Contradictions of Che Guevara.

[ReD_ReBeL]

So Che was a strong opponent of Authoritarian and bureaucratic style governments as it exploits the working man and creates a new Elite as he explains in his book Che Guevara on global justice, yet he openly supported Stalin and Chairman Mao...How does this work?

[Janus]

So Che was a strong opponent of Authoritarian and bureaucratic style governments as it exploits the working man and creates a new Elite as he explains in his book
Yes, that is why he did volunteer work and supported the idea of a "new man" in conjunction with the socialist state.

Che simply thought that the Chinese model was more "pure" than the Soviet system where the bureacratization and priveleges of the elite were glaringly clear. In one visit to a Soviet official's house, he remarked:"So the proletariat eats off of French porcelain." Che still supported the idea of a government but he tried to get rid of the excesses as much as he could.

[Sentinel]

He was very leninist, and really believed in the role of the "vanguard" as rolemodels for the proletariat. Say what you want about that, but I find his Man and Socialism in Cuba inspiring in its obvious honesty and sincerity. The Leninist model sure would have a better "shot" at succeeding were all leninists like Che.. :)

[ReD_ReBeL]

I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good." -Che

That sentence by Guevara seems to confuse me . As i stated earlier Che wrote that he was a strong opponent of Authoritarian governments because it exploits the working man and creates a new elite<as he states in Che Guevara on Global Justice, yet he comes out with the sentence i just quoted. Someone explian this to me please&#33;

Stalin lived a luxury lifestyle, owning 4 residences each with a jacuzi and tennis court. And he created a new elite class which Che says he is against.

[Clarksist]

Che read Stalin as a teenager... in fact, his readings of Stalin were some of his first introductions to Marxism. His actions did not show that he was a stalinist, but what I think he is saying, is that Stalin was the first he read and that he kept reading it for information.

But I&#39;ve been wrong before. :lol:

[fernando]

Che Guevara read a lot about lots of political subjects and ideologies, this was because when he was younger the asthma was worse on him, forcing him to stay home a lot. Or something in those lines

[Wanted Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 03:25 AM
Stalin lived a luxury lifestyle, owning 4 residences each with a jacuzi and tennis court.
Never read that before.

[ReD_ReBeL]

Never read that before.

Buy the book Stalin:The court of the red tsar. it&#39;s a non-biased book about life in the kremlin and those in the Communist Party of the Stalin Era. It shows his wicked side ie. force collectivization of peasants with barely any food, but yet his softer side with his wife and his daghter Svetlana.Also him getting drunk with Winston Churchill lol.

[viva le revolution]

The cout of the red tsar is not biased? :lol:
Your trust in sensationalsit propaganidist literature is touching.

[ReD_ReBeL]

im guessing your view of something that is not biased is a book that praises Stalin?

[viva le revolution]

Actually there is a book; "another view of Stalin". That answers the basic accusations levelled against comrade Stalin by the Bourgeoisie and Trotskyites. However another interesting article would be comrade Mao&#39;s critiique of Stalin&#39;s policies.
However a sensationalist book going for &#39;shock value&#39; certainly isn&#39;t my idea of an unbiased source. Much like MAO:A BIOGRAPHY by Ross Terrill, this book levells unfounded character assasinations without really backing up arguements nor positions. Only the &#39;insanity&#39; arguement in thier opinion suffices. Not bad for a book aimed at the general petty-boutgeois but for a Marxist to actually uphold such a poor piece of literature and actuallt reccommend it leaves something to be desired in my opinion.
"hey i just read my life by Bill Clinton, he says Gorbachev was great so he must have been" not that i am making a comparison but you get the general idea. The book another view of Stalin actually has interviews and excerpts from american and europpean engineers and communists that actually were in Russia. Instead of a poor intellectual sitting in the west regurgititating &#39;My life&#39;.
The fabrications in that book are awe-inspiring, kind of makes the author look like one hell of a fiction writer. Of course needless to say none of the arguements made in the book are backed up by any actual facts or reasoning. Again i re-iterate: your faith in sensationalist literature is touching. :) :D :lol: :wub:

[Wanted Man]

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html

That&#39;s the book viva means. Anyway, correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but isn&#39;t Montefiore&#39;s book basically just an attempt to prove that Stalin was a monster or something?

[ReD_ReBeL]

most articles on Stalin i have read pretty much show him as a &#39;monster&#39;. But Where is this evidence to show that he wasn&#39;t some brute? to be honest Montefiore&#39;s book does show him as a monster, but not everything written is used to discredit him.You have to read for yourself but i&#39;ll give you a discription of where he got his information for the book. Heres a little paragraph from the inside cover of the book.
Based on a wealth of new materials from stalin&#39;s archives just recently opened, interviews with witnesses and massive research from moscow to the Black Sea, this is a sensitive but damning portrait of the Genghis Khan of our epoch.

Also explains that Simon Sebag Montefiore spent most of the nineties travelling through the ex-soveit empire , particularly the Caucasus, Ukraine and central Asia and wrote widely on Russia. But i may be a little biased towards Stalin so don&#39;t take my word as to sway your opinion on Stalin. I hate Stalin where he said int he book and i quote "Tsar Ivan was a great wise ruler ...wise...not to let foreigners into the country.Peter the Great&#39;s also a great Tsar but treated foreigners to liberally"