Che Guevara-Marxist or not?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Cuba still is a worker's state, not so much for China although the Chinese process is a complex one due to its hybrid historical path.

Another subject for another thread, so I won't address this here.

And it only became state-capitalist with Stalin? Strange thing to say when it was Lenin himself who defended and implemented state-capitalism in USSR.

Lenin's state capitalism was a workers' state regulating the accumulation, through workers' control, of remaining private capital in the country. Stalin's statified capitalism was a capitalist class that existed and reproduced itself through bureaucratic positions, and used the state was a mechanism for capitalist accumulation. I am surprised a supposed "Marxist" doesn't know the difference between Lenin's state capitalism, and Stalin's state capitalism, even if they don't agree with the ideas.

I don't consider that when Trotsky made such statements he was a counterrevolutionary (although he eventually became one in a later point of his life). I was just showing how ridiculous your claims to differentiate Trotsky and Stalin were.

I know that you refer to Stalinism as a system or ideology. My point by individualizing the issue and showing those Trotsky's quotes was to show that Trotsky was a "stalinist" himself.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of Trotsksyism and Stalinism knows there is a difference between the two. Concluding that Trotsky and Stalin are not different enough to have had different polticial ideologies based on this idea that both were, in some way, "authoritarian" is outright absurd.

It would be hard to Trotsky to destroy "single-handedly" the Chinese or the Vietnamese revolution since he was already dead.

Trotsky even wrote about the Chinese revolution, which Trotskyists actively participated in (and were, of course, attacked by the Stalinists). Problems of the Chinese Revolution. Trotskyists, similarly, had a role in Vietnam, and were as always persecuted by the Stalinists.

How could "stalinists" in China or Vietnam destroy revolutions which were made by themselves in first place?

They weren't made by them, as someone already addressed. They destroyed the potential for a proletarian revolution, as Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary ideology incapable of leading a proletarian revolution.

[Red_Banner]

Che was more Marxist than the USSR under Lenin ever was

Well that doesn't mean Lenin wasn't as Marxist a Che.

Lenin wasn't the sole politician that administered the USSR, and he was only alive for the 1st year or 2 of the USSR.

[Old Bolshie]

Lenin's state capitalism was a workers' state regulating the accumulation, through workers' control, of remaining private capital in the country.

Which worker's control do you mean? This?

To achieve this success in Russia, in her present state, it is absolutely essential that all authority in the factories should be concentrated in the hands of the management. The factory management, usually built up on the principle of one-man responsibility, must have authority independently to fix and pay out wages, and also distribute rations, working clothes, and all other supplies on the basis and within the limits of collective agreements concluded with the trade unions; it must enjoy the utmost freedom to manoeuvre, exercise strict control of the actual successes achieved in increasing production, in making the factory pay its way and in increasing profits, and carefully select the most talented and capable administrative personnel, etc.

Lenin

Or this?

Under these circumstances, all direct interference by the trade unions in the management of factories must be regarded as positively harmful and impermissible.



Lenin

Too much for the worker's control in Lenin's state capitalism...

Stalin's statified capitalism was a capitalist class that existed and reproduced itself through bureaucratic positions, and used the state was a mechanism for capitalist accumulation. I am surprised a supposed "Marxist" doesn't know the difference between Lenin's state capitalism, and Stalin's state capitalism, even if they don't agree with the ideas.

That's because there is no difference between the two. The soviet state (which by Lenin's own admission was a bourgeois and Tsarist hotchpotch (too much for the workers control again)) was the same under Lenin as it was under Stalin. Soviet workers had the same degree of control BEFORE and AFTER Lenin died.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of Trotsksyism and Stalinism knows there is a difference between the two. Concluding that Trotsky and Stalin are not different enough to have had different polticial ideologies based on this idea that both were, in some way, "authoritarian" is outright absurd.

Not based on the idea that they were both authoritarian but rather based on the idea that both were against workers emancipation and autonomy. Like I said before presenting Trotsky as a working class liberator different from Stalin the oppressor of the working class is one of the stupidest things I ever red.

Trotsky even wrote about the Chinese revolution, which Trotskyists actively participated in (and were, of course, attacked by the Stalinists). Problems of the Chinese Revolution. Trotskyists, similarly, had a role in Vietnam, and were as always persecuted by the Stalinists.

That's because both Stalinists and Trotskysts weren't struggling for workers emancipation but rather for the control of the state pretty much like Stalin and Trotsky were struggling purely for political power in USSR without any concern for Soviet workers.

They weren't made by them, as someone already addressed. They destroyed the potential for a proletarian revolution, as Stalinism is a counterrevolutionary ideology incapable of leading a proletarian revolution.

Stalinism is as much as a counterrevolutionary ideology as it is Trotskyism. The only reason why Trostkyists never crushed a revolution is because they never really had any chance and power to do it due to its weakness, again like Trotsky never had any power or chance to put his "ideas" in practice although much of it was adopted by Stalin.

[Blake's Baby]

...
Stalinism is as much as a counterrevolutionary ideology as it is Trotskyism. The only reason why Trostkyists never crushed a revolution is because they never really had any chance and power to do it due to its weakness, again like Trotsky never had any power or chance to put his "ideas" in practice although much of it was adopted by Stalin.

Absolutely. All variants of 'Leninism' (Bolshevik-Leninism = Trotskyism, or Marxist-Leninsm = Stalinism) are counter-revolutionary ideologies.

The difference though is Stalisnism was counter-revolutionary from the outset (when Stalin adopted it from Bukharin in 1924, and some of Trotsky's ideas from about 1927), whereas Trotskyism still just about held on to a shred of relevance to the proletariat until the late 1930s or early 1940s.

But I agree that now they're equally counter-revolutionary.

[LiamChe]

We can't blame him for some of the mistakes Cuba has made since Che's death. I would have to say that Che was indeed a Marxist. He made very important theoretical strives in Marxism-Leninism and was a very important figure for the international communist movement. It seems very silly to say that Che is a counter-revolutionary, he was anything, but that. Also Marxism-Leninism is counter-revolutionary!? I would like to see proof of this accusation.

[Brutus]

Also Marxism-Leninism is counter-revolutionary!? I would like to see proof of this accusation.

1926 British General Strike, 1956 Hungarian Uprising, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact... Need I continue?

[Bardo]

Recently I was discussing with a comrade about Che Guevara and I was presented with the idea that Che wasn't a Marxist or Sociailist but rather just a bourgeoisie Anti-Imperialists.......

What could lead people to believe Che wasn't a Marxist or Socialist and was a bourgeoisie?

Well, what was this persons' argument? Did they just make the claim without elaborating or explaining?

The burden of proof is on the claimsmaker. If someone said to me that Che wasn't a Marxist I would shrug and say "well, why not?"

[Kamp]

Sure he was a marxist! but it's also true that he made he's biggest points in anit-imperalism.

But then again, anti imperialism aspecially against usa is a cornerstone in marxism, and what the little i know about cuba is that a anti imperialistic campaign would probably work better then a arument to take down the elite. After all those who were the richest in cuba at that time were fat americans on holidays, tell me about the white guy that dosn't exploit a culture and a people when he's on holidays - we are kind of known for fucking everything up when we harrass a local population for our amusment...

[Sharia Lawn]

I don't think he was a Marxist in the sense that he didn't really understand or adhere to the Marxist worldview.

He was a courageous individual undoubtedly, who's passion is a striking counter-point to the uninspired cynicism conditioned upon us through the daily drudgery of existence in capitalism.

However, the tactics of armed struggle are not the tactics of proletarian revolution. Appropriate for anti-colonial and national liberation struggles perhaps, in which victory can only be won through military force, but a workers' revolution can only be successful through the direct seizure of power by workers' councils or other corresponding organs of workers' power.

[erupt]

However, the tactics of armed struggle are not the tactics of proletarian revolution. Appropriate for anti-colonial and national liberation struggles perhaps, in which victory can only be won through military force, but a workers' revolution can only be successful through the direct seizure of power by workers' councils or other corresponding organs of workers' power.

What is a "direct seizure of power" without "armed struggle"?

A worker's council cannot simply demand control of production; they must seize it, and the seizure of production will be most likely met with violence if the seizure was non-violent in nature anyway.

[Blake's Baby]

'Armed struggle' when you're talking about Che means guerrillas in the forests. That's really not the same as factory workers or transport workers (or whoever) establishing militia units to defend themselves against the bosses' goons and the police, and then using these units to overthrow the state. The seizure of power by the working class will surely involve some 'military' aspect; but the seizure of power by a military clique need not involve the working class at all.