"Che was an enemy of freedom" ?

[DaRk-OnE]

what are your thoughts on this (with facts)


"Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a freethinker and a rebel."

[*REVOLUCIÓN*]

People who think che was an enemy to freedom
probably think just because he didn´t fight peacefully
he was a threat to peace and freedom.
But I don´t think so, just because he started wars
doesn´t mean there was freedom there before. The people there
were oppressed and almost rightless. Che wanted to change that
and give the the ultimate freedom, equality.

[Patchy]

Naturally Che was an enemy to freedom, for anyone with money. By setting a more socialist/communist state, you will be taking away from those who have more than enough and dividing it amongst everyone equally. So to the rich capitalists, Che is an enemy of freedom, a communist bastard, whatever.

But to the poor and the oppressed, Che is, as you said, a symbol of freedom. He went out of his way to help those who needed it. The world needs more people who share, and act, on his humanitarian viewpoints and put people first.

[Le People]

I do believe that equality is a good freedom, but Stalin's USSR was some what equal. Everbody except Uncle Joe line up against the wall, bend over and be screwed. Equality is shit if you don't have rights.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 14 2005, 03:31 AM
I do believe that equality is a good freedom, but Stalin's USSR was some what equal. Everbody except Uncle Joe line up against the wall, bend over and be screwed. Equality is shit if you don't have rights.

Haha.

[cubalibra]

Stalin's form of communism was not the one that Marx preached about. Che read the "Communist Manifesto" and was trying to create Marx version of communism which was pure, and just, and communal. Che loved Marx so much, he would refer to him as "Saint Karl" in the letters he wrote to his mother.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 08:38 PM
Stalin's form of communism was not the one that Marx preached about. Che read the "Communist Manifesto" and was trying to create Marx version of communism which was pure, and just, and communal. Che loved Marx so much, he would refer to him as "Saint Karl" in the letters he wrote to his mother.

Before responding I must ask whether your post is a jest.


"Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a freethinker and a rebel."

That Che was an enemy of freedom implies (on the part of the creator of this passage of rhetoric) that Marxism-Leninism, and most likely socialism, is an 'enemy of freedom'. Socialism charges capitalism with being the enemy of freedom. And, so for you, to think about whether you uphold the charges layed out against Che in this short excerpt, you must ask yourself whether you are in favour of socialism or capitalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DaRk-OnE
"Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet...blah, blah, blah."

Since you put this nonsense in quotes, I assume you didn't write it yourself.

Who did?


what are your thoughts on this (with facts)

Since the author of this piece of shit did not supply any facts, why are we obligated to do otherwise?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Commandante_Ant]

I dont think that comment could be further from the truth? Che was an enemy of freedom? He FOUGHT for the freedom of the Cuban people, lets get it straight...they were under a dictatorship, with no rights, watching their country act as a weekend plaything of the americans. When Fidel came into power, i'm sure 95% of the Cuban population were happy. Che was an enemy of the rich, of the privileged, of people who refused to believe in him and his beliefs. The man is a goddamn legend!

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Listen...before you go shooting your mouth off Commandante_Ant, let's get some things straight:

Political freedom. Does it exist in Cuba? By this, I mean are there any viable alternatives to Castro, when he passes other than his brother? Have you ever heard of political leaders emminating from Cuba?

So, if Che fully supported Castro (as many claim on this board, but I tend to disagree with), then Che didn't support freedom. He supported the idea that people were stupid, thus needed to focus all attention in one leader; whatever this leader decided was for their benefit, and if they disagreed, they were really wrong.

Sorta like what Christians think God is like; the omnipotent, omnipresent being that embodies all the good of the people. Thus, ppl are afraid to really see things against that; sorta 'taboo'.

[aberos]

although i agree with you knowledge 666 in saying that certain freedoms have been oppressed in cuba under castro in the name of equality, i would disagree with you if you mean to say that these surrendered freedoms are not worth the price. but that is not the question at hand, so let us return to that.

was che an enemy of freedom? is he unjustly emulated and idolized by the masses of central and south america as well as all around the world? the simple and plain answer to this question is that it is merely a matter of perspective. personally, i believe this is a flawed statement. che devoted his life while risking, and losing, everything in the name of equality and liberation from the corporate strangle hold that had, and still has, its grips firmly fastened around the necks of the working class of the world. although sometimes villified for his gung-ho militant style of accomplishing this, it is done erroneously because he is not in the minority when it comes to fighting for morals. people have fought for thousands of years over morals. he, in my opinion, was a man of intense fortitude and resolve that refused to accept anything less than complete equality and justness for all of the people of the world. to say that he is an enemy of freedom, to me, is complete idiocy.

but, a strong capitalist would argue that in fighting for complete equality for everyone, he trampled on the freedom of the corporate rein holders to exploit and do as they please. in taking away their ability to use the people and resources of the world as pawns in their elaborate chess game, he took away their freedom. also, in taking away a class system, he took away their freedom to generate material wealth. but, as a leftist, i would argue that in taking away their freedom to fall victim to greed and blood lust, he was trying to give them so much more in exchange.

like i said, a matter of perspective.

as to the comment stating that che loved marx, i think you should re-check your sources because you are a little confused i think. although che did adore and love marx and his philosophies early in his leftist development, he soon came to see many flaws and problems inherent in marx's teachings. in his personal copies of marx's works, che had made several revisions, notes, and changes where he thought they were necessary. that is not to say that he did not still respect marx's guidelines set forth in his teachings, but to suggest that he revered his is a little misguided.

furthermore, to use the ussr as an example in comparison to che's idea of an acceptable leftist state is entirely ludicrous because of his long and storied disenchantment with the soviet state. the seeping bourgeois greediness that had grabbed a hold of the state absolutely disgusted che to the point that he made public speeches reproaching the soviet state.

[Le People]

I think Che thought Castro would liberate and did what he could when the bastard pulled bait and switch. So he tried to over throw the man else where and ended up a myrat. Poor Che. :che:

[black]

Ernesto Guevara was an enemy of freedom.

Not because he practiced guerrila tactics, or indeed because he used violence. He was an enemy of real political freedom because he stood against the free expression and living of the people.

* "[He] 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!"

*He personally crushed the anarchist based trade unions. "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."


He does not deserve the stupid consumerist-backed personality cult. Stop relying on fools.

[JustinG]

Originally posted by DaRk-[email protected] 9 2005, 10:09 PM
what are your thoughts on this (with facts)


"Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a freethinker and a rebel."
It's funny how quotes like this via ignorant people get spewed consistantly.

They don't mind the fact that Che helped to overthrow a US Sponsored dictator (Batista Regime)

Anyways, About "Freedom" -- As orwell stated in his essay "Politics and the English Language" words like "Freedom" are used, manipulated, and butchered so much that they begin to lose meaning. Freedom doesnt mean anything anyone. It's a word to use against someone you don't like " you are against freedom"


stupid

[Le People]

Che did all he could. You must destroy before you can create. He destroyed bourgise Cuba and attempted to create a socailist Cuba. Fidel was an ass and Che told him to fuck himself and went to the congo.

[KC]

Fidel was an ass and Che told him to fuck himself and went to the congo.

Untrue.

[Le People]

You'er right! He told him to go fuck himself and went to boliva!

[KC]

You'er right! He told him to go fuck himself and went to boliva!

Untrue.

[MoscowFarewell]

Lazar, instead of the simple remark untrue, could you show otherwise? I am interested in your ideas on this.

[KC]

I could.

Che didn't leave Cuba because of Fidel; he left Cuba because he wanted to pursue his revolutionary goal of creating many vietnams. I'm not sure if this is the reason why he went to Congo (I don't remember), but that is why they chose Bolivia. They chose it as a staging ground for their South American 'nam from which it would spread to the rest of the continent.

As to the relationship between Che and Fidel; they clashed on some issues, but they were still close. Che renounced all ties to Cuba so he could speak and act how he wanted to (anti-imperialist) without Fidel getting shit from the Soviet Union (which Che railed against). Also, he didn't want Cuba to be blamed for his actions (even though his guerrilla fighters were trained in Cuba :rolleyes: ).

[balderdash]

It depends on how you define freedom.
If you define freedom as being able to show dissent, then Che was most definitely an enemy of freedom.

[Commandante_Ant]

yeah i would agree with that. a man of discipline.

[black]

It depends on how you define freedom.

An actual genuine state of being where you can live how you want, control your own life but in conjunction with those same needs and wants of other people.


If you define freedom as being able to show dissent, then Che was most definitely an enemy of freedom.

No, and no.


a man of discipline.

He sent men into battle with no fucking guns because they didn't agree with him. Call that discipline if you want. I'd call it tyranny and AGAINST any true DISSENT.
how quickly the revolutionary becomes the conservative!

[Le People]

What made Napolean a great general? He had discilpline unlike any other's. Some times a lesson that is extreme cause one to think twice.

[KC]

He sent men into battle with no fucking guns because they didn't agree with him.

Where? Cuba? Congo? Bolivia? Be more specific.

[aberos]

in cuba he from time to time temporarily took soldiers's guns as a penalty for crimes against the revolution and insubordination. i do not think the intent was to send them into battle without weapons, although this did happen a few times, but, rather, to put the fear of the devil in the men carrying no weapons because of the constant threat of enemy ambush. i can think of one occaision in particular when a comrade went into battle without a weapon due to being disciplined, but after showing his marbles on the battlefield, che immediately returned his weapon and commended him at length for his dedication and fortitude. that is not to say that i agree with the practice of taking away a comrade's weapon during wartime, but it was an effective method of discipline, and it was not quite as malicious as black suggested. much more often than not, as many soldiers as there were guns were on the battlefield. it is also important to keep in mind that when the cuban revolution began, not every soldier had a gun; and many of the guns that they did have were sub-par at best. so although taking a man's weapon away is a little outlandish, it was not quite as crazy in that situation as it might seem.

[Urban Guerrilla]

^ Interesting stuff. Do you remember what kind of crimes they did? :che:

[balderdash]

Ahhh, Black.
I am also not a fan of Che in the least for this. People say he fought for freedom, but what freedom? The freedom of all that supported him? What kind of freedom is that?

[aberos]

insubordination, lack of discipline or character, squabbling with comrades, etc. it was mainly done as a punishment for minor to moderate infractions.

[KC]

I am also not a fan of Che in the least for this. People say he fought for freedom, but what freedom? The freedom of all that supported him? What kind of freedom is that?

Was he supposed to fight for capitalists as well?

[balderdash]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 05:25 PM


I am also not a fan of Che in the least for this. People say he fought for freedom, but what freedom? The freedom of all that supported him? What kind of freedom is that?

Was he supposed to fight for capitalists as well?
Absoloutely not.
Death for dissent is ridiculous.
Che is like a Fascist gone wrong: the government works great if no one opposes it, but instead of doing 101 classes and 'converting' the people, he just killed them.

I'm sure you would say it was a tyranny if Marxists, and socialists were being slaughtered for them being against the current government.

[KC]

Absoloutely not.
Death for dissent is ridiculous.
Che is like a Fascist gone wrong: the government works great if no one opposes it, but instead of doing 101 classes and 'converting' the people, he just killed them.

I'm sure you would say it was a tyranny if Marxists, and socialists were being slaughtered for them being against the current government.

Could you provide evidence of any of this? I have yet to see any evidence of Che doing any such thing.

[balderdash]

Ernesto "Che" Guevara had all the characteristics of a ruthless dictator and opponent of freedom. He believed that the end justifies the means, and he fanatically adhered to this gospel. This "idealized icon" is the one who, as a modern day Grand Inquisitor, eliminated many of his foes with a single pistol shot to the back of their heads. And he is also the same one who authored these enhancing words printed in the identity booklets of young Cuban soldiers sent to fight in Angola: "Blind hate against the enemy creates a forceful impulse that cracks the boundaries of natural human limitations, transforming the soldier in an effective, selective and cold killing machine. A people without hate cannot triumph against the adversary."
http://www.today.ucla.edu/1997/971010CheShow.html


In his trenchant short study, Che Guevara, the British historian Andrew Sinclair concludes that, during the guerrilla war, Che 'discovered a cold ruthlessness in his nature. Spilling blood was necessary for the cause. Within two years, he would order the death of several hundred Batista partisans at La Cabana, one of the mass killings of the Cuban Revolution.' Later too, after the botched Bay of Pigs invasion by anti-Communist Cuban exiles, all the survivors were summarily shot.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/che/face.htm

Hmm, I'll admit I misread Anti-Che things before which made it appear as if he killed all dissidents, and for that I apologize.

[KC]

We've already covered this whole "shot to the back of the head thing" I thought.

And so what if all the Bay of Pigs exiles were shot? That's treason.

[black]

Are you seriously defending this dick?


it was not quite as crazy in that situation as it might seem.

No, he did it more than once he, did for the most hilariously small reasons and attacks on his petty "honour" and despite playing with the lives of those he considered as inferior it isn't the worst crime he committed. Not crazy, tyrannical.


You need an idol, no wonder it's so difficult for you to accept that he was less than revolutionary.

[KC]

No, he did it more than once he, did for the most hilariously small reasons and attacks on his petty "honour" and despite playing with the lives of those he considered as inferior it isn't the worst crime he committed. Not crazy, tyrannical.

Where is the evidence?

[pastradamus]

Originally posted by DaRk-[email protected] 9 2005, 10:27 PM
what are your thoughts on this (with facts)


"Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a freethinker and a rebel."
These thoughts are constructed by counter-revolutionaries. Bourgeois propaganda.
Che used violence as a means of liberation for the working classes of Cuba.
Guevara's natural enemies were the people who exploited latin America the local Bourgeois and US Government.
Of course they take a natural dislike to a person who despises their inhuman exploitation of their fellow man. He stood up against injustices in favour of every ethnic group, religion , nationallity he encountered. There are people who have never seen such squalor in a place and then go away mouthing off about Che when some have never read his various articles and books.
You'll never find out about your views on Che unless you find out for yourself.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by *REVOLUCIÓN*@Jul 10 2005, 05:16 PM
People who think che was an enemy to freedom
probably think just because he didn´t fight peacefully
he was a threat to peace and freedom.
But I don´t think so, just because he started wars
doesn´t mean there was freedom there before. The people there
were oppressed and almost rightless. Che wanted to change that
and give the the ultimate freedom, equality.
I am confident his intentions were for freedom and equality. And it is also a fact that the nations he organized revolts in were authoritarian and there wasn't any freedom in the first place. But ultimately, freedom is some way or another was not fully gained and freedom has arguably been restricted.

[pastradamus]

The political sides of the Revolution was run by Fidel not Che. Che never really liked the political sides of things and the responsibility is upon Castro to provide for his people politically. But he is restricted by way of the embargo.
If this Embargo wasn't in place im 100% positive that Cuba would be a huge success story in terms of living standards.

[Hiero]

If this Embargo wasn't in place im 100% positive that Cuba would be a huge success story in terms of living standards.

Well it is rather a huge success story in terms of living standards, since they are still a 3rd world country.

Its quite amazing what they can do with such little, and they are slowly growing to get back to the standards of production and usage that they had in the USSR years.

[Leif]

I believe that Che wasn't as good or as horrible a man as the extremes of this arguement would suggest.

Che started out bright eyed and honest, he tended to the wounds of the defeated enemy soldiers. Yet as time went on and his heart grew colder and the battles longer, he began to show us that he wasn't completely good. I know that he signed the execution for around 234 prisoners when he was Castro's right hand man. He has made some disturbing quotes about wanting to turn his soldiers into thoughtless, hateful, killing machines. After the split of Castro and Che, Enersto went to start a revolution in Bolivia, where he was captured by a US funded Bolivian counter insurgency team. He felt abandoned by Castro.

All in all, he did a great deal of good, and a great deal of bad. He liberated the Cuban people, yet helped bring forth a dictator. However repressive he may be, the quality of life for the average Cuban has gone up.

Che wasn't a peticularly good man, nor a bad one, he was just a human with dreams. He is an example of what every one of us could become, so we must all take heed. We must learn from the good parts and shun the bad.
Btw, nice icon Crazy-mod

[red_orchestra]

I think Che was a brilliant revolutionary, plain and simple. Che an "enemy of freedom"?!.... What the!!!
I find this statement to be odd because "freedom" in my mind means "no restrictions" so that would mean all countries in the world are "not free" because their are rules and regulations governing all levels of life in EVERY country in the world. Yep, that certainly goes for the US!! Bush's "freedom and democracy" lines have been proven a lie so many times...hey look, the religious right is trying to curb your human rights in the name of JESUS FUCKIN' CHRIST. But Bush and the patriotic crew would like to tell you that the US is a "free country". But if you were brainwashed, and born stupid you too might believe it.

I do not.

Che is an icon of RESISTANCE against OPPRESSION! He is a true hero!

[bunk]

Che was an enemy of the right to exploit your fellow humans

[black]

Where is the evidence?

From his own mouth;

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary," heard from the chief executioner, named Ernesto "Che" Guevara. "These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredon (The Wall)!"

The Paredon features a lot in some of Che's sicker displays, for example he made it a policy for his men to parade the families and friends of the executed before the blood-, bone- and brain-spattered wall. As is accepted by all who witnessed this.These were all public trials. And the executions, right down to the final shattering of the skull with the coup de grace from a massive .45 slug fired at five paces, were public too.

"He [Guevara] was fond of tying people up, blindfolding them and then popping a cap in the backs of their heads while their wives and children were forced to watch."

Is it not also true that he established the labor-camp system in which countless citizens--dissidents, democrats, artists, homosexuals--would suffer and die?

Statistics;
One defector claims that Che signed 500 death warrants, another says over 600. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega, who knew Che as early as 1954, writes in his book "Yo Soy El Che!" that Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad. In his book "Che Guevara: A Biography," Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first few years of the Castro regime.

He's also reported to have murdered children himself. Thus, Writer Humberto Fontova recounts the story of Pierre San Martin, another of Che’s prisoners. San Martin and 31 prisoners were crammed into a cell. Sixteen would try to sleep on the filthy floor while the others stood. Each time the rusty steel door of the cell would open, a handful of them would be led to the firing squad. Every prisoner wondered when that door would be one of the last sounds he would hear.

One morning when the door opened, a boy of 12 or 14 was shoved into the cell. He had been brutally beaten by Che’s goons for attempting, unsuccessfully, to save his father from the firing squad. Che’s guards soon returned for the boy, leading him away to the execution yard. The remaining prisoners watched Che strutting about the yard. When the boy was led to him, Che repeatedly ordered him to kneel down. The boy refused to die on his knees, and in frustration Che put a bullet through the back of his neck, nearly decapitating him. The boy’s erstwhile cellmates screamed at Che from their window, “Coward! Assassin! Son of a *****! How could you murder a little boy?” When Che had heard enough of this, he emptied the remainder of his pistol magazine at the window, wounding several of the prisoners.

Would you prefer I stuck to what he did to Industry and the Unions?

[fernando]

Still strange to see that such a cruel man is still loved and seen as a saintlike figure not only in Cuba, but also in the the rest of Latin America...

[black]

Saintlike, because they didn't know him.


There is an mystique surrounding his life (as there still is for Lenin, Trotsky even Stalin) but it's not the guy that people like, it's what they think he was about -the principles and passion within themselves that is transferred to a messiah-type figure outside of themselves. We don't need messiahs.

[fernando]

You might not need a messiah but the masses do, you can remain with the ignorant idea that all people are willing to think for themselves and rise up from themselves, but for some reason they need a figure like Che to let them rise up.

[black]

Are you a child?




you can remain with the ignorant idea that all people are willing to think for themselves and rise up from themselves

Infact, the reality is that's what they've always done when it came to true revolutionary situations. Messiahs/Leaders/Vanguards only stop, corrupt and halt this thinking and rising for themselves...without the latter you don't have anything close to radically transforming society for the better.

PS. nicely ignored the subject there, didn't ya!

[fernando]

ignored what subject? That you believe certain quotes to be full proof about torture and believe the words or gusanos?

People follow and get inspired by a leader, the Cuban revolution had Castro and Guevara in that persepctive. The Russian revolution had Lenin and his small group of revolutionaries. Name one revolution in which the entire population rose up from itself without following some sort of leader/icon/vanguard?

What's up with the child thing? trying to prove yourself or something?

[black]

What would it take for you to realise the barbarity of what he did?...D'you need to go to Cuba and see for youself the graves and prisons of the "Communist Regime"?


Name one revolution in which the entire population rose up from itself without following some sort of leader/icon/vanguard?

Every revolution, in the meaningful sense. The funny thing is, most people with a grain of knowledge of popular uprising know they've always happened without being directed and guided. Situations in France, Russia, Spain, the Ukraine, Italy...the point is revolutions cannot be guided. Name me one example where a genuine revolutionary situation has benfitted from a group of "enlightened figures" trying to lead it.

[fernando]

What would it take for you to realise the barbarity of what he did?...D'you need to go to Cuba and see for youself the graves and prisons of the "Communist Regime"?
Yes the revolution should have been done by talking like so: "look here enemies...we dont like you...please stop exploiting the people" dream on! revolutions are bloody things.


France
was that the one followed with the rise of power of that imperialistic megalomaniac?


Russia
Lenin and his small group, not the masses rising up like in the propaganda film...


Spain
Yes...shortly followed by being led by a sort of pro fascist nazi leader...

In Cuba the revolution was created by Castro and his followers, the masses later on followed, kicking out the dictator Batista.

[red_orchestra]

So what?!....Che used lethal force. So did US troops in Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. Killing is killing, revolution is usually involves killing. Che, still, in my mind did what he had to do to create a new Cuba.

Violence as horrific as it maybe is sometimes justified. Long live Socialism! Che is an icon of resistance against imperialism!

[Hiero]

So what your saying is the revolution is violent?

We already knew that.

[black]

Originally posted by "fernando"
revolutions are bloody things.

There's a wee bit of a difference between the use of force to defend a revolution (I mean a real one) and the mass slaughter, imprisonment and oppression of anyone who gets in your way. Some of the thing El "Che" has done, and are ignored, go to the very definition of inhumanity and injustice.

Also, your little list of revolutionary situations doesn't really understand what I mean. A la;


was that the one followed with the rise of power of that imperialistic megalomaniac?

No it's the one where the common people united together for a time and openly practised and organised their way of life in greater democracy and equality. This happened more than once in France, but the Paris Commune despite its bourgeois leanings has a number of good characteristics.


Lenin and his small group, not the masses rising up like in the propaganda film...

The 1905 revolts and 1917 February revolution (which were limited but radical) were in fact quite spontaneous and completely surprised the ruling class not least of all the "revolutionary" parties such as the Bolsheviks. The October Revolution was carried out in an easier sense by worker and sailors who advocated greater soviet power and socialism. They in part supported the Bolsheviks because they parroted such policies but not what they become. The Party soon stagnated and flattened any genuine popular social revolution and the self-same sailors who had stormed the government buildings at first revolted against them.


Yes...shortly followed by being led by a sort of pro fascist nazi leader...

Characterised by a massive area of land and city being collectivised and semi-autonomised by the people who increased production, started a revolution and fought the fascists at the same time. It was one of the greatest examples of anarchism in practice and was a success if not because it lasted but because of what it achieved in the time it had and against incredible odds...

...in Cuba, Castro took power by a small band who were only partly supported by the Cuban people who wanted to get rid of Batista and his corruption and oppression but were then forced to accept another dictatorship under different circumstances. What has risen is by far a crap example of "socialism" in practice.

[KC]

Is it not also true that he established the labor-camp system in which countless citizens--dissidents, democrats, artists, homosexuals--would suffer and die?


Hahahaha