Was Che a Stalinist?

[redstar2000]

Its a curious question at this late date, "Was Che a Stalinist?" It was possible he may have met Stalin in Mexico, but there is no evidence, that I know of, that Che was even interested in the disputes between Stalin and Chomksy. His own politics were probably closer to Mao's than anybody elses. And the interesting thing is that legend has it that Stalin wasnt even sure that Mao was a Communist until China intervened in the Korean War, to stop the American aggression before thay crossed the 30th parallel, trying to conquer all of North Korea.

I think Che admired Russia's industrial development under Stalin and wanted Cuba to that the same path, of course it didnt happen because of Kruschev, who denied Cuba technical assistance that they would have required to really industrialize.

I think it is even questionable if Che was ever a real Marxists. I don't recall anything that Che wrote that suggests the he studied Marx and Engels.

The thing to remember about Stalin, is back in the 1950s that he was wildly admired for his uncompromising opposition on American Imperialism. This was something entirely unique in the world, no one ever did it like he did.

I can remember ultra left groups in the 1950s, prominently displaying pictures of Stalin on the front covers of their magazines showing support for Comrade Stalin, this meant you were seriously opposed to World Empire/ US Imperialism. In fact briefly I was kind of a Stalinist myself, because I was interested in real opposition to US Imperialism. I didnt believe in peaceful co-existing to any of that crap.

[Dean]

I can remember ultra left groups in the 1950s, prominently displaying pictures of Stalin on the front covers of their magazines showing support for Comrade Stalin, this meant you were seriously opposed to World Empire/ US Imperialism. In fact briefly I was kind of a Stalinist myself, because I was interested in real opposition to US Imperialism. I didnt believe in peaceful co-existing to any of that crap.

Interesting. I hadn't heard that Che wasn't a Marxist - of course, I never idolized him or anything anyways. I always knew that Che wasn't a stalinist, but his politics always escaped me anyways.

[ernie]

I think it is even questionable if Che was ever a real Marxists. I don't recall anything that Che wrote that suggests the he studied Marx and Engels.
Two of his Marxist works are Critical Notes on Political Economy: A Revolutionary Humanist Approach to Marxist Economics and Marx & Engels: An Introduction. Che was definitely a Marxist.

[Le Libérer]

The publisher of Che's work explained Che's critique was necessary, and to quote, "because Marxist research in the field of the economy is proceeding along dangerous routes. The intransigent dogmatism of the Stalin era has been succeeded by an inconsistent pragmatism."He justified what he described as his "heresy"by pointing to Marx's statement in the first few pages of Capital,about "capitalism's inability to criticize itself, using apologetics which now, unfortunately, can be applied to Marxist political economy."He argued for doing away with capitalist concepts and formulas and concentrating instead on the motivation and development of individual human beings."

Che obviously studied Marx and Engels but critical to the point he felt a need to write A Revolutionary Humanist Approach to Marxist Economics and Marx & Engels.

[Revy]

I decided to look into it:


"Beginning with the revolutionary Marx, a political group with concrete ideas establishes itself. Basing itself on the giants, Marx and Engels, and developing through successive steps with personalities like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung and the new Soviet and Chinese rulers, it establishes a body of doctrine and, let us say, examples to follow." - Notes for the Study of the Ideology of the Cuban Revolution, 1960

However.... (http://www.marxist.com/caracas-leon-trotsky-assassination200807.htm)


Ricardo Napurí explained that he became a revolutionary in 1948, when as a Peruvian air force officer he refused to bomb an APRA left wing uprising and had to go to exile in Argentina. Napurí was one of those who convinced Che Guevara to read Trotsky when he met him in Havana in 1959 and gave him a copy of The Permanent Revolution.There's a rumor that he had been becoming more and more of a Trotskyist before his death, though I don't know if this is true. Some will say he always was a closet Trotskyist because of anti-Trotskyist sentiment. For example, Blas Roca, a Communist Party "theoretician", wrote a rant called "The Trotskyist Slanders Cannot Tarnish the Cuban Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isr/vol27/no03/roca.htm)". And Fidel gave a speech (http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro/1966/19660216) attacking Trotskyists. Clearly, if Che was somehow a Trotskyist, he wouldn't want to get on their bad side, because according to Fidel, Trotskyism was imperialism.



The Fourth International
fixed it up so that that leader, who was ignorant of the profound problems
of politics and of the history of revolutionary thought, would permit that
agents of Trotskyism, about whom we do not have the slightest doubt that he
is an agent of imperialism, to publish a newspaper which copies outright
the program of the Fourth International. By doing this, the Fourth
International committed a real crime against the revolutionary movement to
isolate it from the rest of the people, to isolate it from the masses, when
it contaminated it with the stupidities, the discredit, and the repungnant
thing which Trotskyism today is in the field of politics (applause).

Even though at one time Trotskyism represented an erroneous position, but a
position in the field of political ideas, Trotskyism became during the
following years a vulgar instrument of imperialism and reaction. This is
the way these gentlemen think. For example, in relation to South Vietnam,
where a broad revolutionary front has united the overwhelming majority of
the people and various sectors of the population, has united them closely
around the liberation movement in the struggle against imperialism. For the
Trotskyites that is absurd; that is counterrevolutionary. Yet these
gentlemen who serve imperialism have the gall to do such an unusual thing
in the face of the facts and realities of history and against the
revolutionary movement and to express themselves in this manner.

[Le Libérer]

There's a rumor that he had been becoming more and more of a Trotskyist before his death, though I don't know if this is true.
I would be willing to bet a Trot started that rumour. :lol:

[Pogue]

RS2k?

[Pogue]

Che was definatly not a Stalinist. Fidel Castro makes this entirely clear in his autobiography. He says Che criticised Stalin a great deal. There wer even rumours that he was a Trotskyist.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

No way stalin became an imperialist when took power Che would hate him.Also Che was aneven harsher critic on Moscow than america che condones him in no way,shape,or form

[JimmyJazz]

Its a curious question at this late date, "Was Che a Stalinist?"

The book Che by Jon Lee Anderson claims that while in Guatemala Guevara was walking with a friend and stopped to salute a picture of Stalin. Or maybe he did it regularly, I can't remember.

Doesn't mean that much either way but there you go.


I think it is even questionable if Che was ever a real Marxists. I don't recall anything that Che wrote that suggests the he studied Marx and Engels.

I can only tell you what he had to say about himself WRT being a Marxist:


Here one must introduce a general attitude toward one of the most controversial terms of the modern world: Marxism. When asked whether or not we are Marxists, our position is the same as that of a physicist or a biologist when asked if he is a "Newtonian," or if he is a "Pasteurian".

There are truths so evident, so much a part of people's knowledge, that it is now useless to discuss them. One ought to be "Marxist' with the same naturalness with which one is "Newtonian" in physics, or "Pasteurian" in biology, considering that if facts determine new concepts, these new concepts will never divest themselves of that portion of truth possessed by the older concepts they have outdated. Such is the case, for example, of Einsteinian relativity or of Planck's "quantum" theory with respect to the discoveries of Newton; they take nothing at all away from the greatness of the learned Englishman. Thanks to Newton, physics was able to advance until it had achieved new concepts of space. The learned Englishman provided the necessary stepping-stone for them.

Obviously one can point to certain mistakes of Marx, as a thinker and as an investigator of the social doctrines and of the capitalist system in which he lived. We Latin Americans, for example, cannot agree with his interpretation of Bolivar, or with his and Engels' analysis of the Mexicans, which were made accepting as fact even certain theories of race or nationality that are unacceptable today. But the great men who discover brilliant truths live on despite their small faults, and those faults serve only to show us they were human. That is to say, they were human beings who could make mistakes, even given the high level of consciousness achieved by these giants of human thought. This is why we recognize the essential truths of Marxism as part of humanity's body of cultural and scientific knowledge. We accept it with the naturalness of something that requires no further argument.


Stalin...his uncompromising opposition on American Imperialism.

I'm hardly an expert on the history of the Soviet Union, but...

http://www.opaquelucidity.com/a_c_roosevelt-stalin-yalta.jpg

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/3_masons_churchill_truman_stalin_potsdam2.jpg

[Charles Xavier]

Stalin didn't have third world countries subsidize the living standards in the Soviet Union I fail to see how that he was imperialist. Che Guevara was a Marxist-Leninist, he didn't view things black and white as many people on this board do. He thought Stalin was a great leader of the soviet people but at the same time condemned his violations of socialist legality and excesses. Things are not as clear cut as Che good, Che bad, Stalin good, Stalin bad, Trotsky good, Trotsky bad, Lenin good, Lenin bad. Each contributed to Socialism in their own way, at various parts of their lives performed amazing feats of work to the international proletariat. They also made critical mistakes too.

[Devrim]

Of course Che was a Stalinist;
Che Guevara: Myth and Reality (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara)

Devrim

[RedSonRising]

He did swear to the picture when he was younger, but people like Pablo Neruda who admired Stalin thinks that back then he was simply the heroic figure of socialism triumphing over Hitler's Fascism, and not much else...I think many times people don't know atrocities of certain historical figures until after the fact (such as Ghandi admiring Hitler's "non-violence" in rising to power and solving problems). That being said, though Guevara was a large proponent of using the state as a vehicle for socialism, his theories were very different and had more to do with progressing and changing socialism to the needs of the people in altering their psychological and moral motivations, whereas Stalin seemed to simply ensure the glorified image of the USSR would survive through a strict power structure and internationally agressive and oppressive attitude towards neighboring countries.

Also Che was very much like Fidel (though very different in other respects), and though he accepted Soviet funds later, I read he reprimanded Raul for publicly admitting to liking Stalin by shouting "I hate Soviet imperialism as much as Yankee Imperialism!"

[manic expression]

Of course Che was a Stalinist;
Che Guevara: Myth and Reality (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/che-guevara)

Devrim

Well, it looks like the "black vs white" puritans are finally here. By the way, I actually went to read the article you posted, but the idiotic picture told me everything I needed to know about the mindless dribble inevitably contained therein. Immature doesn't even begin to describe it.

[INDK]

Che certainly didn't hate Stalin, he definitely had some form of respect for the man. What really depends is the reason, like RedSonRising implied in the beginning of his post; it may have simply been because of his triumphs over Fascism. I'm not very learned on Che's specific ideological thought so I'm not very sure if he actually liked what Stalin thought rather than what Stalin opposed. He could have also admired Stalin's opposition to American imperialism. I'm skeptical at the thought of categorizing Che as a Stalinist, but I'm also skeptical of him being a Trotskyist. I think he can only be categorized basically as a Communist.

[Devrim]

Well, it looks like the "black vs white" puritans are finally here. By the way, I actually went to read the article you posted, but the idiotic picture told me everything I needed to know about the mindless dribble inevitably contained therein. Immature doesn't even begin to describe it.

Thanks, I am sure that your slagging it off is a better advertisement for the article than I bother to write.

Devrim

[manic expression]

Thanks, I am sure that your slagging it off is a better advertisement for the article than I bother to write.

Devrim

Sure it's a good advertisement, but only if you're not a Marxist.

[Charles Xavier]

Dear HLVS, the liberal, who spammed my rep without contributing to the discussion. Che Guevara said in various speeches and interviews " I am a marxist-Leninist ." and his outlook and life marxist-leninist. He believed in Democratic Centralism, a building a socialist state, imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism, i fail to see how to see how you can spam my rep over this.

[Led Zeppelin]

LOL the picture from the article on the ICC site is hilarious:

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


:D

[Revolutionary Youth]

LOL the picture from the article on the ICC site is hilarious:

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


:D
Some kind of cosplay I think.

[AIM Correspondent]

I know he wasnt a stalinist!

[Charles Xavier]

I know he wasnt a stalinist!


Thanks for your assurance and intellectual debating style.

[JimmyJazz]

I know he wasnt a stalinist!

You forgot to say "in my heart" :lol:

[Cumannach]

I'm hardly an expert on the history of the Soviet Union, but...

http://www.opaquelucidity.com/a_c_roosevelt-stalin-yalta.jpg

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/3_masons_churchill_truman_stalin_potsdam2.jpg

I love those pictures. Look at those two fat capitalist pigs! Stalin ran rings around them.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Che was no Trotskyite. That much is clear.
Only a couple of quotes:

"Trotskyists ultimately failed because their methods are bad."-
Che Guevara, Apuntes criticos a la Economia Politica, 1964.

"Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists."-
Che Guevara, Letter to Armando Mart., December 4th, 1965.

Che also said, "I have sworn before a picture of our old, much lamented comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."

[Karzak]

There has been a long-standing debate as to whether Che was a Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist or else an Anarchist.

Early on, in mid-1953, in a letter to his aunt Beatriz, Che writes, "I traversed the vast dominions of United Fruit and once more am convinced of how criminal these capitalistic octopuses are", and he goes on to tell of how he had sworn "before a portrait of our, old and much lamented comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated".

Che, in another letter to his aunt, signs as Stalin II, and during a trip to the Soviet Union in Novemeber 1960, he insisted on placing flowers at Stalins tomb even in the face of protests from the Cuban ambassador to the USSR.

It would seem that Che was an admirer of Comrade Stalin and the early stages of Stalinism with its aggressive collectivist policies. However, this admiration likely ended with Stalins pact with Herr Hitler and their plans to divide Poland. It was this imperialistic aspect of the emerging USSR which would lead Che to consider the Chinese model under Chairman Mao.

As to the question "Was Che a Stalinist?" the key word would be "Was".

[The Intransigent Faction]

There has been a long-standing debate as to whether Che was a Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist or else an Anarchist.

Early on, in mid-1953, in a letter to his aunt Beatriz, Che writes, "I traversed the vast dominions of United Fruit and once more am convinced of how criminal these capitalistic octopuses are", and he goes on to tell of how he had sworn "before a portrait of our, old and much lamented comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated".

Che, in another letter to his aunt, signs as Stalin II, and during a trip to the Soviet Union in Novemeber 1960, he insisted on placing flowers at Stalins tomb even in the face of protests from the Cuban ambassador to the USSR.

It would seem that Che was an admirer of Comrade Stalin and the early stages of Stalinism with its aggressive collectivist policies. However, this admiration likely ended with Stalins pact with Herr Hitler and their plans to divide Poland. It was this imperialistic aspect of the emerging USSR which would lead Che to consider the Chinese model under Chairman Mao.

As to the question "Was Che a Stalinist?" the key word would be "Was".

Absolutely false. You mentioned the same quote I did, from a letter from Che to his aunt, dated 1953. The note clearly shows that Che considered Stalin a respectable Marxist-Leninist years after the non-aggression pact.
Support for Marxism-Leninism in China does not mean one cannot support Marxism-Leninism in the USSR.

[Hiero]

There has been a long-standing debate as to whether Che was a Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist or else an Anarchist.

I don't think any has seriously though Che was an anarchist.


It was this imperialistic aspect of the emerging USSR which would lead Che to consider the Chinese model under Chairman Mao.

Mao upheld Stalin's leadership, he gave him a 70% good rating. The negative 30% has to do with other things which is outisde of the "offical" western discourse about Stalin's history.

[Tom-Guevarist]

well, you can also read books and stuff written by the man himself and than find out.;)

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

The younger Che , Che in guatamala and mexico I mean was a very radical communist that admired Stalin so far as to pledge to his picture.But after and during the cuban revolution he became a harsh critic of stalin and the soviet union after him.He also towards the end of his life became a Trotsky admirer and possibly even a Trotskyist

[Matina]

I don't see how this question is pertinent.
Even if Che described himself as a Stalinist, he was not an advocate of socialism in one country. He was an internationalist revolutionary.
Even if people think Che was a Stalinist, how can you think he really was when he believed that a revolution can happen in a backwards country. Therefore he did not believe in the Stalinist Stage Theory.

I understand that Che made a lot of mistakes, but overall he was a passionate, honest revolutionary and to be honest he had a better theoretical basis than most revolutionaries of his time and place.

[Das war einmal]

I don't see how this question is pertinent.
Even if Che described himself as a Stalinist, he was not an advocate of socialism in one country. He was an internationalist revolutionary.
Even if people think Che was a Stalinist, how can you think he really was when he believed that a revolution can happen in a backwards country. Therefore he did not believe in the Stalinist Stage Theory.

I understand that Che made a lot of mistakes, but overall he was a passionate, honest revolutionary and to be honest he had a better theoretical basis than most revolutionaries of his time and place.


Actually it was Trotsky himself who did not believe that socialism could be achieved in a backwards country, thats one of the reasons that he was not popular at the Bolshevik party. The USSR was forced to practice socialism in one country, because the export of the revolution had failed. Get your facts straight.

[Il Medico]

I know that Che studied Marx and Engels, and all the works he wrote that I have read give no indication that he was a Stalinist. He was however, a Marxist.

[Lamanov]

"Trotsky, along with Khrushchev, belongs to the category of the great revisionists."-
Che Guevara, Letter to Armando Mart., December 4th, 1965.

Oh, how easy and necessary was to say that after Khrushchev was deposed a year earlier. :tt2:

[TheBellJar]

I don't see how this question is pertinent.
Even if Che described himself as a Stalinist, he was not an advocate of socialism in one country. He was an internationalist revolutionary.
Even if people think Che was a Stalinist, how can you think he really was when he believed that a revolution can happen in a backwards country. Therefore he did not believe in the Stalinist Stage Theory.

I understand that Che made a lot of mistakes, but overall he was a passionate, honest revolutionary and to be honest he had a better theoretical basis than most revolutionaries of his time and place.

But didn't Che believe in a united South American struggle? I'm not that well read about it but I do recall him pitching in for regional co-operation to a degree as to form a South America on par with the Soviet Union(My analogy, not his). I think he did put heavy emphasis on regional co-operation and then exporting revolution to other regions, Africa in particular. Or was that the Castro influence?

In any case, If not on an ideological basis, He did fully endorse and support Stalin as well as Mao. He was under the Soviet scanner for siding with China during the Sino-Soviet split, wasnt he? Ofcourse Mao stood firmly behind Stalin and his ways/ideology, whatever you want to call it. Apart from the involvment of Peasants which is ofcourse nothing but regional adaptation of Stalinism.

On his official trip to India, When he met Pandit Nehru, He raised the question about Mao and his stance on it and asked Panditji about his views on it.

His affinity to Mao may give rise to the belief of him being a believer in Stalinist ways..?!

[LeninBalls]

All I can assuredly say is Che was definitley not a Trotskyist, in the book I'm reading (Fidel Castro: My Life) Castro mentions that in his lifetime he never once heard Che talk about Trotsky. He did, however, praise (and criticize just as much) Stalin on many occasions. Che really did dig Mao though, so it's safe to say he was a Marxist-Leninist.

[Redmau5]

Actually it was Trotsky himself who did not believe that socialism could be achieved in a backwards country, thats one of the reasons that he was not popular at the Bolshevik party. The USSR was forced to practice socialism in one country, because the export of the revolution had failed. Get your facts straight.

Get your facts straight. Ever heard of the Permanent Revolution?

[RoniCommunist]

He isn't was a stalinist.

[Radical]

All I can assuredly say is Che was definitley not a Trotskyist, in the book I'm reading (Fidel Castro: My Life) Castro mentions that in his lifetime he never once heard Che talk about Trotsky. He did, however, praise (and criticize just as much) Stalin on many occasions. Che really did dig Mao though, so it's safe to say he was a Marxist-Leninist.

I've heard from multiple people that the last bookChe was reading in Bolivia was on Trotsky. Although I'm not fully sure if its true, I've heard heard it from numerous people.

I'm going to go and look now.

[F9]

I've heard from multiple people that the last bookChe was reading in Bolivia was on Trotsky. Although I'm not fully sure if its true, I've heard heard it from numerous people.

I'm going to go and look now.

I was reading about this last few days, and indeed one of the latest books che was reading was a trotsky one but been the last i dont thing we can be sure about.As i read it was the Permanent revolution abd the history of russian revolution from trotsky amongst other books he was reading at the moment.
Che was undoubtely not a Stalinist, and indeed find him closer to Maoism during his life, though in the end of his life(in Bolivia) he seemed to really searching the things, reading trotsky etc, and he was about to make a critical article about stalinism even leninism but never ended it, i think he only managed to write the first paragraph.

Fuserg9:star: