Che's Flaws

[aenomaly]

Hey im new to this board, so if this has been dicussed before, sorry. Che is my favorite historical figure and definetely one of the most intriguing and inspiring. I think he was a great man, but also had many flaws. He seemed to possess the "either your for me or against me" mentality too strongly and he I think he got caught up in his own dogma too much. He set up prisons, that instituted torture and murder, for people who were against the communist party. Seems rather fascist to me. I remember reading somewhere, that this Cuban human rights activist who was imprisoned, recalled Che even taking pleasure in the torture of particular people. And through his warfare in latin america he killed unnarmed people, just because they were supporters of the government. Part of me thinks Che is a hero, but the other part of me just can't get past all the brutal things he did. I'm not trying to bash Che here, Im leftist like most of you. I'm just interested in learning more about him and your thoughts about these things. And in order to really understand a person, you must acknowledge the good things the person did as well as the bad things, or else you'll only be getting half the person. So please share your thoughts.

[Subversive Pessimist]

He seemed to possess the "either your for me or against me" mentality too strongly and he I think he got caught up in his own dogma too much.


In what way?



He set up prisons, that instituted torture and murder, for people who were against the communist party.


I've heard about the executions at the la cabana fortress, but not this. Could you give us some documentation, please?



Seems rather fascist to me.


I don't know. Is there anything in the ideology fascism that says that people should be tortured and murdered?




I remember reading somewhere, that this Cuban human rights activist who was imprisoned, recalled Che even taking pleasure in the torture of particular people.


I've read the same thing, written by a conservative. I wouldn't take it too seriously, except if proven.


Are we talking about Batista loyalists? I would have taken pleasure (on a political ground, of course) in seeing people in the Bush administration being killed.






And through his warfare in latin america he killed unnarmed people, just because they were supporters of the government.


Not in Boliviva. He did execute people in Cuba though.

If they helped the government with logistics or information, I see no reason for them to not to be executed.



And in order to really understand a person, you must acknowledge the good things the person did as well as the bad things, or else you'll only be getting half the person.


I agree.

[NovelGentry]

It would appear ComradeStrawberry has already responded to most of this, and I'd take the time if it wasn't the same old right-wing bullshit about the evil Che Guevara, one particular thing you said really does make me wonder where they get their information from:


And through his warfare in latin america he killed unnarmed people, just because they were supporters of the government.

This was simply not the case. In fact, Che points out in his own writings that even armed enemies were captured when they could be and if they were to surrender they were often times only stripped of their clothes, guns, and whatever else and sent back bare-assed to their bases. It was also the case when he was an early doctor, and I'm sure later that they would heal many of the wounded enemies that they could. Now I do realize Che could lie about this, but it would seem kinda weird to lie about killing direct enemies when he makes it quite obvious that they killed traitors to the revolution. It was simply the case in their style of combat that a person who would leave (under the assumption of helping the enemy or not) was much more of a threat to the survival of the guerrillas than was any single enemy who attacked on site. Stealing food was in fact, in some cases, punishable by death, as was the case that they were already in poor condition due to starvation half the time to begin with.... necessary food became a matter of life and death for the guerrillas, and a desserting guerrilla knows this. Take it how you will, but if you're going to dessert and take a bunch of food away from what you once considered comrades (who mind you are starving), I'd say that's far more malicious than some foot soldier following orders.

[Subversive Pessimist]

Well said, NovelGentry.

But we must also remember that he did not kill his men just because some of them may have deserted.


A certain person in the Bolivian guerilla was seeing things that was not connected to reality, due to the hardship of guerilla warfare.

They both agreed to that he was to go home after 9 months, I think.
Guevara didn't just shoot people for just leaving the guerilla.


However, like NG said, deserting a group and in addition to steal food from the guerilla who are at times, at the brink of starving to death, is criminal.

[aenomaly]

This is where I got some of the info:

http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/C/Che-Guevara.htm

"In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners."

I don't think anyone, especially the government, has the right to kill another human being. But that's just my opinion.

[NovelGentry]

But we must also remember that he did not kill his men just because some of them may have deserted.

Actually... he did. But I wasn't referring to the Bolivian attempt as you later brought up, I was referring to what happened during the Cuban Revolution. Dessertion (with or without food) was a matter of life and death. It was in fact a very clear rule that it was punihsable by death, although not often enforced, it was on occasion. In fact if I recall Che points out several situations where people asked if they could leave, where such a thing along was punishable (although not necessarily with death). In some cases people were allowed to, in others not. This mind you was something that was born out of the knowledge of what had happened when people begain desserting to begin with -- there is of course no way to tell whether or not they told the enemy anything or whether or not they were actively working for the enemy if they were found again. Remember, desserting isn't really punishable by death if you don't get caught, and if you do get caught... it's more than likely that you were headed back to the general area where their camps were or towards places you'd knew they'd be attacking... why would you do such a thing knowing the penalty could be death unless you were given some sort of benefits from the enemy?

In response to aenomaly:

Many people who are considered political prisoners are indeed NOT political prisoners but on US agency bankroll for one purpose or another. It was the case then and it is the case now. Furthermore, the majority of persecution done post-revolution in Cuba was a persecution done by the people, while Guevara may have been the final judge there were a number of open and public trials in which poor and working class people pointed out the pains they suffered from many of these "political prisoners" which included a number of higher ranking officers in Batista's army. Certainly there were also a number of bourgeois characters who were being punished for their exploitation.

If there's one thing you should grasp about Marxism early and quick it is that capitalism has to exploit the working class in order to work, it is what makes capital (as an accumulation of labour) continually possible. In doing so capitalism (and in particular high ranking executives in business in capitalist society) is to blame for the death of many many people, more than one could probably ever hope to count in a lifetime.

Let me ask you this, given that it's pretty well known many clothing manufacturers use sweatshops in foreign countries where people are underpaid, starving, and in many cases dying due to heat, exhaustion, or work place injuries... do you not think the CEOs of these companies should be punished?

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:50 PM
Hey im new to this board, so if this has been dicussed before, sorry. Che is my favorite historical figure and definetely one of the most intriguing and inspiring. I think he was a great man, but also had many flaws. He seemed to possess the "either your for me or against me" mentality too strongly and he I think he got caught up in his own dogma too much. He set up prisons, that instituted torture and murder, for people who were against the communist party. Seems rather fascist to me. I remember reading somewhere, that this Cuban human rights activist who was imprisoned, recalled Che even taking pleasure in the torture of particular people. And through his warfare in latin america he killed unnarmed people, just because they were supporters of the government. Part of me thinks Che is a hero, but the other part of me just can't get past all the brutal things he did. I'm not trying to bash Che here, Im leftist like most of you. I'm just interested in learning more about him and your thoughts about these things. And in order to really understand a person, you must acknowledge the good things the person did as well as the bad things, or else you'll only be getting half the person. So please share your thoughts.
Che was great. Anything to the contrary notwithstanding. Che was created by the CIA. Without the CIA and Yanqui imperialism Che could not have existed. Before Che there was only Dr. Ernesto Guevara de la Serna Lynch.

Violence? "Revolutionary justice is the true justice." Che Guevara

In the American lexicon, in addition to good and bad bases
and missiles, there are good and bad revolutions. The American
and French Revolutions were good. The Cuban Revolution is bad.
It must be bad because so many people have left Cuba as a result
of it.
But at least 100,000 people (out of a population of 4 million whites) left the British colonies in America during and after the American Revolution. These Tories
could not abide by the political and social changes, both actual
and feared, particularly that change which attends all
revolutions worthy of the name: Those looked down upon as
inferiors no longer know their place. (Or as the US Secretary of
State put it after the Russian Revolution: The Bolsheviks sought
"to make the ignorant and incapable mass of humanity dominant in
the earth."
The Tories fled to Nova Scotia and Britain carrying tales of
the godless, dissolute, barbaric American revolutionaries. Those
who remained and refused to take an oath of allegiance to the new
state governments were denied virtually all civil liberties.
Many were jailed, murdered, or forced into exile. After the
American Civil War, thousands more fled to South America and
other points, again disturbed by the social upheaval. How much
more is such an exodus to be expected following the Cuban
Revolution? -- a true social revolution, giving rise to changes
much more profound than anything in the American experience. How
many more would have left the United States if 90 miles away lay
the world's wealthiest nation welcoming their residence and
promising all manner of benefits and rewards?

Killing Hope by william Blum

http://www.killinghope.org/

[aenomaly]

[QUOTE]Let me ask you this, given that it's pretty well known many clothing manufacturers use sweatshops in foreign countries where people are underpaid, starving, and in many cases dying due to heat, exhaustion, or work place injuries... do you not think the CEOs of these companies should be punished?[QUOTE]

Absolutely. But they shouldn't be executed and tortured. And people who speak out in favor of sweatshops (as disturbing as that is) shouldn't be punished. They're expressing their opinion, and no matter how contrary it is to mine they shouldn't be punished. It seems Guevera punished not only the perpetrators but also those supporters. I agree with punishing the former (not with death or torture), but not the latter. People have the right to hold their own opinions, as long as they don't inflict them on other people.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:50 PM
Hey im new to this board, so if this has been dicussed before, sorry. Che is my favorite historical figure and definetely one of the most intriguing and inspiring. I think he was a great man, but also had many flaws. He seemed to possess the "either your for me or against me" mentality too strongly and he I think he got caught up in his own dogma too much. He set up prisons, that instituted torture and murder, for people who were against the communist party. Seems rather fascist to me. I remember reading somewhere, that this Cuban human rights activist who was imprisoned, recalled Che even taking pleasure in the torture of particular people. And through his warfare in latin america he killed unnarmed people, just because they were supporters of the government. Part of me thinks Che is a hero, but the other part of me just can't get past all the brutal things he did. I'm not trying to bash Che here, Im leftist like most of you. I'm just interested in learning more about him and your thoughts about these things. And in order to really understand a person, you must acknowledge the good things the person did as well as the bad things, or else you'll only be getting half the person. So please share your thoughts.
Aenomaly,

You've mentioned many things which Che posessed. His mentality was either for or against the revolution, nobody was in between. He also was very absolute on his solutions. There are stories about him storming into houses demanding shelter and holding the family at gun point. I wouldn't doubt this, because Che was looking out for the revolution, and continuing it by any means.

You'll find alotta ppl on this board will defend Che to the utmost. Why? Because they cannot for the life of them, hear anything against their idol. Don't fall in this trap. There are many things written against Che that have SOME justification to it...he wasn't a saint, despite the distorted image many here portray of the man.

I'm a leftist, and I do side with any revolutionary looking for equal representation of the working class - I've studied Che for years now, and feel I know a considerable length of his legacy, his life but more importantly - his weaknesses.

Don't have a distorted view of him - he made many errors in Bolivia, most notably leading up to his death. He made men carry 70kg backpacks for days hiking, without stopping for rest. That's a horrible military tactic if you ask me.

Che was a great man indeed...but we can't sanitize his bad points and screw-ups. If we do, then we'll have a CNN-type view...portraying only one side of a character.

[NovelGentry]

Absolutely. But they shouldn't be executed and tortured. And people who speak out in favor of sweatshops (as disturbing as that is) shouldn't be punished. They're expressing their opinion, and no matter how contrary it is to mine they shouldn't be punished. It seems Guevera punished not only the perpetrators but also those supporters. I agree with punishing the former (not with death or torture), but not the latter. People have the right to hold their own opinions, as long as they don't inflict them on other people.

Why should they not be executed if they have lead countless numbers of others to their death for their own profit? As for speaking out in favor of, I would agree, this is a form of expression, a disgusting one, but still only expression. Where you cross the line is when you not only speak out for them, but actively participate in sustaining. The Capital which exists as accumulated labour of man (theoretically all capital since buildings, machines, etc,.. are all accumulated labour) only serves to suppress the working class more. When nike was a much smaller name they may not of had any sweatshops, but their sweatshops made for increased production, that pared with good marketing, sensationalism, and reactionary thinking got them to be a huge megacorporation that now probably has thousands of sweatshops. This is not excusable by any means, expressing yourself doesn't kill or harm other people, this does. If you believe in the death penalty at all this should warrant it above a number of other crimes, it is effectively mass murder justified. But yes, once again, the latter example where it is a form of expression, while disgusting, is not actually inflicting this death on others.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Personally, if I were fighting for a revolution, and I saw ppl disagreeing with it and trying to stop me...i wouldn't care too much. I know that the revolution will be successful, despite the haters...if I dont know the revolution will be successful, it was a failure to begin with.

Gandhi did the same thing in India - Bhagat Singh was trying to promote a socialist state, and in turn was killed at the hands of the British. Gandhi, knowing the British would've executed him, did nothing to stop the death...even though he could have. Gandhi knew Singh was a threat to his revolution...and thus, eliminated him not directly, but indirectly.

[leftist resistance]

"In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners."

I didn't know about that.Are there any other sources that agree with the claim?

[fernando]

I know that Che was very harsh on his troops, this would probably be the result of him being very hard on himself, especially after what he has been through, the whole asthma thing, him conquering it he expects his men to be able to do the same.

[Agent provocateur]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 03:31 AM

"In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners."

I didn't know about that.Are there any other sources that agree with the claim?
Don't believe that dolt. The best accounts---from Richard Gott and Jon Lee Anderson---- say that out of a possible 500 defendants under Che's responsibilty 50 were executed. These 50 were resposible for gouging out eyes, pulling out fingernails and other niceties against the people of Cuba. Where does "aenomaly" get his information? From right-wing fascist exiles in Miami! And their facts are erroneous. Trust me, I live in Miami and I know them too well.


A review of Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life, Grove Press, 1997, Author: Jon Lee Anderson

by Stew Albert

Che Guevara's first task for the new government was to take charge of its revolutionary tribunals. Without defending the use of firing squads, Anderson points out that while the trials were of a summary military nature, legal niceties were respected. The accused had lawyers, accusations were based on real evidence and all convictions were subject to appeal. Those charged were not simple opponents of Castro's policies, they were accused of torture and sometimes multiple murders. Critics of the executions seldom say their subjects were unjustly accused. When defending the tribunals as just, Castro and Guevara pointed to the extreme punishments that were exacted in Europe after World War II against those who had collaborated with the Nazis and fascists.

[leftist resistance]

Originally posted by Agent provocateur+Dec 6 2004, 03:54 PM--> (Agent provocateur @ Dec 6 2004, 03:54 PM)
[email protected] 6 2004, 03:31 AM

"In 1959, Che Guevara was appointed commander of the La Cabana Fortress prison. During his term as commander of the fortress from 1959-1963, he oversaw the executions of hundreds of political prisoners and regime opponents (estimates range from 500 to 1700). Many individuals imprisoned at La Cabana, such as poet and human rights activist Armando Valladares, allege that Guevara took particular and personal interest in the interrogation, torture, and execution of some prisoners."

I didn't know about that.Are there any other sources that agree with the claim?
Don't believe that dolt. The best accounts---from Richard Gott and Jon Lee Anderson---- say that out of a possible 500 defandants under Che's responsibilty 50 were executed. These 50 were resposible for gouging out eyes, pulling out fingernails and other niceties against the people of Cuba. Where does "aenomaly" get his information? From right-wing fascist exiles in Miami! And their facts are erroneous. Trust me, I live in Miami and I know them too well.


A review of Che Guevara, A Revolutionary Life, Grove Press, 1997, Author: Jon Lee Anderson

by Stew Albert

Che Guevara's first task for the new government was to take charge of its revolutionary tribunals. Without defending the use of firing squads, Anderson points out that while the trials were of a summary military nature, legal niceties were respected. The accused had lawyers, accusations were based on real evidence and all convictions were subject to appeal. Those charged were not simple opponents of Castro's policies, they were accused of torture and sometimes multiple murders. Critics of the executions seldom say their subjects were unjustly accused. When defending the tribunals as just, Castro and Guevara pointed to the extreme punishments that were exacted in Europe after World War II against those who had collaborated with the Nazis and fascists. [/b]
Thanks

[Colombia]

He was filled with hot gas.

He tried to do things which just couldn't be done yet and the consequences were quite harsh.