic. The form of a bourgeois democracy pretty much always involves a legislative assembly similar to a parliament or something which is popularly elected. China didn't have that, as far as I'm aware.

[Ismail]

As much as I dislike Mao and consider China to always have been a capitalist state, I don't see how it could be considered democratic. The form of a bourgeois democracy pretty much always involves a legislative assembly similar to a parliament or something which is popularly elected. China didn't have that, as far as I'm aware.Yes it did, the National People's Congress.

See for instance (it's called "All-China People's Assembly" here): http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/pdchina2.htm

[Grenzer]

Yes it did, the National People's Congress.

See for instance (it's called "All-China People's Assembly" here): http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/pdchina2.htm

Good point. I had not heard of this organ before. According to the wikipedia entry on this body, it operates similarly to an ordinary bourgeois parliament and roughly 1/3 of its membership are not from the CCP.

[Thelonious]

I was born in Cuba in 1973 but left when I was seven years old. I have heard plenty of Cuban exiles (many who are family members of mine) deride him as a simple, bloodthirsty killer. Most who espouse such opinions either were wealthy Cuban landowners or descendants of such. I have heard countless stories about the brutal and inhuman treatment Cuban peasants had to endure at the hands of these people. Che was their enemy.

About ten years ago I used to wear a red t-shirt with a small likeness of Che on the front. I was walking down Bergenline Ave. in Union City, NJ, which is around 90% Hispanic; over 50% of these Hispanics are of Cuban descent. An old Cuban man stopped me and poked his finger directly at Che's face and said, "If you had any idea what that man did you would not be wearing that shirt!"

I told him that I was very aware of what he did and that is exactly why I wear this shirt.

[Sankaraitis]

A lot of good points in this thread. Che is a hero in the third world and also to many in the first world, myself included.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Che is obviously a hero to many, and the Cuban Revolution has clearly been a beacon for many people fighting for emancipation in various forms.
At the same time, Che should by no means be above criticism. Like, omfg inexcusable homophobia.

[Ismail]

At the same time, Che should by no means be above criticism. Like, omfg inexcusable homophobia.The issue isn't criticism, it's when reactionaries use Che's homophobia to try and discredit what he's actually known for. Durruti talked about how Spain's churches were inhabited by homosexuals, Engels wrote to Marx how he was glad he and him were too old to have to worry about paying "physical tribute" to gays in the future, etc.

Ol' Castro apparently said a few years back that homosexuals in Cuba should be treated like anybody else, and yet he also got prank-called around that time by a Miami radio station and in anger called the callers "maricón." Decades before that he was openly denouncing homosexuals.

I don't think there's anyone who says "Che was right to be homophobic," just that it was an unfortunate aspect of his personality indicative of the conditions in which he lived, much like Marx being into phrenology. Doesn't particularly negate Che's actions, which were of a progressive and objectively bourgeois-democratic nature.