Log in

View Full Version : Ernesto "Che" Guevara: 1928 - 1967



The Feral Underclass
30th August 2004, 09:24
After his remains were dug up in Boliva and reburied in Cuba a few years ago, public interest in Che was rekindled. The heroic cult that has developed around him took on new life, as hitherto unknown photos of his Bolivian campaign and two new biographies were published.

Whilst his image - on T-shirts, posters, and beer labels- continues to make money for capitalists, there seems to be a revival among the young in the idea of Che as idealistic hero and fighter for freedom. This hero cult seems to have infected many young radicals, some of whom regard themselves as anarchists. We take a look at his life and ideas...

The truth may be unpalatable to many. After all, the Che cult is still used to obscure the real nature of Castro's Cuba, one of the final bastions of Stalinism. As jaded Stalinists and fellow-travelling Trotskyists celebrate Che's anniversary we take a look at the real man behind the legend.

Born in Argentina to a Cuban aristocratic family who had fallen on hard times but who still had much wealth, Guevara had a comfortable upbringing. When Juan and Eva "Evita" Peron started on their rise to power, using populism and appeals to workers and peasants to install a regime that had many fascist characteristics (1944-1952) Guevara was still a youth. At this period he seemed remarkably disinterested in politics and failed to offer any opinions for or against the Peron regime.

Events in Guatemala were to change this. Arbenz, a leftist army officer, was elected as President. In 1952 he nationalised the property of the United Fruit Company, a major US company which owned much land and had great economic and political influence. He also began to nationalise the land of the local big ranchers and farmers. Guevara was caught up in enthusiasm for this experiment in 'socialism' which infected middle class Latin American youth. Just before a trip to Guatemala he wrote: " I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated".

Army

Guevara was in Guatemala when a US backed invasion force smashed the Arbenz regime. He was able to flee to Mexico. Here he joined up with the Cubans around Fidel Castro and his brother Raul. In November 1956, Che and 80 other members of the July 26 Movement (J26M) founded by Fidel had landed in Cuba to carry on a guerrilla campaign against the US backed dictator Batista. Here Che proved to be the most authoritarian and brutal of the guerrilla leaders. In fact Che went about turning volunteer bands of guerrillas into a classic Army, with strict discipline and hierarchy. As he himself wrote: "Due to the lack of discipline among the new men... it was necessary to establish a rigid discipline, organise a high command and set up a Staff". He demanded the death penalty for "informers, insubordinates, malingerers and deserters". He himself personally carried out executions. Indeed the first execution carried out against an informer by the Castroists was undertaken by Che. He wrote: "I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain". On another occasion he planned on shooting a group of guerrillas who had gone on hunger strike because of bad food. Fidel intervened to stop him. Another guerrilla who dared to question Che was ordered into battle without a weapon!

Apart from the drive towards militarisation in the guerrilla groups, Che also had another important duty. He acted as the main spreader of Stalinism within J26M. He secretly worked towards an alliance with the Popular Socialist Party (the Cuban Communist Party). Up to then there were very few Stalinists within J26M and other anti-Batista groups like the Directorate and the anarchists were staunchly anti-Stalinist. The communists were highly unpopular among the anti-Batista forces. They had been junior partners of the regime and had openly condemned Castro's previous attacks on Batista in 1953. They belatedly joined the guerrilla war.

With the Castroite victory in 1959, Che, along with his Stalinist buddy Raul Castro, was put in charge of building up state control. He purged the army, carried out re-education classes within it, and was supreme prosecutor in the executions of Batista supporters, 550 being shot in the first few months. He was seen as extremely ruthless by those who saw him at work. These killings against supporters of the old regime, some of whom had been implicated in torture and murder, was extended in 1960 to those in the working class movement who criticised the Castro regime. The anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists had their press closed down and many militants were thrown in prison. Che was directly implicated in this. This was followed in 1962 with the banning of the Trotskyists and the imprisonment of their militants. Che said: "You cannot be for the revolution and be against the Cuban Communist Party". He repeated the old lies against the Trots that they were agents of imperialism and provocateurs. He helped set up a secret police, the C-2 and had a key role in creating the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution, which were locally and regionally based bodies for spying on and controlling the mass of the population.

Missile Deal

Che was the main link, indeed the architect, of the increasingly closer relation between Cuba and the Soviet Union. The nuclear missile deal which almost resulted in a nuclear war in 1962 was engineered at the Cuban end by Che. When the Russians backed down in the face of US threats, Che was furious and said that if he had been in charge of the missiles, he would have fired them off!

By 1963, Che had realised that Russian Stalinism was a shambles after a visit to Russia where he saw the conditions of the majority of the people, this after "Soviet-style planning" in the Cuban economy had been pushed through by him. Instead of coming to some libertarian critique of Stalinism, he embraced Chinese Stalinism. He denounced the Soviet Union's policy of peaceful co-existence, which acknowledged that Latin America was the USA's backyard, and gave little or no support to any movement against American control. Fidel was now obsessed with saving the Cuban economy, himself arguing for appeasement. Against this Che talked about spreading armed struggle through Latin America, if necessary using nuclear war to help this come about!

Shambles

It was on this basis that Che left Cuba never to return. He went to the Congo, where he worked with the Congolese Liberation Army, supported by the Chinese Stalinists. This was a shambles of a campaign, and Che ended up isolated with many of his band dead. Despite this, Che still believed in guerrilla struggle waged by a tiny armed minority. His final, fatal, campaign was in Bolivia.

This also was a fiasco. Basing himself once more on old Castroist strategies, he failed to relate to the industrial working class. The Bolivian working class, and especially the tin miners, had a recent record of militancy and class consciousness. The peasants, on the other hand, among whom Che hoped to create an armed insurrection, had been demobilised by the land reforms of 1952. So, Che was unable to relate to either workers or peasants. The local Communist Party failed to support him. Robbed of support, Che was surrounded in the Andean foothills, captured and executed.

Yes, Che was very brave physically. Yes, he was single-mindedly devoted to what he saw as the revolution and socialism. Yes, he refused the privilege and luxury granted to other leaders of Castroist Cuba, taking an average wage and working hard in his various government jobs. But many militarists, fascists and religious fanatics share these characteristics of bravery and self-sacrifice. Che's good looks and 'martyr's' death turned him into an icon, an icon duly exploited by all those wanting to turn a fast buck selling 'revolutionary' chic.

But good looks and bravery camouflage what Che really was. A ruthless authoritarian and Stalinist, who expressed admiration for the Peronista authoritarian nationalists, Che acted as a willing tool of the Soviet bloc in spreading their influence. Even when he fell out with the USSR about the possibility of guerrilla war in Latin America, he still remained a convinced Stalinist with admiration for China and North Korea. He had no disagreements with the Soviets about what sort of society he wanted -a bureaucratic authoritarian state-capitalist set up with contempt for the masses.

Che may look like the archetypal romantic revolutionary. In reality he was a tool of the Stalinist power blocs and a partisan of nuclear war. His attitudes and actions reveal him to be no friend of the working masses, whether they be workers or peasants.

By the Anarchist Federation

Enrager (http://www.enrager.net/history/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=104)

Wiesty
30th August 2004, 10:04
man, it was a revolution

what about other things he did
volunteer labor
stayed in a lepor colony
i cant begin to name all the good things he has done

The Feral Underclass
30th August 2004, 10:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 12:04 PM
man, it was a revolution

what about other things he did
volunteer labor
stayed in a lepor colony
i cant begin to name all the good things he has done
But there are many things that many people do which are good, without all the shit. None of those people are worshipped the way Guevara is.

Micah EL Layl
30th August 2004, 12:12
peace....
Che may look like the archetypal romantic revolutionary. In reality he was a tool of the Stalinist power blocs and a partisan of nuclear war. His attitudes and actions reveal him to be no friend of the working masses, whether they be workers or peasants.

To whoever wrote that.....
THats a pile of dog shit.....shame on you.....Che was no tool of the soviets.....fuck the soviets.....In those days if you needed help especially with weapons you had two choices.....USA or Soviets.....thats it........the USA was trying to destroy Castro and them so they had no choice but to ask the soviets for help.....furthermore how could you say he was no friend of the working masses?????
How many days could you spend in a jungle or mountain range getting eatin by mosquitos dodging bombs dropped from airplanes.....you would last about three days.......and he did all this for the masses.....while you post your psuedo intellectual bullshit on the internet......punk *****.....

The Feral Underclass
30th August 2004, 12:32
Originally posted by Micah EL [email protected] 30 2004, 02:12 PM
How many days could you spend in a jungle or mountain range getting eatin by mosquitos dodging bombs dropped from airplanes.....you would last about three days.......and he did all this for the masses.....while you post your psuedo intellectual bullshit on the internet......punk *****.....
The politics that Guevara fought for was antithetical to working class liberation. Yes, he spent many nights being eaten by Mosquittos, etc etc etc, but he did it to allow a political elite to take control.

There is no communism in Cuba, and exactly the same thing would have happened had he been succesful in Bolivia.

Wiesty
30th August 2004, 14:02
and he wasnt a tool of the soivets

why do u think he quit in cuba to go to bolivia

cause he had pissed the soviets off with complaints about them
and he and fidel had a meeting and che resigned

fernando
30th August 2004, 14:38
I thought the Chinese had Marxist-Leninist-Maoism...not Stalinism <_<

Guevara was born from an mid/upper class family, not aristorats, there is a difference between these two ;)

1963...wasnt Stalin dead already? Didnt the USSR start a proces called the "de-stalinisation" after he died?

I dont remember Che Guevara being a Stalinist, I thought he might even be more of a Maoist, but Im not sure on that one. He certainly wasnt a USSR lapdog, I mean if you have heard/read his speech at the "Tri-continental" in Algeria.

The Feral Underclass
30th August 2004, 14:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 04:38 PM
I thought the Chinese had Marxist-Leninist-Maoism...not Stalinism <_<
Is there really a difference?


1963...wasnt Stalin dead already? Didnt the USSR start a proces called the "de-stalinisation" after he died?

"By 1963, Che had realised that Russian Stalinism was a shambles after a visit to Russia"


I dont remember Che Guevara being a Stalinist

What was the speech he made about him pledging his life to a picture of Comrade Stalin?

Pedro Alonso Lopez
30th August 2004, 15:22
Who cares, Che and Castro in the context of the Cuban Revolution needed to be ruthless. Hell they had to establish a revolution just off the coast of a world superpower, deal with a blockade instigated before they even became socialist.

Che admired Stalin as a leader of the first working class lead country, unaware like most of Stalin&#39;s crimes, only aware of his achievements.

fernando
30th August 2004, 18:12
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2004, 02:50 PM
Is there really a difference?



"By 1963, Che had realised that Russian Stalinism was a shambles after a visit to Russia"



What was the speech he made about him pledging his life to a picture of Comrade Stalin?

Is there really a difference?
To you it might be all the same <_<


"By 1963, Che had realised that Russian Stalinism was a shambles after a visit to Russia"
So? Guevara wasnt a Stalinist, and Stalinism sort of died off after Stalin died ;)


What was the speech he made about him pledging his life to a picture of Comrade Stalin?
It was something he said after the US started another coup in Latin America, that he swore by Stalin that he would kick out those capitalist octopusses.

bunk
30th August 2004, 19:18
To be honest i don&#39;t agree with his views of communism and of course Cuba has only reached socialism but it&#39;s better for it as would be the Congo or Bolivia.

bunk
30th August 2004, 19:21
To be honest i know his ideas don&#39;t work to get communism and he may have been slightly Stalinist but Cuba is better for the socialism so would the Congo or Bolivia if the revolutions there had succeded. If i was in that time i would have supported the USSR against the USA at all costs as there socialism is better than capitalism.

sanne
30th August 2004, 21:40
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2004, 12:32 PM
There is no communism in Cuba, and exactly the same thing would have happened had he been succesful in Bolivia.
and like this it would be everywhere in evry country. the people is to selfish to be absolutly social (the only man, who was exactly like this [perhaps not 100% but as near as possible] was che himself.)

Pedro Alonso Lopez
30th August 2004, 22:33
In the real world with real conditions Che did what he did, to talk about all this fancy idealism is pointless and not respectful of a man who did his best for oppressed peoples. This should be the work of right wingers, not ledfists.

Fer
31st August 2004, 01:50
"Anarchist tension" Che was the super hero for the poor and oppressed. He did not support the the ussr, he wanted their help. They were somewhat imperealist plus che and fidel where in this small 3rd world island standing up to the U.S. and world capitalism... They&#39;re lucky the ussr backed them up some how, and i know he executed people but it wasn&#39;t for selfish reason it was for the cause of liberation and security of the oppressed. ... I don&#39;t understand why u are a member of che-lives if you don&#39;t understand what guevarism is about... go join a capitalist/conservative website where they worship lyndon b. johnson or bush or some asshole...oh and by the way if i ever was in revolution and i ran in to u i would execute u.. u wouldn&#39;t be a comrade :ph34r:

The Feral Underclass
31st August 2004, 06:00
Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 03:50 AM
Che was the super hero for the poor and oppressed.
That settles it then


He did not support the the ussr, he wanted their help.

Prove it.


They&#39;re lucky the ussr backed them up some how, and i know he executed people but it wasn&#39;t for selfish reason it was for the cause of liberation and security of the oppressed

Highlight added.


... I don&#39;t understand why u are a member of che-lives

Admin baby.....


if you don&#39;t understand what guevarism is about

What is guevaraism about?


... go join a capitalist/conservative website where they worship lyndon b. johnson or bush or some asshole

Why would I do that?


...oh and by the way if i ever was in revolution and i ran in to u i would execute u.. u wouldn&#39;t be a comrade :ph34r:

U isn&#39;t a word.

bunk
31st August 2004, 08:03
I think guevarism is mostly about the guerrilla theory of focoism which i agree with but still wouldn&#39;t call myself a &#39;guevarist&#39;.

chebol
31st August 2004, 14:47
I reluctantly feel the need to respond.

If I swear Revolution in the name of, say, Che, then go off and exploit weak developing nations through my daddy&#39;s nice big multinational- does this make me a "guevarist"? What if I do it in the name of &#39;freeing&#39; them from dictatorships and local oppression? Does it make me a capitalist, a guevarist, a marxist? A bit mistaken? "It doesn&#39;t take a Newtonian to know that if you drop a glass, it will break." (Hugo Chavez Frias)

TAT, many of the points you make simply make no sense.

Others do.
There is some validity in questioning Che&#39;s strategy in Bolivia and the Congo- they failed, and that needs to be assessed, and the lessons made use of.

Also, the &#39;cult&#39; of Che- which this site, ironically, is as much a part of as any cheap Bolivan t-shirt (made in China, I expect, as mine is)- is also worthy of criticism; a point Che himself would have been in agreement with. Like modern manufactured opiates, images and ideals have become not only more entrenched in western society&#39;s alienation, but have multiplied until even &#39;progressive&#39; symbols can be &#39;detourned&#39; (for the record, before anyone even prompts; I am not a Situationist). So yes, valid criticism- if it were done honestly.

Similarly, Che&#39;s romantic notions of the Soviet Union and Stalin, which were subsequently shattered, are open for criticism- but ONLY in light of what Che himself actually did. In fact, given the benefit of hindsight, it would appear that the Soviet Union was more a tool of Fidel and Che than vice-versa. (Also, &#39;Marxism-Leninism-(Stalinism)-Maoism: chinese Marxism, and marxists, were a lot healthier before Stalin got involved and got tens of thousands of them killed- BEFORE the Chinese Revolution. Maoism owes much of it&#39;s dubious &#39;glory&#39; and it&#39;s rise to power to Stalin and Stalinism)

But your rant was little more than a slander- it took, out of context (and often out of reality), moments from Che Guevara&#39;s life and work and constructed the image of a monster. No mention of WHY Che did these things, no explanation of the circumstances in which they took place, and clearly no understanding of the dynamics of cuba society in the &#39;50&#39;s. (Less even than Che did, which is one reason why he elevated the guerrilla band out of context). If Che had based himself on the "old Castroist strategies", he WOULD have allied hiimself more with the working class. Indeed, in Bolivia he tried, and was betrayed by his own illusions in Bolivian society- but more so by the machinations of the Stalinist PCB.

No, Che is not, and was not a super hero. He was a flawed, idealistic and driven human being- like all of us. But he was a human being that acheived many great things, and did many regrettable ones, too.

Regrettable things like writing (or posting, it is unclear if TAT actually wrote the initial piece) the opening gambit in this thread. It is clearly based on ignorance and half-truths- or a wilfull desire to confuse and demoralise members of this board who are not familiar with the history of the Cuban Revolution and it&#39;s extensions. I would welcome a serious discussion on Che&#39;s failings, but this is nothing more than a bit of of a rant, with questionable motives.
You request people to "prove it"- well, you made the initial assertions, you prove them first. Give us the references to figures, dates, meetings, communiques, etc. That way, you could play a truly educative role, REALLY showing that Che was a vicious Stalinist. Otherwise, there will simply remain people on this board who will blankly argue for Che, and those that will blindly slander both him and Castro- but noone will change their mind except for the most impressionable.

Wiesty
31st August 2004, 16:58
Well looks like one mans opinion has been scattered by about 20 others

Micah EL Layl
1st September 2004, 03:24
peace.....
well.....the only successfull guerilla war with Che was the
war in Cuba.....and these revolutionaries did
redistribute the land, medical for everyone,
education for everyone, kicked the mafia out,
kicked the bloodsucking US corporations out....
gave refuge for black revolutionaries in
nOrth America....i could go on and on......
until you liberate a territory using legal
war tactics then you can never ever say
shit about Che or critique his shit......
punk *****.....

Colombia
4th September 2004, 02:45
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 30 2004, 12:32 PM
The politics that Guevara fought for was antithetical to working class liberation. Yes, he spent many nights being eaten by Mosquittos, etc etc etc, but he did it to allow a political elite to take control.


Can you define the political elite here?I&#39;m not reading you clearly.

bluerev002
4th September 2004, 06:01
Yo man, does it really matter if Che was a Communist?

Or does it matter how he did the things he did?

The point is he helped to take a country where people were dog shit and gave them dignity and all the things they need to live life. LIFE man, you cnat put a price on that. You have thousands of Cubans living in a pile of shit somewhere, and someone saved them.

Now tell me, can someone take a whole country and take it out of its misery without killing a single life? Or a hundred of htem atleast?

Saint-Just
4th September 2004, 19:41
"By 1963, Che had realised that Russian Stalinism was a shambles after a visit to Russia"

I think this statement is suggesting that Khrushchev&#39;s Russia was "Stalinism". This is incorrect. Che visited the USSR and what he stood against was the attitude of the party elite under Khrushchev. In John Lee Anderson&#39;s biography of Che this is described, I assume many people here have read that book.


Che admired Stalin as a leader of the first working class lead country, unaware like most of Stalin&#39;s crimes, only aware of his achievements.

Lies about Stalin originated in the 1930s. Furthermore, Che was not unaware of these lies since Khrushchev spouted many of these lies and criticised Stalin on the basis of these lies.

Munchimoniam
6th September 2004, 01:23
Why is an anarchist who dislikes Che administering a Che Guevara forum?

Fer
6th September 2004, 18:45
"Why is an anarchist who dislikes Che administering a Che Guevara forum?"

That;s what i&#39;m saying&#33; this asshole doesn&#39;t belong here&#33;

Hate Is Art
7th September 2004, 14:05
god knows, Joe is just confused, dont worry.