Che and Fidel

[Marxist Napoleon]

I was arguing before with my friend, and he loves Che and hates Fidel and Hugo. I told him that Che was a Marxist-Leninist, a Mao-sympathizer, and that he oversaw the executions of pro-Batista Cubans (which are all acceptable characteristics in my opinion), and that he was just as controversial as the other two. He said the difference was that Hugo is a "windbag" and Che and Fidel disagreed on authoritarianism. He claimed that Che didn't believe in revolutionary leaders, and he "wanted the people to rule." Of course he wanted the people to rule! But that doesn't mean the people can't have democratic leaders. Can anyone give me any sources that show that Che was not opposed to the idea of Fidel leading Cuba for a long period of time?

[Dros]

How can anyone hate Hugo?

What is the difference between revolutionary leaders and people's rule? Revolutionary leaders are leaders because they represent the will of the people.

[Question?]

Im not so Che exactly agreed on it being 40 years. Check his writings on marxists.org

[Hiero]

Can anyone give me any sources that show that Che was not opposed to the idea of Fidel leading Cuba for a long period of time?

Can your friend give you sources that Che was against Fidel?

The unknown history and life behind the image of Che makes Che any easy persona to adopt. Some anarchist do it, liberal middle class teenagers adopt him and the Trotskyist adopt him. If we look at Che through their dogma he is just another Stalinist. He was a marxist leninist who fought for socialism based on the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Kora and China. Everything the ultra left are against.

It seems it was only an interenet rumour that Che had a prominent dispute with Fidel, probally forward by the ultra left and liberals. The only indication I could find that Che had a important ideological difference was in a speach towards the end of his period in Cuba. He said along they lines that after a country has liberated it self from colonialism it is dangerous to fall back into dependence on imperialist trends. He was talking about going back to being dependent on trade to imperialist nations. Such as countries like India, after colonialism was defeated India entered a neo-colonialist relationship with the UK. It could also have a double meaning, taking a Maoist criticism that countries were becoming depedent on trade with Socialist countries and entering a soviet-imperialist relationship. Such as selling sugar to the Soviet Union for Soviet consumption and not building towards an economy based on local consumption.

I will have to first find the speach and then look over it to give futher analysis. However it safe to conclude that Che and Fidel did not have a huge disagreement over leadership in the socialist state or the USSR. Che had many chances to defect, instead he kept fighting and training comrades in Africa and Latin America with he help of Soviet and Chinese aid. After all he did die trying to create another Cuba.

[Angry Young Man]

Hugo's well funny! He's an ass, but he's a good leader. Hugo pwns your president/prime minister/chancellor!

I love him! Now who can say leftists have no sense of humour?

"Mr Danger, You are a donkey!"

[Hiero]

Who is Hugo?

[rocker935]

Yup, not to sound dumb but i gotta ask the same question as Hiero.

[Marxist Napoleon]

Hugo Chavez is the democratically-elected president of Venezuela, who is leading Venezuela's socialist revolution. Although he mostly identifies with socialism and populism, he has said that he is profoundly influenced by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Fidel.

[RbG]

[QUOTE]he has said that he is profoundly influenced by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and Fidel.

Also Simon Bolivar, and Che