In response to Peaccenickked's post in Chit Chat regarding -

[Lysenko]

Apparently, you have restricted my posting in chit chat so i will post my response to peaccenckked's post in chit chat:
If we did not wish to steal some of che's clothes? Che's "younger" days? He didnt die an old man. He died young. You act as though we are stealing che's name and ideals and using them for our own purposes, even though most of the Che T shirt - wearing, RATM fans here are doing far worse.

Che did not have younger days. He was an authoritarian. Lavrenti Beria proved this at CYPSK(junichi's board). I find it interesting that you have all formed a cult of personality around che and make it sound as though che would always make the right choice and create a perfect socialist state if he had been given the chance. You rely so much on speculation, while we rely on the facts about che.

[pastradamus]

Quote: from Lysenko on 12:00 am on Dec. 26,

I find it interesting that you have all formed a cult of personality around che and make it sound as though che would always make the right choice and create a perfect socialist state if he had been given the chance.

Thats silly,I admire che but I'll form my own views of socialism,I can think for myself just as anybody here can.
& that my friend is why theres so many different types of socialists here,they dont just take che's opinion,they will form their own views.Admiration for che is all that goes on here,not following him like the bible.

[Lysenko]

Yes, but they admire che, and you admire che for something he was not. He was a stalinist. An authoritarian true and true. Yet you seem to deny this or forget it and somehow think Che was some kind of perfect being while Stalin who was probably LESS authoritarian than che and acheived far more is criticized and ripped apart.

[Valkyrie]

Che was much more of a Moist if you ask me. He even referred to his newborn daughter as "my little Mao" not my little Koba.. and he definitely turned to China when Cuba got fucked over by the Soviet Union.. Also.. the last book che was reading in Bolivia was a Trotsky biography.

[Xvall]

I hardly see how Che was more authoritarian than Stalin. Che never even really had a position of political power. He influenced the people to fight a revolution. He was never a president, dictator, chairman, or premier.

[Bolschewik]

Che Guevara's ideals for political system were authoritarian. Che did not hold positions of power, but that doesn't make him less authoritarian. Is drake dracoli not a communist because he doesnt live in a communist country or is not a member of a communist party? is lysenko not authoritarian because he is not a dictator of a particular country?

[peaccenicked]

Che was not a Stalinist in any conventual sense. He was certainly a Stalinist in his teens and some of this stayed with him as it was the dominant ideology within the revolutionary socialist movement.
But Che went well beyond stalinism not only in theory but in practice. The theory of socialism in one country was not in his bones, and did the ''Trotsky thing'' of ''exporting revolution''.
If you actually read Che instead of stalinist accounts or
accounts of Che that want to stereotype socialist into
the Stalinist gangsterism that plaqued the international labour movement for most of the last century. You will
find that he defended abused poets from the excess of the revolution.
I never use the term ''authoritarianism''. It is too vague and misses the point that revolutions are authoritarian by nature in the sense that one class defeats another.
I do not criticise stalinism for being authoritarian but not authoritarian enough in that it destroyed the authority of the revolution and replaced with precisely gangsterism. Che deplored its corruptive influence on the eqalitarian nature of our goals.
Where as you and a people like you unequivically accept Stalinism, uncritically and with utter cowardice.

to quote Stew Albert.
''The inspiration of Che's courage endures. He suffered from serious asthma which could have curtailed his life and aspirations. But Guevara would not be overwhelmed with a sense of powerlessness. He had the will to discover his real as opposed to imagined limitations. And Che's courage and willingness to take risks went beyond both the rugby and battle fields. He once wrote "at the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." He discovered a sense of community and belonging in the company of revolutionaries. And Che knew that this sense of meaning and purpose was essential to the human essence. That we need something more than money and consumer products. We must love and be loved. His efforts to turn the Cuban economy into an extended and transcendent community of practical love may have been, given the circumstances of under-development, utopian. But for those seeking compassion, friendship and creative work they remain an outstanding inspiration.''

This goes totally against the grain of the horrendous coldness of your ''a million deaths being just a Statistic''.


However all I expect from you is your false information
that is gleamed for your hero worshipping identification with the great traitor to communism-one J Stalin and which has nothing to do with actual historical analysis.



(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:46 am on Dec. 26, 2002)

[Xvall]

My response was directed at the claim that Che was more authoritarian than Stalin. I find that extremely hard to believe; as Che did not institute 'gulags', or commit 'purges'.

[Sirion]

I guess there are no EXACT answer, at least for those that didn' know Che personally. In Che's lifetime, stalinism was a huge source of inspiration to all left-wingers and anti-americans.

I therefore think it is fair to sa that Che certainly drep instiration and bits of his own ideology from stalinism. How much this was, and if it was so much that he should be called stalinist, is a different matter that I doubt there is any exact answer on, as these ideologies can blend together quite fluently.

[pastradamus]

Quote: from Lysenko on 12:54 am on Dec. 26, 2002
Yes, but they admire che, and you admire che for something he was not. He was a stalinist. An authoritarian true and true. Yet you seem to deny this or forget it and somehow think Che was some kind of perfect being while Stalin who was probably LESS authoritarian than che and acheived far more is criticized and ripped apart.




Lmao,are you nuts?
If anything Che disliked Stalin,he actually bad-mouted him once.As Paris said,he actually was more of a maoist,and said the chinese were more socialist than russia at the time.

If che was so authortarian,then why did he constantly blast,the US govts authortarian policies in latin america?

Of course I do think che was no liberal,but he is not the hard line authortarian you paint him to be.

Not everybody,myself inclusive agrees with everything che did,but not all marxists agree with everything marx said.
The basic fact is that he showed resistance to american opression & thats what we all admire.

Hasta la victoria siempre.

[synthesis]

I don't think Che was neccessarily authoritarian, or neccessarily libertarian (meaning opposite of authoritarian, not anarcho-capitalist).

I think he just did whatever he thought was best for Cuba. If that meant being authoritarian and executing traitors (if I remember correctly, he endorsed a life imprisonment for a fellow revolutionary who wanted to resign, calling him a traitor) then he believed it was neccessary. If that meant being anti-authoritarian by resisting the imperialist U.S., then that was be neccessary.

Obviously none of us can say for certain what he believed since none of us knew the guy personally, so all we can do is make educated guesses based on his actions.

[Lysenko]

PAstradamus, you can't use the excuse that he never had purges, he never really had the chance now did he?

And Of course he criticized the Russia of the time, it wasnt stalinist anymore was it? He supported the maoists and the maoists were stalin supporters who were against Khrushchev.

Why did che blast the US government policies? Because unlike stalinist policies, the us policies were only mean to benefit the rich in the US, while any stalinist move to expand would have positive effects on whatever country it took. The US simply invaded to exploit.

I simply wished to point out that most of the extreme liberals who love che seem to forget Che was not Ghandi. He was by no means a liberatarian.

And regardless of Peaccenicked's post, nothing here shows che to be an extreme liberatarian. Therefore, my point has been proven. He may not of been as extreme as myself, but he was in fact an authoritarian. He was a militant. many on this site are pacifists.

Thank you.

[pastradamus]

Che Was a Doctor,I doubt a person of his profession would Support purges,Although I understand the fact that he did kill a few people,but that was in combat with facist bastards.

Authortarism was communism's style at the time,people never heard of libertarian socialism.But by the standards set by stalin,che wasn't even in the same league. Che was marxist-leninist,and committed to world revolution,unlike stalin.

Im in complete agreement with you on the fact that che wasn't libertarian.But he was only moderetly authortarian,not a compleat stalinist.

On the maoist thing,che only admired it as I admire some elements of stalinism,communism ect... even though im not a stalinist or communist.

p.s,I never used the "che never had purges" excuse

(Edited by pastradamus at 1:09 am on Dec. 28, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

''And regardless of Peaccenicked's post, nothing here shows che to be an extreme liberatarian. Therefore, my point has been proven. He may not of been as extreme as myself, but he was in fact an authoritarian. He was a militant. many on this site are pacifists.''

Che was this, Che was that. Nobody has claimed anything of the sort. I said he surpassed the stalinism of his youth.
You claim that he was always a Stalinist.
You even try to claim he was not like Ghandi.
This is desperate stuff. Nobody here is saying anything of the sort.
It is like you are hanging on like grim death to a lost argument.
All you are displaying is extreme ignorance.
It is clear you dont want to listen to anything other than the sound of your own voice.

Che's admiration for mao had nothing to do with Khruschev reaction against Stalin. There is no evidence for that anywhere.
What Che admired about Mao was his miliary tactics.
There is evidence for that in che's book on Guerilla warfare.

I think that makes you a bare-faced liar.

[Lysenko]

I made the ghandi comparison because people tend to think his wanting to help the people was something like that of ghandi. He was not another Ghandi. He was a militant. He should not be viewed in the same light.
I wasnt responding to anyone, simply establishing a fact.

And like i said, i proved my point, even if he wasnt as authoritarian as stalin(as you claim) he was authoritarian nonetheless.

Pastradamus said che was a maoist(or was like a maoist). From my own obvservations, maoists are pretty close to stalinists in doctrines, and no where near liberal socialists.

Clinging to an argument i already lost? I am simply trying to establish mutual agreement. So we no longer must question Che's own views.

Che was also not so much political as he was militant/revolutionary. He was far more into the action than into the politics that would follow the establishment of a socialist state.

[peaccenicked]

Your established a fact about Ghandi to make a red herring.
He has nothing what ever to do with restricting stalinists from che-lives.

Nothing in your last post even refers to Che's Stalinism
but refers to his authoritarianism. This is a smokescreen.
There is no evidence that Che was anti democratic.
He is guilty of being ruthless against fascists in the midst of war against fascists. You are trying in some phoney twisted way to equate this with Stalinism.
The crushing of all dissent , mass murder,persecution of jews, religious oppression and parisitism.

Che did not like the record of the nationalist socialists stalinist or maoist.
He was very much a politician and a man of action.

''The socialist countries have the moral duty of liquidating their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the West.'' - Ernesto Che Guevara






Your scam is too obvious.


(Edited by peaccenicked at 5:02 am on Dec. 29, 2002)

[pastradamus]

Quote: from Lysenko on 6:28 pm on Dec. 28,

Che was also not so much political as he was militant/revolutionary. He was far more into the action than into the politics that would follow the establishment of a socialist state.


I'll agree with you there man.Che was committed to spreading the red plague into the grasps of facist's.
But che also did have some political experience.
He was marxist-leninist,just like castro,case closed.

[Lysenko]

Well Peaccenicked, that is because in the last post i did not attempt to prove he was a stalinist. I did not intend to do so. I merely intended to show he was authoritarian.

Therefore, he is closer on the political spectrum to stalinists than liberatarians. And one cannot say it (liberatarianism)did not exist. Ghandi was, Allende was.

And i also said nothing on banning us. I think it should be obvious to most people who have been here for at least 3 months that this place is going down the tubes.It simply is not what it was, and banning the stalinists simply worsened the situation.

But then again, this coming from malte, who i have yet actually debate on the board(aside from the old, "your a nazi, your banned," old trick.

[ComradeJunichi]

And i also said nothing on banning us. I think it should be obvious to most people who have been here for at least 3 months that this place is going down the tubes.It simply is not what it was, and banning the stalinists simply worsened the situation.

Agreed. I am strongly opposed to all the bannings, and it isn't helping Che-Lives either.