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 12 Mar 2010, 15:05
Yeah I know. But he isn't violent. And I doubt he'll ever take up violent arms so this discussion on class warfare through violence in the 1st world is unnecessary extremism. Political power comes from the barrel of a gun, but it doesn't mean you have to fire it. But yes, his protesting for the working class is commendable. He is a better commie than me for sure. Certainly more knowledgeable than myself. But a violent communist revolution is not going to occur in the USA (not in our lifetime at least). So let's be realistic and explore other options shall we.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5130
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Ideology: Other Leftist
Embalmed
Post 12 Mar 2010, 16:35
onelineonebullet
Last edited by Misuzu on 14 Mar 2010, 06:47, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: What makes you so sure? The US working class will rise, just like any other, when capitalism has a crisis
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 12 Mar 2010, 16:42
There is a transcript of a speech by Lenin where he says 'the revolution probably won't happen in my life time'. Anyways I like how no one wants to stay on topic.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 12 Mar 2010, 16:56
The Che Trotsky thing is interesting in a lot of ways because it goes over the manifestations of militant class struggle. Trotsky, founder and leader of the Red Army, firmly believed that the revolution had to be as wide as possible - that everyone had to take part - and thus a large, open, and disciplined military was the best way to go.

Che, obviously, believed in guerillaism - which is inherently exclusive.

Since both were successful, it's interesting to compare and contrast them. I wish I had more time to look in to it, or the potential debating partners weren't third graders that said things like, "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."
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 12 Mar 2010, 23:17
The Immortal Goon and 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."
I might sig that...

The Immortal Goon wrote:
Che, obviously, believed in guerillaism - which is inherently exclusive.

Che wasn't picky. If you could read and were over the age of 18 and had a gun, you could join. However, these were rare circumstances in Cuba. He also believed that the guerilla forces would contribute more than a conventional force and would fight better using hit and run tactics. A lot of special ops groups do the same.
Red_Bull wrote:
I'm suggesting that people like yourself shouldn't take all of Marx as written Dogma and think outside the box.

oooo...don't use the D word. It's not dogma to support an armed revolution. Do you think that revolution will come to India through a ballot box? Or Africa? Chances are that it wont
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 13 Mar 2010, 23:57
It's not dogma to support armed revolution. However, its dogmatic to only support armed revolution.
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Mar 2010, 01:02
as we've seen from Red Rebel's pictures of the rallies he has taken part in, he obviously supports working class reform as well as armed revolution. I doubt he's stuck to dogma
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 9306
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Mar 2004, 15:19
Ideology: Other Leftist
Old Bolshevik
Post 14 Mar 2010, 02:03
onelineonebullet
Last edited by Misuzu on 15 Mar 2010, 06:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Cool bro, that means we agree. 8)
Image

Fitzy wrote:
Yes, because I am poisoning them. They are my children.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 136
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Sep 2008, 17:13
Pioneer
Post 19 Mar 2010, 23:17
China did some errors in their international policies which they later rectified.

The Soviets also could have done more, but didn\t make such extremist errors as the PR China.

It is now great to see the chinese moving closer to the international communist movement again and the posivitve things going on in therm of unity and uniting the marxst-leninist forces, nationally and internationally.
"For us there is no valid definition of socialism other than the abolition of the exploitation of one human being by another."
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 20 Mar 2010, 00:23
?
Chinese Communist party is full of bourgeois who push their own interests,and with current path of economical development of PRC,it's presence is only getting stronger.
Soviet cogitations: 10718
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 Mar 2010, 23:32
Interview with Celia Hart: "How can you not be a Trotskyist in the Cuban Revolution!"

Quote:
In your articles you underline the affinity between Trotsky's ideas and thoughts and those of Che Guevara. For decades it seemed there was a wall separating those who followed Trotsky, Communism or Che Guevara, all of whom had different concepts of those two revolutionary leaders. What's your opinion?

Paradoxical though it may seem, when I started reading Trotsky's writings I found them somehow familiar and well-known, along the same lines of Che Guevara's works.

Unfortunately, Che Guevara has been through the same adversity that so many other revolutionaries who were hogged by the Stalinist parties and whose ideas and thoughts were distorted, which fueled prejudice in other revolutionary and socialist schools, including Trotsky's. Almost all of those Stalinist parties have converted to reformism, except for the wonderful comrades of the Communist parties with whom we have so close contacts and bonds. In fact, I come from the Cuban Communist Party myself, and I take the opportunity to tell you that we are at a juncture where we can quite easily work with all parties of Marxist leanings. That's another little gift we received from real socialism's "desmerengamiento", to quote Fidel Castro.

In Trotsky's ideas I discerned concepts...that one way or another I had grasped from Che Guevara... about the Permanent Revolution, the Uneven and Combined Development of backward capitalist countries, internationalism, or his attacks on Soviet bureaucracy. Suffice it to make a second, careful reading of Socialism and Man in Cuba, or the Message to the Tricontinental, or his speech at the Afro-Asian Conference in Algiers, to recognize Che's influence and his fierce criticism at what he himself labeled "Socialist Powers", his sense of internationalism as a pressing need to continue the revolutionary struggle, a militant internationalism committed in every aspect.

Consequently, both Che and Trotsky ended up in the same limbo. The Trotskyist left, in special cases like that of Argentina, saw Che only as a martyr or a hero, with no regard whatsoever for his real, specific, explicit contributions to revolutionary theory... just because Che's followers usually extolled only his guerrilla profile. On the other hand, most Trotskyists get edgy at the mention of guerrilla warfare or gunpowder, even if it was the USSR's foremost guerrilla who marshaled and centralized the Red Army. Here in Buenos Aires they gave me Trotsky's Military Writings. Well, you should see his splendid criteria on revolutionary war! Both Che and Trotsky clearly, definitely and repeatedly defended the exploited's right to violence against the exploiters.

They also had faults and made mistakes, like any other revolutionary and any one who tries to do something in this world. We've been the victims of a most appalling plan to coop up the best Marxists in confined spaces.

Not that the Trotsky-Guevara equation is a new thing; I don't think I'm standing up for anything original. Néstor Kohan gave me a book by Carlos Rossi (that's a pen name) where he talks about those topics that I've just stumbled upon. Yes, I'm a fool who discovered warm water, as we say in Cuba. But I fell compelled by the circumstances.

Besides, I know for a fact that Che read Trotsky's work and shared his internationalist stance and other views. Just take a second look at the interview that Orlando Borrego gave Néstor Kohan, included in his book The subject of power. For instance, Ernest Mandel has already tried to bring both currents together; others like Michel Lowy also refer to this connection between Che and Trotsky in his book about the former. What happens now is that I come from the Cuban Revolution and highlight Trotsky without being a member of any Trotskyist party. I'm just pointing out that my Trotskyist comrades should see in Che Guevara a comrade-in-arms, read his works and realize that no two ways of thinking are more similar than theirs. Even their contradictions reveal they follow a single road and offer similar solutions to the same problems, each in his own day. And the same goes to Che Guevara's followers: get to know Leon Trotsky a little beyond your parties instead of rejecting him per se.

Two or three years ago you merely mentioned Trotsky's name and it seemed you were invoking the devil. I believe that's no longer the case as much as I believe that comrade Hugo Chávez, with his admirable oratory and transparency, has helped pull back those rigid curtains we had to endure for so long.

In Che Guevara's book "Critical Notes on the USSR's Manual of Political Economics" that was published in Cuba in 2006 exactly as he wanted it, with several comments hitherto unknown -- although parts of it had already been used by Carlos Tablada in his wonderful work Economic Thoughts of Ernesto Che Guevara and later on by Orlando Borrego, who reproduced some passages in his Camino al Fuego (On the Road to Fire) he carried out a very critical analysis of the USSR, to the point of assuring that it was "going towards capitalism".

If you read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed and then this one, you will notice the continuity in space and time of the same criticism and exactly in the same sense. Hence the importance of understanding that they both undertook the same road ... taking into account the specific circumstances of their activity ... to reach the socialist system: the Permanent Revolution, or what Che called "the uninterrupted revolution".

That's why I maintain that it was Che who "won me over", as you guys like to say here, to Trotskyism... or rather to "Trotskyness"... which in no way implies being a member of any of today's parties. You, for instance, come from Ted Grant, as others do from Moreno, Posadas, Pablo, Mandel, Lambert, etc. I come then from Che Guevara's "stock". That's right, so they can keep criticizing me: I "Trotsky-ize" Che as much as I "Guevar-ize" Trotsky. It's not the case, but I could say the same about Rosa, Mariátegui, Gramsci, etc., whom our wicked enemies try to divide us while we convert ourselves into tight sects.

The Marxist thinkers... those who have truly served the revolutionary cause, either with their words or by force of arms, remain captivatingly coherent and balanced, even in their mistakes. Now, when it comes to Trotsky and Che, the misunderstanding has reached shocking levels in both sides of the playground. That's why I follow Trotsky and Guevara, as well as Mariátegui, Gramsci, [Rosa] Luxemburg, etc.

We should coin a term to refer to all those Marxists who strayed from Moscow's official line and kept swimming against the tide despite their Communist orthodoxy. In fact, the pushers of the official line accused Che, Mella, and many others of being Trotskyist? Could it be that they were right?
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: 14429
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 Mar 2010, 23:45
That was a ballza article. Critical Notes on the USSR's Manual of Political Economics sounds pretty interesting.
Image
« Previous 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.