View Full Version : Che was a "Stalinist"
TC
6th January 2004, 23:36
Che was unlike Castro an anti-revisionist "Stalinist." I don't really understand why this board is for Che but against Stalin (you can be for Castro and against Stalin, but it doesn't make sense to me to be for Che not Stalin anymore than one could be a Maoist but not support Stalin as well or a Trotskyist but not a Leninist).
On Stalin and Revisionism he writes:
"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."
Similarly Che supported the anti-Revisionist policies of the People's Republic of China over the Soviet Union (whereas Castro supported the Soviet Union over China).
So, how is it that so many Trotskyists here seem to favor Che over Castro?
Hate Is Art
7th January 2004, 16:33
Che wasn't a Stalinist, so please let's not go into it. He may have respected Stalin and been anti-revsionist but he wasn't a Stalinist.
The reason people like Che so much is because he gave his life to freeing the oppressed peoples of the world. He was probably one of the best guerilla fighters in terms of bravery. He came from a rich background but still saw the need for change and fought in a revolution that was not for his country and after the Cuban revolution still continued to spread the cause.
germanredrat
7th January 2004, 16:57
I think the problem is that many people think stalinism means to commit war crimes and all those bad thinks. But it's not!
Rastaman
7th January 2004, 17:33
who cares what he was?? everyone can have anyviews he/she likes.. i still respect some capitalists even though most are full of shit.
Soviet power supreme
7th January 2004, 19:55
He was probably one of the best guerilla fighters in terms of bravery.
No he wasnt.He wasnt very good guerilla and he didnt understand to leave the Bolivia.
El Brujo
7th January 2004, 20:09
Originally posted by Digital
[email protected] 8 2004, 01:33 AM
Che wasn't a Stalinist, so please let's not go into it. He may have respected Stalin and been anti-revsionist but he wasn't a Stalinist.
Being an anti-revisionist and respecting Stalin equates to being a "Stalinist."
Hate Is Art
7th January 2004, 20:11
Originally posted by Soviet power
[email protected] 7 2004, 08:55 PM
He was probably one of the best guerilla fighters in terms of bravery.
No he wasnt.He wasnt very good guerilla and he didnt understand to leave the Bolivia.
You have just contradicted your self, I didn't say he was a tactical genius or anything, he was brave enough to stay and fight even though he was losing, he cared that much about the people of Bolivia to carry on fighting.
Soviet power supreme
7th January 2004, 20:14
You have just contradicted your self, I didn't say he was a tactical genius or anything, he was brave enough to stay and fight even though he was losing, he cared that much about the people of Bolivia to carry on fighting.
He didnt have the support of the locals.The guerilla warfare which dont have supprot locals cannot work.He should have withdraw.
ernestolynch
7th January 2004, 21:45
Originally posted by
[email protected] 7 2004, 12:36 AM
So, how is it that so many Trotskyists here seem to favor Che over Castro?
Penis envy?
Guerilla22
7th January 2004, 23:16
Yes, Che did say that, but it should be definitley noted that Che said this before actually really knowing the truth about Stalin. He made This statement in a letter to his family when he was living in Guatemala. The statement was not meant to be an affrimation or in admiration of Stalin himself, it was menat as an affrimation to his Marxist beliefs and Stalin just happened to be the leader of the USSR, the country that was founded on Marxism.
ernestolynch
7th January 2004, 23:18
Fuck off - how do you know? Another liberal stoner posing as a Che-supporter. You talk like you were his personal buddy ffs.
Get a grip - you seriously have a case of the Trots. I hear eating bananas helps.
Jesus Christ
8th January 2004, 01:29
Don't start with the fucking Trot thing, its over before it starts.
Calling Che a Stalinist, or anybody a Stalinist, in my opinion, is totally ridiculous if that person does not carry out Stalinistic actions.
Che was a guerrilla fighter, he may have been Stalinesque in ideology, but actions speak louder than words.
RED FIRE
8th January 2004, 08:01
He didnt have the support of the locals.The guerilla warfare which dont have supprot locals cannot work.He should have withdraw.
Totally concur, Guevara was stupid to stay in Bolivia....He did not even have the support of the Bolivian Communist party.
Hate Is Art
8th January 2004, 15:08
Fuck The Bolivian Communist Party, Che is out their fighting for freedom and what the fuck are they doing? Che once said "The revolution ends in one of two ways, either a sucsess or I die" I wouldn't have expected him to give up and nor should anyone critize him for fighting for what he believed in, if everyone strove to be more like Che then the world be perfect.
Calling Che a Stalinist, or anybody a Stalinist, in my opinion, is totally ridiculous if that person does not carry out Stalinistic actions.
Che was a guerrilla fighter, he may have been Stalinesque in ideology, but actions speak louder than words.
Argeed, Che was in no way a Stalinist, I'm sure if Che found out the way Stalin treated his people and how he hid the truth he would not of liked him at all.
RED FIRE
9th January 2004, 04:50
Fuck The Bolivian Communist Party
They knew that to try and start a revolution in Bolivia at that given time....would only end in death...and it did for Guevara.
The revolution ends in one of two ways, either a sucsess or I die"
Che may have proven his point, but was it worth it...I think not, but hay...that's just me.
nezvanova
9th January 2004, 04:57
Well, if he'd taken full advantage of all the strikes going on in the mines, he may have had more of a chance at success...and also, the fact hta ll of his communication devices were damaged or lost didn't help. There were many contributing factors. He was just looking in all the wrong places i think.
RED FIRE
9th January 2004, 05:32
I agree to an certain extent...
He was just looking in all the wrong places i think.
He was looking were he was not wanted. In the 13(?) months that he was in bolivia he was only managed to swindle one peasent in to his group...thats an point that must be stressed
communication devices were damaged or lost didn't help
He really should of went home.
Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 05:37
[At the risk of sounding ridiculous, I belive that the true revolutionary is motivated by feelings of love] As far as being a "liberal stoner", I don't see it that way. I think you need to read up on Che a little more. If you are going to make an agruement than at least attempt to back up your arguement with logic. Simply insulting someone, without a reason why is highly burgeois. That's the exact type of rhetoric that Che hated.
I'd like to point out that Stalin was not committed to the people of the Soviet Union. He was simply power hungry and only cared to make policies and take actions that would ensure his position of power, as so many other communist leaders did.
Che on the other hand was one of the greatest humanitarians this world has ever seen. Every action he took and every motivation he had was was aimed at one thing: the overall well-being of the people. Che fought to give freedom to those who were oppressed, NOT TO GAIN POWER!
Comrade Ceausescu
9th January 2004, 06:26
Che wasn't a Stalinist, so please let's not go into it. He may have respected Stalin and been anti-revsionist but he wasn't a Stalinist.
How is he not a 'Stalinist' then?
A Stalinist is someone who supports the actions of Josef Stalin as Premier of the USSR.
Comrade Ceausescu
9th January 2004, 06:33
Yes, Che did say that, but it should be definitley noted that Che said this before actually really knowing the truth about Stalin. He made This statement in a letter to his family when he was living in Guatemala. The statement was not meant to be an affrimation or in admiration of Stalin himself, it was menat as an affrimation to his Marxist beliefs and Stalin just happened to be the leader of the USSR, the country that was founded on Marxism.
Holy shit guys.This is not true.Buy 1967,adequate exsposes of Stalin's alleged "crimes" were out and well known.Every one knew about the secret speech.It was part of Khrushchev's revisionism.I am sure Che kept up on the Marxist international world enough to know these things,and the allegations against Stalin,take them for what they truly are-Nazi Propaganda.
Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 07:05
Holy shit, are you dumb!
You said that by 1967 allegations of Stalin's crimes against humanity were made public. Let me ask you this? When was it that Che wrote that letter, in which he made the statement about swearing by this picture of Stalin? 1954, a full 13 years before any of these allegations had been made public.
Welcome to communism! Do you not remember (or recall hearing about) Kruschev's Stalin was wrong speech? What's next are the uniformed and intellectually challenged going to start ripping on the great war hero, Nikita Kruschev?
Comrade Ceausescu
9th January 2004, 07:12
Well Che never mentioned anything negative about Stalin.Ever.He hated Khrushchev though.http://www.nebraskaatheists.org/hippie.jpg
Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 07:37
Ok I get it, you are TRUE COMMUNIST. Go ahead and throw all the insults you want my way. Your problem is you are living in the past. Just look at your choice in screen name.
i hear all these so called bolsheviks spouting off about how they are better than some, that they are "true communist" If you are really a true communist, then why aren't you living in Cuba?
The fact of the matter is you are preaching communism, but still driving every day to work at your capitalist job and still participate in the same capitalist system that you always have participated in.
Enough of the rhetoric, you can claim to be all mighty all you want, but you still are participating in the capitalist system, along with all the "pot smoking liberals."
Maybe Che was a Stalinist, maybe he didn't care to be labled, or maybe, more likely Che was someone, who was not all that interested in politics and more interested in the well-fare of his common man.
Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 07:38
Ok I get it, you are TRUE COMMUNIST. Go ahead and throw all the insults you want my way. Your problem is you are living in the past. Just look at your choice in screen name.
i hear all these so called bolsheviks spouting off about how they are better than some, that they are "true communist" If you are really a true communist, then why aren't you living in Cuba?
The fact of the matter is you are preaching communism, but still driving every day to work at your capitalist job and still participate in the same capitalist system that you always have participated in.
Enough of the rhetoric, you can claim to be all mighty all you want, but you still are participating in the capitalist system, along with all the "pot smoking liberals."
Maybe Che was a Stalinist, maybe he didn't care to be labled, or maybe, more likely Che was someone, who was not all that interested in politics and more interested in the well-fare of his common man.
Comrade Ceausescu
9th January 2004, 07:45
Ok I get it, you are TRUE COMMUNIST. Go ahead and throw all the insults you want my way. Your problem is you are living in the past. Just look at your choice in screen name.
So what if I think I can learn something from someone in the past?You have Che in your avatar don't you?I see no harm in that.
i hear all these so called bolsheviks spouting off about how they are better than some, that they are "true communist" If you are really a true communist, then why aren't you living in Cuba?
Because I'm 14 and I couldn't afford the exspenses.Just because someone is a communist,dosen't mean they have to live in a communist country.You can't call for unity while insulting a certain type of Marxist like a Bolsheveik.
The fact of the matter is you are preaching communism, but still driving every day to work at your capitalist job and still participate in the same capitalist system that you always have participated in.
Ok I don't have a job genius.And if I live in a capitalist country what am I supposed to do,starve myself? <_< Its funny how all you non americans think its so easy to boycott imperialism's economy and blah blah.You try living here and see if you can survive "boycotiing capitalism" for more then like three days.
Enough of the rhetoric, you can claim to be all mighty all you want, but you still are participating in the capitalist system, along with all the "pot smoking liberals."
^SEE ABOVE.Plus those liberals would still support capitalism even if they had a choice.
Maybe Che was a Stalinist, maybe he didn't care to be labled, or maybe, more likely Che was someone, who was not all that interested in politics and more interested in the well-fare of his common man.
yeah of course,that was his politics...
Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 07:59
I'm not insulting Marxist, I am merely saying don't hold your self in a higher esteem than others who want the same things you do, but who don't necessassarily see eye to eye on everything.
I live America and I'm a member of the burgeios working class. I know how hard it is to escape imperialism also.
If you really are 14, then I commend you for being so politically inclined at such a young age. The fact is that people like you and me are going to have to unite and stop working against ourselves and strt working to defeat the real: the forces of imperialism and facism that currently are dominating this country's political offices.
Comrade Ceausescu
9th January 2004, 08:05
Thank you.I'm glad someone here has a positive reaction to my age.I am not against a "Socialist Unity Party" similar to the one in East Germany.We can worry about disagreements in our ideology later,but all leftists should unite,but I find a very snotty attitude here towards "Stalinists".
Hate Is Art
9th January 2004, 15:24
Because I don't want to support a mass murdering meglamaniac who at the height of the purges was signing 3000 death warrants a day.
Che cared for his fellow man Stalin didn't, his own wife commited suicide when she realised what he had done to the country.
Che was a great man, an almost complete human being, maybe his only flaw was the fact he didn't quit.
Comrade Ceausescu
9th January 2004, 19:43
ahem http://www.geocities.com/redcomrades/lies.html
Hate Is Art
9th January 2004, 19:58
Ceausescu, I agree that Stalin is made out to be more or a monster than he is, what he did for Russia was great, I couldn't see Che supporting the man who killed at least 1 million party members and sent 2 million Russians to Labour Camps thats all.
Guerilla22
9th January 2004, 23:09
The fact is that we don;t know what is true and what's not true anymore. Our history books are so slanted and biased it's hard to tell what's the truth and what's popular myth. I run into this dilemma all the time when trying to find books to research at school.
I'm not saying that Stalin definitely did not carry out these alleged crimes, I'm saying that so far in all my studies I have yet to come across any concrete evidence that these crimes did take place. (I.E. photographs, persoal accounts, and official documentation by any government)
Also, I may be beating the same drm over and over but we all need to unite under the banner of MARXISM. Also I would like to point out that such leaders as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln ordered the systamatic eradication of millions of Native Americans. I've never heard anything but good things about those two.
nezvanova
10th January 2004, 01:19
Originally posted by
[email protected] 9 2004, 06:18 PM
CHE GUEVARA AND FIDEL CASTRO WAS AND IS FUCKING FAGS THEY USED TO FUCK TOGETHER UNTIL THEY FELL ASLEEP AND THE SPERM DRIPPED TO THE FLOOR FROM THEIR BIG GAYBED!!!! ITS FUCKING TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow! Thanks os much for enlightening us with that! I mean, really, you're statement added so much to the over all topic! <applauds>
Guerilla22
10th January 2004, 02:38
Originally posted by
[email protected] 10 2004, 12:18 AM
CHE GUEVARA AND FIDEL CASTRO WAS AND IS FUCKING FAGS THEY USED TO FUCK TOGETHER UNTIL THEY FELL ASLEEP AND THE SPERM DRIPPED TO THE FLOOR FROM THEIR BIG GAYBED!!!! ITS FUCKING TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The sad effects of sniffing glue and paint thinner.
Vinny Rafarino
10th January 2004, 03:11
I'm sure if Che found out the way Stalin treated his people and how he hid the truth he would not of liked him at all.
Just to let you kids in on a little secret. There are still people in S. America and Mexico that just happened to serve with comrade Guevara in Bolivia and Cuba....Comrade Guevara was one of the most ruthless indivduals ever to sing the red flag.
I know it may pain you to know the truth however it's about time you folks realise that comrade Guevara made all of your silly little fantasies about "Stalin the butcher" seem like mother goose rhymes. If it makes you feel better, believe comrade Guevara was a sweet little man with a heart of gold. It really does not matter as long as you remain loyal to the movement....the same movement that comrade Stalin was loyal to....the same that comrade Guevara was loyal to....the same that many are loyal to.
In the meantime, I suggest you take his teachings for what they are.
Ortega
10th January 2004, 03:27
Originally posted by COMRADE
[email protected] 9 2004, 11:11 PM
I'm sure if Che found out the way Stalin treated his people and how he hid the truth he would not of liked him at all.
Just to let you kids in on a little secret. There are still people in S. America and Mexico that just happened to serve with comrade Guevara in Bolivia and Cuba....Comrade Guevara was one of the most ruthless indivduals ever to sing the red flag.
I know it may pain you to know the truth however it's about time you folks realise that comrade Guevara made all of your silly little fantasies about "Stalin the butcher" seem like mother goose rhymes. If it makes you feel better, believe comrade Guevara was a sweet little man with a heart of gold. It really does not matter as long as you remain loyal to the movement....the same movement that comrade Stalin was loyal to....the same that comrade Guevara was loyal to....the same that many are loyal to.
In the meantime, I suggest you take his teachings for what they are.
Its true - Che was known for his ruthlessness and hardcore Marxist beliefs. He was never exactly praised for his compassion - at least not until after his death.
Guerilla22
10th January 2004, 04:27
Originally posted by COMRADE
[email protected] 10 2004, 04:11 AM
I'm sure if Che found out the way Stalin treated his people and how he hid the truth he would not of liked him at all.
Just to let you kids in on a little secret. There are still people in S. America and Mexico that just happened to serve with comrade Guevara in Bolivia and Cuba....Comrade Guevara was one of the most ruthless indivduals ever to sing the red flag.
I know it may pain you to know the truth however it's about time you folks realise that comrade Guevara made all of your silly little fantasies about "Stalin the butcher" seem like mother goose rhymes. If it makes you feel better, believe comrade Guevara was a sweet little man with a heart of gold. It really does not matter as long as you remain loyal to the movement....the same movement that comrade Stalin was loyal to....the same that comrade Guevara was loyal to....the same that many are loyal to.
In the meantime, I suggest you take his teachings for what they are.
True, Che was known for being ruthless in battle and for his role in the trials and executions of those who committed crimes against humanity, but Che simply did what he thought he had to do to secure the revolution.
No one can doubt the man's dedication, that is what set him apart from everyone else.
Ian
10th January 2004, 04:32
Originally posted by
[email protected] 10 2004, 05:27 AM
True, Che was known for being ruthless in battle and for his role in the trials and executions of those who committed crimes against humanity, but Che simply did what he thought he had to do to secure the revolution.
No one can doubt the man's dedication, that is what set him apart from everyone else.
The exact same thing can be said for Josef Stalin.
Guerilla22
10th January 2004, 04:50
:ph34r: At any rate, It should be noted that in a revolution some sacrafices absolutely have to be made in order to preserve the revolution.
Hate Is Art
10th January 2004, 09:50
Che didn't have 1 Million Party Members killed! Che didn't send 2 Millions Cubans to labour camps because he was a paranoid meglamaniac. Che's Wife didn't commit suicide when she found out what he was doing to the cause.
Sure Che and Stalin may have believed in the same cause, but Che didn't abuse his power, he believed in bringing revolution to everyone not Socialism in one Country like Stalin.
Che was a guerilla fighter he was some pen pusher or bank robber like Stalin.
Soviet power supreme
10th January 2004, 12:42
Che was a guerilla fighter he was some pen pusher or bank robber like Stalin.
Oh yeah.Then why he ordered the guerillas to rob the bank in Cuba?
Che didn't have 1 Million Party Members!
Who has?Stalin?.You are now exaggerating.
Hate Is Art
10th January 2004, 13:56
soz I forgot to add KILLED!
but che did so much more than rob banks for funds and kill people.
RED FIRE
12th January 2004, 00:28
but che did so much more than rob banks for funds and kill people.
What exactly....an hopelessly failed revolution in the Congo..... and death in Bolivia.
I don't see that he did...that was great...besides become an ''martyr'' for people like yourself, which is most likely an ''good'' thing.
capone
12th January 2004, 19:13
CHE was not a
"Stalinist" he was a "Marxist"
Hate Is Art
12th January 2004, 19:57
What exactly....an hopelessly failed revolution in the Congo..... and death in Bolivia.
I don't see that he did...that was great...besides become an ''martyr'' for people like yourself, which is most likely an ''good'' thing.
Che was a hero, he fought for what he believed in, he died for what he believed in. Che was one of the bravest guerilla fighters in the movement, why do you think he was so respected? Fidel choose Che above his own brother to take the position of Commandante. Che after having won the revolution didn't sit back and become a beaurcrat he left Cuba to organise revolution around the world, so what if it failed? He tried, fought and died for our cause, I don't see you doing anything like this?
RED FIRE
12th January 2004, 23:01
CHE was not a
"Stalinist" he was a "Marxist"
Even that's up questions, Guevara was one of the most dogmatic ''Marxist'' of the 20th century.
Che was a hero
For yourself...and some others.
he fought for what he believed in
So did Hitler, do you respect and admirer him ?....
he died for what he believed in
Agreed...but was it in vain...did he have to die in Bolivia, he could of ''left'' when things were not looking to good, which they weren't from the start.
Che after having won the revolution didn't sit back and become a beaurcrat he left Cuba to organise revolution around the world
Where he was not wanted...he was even ''lucky'' to join Castro in Mexico, if he was not an Doctor he most certainly would of not been with them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.