Why do some Trotskyists admire Che?

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

First, I would like to say that I'm not trying to offend anyone, this is just something I've been wondering. Last week I actually stumbled across a "biography" of Che on a Finnish Trotskyist website. It had some of Che's pro-Stalin quotes in it, but his pro-Stalinism and/or anti-Trotskyism was censored. For example, "I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated" was turned into "I have sworn that I won't rest until I see these imperialist octopuses annihilated" and most of his letter to Armando Hart was censored. Only "and also your friend Trotsky, who existed and apparently wrote something" was left, but it was also changed to sound a little bit more pro-Trotsky. I have also seen some Trotskyists who admire people like Fidel (and Raúl) Castro and Ho Chi Minh who were/are also anti-Trotsky, but it seems that there are quite a lot of pro-Che Trotskyists and I just keep wondering why.

[Remus Bleys]

I have wondered this myself.
A lot of people also like to pair Che, Trotsky and Luxemburg together also.

Strange.

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

I have wondered this myself.
A lot of people also like to pair Che, Trotsky and Luxemburg together also.

Strange.

I admire Luxemburg to a degree, but the amount of admiration that some Trotskyists give to Che reminds a cult of personality. Which is kind of funny because some Trotskyists like to bash Stalin, Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Mao etc. for their cult of personalities.

[d3crypt]

Because he fought against capitalism and imperialism. He was a committed revolutionary, so why should sectarianism stop people from liking him. (I'm a left communist not a trotskyist.)

[Rafiq]

The Trotskyists you speak of are bourgeois romantics (usually quite young, not that young people are incapable of being good marxists, I myself am quite young) who want to identify with 20th century communism without it's undesirable aspects. They see Trotsky as a backdoor to cowardly escape attacks by bourgeois liberals regarding the ugly parts of Communism. I even see this rhetoric pervasive in some orthodox trotskyists. Unsurprising, being that Trotsky alone was a worthless human, who theoretically was laughable and strategically defunct. Communism and Terrorism was not a particularly unique piece but it was, perhaps, well written and true. It did after all prove what a piece of shit he was in his moralist (rather than materialist) criticism of Stalin's terror.

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

Because he fought against capitalism and imperialism. He was a committed revolutionary, so why should sectarianism stop people from liking him. (I'm a left communist not a trotskyist.)

If they think Che was fighting against capitalism, why don't they think the same about people like Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Sung? All of them were liked by Che.

[sixdollarchampagne]

In answer to the original question of this thread, it may be that some Trotskyist groups made a decision to beef up their recruiting in the 1960's by appropriating Che and Fidel, which meant that those groups had to soft-pedal what appears to be Che's judgment that Trotsky was a revisionist (a conclusion I absolutely disagree with) and also ignore the persecution that the Cuban Trotskyists faced at the hands of the victorious fidelistas. When I was in the YSA, a Trotskyist youth group in the US, as a college student in the 1960's, I never heard one critical word about Fidel or Che. I seem to remember that Fidel, at least, appeared on the cover of the Young Socialist magazine, in the sixties (Che probably did too). I certainly remember that when one prominent leader of the SWP was asked about the imprisonment of the Cuban Trotskyists, that SWP activist replied, "If I were in Cuba, I would not be in jail," which, I think, reflects the SWP's non-critical evaluation of Fidel at that time. So the brief answer to the question "Why?" is "simple opportunism."

Writing about Che and the Trotskyists caused me to remember an incident from being in college. I was a Russian language major, and, one day in the late 1960's, I was wearing a big, bright "Viva Che" button (that I got from the YSA) in the elevator in the School of Languages building at our university. A certain professor, who was a Russian emigre, a very nice human being actually, saw my button, asked me, "You are for Guevara?" and then gave me royal hell about how his family had suffered as a result of the October Revolution.

[MarxEngelsLeninStalinMao]

In answer to the original question of this thread, it may be that some Trotskyist groups made a decision to beef up their recruiting in the 1960's by appropriating Che and Fidel, which meant that those groups had to soft-pedal what appears to be Che's judgment that Trotsky was a revisionist (a conclusion I absolutely disagree with) and also ignore the persecution that the Cuban Trotskyists faced at the hands of the victorious fidelistas. When I was in the YSA, a Trotskyist youth group in the US, as a college student in the 1960's, I never heard one critical word about Fidel or Che. I seem to remember that Fidel, at least, appeared on the cover of the Young Socialist magazine, in the sixties (Che probably did too). I certainly remember that when one prominent leader of the SWP was asked about the imprisonment of the Cuban Trotskyists, that SWP activist replied, "If I were in Cuba, I would not be in jail," which, I think, reflects the SWP's non-critical evaluation of Fidel at that time. So the brief answer to the question "Why?" is "simple opportunism."

Writing about Che and the Trotskyists caused me to remember an incident from being in college. I was a Russian language major, and, one day in the late 1960's, I was wearing a big, bright "Viva Che" button (that I got from the YSA) on the elevator in the School of Languages building at our university. A certain professor, who was a Russian emigre, a very nice human being actually, saw my button, asked me, "You are for Guevara?" and then gave me royal hell about how his family had suffered as a result of the October Revolution.

But there also seem to be some Trotskyists who think that Che was a Trotskyist too. I argued about Che with a German Trotskyist a while ago and he kept insisting that Che was a Trotskyist. The only evidence he gave me was that Che had one of Trotsky's books with him in Bolivia, while I gave him a lot of evidence about Che's admiration of Stalin and noted that Che also read Churchill and Mussolini among others. I don't know what to do for that kind of people. Besides that, your answer was really helpful.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The sad truth is that many revisionist "Trotskyist" parties will attempt to latch onto anything vaguely popular or "revolutionary", usually completely disregarding their ostensible programme in the process. Thus their attempts to portray Castro and Guevara as conscious or "unconscious" Trotskyists. Or the earlier attempts of Posadas and Moreno to do the same to Peron of all people.

Many Stalinophobic Trotskyists also see Cuba as a workers' state that is somehow "untainted" by the Soviet Union and Stalin, disregarding the fact that Soviet assistance kept the bloody thing afloat for most of its existence.

[Devrim]

'Sixdollarchampaigne' is right. It was blatant opportunism pure and simple.

But there also seem to be some Trotskyists who think that Che was a Trotskyist too. I argued about Che with a German Trotskyist a while ago and he kept insisting that Che was a Trotskyist.

There are some Trotskyists who try to put forward that he was 'an unconscious Trotskyist'. It is the same opportunism. Those who put forward that he was an actual Trotskyists, are at worst outright liars, and at best deceiving themselves as well as others.

Because he fought against capitalism and imperialism. He was a committed revolutionary, so why should sectarianism stop people from liking him. (I'm a left communist not a trotskyist.)

If you have views like these, you are clearly not a left communist.

There is an ICC article here, which puts across the view of one left communist organisation of him.

Devrim

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have wondered this myself.
A lot of people also like to pair Che, Trotsky and Luxemburg together also.

Strange.

Yeah I don't know. I'm not particularly a fan of Che and I generally see broad interest in him in a romantic way... when I see someone in a Che shirt my assumptions of their politics go as far as if I see someone wearing a punk-rock style anarchy symbol. In other words some people just like the rebellion image (which is fine and a start if someone's not deeply political) whereas for other people it has more specific political meaning.

As far as Luxemburg, I take a lot from her and I think her ideas and experience is a little more relevant for trotskyism/leninism even though the figures of Luxemburg, Lenin, and Trotsky often had various disagreements on specifics. They were all dealing with mass workers movements that were seriously grappeling with revolution (and dealing with the problems of refomist wings of the worker's movement) whereas Che was in different circumstances and I don't think (beyond maybe being an inspiring figure in a general sense) his politics have much to say for mass revolt from below.

[ChrisK]

First, I would like to say that I'm not trying to offend anyone, this is just something I've been wondering. Last week I actually stumbled across a "biography" of Che on a Finnish Trotskyist website. It had some of Che's pro-Stalin quotes in it, but his pro-Stalinism and/or anti-Trotskyism was censored. For example, "I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated" was turned into "I have sworn that I won't rest until I see these imperialist octopuses annihilated" and most of his letter to Armando Hart was censored. Only "and also your friend Trotsky, who existed and apparently wrote something" was left, but it was also changed to sound a little bit more pro-Trotsky. I have also seen some Trotskyists who admire people like Fidel (and Raúl) Castro and Ho Chi Minh who were/are also anti-Trotsky, but it seems that there are quite a lot of pro-Che Trotskyists and I just keep wondering why.

No clue. He was a revolutionary in mostly a Maoist sense from what I can gather (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). He is of interest to me in the same way that the Black Panther Party is; how not to do a revolution. I think that his intentions were good, he just did everything wrong.

The CWI's American branch, Socialist Alternative, has a pamphlet about Che as a symbol. I haven't had time to read it yet, but it might help answer your question. It can be found here.

when I see someone in a Che shirt my assumptions of their politics go as far as if I see someone wearing a punk-rock style anarchy symbol.

Whenever I see someone wearing a Che shirt all I can think is, "leave it to the capitalists to see an anti-capitalist image and decide to sell it to rebellious kids."

Granted, it is a good picture.

[Comrade Jacob]

I guess Che just appeals to everyone...even middle-class petty-bourgeois college students.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I guess Che just appeals to everyone...even middle-class petty-bourgeois college students.

I imagine those are pretty much the only people Che appeals to. And the further they are from Cuba, the more he appeals to them.

[Comrade Jacob]

I imagine those are pretty much the only people Che appeals to. And the further they are from Cuba, the more he appeals to them.

Cuba is probably the most Che admiring country on the planet. Ireland also seems to love him, and south-america as a whole.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Vincent West wrote:

Many Stalinophobic Trotskyists also see Cuba as a workers' state that is somehow "untainted" by the Soviet Union and Stalin, disregarding the fact that Soviet assistance kept the bloody thing afloat for most of its existence.

Since I am here to learn, among other things, I would have thought that Cuba was a deformed workers' state, where the proletariat has been politically expropriated by the ruling bureaucracy. I would be interested to know if/how that description is incorrect.

* * *

Cde Jacob wrote:

I guess Che just appeals to everyone...even middle-class petty-bourgeois college students.

In case the above was meant to apply to me (which is not terribly important), I just wanted to clarify that I am not, nor have I ever been, petit bourgeois. My father drove a truck for a living, and I was an office worker on a modest salary, until retirement. Not all Trotskyists are p-b, though maybe it seems that way, sometimes.

[Fred]

The Trotskyists you speak of are bourgeois romantics (usually quite young, not that young people are incapable of being good marxists, I myself am quite young) who want to identify with 20th century communism without it's undesirable aspects. They see Trotsky as a backdoor to cowardly escape attacks by bourgeois liberals regarding the ugly parts of Communism. I even see this rhetoric pervasive in some orthodox trotskyists. Unsurprising, being that Trotsky alone was a worthless human, who theoretically was laughable and strategically defunct. Communism and Terrorism was not a particularly unique piece but it was, perhaps, well written and true. It did after all prove what a piece of shit he was in his moralist (rather than materialist) criticism of Stalin's terror.

Oh yeah, it was real popular among liberals in the US to defend the USSR, especially in the 50s. Seems to me that killing a generation of communists because they might, at some point in time, pose a challenge to you is MATERIALLY a problem. Dead people can't make ongoing contributions to the revolutionary struggle. Also, murdering most of the top military commanders on the eve of WWII MATERIALLY weakened the Soviet Army at a crucial juncture.

[Fred]

Vincent West wrote:

Since I am here to learn, among other things, I would have thought that Cuba was a deformed workers' state, where the proletariat has been politically expropriated by the ruling bureaucracy. I would be interested to know if/how that description is incorrect.

* * *

Cde Jacob wrote:

In case the above was meant to apply to me (which is not terribly important), I just wanted to clarify that I am not, nor have I ever been, petit bourgeois. My father drove a truck for a living, and I was an office worker on a modest salary, until retirement. Not all Trotskyists are p-b, though maybe it seems that way, sometimes.

You are correct, Cuba is a deformed workers' state. The revolution was a victory for the world's working class and they should be defended against imperialism.

To the op, Che is appealing in a romantic way. It should be obvious that he was heroic, and wanted to fight capitalism and imperialism. It should be just as obvious that his worldview had very little that one call Trotskyist. His focus on non-proletarian elements and guerilla warfare are absolutely counter posed to Trotskyism.

There are currents that call themselves Trotskyist that, having been demoralized by events of the 1950s labeled the Cuba a "healthy workers' state." They called Castro and Che, "unconscious Trotskyists." It was the beginning of the end for the SWPUS. They sent a telegram of condolences to Jacqueline Kennedy after her husband was shot (the leader of the imperialist world) Soon they were echoing pacifists at anti-vietnam war demos. They threw out their revolutionary wing and proceeded to occupy a rather right-wing position on the US left. Ultimately, they stopped calling themselves Trotskyist and slipped into obscurity. They also threw out all the old timers in a nasty age purge in the early 80s. I guess they became a cult around Jack Barnes. A man that has FAR LESS charisma then Bob Avakian. Go figure. But I think, to this day, the fawn after the Castros and Cuba.

[sixdollarchampagne]

What Fred writes about Stalin's decimation of the Red Army General Staff is correct, I think. The 1941 German fascist invasion of the USSR was so devastating that, "in October 1941, the Communist Party and governmental organizations, diplomatic missions of foreign countries, leading cultural establishments and their staff were evacuated to" Kuybyshev, which is just over 1000 km, 621 miles, from Moscow. (Quoting wikipedia)

It is also the case, and Fred got this right, too, that the SWP and the YSA threw themselves into building an essentially pacifist movement against the war in Vietnam. I know that because I was a participant in that movement. I remember having read Trotsky, who wrote, at some point in the 1930's, that the class struggle is itself the movement against imperialist war, which, I think, means that, for revolutionary socialists, antiwar work should lead to labor strikes against imperialist war; thus, a revolutionary workers party is in the business of organizing working-class resistance to war, not promoting pacifism, which Trotsky probably despised (maybe because he remembered how the Second International had gone from being anti-war to beating the drums for patriotism, national chauvinism, and war, in the twinkling of an eye, in 1914).

[synthesis]

...his pro-Stalinism and/or anti-Trotskyism was censored. For example, "I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won't rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated" was turned into "I have sworn that I won't rest until I see these imperialist octopuses annihilated" and most of his letter to Armando Hart was censored. Only "and also your friend Trotsky, who existed and apparently wrote something" was left, but it was also changed to sound a little bit more pro-Trotsky.

I don't have anything to add in regards to the political appropriation going on here, but this, to me, is just unconscionable. Who actually believes that this kind of thing is acceptable?