Questions on revolutionary strategies

[Entrails Konfetti]

This is taken from the thread on Che' being an authoritarian Che' Authoritarian? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58384&st=0&#entry1292210120)

In that thread Leo posted an article from libcom about howGuevara was authoritarian mostly through how he opperated the guerilla bands.
Libcom. Che' (http://libcom.org/history/guevara-ernesto-che-1928-1967)

I'm going to quote snippets of that article where it says he was being authoritave, with questions attached. I don't mean to stir sectarianism, but I want to hear how those who agree with the article (mainly Anarchists) would have handled things in that situation.


In fact Che went about turning volunteer bands of guerrillas into a classic Army, with strict discipline and hierarchy.
Nestor Mahkno didn't have a chain of command?
Is a guerilla band not supposed to have discipline --even if they are under an accountable chain of command, why shouldn't they have discipline?


He demanded the death penalty for "informers, insubordinates, malingerers and deserters".
So during a revolutionary situtation it's a bad move to kill informants, and deserters, why?
As for insubordinates and malingerers-- that really depends on how dangerous the situation is. How do you deal with someone so insubordinate they endanger everyone?


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".
At that time in Cuba, there weren't facilities to treat criminals-- just prisons, and the jail's were overflowing-- so you wouldn't execute large masses of of the old regime, even if they were a decent sized force that could do some damage?


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!

First off, hunger-striking in combat-- how could that be handled without threatening them with death? I mean if these people were really commited they wouldn't ***** about food, also we don't know what context the other statement is in.

[Entrails Konfetti]

No one has anything to say about how their combat strategies are better?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Now everyones on rev-left, so if I post another comment ppl will see this on the front board, and most likely go to it and answer these questions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Anarchists wouldn't have handled the situation. They'd never be involved in such a struggle, because it's not flawless, and those are the only kind of struggles they bother with (which in practice means they never have to do anything of substance).

Of course all of the steps Che took were necessary. It was a life or death situation. You can't play games with informers and would-be saboteurs.

There are times when some folks are going to have to give orders.

There are times when enemies of the revolution will have to be executed.

To deny that is to deny the reality of revolutionary war.

[gilhyle]

What is interesting is how anarchists refuse to generalise from their own experience in military matters whether in Russia, Spain or less well known, Mexico and Korea. (I have few details on the latter, but no reason to believe they were exemplary)

[Labor Shall Rule]

I think there are better ways of explaining how Che is an authoritarian than pointing out these useless military examples. What about ihs imprisonment and executions of not just former Batista thugs, but also political opposition? What about the centralized economic system that he assisted in forming?