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

Che and stalin

POST REPLY
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 91
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Feb 2006, 18:11
Pioneer
Post 28 May 2006, 04:00
I heard che said some things on stalin. What were they?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3033
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Nov 2004, 20:06
Party Bureaucrat
Post 28 May 2006, 05:46
edit: picture did not work
I post Here
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 29 May 2006, 10:29
I know Che said something about swearing against capitalism upon a picture of Stalin. On his visit to the USSR in November of 1960, he insisted on depositing a floral tribute at Stalin's tomb

But I want to say this, even though yes I know Che wasn't a Trotskyist.

But, at the end of his life he wasn't a Stalinist, I read somehwere that his visit to the USSR was rather depressing for him.

Armando Hart and Haydée Santamaria's daughter said that Che made her a Trotskyist:
Quote:
Che Guevara, symbol of the most radical communism, managed to fashion an instrument out of a Trotskyism that he didn’t know. And that was only because the theoretical truths of Trotsky have the same constancy as the value of G, the constant of Universal Gravitation. Che found his own way to many of Trotsky’s theses, without ever knowing it...without being allowed to know it.

I am going to give two examples which enabled me to begin to discover a secret communion between the two of them.

Che Guevara was the revolutionary who best understood the principles of the permanent revolution, to such an extent that he died for having tried to defend these principles. But he not only died for having wanted to implement these theses, he also died for having sought, intellectually, to reach its essence.

For this 65th anniversary I am going to take up again here the three fundamental aspects of the permanent revolution.

First aspect: “The theory of the permanent revolution, which originated in 1905, declared war upon these ideas and moods. It pointed out that the democratic tasks of the backward bourgeois nations lead directly, in our epoch, to the dictatorship of the proletariat and that the dictatorship of the proletariat puts socialist tasks on the order of the day.” [6].

Che was categorical on this subject. Here is what Nestor Kohan has to say about it: “He (Che) at no time accepted that in Latin America (I would add: and in the world) the tasks consist of building a “national revolution”, “democratic”, “progressive”, or a capitalism with a human face, which leaves socialism till later. He expounds in a trenchant fashion, very polemical, that if we do not propose to make the socialist revolution, then what results is a caricature of revolution, or ends in failure or tragedy, as has happened so many times.” [7]

These two exposés are identical. The underdeveloped countries don’t have to wait till an English or German person decides to organise the revolution in their countries. Trotsky said that in the Manifesto of the Conference known as the “emergency” conference of the Fourth International in May 1940: “...the perspective of the permanent revolution in no way signifies that the backward countries must wait for the signal from the advanced countries, or that the colonial peoples must patiently wait for the proletariat of the metropolitan centres to free them. Help comes to those who help themselves!”

In its second aspect, “The second aspect of the ‘permanent’ theory has to do with the socialist revolution as such. For an indefinitely long time and in constant internal struggle, all social relations undergo transformation. Society keeps on changing its skin. ... Revolutions in economy, technique, science, the family, morals and everyday life develop in complex reciprocal action and do not allow society to achieve equilibrium. Therein lies the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such.” [8]

For his part, Che wrote in Socialism and Man in Cuba: “In this period of the building of socialism we can see the birth of the new man. His image is not yet quite fixed. It will never be able to be, given that the process is parallel to the development of new economic structures.” [9] For Che, “the only rest for revolutionaries is the tomb”.

Third aspect: international. For Trotsky, “The international character of the socialist revolution, which constitutes the third aspect of the theory of the permanent revolution,flows from the present state of economy and the social structure of humanity. Internationalism is no abstract principle but a theoretical and political reflection of the character of world economy, of the world development of productive forces and the world scale of the class struggle. The socialist revolution begins on national foundations-but it cannot be completed within these foundations. The maintenance of the proletarian revolution within a national framework can only be a provisional state of affairs, even though, as the experience of the Soviet Union shows, one of long duration. In an isolated proletarian dictatorship, the internal and external contradictions grow inevitably along with the successes achieved. If it remains isolated, the proletarian state must finally fall victim to these contradictions.” [10]

Che said on the subject of revolutionaries: “If their revolutionary ardour dulls when the most pressing tasks have to be carried out at the local level and proletarian internationalism is forgotten, then the revolution ceases to be a driving force and falls into a gentle somnolence, of which our irreconcilable enemy, imperialism, takes advantage to gain ground. Internationalism is a duty, but also a revolutionary necessity.” [11]

I will not waste time. If there is someone who always fought to make the Cuban Revolution ever more socialist, it was Che. He threw himself into the building of socialism in a backward land, deepening day after day its socialist character...only to completely abandon it in the name of the world revolution. I do not know anyone else who did the same. I don’t think there is any greater fidelity to the theses of the permanent revolution. That the conditions in Bolivia were not favourable...that is another subject than the permanent revolution. We can certainly criticise him for having been too permanent or too consistent a revolutionary.

The other element of convergence, in different circumstances, between Trotsky’s thought and Che’s, resides in their firm commitment to planned economy. It is certain that Trotsky initially opted for the NEP, given the terrible economic circumstances in which the young Soviet state found itself with what was known as War Communism.

But Trotsky very quickly criticised the new state of affairs. He considered, as Isaac Deutscher describes to us, that “with the move to the NEP, the necessity of planning became more urgent (...) Precisely because the country was reviving under a market economy, it was necessary to see that the market was controlled, and to have the means of exercising this control. He went on to raise the question of the Single Plan, without which it was impossible to rationalise production, to concentrate industrial resources and to establish equilibrium between the different sectors of the economy.” [12]

Che’s positions in favour of the plan and his proverbial aversion to the NEP are well known. Che considered that Lenin, if he had had the time, would have revised his opinion of the NEP. And there was not only the plan. Che also took a position, at the end oh his life, in favour of socialist democracy. Michael Lowy writes in Rebelion: “We know that in the last years of his life Ernesto Che Guevara had made considerable progress in distancing himself from the Soviet paradigm (...) But a large part of his later writings still remains unpublished, for inexplicable reasons. Among these documents there is a radical critique of the Manual of Political Economy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, written in Prague in 1966 (...) One of its passages is very interesting, because it demonstrates that in his later political thinking, Guevara was coming round to the idea of socialist democracy.” [13]

That was what Che was like. Although he had insufficiently studied Leon Trotsky, he was going in the direction of the most consistent Trotskyist theses.

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/a ... rticle=898

Che was

Juan Leon Ferrer claims that the last year of Che's life he was reading as much Trotsky as he could get his hands on.

---

But, as I said, he wasn't a Trotskyist. If I had to place Mao on a spectrum of the big post Lenin three - I would say he was closest to Maoism.

The whole guerilla aspect of everything in his theory I think places him more or less there.

But I speak bullshit to some extent, as I really haven't studied Che all that much in honesty.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 29 May 2006, 10:56
Expanding more or less on what TIG wrote, Che sided with the Maoists and Hoxhaites in the Sino-Soviet split. This is what TIG refers to here: "I read somehwere that his visit to the USSR was rather depressing for him."

Che was a Marxist-Leninist. As such, he was a supporter of comrade Stalin.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 282
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2005, 17:07
Komsomol
Post 29 May 2006, 13:11
Quote:
I know Che said something about swearing against capitalism upon a picture of Stalin.


Yes he said that in his leter to his aunt. It can be found on Motorcycle Diaries:"Along the way, I had the opportunity to pass through the dominions of the United Fruit, convincing me once again of just how terrible these capitalist octopuses are. I have sworn before a picture of the old and mourned comrade Stalin that I won’t rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated." That happened AFAIK at 1954.

Quote:
But I want to say this, even though yes I know Che wasn't a Trotskyist.


I allways thought that Guevara started as a trotskyist/peronist and developed throughout time Marxist-Leninist(or stalinist if you prefer to use that word). But then again I haven´t studied the guy that much.

Quote:
But, at the end of his life he wasn't a Stalinist, I read somehwere that his visit to the USSR was rather depressing for him.


Actually "stalinist" or Marxist-Leninist thought that time that SU was revisionist state which was on the way towards capitalism rather than socialism. For example when Castro met Guevara first time(at mexico). Guevara was reading Stalins "The Foundations of Leninism", which lead to Castro ask about Guevara his opinion about Hrutshev. Che response was something like that Hrutshev is dirty lier and revisionist who tells lies about Stalin.

Quote:
Juan Leon Ferrer claims that the last year of Che's life he was reading as much Trotsky as he could get his hands on.


Well I would be suprised if Guevara didn´t read Trotky because I have heard that he was a reader type guy who was allways speaking for studying and under his lead every guerilla were forced to educate themselfes with books. He allso read Stalin as he has said:

"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don’t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context … I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn’t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I’m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."

I consider him as Marxist-Leninist who didn´t bring much in theory of Marxism-Leninism but he practiced it. Some people claim that Guevara had is own way of conducting Marxism-Leninism. I think only thing new that he bought to that theory was:
1)If country hasn´t "revolutionary" sitution that can be and should be changed with violent "terrorist" attacks where the state is forced to answer violently and pass "anti-terrorist" laws which will eventually anger normal population thus gaining resistance against the state. As he said "The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall."
2)Imperialism cannot be win with normal battles. Imperialists should be fight with many "small" fronts. To create new "Vietnams" all over the world. I think this is actually Maos theory but Guevara supported this allso.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 10718
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 29 May 2006, 18:02
Quote:
I read somehwere that his visit to the USSR was rather depressing for him.


His first trip to the USSR was more of a positive experience for him (of what Cuba could be) the second was the depressing one.
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: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 30 May 2006, 11:44
Quote:
I allways thought that Guevara started as a trotskyist/peronist and developed throughout time Marxist-Leninist(or stalinist if you prefer to use that word). But then again I haven´t studied the guy that much.


That could be true also, but from everything I've read, he didn't know much about Trotsky at all - he didn't really get to be a communist until after all that stuff had been more or less sortid.

But, like you, it's really wrong of me to try to say anything firm about him as I've never studied him in any earnest.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 May 2006, 05:40
Mabus,

Just to re-iterate basically Che was basically pro-Stalin, sympathetic to China and critical of the revisionism of the Soviet leaders of the day, but died in 1967, well before terms like "Maoist" became widespread. He thought politics should be in command. I consider his ideology of "focoism" to be distinct (and inferior) from what was then called "Mao Tse Tung thought".

I'd be highly interested in how your party leaders in the SWP square their avowed reverence of Trotsky with the ultra-pro Stalin viewpoint of Che.
Secondly what they think of how the Cuban revolutionary regime dealt with the Posadas Trots, post-Cuban revolution?

Jobbyman,
I wonder if Che had any idea of the Cultural Revolution which kicked off in 1966, a year before he died?
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 31 May 2006, 11:06
Quote:
I'd be highly interested in how your party leaders in the SWP square their avowed reverence of Trotsky with the ultra-pro Stalin viewpoint of Che.


I'm not SWP, but my guess is that they would say he wasn't ultra-pro Stalin at the end. He was at first, but eventually came around.

I don't know though. I could be full of shit on this point as I'm not SWP and I haven't read much about Che.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 05 Jun 2006, 18:25
Well the SWP ditched the theory of Permanent Revolution around the time that they became "Castroists", which would ideologically allow them reject the traditional Trotskyite call for "political overthrow" of "Stalinist" Cuba, but they still uphold Trotsky. So I want to know how they square Che's anti-Trotskyism with same.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 06 Jun 2006, 07:22
Quote:
I wonder if Che had any idea of the Cultural Revolution which kicked off in 1966, a year before he died?


That I do not have the personal knowledge on. Over the summer I will be reading a lot more on Che, his theories, and revolutionary struggles. As of yet I only know very elementary knowledge, hopefully I can dig-up this thread if I have the answer.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 21 Aug 2006, 20:04
Quote:
I wonder if Che had any idea of the Cultural Revolution which kicked off in 1966, a year before he died?


Che was always aware of news, current events and affairs. Even when he was in the Congo and in Bolivia. There are many photos of him reading news papers (reportedly cuban ones)

I find it hard to imagine he would have been oblivious to that.


It is fairly available knowledge that Che was dissillusioned with the USSR later in life. He refferred to the USSR as Imperialist and felt that USSR's imperialism was no better than US's imperialism.

it is quite evident his words spoken out against teh USSR as well as other criteria came back to haunt him when he was in Bolivia.....
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 29 Aug 2006, 07:25
Quote:
He refferred to the USSR as Imperialist and felt that USSR's imperialism was no better than US's imperialism.


If Che felt that Soviet social-imperialism was "no better" than US imperialism he was profoundly wrong.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 29 Aug 2006, 07:38
Quote:
If Che felt that Soviet social-imperialism was "no better" than US imperialism he was profoundly wrong.


why, because you think so?

back up you opinion!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 29 Aug 2006, 07:52


The Soviet Union was far less a threat to the world's population than the United States. Anti-imperialists like Khomeni did not call the Soviet Union 'Little Satan' and the United States 'Great Satan' for no reason at all.

The Soviet Union did not have vast neo-colonies to exploit. The hack Khruschev and his "specialization of Socialist labor" in the Warsaw pact was far less brutal and exploitive than the United States in Asia and Latin America.

Imperialistic wars the United States beats the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's great sham was possibly the Prague Spring and the Afgahnistan war - which was like childsplay to the United States, that creates coups in countries every weekend (exagerration!) and Vietnam, in death rates alone, was four times worse!

The Soviet Union, in no way at all, was worse than the United States.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 29 Aug 2006, 13:26
Quote:
The Soviet Union was far less a threat to the world's population than the United States. Anti-imperialists like Khomeni did not call the Soviet Union 'Little Satan' and the United States 'Great Satan' for no reason at all.

The Soviet Union did not have vast neo-colonies to exploit. The hack Khruschev and his "specialization of Socialist labour" in the Warsaw pact was far less brutal and exploitive than the United States in Asia and Latin America.

Imperialistic wars the United States beats the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's great sham was possibly the Prague Spring and the Afgahnistan war - which was like childsplay to the United States, that creates coups in countries every weekend (exagerration!) and Vietnam, in death rates alone, was four times worse!

The Soviet Union, in no way at all, was worse than the United States.


I see your side , it is an opinion, the USSR and the US in 1964 had their fair share of imperialistic traits.

try the eastern bloc for instance. the point that che made was the ussr couldn't accue the US of something that they did themselves. so there is no difference whether it is capitalistic or socialistic. Imerialism is imperialism.
Last edited by chaz171 on 29 Aug 2006, 19:01, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 10718
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 29 Aug 2006, 15:59
Quote:
The Soviet Union was far less a threat to the world's population than the United States.


Both Countries:
    Had Nukes
    Invaded other countries
    Occupied colonies (USSR in Eastern Europe and US in 3rd world countries with neo-colonialism)
    Propped up allies that supported them
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: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 31 Aug 2006, 20:07
Quote:
Imerialism is imperialism.


This is childish. Denmark is an imperialist nation, yet are you going to tell me it is no better than the United States?


Quote:
Both Countries:

Had Nukes


As does Pakistan. Are you going to tell me Pakistan is no better to the world's people than the United States?


Quote:
Invaded other countries


Again, as did Pakistan, Iraq, and countless other Third World nations.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 01 Sep 2006, 03:49
Che did have different views throughout his life.

He really wastn't a peronist,,, he actually protested against him....

the marxist/leninism was at an earlier age, he supposedly read many leftist books in his father's study from a very young age.

His Ideals for armed insurgency were enfoced on his first trip thru South America.

His first wife was Peruvian. She was a marxist as well and they spent a lot of time studying together. they ended up in guatemala together where he got involved in the Arbenz govt. although any position he held was entirely unofficial.

after being deported from guatemala after the coup, he met fidel. he was greatly influenced by his ideals. Fidel was greatly influenced by the fact that che was an expirienced revolutionary. it was after the deportation that he wrote a letter to his grandmother about 'swearing by a picture of our old comrade stalin' to crush imperialism

Che was influenced by his days representing Cuba in many different foreign funcions.

He was angry at fidel and the USSR for negotiating the cuban missles away so easily. the USSR was frightened by che saying that he'd have actually used them against the US.

Che was disenchanted after his second visit to Moscow. He was staunchly anti-imperialist whether it was the US or Belgium in the congo, france in Algeria or the USSR.

He wanted to do something to help avenge the death of Patrice Lumumba which led him to the congo.. this is where he learned that their deep tribal roots made a cuban style insurgency a near impossibility.

Bolivia was suggested to him by castro because it borders five other nations. he was shunned by the communist party in bolivia because he wouldn't yield power to the bolivian leaders to run the revolution.

the communist party which never forgave him for comments he made years earlier actually worked against him by threatening to turn over any peasants to the government if they help che or the guerillas.

his last missions were to acquire medicine. (he had a life lond struggle with severe athsma.

it is hard to say... at the end of his life he felt betrayed by a lot of leftist and leftist parties....
Soviet cogitations: 99
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Aug 2006, 18:33
Pioneer
Post 01 Sep 2006, 11:28
Quote:
Imperialism is imperialism.

This strongly reminds me of metaphysics (as defined by Hegel). Ever heard of dialectics?
» 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.