Che Guevara-Marxist or not?

[RedGuevara]

Recently I was discussing with a comrade about Che Guevara and I was presented with the idea that Che wasn't a Marxist or Sociailist but rather just a bourgeoisie Anti-Imperialists. I have a hard time accepting this since from what I've read about Che, he was a strong advocate for education and built the Cuban Revolution from the contribution of rural workers. He was strictly against the big land owners and helped the Cuban economy become socialized.

What could lead people to believe Che wasn't a Marxist or Socialist and was a bourgeoisie?

Does this idea ignore the fact that he went to leper colonies and all over South America offering medical help to people for free. I'm open minded and wanted to hear both sides of the story.

[revolutionarymir]

I too have heard this and I've heard arguments of merit on the otherside, but you do bring up a good point - actions are always more powerful than words, and risking his life to provide free medical care to the proletariat of several different nations goes to show who he threw in his lot with, and it certainly was not the bourgeoisie, in my opinion.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Recently I was discussing with a comrade about Che Guevara and I was presented with the idea that Che wasn't a Marxist or Sociailist but rather just a bourgeoisie Anti-Imperialists. I have a hard time accepting this since from what I've read about Che, he was a strong advocate for education and built the Cuban Revolution from the contribution of rural workers. He was strictly against the big land owners and helped the Cuban economy become socialized.

What could lead people to believe Che wasn't a Marxist or Socialist and was a bourgeoisie?

Does this idea ignore the fact that he went to leper colonies and all over South America offering medical help to people for free. I'm open minded and wanted to hear both sides of the story.

Keep in mind the difference between having bourgeois beliefs and being a part of the bourgeoisie, which I mentioned earlier. You are kinda using the term "bourgeoisie" incorrectly. ;)

[revolutionarymir]

Keep in mind the difference between having bourgeois beliefs and being a part of the bourgeoisie. You are kinda using the term "bourgeoisie" incorrectly. ;)

This is true, I too often forget this.

On a random note, how's the weather in CT? I'm originally from Western Mass, but have been living in the Midwest for a while now.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Marxists love making No True Scotsman's statements. Even though Stalinist theory is filled with serious misunderstandings of Marx and Engels, it is part of their legacy (which hasn't got anything to do with the worth of their theory), and dominated the left for a century. Ayn Rand is part of Nietzsche's legacy even though he likely would have despised her, because she associated herself with him out of an authentic appreciation for him even if she completely misunderstood him, not just as a cynical appeal to the authority of a canonical intellectual figure.
Che is a central figure in the culture of The Left and the face of socialism to a lot of young people. How much that Left is worth is another question.
I don't see Che in a positive light, by the way.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Recently I was discussing with a comrade about Che Guevara and I was presented with the idea that Che wasn't a Marxist or Sociailist but rather just a bourgeoisie Anti-Imperialists. I have a hard time accepting this since from what I've read about Che, he was a strong advocate for education and built the Cuban Revolution from the contribution of rural workers. He was strictly against the big land owners and helped the Cuban economy become socialized.

What could lead people to believe Che wasn't a Marxist or Socialist and was a bourgeoisie?

Does this idea ignore the fact that he went to leper colonies and all over South America offering medical help to people for free. I'm open minded and wanted to hear both sides of the story.
The Cuban revolution culminated in the nationalization of the Cuban economy, not the socialization. In Marxist theory those are two different things. Nationalization is not socialism. The many reforms brought about by the Castro government that have greatly improved the standard of living in the country do not amount to socialism.
Cuba is a bourgeois nation state with a high standard of living.

[revolutionarymir]

The Cuban revolution culminated in the nationalization of the Cuban economy, not the socialization. In Marxist theory those are two different things. Nationalization is not socialism. The many reforms brought about by the Castro government that have greatly improved the standard of living in the country do not amount to socialism.
Cuba is a bourgeois nation state with a high standard of living.

Considering socialism is but a step along the road to full communism, wherein inequality still exists and the state has not yet withered away, what is the difference, technically speaking, between nationalization and socialization?

[Lensky]

Che read Marx and considered himself a Marxist. He also educated Fidel on communism when he was still in the "revolutionary" phase and not yet committed to Marxism.

[erupt]

We all know no nation has been successful in implementing socialism, so how does Cuba's historical accomplishments illustrate a person's ideology (whether right or wrong, successful or not)?

Whether Che was correct or incorrect about any of his theories, I still don't see how he wasn't a Marxist. It's as if because he doesn't fit in to any tendency neatly, and because he was unsuccessful in his focos, that some don't want to admit his revolutionary Marxist character.

You don't have to like him, agree with him, or think he benefited Marxism. For example, Karl Kautsky, whether he's admired or despised, was a Marxist, was he not? The same goes for Eduard Bernstein; he was a true revisionist, but he was a Marxist nonetheless.

Please give examples of Che as an individual that illustrate he was bourgeois as was mentioned, or that he wasn't a Marxist. What characteristics did Che lack in being a "true" Marxist (to those who say he wasn't)? I'd really appreciate citations if they're possible, because all I keep hearing is people's opinions backed up by the fact that Cuba wasn't a socialist nation and Che was part of it's government.

If Che wasn't a Marxist, then who is?

[erupt]

Considering socialism is but a step along the road to full communism, wherein inequality still exists and the state has not yet withered away, what is the difference, technically speaking, between nationalization and socialization?

I may be wrong, but nationalization is when ownership of production is transferred to the state, while socialization is when the ownership of production is in the hands of the people, rather than a company or government.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Considering socialism is but a step along the road to full communism
Socialism isn't a stage or a step, it's the same thing as communism.

[erupt]

Socialism isn't a stage or a step, it's the same thing as communism.

Communists believe socialism is the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism.

Why do they have different names, then?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialism isn't a stage or a step, it's the same thing as communism.

Communists believe socialism is the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism.

Why do they have different names, then?
No socialism is an abstraction, a word describing something and people have different ways of using it. It's also used as a synonym for a "workering class run transitional post-revolution period" or "a socialist party running a transitional post-revolution socierty on behalf of workers" or "capitalist countries with a large social-welfare programs" or countries with a socialist party in power (over a capitalist state). I favor usining the term to describe a post-revolution society where the working class has become the ruling class which creates the ability to change the economic relations to create a communist society; but I think it's important to understand that the terms is used in various ways. It's the same with "anarchism": you can only make a general guess as to someone's political views if they call themselves "anarchist" or "socialist".


Considering socialism is but a step along the road to full communism, wherein inequality still exists and the state has not yet withered away, what is the difference, technically speaking, between nationalization and socialization?Well any industry can be nationalized: put under the control of government agencies but it doesn't tell us much about what the role of that nationalizated company plays in society, what (or who) guides production and makes decisions, or if workers are being exploited or not. During the Keynsian era, huge chunks of capitalist industry were nationalized - on either side of the Iron curtain. But none of this nationalization involved workers themselves reorganizing industry, instead it was capitalist governments or beurocrats. In Cuba the government makes the economic decisions - largely based on Cuba's relations to other countries or to world market prices and so a lot of the decisions on what to produce and how have been determined by trade deals with the USSR or EU countries, sudden loss of export markets (when the USSR collapsed) and so on.

If there was a working class revolution, the worker's (through whatever organs of decision-making they create) might "nationalize" in the sense of appropriating the productive property of industry, but the basis of this is much different and it would most likely begin with workers on the ground-floor occupying and taking over production of the places they work at. This probably wouldn't be done uniformly throughout a region, so other workplaces will just be shut-down by the capitalists before or maybe they will be remote or the workers in that particular area are too weak to sieze the productive facilities themselves. So then worker's councils or whatnot might decree (maybe not even that formally) that these shuddered factories or services now belong to the workers; more autonomous networks run by many small capitalists before might be united by workers to create their own network (so they aren't duplicating work or doing unessissary work) which might be considered "nationalization". But it's the content of who controls what that determines the differences between capitalists nationalizing something for reasons of promoting investment or socializing costs for things that help business on the one hand, and democratic networks of workers themselves organizing production on their own mutual terms.

[Blake's Baby]

Communists believe socialism is the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism.

Why do they have different names, then?

No, Maoists believe that socialism is the transitional period (the Dictatorship of the proletariat).

'Leninists' (Stalinists and Trotskyists) believe (following 'State and Revolution') that socialism is the first phase of communism.

Marxists and Anarchists define socialism identically with communism (as a whole) - a classless communal society.

All of these groups can and do define themselves as 'communists'.

On RevLeft, the biggest group seems to be the last one.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Communists believe socialism is the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism.
Not all communists are Marxist-Leninists or use their terminology.


Why do they have different names, then?
Historically, they were used interchangeably, even by Marx and Engels (when they wrote about a "lower stage" and a "higher stage," they didn't call one "socialism" and the other "communism").

[Comrade Jacob]

Of course Che was a Marxist, as Aang said being part of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean you have bourgeois beliefs. Let's not forget that bourgeois means city-dweller not automatically supporter of the middle-class you can see by his actions.

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

There's a short book called "The Marxism of Che Guevara" by Michael Lowy that explains his ideas. I read it but the language was rather advanced for my age so i didn't really understand it. You can find it free online.

Personally I regard him as a Marxist.

[erupt]

Alright, I'm glad the socialism/communism terminology question is cleared up, but we should get back to the original point..that is, was Che a Marxist revolutionary or a non-Marxist revolutionary of socialist leanings?

[Blake's Baby]

Or an assassin for the bourgeoisie, who was deluded in thinking what he was doing was somehow in the interests of the 'poor and oppressed'?

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

In my opinion, Che was a Marxist. I'm not sure if he can be called a Marxist-Leninist though. Even though he admired Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, his "foco" theory is still, in my opinion, anti-Leninist. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Alright, I'm glad the socialism/communism terminology question is cleared up, but we should get back to the original point..that is, was Che a Marxist revolutionary or a non-Marxist revolutionary of socialist leanings?

Was he a Marxist? Well he seemed to consider himself one, so in that sense yes he was a marxist. As far as his interpretation of Marxism, well that's a debate about what would be included in that category and so subjective definitions or demarcations come into play (I don't think this is the most useful way to understand someone or a history or a movement, if it's all just about abstract definitions of political ideas). On the other hand I personally see a more useful way of thinking about this is in terms of if his ideas (or ideas associated with him) advance the project of Marxism and I don't think it does if the goal of Marxism is the self-emancipation of the working class.

In this sense I think his ideas are much more alligned with anti-colonial revolutionaries and in that context there were a lot of revolutions which took parts or took all of Socialist (M-L generally in a cold war context) ideas and termonology and some reforms were a major trend. Many of these revolutions happened in a context where the old ruling class was too tied to international imperialists or colonial rulers to take an independant lead in changing (modernizing) society and the working class movement was too weak, disorganized, or mostly non-existant to create an alternative vision of society. So often some other force (claiming the universal interests of "the people") took power over the state to take initiatives that the bourgoise was unable to do (both in the sense of reforms to keep pesants or workers happy even at the expense of specific capitalists, as well as in modernizing the economy and giving up some short-term profits for longer-term development): a populist general, the intelligencia, etc.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Of course Che was a Marxist, as Aang said being part of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean you have bourgeois beliefs. Let's not forget that bourgeois means city-dweller not automatically supporter of the middle-class you can see by his actions.

Actually what I said was that their is a difference between someone who is a part of the bourgeoisie (not Che) and someone who has bourgeois beliefs (Che, and most of the world today). He was calling Che a bourgeoisie, and/or that he had bourgeoisie beliefs, which is a) the incorrect use of the term bourgeoisie, and b) untrue, as Che was not a part of the bourgeoisie, but had bourgeois beliefs i.e. not a Marxist. My whole point was about semantics.

[Red_Banner]

Friedrich Engels was part of the Bourgoisie but became a commy.

[RedGuevara]

Fine disregarding my misuse of the words semantically. I have seen NO proof that Che had bourgeoisie beliefs. Che was a Marxist in my belief and I think be brought revolution to South America. You can debate academically all you like, but Che left Cuba to fight the international fight in Bolivia and South Africa. He doesn't show any sense of having bourgeoisie beliefs. The man fought for the international struggle for the liberation of oppressed people. Until there is finite proof, and I mean contextual support, all I'm hearing is a bunch of opinionated people. I've yet been presented with the idea that was Che held bourgeoisie beliefs so please provide the support to this claim. I'm here to learn and I asked a specific question that has yet been proven. Thank you.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Fine disregarding my misuse of the words semantically. I have seen NO proof that Che had bourgeoisie beliefs. Che was a Marxist in my belief and I think be brought revolution to South America. You can debate academically all you like, but Che left Cuba to fight the international fight in Bolivia and South Africa. He doesn't show any sense of having bourgeoisie beliefs. The man fought for the international struggle for the liberation of oppressed people. Until there is finite proof, and I mean contextual support, all I'm hearing is a bunch of opinionated people. I've yet been presented with the idea that was Che held bourgeoisie beliefs so please provide the support to this claim. I'm here to learn and I asked a specific question that has yet been proven. Thank you.
Again, he didn't have bourgeoisie beliefs, but rather bourgeois beliefs.

Onto the substance, do you believe Stalinism is a bourgeois ideology or a socialist ideology?

[RedGuevara]

Please define bourgeoisie and bourgeois.

[RedGuevara]

Che wasn't a materialist and I personally don't see how he had bourgeois beliefs.. He didn't believe in owning capital. He wasn't a materialist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Please define bourgeoisie and bourgeois.

Bourgeoisie is a noun referring to the entire ruling class in capitalist society.

Bourgeois is an adjective meanig of or relating to the bourgeoisie.

Bourgeois ideology, in my mind, is any sort of ideology that helps and/or does not threaten the existence of the bourgeoisie and bourgeois society.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Che wasn't a materialist and I personally don't see how he had bourgeois beliefs.. He didn't believe in owning capital. He wasn't a materialist.

To be a Marxist, one must be a materialist.

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

Che wasn't a materialist and I personally don't see how he had bourgeois beliefs.. He didn't believe in owning capital. He wasn't a materialist.
How was he not a materialist?

[Entfremdung]

Che was a genuine revolutionary. Anyone here saying he was "bourgeois" and "had bourgeois beliefs" should take a closer look at themselves.

[Blake's Baby]

I think RedGuevara is not using a Marxist definition of 'materialist'. I think s/he means 'Che wasn't greedy'.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Che was a genuine revolutionary. Anyone here saying he was "bourgeois" and "had bourgeois beliefs" should take a closer look at themselves.

Why should we look at ourselves to determine if Che was a Marxist or not? Why not look at Che himself if we want to determine what he was, and if he was a Marxist?

Edit: Revolutionary is not synonymous with Marxist.

[Entfremdung]

Why should we look at ourselves to determine if Che was a Marxist or not?

You should look at yourself, your bourgeois life and what you have achieved. He was a Marxist even if he did some things you don't like.

[erupt]

Or an assassin for the bourgeoisie, who was deluded in thinking what he was doing was somehow in the interests of the 'poor and oppressed'?

Wow. I can't believe any revolutionary leftist of any tendency would have this opinion. It sounds like Batista's and Barrientos' propaganda machine during Che's insurgencies as a matter of fact.

I'm not talking about differences between what possible tendencies he could be considered, if Che had bourgeois notions of society, or even this ridiculous notion that he wasn't a materialist. I won't even debate if he was a Marxist in this reply because no one has given me any proof otherwise, although he obviously does not fall under any one specific tendency of communism.

I will say however, that many, not all, but many of the things he did benefited the proletariat and peasants; Cuban workers and peasants benefited from Batista's downfall and Che's push for universal literacy most certainly helped the "interests of the 'poor and oppressed'"; he pushed for better machinery for the Cuban industrial workers and peasants while working at INRA and the Ministry of Industries in Cuba since the Soviets gave old harvesting equipment, cheap steel, and faulty industrial equipment; and he was willing to attempt to teach socialism to disenfranchised peasants and toilers in both Bolivia and the Congo, which obviously benefits the field and factory workers in those countries.

Even if he did nothing beneficial, inspiring, or exemplary for the working class, how, in any way, is Che Guevara an "assassin for the bourgeoisie"?

Essentially, I understand how some do not consider Che a Marxist since he used and advocated a new, completely different method of attempting a socialistic worker's state.

However, I don't understand and would appreciate some examples of his "bourgeois beliefs", I'd appreciate some examples of how he was not a materialist, AND I'd really appreciate some, actually any, example of how Che was an "assassin for the bourgeoisie."

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah, totally Batista's propaganda machine said Che was working for the bourgeoisie, that's totally what they were saying.

The 'Cuban Revolution' had nothing to do with the proletariat. Wherever did you get that notion from?

[Per Levy]

You should look at yourself, your bourgeois life and what you have achieved.

what is a bourgeois life? and what is he or we supposed to achieve?

[Entfremdung]

what is he or we supposed to achieve?

Ideological purity and complete inaction, obviously.

[Per Levy]

Wow. I can't believe any revolutionary leftist of any tendency would have this opinion.

well left coms(and others) usally dont consider themselfs to be part of "the left".


It sounds like Batista's and Barrientos' propaganda machine during Che's insurgencies as a matter of fact.

i never heard any batista propaganda, what was it saying? was it saying that che was a "bourgeois assassin"?


and he was willing to attempt to teach socialism to disenfranchised peasants and toilers in both Bolivia and the Congo, which obviously benefits the field and factory workers in those countries.

what is your defenition of socialism? and how can you teach socialism to someone?

[Old Bolshie]

Again, he didn't have bourgeoisie beliefs, but rather bourgeois beliefs.


And what bourgeois beliefs did Che have?

[erupt]

Yeah, totally Batista's propaganda machine said Che was working for the bourgeoisie, that's totally what they were saying.

The 'Cuban Revolution' had nothing to do with the proletariat. Wherever did you get that notion from?

Batista's propaganda called Guevara a communist assassin, which was ridiculous, especially at the time, since it was his first guerrilla campaign. Your claim as to Guevara being a bourgeoisie assassin is equally absurd.

The Cuban Revolution had everything to do with both peasants and the proletariat; it would have failed without the worker-supported city-based July 26 Underground (think Frank Pais), and it would have failed without the guajiros that helped the rebels in the Sierra Maestra.


what is your defenition of socialism? and how can you teach socialism to someone?

I define socialism as a socio-economic theory where the working class owns the mean of production and where they slowly organize things so as to finally accomplish Marx's basic statement of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." As you can probably tell, I follow no specific tendency; there's something to learn from every tendency, and this will give me much flak from the users on here, particularly the more dogmatic users.

As to "teaching" socialism, I should have said that Che attempted to initiate class-consciousness and awareness of neo-colonialism and imperialism in the aforementioned countries rather than actually "teach" it. He really did teach them basic mathematics, language, etc., though.

[Fourth Internationalist]

You should look at yourself, your bourgeois life and what you have achieved. He was a Marxist even if he did some things you don't like.

Looking at what I have done in my 15 years of life does not in anyway change whether or not an anti-imperialist guerilla fighter was a Marxist. Focoists and Stalinists are anti-Marxist ideas/ideologies, and he was both.

[Blake's Baby]

Batista's propaganda called Guevara a communist assassin, which was ridiculous, especially at the time, since it was his first guerrilla campaign. Your claim as to Guevara being a bourgeoisie assassin is equally absurd...

I didn't call him a 'bourgeoisie assassin'. I don't know if he killed any of the bourgeoisie. He killed peasants, conscripted soldiers (that is, workers in uniform) and petites-bourgeoises though.

I called him an 'assassin for the bourgeoisie'. The faction of the bourgeiosie (linked to disgruntled military officers) who took over the country in 1959.

Now, because I'm not a nationalist, I don't think it makes any difference that Che was an Argentinian, not a Cuban (though I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to say Che ws a bad man for being from the wrong country, or does that only count for the 'baddies'?) but he was a soldier for the new Cuban bourgeoisie both in his adopted home (Cuba) and abroad, in Zaire and Bolivia, where he was fulfilling the demands of Cuban and Russian foreign policy.

But 'assassin for the bourgeoisie' is much shorter and snappier.

[Fourth Internationalist]

And what bourgeois beliefs did Che have?

The most notable one of his is what is called "Stalinism"

[erupt]

I didn't call him a 'bourgeoisie assassin'. I don't know if he killed any of the bourgeoisie. He killed peasants, conscripted soldiers (that is, workers in uniform) and petites-bourgeoises though.

I called him an 'assassin for the bourgeoisie'. The faction of the bourgeiosie (linked to disgruntled military officers) who took over the country in 1959.

Now, because I'm not a nationalist, I don't think it makes any difference that Che was an Argentinian, not a Cuban (though I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to say Che ws a bad man for being from the wrong country, or does that only count for the 'baddies'?) but he was a soldier for the new Cuban bourgeoisie both in his adopted home (Cuba) and abroad, in Zaire and Bolivia, where he was fulfilling the demands of Cuban and Russian foreign policy.

Now I feel the conversation is becoming progressive rather than just bickering.

As far as Che killing peasants, there's a pretty famous quote from Jon Lee Anderson saying that Che never killed anyone that would not normally be killed in times of war, conventional or non-conventional. It's no justification, but he's not the blood thirsty maniac many make him out to be. Is a revolutionary war, or any war for that matter, supposed to be fought with pellet guns? Violence is a key part of revolutions and wars, and this situation was both.

Yes, he fought for Castro and his cohorts, who, no doubt was bourgeois; is this what you mean?

Also, Che wasn't a soldier for Soviet foreign policy like he was for Cuba's. Cuba exported revolution; the USSR wanted "peaceful coexistence. Che didn't think very highly of the USSR, or their foreign policy, after dealing with them for a few years diplomatically.

As far as him being Argentine and fighting in Cuba, the Congo, and Bolivia, this only illustrates his internationalist, anti-imperialist leftist (I'll refrain from saying Marxist for the sake of this rather large discussion) ideals.

[Blake's Baby]

So, people that fight in other countries are heroic internationalists? Like all those US marines heroically and internationalistically fighting in Vietnam, you mean?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Communists believe socialism is the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism.

Why do they have different names, then?

Nationalization means state control of the process of generalized commodity production.
Socialism is when generalized commodity production ceases to exist and the means of economic production are held in common (not monopolized by a state), and controlled communally.
The word Socialism necessarily implies the impossibility of a nationalized economy, because a classes society has no nations.
Stalinists and especially Maoists will disagree, but their rhetoric is full of logical inconsistencies, especially Maoists.

[erupt]

So, people that fight in other countries are heroic internationalists? Like all those US marines heroically and internationalistically fighting in Vietnam, you mean?

Come on, you're deferring to semantics. We were specifically talking about Guevara, who is one person, not an imperialist institution like you are speaking of.

Were the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War not a good idea? Was it not heroic for those brigadiers, or for fighters who fought on the anarchist side, to travel to Spain and fight the fascists? Or wait, they weren't Spaniards, so they shouldn't fight?

You seem to pick apart what others say instead of adding anything of significance. Your second-to-last post is the only one I saw in a quick glance that has any knowledge inside.

[RedGuevara]

Che was critical of Stalin and the USSR. Castro was the pro-USSR one in the Cuban Revolution and you cannot compare Che to the US Marines. He fought for the International freedom of the oppreseed in Bolivia and South Africa. He helped spread revolution to oppressed people. He didn't fight blindly for a government that profits from the poor and down trodden. He promoted education amongst agricultural workers and he was a good man. He didn't have a ton of items to his name and he did understand the world as some people have everything and most have nothing. Part of what he fought against in the Cuban revolution were the land owners who monopolized the land..

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

Che was critical of Stalin and the USSR. Castro was the pro-USSR one in the Cuban Revolution and you cannot compare Che to the US Marines. He fought for the International freedom of the oppreseed in Bolivia and South Africa. He helped spread revolution to oppressed people. He didn't fight blindly for a government that profits from the poor and down trodden. He promoted education amongst agricultural workers and he was a good man. He didn't have a ton of items to his name and he did understand the world as some people have everything and most have nothing. Part of what he fought against in the Cuban revolution were the land owners who monopolized the land..
Che became critical of the USSR after Stalin's death. He said that the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin should be published in Cuba because, according to him, they were great Marxists. He also said that the works of Trotsky and Khrushchev should be published so that everyone would see their revisionism. Castro is pro-Stalin only to the extent of saying that blaming him for everything would be historical simplism.

[blake 3:17]

Alright, I'm glad the socialism/communism terminology question is cleared up, but we should get back to the original point..that is, was Che a Marxist revolutionary or a non-Marxist revolutionary of socialist leanings?

What does that mean? When does become or end being a Marxist?

In the last few years I've increasingly called myself simply a socialist, anarchist or communist with little regard for being a "Marxist". On key points I'm extremely orthodox regarding Marxism -- LTV, commodity fetishism, and actually reading Marx (which is a whole other thing) -- on other other stuff, who gives a fuck?

The statement of 20th century revolutionary politics I'd stand by is his speech to the Tricontinental. Is it Marxist? Sort of.

Marxism has very little to say about contemporary issues around ecological catastrophe, the challenges of oppressed peoples and persons, many pragmatic issues in the workers movement.

[RedGuevara]

Forgetting about the Stalin debate which is another thread entirely, I think the idea that Che had bourgeois ideals is completely baseless and I do believe Che was a Marxist. Sure he may have done things differently but most people try to throw a tendency on his name and you cant. Che was a man who was proactive and spent less time actually debating difference in Marxism and went out and tried spreading revolution all throughout Latin America and into South Africa. This in turn meant Che was a revolutionary Marxist and I don't completely disagree with the revolution starting with the workers in rural areas. They're the ideal proletariat.

[Old Bolshie]

The most notable one of his is what is called "Stalinism"

"Stalinism" is a bourgeois belief? Considering the historical struggle waged by "Stalinists" through History against the bourgeoisie that's an amusing thing to say.

Not to talk about the poorness of this type of argument "I don't agree with this ideology so it must be a bourgeois/fascist one".

I'm not a Trotskyst but I don't believe for one moment that it is a bourgeois belief despite the fact that I have much more reasons to call Trotskysm a "bourgeois belief" than you have to "Stalinism" if we look at some of Trotsky's late ideas like his defense of a multiparty system.


So, people that fight in other countries are heroic internationalists? Like all those US marines heroically and internationalistically fighting in Vietnam, you mean?

US marines fought for the US government, Che fought for NO government.

[blake 3:17]

From Message to the Tricontinental:


Let us sum up our hopes for victory: total destruction of imperialism by eliminating its firmest bulwark: the oppression exercised by the United States of America. To carry out, as a tactical method, the peoples gradual liberation, one by one or in groups: driving the enemy into a difficult fight away from its own territory; dismantling all its sustenance bases, that is, its dependent territories.

This means a long war. And, once more we repeat it, a cruel war. Let no one fool himself at the outstart and let no one hesitate to start out for fear of the consequences it may bring to his people. It is almost our sole hope for victory. We cannot elude the call of this hour. Vietnam is pointing it out with its endless lesson of heroism, its tragic and everyday lesson of struggle and death for the attainment of final victory.

There, the imperialist soldiers endure the discomforts [sic] of those who, used to enjoying the U.S. standard of living, have to live in a hostile land with the insecurity of being unable to move without being aware of walking on enemy territory: death to those who dare take a step out of their fortified encampment. The permanent hostility of the entire population. All this has internal repercussion in the United States; propitiates the resurgence of an element which is being minimized in spite of its vigor by all imperialist forces: class struggle even within its own territory.

How close we could look into a bright future should two, three or many Vietnams flourish throughout the world with their share of deaths and their immense tragedies, their everyday heroism and their repeated blows against imperialism, impelled to disperse its forces under the sudden attack and the increasing hatred of all peoples of the world!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1967/04/16.htm

[Fourth Internationalist]

"Stalinism" is a bourgeois belief? Considering the historical struggle waged by "Stalinists" through History against the bourgeoisie that's an amusing thing to say. Not to talk about the poorness of this type of argument "I don't agree with this ideology so it must be a bourgeois/fascist one".

Stalinism was responsible for capitalist counterrevolution in the USSR, that's hardly a struggle against the bourgeoisie. Stalinism has not threatened the existence of the bourgeoisie (like most other capitalist states, they did get into conflict with other capitalist states however); Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary force that offers no threat to the bourgeoisie. You give far too much credit to Stalinism if you think otherwise.


I'm not a Trotskyst but I don't believe for one moment that it is a bourgeois belief despite the fact that I have much more reasons to call Trotskysm a "bourgeois belief" than you have to "Stalinism" if we look at some of Trotsky's late ideas like his defense of a multiparty system.
Where have Trotskyists been a counterrevolutionary force? Stalinism has proven itself over and over again as a counterrevolutionary force, whether in Russia, Spain, China, Vietnam, etc. Stalinism can rightfully be called a bourgeois ideology, to think otherwise is absurd.

[Entfremdung]

Stalinism has not threatened the existence of the bourgeoisie...

And you think Trotskyism has? :rolleyes:

[Old Bolshie]

Stalinism was responsible for capitalist counterrevolution in the USSR, that's hardly a struggle against the bourgeoisie. Stalinism has not threatened the existence of the bourgeoisie (like most other capitalist states, they did get into conflict with other capitalist states however); Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary force that offers no threat to the bourgeoisie. You give far too much credit to Stalinism if you think otherwise.

It certainly was a threat to the existence of the bourgeoisie in Russia, China or Cuba. Not only it threatened their existence as they even ended it in those countries.

And Stalinism was responsible for capitalist counterrevolution in USSR? So when USSR stopped being socialist and returned to capitalism due to Stalinism? When Stalin replaced the NEP for a full nationalized planned economy?


Where have Trotskyists been a counterrevolutionary force? Stalinism has proven itself over and over again as a counterrevolutionary force, whether in Russia, Spain, China, Vietnam, etc. Stalinism can rightfully be called a bourgeois ideology, to think otherwise is absurd.Absurd is to think of Trotsky as a working class liberator different from Stalin the oppressor of the working class and the counterrevolutionary force in USSR:


"If we seriously speak of planned economy, which is to acquire its unity of purpose from the center, when labor forces are assigned in accordance with the economic plan at the given stage of development, the working masses cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers". In the same speech, he says "Deserters from labor ought to to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps".

Trotsky's speech 30. March 1920 at the 9th party congress
"They [the workers' opposition] have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers' right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers' democracy! . . The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship . . . regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class . . . The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers' democracy."
Trotsky, 10th Party Congress, 1921.

In this Congress it was approved the ban of factions within the Bolshevik Party with Trotsky approval.
"Being the Commissar of War and a revolutionary military leader, he (Trotsky) saw a need to create a militarized "production atmosphere" by incorporating trade unions directly into the State apparatus. His unyielding stance was that in a worker's state the workers should have nothing to fear from the state, and the State should fully control the unions."

"Lenin sharply criticized Trotsky and accused him of "bureaucratically nagging the trade unions" and of staging "factional attacks". Lenin said, "Introduction of genuine labor discipline is conceived only if the whole mass of participants in productions take a conscious part in the fulfillment of these tasks. This cannot be achieved by bureaucratic methods and orders from above."


Who's the counterrevolutionary now?

[Fourth Internationalist]

It certainly was a threat to the existence of the bourgeoisie in Russia, China or Cuba. Not only it threatened their existence as they even ended it in those countries.

In Russia, China, and Cuba it created a statifiied capitalist system, not a workers' state and/or socialism. Are China and Cuba workers' states in your mind? Are they socialist?



And Stalinism was responsible for capitalist counterrevolution in USSR? So when USSR stopped being socialist and returned to capitalism due to Stalinism? When Stalin replaced the NEP for a full nationalized planned economy?The Soviet Union was never socialist. It was, however, a workers' state, which went through a process of degeneration and was eventually overthrown and replaced with a form of statified capitalism. For book-length details, read "The Life and Death of Stalinism" which is on the LRP-COFI's website for free (you can also read the somewhat-of-a-summary of it if you don't want to read it, that's understandable)



Absurd is to think of Trotsky as a working class liberator different from Stalin the oppressor of the working class and the counterrevolutionary force in USSR:

Who's the counterrevolutionary now?If those make Trotsky a counterrevolutionary (he later reversed his position on the last one, and was correct on the middle one, and I need more [historical] context for the first one to judge it), despite being one of the leaders of the October Revolution, being through a Civil War defending the workers' state, and then spending the rest of his life fighting against Stalinism, which would cost him his life, then I can't imagine how someone such as yourself can view Stalinism as having a positive revolutionary role in the world (Also, Stalinism doesn't refer to Stalin as a person but to the system. Trotsky never, for example, destroyed single-handedly revolutions in Spain, China, or Vietnam for example, whereas the Stalinist governments/movements did. Do you think the Stalinists didn't do that?)

[Blake's Baby]

Come on, you're deferring to semantics. We were specifically talking about Guevara, who is one person, not an imperialist institution like you are speaking of...

If Che is an 'internationalist' because he fought in a country he wasn't born in, so is any other soldier who fights in a country he wasn't born in. I'm not a nationalist, I don't care where people are born; but I think it's interesting that on the thread about General Giap the US is specifically criticised as being 'foreign imperialists' and on this thread Che is praised as being a foreign fighter.

As I say - I don't care, not being a nationalist. I just wondered if you'd praise Che and the US Marine Corps, for being 'brave internationalists', or criticise Che and the US Marine Corps, for being 'foreign imperialists'.

[Entfremdung]

If Che is an 'internationalist' because he fought in a country he wasn't born in, so is any other soldier who fights in a country he wasn't born in.

Irreverent. It is what they are fighting for that matters, not where they come from. By all means criticize Che's actions and motivations but don't just say A is the same as B when it is not.

[Blake's Baby]

So the fact that Che is an 'internationalist' is irrelevant (I presume you don't really mean 'irreverent', though, yes I am)? Actually, I agree, I'm not a nationalist so where people are from is a matter of utter indifference to me.

It was someone else who thinks it's a great thing that foreigners go and fight somewhere else.


...
As far as him being Argentine and fighting in Cuba, the Congo, and Bolivia, this only illustrates his internationalist, anti-imperialist leftist ... ideals.


Irreverent. It is what they are fighting for that matters, not where they come from...

[erupt]

If Che is an 'internationalist' because he fought in a country he wasn't born in, so is any other soldier who fights in a country he wasn't born in. I'm not a nationalist, I don't care where people are born; but I think it's interesting that on the thread about General Giap the US is specifically criticised as being 'foreign imperialists' and on this thread Che is praised as being a foreign fighter.

As I say - I don't care, not being a nationalist. I just wondered if you'd praise Che and the US Marine Corps, for being 'brave internationalists', or criticise Che and the US Marine Corps, for being 'foreign imperialists'.

Again, semantics. The US occupation of Vietnam was imperialistic; Che's participation in rebellions was not...what did he gain from his actions, especially compared to what the US wanted from the attempted occupation of Vietnam?

[Blake's Baby]

I wasn't talking about 'the US' (as in, US capitalism), I was referring to members of the Marine Corps. What did a member of the Marine Corps gain from going to Vietnam?

[Sea]

Friedrich Engels was part of the Bourgoisie but became a commy.But Engels only extracted enough surplus value to eat sleep and shit Marx while he booked.
How was he not a materialist?
Maybe the person means "consumerist"?

[erupt]

I wasn't talking about 'the US' (as in, US capitalism), I was referring to members of the Marine Corps. What did a member of the Marine Corps gain from going to Vietnam?

Cash incentive. I even think they were paid after conscription.

I don't get why that matters, to be honest. Some people wanted to "kill a commie for mommie"; some people wanted to "serve their country" as their paternal lineage had done; some people didn't want to go one bit; some people believed propaganda and became enraged; some people were drafted and didn't "conscientiously object" although they were both scared and didn't believe in the war cause.

Point being, they went to Vietnam as mere pawns of the US government, military, and industry, whether they wanted to or not. The highest echelon of any military apparatus should have the most blame. There are individual atrocities, however, e.g. rape, pointless summary executions, etc., that must be mentioned.

Ever since I was young and before I even knew what socialism or imperialism was, I loved history (obviously in a elementary fashion). I have always imagined myself in other's "shoes" or situations, and the Vietnamese people's plight has always been close to me. How can a family member not want to attempt to hurt who ever hurt their loved-ones? It's homo sapiens truly animal instinct.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Point being, they went to Vietnam as mere pawns of the US government, military, and industry, whether they wanted to or not. The highest echelon of any military apparatus should have the most blame....

So Che, as an agent of Cuban and Russian 'government, military and industry' (ie,imperialism), but also of the highest echelon of the military apparatus, is not a pawn and deserves the most blame?

[reb]

The question to who is or who isn't a marxist shouldn't interest us. Lots of people consider themselves to be marxist whom at the same time advocate socialism in one country.
I have a hard time accepting this since from what I've read about Che, he was a strong advocate for education and built the Cuban Revolution from the contribution of rural workers. He was strictly against the big land owners and helped the Cuban economy become socialized. Making industry socialized is a bogus concept. It can only mean that they developed the capitalist mode of production.

[Old Bolshie]

In Russia, China, and Cuba it created a statifiied capitalist system, not a workers' state and/or socialism. Are China and Cuba workers' states in your mind? Are they socialist?

Cuba still is a worker's state, not so much for China although the Chinese process is a complex one due to its hybrid historical path.


The Soviet Union was never socialist. It was, however, a workers' state, which went through a process of degeneration and was eventually overthrown and replaced with a form of statified capitalism. For book-length details, read "The Life and Death of Stalinism" which is on the LRP-COFI's website for free (you can also read the somewhat-of-a-summary of it if you don't want to read it, that's understandable)

And it only became state-capitalist with Stalin? Strange thing to say when it was Lenin himself who defended and implemented state-capitalism in USSR.



State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in this country

Lenin



The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.
Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.

Lenin



If those make Trotsky a counterrevolutionary (he later reversed his position on the last one, and was correct on the middle one, and I need more [historical] context for the first one to judge it), despite being one of the leaders of the October Revolution, being through a Civil War defending the workers' state, and then spending the rest of his life fighting against Stalinism, which would cost him his life, then I can't imagine how someone such as yourself can view Stalinism as having a positive revolutionary role in the world

I don't consider that when Trotsky made such statements he was a counterrevolutionary (although he eventually became one in a later point of his life). I was just showing how ridiculous your claims to differentiate Trotsky and Stalin were.


(Also, Stalinism doesn't refer to Stalin as a person but to the system.

I know that you refer to Stalinism as a system or ideology. My point by individualizing the issue and showing those Trotsky's quotes was to show that Trotsky was a "stalinist" himself.


Trotsky never, for example, destroyed single-handedly revolutions
in Spain, China, or Vietnam for example, whereas the Stalinist governments/movements did. Do you think the Stalinists didn't do that?)

It would be hard to Trotsky to destroy "single-handedly" the Chinese or the Vietnamese revolution since he was already dead.

How could "stalinists" in China or Vietnam destroy revolutions which were made by themselves in first place?

[Blake's Baby]

Revolutions aren't made by 'Stalinists', revolutions are made by the working class.

[Old Bolshie]

Revolutions aren't made by 'Stalinists', revolutions are made by the working class.

I said "made" in the sense that those revolutions were fostered and led by "Stalinists".

[Blake's Baby]

No, revolutions are 'led' by the working class. they may be piggy-backed by Stalinists, in which case they fail, and the Stalnists take over, or they may be murdered by Stalinists or with the connivance of Stalinists, but I can't think of a single revolution that has be 'led' by Stalinists.

[Old Bolshie]

No, revolutions are 'led' by the working class.

Nope, revolutions are led by the vanguard of the working class which in the case of the Chinese and Vietnamese happen to be a "stalinist" one.


they may be piggy-backed by Stalinists, in which case they fail, and the Stalnists take over, or they may be murdered by Stalinists or with the connivance of Stalinists, but I can't think of a single revolution that has be 'led' by Stalinists.

Perhaps the Chinese or the Vietnamese just to talk about of those mentioned above?

[RedGuevara]

You can't compare Che to the US Marines. The Marines are bound to where the US wants them to go for their imperialist purposes. Che denounced his Cuban citizenship to fight in countries where the oppressed were fighting against Imperialist and Capitalist. Comparing them to the Marines doesn't even make a lick of sense.

[Blake's Baby]

Nope, revolutions are led by the vanguard of the working class which in the case of the Chinese and Vietnamese happen to be a "stalinist" one...

Really, no. When the 'Chinese Revolution' (the Shanghai Commune, 1927) was going on, Mao was preparing gricultural reports for the KMT, who were butchering the communists - and the CPC, on the orders of Stalin and the ComIntern, was letting them.

And the Stalinists colluded with the French to murder the trotskyists in Vietnam, at the point when the Trotskyists could, just about, be regarded as revolutionary. But I don't know how many Vietnamese workers who weren't Trotskyists they killed.


...
Perhaps the Chinese or the Vietnamese just to talk about of those mentioned above?

Neither of those were revolutions. Read some Marx. Revolutions are when the ruling class and the whole economic basis of society changes. Both those were capitalist states that became capitalist states. They changed personel and policy but remained just as capitalist.

[Old Bolshie]

Really, no. When the 'Chinese Revolution' (the Shanghai Commune, 1927) was going on, Mao was preparing gricultural reports for the KMT, who were butchering the communists - and the CPC, on the orders of Stalin and the ComIntern, was letting them.

And yet it was the CPC that led the revolt in Shanghai which led to the 'Chinese Revolution' Shanghai Commune.

And saying that CPC was letting their own members being massively killed is hilarious. The alliance between the CPC and the KMT came from Lenin's times and it was immediately broken by the CPC after the Shanghai massacre.



And the Stalinists colluded with the French to murder the trotskyists in Vietnam, at the point when the Trotskyists could, just about, be regarded as revolutionary. But I don't know how many Vietnamese workers who weren't Trotskyists they killed.

The French who were overthrown by the Stalinists?


Neither of those were revolutions. Read some Marx. Revolutions are when the ruling class and the whole economic basis of society changes. Both those were capitalist states that became capitalist states. They changed personel and policy but remained just as capitalist.

And that was precisely what happened in both China and Vietnam.

[Blake's Baby]

No, really what happened was a different team was installed to manage national capitalism.

Read some Engels, it's all there.

[reb]

I said "made" in the sense that those revolutions were fostered and led by "Stalinists".

No revolution has ever been led by Stalinists. Where ever there has been a strive towards working class emancipation and autonomy, Stalinists have came in and crushed it. Russia, China, Spain, Hungary...

[erupt]

So Che, as an agent of Cuban and Russian 'government, military and industry' (ie,imperialism), but also of the highest echelon of the military apparatus, is not a pawn and deserves the most blame?

I don't know how Cuba was to gain anything from it, in Che's vision, than another sociailst-bloc nation; also, Cuban and Soviet "government, military, and industry" were not always on the same page, especially when it came to "exporting" revolution.

Che, whether his economic or socio-poltico decisions were good or bad, was willing to fight for them himself, rather than become an arm-chair revolutionary, I admire that.

[Blake's Baby]

Like you admire those heroic anti-communists, who were prepared to go to foreign countries and fight instead of staying at home? They're equally heroic, aren't they?

[Entfremdung]

Like you admire those heroic anti-communists, who were prepared to go to foreign countries and fight instead of staying at home? They're equally heroic, aren't they?

Jesus-fucking-Christ. Why do you insist on equating anyone who fights in another country than their home, regardless of their cause?

I admit there is plenty to fault Che on but he still did more for the working class than any Trotskyist or Left Communist ever did.

[Old Bolshie]

No revolution has ever been led by Stalinists. Where ever there has been a strive towards working class emancipation and autonomy, Stalinists have came in and crushed it. Russia, China, Spain, Hungary...

And which revolution was crushed by Stalinists, lets say, in China?

[Blake's Baby]

...

Che, whether his economic or socio-poltico decisions were good or bad, was willing to fight for them himself, rather than become an arm-chair revolutionary, I admire that.

So, for erupt, the question is not about politics - erupt doesn't care about politics, clearly. Erupt cares whether Che 'was willing to fight for...' - whatever he was willing to fight for.


Jesus-fucking-Christ. Why do you insist on equating anyone who fights in another country than their home, regardless of their cause?
...

No, it's erupt who's doing that. Erupt doesn't care about the politics of those who fight, just that they fight.

And let's not forget, it wasn't me who said that Che fighting in a country other than his country of birth meant that he was an 'internationalist'. If Che is an 'internationalist' for fighting in Cuba, Zaire and Bolivia, then so are US soldierts for fighting in Korea, Vietnam etc. What, exactly, is the difference, except that Che was a commander and member of the Cuban government, and I've been talking about soldiers?

[erupt]

So, for erupt, the question is not about politics - erupt doesn't care about politics, clearly. Erupt cares whether Che 'was willing to fight for...' - whatever he was willing to fight for.

No, it's erupt who's doing that. Erupt doesn't care about the politics of those who fight, just that they fight.

And let's not forget, it wasn't me who said that Che fighting in a country other than his country of birth meant that he was an 'internationalist'. If Che is an 'internationalist' for fighting in Cuba, Zaire and Bolivia, then so are US soldierts for fighting in Korea, Vietnam etc. What, exactly, is the difference, except that Che was a commander and member of the Cuban government, and I've been talking about soldiers?

I said I admired him. He believed something and he fought for what he thought was a means to achieve socialism. He died in a jungle fighting until he was killed, just as he had said he would.

Concerning his internationalism, it was something he had always espoused, and since his theory of achieving social revolution was focoism, he traveled and fought (why is fighting such a bad word, anyway?) The difference between US soldiers and Che was that what the US claims they fight for is not what they are really fighting for. In Che's case, what he said is what he thought. And he acted on those thoughts, for what he thought was for the benefit of the proletariat and peasantry.

I'm not talking about politics or economics; I'm simply saying I admire him for following his words up with actions while he attempted his idea of a socialist revolution, which is much more than we can say for most so-called "comrades."

[Entfremdung]

What, exactly, is the difference...?

Erm... that they are fighting for a different cause?

This could just keep going in circles forever...

But just to be clear, I have nothing personal against individual US soldiers in Afghanistan. They are being exploited and fighting for an injust cause.

Che may have been a commander but to think his mission was just the same as Donald Rumsfeld's is lazy. One is fighting for capitalism. The other is fighting against.

[Blake's Baby]

I said I admired him. He believed something and he fought for what he thought was a means to achieve socialism. He died in a jungle fighting until he was killed, just as he had said he would...

I'm not talking about politics or economics; I'm simply saying I admire him for following his words up with actions ...

So, by the same token, you admire any dedicated anti-communist who travels and fights for, let's say, American capitalism.

Travelling the world, fighting for what you believe in, is in your view an inherently worthwhile thing to do, no matter what the political or economic views of the one doing the fighting. Is that not your position? If it is, it applies to the Freikorps fighting the Bolsheviks in Latvia in 1918 or men who enlisted in the US Army to stop 'communism' in SE Asia, as much as to Che Guevara, surely?

[erupt]

So, by the same token, you admire any dedicated anti-communist who travels and fights for, let's say, American capitalism.

Travelling the world, fighting for what you believe in, is in your view an inherently worthwhile thing to do, no matter what the political or economic views of the one doing the fighting. Is that not your position? If it is, it applies to the Freikorps fighting the Bolsheviks in Latvia in 1918 or men who enlisted in the US Army to stop 'communism' in SE Asia, as much as to Che Guevara, surely?

No, I admire those who fight for something I believe in as well. If they fail or not, the action is still admirable. My position is to support people willing to fight outright for the workers and peasants; the fighters' politics and economic views are of the utmost importance, which is why I do not admire the Freikorps, etc. However, anyone willing to fight for whatever beliefs they have I do consider brave. If they are fighting for the same beliefs I believe in, I consider them brave and admirable.

I do not believe Guevara was perfect, but in general, he wanted to advance socialism, and whether his methods induced anything, he still tried.

Your being very divisive and also seem to be putting words in my mouth, like saying I don't care about politics or economics. Why would I even log in to reply to you day after day now, if I had no interest in Leftist politics, theory, history, etc.?

[Blake's Baby]

...
As far as him being Argentine and fighting in Cuba, the Congo, and Bolivia, this only illustrates his internationalist, anti-imperialist leftist (I'll refrain from saying Marxist for the sake of this rather large discussion) ideals.

So; fighting abroad means one is an internationalist (like US soldiers who want to stop 'communism' are internationalists).


...

Che, whether his economic or socio-poltico decisions were good or bad, was willing to fight for them himself, rather than become an arm-chair revolutionary, I admire that.

So, what is admirable is that he was a man of action, not whether his politics were any good (like any anti-communist fighter with the courage of his convictions).



No, I admire those who fight for something I believe in as well... However, anyone willing to fight for whatever beliefs they have I do consider brave...

But being brave is not admirable? Even though you just said that what was admirable about Che was that he was prepared to fight for his beliefs. Now that is not in itself admirable... so why admire Che?



...
I do not believe Guevara was perfect, but in general, he wanted to advance socialism, and whether his methods induced anything, he still tried...

So, it's intentions that count?

You should love me, I really want there to be a proletarian revolution. What I'm doing may work against it (who knows?) but my heart's in the right place. So that's all good, eh?



...Your being very divisive and also seem to be putting words in my mouth, like saying I don't care about politics or economics. Why would I even log in to reply to you day after day now, if I had no interest in Leftist politics, theory, history, etc.?

No, I'm just showing that your position is untenable, idealistic and pretty ridiculous.

In doing so I'm trying to advance the cause of the proletariat. You can admire me now or later, I don't mind.

[erupt]

So; fighting abroad means one is an internationalist (like US soldiers who want to stop 'communism' are internationalists).

So, what is admirable is that he was a man of action, not whether his politics were any good (like any anti-communist fighter with the courage of his convictions).

But being brave is not admirable?

So, it's intentions that count?

You should love me, I really want there to be a proletarian revolution. What I'm doing may work against it (who knows?) but my heart's in the right place. So that's all good, eh?

No, I'm just showing that your position is untenable, idealistic and pretty ridiculous.

In doing so I'm trying to advance the cause of the proletariat. You can admire me now or later, I don't mind.

No, the fact he fought abroad isn't what makes Che an internationalist. It could be argued that he was a third-worldist, but Che wanted his various focos to sta, t in the heart of South America and radiate outward country by country, continent by continent, thus becoming an international revolution.

Him being a "man of action" is part of what makes him admirable, but not that alone.

Being brave is admirable, however, one can be brave without being admired.

Your criticism of ideas for proletarian revolution are unreal, considering no-one, in any tendency, be it Left Communists, Stalinists, or Maoists, has been truly successful. So, we should learn what we can from who we can. Or should we castigate the anarchists for not successfully fending off the Stalinist repression in the Spanish Civil War, because their heart was certainly in the right place, but ultimately, they failed. I still admire them, but the way your logic sounds, you don't.

Can you please tell me what my position is if it's so idealistic? Maybe it'll speed up how long it will take for me to admire you.

[RedGuevara]

Internationalism in Marxist terms is revolution world wide. Che didn't see borders when it came to the revolution and liberation of the oppressed. The USMC see borders and are imperialist who fight to oppress and spread America's will to places it doesn't need to be. Che fought for international REVOLUTION which in my book means he was an internationalist. To say the USMC are internationalist in the same terms is both hypocritical and without a good base of evidence.

[Blake's Baby]

No, the fact he fought abroad isn't what makes Che an internationalist...

Even though you said earlier that it was.

'...isn't what made Che an internationalist' means that you think that something else made Che an internationalist. I disagree. An internationalist is someone who opposes capitalism's wars from the point of view of the proletariat. As Che fought in them, he didn't oppose them. I think what you mean was he was 'pro-Russian imperialism' or possibly 'anti-American imperialism'.


... It could be argued that he was a third-worldist, but Che wanted his various focos to sta, t in the heart of South America and radiate outward country by country, continent by continent, thus becoming an international revolution...

Which makes him a fool to be honest.

His vision had nothing to do with the proletariat.


...Him being a "man of action" is part of what makes him admirable, but not that alone...

So 'man of action' = admirable, but also other admirable qualities exist. So, do you admire fascists and other anti-communists who are also 'men of action' (while recognising that there are other things people can be admired for)? It seems here that it's 'drive' or 'conviction' (rather than what one is driven to do or what one is convinced of) that is important here.


...Being brave is admirable, however, one can be brave without being admired...

Now, those two clauses can't both be true.

1 - to be brave is worthy of admiration;
2 - to be brave is not necessarily worthy of admiration

Which is it?


... Your criticism of ideas for proletarian revolution are unreal, considering no-one, in any tendency, be it Left Communists, Stalinists, or Maoists, has been truly successful. So, we should learn what we can from who we can...

Oh, I absolutely agree with you there. I think we should 'learn' rather than 'admire', personally.


... Or should we castigate the anarchists for not successfully fending off the Stalinist repression in the Spanish Civil War, because their heart was certainly in the right place, but ultimately, they failed. I still admire them, but the way your logic sounds, you don't...

I think the most important thing is to learn from them (as from all other socialists before now). What did they do that pointed the way to the future liberation of humanity and what didn't?


... Can you please tell me what my position is if it's so idealistic? Maybe it'll speed up how long it will take for me to admire you.

You romaticise individuals (to whit Che) who have nothing to do with proletarian revolution (and can't see that this is exactly the same as admiring any other fighter for the bourgeoisie); you praise 'action' instead of looking at the context of that action; you privilege intention over consequences; you exhibit signs of a 'great man' hero-worship that borders on hagiography.

I dunno. There are people whose work I admire - Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin - but I'm not sure I'd like them, and I'm certainly not blind to their many failings. I don't let Lenin and Trotsky off with the Kronstadt massacre just because I think they were fighters for the international proletariat in 1917. Just because someone thinks they're right it doesn't make their action right, in the face of all the consequences.



Internationalism in Marxist terms is revolution world wide. Che didn't see borders when it came to the revolution and liberation of the oppressed. The USMC see borders and are imperialist who fight to oppress and spread America's will to places it doesn't need to be. Che fought for international REVOLUTION which in my book means he was an internationalist. To say the USMC are internationalist in the same terms is both hypocritical and without a good base of evidence.

Or, he fought for Russian and Cuban imperialism. I don't think he was an 'internationalist' at all, because I don't think anything he did had anything to do with the self-activity of the working class.

[Entfremdung]

So, do you admire fascists and other anti-communists who are also 'men of action' (while recognising that there are other things people can be admired for)?

They don't deserve admiration but rather their actions require action on our part.

[erupt]

Even though you said earlier that it was.

'...isn't what made Che an internationalist' means that you think that something else made Che an internationalist. I disagree. An internationalist is someone who opposes capitalism's wars from the point of view of the proletariat. As Che fought in them, he didn't oppose them. I think what you mean was he was 'pro-Russian imperialism' or possibly 'anti-American imperialism'.

Which makes him a fool to be honest.

His vision had nothing to do with the proletariat.

So 'man of action' = admirable, but also other admirable qualities exist. So, do you admire fascists and other anti-communists who are also 'men of action' (while recognising that there are other things people can be admired for)? It seems here that it's 'drive' or 'conviction' (rather than what one is driven to do or what one is convinced of) that is important here.

Now, those two clauses can't both be true.

1 - to be brave is worthy of admiration;
2 - to be brave is not necessarily worthy of admiration

Which is it?

You romaticise individuals (to whit Che) who have nothing to do with proletarian revolution (and can't see that this is exactly the same as admiring any other fighter for the bourgeoisie); you praise 'action' instead of looking at the context of that action; you privilege intention over consequences; you exhibit signs of a 'great man' hero-worship that borders on hagiography.

I dunno. There are people whose work I admire - Rosa Luxemburg, Trotsky, Lenin - but I'm not sure I'd like them, and I'm certainly not blind to their many failings. I don't let Lenin and Trotsky off with the Kronstadt massacre just because I think they were fighters for the international proletariat in 1917. Just because someone thinks they're right it doesn't make their action right, in the face of all the consequences.

Or, he fought for Russian and Cuban imperialism. I don't think he was an 'internationalist' at all, because I don't think anything he did had anything to do with the self-activity of the working class.

Whether I agree with Che or not doesn't mean he can't be admired for his self-dedication and sense of duty. That is precisely my point. I'll disagree that Che was a pawn of Soviet imperialism; Castro, on the other hand, was, most definitely. Remember Che renounced his Cuban citizenship? But this is pointless for you and I to argue over.

Yes, it seems his death more than his actions benefited the proletariat; his death created a martyr for revolutionaries, no matter what outlook they had.

I don't admire any fascists, but I'm sure there were some that were quite brave. To be brave is worthy of admiration, but not every brave action is admirable; some actions that are brave are immoral, vile, and disgusting, so in no way should those brave actions be admired. Do you not agree, or are you dissecting my words just for the hell of it?

I will always think Che thought he was benefiting the proletariat, but there is no "great man" theory going in my thought. One man is one man. The context and consequences of an action is obviously the most important thing, but the action, and the intention of the action, still have some merit in my opinion of a person.

Where have I been "blind" to Che's actions? I never even said his theory had any merit. Just like the people you admire, I'm certainly aware of Che's faults.

[Blake's Baby]

Whether I agree with Che or not doesn't mean he can't be admired for his self-dedication and sense of duty...

Oliver North had dedication and a sense of duty. Can you admire him?

Either dedication and a sense of duty is inherently admirable, even in people you disagree with (like fascists, or other anti-communists), or dedication and a sense of duty is not inherently admirable. If it is only admirable in 'Leftists' then it is essentially only people you already agree with that you admire. In which case the question of dedication is subservient to political agreement.

I have no political agreement with Che.




...
That is precisely my point. I'll disagree that Che was a pawn of Soviet imperialism; Castro, on the other hand, was, most definitely. Remember Che renounced his Cuban citizenship? But this is pointless for you and I to argue over...

Castro wanted to normalise relations with the US. It was Che, and Raul Castro, who persuaded Fidel to turn to the USSR. So if Fidel Castro was a 'pawn of Soviet imperialism' one must, to a large extent, blame Che for that.


...Yes, it seems his death more than his actions benefited the proletariat; his death created a martyr for revolutionaries, no matter what outlook they had...

His death removed a self-agrandising murderer. It spared the proletariat any more of his sociopathic adventurism.


...I don't admire any fascists, but I'm sure there were some that were quite brave. To be brave is worthy of admiration, but not every brave action is admirable; some actions that are brave are immoral, vile, and disgusting, so in no way should those brave actions be admired. Do you not agree, or are you dissecting my words just for the hell of it?...

'worthy of admiration ... but not admirable' - and you think I'm dissecting words?

There is an expression: 'you couldn't lie straight in bed'. I think claiming actions are 'worthy of admiration, but not admirable' are an example of not lying straight in bed.

Do you admire fascists who are brave and dedicated?

YES: being brave and dedicated is admirable;
NO: being a fascist is not admirable.

Pick one.


...

I will always think Che thought he was benefiting the proletariat, but there is no "great man" theory going in my thought. One man is one man. The context and consequences of an action is obviously the most important thing, but the action, and the intention of the action, still have some merit in my opinion of a person.

Where have I been "blind" to Che's actions? I never even said his theory had any merit. Just like the people you admire, I'm certainly aware of Che's faults.

Good; but I didn't say I admired any 'people', I said I admired their work.

You've already implied (without stating it) that you think Che's theory was without 'merit' - you don't admire his work. So what you admire about him is being a man of action (any soldier of whatever political stripe is just as admirable surely?) and/or his dedication (like a serial killer or a stamp collecter maybe?) and/or the fact that he believed what he was doing was helping (like an evangelist preacher who thinks he can talk to god, perhaps?).

[erupt]

either dedication and a sense of duty is inherently admirable, even in people you disagree with (like fascists, or other anti-communists), or dedication and a sense of duty is not inherently admirable. If it is only admirable in 'Leftists' then it is essentially only people you already agree with that you admire. In which case the question of dedication is subservient to political agreement.

Castro wanted to normalise relations with the US. It was Che, and Raul Castro, who persuaded Fidel to turn to the USSR. So if Fidel Castro was a 'pawn of Soviet imperialism' one must, to a large extent, blame Che for that.

'worthy of admiration ... but not admirable' - and you think I'm dissecting words?

There is an expression: 'you couldn't lie straight in bed'. I think claiming actions are 'worthy of admiration, but not admirable' are an example of not lying straight in bed.

Do you admire fascists who are brave and dedicated?

YES: being brave and dedicated is admirable;
NO: being a fascist is not admirable.

Pick one.

Good; but I didn't say I admired any 'people', I said I admired their work.

You've already implied (without stating it) that you think Che's theory was without 'merit' - you don't admire his work. So what you admire about him is being a man of action (any soldier of whatever political stripe is just as admirable surely?) and/or his dedication (like a serial killer or a stamp collecter maybe?) and/or the fact that he believed what he was doing was helping (like an evangelist preacher who thinks he can talk to god, perhaps?).

Dedication is inherently admirable to me; admiration doesn't always mean infatuation. Once again, instead of quoting me and omitting certain words, read what I wrote in completion. Go down and read it in the post you quoted from if you think I'm incorrect or making things up.

I said: "To be brave is worthy of admiration, but not every brave action is admirable." How can I sum it up any simpler?

Regarding Che, Raul, and Fidel, you're right. It was their influence on Fidel that initiated relations with the USSR. See, its that's easy to admit an inaccuracy. Why can't you, concerning semantics?

Arguing about this is pointless and counterproductive. Discussing Guevara isn't, so the sooner you get past what I'm trying to relay about a word, we can begin the discussion.

[Blake's Baby]

...

I said: "To be brave is worthy of admiration, but not every brave action is admirable." How can I sum it up any simpler?...

What do you think is the difference between 'worthy of admiration' and 'admirable'? What's the difference between 'being brave' and 'brave actions'?

If being brave is 'worthy of admiration' then being brave is 'admirable'. If not every brave action is 'admirable' then not every brave action is 'worthy of admiration'.

So, if one is brave (or commits brave actions), then... one can both be worthy of admiration, and not admirable?


...

Regarding Che, Raul, and Fidel, you're right. It was their influence on Fidel that initiated relations with the USSR. See, its that's easy to admit an inaccuracy. Why can't you, concerning semantics?

Arguing about this is pointless and counterproductive. Discussing Guevara isn't, so the sooner you get past what I'm trying to relay about a word, we can begin the discussion.

Can't happen until you're clearer about what exactly you're talking about. You're contradicting yourself, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you mean.

[erupt]

What do you think is the difference between 'worthy of admiration' and 'admirable'? What's the difference between 'being brave' and 'brave actions'?

If being brave is 'worthy of admiration' then being brave is 'admirable'. If not every brave action is 'admirable' then not every brave action is 'worthy of admiration'.

So, if one is brave (or commits brave actions), then... one can both be worthy of admiration, and not admirable?

Can't happen until you're clearer about what exactly you're talking about. You're contradicting yourself, and I'm trying to get to the bottom of what you mean.

I can use a hypothetical situation to explain what I was trying to get across, since I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. For example, let's say a government soldier, from any country, is taking part in invading another country for its resources; he is being brave in that he's risking his life, but he is no way admirable because he's part of a mechanism that's taking advantage of another country for their resources/capital.

Maybe a rephrasing is a good idea; to be brave is worthy of admiration, but the actions and reasons behind those actions that are committed while someone is being brave may not be worthy of admiration, in any manner.

As far as understanding what I mean, continue to ask away. Did I contradict myself on any historical facts? Please correct anything if you're sure I was wrong. If you're referring to my idea of bravery and admiration, hopefully the hypothetical situation and the rephrasing will clear what I meant up. This is my opinion, though, and I admit, I probably did contradict myself somewhere while trying to explain it.

[Commie1990]

Che was more Marxist than the USSR under Lenin ever was

[erupt]

Che was more Marxist than the USSR under Lenin ever was

Prepare for a giant shit-storm from most users on here. You might as well get any evidence ready, because they'll be asking, or better yet, demanding it.

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

Prepare for a giant shit-storm from most users on here. You might as well get any evidence ready, because they'll be asking, or better yet, demanding it.
I think it might have something to do with the New Economic Policy.

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

Holy shit, this thread is, somehow, even more stupid than the others.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Cuba still is a worker's state, not so much for China although the Chinese process is a complex one due to its hybrid historical path.

Another subject for another thread, so I won't address this here.


And it only became state-capitalist with Stalin? Strange thing to say when it was Lenin himself who defended and implemented state-capitalism in USSR.Lenin's state capitalism was a workers' state regulating the accumulation, through workers' control, of remaining private capital in the country. Stalin's statified capitalism was a capitalist class that existed and reproduced itself through bureaucratic positions, and used the state was a mechanism for capitalist accumulation. I am surprised a supposed "Marxist" doesn't know the difference between Lenin's state capitalism, and Stalin's state capitalism, even if they don't agree with the ideas.


I don't consider that when Trotsky made such statements he was a counterrevolutionary (although he eventually became one in a later point of his life). I was just showing how ridiculous your claims to differentiate Trotsky and Stalin were.

I know that you refer to Stalinism as a system or ideology. My point by individualizing the issue and showing those Trotsky's quotes was to show that Trotsky was a "stalinist" himself. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Trotsksyism and Stalinism knows there is a difference between the two. Concluding that Trotsky and Stalin are not different enough to have had different polticial ideologies based on this idea that both were, in some way, "authoritarian" is outright absurd.


It would be hard to Trotsky to destroy "single-handedly" the Chinese or the Vietnamese revolution since he was already dead.
Trotsky even wrote about the Chinese revolution, which Trotskyists actively participated in (and were, of course, attacked by the Stalinists). Problems of the Chinese Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/pcr/index.htm). Trotskyists, similarly, had a role in Vietnam, and were as always persecuted by the Stalinists.


How could "stalinists" in China or Vietnam destroy revolutions which were made by themselves in first place?They weren't made by them, as someone already addressed. They destroyed the potential for a proletarian revolution, as Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary ideology incapable of leading a proletarian revolution.

[Red_Banner]

Che was more Marxist than the USSR under Lenin ever was

Well that doesn't mean Lenin wasn't as Marxist a Che.

Lenin wasn't the sole politician that administered the USSR, and he was only alive for the 1st year or 2 of the USSR.

[Old Bolshie]

Lenin's state capitalism was a workers' state regulating the accumulation, through workers' control, of remaining private capital in the country.

Which worker's control do you mean? This?


To achieve this success in Russia, in her present state, it is absolutely essential that all authority in the factories should be concentrated in the hands of the management. The factory management, usually built up on the principle of one-man responsibility, must have authority independently to fix and pay out wages, and also distribute rations, working clothes, and all other supplies on the basis and within the limits of collective agreements concluded with the trade unions; it must enjoy the utmost freedom to manoeuvre, exercise strict control of the actual successes achieved in increasing production, in making the factory pay its way and in increasing profits, and carefully select the most talented and capable administrative personnel, etc.

LeninOr this?


Under these circumstances, all direct interference by the trade unions in the management of factories must be regarded as positively harmful and impermissible.



LeninToo much for the worker's control in Lenin's state capitalism...


Stalin's statified capitalism was a capitalist class that existed and reproduced itself through bureaucratic positions, and used the state was a mechanism for capitalist accumulation. I am surprised a supposed "Marxist" doesn't know the difference between Lenin's state capitalism, and Stalin's state capitalism, even if they don't agree with the ideas.That's because there is no difference between the two. The soviet state (which by Lenin's own admission was a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch (too much for the workers control again)) was the same under Lenin as it was under Stalin. Soviet workers had the same degree of control BEFORE and AFTER Lenin died.


Anyone with a basic knowledge of Trotsksyism and Stalinism knows there is a difference between the two. Concluding that Trotsky and Stalin are not different enough to have had different polticial ideologies based on this idea that both were, in some way, "authoritarian" is outright absurd.Not based on the idea that they were both authoritarian but rather based on the idea that both were against workers emancipation and autonomy. Like I said before presenting Trotsky as a working class liberator different from Stalin the oppressor of the working class is one of the stupidest things I ever red.


Trotsky even wrote about the Chinese revolution, which Trotskyists actively participated in (and were, of course, attacked by the Stalinists). Problems of the Chinese Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1932/pcr/index.htm). Trotskyists, similarly, had a role in Vietnam, and were as always persecuted by the Stalinists.That's because both Stalinists and Trotskysts weren't struggling for workers emancipation but rather for the control of the state pretty much like Stalin and Trotsky were struggling purely for political power in USSR without any concern for Soviet workers.


They weren't made by them, as someone already addressed. They destroyed the potential for a proletarian revolution, as Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary ideology incapable of leading a proletarian revolution.Stalinism is as much as a counterrevolutionary ideology as it is Trotskyism. The only reason why Trostkyists never crushed a revolution is because they never really had any chance and power to do it due to its weakness, again like Trotsky never had any power or chance to put his "ideas" in practice although much of it was adopted by Stalin.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Stalinism is as much as a counterrevolutionary ideology as it is Trotskyism. The only reason why Trostkyists never crushed a revolution is because they never really had any chance and power to do it due to its weakness, again like Trotsky never had any power or chance to put his "ideas" in practice although much of it was adopted by Stalin.

Absolutely. All variants of 'Leninism' (Bolshevik-Leninism = Trotskyism, or Marxist-Leninsm = Stalinism) are counter-revolutionary ideologies.

The difference though is Stalisnism was counter-revolutionary from the outset (when Stalin adopted it from Bukharin in 1924, and some of Trotsky's ideas from about 1927), whereas Trotskyism still just about held on to a shred of relevance to the proletariat until the late 1930s or early 1940s.

But I agree that now they're equally counter-revolutionary.

[LiamChe]

We can't blame him for some of the mistakes Cuba has made since Che's death. I would have to say that Che was indeed a Marxist. He made very important theoretical strives in Marxism-Leninism and was a very important figure for the international communist movement. It seems very silly to say that Che is a counter-revolutionary, he was anything, but that. Also Marxism-Leninism is counter-revolutionary!? I would like to see proof of this accusation.

[Brutus]

Also Marxism-Leninism is counter-revolutionary!? I would like to see proof of this accusation.
1926 British General Strike, 1956 Hungarian Uprising, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact... Need I continue?

[Bardo]

Recently I was discussing with a comrade about Che Guevara and I was presented with the idea that Che wasn't a Marxist or Sociailist but rather just a bourgeoisie Anti-Imperialists.......

What could lead people to believe Che wasn't a Marxist or Socialist and was a bourgeoisie?


Well, what was this persons' argument? Did they just make the claim without elaborating or explaining?

The burden of proof is on the claimsmaker. If someone said to me that Che wasn't a Marxist I would shrug and say "well, why not?"

[Kamp]

Sure he was a marxist! but it's also true that he made he's biggest points in anit-imperalism.

But then again, anti imperialism aspecially against usa is a cornerstone in marxism, and what the little i know about cuba is that a anti imperialistic campaign would probably work better then a arument to take down the elite. After all those who were the richest in cuba at that time were fat americans on holidays, tell me about the white guy that dosn't exploit a culture and a people when he's on holidays - we are kind of known for fucking everything up when we harrass a local population for our amusment...

[Sharia Lawn]

I don't think he was a Marxist in the sense that he didn't really understand or adhere to the Marxist worldview.

He was a courageous individual undoubtedly, who's passion is a striking counter-point to the uninspired cynicism conditioned upon us through the daily drudgery of existence in capitalism.

However, the tactics of armed struggle are not the tactics of proletarian revolution. Appropriate for anti-colonial and national liberation struggles perhaps, in which victory can only be won through military force, but a workers' revolution can only be successful through the direct seizure of power by workers' councils or other corresponding organs of workers' power.

[erupt]

However, the tactics of armed struggle are not the tactics of proletarian revolution. Appropriate for anti-colonial and national liberation struggles perhaps, in which victory can only be won through military force, but a workers' revolution can only be successful through the direct seizure of power by workers' councils or other corresponding organs of workers' power.

What is a "direct seizure of power" without "armed struggle"?

A worker's council cannot simply demand control of production; they must seize it, and the seizure of production will be most likely met with violence if the seizure was non-violent in nature anyway.

[Blake's Baby]

'Armed struggle' when you're talking about Che means guerrillas in the forests. That's really not the same as factory workers or transport workers (or whoever) establishing militia units to defend themselves against the bosses' goons and the police, and then using these units to overthrow the state. The seizure of power by the working class will surely involve some 'military' aspect; but the seizure of power by a military clique need not involve the working class at all.