Was Che Guevara good or bad?

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't know much about Guevara, and I've always heard he was bad, but often I've found things that peoe said he did bad was actually a logical thing to do (when he wrote about killing someone who was accepting pay from the capitalists to spy on them, the last part for example they would leave conveniently out). Also, some of his quotes suggest he is a homophobic racist, while others suggest the opposite. I don't know! :crying:

[F9]

most quotes out there from all kind of historical figures are false, dont know which one from che you encountered, maybe you can point us to them?
as far as if he was good or bad, che carried his ideas for freedom threw out his life and stood by it, he was always fighting for it and was doing his duty as part of the revolutions.Killing people in a war is obviously common, the ideas behind the killings are the ones that should be observed.I propose you do your own research on him in depth and dont hear others opinions so you can formulate your own opinion.There are bunch of good biographys for che, grab one good and read it.

Fuserg9:star:

[Fourth Internationalist]

most quotes out there from all kind of historical figures are false, dont know which one from che you encountered, maybe you can point us to them?
as far as if he was good or bad, che carried his ideas for freedom threw out his life and stood by it, he was always fighting for it and was doing his duty as part of the revolutions.Killing people in a war is obviously common, the ideas behind the killings are the ones that should be observed.I propose you do your own research on him in depth and dont hear others opinions so you can formulate your own opinion.There are bunch of good biographys for che, grab one good and read it.

Fuserg9:star:

I remember something about Mexicans being illiterate. Also, I've heard he was like some sort of head of a prison here they put rebelious people, gays, etc. I don't know if it's true or not...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Good and Bad aren't Marxist categories. Not that it's wrong to have personal heroes, I personally idolize Ho Chi Mihn. But this sort of subjectivity isn't a proper basis for historical anaysis. Ho Chi Minh for example, slaughtered alot of trots who did nothing to deserve it, but should we reject him just because of this one lapse in his charcther? Of course not, because that would be an undialetical view of history

[Art Vandelay]

Che, while misguided, was someone who actively pursued the emancipation of the proletariat and repeatedly put his life on the line to do so. From a theoretical Marxist standpoint, he is worthless; however as a historical curiosity he's quite interesting. I've always had a bit of a soft spot for the Cuban Revolution, despite it not being proletarian in nature. I'd personally recommend John Lee Anderson's bio of Che.

[Ostrinski]

I don't care much either way, when I first became a socialist I thought he was cool as shit and everything but at this point there isn't much about him that I find profoundly interesting. As far as him being "bad" goes, I dunno. The usual source for that is his sometimes excessive violence which never really bothered me that much. Many of the quotes that are used to demonize him are false, but there are a few others that are true and represent his less than flattering side.

I think it's safe to say that from our perspective he certainly had a very flawed conception of what socialism is, (i.e. he viewed the USSR and PRC as socialist) as well as political methods for achieving such (i.e. foco). I think it's safe to say that he is a complex historical figure insofar as he was constantly learning and looking for answers, so one must always relate his actions and experiences to where he was at intellectually at the time. I think it was revealed that shortly before he died he was reading Trotskyist literature.

I believe he did preside over the imprisonment of anarchists and Trotskyists during his tenure at La Cabana so those types would have reason to pick a bone in that regard, yet many of the Trotskyists seem to go on romanticizing him anyway.

In any event it's easy to see how someone who is new to socialist ideas can be drawn into being interested in someone like Che Guevara but beyond that elementary phase there's nothing really to draw from the man. His political writings were absolute shit, as were his actual politics for much of his revolutionary life.

If you have an interest in him, I would suggest reading John Lee Anderson's biography of him as it is very good.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Good and Bad aren't Marxist categories. Not that it's wrong to have personal heroes, I personally idolize Ho Chi Mihn. But this sort of subjectivity isn't a proper basis for historical anaysis. Ho Chi Minh for example, slaughtered alot of trots who did nothing to deserve it, but should we reject him just because of this one lapse in his charcther? Of course not, because that would be an undialetical view of history

While I believe that question about rejecting Ho chi Minh is rhetorical, I would say we should we reject him if what you say is true.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't care much either way, when I first became a socialist I thought he was cool as shit and everything but at this point there isn't much about him that I find profoundly interesting. As far as him being "bad" goes, I dunno. The usual source for that is his sometimes excessive violence which never really bothered me that much. Many of the quotes that are used to demonize him are false, but there are a few others that are true and represent his less than flattering side.

I think it's safe to say that from our perspective he certainly had a very flawed conception of what socialism is, (i.e. he viewed the USSR and PRC as socialist) as well as political methods for achieving such (i.e. foco). I think it's safe to say that he is a complex historical figure insofar as he was constantly learning and looking for answers, so one must always relate his actions and experiences to where he was at intellectually at the time. I think it was revealed that shortly before he died he was reading Trotskyist literature.

I believe he did preside over the imprisonment of anarchists and Trotskyists during his tenure at La Cabana so those types would have reason to pick a bone in that regard, yet many of the Trotskyists seem to go on romanticizing him anyway.

In any event it's easy to see how someone who is new to socialist ideas can be drawn into being interested in someone like Che Guevara but beyond that elementary phase there's nothing really to draw from the man. His political writings were absolute shit, as were his actual politics for much of his revolutionary life.

If you have an interest in him, I would suggest reading John Lee Anderson's biography of him as it is very good.

Okay, back to my old stance on this issue. Bad.

Thanks for all the answers guys and gals!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

He was a committed revolutionary fighter. He was also a complex, sometimes contradictory, human being.

[Let's Get Free]

He is an easily romanticized figure and seemingly arbitrarily beloved by armchair revolutionaries, counter-culturalists, punk rockers, and various assorted posers across this great land.

There are attractive aspects of Che Guevara. He was a man who lived without desire for political power to engage in guerrilla warfare campaigns whose success was far from assured or even likely. In those incredibly dangerous and hostile surroundings, his behavior was indeed courageous if not heroic. His personal integrity was unquestionable.
Che was an idealistic revolutionary. He had good intentions, of course.

However, his historical record is clear. Guevaraism is incompatible with the struggle to build an egalitarian and democratic socialist society, a society in which working people decide their own fate without reliance on "well-intentioned saviors. Che doesn't offer much to socialists today except a widely recognized pretty face

[rolfwar]

I think that, as already pointed out, we should take him for what he was, and not worship him or scorn him.
He did something good, he helped against Imperialism and fought to spread the Revolution.
I think good of him, personally.

[ind_com]

I find it extremely funny how Che is worshipped by most really because he was handsome when he died, and how many anti-MLs admire him just because a portion of the bourgeoisie commercializes and popularizes his face.

[Sam_b]

Okay, back to my old stance on this issue. Bad.

You cannot categorise people into arbitrarily "good" and "bad" camps, or you will not get far in understanding anything historical or dialectical.

[Thelonious]

When I was young (I'm 40 yrs. old now) I absolutely worshiped the man. I devoured any book I could get on him. I disposed of any book that was only even slightly critical of him. I read the hagiographies that the Cuban government published about him. When I was young, 16 years-old, and had just begun to raise my middle finger to anything authoritarian or capitalist, Che was the perfect hero. He joined in a revolution that was almost certainly doomed to fail and triumphed. I am a Cuban-American and I lived in a large Cuban expatriate community; there was no shortage of Guevara-haters for me to argue with, and sometimes even to come to blows with. As far as communism was concerned, for me it started and ended with Che Guevara.

As I got older and more educated about communism and Marxism specifically, I realized that Che was not all he was cracked up to be. I do admire him for what he did: leaving behind a comfortable middle-class existence to join Castro's revolutionary army, denying a safe life in Cuba to go out and foment revolutions in Africa and South America.

He was definitely homophobic and sexist, but I do not believe he was a racist. I have heard him branded a murderer by numerous people. I don't think he was any more of a murderer than General Patton or George W. Bush was. People die in revolutions and wars.

As others have suggested, read Jon Anderson's biography on Che. It is the most exhaustive and accurate depiction of the often misunderstood Guevara.

http://www.stateofnature.org/jonLeeAnderson.html


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hagiography

[RadioRaheem84]

I think you guys are downplaying him a bit too much. Che always admitted to being an amateur at Marxist theory and never claimed to be a economic scholar. His main ideaology was faulty but he died fighting for what he believed in. His kick in the gnards to imperialism was so thrilling at the time that even anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard sung his praises because even he recognized what a threat he (or at least his image) was to imperialism.

I read Che's stuff and I don't think of it as horrible, just really elementary and one could tell he was still in the process of learning and was more a man of action than words or theory. But that's nothing to downplay. His image is still one of rebellion and socialism and that's good in my eyes. Even if people do not know who the man is on the shirt they're wearing they can easily find out and be somewhat inspired. I mean have any of you ever heard his speeches to the UN? Lord, I couldn't imagine anyone going up there NOW and saying stuff like that. Marching with Malcolm X? A revolutionary on daytime TV discussing politics? C'mon. He was a progressive revolutionary media sensation and that's more that can be said for what we have now.

Why else would all this new junk about Che from anti-socialists be coming out of the woodwork several decades after his death? Che still is an inspiration.

[Art Vandelay]

You cannot categorise people into arbitrarily "good" and "bad" camps, or you will not get far in understanding anything historical or dialectical.

One of the best posts I've ever seen on this site. I think this really needs to be stressed when looking at certain historical figures in particular, ie: Robespierre, Dzerzhinsky, etc.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I think in comparison to other communist figures Che was relatively tame. I mean how many was he responsible for executing? Maybe a couple hundred? Compare that to the USSR, PRC, etc. there was probably more terror in the American Revolution. If we're going to judge how bad a revolutionary is based on the treatment of counter-revolutionaries or those suspected of it, Che/Cuba weren't very bad.

Che's foco theory was flawed I believe and it ultimately led to his death, he held some views that would make us cringe(even Marx thought homosexuality was a degenerate behavior caused by capitalism), but altogether as human being I would classify him as "good".

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Che was real.

[RadioRaheem84]

Che was real.

No kidding. That's an understatement. Christopher Hitchens was pretty frank about this issue and said that a lot of his classmates were enamoured with him because he said someone like them is actually going out and doing something about all they've been complaining about.

Then again so were Ho Chi Minh and countless other figures of the Cold War. It may have been Che's background of a white, middle class university student giving up a prestigious medical profession to fight for the poor. I mean he was literally a progressives dream icon.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Good and Bad aren't Marxist categories.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

That sounded amasingly/extremely/giganticaly/emourmously riddiculous!

You might be correct while saying that, but saying you do not follow good and bad because Marx didn't say so is the most riddiculous thing I have ever heard.

I would like to keep this quote of yours and use it for when I see people saying: "This: does not contain class analysis/is not marxist/does not follow marxism, etc..."

[Permanent Revolutionary]

As all people, Che was a product of his time, therefore it would be foolish to hold him to a modern standard.
As a revolutionary fighter, he did more for the common worker, that anyone here could ever dream of achieving.
Did he do some bad stuff during his lifetime, yeah probably, but one has to also analyze the historical situation, which he was a part of.

[Art Vandelay]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

That sounded amasingly/extremely/giganticaly/emourmously riddiculous!

You might be correct while saying that, but saying you do not follow good and bad because Marx didn't say so is the most riddiculous thing I have ever heard.

I would like to keep this quote of yours and use it for when I see people saying: "This: does not contain class analysis/is not marxist/does not follow marxism, etc..."

Spouting your usual nonsense are you now, tra23? He never said that he didn't say that he refrained from using the labels of good and bad, cause Marx didn't say so. Please oh please stop spamming this board with your shit and go join a forum for liberals already.

[Art Vandelay]

As all people, Che was a product of his time, therefore it would be foolish to hold him to a modern standard.
As a revolutionary fighter, he did more for the common worker, that anyone here could ever dream of achieving.
Did he do some bad stuff during his lifetime, yeah probably, but one has to also analyze the historical situation, which he was a part of.

Che executed alot of Trots during the Cuban revolution. It would appear to be, that if you were in Cuba during the revolution, it would of been up against the wall for you.

[Geiseric]

Che executed alot of Trots during the Cuban revolution. It would appear to be, that if you were in Cuba during the revolution, it would of been up against the wall for you.

Che actually freed a bunch of trotskyists from prison at one point. Overall he was an instrument in Castro's political game, he realized it though and chose not to become part of the Cuban bureaucracy which rules to this day.

[Let's Get Free]

Che was Finance Minister and President of the National Bank, but he had to resign because he was fucking up the Cuban economy.

[Geiseric]

Che was Finance Minister and President of the National Bank, but he had to resign because he was fucking up the Cuban economy.

Yeah one thing I heard they did was burn all of the tobacco farms to the ground, which made a bunch of the land infertile. Still, they had a rough time, due to the embargo, which was a huge deal seeing as all of cuba's trade was with the U.S.

[Ostrinski]

Che was Finance Minister and President of the National Bank, but he had to resign because he was fucking up the Cuban economy.The disastrous collectivization policies he implemented as Minister of Industry would be tragic instead of laughable had the USSR not been there to buy Cuban grain at eleven times the market value :laugh:.

[Geiseric]

The disastrous collectivization policies he implemented as Minister of Industry would be tragic instead of laughable had the USSR not been there to buy Cuban grain at eleven times the market value :laugh:.

I always thought the famous thing was the USSR bought cuban sugar for huge prices. When I read stuff like that, it makes the state capitalist argument hard to swallow, seeing as there was no profit possible to make off of trading and arming cuba.

[Ostrinski]

It may have been sugar instead of grain.

I don't think there's anything about that that disproves state capitalism, though, as it is a geopolitical issue instead of an economic one. I'm sure you can find examples of similar occurrences within the market as well that have happened before, furthermore.

[Geiseric]

It may have been sugar instead of grain.

I don't think there's anything about that that disproves state capitalism, though, as it is a geopolitical issue instead of an economic one. I'm sure you can find examples of similar occurrences within the market as well that have happened before, furthermore.

No the USSR's bureaucracy was out to put nuclear weapons in Cuba as a bargaining chip for the rest of eastern europe, which I don't agree with, but they lost a lot of money helping out and arming other states which had revolutions and planned economies, such as Vietnam and North Korea. If it was capitalist it would of tried to rip those countries off.

[Ostrinski]

No the USSR's bureaucracy was out to put nuclear weapons in Cuba as a bargaining chip for the rest of eastern europe, which I don't agree with, but they lost a lot of money helping out and arming other states which had revolutions and planned economies, such as Vietnam and North Korea. If it was capitalist it would of tried to rip those countries off.There are plenty of cases of the Stalinist states, particularly the Soviet Union "ripping off" other countries through trade surpluses such as in Spain in the 30's, eastern Europe after WWII, among others. But simply "ripping off" or not "ripping off" isn't indicative of any concrete set of economic relations, though. It just implies that someone is getting fucked over and the other side benefits.

This is getting off topic, however, and is derailing the thread.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

That sounded amasingly/extremely/giganticaly/emourmously riddiculous!

You might be correct while saying that, but saying you do not follow good and bad because Marx didn't say so is the most riddiculous thing I have ever heard.

I would like to keep this quote of yours and use it for when I see people saying: "This: does not contain class analysis/is not marxist/does not follow marxism, etc..."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because English is not your first language. But Yet_another_etc_etc was saying that you can't simply look at historical figures through a black and white lens and must take into account the conditions of the time and place when looking at what happened and what they did. That there is no objective moral standard in which someone can be judged. There are shades of gray. About 50 of them, actually, because Che was sexy.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Good intentions don't count for shit. The Cuban Revolution was not proletarian in nature.

[Yuppie Grinder]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:: laugh::laugh::laugh:

That sounded amasingly/extremely/giganticaly/emourmously riddiculous!

You might be correct while saying that, but saying you do not follow good and bad because Marx didn't say so is the most riddiculous thing I have ever heard.

I would like to keep this quote of yours and use it for when I see people saying: "This: does not contain class analysis/is not marxist/does not follow marxism, etc..."

Dude you need to learn how to spell. Also, there's nothing "amasingly, emourmously, riddiculous" about having a more nuanced view of the world than dividing everyone into categories of good and bad.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Che executed alot of Trots during the Cuban revolution. It would appear to be, that if you were in Cuba during the revolution, it would of been up against the wall for you.

Che was of course a ML, so we would disagree on basic points, however, he did take part in revolutionary struggles in multiple countries, and that had to be applauded.

But could you maybe come up with a source for his execution of Trots?

[RadioRaheem84]

Good intentions don't count for shit. The Cuban Revolution was not proletarian in nature.

Isn't Cuba the only nation to have officially ended child malnutrition?

This is a feat considering its been subject to economic blockade, terrorism, sabotage and political alienation.

Imagine what this little nation could do if it was allowed to pursue its own course.

[Manic Impressive]

Isn't Cuba the only nation to have officially ended child malnutrition?

This is a feat considering its been subject to economic blockade, terrorism, sabotage and political alienation.

Imagine what this little nation could do if it was allowed to pursue its own course.
What does that have to do with the class character of the state?

[leninstalin1988]

Che was a great Man who helped The Proletariat anyway he could and Marxists Leninists havent always accepted Gays.. Homosexuality was known as a "Capitalist bourgeoisie indulgance" in the USSR and all over the Socialist World it isnt until recently that Marxists Leninists accepted Gays