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

Che and stalin

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 13:47
Quote:
For Frag sake, can you let TIG answer for himself?


what's up with you today? do have to curse eveyone out in every thread today?

what harm did it do you?

lighten the hell up.

it does you no good to come after me, I am not your enemy.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 282
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2005, 17:07
Komsomol
Post 26 Sep 2006, 13:52
Quote:
what harm did it do you?


Well nothing yet, but try to understand that repeating same message over and over again makes threads hard to read and new information "drowns" in the threads where same message repeated and repeated all over the time.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 14:11
Quote:
but try to understand that repeating same message over and over again makes threads hard to read


I repeated one link in a post. I didn't repeat multiple times but, however,,,,

that was inadvertant, a mistake, I now apologize and have removed my second post, I thought I had posted the first message in a different thread on a different message board. I didn't scroll up and oops...

It's not like I have some sort of habit of constantly doing this so,

I don't appreciate being cursed at. greggers is an intelligent poster that doesn't need to revert to vulgarities to get his point across in the first place..
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 29 Sep 2006, 00:18
Che fell into favour with Trotsky? Yeah, that's hilarious.
Che understood Trotsky was a fantasy movement that was similar to chauvininist social democracy and Nazism. Che fought for national liberation while Trotskyism does not believe in this.
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 Sep 2006, 06:09
CJ, CJ, CJ,

Dead horse, dead horse dead horse.
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 29 Sep 2006, 09:56
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/a ... rticle=898

http://www.marxists.org/archive/sedgwic ... uevara.htm

http://www.socialistalternative.org/lit ... ction.html

To name a few. The first two links are probably better.

But, as I keep maintaining, I'm not really a student of his so I don't know for sure.

I find it amusing that everyone else here is claiming to have some kind of idea as to what his personal line was throughout his life.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 647
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2005, 18:01
Komsomol
Post 29 Sep 2006, 18:37
Quote:
I find it amusing that everyone else here is claiming to have some kind of idea as to what his personal line was throughout his life.


Amusing? We know Che was for national liberation through guerilla warfare. We know Trots are too busy waiting for a European "proletariat" to get off their ass to overthrow capitalism, and spend their days criticizing people outside of Europe and America. So yes, we know for a fact Che never was a Trot.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3508
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jun 2005, 23:39
Politburo
Post 30 Sep 2006, 14:46
Quote:
Amusing?


Hilarious.

Not funny-hilarious but dead-horse-hilarious.
Image

'Soviet-Empire. 500% more methods than other leading brands.'
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Oct 2006, 03:41
Quote:
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/article.php3?id_article=898


Article by Celia Hart. No quotes by Che on Trotsky.

Quote:


Letter by J. Random Trot to some Trot rag on the occasion of Che's death. No quotes by Che whatsoever.

Quote:


Gee, thanks for reposting THE SAME LINK that you yourself and chaz originally posted!
Does anyone READ any more!? No quotes by Che on Trotsky.

Quote:
But, as I keep maintaining, I'm not really a student of his so I don't know for sure.


Keep trying...

Quote:
I find it amusing that everyone else here is claiming to have some kind of idea as to what his personal line was throughout his life.


Well, he did write several rather important books on his politics and revolution. Are we not allowed to claim to have some idea therefrom?


As usual, you illustrate my problems that I have with Trotskyism perfectly. The brazen opportunism that Trots display by claiming Che as one of their own, in the face all evidence to the contrary, is simply astonishing.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 02 Oct 2006, 00:07
Quote:
Debray, Armando Hart, Haydée Santamaria and their children say that Che - while not converting over completly - came in to sympathy with Trotsky before he died


there are no written words by che that give any light to trotskyist sympathy. as greggers is eluding to.

My thoughts are that these people were not with che the last years of his life or were they? as I know the people that were with him in bolivia were all killed. if it was before that then why do none of his writings in his life elude to this?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Oct 2006, 05:21
Yup, chaz you hit the nail on the head. And gee, surprise surprise, the silence is deafening.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 02 Oct 2006, 14:22
Image


crickets chirping.
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 02 Oct 2006, 20:11
I've said in about every single post (see the first page)

Quote:
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.


Or something like that.

I'm just saying that there is reason to believe that he was more wide open than people say.

And I'm not even saying that I'm right about this as I've also maintained I really could know much more about him.

I never "claimed him" as my own - I've consistantly done the opposite.

The whole thing I've been trying to say from the beginning is that nothing is really cut and dry.

As I said, I think in policy he was more a Maoist than anything.

In politics, he was certainly a Stalinist to begin with - but I tend to think that he veered away from that at the end. Though, again, this isn't to imply he was a Trot.

Just presenting an argument - as I've said from post one - and nothing more. Don't take it personally.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Oct 2006, 20:43
Quote:
I've said in about every single post (see the first page)

Quote:
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.

Or something like that.


Well, coming from a Trotskyist background, you might not know this, but Maoism is "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism. It was Mao who picked up the banner of Stalin after it had been thrown away by the Russians in the 20th Congress of the CPSU.


Quote:
I'm just saying that there is reason to believe that he was more wide open than people say.


Yeah, except the evidence is nowhere to be found. Of course, just because no-one has ever proven that the Loch Ness monster exists doesn't mean that it does not. It is just that chances are very, very slim.

Quote:
I never "claimed him" as my own - I've consistantly done the opposite.


No, you are much to wiley to outright claim that. But it hasn't stopped the SWP, the SA, ad naseum from doing so. Thing is, by insisting that it is an "open question" in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that it is, nay strong evidence that is very much a closed question, you accomplish the same in a more muted fashion.

Quote:
The whole thing I've been trying to say from the beginning is that nothing is really cut and dry.


How? Your links you provided were absolutely silent on the subject. Did you even read them?

Quote:
As I said, I think in policy he was more a Maoist than anything.


Evidence? Did he advocate the theory of PPW as laid out by Mao? AFAIK he had his own military theories of "Focoism". What else can you bring to the table?

Most Maoists claim that Che was a radical Brezhnevite/Kruschevite anyways...

Quote:
In politics, he was certainly a Stalinist to begin with - but I tend to think that he veered away from that at the end. Though, again, this isn't to imply he was a Trot.

Just presenting an argument - as I've said from post one - and nothing more. Don't take it personally.


Only problem was your argument was idle speculation backed up by adbsolutely irrelevant links. Hence it is a bit disingenous to say that you've presented an "argument" as such.

I repeat, I am willing to hear any EVIDENCE that Che wasn't a hardcore "Stalinist" his entire life.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 02 Oct 2006, 21:09
Quote:
Evidence? Did he advocate the theory of PPW as laid out by Mao? AFAIK he had his own military theories of "Focoism". What else can you bring to the table?


Quote:
Maoism is "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Oct 2006, 01:29
chaz171 wrote:
Greggers wrote:
Evidence? Did he advocate the theory of PPW as laid out by Mao? AFAIK he had his own military theories of "Focoism". What else can you bring to the table?


Greggers wrote:
Maoism is "Stalinism" is Marxism-Leninism.


Ah, Good point. To wit:
Quote:
Most Maoists claim that Che was a radical Brezhnevite/Kruschevite anyways


I believe that Brezhnev and Kruschchev were revisionists who deviated from genuine Marxism-Leninism through their revisionist theories and social-imperialist practice. Like "most Maoists", I believe that Che was to the left of the Soviet leaders but was not a Maoist.
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
Soviet cogitations: 99
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Aug 2006, 18:33
Pioneer
Post 17 Oct 2006, 15:16
If you can read spanish, certainly take a look at http://www.bolpress.com/opinion.php?Cod=2006020122
"Che Guevara y el marxismo-leninismo"
Soviet cogitations: 19
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Oct 2006, 18:23
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 01 Nov 2006, 05:40
I am posting this in response to Greggers in another thread that was off-topic. He had "asked" that I prove that Che was a Trot. I'm not going to try to prove he was a Trot because he wasn't. All I was trying to say, and maybe if came off too harsh, is that Che was interested in the ideas of Trotsky and was beginning to draw conclusions that were based on Trotsky's ideas. The fact that he surpressed Trots that wanted to attack Guantanemo is not a rejection of Trotskyism, because at the time I don't think he really knew all that much about it. It was more an act against people who were trying to do something that wasn't very smart.

a piece from an interview with Ricardo Napuri, a peruvian who befriended Che after the 59 revolution, speaking on Che in regards to Trotsky

Quote:
You convinced Che to read Trotsky.

Che had never read Trotsky and asked me to find a book where Trotsky presented his thoughts. It was not easy to find a book by Trotsky in Havana in those days, but in a bookshop I found a very old edition of the Permanent Revolution. I immediately bought it and took it to the Bank of Cuba, where Che was president. A fortnight later, he called me to tell me he had read the book. He had underlined and written on its margins with his very small physician's letter, the same which became known later because of his diary in Bolivia.
In a long conversation at two in the morning, which was the best time for him, he said that Trotsky was consistent and he was right in many things, but that "it was too late" to change the orientation of the revolutionary process in Cuba. Intelligent as he was, he immediately grasped Trotsky's idea of the transformation of the democratic revolution into the socialist revolution, the uninterrupted character of the revolution to become international and global. In this talk we discussed about everything, about the social and political subject of the revolution: the proletariat. But he said: "Well, we did the revolution without the working class." And in the end this was what defeated any argument. You gave him the books, and there he was, larger than life with his long beard … and he had led a revolution. He looked at you and you realised that he thought to himself: "And where did you make a revolution?" And you had to give it to him. Besides, he would say: "OK, make a revolution", as if he meant: "Try it".
Che was a person with whom you could discuss. The only thing was that, as they were in a hurry to expand the revolution, he would say: "I did a revolution. Now you do your own, with all the differences you want, but mine was different and until somebody shows me that I was mistaken, I will stick to my method." It was in this sense that he told me that for him it was too late to become a trotskyist. In our discussion, I was impressed by the way in which he would grasp concepts and his strength to defend his political ideas. He died believing that his approach to the revolution was the only possible one


http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/seven/07che.html

recent publications in Cuba on Che and economics also show how Che adopted many ideas that were laid out in permenant revolution. If you really care to learn about it get the books and read them, they are only offered in spanish as of now

Greggers commented on the how I seemed to downplay Che's role in Congo, bolivia, Guatemala, etc. I wasn't downplaying them, they speak for themselves. Aside from Cuba, what did they accomplish??? Not much! In bolivia he was fighting in the jungles with a small band of guerillas while there was a general strike in the cities, clearly he was disoriented.


as far as finding vast amounts of quotes and evidence to back up my claims I could post all day long but that wouldn't really suit you since, in your eyes they would be pro-trot sites. You seem to be set in your ideas so I'll offer this, read the current books being published in Cuba of Che's writings and determine for yourself based on that since those are in his own words. I will offer this snippet because it offers criticism of a particularly popular idea of many Stalinists, the two-stage theory of socialism. The idea that the proletariat shall struggle for bourgeois democratic demands first then sometime in the future struggle for socialism. A historically proven failure.

here it is:

Message to the people of the word by Che Guevara, from the tri-continental congress

"....on the other hand, the national bourgeoisie has lost all the capacity to oppose imperialism, if they ever had it. They only act as it's local office boys. There is no other option open to us, either the socialist revolution, or a characture of the revolution. The struggle against the bourgeoisie is the indespensable struggle for liberation"
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2932
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2006, 17:30
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Nov 2006, 14:23
Quote:
he said that Trotsky was consistent and he was right in many things, but that "it was too late" to change the orientation of the revolutionary process in Cuba

That is the core of the discussion between stalinists and trotskyists. Nothing more. He was one brilliant guy, our Che.
Image


Ideology transforms human beings into subjects, leading them to see themselves as self-determining agents when they are in fact shaped by ideological processes. L. Althusser
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Nov 2006, 20:59
Hold on a minute, Josh. This guy Ricardo Napuri, became a Trot in 1973! So I am sceptical that he was "bestowing" Trotsky on Che in 1966 or 1967, when Che was murdered!
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.