Why do so Many People who Hate Stalinism Love Che?

[Dros]

Dozens and dozens of self described leftists adore Che Guevara. Even flat out liberals love him now as well. Yet, a lot of the people who love Che loathe Stalin, Stalinism, and Stalinists.

Che was (at least in his opinion) a "Stalinist". So, why is it that there are dozens of Trot websites that denounce Stalinism, link to "The Revolution Betrayed" etc. and also love Che!

Some may say that this is simply "anti-dogmatism". But that is as superficial as it is silly. These people are also extremely dogmatic, often militantly so.

So why the Cult of Che, amongst Trots and even amongst anti-statists?

My theory is that this occurred because Che was a revisionist and was thus more palatable. That and his rather romantic ethos especially after his death.

[punisa]

I would say "romantic ethos especially after his death". You're all probably aware of huge numbers of red shirts with Che's face on them. Stop a random guy/girl and ask them : "Boo ! When did Che first meet Fidel Castro?!", there is a big chance you wont get a correct answer, you might even get something like: "What? Che and Castro? OH MY GOD NO ! Damn Cuba ! Long live embargo !"

Jokes aside, Commandante Guvera will must suffer (posthumously of course) this reputation for a long time to come. Something similar like John Lennon or Jim Morrison.

A lot of "neo-Che" fans also know very little about him and his history. Then again there is personal bias. Che was a revolutionary operating in Cuban jungles, which many find romantic. Then there is romantic Caribbean flavour as well.

On the other side you have Stalin - emotionless man who's heart is made of steel. He rules the lands deep in the ever winter snow far far away. Unlike Che who fights only for good, Stalin enjoys pure ecstasy when sending innocent people to die and rot in the snowy Siberia.

Ok, I was exaggerating, but people who know veeeery little of these two people, in their heads tend to describe them something like that.

My only conclusion is that there should be much more resources and more details on these men, who both rightfully deserve to be acknowledged.

[Psy]

Because even if Che saw himself as a Stalin he was no Stalin. Che was hand delivered power after the Cuban revolution, he could have easily been apart of the Cuban bureaucracy even could have led it. Instead of building socialism in Cuba (like Stalin's socialism in one country) Che was pushing for a world revolution.

[Pogue]

Pushing for world revolution, giving everything for the cause, not simply taking a comfortable position of power, but being true to his colours and fighting on, be the complete opposite of an armchair socialist, dying a heroic death, and espousing socialism as his economic model.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i think its because all the literature he wrote. he has a very established medium of getting his emotions and thoughts to the people through his memoirs, where as stalin only had his political power to convey his personality, and only wrote about theory.

[Bastable]

Che has become a pop symbol, where everybody knows who he is, but nobody knows who he was.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Che made for good pictures. Stalin looks kind of like a child molester (have you seen his mustache?). Che smoked cigars in the dark light. Stalin drank vodka. Che became a martyr for world revolution, Stalin became an infamous tyrant mass murderer. They were both Stalinist sacks of crap, but Che was more romantic and photogenic. He's the kind of guy you want to ride into town on a horse and invite you to dinner. Stalin...well he's a creeper.

[Dros]

I would say "romantic ethos especially after his death". You're all probably aware of huge numbers of red shirts with Che's face on them. Stop a random guy/girl and ask them : "Boo ! When did Che first meet Fidel Castro?!", there is a big chance you wont get a correct answer, you might even get something like: "What? Che and Castro? OH MY GOD NO ! Damn Cuba ! Long live embargo !"

Jokes aside, Commandante Guvera will must suffer (posthumously of course) this reputation for a long time to come. Something similar like John Lennon or Jim Morrison.

A lot of "neo-Che" fans also know very little about him and his history. Then again there is personal bias. Che was a revolutionary operating in Cuban jungles, which many find romantic. Then there is romantic Caribbean flavour as well.

On the other side you have Stalin - emotionless man who's heart is made of steel. He rules the lands deep in the ever winter snow far far away. Unlike Che who fights only for good, Stalin enjoys pure ecstasy when sending innocent people to die and rot in the snowy Siberia.

Ok, I was exaggerating, but people who know veeeery little of these two people, in their heads tend to describe them something like that.

My only conclusion is that there should be much more resources and more details on these men, who both rightfully deserve to be acknowledged.

I think this is a fairly good example. I also think that Che's revisionist politics may have made it easier for Trots and others to cozy up.

[F9]

che criticized stalinism and ussr at the end of his life,he didnt had the support he was waiting and he dissapointed when he visited ussr!he called himself "stalinist" in an completely ignorance of what was happening to ussr.he was a communist,he read communism,but as lack of details in long america he didnt have a proper view of ussr and stalin and he was thinging it as the utopian communism that he read,and that stalin was the "master" of that so he called himself stalinist.

Fuserg9:star:

[Redmau5]

I think this is a fairly good example. I also think that Che's revisionist politics may have made it easier for Trots and others to cozy up.

And also the fact that Che didn't endorse the cult of personality that was beginning to form around him. Stalin did.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well like some people here have pointed out, a lot of people just think his image is cool, and don't know much about him.

Second even though he was a "Stalinist" most people don't see him as a mass murderer(except for right-wing nut cases, and gusanos) unlike Stalin who has become highly infamous.

Third, even though he was a Stalinist, he actually criticized a lot of stuff he saw during his trip to the Soviet Union, which to his demise wasn't like he imagined back in his more naive days.

Another thing I would add, is that even, he shared a similar idea to Trotsky's' "permanent revolution". He wanted Cuba to be the base to export the revolution to the rest of latin-america. So if you think about it, he wasn't very "Stalinist".

[Wraith]

Second even though he was a "Stalinist" most people don't see him as a mass murderer(except for right-wing nut cases, and gusanos) unlike Stalin who has become highly infamous.


So are you denying that he killed thousands of people?

[RHIZOMES]

And also the fact that Che didn't endorse the cult of personality that was beginning to form around him. Stalin did.

:lol:

http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm



Furthermore, the facts show that on numerous occasions Stalin himself denounced and ridiculed the `cult of the individual' as contrary to Marxism-Leninism. For example,

June 1926:

"I must say in all conscience, comrades, that I do not deserve a good half of the flattering things that have been said here about me. I am, it appears, a hero of the October Revolution, the leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the leader of the Communist International, a legendary warrior-knight and all the rest of it. This is absurd, comrades, and quite unnecessary exaggeration. It is the sort of thing that is usually said at the graveside of a departed revolutionary. But I have no intention of dying yet....

"I really was, and still am, one of the pupils of the advanced workers of the Tiflis railway workshops." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 8; Moscow; 1954; p. 182).

October 1927:

"And what is Stalin? Stalin is only a minor figure." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 10; Moscow; 1954; p. 177).

December 1929:

"Your congratulations and greetings I place to the credit of the great Party of the working class which bore me and reared me in its own image and likeness. And just because I place them to the credit of our glorious Leninist Party, I make bold to tender you my Bolshevik thanks." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 146).

April 1930:

"There are some who think that the article `Dizzy with Success' was the result of Stalin's personal initiative. That, of course, is nonsense. It is not in order that personal initiative in a matter like this be taken by anyone, whoever he might be, that we have a Central Committee." (J. V. Stalin: Works, ibid.; p. 218).

August 1930:

"You speak of your `devotion' to me.... I would advise you to discard the `principle' of devotion to persons. It is not the Bolshevik way. Be devoted to the working class, its Party, its state. That is a fine and useful thing. But do not confuse it with devotion to persons, this vain and useless bauble of weak-minded intellectuals." (J. V. Stalin: Works, Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 20).




February 1938:

"I am absolutely against the publication of `Stories of the Childhood of Stalin'.

"The book abounds with a mass of inexactitudes of fact, of alterations, of exaggerations and of unmerited praise....

"But... the important thing resides in the fact that the book has a tendency to engrave on the minds of Soviet children (and people in general) the personality cult of leaders, of infallible heroes. This is dangerous and detrimental. The theory of `heroes' and the `crowd' is not a Bolshevik, but a Social-Revolutionary(13) (http://www.mltranslations.org/Britain/StalinBB.htm#N_13_) theory....

"I suggest we burn this book." (J. V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 327).

Thus, the `cult of the individual' as built up around Stalin was contrary to Marxism-Leninism and its practice was contrary to the expressed wishes of Stalin.

[Bright Banana Beard]

So are you denying that he killed thousands of people?

It was not Stalin himself, it was the bureaucratic system of USSR did this. Stalin could not do much to oppose them or he can face backlash. Everything that said Stalin did to USSR is just capitalism propaganda, it was the party congress that dictate what happen, but I do not see Stalin in good light.

[Psy]

So are you denying that he killed thousands of people?
Who "Che"?

Of course he killed people, what people omit was was the people he organized executions for were not nice people, these were the people that previously terrorized the Cuban people.

[Anarch_Mesa]

Same reason that people who don't listen to music wear Bob Marley,AC/DC, and Metallica shirts. Same reason that ALL republicans love Ronald Reagan.

[bootleg42]

To us Latin Americans, El Che was more of a symbol of self-determination and freedom.

He wanted our countries to be free from control of the empire and he wanted a united latin america, not the artificial borders the latin american elites imposed which hurt us. He died for it. To us, he means that and it's legit.

Plus I wouldn't take what El Che thought politically seriously. He (nor did anyone at that time) did not have the internet and the luxary of knowing what Stalin and the Soviet Union did like we do.

[Devrim]

http://en.internationalism.org/files/en/images/CHE3-for-web.product.jpg

I think that it is more about his image than his politics. Che was an anti-working class Stalinist.

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara

Devrim

[Wraith]

Who "Che"?

Of course he killed people, what people omit was was the people he organized executions for were not nice people, these were the people that previously terrorized the Cuban people.

So the five thousand people that he killed in La Cabaña and the people he killed in Latin America were all "bad people"?

Are you willing to bet your life?

[Organic Revolution]

This belongs in the Che Forum.

Moved.

[Psy]

So the five thousand people that he killed in La Cabaña and the people he killed in Latin America were all "bad people"?

Are you willing to bet your life?

For the most part yes, these were people that fought against the liberation of Cuba, just look at Nicaragua to see what happens when you let the counter-revolutionaries off easy. If Franco was defeated in Spanish civil-war wouldn't you want him and his men to put to death?

[Post-Something]

I don't really think people look at the politics behind the image. People may associate with "oh, he's left wing", but that's just about it.

Plus, lots of people don't really know that much about Stalin. They just assume that he had some sort of fetish for ending peoples lives or something.

[Redmau5]

the facts show that on numerous occasions Stalin himself denounced and ridiculed the `cult of the individual' as contrary to Marxism-Leninism

And? His words and his actions were completely different. If he was opposed to the cult of the individual, it doesn't seem he did very much to actually enforce such an opposition.

[Lost In Translation]

I think it was just because people don't really have a good background understanding of Che. They see his face on basically every single type of merchandise known to man, but that's about it. In History class, though, they were told that Stalin was evil, and purged everybody, and told them to burn everything so the Nazis can't live off the land. This gives them a bias. Regardless of whether they're seasoned leftists or new people, there is always this bias towards Che.

[Bear MacMillan]

Because Che seems to be the logical antithesis to Stalin.
To most people, Che is seen as a leader who fought alongside his men and was loved by the people, while Stalin was the cold-faced despot who sat in his Kremlin office ordering purges.