Results 41 to 60 of 111
Batista's propaganda called Guevara a communist assassin, which was ridiculous, especially at the time, since it was his first guerrilla campaign. Your claim as to Guevara being a bourgeoisie assassin is equally absurd.
The Cuban Revolution had everything to do with both peasants and the proletariat; it would have failed without the worker-supported city-based July 26 Underground (think Frank Pais), and it would have failed without the guajiros that helped the rebels in the Sierra Maestra.
I define socialism as a socio-economic theory where the working class owns the mean of production and where they slowly organize things so as to finally accomplish Marx's basic statement of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." As you can probably tell, I follow no specific tendency; there's something to learn from every tendency, and this will give me much flak from the users on here, particularly the more dogmatic users.
As to "teaching" socialism, I should have said that Che attempted to initiate class-consciousness and awareness of neo-colonialism and imperialism in the aforementioned countries rather than actually "teach" it. He really did teach them basic mathematics, language, etc., though.
Looking at what I have done in my 15 years of life does not in anyway change whether or not an anti-imperialist guerilla fighter was a Marxist. Focoists and Stalinists are anti-Marxist ideas/ideologies, and he was both.
I didn't call him a 'bourgeoisie assassin'. I don't know if he killed any of the bourgeoisie. He killed peasants, conscripted soldiers (that is, workers in uniform) and petites-bourgeoises though.
I called him an 'assassin for the bourgeoisie'. The faction of the bourgeiosie (linked to disgruntled military officers) who took over the country in 1959.
Now, because I'm not a nationalist, I don't think it makes any difference that Che was an Argentinian, not a Cuban (though I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to say Che ws a bad man for being from the wrong country, or does that only count for the 'baddies'?) but he was a soldier for the new Cuban bourgeoisie both in his adopted home (Cuba) and abroad, in Zaire and Bolivia, where he was fulfilling the demands of Cuban and Russian foreign policy.
But 'assassin for the bourgeoisie' is much shorter and snappier.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
The most notable one of his is what is called "Stalinism"
Now I feel the conversation is becoming progressive rather than just bickering.
As far as Che killing peasants, there's a pretty famous quote from Jon Lee Anderson saying that Che never killed anyone that would not normally be killed in times of war, conventional or non-conventional. It's no justification, but he's not the blood thirsty maniac many make him out to be. Is a revolutionary war, or any war for that matter, supposed to be fought with pellet guns? Violence is a key part of revolutions and wars, and this situation was both.
Yes, he fought for Castro and his cohorts, who, no doubt was bourgeois; is this what you mean?
Also, Che wasn't a soldier for Soviet foreign policy like he was for Cuba's. Cuba exported revolution; the USSR wanted "peaceful coexistence. Che didn't think very highly of the USSR, or their foreign policy, after dealing with them for a few years diplomatically.
As far as him being Argentine and fighting in Cuba, the Congo, and Bolivia, this only illustrates his internationalist, anti-imperialist leftist (I'll refrain from saying Marxist for the sake of this rather large discussion) ideals.
So, people that fight in other countries are heroic internationalists? Like all those US marines heroically and internationalistically fighting in Vietnam, you mean?
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Nationalization means state control of the process of generalized commodity production.
Socialism is when generalized commodity production ceases to exist and the means of economic production are held in common (not monopolized by a state), and controlled communally.
The word Socialism necessarily implies the impossibility of a nationalized economy, because a classes society has no nations.
Stalinists and especially Maoists will disagree, but their rhetoric is full of logical inconsistencies, especially Maoists.
Come on, you're deferring to semantics. We were specifically talking about Guevara, who is one person, not an imperialist institution like you are speaking of.
Were the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War not a good idea? Was it not heroic for those brigadiers, or for fighters who fought on the anarchist side, to travel to Spain and fight the fascists? Or wait, they weren't Spaniards, so they shouldn't fight?
You seem to pick apart what others say instead of adding anything of significance. Your second-to-last post is the only one I saw in a quick glance that has any knowledge inside.
Che was critical of Stalin and the USSR. Castro was the pro-USSR one in the Cuban Revolution and you cannot compare Che to the US Marines. He fought for the International freedom of the oppreseed in Bolivia and South Africa. He helped spread revolution to oppressed people. He didn't fight blindly for a government that profits from the poor and down trodden. He promoted education amongst agricultural workers and he was a good man. He didn't have a ton of items to his name and he did understand the world as some people have everything and most have nothing. Part of what he fought against in the Cuban revolution were the land owners who monopolized the land..
Che became critical of the USSR after Stalin's death. He said that the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin should be published in Cuba because, according to him, they were great Marxists. He also said that the works of Trotsky and Khrushchev should be published so that everyone would see their revisionism. Castro is pro-Stalin only to the extent of saying that blaming him for everything would be historical simplism.
What does that mean? When does become or end being a Marxist?
In the last few years I've increasingly called myself simply a socialist, anarchist or communist with little regard for being a "Marxist". On key points I'm extremely orthodox regarding Marxism -- LTV, commodity fetishism, and actually reading Marx (which is a whole other thing) -- on other other stuff, who gives a fuck?
The statement of 20th century revolutionary politics I'd stand by is his speech to the Tricontinental. Is it Marxist? Sort of.
Marxism has very little to say about contemporary issues around ecological catastrophe, the challenges of oppressed peoples and persons, many pragmatic issues in the workers movement.
Forgetting about the Stalin debate which is another thread entirely, I think the idea that Che had bourgeois ideals is completely baseless and I do believe Che was a Marxist. Sure he may have done things differently but most people try to throw a tendency on his name and you cant. Che was a man who was proactive and spent less time actually debating difference in Marxism and went out and tried spreading revolution all throughout Latin America and into South Africa. This in turn meant Che was a revolutionary Marxist and I don't completely disagree with the revolution starting with the workers in rural areas. They're the ideal proletariat.
"Stalinism" is a bourgeois belief? Considering the historical struggle waged by "Stalinists" through History against the bourgeoisie that's an amusing thing to say.
Not to talk about the poorness of this type of argument "I don't agree with this ideology so it must be a bourgeois/fascist one".
I'm not a Trotskyst but I don't believe for one moment that it is a bourgeois belief despite the fact that I have much more reasons to call Trotskysm a "bourgeois belief" than you have to "Stalinism" if we look at some of Trotsky's late ideas like his defense of a multiparty system.
US marines fought for the US government, Che fought for NO government.
Last edited by Old Bolshie; 13th October 2013 at 23:43.
"WE COMMUNISTS ARE ALL DEAD MEN ON LEAVE"
Eugen Leviné
From Message to the Tricontinental:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1967/04/16.htm
Stalinism was responsible for capitalist counterrevolution in the USSR, that's hardly a struggle against the bourgeoisie. Stalinism has not threatened the existence of the bourgeoisie (like most other capitalist states, they did get into conflict with other capitalist states however); Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary force that offers no threat to the bourgeoisie. You give far too much credit to Stalinism if you think otherwise.
Where have Trotskyists been a counterrevolutionary force? Stalinism has proven itself over and over again as a counterrevolutionary force, whether in Russia, Spain, China, Vietnam, etc. Stalinism can rightfully be called a bourgeois ideology, to think otherwise is absurd.
And you think Trotskyism has?
It certainly was a threat to the existence of the bourgeoisie in Russia, China or Cuba. Not only it threatened their existence as they even ended it in those countries.
And Stalinism was responsible for capitalist counterrevolution in USSR? So when USSR stopped being socialist and returned to capitalism due to Stalinism? When Stalin replaced the NEP for a full nationalized planned economy?
Absurd is to think of Trotsky as a working class liberator different from Stalin the oppressor of the working class and the counterrevolutionary force in USSR:
Who's the counterrevolutionary now?
"WE COMMUNISTS ARE ALL DEAD MEN ON LEAVE"
Eugen Leviné
In Russia, China, and Cuba it created a statifiied capitalist system, not a workers' state and/or socialism. Are China and Cuba workers' states in your mind? Are they socialist?
The Soviet Union was never socialist. It was, however, a workers' state, which went through a process of degeneration and was eventually overthrown and replaced with a form of statified capitalism. For book-length details, read "The Life and Death of Stalinism" which is on the LRP-COFI's website for free (you can also read the somewhat-of-a-summary of it if you don't want to read it, that's understandable)
If those make Trotsky a counterrevolutionary (he later reversed his position on the last one, and was correct on the middle one, and I need more [historical] context for the first one to judge it), despite being one of the leaders of the October Revolution, being through a Civil War defending the workers' state, and then spending the rest of his life fighting against Stalinism, which would cost him his life, then I can't imagine how someone such as yourself can view Stalinism as having a positive revolutionary role in the world (Also, Stalinism doesn't refer to Stalin as a person but to the system. Trotsky never, for example, destroyed single-handedly revolutions in Spain, China, or Vietnam for example, whereas the Stalinist governments/movements did. Do you think the Stalinists didn't do that?)
If Che is an 'internationalist' because he fought in a country he wasn't born in, so is any other soldier who fights in a country he wasn't born in. I'm not a nationalist, I don't care where people are born; but I think it's interesting that on the thread about General Giap the US is specifically criticised as being 'foreign imperialists' and on this thread Che is praised as being a foreign fighter.
As I say - I don't care, not being a nationalist. I just wondered if you'd praise Che and the US Marine Corps, for being 'brave internationalists', or criticise Che and the US Marine Corps, for being 'foreign imperialists'.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Irreverent. It is what they are fighting for that matters, not where they come from. By all means criticize Che's actions and motivations but don't just say A is the same as B when it is not.
