Results 1 to 20 of 111
Che Guevara-Marxist or not?
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. I have a hard time accepting this since from what I've read about Che, he was a strong advocate for education and built the Cuban Revolution from the contribution of rural workers. He was strictly against the big land owners and helped the Cuban economy become socialized.
What could lead people to believe Che wasn't a Marxist or Socialist and was a bourgeoisie?
Does this idea ignore the fact that he went to leper colonies and all over South America offering medical help to people for free. I'm open minded and wanted to hear both sides of the story.
I too have heard this and I've heard arguments of merit on the otherside, but you do bring up a good point - actions are always more powerful than words, and risking his life to provide free medical care to the proletariat of several different nations goes to show who he threw in his lot with, and it certainly was not the bourgeoisie, in my opinion.
Keep in mind the difference between having bourgeois beliefs and being a part of the bourgeoisie, which I mentioned earlier. You are kinda using the term "bourgeoisie" incorrectly.
This is true, I too often forget this.Keep in mind the difference between having bourgeois beliefs and being a part of the bourgeoisie. You are kinda using the term "bourgeoisie" incorrectly.
On a random note, how's the weather in CT? I'm originally from Western Mass, but have been living in the Midwest for a while now.
Left/Right: -9.00; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28.
Marxists love making No True Scotsman's statements. Even though Stalinist theory is filled with serious misunderstandings of Marx and Engels, it is part of their legacy (which hasn't got anything to do with the worth of their theory), and dominated the left for a century. Ayn Rand is part of Nietzsche's legacy even though he likely would have despised her, because she associated herself with him out of an authentic appreciation for him even if she completely misunderstood him, not just as a cynical appeal to the authority of a canonical intellectual figure.
Che is a central figure in the culture of The Left and the face of socialism to a lot of young people. How much that Left is worth is another question.
I don't see Che in a positive light, by the way.
Last edited by Yuppie Grinder; 13th October 2013 at 03:49.
The Cuban revolution culminated in the nationalization of the Cuban economy, not the socialization. In Marxist theory those are two different things. Nationalization is not socialism. The many reforms brought about by the Castro government that have greatly improved the standard of living in the country do not amount to socialism.
Cuba is a bourgeois nation state with a high standard of living.
Considering socialism is but a step along the road to full communism, wherein inequality still exists and the state has not yet withered away, what is the difference, technically speaking, between nationalization and socialization?
Left/Right: -9.00; Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.28.
Che read Marx and considered himself a Marxist. He also educated Fidel on communism when he was still in the "revolutionary" phase and not yet committed to Marxism.
We all know no nation has been successful in implementing socialism, so how does Cuba's historical accomplishments illustrate a person's ideology (whether right or wrong, successful or not)?
Whether Che was correct or incorrect about any of his theories, I still don't see how he wasn't a Marxist. It's as if because he doesn't fit in to any tendency neatly, and because he was unsuccessful in his focos, that some don't want to admit his revolutionary Marxist character.
You don't have to like him, agree with him, or think he benefited Marxism. For example, Karl Kautsky, whether he's admired or despised, was a Marxist, was he not? The same goes for Eduard Bernstein; he was a true revisionist, but he was a Marxist nonetheless.
Please give examples of Che as an individual that illustrate he was bourgeois as was mentioned, or that he wasn't a Marxist. What characteristics did Che lack in being a "true" Marxist (to those who say he wasn't)? I'd really appreciate citations if they're possible, because all I keep hearing is people's opinions backed up by the fact that Cuba wasn't a socialist nation and Che was part of it's government.
If Che wasn't a Marxist, then who is?
I may be wrong, but nationalization is when ownership of production is transferred to the state, while socialization is when the ownership of production is in the hands of the people, rather than a company or government.
Socialism isn't a stage or a step, it's the same thing as communism.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Communists believe socialism is the "transitional period" between capitalism and communism.
Why do they have different names, then?
No socialism is an abstraction, a word describing something and people have different ways of using it. It's also used as a synonym for a "workering class run transitional post-revolution period" or "a socialist party running a transitional post-revolution socierty on behalf of workers" or "capitalist countries with a large social-welfare programs" or countries with a socialist party in power (over a capitalist state). I favor usining the term to describe a post-revolution society where the working class has become the ruling class which creates the ability to change the economic relations to create a communist society; but I think it's important to understand that the terms is used in various ways. It's the same with "anarchism": you can only make a general guess as to someone's political views if they call themselves "anarchist" or "socialist".
Well any industry can be nationalized: put under the control of government agencies but it doesn't tell us much about what the role of that nationalizated company plays in society, what (or who) guides production and makes decisions, or if workers are being exploited or not. During the Keynsian era, huge chunks of capitalist industry were nationalized - on either side of the Iron curtain. But none of this nationalization involved workers themselves reorganizing industry, instead it was capitalist governments or beurocrats. In Cuba the government makes the economic decisions - largely based on Cuba's relations to other countries or to world market prices and so a lot of the decisions on what to produce and how have been determined by trade deals with the USSR or EU countries, sudden loss of export markets (when the USSR collapsed) and so on.Originally Posted by revolutionarymir
If there was a working class revolution, the worker's (through whatever organs of decision-making they create) might "nationalize" in the sense of appropriating the productive property of industry, but the basis of this is much different and it would most likely begin with workers on the ground-floor occupying and taking over production of the places they work at. This probably wouldn't be done uniformly throughout a region, so other workplaces will just be shut-down by the capitalists before or maybe they will be remote or the workers in that particular area are too weak to sieze the productive facilities themselves. So then worker's councils or whatnot might decree (maybe not even that formally) that these shuddered factories or services now belong to the workers; more autonomous networks run by many small capitalists before might be united by workers to create their own network (so they aren't duplicating work or doing unessissary work) which might be considered "nationalization". But it's the content of who controls what that determines the differences between capitalists nationalizing something for reasons of promoting investment or socializing costs for things that help business on the one hand, and democratic networks of workers themselves organizing production on their own mutual terms.
No, Maoists believe that socialism is the transitional period (the Dictatorship of the proletariat).
'Leninists' (Stalinists and Trotskyists) believe (following 'State and Revolution') that socialism is the first phase of communism.
Marxists and Anarchists define socialism identically with communism (as a whole) - a classless communal society.
All of these groups can and do define themselves as 'communists'.
On RevLeft, the biggest group seems to be the last one.
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."
Not all communists are Marxist-Leninists or use their terminology.
Historically, they were used interchangeably, even by Marx and Engels (when they wrote about a "lower stage" and a "higher stage," they didn't call one "socialism" and the other "communism").
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
Of course Che was a Marxist, as Aang said being part of the bourgeoisie doesn't mean you have bourgeois beliefs. Let's not forget that bourgeois means city-dweller not automatically supporter of the middle-class you can see by his actions.
There's a short book called "The Marxism of Che Guevara" by Michael Lowy that explains his ideas. I read it but the language was rather advanced for my age so i didn't really understand it. You can find it free online.
Personally I regard him as a Marxist.
Alright, I'm glad the socialism/communism terminology question is cleared up, but we should get back to the original point..that is, was Che a Marxist revolutionary or a non-Marxist revolutionary of socialist leanings?
Or an assassin for the bourgeoisie, who was deluded in thinking what he was doing was somehow in the interests of the 'poor and oppressed'?
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."
In my opinion, Che was a Marxist. I'm not sure if he can be called a Marxist-Leninist though. Even though he admired Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, his "foco" theory is still, in my opinion, anti-Leninist. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
