Che - Authoritarian?

[Red October]

i was discussing che with a friend and she accused che of being authoritarian. what are your thoughts on his supposed authoritarianism?

[Aurora]

Che was openly supportive of stalin and mao.But his actions were nothing like theres. Was he an authoritarian? That depends what you think authoritarianism is.

[bezdomni]

Define "authoritarian".

This word gets thrown around far too much without any real understanding of it.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 11:18 pm
Che was openly supportive of stalin and mao.But his actions were nothing like theres. Was he an authoritarian? That depends what you think authoritarianism is.
Initially, yes. But I don't think he held onto these views all of his life. Che grew very disillusioned with the Soviet Union after his visits there and he became disillusioned with Soviet-style socialism in general. One of the major reasons for his swing away from Stalinism was seeing the apathy of the Latin American communist parties in regards to revolution. The Communist parties were very reluctant to help Che spread the revolution, and many of Che's allies and guerrillas on the Bolivian mission were Trotskyite students.

[blake 3:17]

While I disagree with the following piece, I respect its author a Cuban born revolutionary socialist: The Resurrection of Che Guevara by Samuel Farber. (http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue25/farber25.htm)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Revolution is inherently authoritarian because it is one class suppressing another.

Every revolutionary has been and will be authoritarian in their ideology.

[Leo]

There was a piece about Che Guevara by the Anarchist Federation:

http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967

[Entrails Konfetti]

The young Che', to me anyways seemed to be very idealistic without much knowledge of what was going on with Communism at that time, or with alot of Communisms history-- but really not to many people did know because the Communist Parties at that time were aligned with the PRC or USSR and the propaganda intentionally left out major things, and all the other smaller Communist groups just weren't able to propagate on that level.

The older Che' had more knowledge of the USSR and PRC from his travels-- which made him one their biggest critics, yet at the same time Cuba depended on those countries aid. He was dissillusioned with those countries, and didn't want to become just another Aparachuk, so he became part of the tri-continental -- which was a congress of critical socialist and Communists from Asia, Africa, and South America-- they were tired of being treated as pawns by the USSR and PRC.

Also because of his disillusionment he lead a guerilla band in Bolivia. But that proved fruitless since the parties in that country didn't help him out because they were aligned to the PRC or USSR, and the guerilla band (or foco) to them represented defiance. Due to lack of support there wasn't a propaganda machine, or a proper training facility, also maybe the focoist method was just ineffective.

I doubt anyone can figure out who Che' was on the night of his execution-- other than a critic. Did he infact become a Trotskyist ?
We'll never know.
But he's helped us in the way of methods and tactics-- that it's not wise to plant revolution at first by insurrection, aswell as being one of the most prominent pro-USSR & PRC-turned-critics.

[Big Boss]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2006 07:08 am
There was a piece about Che Guevara by the Anarchist Federation:

http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967
I think that the anarquists are pretty pissed at him!!

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Big Boss+November 15, 2006 03:32 pm--> (Big Boss @ November 15, 2006 03:32 pm)
Leo [email protected] 10, 2006 07:08 am
There was a piece about Che Guevara by the Anarchist Federation:

http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967
I think that the anarquists are pretty pissed at him!! [/b]
Anarchists in general are pissed at revolutionaries.

[Severian]

A lot of these same tired slanders were refuted in this thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55033) among others.

[Comrade_Scott]

My views on this are this... where as che may have liked the whole "Authoritarian"type rule he never realy had time to practice it as he spent much of his time spreading revolution.... however as comrade LeftyHenry said Revolution is inherently authoritarian so we may never know but to me his actions showed that he was not big on authoritarianism even though he was a fan of it(on paper) but thats just my view

[dannie]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10, 2006 01:08 pm
There was a piece about Che Guevara by the Anarchist Federation:

http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967
I'm what some would consider an anarchist of some kind, but this article is just utter crap. They give an unbalanced and extremly biased account, citing no sources or evidence. Anarchist propaganda if you will.

Che is what got me really interested in revolutionary politics, read a lot about him, but my best guess would be that Che was a person that demanded from other people the same discipline and engagement he displayed from other people. Wich I guess could be translated into an "authoritarian" personality. Altough being extremely consequent and true to your believes in your actions, this can be a really shitty quality because I don't believe forcing this on others is a right he had. I can however understand how he protected the guerilla band by executing informers.

[forza_che]

Che became particularly critical of the USSR because Cuba was forced to rely on Russia economically as it bought most Cuba's sugar exports and insisted as part of this agreement that Cuba didn't help to actively spread revolution in South America.

Che was for international revolution and in particular thought they should be helping Latin America to revolt but Castro recognised the Soviet's economic reliance and Russia and felt they should try and keep the Soviets happy.

I've always been interested in something Che claims in some of his writing's that socialism and the revolutionary progress depends on educating and changing people to become progressive socialists who wish to help their fellow man and he claimed this was the only way a socialist society could work in the long run.

He claimed the Soviets went into the 'dead end' of trying to promise and satisfy the greeds of Russians by claiming they would be better off under Communism when the right and proper thing to do would be to encourage education and helping the people to realise that while initial sacrificies must be made in the long run things will be better.

That may be one other reason for his criticisms of the USSR.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Che became particularly critical of the USSR because

I think it was more that he was anti-revisionist and the USSR was revisionist. For some reason Fidel wanted close ties with the USSR while Che prefered the PRC. I guess it was because the USSR was stronger at the time?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade_Scott+November 17, 2006 09:22 pm--> (Comrade_Scott @ November 17, 2006 09:22 pm)where as che may have liked the whole "Authoritarian"type rule he never realy had time to practice it as he spent much of his time spreading revolution.... [/b]
and

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 03:42 pm
Che was for international revolution and in particular thought they should be helping Latin America to revolt but Castro recognised the Soviet's economic reliance and Russia and felt they should try and keep the Soviets happy.

and

LeftyHenr[email protected] 30, 2006 03:40 pm
For some reason Fidel wanted close ties with the USSR while Che prefered the PRC. I guess it was because the USSR was stronger at the time?

All are false, and have something in common. They all tend to separate Che from the Cuban revolution and the rest of the leadership of that revolution. His biggest accomplishment was helping to make the Cuban revolution, so this definitely diminishes Che. He's set up as a lone hero in the bourgeois romantic tradition.

In reality: Che was a leader of the Cuban government for a number of years - commanded an army post, headed the Agrarian Reform, the Ministry of Industry, the National Bank. If his approach was Stalinist, there was plenty of time to display that - but the opposite is true.

And there was no basic divergence between Che and Fidel on Cuban foreign policy. Not on spreading revolution - the efforts Che led in Congo and Bolivia were organized by the Cuban government. And not on attitude towards the USSR and China.

(It was only after '68 that Soviet pressure made the Cuban government pull back somewhat from aid to Latin American guerillas. The failure of the various guerilla attempts was also a factor - the Cuban government felt the need to rethink methods. The tactical pullback was temporary; Cuba's revolutionary internationalist foreign policy has been permanent.)

As for attitude towards the USSR and PRC, here's some facts and sources I've posted before:
The claim is that Che supported the Chinese side of the Chinese-Soviet split, and that this led to conflict with Fidel. Nobody's been able to point to any statement by Che where he expressed such a view, and I've found one that definitely contradicts it.

It's from his famous "Message to the Tricontinental", one of his last general public statements. Here's what Che actually thought about the Chinese-Soviet split:


When we analyze the isolation of the VietNamese we are overcome by anguish at this illogical moment in the history of humanity. U.S. imperialism is guilty of aggression. Its crimes are immense, extending over the whole world. We know this, gentlemen! But also guilty are those who at the decisive moment hesitated to make VietNam an inviolable part of socialist territory-- yes, at the risk of a war of global scale, but also compelling the U.S. imperialists to make a decision. And also guilty are those who persist in a war of insults and tripping each other up, begun quite some time ago by the representatives of the two biggest powers in the socialist camp.

Let us ask seeking an honest answer: Is VietNam isolated or not, as it tries to maintain a dangerous balancing act between the two quarreling powers?
Emphasis added.
source (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/2.3_che_tricont.html)

As on most other issues, this is basically similar to the ideas expressed by Fidel, in this March 1965 speech for example:

Without a doubt, the South Vietnamese people and the people of North Vietnam are suffering all this and suffering it in their own flesh, because there it is men and women who die, in the south and in the north, victims of the shrapnel and Yankee bombings. They do not have the slightest hesitancy in declaring that they intend to continue to carry all that out because not even the attacks against North
Vietnam have resulted in overcoming the divisions in the bosom of the socialist family.

And who can doubt that this division is encouraging the imperialists? Who
can doubt that a united front against the imperialist enemy would have made
them hesitate--would have made them think a little more carefully before
launching their adventurist attacks and their increasingly more brazen
intervention in that part of the world?
source (http://www1.lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro/1965/19650314)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 11:18 pm
Che was openly supportive of stalin and mao.But his actions were nothing like theres. Was he an authoritarian? That depends what you think authoritarianism is.
I just noticed this. Yet another example of how full of shit you are.