Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Register ][ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Che Guevara, the great "Stalinist"

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2010, 06:31
onelineonebullet
Last edited by Misuzu on 14 Mar 2010, 04:02, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: I'm getting the feeling lately Radical doesn't like Trotsky.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 95
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Aug 2009, 17:53
Pioneer
Post 11 Mar 2010, 06:49
Quote:
I'm getting the feeling lately Radical doesn't like Trotsky.


Of course I don't like Trotsky. He called for a coup de-dat in the Soviet Union, a Revolution and compared the Soviet Union to Fascism, amongst MANY other things.


Quote:
Brilliant!' cried Hitler, waving Trotsky's 'My Life' at his followers. I have learned a great deal and so can you!
('Great Conspiracy').

Quote:
Adolf Hitler read Trotsky's autobiography as soon as it was published. Hitler's biographer, Konrad Heiden, tells in 'Der Fuehrer' how the Nazi leader surprised a circle of his friends in 1930 by bursting into rapturous praise of Trotsky's book


Quote:
The wretched squabbling systematically provoked by Lenin, that old hand at the game, that professional exploiter of all that is backward in the Russian labour movement, seems like a senseless obsession.... The entire edifice of Leninism Is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay.
(Letter to Chkeidze 1913)
“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” - Mao Tse Tung
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2010, 07:03
Radical, that was my attempt at bad humor. On a more serious note, I think your criticism of Trotsky for criticizing is hypocritical. Also, Stalin and the Russian Revolution was a failure(in that the socialist state went back to capitalism) so we can drop the facade that Stalin was the ideal Communist.

Regarding Che, it is true he made some favorable comments about Stalin. But look at the context of the time. Many of Stalin's mistakes and questionable activities were not that well known. Stalin was still regarded as being a "Churchill" like figure against Capitalism. So Che's admiration for the man was inevitable. But to suggest that makes him a Stalinist is ridiculous. In fact Che became disenfranchised with Russia as he progressed.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Mar 2010, 07:06
Your view is incredibily simplistic Red_Bull. The Soviet Union was hugely successful until long after Stalin died. He didn't put the Soviet Union onto the course of collapse, Gorbachev did. I believe the USSR was viable and the problems salvagable right up until 1987.

It's wrong to say Stalin was the ideal Communist, but only because such a thing doesn't and cannot exist. Everyone is fallible and can make mistakes. The damage from the ones Stalin made could have been repaired, but later leaders (like Khrushchev) reacted inappropriately.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14429
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 11 Mar 2010, 07:16
Radical wrote:
Of course I don't like Trotsky. He called for a coup de-dat in the Soviet Union, a Revolution and compared the Soviet Union to Fascism, amongst MANY other things.


Bullshit. Trotsky never once claimed the USSR was fascist and consistently placed its continued existance over a political revolution against Stalinism. Have you ever read anything written by Trotsky or do you just take other people's word on him?


Quote:
Brilliant!' cried Hitler, waving Trotsky's 'My Life' at his followers. I have learned a great deal and so can you!
('Great Conspiracy').

http://www.marxists.org/archive/hansen/ ... rameup.htm

Fellow Comrade wrote:
The Sviet Union was hugely successful until long after Stalin died. He didn't put the Soviet Union onto the course of collapse, Gorbachev did. I believe the USSR was viable and the problems salvagable right up until 1987.


I agree with the latter. However the for er makes me lol since it's pretty much the same as the anti-stalin argument.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2010, 07:33
Fellow Comrade, it's my fault for not going into more detail. What I was trying to convey was that Stalinism as the ideal form of communism is preposterous, in my opinion. No one's trying to discredit the Russian Revolution. But bottom line it resulted in failure. The failure of Stalinism was predicted by the genuine Marxists, those that were fortunate enough to not be killed by Stalin. As Trotsky said “a planned nationalized economy needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.”

The Soviet Union was not really communist and had instead degenerated into a bureaucratic thermidorian state, under the control of an elite caste in no way connected to the needs or aspirations of the working class. Let's not play the game where for every good thing you have about Stalin I throw a bad one at you.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 495
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Mar 2008, 02:36
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2010, 09:42
Quote:
Sorry but it was Lenin and Stalin that wanted the 1.2 million Kulaks executed. Trotsky opposed this


Wait, apart from the factual problems here (Trotsky actually advocated collectivisation earlier than Stalin), if you believe that Lenin and Stalin knowingly ordered the killing of 1.2 million people..why the hell would you still support them?

I don't think Lenin ever ordered more than 1,000 people executed, and even they were for explicitly anti-revolutionary actions, rather than the tenous Kulak label that was applied to farmers in collectivisation. But if I did somehow discover that he ordered such a mass execution on such tenous grounds, that is when I would cease to be a Leninist.



Standard Western student anti-revisionist, I bet you have never done a days work in your life, never mind being able to comprehend what a painful decision it must be to order the taking of a human life, and you approvingly talk of these mass death tolls as if they are in any way justifiable.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 95
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Aug 2009, 17:53
Pioneer
Post 11 Mar 2010, 09:49
Quote:
Wait, apart from the factual problems here (Trotsky actually advocated collectivisation earlier than Stalin), if you believe that Lenin and Stalin knowingly ordered the killing of 1.2 million people..why the hell would you still support them?

I don't think Lenin ever ordered more than 1,000 people executed, and even they were for explicitly anti-revolutionary actions, rather than the tenous Kulak label that was applied to farmers in collectivisation. But if I did somehow discover that he ordered such a mass execution on such tenous grounds, that is when I would cease to be a Leninist.


"We all know who that internal enemy is. It is the capitalists, the landowners, the kulaks, and their offspring, who hate the government of the workers and working peasants-the peasants who do not suck the blood of their fellow-villagers.

A wave of kulak revolts is sweeping across Russia. The kulak hates the Soviet government like poison and is prepared to strangle and massacre hundreds of thousands of workers. We know very well that if the kulaks were to gain the upper hand they would ruthlessly slaughter hundreds of thousands of workers, in alliance with the landowners and capitalists, restore back-breaking conditions for the workers, abolish the eight-hour day and hand back the mills and factories to the capitalists.

That was the case in all earlier European revolutions when, as a result of the weakness of the workers, the kulaks succeeded in turning back from a republic to a monarchy, from a working people’s government to the despotism of the exploiters, the rich and the parasites. This happened before our very eyes in Latvia, Finland, the Ukraine and Georgia. Everywhere the avaricious, bloated and bestial kulaks joined hands with the landowners and capitalists against the workers and against the poor generally. Everywhere the kulaks wreaked their vengeance on the working class with incredible ferocity...
There is no doubt about it. The kulaks are rabid foes of the Soviet government. Either the kulaks massacre vast numbers of workers, or the workers ruthlessly suppress the revolts of the predatory kulak minority of the people against the working people’s government. There can be no middle course. Peace is out of the question: even if they have quarrelled, the kulak can easily come to terms with the landowner, the tsar and the priest, but with the working class never.

That is why we call the fight against the kulaks the last, decisive fight. That does not mean there may not be many more kulak revolts, or that there may not be many more attacks on the Soviet government by foreign capitalism. The words, the last fight, imply that the last and most numerous of the exploiting classes has revolted against us in our country.
The kulaks are the most brutal, callous and savage exploiters, who in the history of other countries have time and again restored the power of the landowners, tsars, priests and capitalists. The kulaks are more numerous than the landowners and capitalists. Nevertheless, they are a minority...

Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them!
Hatred and contempt for the parties which defend them-the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, and today's Left Socialist-Revolutionaries! The workers must crush the revolts of the kulaks with an iron hand, the kulaks who are forming an alliance with the foreign capitalists against the working people of their own country."
("Comrade Workers, Forward To The Last, Decisive Fight!" August 1918, in Lenin, V.I. Collected Works. Vol. 28. Moscow: 1965., pp. 53-57.)

Lenin and Stalin both supported their executions. Trotsky opposed this.

Quote:
if you believe that Lenin and Stalin knowingly ordered the killing of 1.2 million people..why the hell would you still support them?


Why would you have a problem with killing slave masters and mass murderers such as the Kulaks, whether it be 1.2 Million or 3 BILLION.

It's not about how many people you kill, it's for the reasons you do it. It's neccessary to repress Counter-Revolutionaries in the Development of Socialism, in order to ensure Socialism, as both Lenin and Stalin argued. (Which was the reason for the "Great Purges").
“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” - Mao Tse Tung
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2010, 12:05
Whether it be 1.2 million or 3 billion? Are you kidding me? These are human beings with lives we are speaking of. And let's assume your assertion that the Kulaks were in a position to destroy the revolution is correct, how does one go about executing millions or "billions" of people as you so hatefully put it? Do you execute those with capitalistic sympathy's? Do you label those who disagree with Lenin as Kulaks? Or perhaps you would label those who disagree with your blood thirsty rhetoric a Trotskyist (Your multiple threads attacking Trotskyist hint to this).

Guess what happens when you build your socialist state on the blood of 3 billion. It doesn't wash away and the people remember.

The ends do justify the means, however one needs to be tactful and practical when bringing the ends into fruition.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 95
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Aug 2009, 17:53
Pioneer
Post 11 Mar 2010, 12:40
Quote:
Whether it be 1.2 million or 3 billion? Are you kidding me? These are human beings with lives we are speaking of. And let's assume your assertion that the Kulaks were in a position to destroy the revolution is correct, how does one go about executing millions or "billions" of people as you so hatefully put it? Do you execute those with capitalistic sympathy's? Do you label those who disagree with Lenin as Kulaks? Or perhaps you would label those who disagree with your blood thirsty rhetoric a Trotskyist (Your multiple threads attacking Trotskyist hint to this).


No, I would label those that aren't willing to kill to bring forth the emancipation of mankind, unfaithful communists that are riddled with liberalism.

A Revolution is not a bed of roses. If somebody poses a serious threat to the revolutionary struggle, then they must be stopped. - If that means killed, then so be it. As Che Guevara argued in "Guerilla Warfare"

I used the figure of "Billions" to show an example of how important it is to repress Militant opposition.
“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” - Mao Tse Tung
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 11 Mar 2010, 13:24
I understand where the call to action comes from. I understand that liberalism is a bourgeoisie movement. I understand that one would realistically need to combat fire with fire. What I don't understand is why there a self-proclaimed communist like yourself who insist violence is the only way. It's a different world today than the one 30 years ago. We as proponents of Marx must adapt.

I believe someone from SE posted this once in the past.
"If you take the Cuban insurrection, you have a small country that used guerrilla tactics and overthrew the Batista Government. It took four years to overtake Cuba.

In China, they utilized guerrilla tactics and formed the People’s Republic of China.
It took 23 years and how many millions of lives.

The Soviet Union was also founded by an armed insurrection. But it took five years of civil war partially triggered by millions of casualties in a horrendous showing on the eastern front in WWI.

Take these three case studies. Outside of Havana and Moscow, there were no real metropolitan areas to deal with and 95% give or take was all agrarian.

In the United States, you have immense media coverage, dozens of metro areas over 1,000,000 in population, Strong anti left sentiment and the most powerful military force ever assembled in world history.

Now how are a couple of thousand guys with hunting rifles and the like going to face up?

Che Guevara stated that Guerrilla activities are great for rural and agrarian areas. How about these large cities? Che stated Guerrilla activities in cities are much too risky and too much loss of life. He actually referred to it as Terrorism."

As you can see, revolution through force, while ideal (in the sense that it provides an opportunity to crush the Bourgeoisie system without complications) is unrealistic in today's world. I admire Che greatly but sadly he would view me as a defeatist. It seems in some communist circles if one thinks outside the box they are labeled a revisionist, trotskyist, or w/e. We both share the same passion Radical. And that is a good place to build ideas and comradeship. Our Marxist Language I think needs to adapt as well, or else we will become relics of the past like the CPUSA.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 11 Mar 2010, 14:26
Radical wrote:
No, I would label those that aren't willing to kill to bring forth the emancipation of mankind, unfaithful communists that are riddled with liberalism.

A Revolution is not a bed of roses. If somebody poses a serious threat to the revolutionary struggle, then they must be stopped. - If that means killed, then so be it. As Che Guevara argued in "Guerilla Warfare"

I used the figure of "Billions" to show an example of how important it is to repress Militant opposition.

Well isn't this cute, another armchair communist who more than likely would either be too scared to hold a rifle, let alone use it on another human being, or too derranged to take any sensible course of action to acomplish ANY revolutionary goal.

You talk about GREAT reolutionary action which will undoubtedly be on the blood of many and anyone not willing to kill is automatically unfaithful. You sound no better than those who advocate a 'better' race, or conquest in the name of god!
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 11 Mar 2010, 14:37
Quote:
If somebody poses a serious threat to the revolutionary struggle, then they must be stopped. - If that means killed, then so be it. As Che Guevara argued in "Guerilla Warfare"


Care to cite that passage?

The M-26-7 went out of their way to minimise casualties even among enemy combatants. By the end of the war the army rank-and-file had no interest in fighting.
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Mar 2010, 15:47
This entire thread just seems like a massive purge attempt to see who the trots are.

I know Che supported Stalin. He requested to lay a wreath at Stalin's grave. I also support Stalin. But calling everybody a revisionist for not supporting Stalin is stupid and childish.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 95
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Aug 2009, 17:53
Pioneer
Post 11 Mar 2010, 22:00
Quote:
The M-26-7 went out of their way to minimise casualties even among enemy combatants. By the end of the war the army rank-and-file had no interest in fighting.


Nobody is saying we want un-neccessary casualties. But Revolution is not a bed of roses and delaying revolution over valued judgements based on "innocent people will die" is not productive for the movement and the millions of people that are suffering because of Capitalism.

I'm not looking through the entire book for the quote, instead I'll quote some other passages from sources i know.

Che Guevara wasn't a Pacifist, he believed Armed Struggle was neccessary and could be used to CREATE THE CONDITIONS FOR REVOLUTION regardless of the evils which war creates. - The idea that the condition for Revolution can be created via Armed Struggle was a key foundation of his Revolutionary Strategy, which made his ideas somewhat unique from other Military Strategists.


Quote:
Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.
Message to the Tricontinental (1967)

Quote:
To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. This is a revolution!
Guerrilla Warfare; Chapter 2. The Guerrilla as a Combatant

Quote:
Violence is not the monopoly of the exploiters and as such the exploited can use it too and, moreover, ought to use it when the moment arrives.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara ... arfare.htm

Quote:
I believe in armed struggle as the only solution for those peoples who fight to free themselves
Guerrilla Warfare: Part 1

Quote:
I am not Christ or a philanthropist, old lady, I am all the contrary of a Christ.... I fight for the things I believe in, with all the weapons at my disposal and try to leave the other man dead so that I don't get nailed to a cross or any other place.
Letter to his mother (July 15, 1956)
“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” - Mao Tse Tung
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Mar 2010, 23:57
Of course Che wanted armed struggle. But he wanted to differentiate between armed Guerilla struggle and terrorism. Armed struggle that retains mass support.
Che killed people. He was harsh and brutal with traitors during and after the revolution.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 11 Mar 2010, 23:58
FFFFFUUUUUU!

Enough with the out of context quotes. Seriously. Yes, you can quote something that sounds similar to what you are arguing, but to then use it in support of your position is a long shot.

I'm talking to Radical.

Death to the Kulaks, is meant as death to the landed capitalist, to kulaks as a social role, as an institution. NOT AS ACTUAL PEOPLE.

From the bolded passage of "death to the Kulaks" you immediately jump to Lenin and Stalin agreeing to the death of 1.2 million Kulaks. That's quite a jump.

If we look at the full context, you'll see that Lenin spoke time and time again about building Socialism, utilizing the real existing conditions inherited by the czarist state, and that meant even the people they had at the time, which were indifferent or even adverse to socialism.

When I get home I'll fetch you the obligatory quotes, I guess. But if you look at the question for example of people's instruction, he agreed on using teachers even though they were not socialits. When speaking about technicians, engineers, he agreed that they had to work with elements that were pro-capitalist. When talking about the military, he agreed with allowing officers that were from the imperial army. He dismissed right from the start any talk about purity, any discussion of using only socialist elements, or advancing from socialist conditions. He was extremely skeptical of "socialist culture" saying that people did not even assimilate capitalist culture in Russia.

I don't have the quote with me here, but he once said explicitly that communists had to work with non-communist as long as they undertood who was in command. He derided then the concept of finishing off adversaries saying that YOU CAN'T KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. I have the quote in a book at home, but I remember it clearly.

Lenin was not Pol Pot. Seriously.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 10718
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 12 Mar 2010, 00:04
Old Scottish Beaver Dude in an old S-E thread wrote:
Revisionism =/= deviationism. Trotskyism is not a form of Revisionism, it is 'merely' a deviation from Marxism-Leninism. This may seem like semantic nit-picking, but it is actually quite important.


Just repeatiny myself that Trotskyism isn't revisionism..

Radical wrote:
Sorry but it was Lenin and Stalin that wanted the 1.2 million Kulaks executed. Trotsky opposed this.

Coulden't that be seen as being "more peaceful"?


Trotsky was the People's Commissar for Army and Navy Affairs during the Civil War and iirc was linked to suppressing the Kronstadt Rebellion. Getting into an argument of who was more militant seems like a moot point..

Radical wrote:
There is nothing Anti-Revisionist within Che Guevara's theories on Revolution. As a member of an Anti-Revisionist party that fully understands Focoism, we support his ideas.

I'd like to see what Anti-Revisionists seem to "oppose" about Che's Revolutionary Strategy. I've read Guerilla Warfare and it's entirely compatible with our ideas, and we support it, but feel it's out-dated in some countries and could be edited to be a more advanced theory.


Curious, what anti-revisionist party are you a member of?

i.e. the Communist Party of Bolivia. And before it the Revolutionary Left Party (PIR, Bolivia) were both the Moscow Marxist-Leninist parties. The PIR actually supported the military dictatorship that the MNR toppled and it was the TROTSKYISTs who fought against the military dictatorship and the PIR. That was during Stalin's "era." Just saying that there are plenty of self proclaimed "Marxist-Leninists" who have done many things that you accuse Trotskyists of doing, i.e. "revisionism."

Sholokhov wrote:
Standard Western student anti-revisionist, I bet you have never done a days work in your life, never mind being able to comprehend what a painful decision it must be to order the taking of a human life, and you approvingly talk of these mass death tolls as if they are in any way justifiable.


Personal attacks are hardly a good argument.. especially so on the internet where you have little/no knowledge about the person.

Red_Bull wrote:
What I don't understand is why there a self-proclaimed communist like yourself who insist violence is the only way. It's a different world today than the one 30 years ago. We as proponents of Marx must adapt.


@Radical - this is revisionism.
It is something going against the esstianals of Marxism, i.e. class struggle and the armed conflict between classes.

The world is different 30 years ago but Marx's basics still apply. Democratic revolutions don't work. Look at Nepal with the Maoists or the US's constant aggressions against the Boliviarian Revolution in Venezeula.

Red_Bull wrote:
I believe someone from SE posted this once in the past.
"If you take the Cuban insurrection, you have a small country that used guerrilla tactics and overthrew the Batista Government. It took four years to overtake Cuba.

In China, they utilized guerrilla tactics and formed the People’s Republic of China.
It took 23 years and how many millions of lives.

The Soviet Union was also founded by an armed insurrection. But it took five years of civil war partially triggered by millions of casualties in a horrendous showing on the eastern front in WWI.


That was chaz and he used that in the context of favouring Che's focoism over Mao's people's war.

Red_Bull wrote:
Che Guevara stated that Guerrilla activities are great for rural and agrarian areas. How about these large cities? Che stated Guerrilla activities in cities are much too risky and too much loss of life. He actually referred to it as Terrorism."


Although Che stated that rural areas were the main area of operation for the rebel unit, he did aknowledge the need for urban warfare. He state it was doomed to fail but esstial in disrupting the governments forces. Due to political conditions in Cuba after the armed struggle, it was convient for the M-26-7 to promote their own "heroic guerrila" as compared to other rebel forces, some of which operated in the cities.

Che in Guerrilla Warfare wrote:
Of course, the struggles of the city masses of organized workers should not be underrated; but their real possibilities of engaging in armed struggle must be carefully analyzed where the guarantees which customarily adorn our constitutions are suspended or ignored. In these conditions the illegal workers' movements face enormous dangers. They must function secretly without arms. The situation in the open country is not so difficult. There, in places beyond the reach of the repressive forces, the inhabitants can be supported by the armed guerrillas.

[...]

It is possible to paralyze entire armies, to suspend the industrial life of a zone, leaving the inhabitants of a city without factories, without light, without water, without communications of any kind, without being able to risk travel by highway except at certain hours. If all this is achieved, the morale of the enemy falls, the morale of his combatant units weakens, and the fruit ripens for plucking at a precise moment.


[...]

The importance of a suburban struggle has usually been under-estimated; it is really very great. A good operation of this type extended over a wide area paralyzes almost completely the commercial and industrial life of the sector and places the entire population in a situation of unrest, of anguish, almost of impatience for the development of violent events that will relieve the period of suspense. If, from the first moment of the war, thought is taken for the future possibility of this type of fight and an organization of specialists started, a much more rapid action will be assured, and with it a saving of lives and of the priceless time of the nation.

Che in Guerrilla warfare: A method (different book) wrote:
The urban forces, led by the general staff of the people's army, can perform actions of the greatest importance. The eventual destruction of these groups, however, would not kill the soul of the revolution; its leadership would continue from its rural bastion to spark the revolutionary spirit of the masses and would continue to organize new forces for other battles.


Addressing terrorism in Guerrilla Warfare, Che stated that it had its advantages in small numbers but noted that it was ineffective in large numbers. i.e. 3 billion people being killed would probably be the wrong way to address a problem:

Che in Guerrilla Warfare wrote:
Acts of sabotage are very important. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between sabotage, a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare, and terrorism, a measure that is generally ineffective and indiscriminate in its results, since it often makes victims of innocent people and destroys a large number of lives that would be valuable to the revolution. Terrorism should be considered a valuable tactic when it is used to put to death some noted leader of the oppressing forces well known for his cruelty, his efficiency in repression, or other quality that makes his elimination useful. But the killing of persons of small importance is never advisable, since it brings on an increase of reprisals, including deaths.


Radical wrote:
To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary...These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. This is a revolution!
Guerrilla Warfare; Chapter 2. The Guerrilla as a Combatant


He also wrote in Man and Socialism in Cuba (1965) that (my bold):

Quote:
At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.

The leaders of the revolution have children just beginning to talk, who are not learning to call their fathers by name; wives, from whom they have to be separated as part of the general sacrifice of their lives to bring the revolution to its fulfilment; the circle of their friends is limited strictly to the number of fellow revolutionists. There is no life outside of the revolution.

In these circumstances one must have a great deal of humanity and a strong sense of justice and truth in order not to fall into extreme dogmatism and cold scholasticism, into isolation from the masses. We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.


Not stating that Che was a pacifist. He wasn't and few say that he was. But balancing love for humanity and the need to be a cold hearted fighter in the struggle is something every revolutionary must do.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 299
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Jul 2009, 10:14
Komsomol
Post 12 Mar 2010, 13:21
Red_Rebel,

You mistakenly assume I'm a pacifist and a proponent of democratic revolution. I'm suggesting that people like yourself shouldn't take all of Marx as written Dogma and think outside the box. True, those democratic revolutions failed, but so have Marxist-Lenin one's with violent outcomes. This is almost like someone saying communism doesn't work because the USSR fell. It's a rather broad statement with HUGE implications. Who are you to say revolution is impossible with a peaceful approach. Anything is possible. And the game has changed completely and Marxism is in need of a more modern approach. At least in regards to the 1st world. Peace should be a possibility to explore and not simply dismiss. I still personally believe the ends justify the means as I previously stated. But violence must only be a last resort and must be avoided if possible.

What's humorous is your adamant about fighting yet I just don't picture you leading the blue collar workers of the US in a violent struggle. Let's be realistic shall we.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 7674
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2004, 02:08
Embalmed
Post 12 Mar 2010, 14:32
Quote:
What's humorous is your adamant about fighting yet I just don't picture you leading the blue collar workers of the US in a violent struggle. Let's be realistic shall we.

Just FYI RR's got more IRL cred than damn near anyone here with movements as a whole that support the working class in the US as well as abroad, to be blunt you're not in a position to talk.
« Previous Page « » Next Page »
POST REPLY
Log-in to submit your comments and remove Infolinks advertisements.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Historical Forums: The History Forum. Political Forums: The Politics Forum, The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Siberian Fox network. Privacy.