i would please like you kind che admirers to tell me about the nature of che's socialism/communim as opposed to that of soviet russia for example.
Results 1 to 11 of 11
i would please like you kind che admirers to tell me about the nature of che's socialism/communim as opposed to that of soviet russia for example.
che believed like mao that the ppl to start a revolution with are the farmers and not the ppl in the factories.
or more in farmers
he has some good books about how to revolt in a Guerrilla way
i give you link to one of them wich is online Guerrilla Warfare
http://www.geocities.com/redencyclopedia/guevara.htm
(Edited by Markxs at 3:03 am on Aug. 8, 2001)
respect equality liberation imagine
i'd also like to know how che evolved marxism to fit cuba's situation, then Congo (right?) and then bolivia (even though bolivia didn't work out).
basically, how did he go about applying, and changing marxism to different situations?
\"One murder makes a villain...millions a hero. Numbers sanctify, my friend.\" -Charlie Chaplin
yes after that congo only congo didnt work either, the cubans who went with che were good trained to congolese were unfortunatly not.
che was really about education of the ppl to help them change there mind about stuff like work and why they should work. he believed that the 'new man'would work for all the ppl not only for himself. i think thats why he different from others, che wasnt trying to indoctrinate or force somebody to work. only by showing his hard work he let the ppl know that he was true to his ideals.
education !
-A-
respect equality liberation imagine
Good topic.
Che wrote Fidel when he was in the Congo and said "send me a few men.... not many.... but good."
I think Che's socialism is of a very humanist nature. Its has a primal quality and is largely sacrificial. It's not so much "Do everything for the state" as it is more a unifying force -- more"solidarity to the death." The solidarity is the quantifying factor that has kept Cuba out of the reach of the US all of these years.
I always read Che from his humanitarian perspective, it is hard not to, and from that I could clearly see that he felt that the essence of life and the bonds of human connectedness were found intrinsically in the life and death struggle; going to the brink of death and victoriously emerging on the other side with life intact. Being a doctor and revolutionary put him in close contact with this. During the missile crisis he spoke to the people saying "We love life and we will defend it vigorously." I think that is the whole origin of his revolutionary theory. Unfortunetly he's been wrongly characterized by some biographers as being stoic even to the point of indifference and incompassion.
His application of socialism deviates from everyone elses in that others were working from pragmatism and economics; while his was always a rational idealism. not readily compromised. I think he was misappropriately assigned bueracratic jobs, such as Minister of Industries, President of the National Bank, etc, that he carried out well, but was probably more a drudgery for him in light of the fact that revolutions were in need of his help. It tells a lot of what kind of person he was that he postponed his plans of revolution, staying on in Cuba working ceaselessly to ensure that the revolution had a strong-front against falling at the onset of crisis and potential disasters.
He's credited with organizing the moral incentive to work & the volunteer agrarian program and literacy campaign, these probably singlehandedly did the most to raise the people's morale and consolidate unity to the revolution in those early days. He and Fidel both were very accessible to the masses, working along side. He also headed off the infrastructure of industrialization, and is highly esteemed for being the "architect" of the Soviet-Sino trade agreement. Moreover, he left a huge amount of writings documenting the Cuban Revolution from both personal recollection as well as historical standpoint and we have the speeches he made in Cuba and abroad as well. Above all, he left his legacy on guerilla warfare technique whose influence is instilled in every leftist revolutionary movement in all the quarters of the world.
I think also, (god! will she ever stop?...... I could go on and on....) he was more of a Mao/Trotskyist (yup, I said it.) Trotsky, in that he believed in permanent revolution and exporting it to the most dire places. In that respect I don't see any of his campaigns as failures. I know in analyzing the Congo mission he starts by saying "This is an account of a failure.".... "Victory is a great source of positive experiences, but so is defeat." His assessement of his part in the Congo was harshly self-critical in the blame that he issued on himself but he later went on to say " I have left with more faith than ever in guerilla struggle....." so much so, that he succeeded in Bolivia of what he said was the "decisive sacrifice.. the final gesture" that he so berated himself of not having done in the Congo.
After reading Anderson's book, I came away with the impression that Che devistated Cuba's economy with his ideas. If he truly wanted life to be better for the people, he should've enforced better working conditions and fair pay instead of seizing all of the sugar fields, oil refineries, etc. He forced all the people out who knew how to run these things and was left with people who didn't. Now I KNOW that isn't the nature of communism but it seems like he was so fanatical that in some areas he cut off his nose to spite his face. There's one passage in the book about how after a couple of years there were rusty tractors and machines rusting and decaying away because no one knew how to fix them and even if they could there were no spare parts around to fix them with. The oil refineries were rotting away because the pipes that they got from the USSR were such crap that they were just corroding away. And no one knew how to fix that either. Being proud and stubborn and letting people's life get worse is "doing things for the people."? It's like in Cuba there were the people waaaay up here (points to ceiling) and people waaaaay down there (points to floor). Instead of bringing everyone in the middle, everyone ended up on the bottom.
Contrary to what you might think from what I just said above, I DO believe in what he was TRYING to do. I don't think there's another human being I admire more than Che Guevara. You don't have to totally believe in his politics to believe the famous quote about him being one of the most complete human beings or to admire his unfailing passion and dedication. This just happens to be one area that I think he failed in.
Hi. I've read that Anderson biography myself, as well as about a dozen others. and I know the part you are referencing. I don't know if it is accurate to say that Che devastated the economy. That is a strong word. And if the economy was devastated, which I don't think it ever was, then the US government and their sanctions placed against Cuba can be to blamed.
Nationalizing industry is always the plan in a communist society. There were mistakes made and che always acknowledged those, even acknowledging them at public forums. But not because he was stubborn and intransigent against parting from a course of action that was not working. Any mistakes made were unintentional, he was after all a doctor, not an economic expert. Everything was learned in process. He studied Soviet economics taught to him by soviet technocrats, but still everything was done by trail and error. The revolution was not made by economic intellectuals.
The people who owned these utilities and resources were offered a pretty good deal as I remember reading, something like a salary of $2000 a month, (and this was 40 years ago remember) and their personal land holdings. If they were allowed to operate as they had, then the class division, US interests etc would have been maintained and nothing would have changed. Those particular people opted out of Cuba. Che wanted them to stay and use their talent for revolution.
Please, you know, the man died for the beterment of humanity. How many can we count who have done that?
Well, perhaps "devistate" was too strong a word. I was just thinking about how the rebels were worried at first about not getting support for their revolution because the economy was so good at the time but within a few years people were on food rations. And yeah, he did admit to his mistakes but he also admitted to his stubborness too. It's funny that you bring up the U.S. sanctions as the reason for the decline in their economy because I was JUST having this discussion with a co-worker today. Yes, the sanctions did deal a blow- but weren't the seizing of U.S. companies part of what led up to those sanctions? I know there were other factors- like how the U.S. is your "friend" only if you do things their way. But didn't Che also want to be totally independent from the U.S. anyway? So the U.S. sanctions, as far as his plan went, shouldn't have mattered. I could be wrong on this point. I have only recently really started studying Che and his life and politics so some of this may be MY interpretation rather than hard facts.
Which leads me to my next point- if I am off base on some of my points, let me tell you right now that I don't know ANYTHING about communism other than what I've learned studying Che. That's one of the things that I really like about coming here though. I love being exposed to new things, new ideas. I'm always trying to learn something new so if I do interpret some of this stuff the wrong way- feel free to educate me. I'm not saying that you are going to convert me or anything but I'd like to know. This isn't a subject that they taught in any school or college that I attended.
And I know he died for the betterment of humanity. Good grief. It's not like I said that his life was a waste or made a reference even CLOSE to that. I wouldn't be here if I thought that.
HI! Is that a trick question!!! Well, very good counterpoint. They did want total independence from the US as far as from a political standpoint, away from US hegemony. I don't think they really cared about losing the US as a trade partner; the US only had a big trade interest with their sugar exports and they eventually cut a much better deal with Russia on the sugar. What hurt Cuba was that the US made a policy of isolation in that if any nation traded or dealt with Cuba they would lose the US as benefactor. Within months, the same month, all Carribean nations severed ties with Cuba and followed by all other non-communist nations. I think the sanctions had less to do with US business interests (though business interests were steeped there) than in the US losing a defacto colony, which (and this is just my opinion- no hard facts) I think they were in the plans of swooping down on and making official. They all seemed to be having a big orgy with the accomodating puppet Batista who seized power by a coup, but that seemed to be ok with US interests. So, I think that is what the problem is -- The US lost a nice piece of real estate and they haven't gotten over it yet.
Fidel said once " You Americans keep complaining that Cuba is only ninety miles away from your shore. I say that the United States is ninety miles from Cuba. And that is worse."
And by the way, I do know that you know he died for the betterment of humanity.
(Edited by Dionysian at 3:36 am on Aug. 16, 2001)
I gotta add -- the Battista coup wholeheartdly backed by the United States; they wanted him there.
BRILLIANCE, ABSOLUTE BRILLIANCE.
