Che thread

The more I hear about this Che Guevara guy, the more I like him. I'm starting to understand why people have him on t-shirts and shit.

I've read Motorcycle diaries, memories of the revolutionary war on Cuba, both of which are based on the diaries and memories of Che Guevara. The second book goes extremely well with Steven Soderberghs "Che". Small events in the movie are directly based on his diaries. Very cool.

Soon I'll also read "Memories from Bolivia", and then watch part 2 of the movie. Which will be less fun (cause he dies ;_;) but still interesting.

What else is there to read about this absolute mad man? Either that he wrote himself or that has been written about him? Or the Cuban revolution. Raul Castro is a pretty fascinating character to me as he sort of what the ideological leader of the revolution, making Fidel a Marxist and such. Anything good on him?

Also opinions on Che in general? Seemingly not a good beurocrat or ideologically very complex. But a man filled with great love for humanity and Latin America in particular. But still on some level a pretty normal human being.

Other urls found in this thread:

Too good for this world.

One of the greatest communist revolutionaries in history. Every Marxist-Leninist ☭TANKIE☭ should aspire to his example.
“My duty as a Marxist-Leninist Communist is to expose the reactionary tendencies of historical revisionism, opportunism and Trotskyism and teach comrades (both by words and deeds) that they should not accept as valid the attacks against Stalin made by these bourgeois social-democrats and other pseudo-communist reactionaries. These traitors’ real purpose is to dynamite and destroy the workers’ movement from within.”
-t. Ernesto “Che” Guevara

Is that a real quote lol?

Anyway, even as an anarchist or rather libertarian socialist, I still have the ability to recognize the greatness of my more authoritarian inclined comrades such as Fidel, Raul, Che and Lenin. Stalin I am a bit more ambivalent about, but I dislike how some anarchists tend to completely dismiss the efforts he made for communism, especially in defeating the overt European fascism and his rapid industrialization of the Soviet union. Even though the victims were untold in both of these endeavours.



Yes, Che was a Stalinist. I say that as a good thing.

I was mainly wondering because he talked about "capitalist octopuses" which sounds funny in English

interesting. In his first book Motorcycle diaries. The main thread is a sort of left wing pan Latin american ideology. Like he wanted a socialist EU for the Americas.

Although he is shooting deserters during the revolution, I have a hard distinguishing a particular communist ideology. He has some obvious disgust with the idea of allying, even temporarily, with left liberals. He shows respect for the struggle in the cities, with unions and such.

Could the Cuban revolution be characterized as Maoist btw? THe revolutionary armed struggle emerging from the country side?

I'm tbh not familiar with the distinction between Maoism and ML-ism more than that the former emerges from an agrarian people.

Not sure if trolling, but either way that statement is not representative of Che

This was written when he was 24 backpacking through the Americas. His views were normal for a middle class Argentinian (which was quite racist back in the 50s)

By the time he was in the jungles of the Sierra Madre he had already aquired a sympathetic view towards the blacks. Later on he acted even as a conscious anti racist.

Can't remember if he even stopped being a homophobe though.

This is a common metaphor of the time.

thought it was only used by anti semites tbh

respond harder people?

If you are an anarchist who is interested in Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries like Che, you should read State and Revolution to understand the difference between anarchists and communists.

Thought I would share my favorite Che funfact with OP from "Che Guevara, Revolutionary" by Michael V. Uschan: Che asked out his gf (first or second wife?) by rolling up in a tank and asking her to take a walk with him.
Basically the sexiest man ever along with young Stalin.

I really want to love Che, there are a lot of things to admire about him, but the stories of him executing seemingly innocent people by firing squad are pretty disturbing. Could easily be propaganda though, it's hard to know what to believe.

I really admire him. As a chilean, I appreciate very much what he did for latin america. He's probably my favorite marxist-leninist, and my second favorite socialist, with Allende being my favorite

so where did this "che mass-murdered people" thing come from?


Crybaby gusanos

Except that Che is the most based African

The Motorcycle Diaries film is also really dope. Far superior to the Che movies imho.

Also someone posted this podcast on Che the other day haven't listened to it yet but people were saying it was good.

Typical liberal bullshit. Any amount of violence by the oppressors is legitimate but the minute people fight back its terrorism this, mass murder that.

I was under the impression that he hated the blacks in Africa or at least thought they were unmotivated or lazy.

Well, he thought that when he was younger. But obviously his views changed as he became a revolutionary

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I thought he came to dislike blacks or dislike them more after or during his time in Africa. I don't have a source to back that up, but I remember reading it somewhere.

I don't know about that. What I did read was pretty much your standard "he was racist". "Was" being the keyword here, but I don't think what you said was what happened

And read section H.1.7 of this to realize why the entire book is bullshit.

He didn't mass-murder anyone but he was head of executions for a time.

he was a homophobe and a racist, but he's adored by dumb libs.

anyone have that story where he learns what trotskyism is when playing basketball, and starts yelling at some cars "no bureaucrats allowed"?

He is one of the biggest revolutionary figures in latin america, and helped dismantle a fascist American regime, but none of that matters because he was a meanie :^(


literal propaganda

Holy fuck, anyone who says State and Revolution is "democratic" and "not authoritarian" has utter dogshit reading comprehension. Your shitty anarchist FAQ might as well be refuting a strawman. State and Revolution is good AND it is "authoritarian" and "undemocratic."

Motorcycle diaries book is also extremely comfy.

Not sure I agree, the movie was alright, but it was more fun to read the book.

I really like the sort of meditative tone of the "Che" movies. Btw Oscar Isaac plays Che's interpreter in New York which is pretty cool

I think he was very dissappointed in the lack of revolutionary energy in Congo, which I think is justified. If you have a source to your claim I'd like it cause I dont believe it to be true

Never read Lenin, is this a good place to start

lol look at this maricon, he was racist, then he wasn't

are you an anarchist or a left com?

man what the fuck? why couldn't you do this in a single post? quit bumping your own shitty thread. ancoms stay on dumb!

so what nerd lol

Yes, it is one of Lenin's most theoretical and Orthodox Marxist works. Other works like Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism focus more on contemporary developments in capitalism, or like WITBD and Infantile Disorder focus on praxis and organization. State and Revolution basically answers the most pressing questions about communist revolution through thorough application of historical and dialectical materialism.

Kinda ironic that he got killed by the same people he intended to liberate.

che was well known for his undying wish to free the CIA

Che was a murderous authoritarian.

Indeed, and there's literally nothing wrong about being authoritarian and undemocratic against the bourgeoisie and their dogs.

The actual practice of the Russian Revolution shows that the masses were often way ahead of the party, all while they knew and approved of the Bolshevik slogans.

On other hand, the early days of Soviet government were very much a government of workers and peasants - literally a government of Soviets (the word "soviet" can be roughly translated to "council"). A first-hand account of the fact is written here:


However, and back to the original topic: Ché in his critique of the Soviet economical system proposes that the permanent application of the NEP and the subsequent application of the law of value in Soviet central planning led to non-socialist contradictions in it's economy (a constant struggle between the central apparatus and industries, the latter always aiming for cheap overproduction and ways to fool the state), easing the influence of the international capitalist superstructure within the USSR and ultimately paving the way for capitalist restoration. A good article about the theses of Ché is here (in Spanish):

His main contribution to this critique on economics is not a single book, but rather a compilation of letters and notes by him, published in Spanish as "Apuntes críticos a la economía política". After some digging I found what seems to be the only .pdf available, and promptly uploaded it to libgen:

On other hand the works that have been translated to English seem to be mostly his writings on guerrilla warfare, neo-colonialism and the process of Cuban revolution, all of which are interesting nonetheless:

A near complete list of his works is in this dead Cuban webpage:


che was a guy who was good at revolutions and fighting but had no interest in governing. Pretty much his whole revolutionary life is what boring first worlders wish they have lived

There was no person more feared by the company (CIA) than Che Guevara because he had the capacity and charisma necessary to direct the struggle against the political repression of the traditional hierarchies in power in the countries of Latin America.
— Philip Agee, CIA agent from 1957–1968

Thank you based bookposter, it's good to have some of Che's theory in here.

literally chad

If you are talking about Anarchist FAQ - then yes. It is full of bullshit.

> This question is often asked of people who critique Marxism, particularly its Leninist form. Lenin’s State and Revolution is often considered his most democratic work and Leninists are quick to point to it as proof that Lenin and those who follow his ideas are not authoritarian.
One paragraph! ONE FUCKING PARAGRAPH cannot be written by Anarkiddies without resorting to strawmanning! But we are "authoritarian" Left. We never intended to make Revolution in white gloves. We do not pretend otherwise. The only way to prove us wrong is to demonstrate that "authoritarianism is never the answer" - not by claiming that we somehow WANT to be democratic about Revolution and then proudly proving otherwise.

Fucking degenerates.

I have heard multiple posters mention how libertarian actual Leninism is by pointing to State and Revolution, one even said that Leninism literally is Anarcho-Leninism. Don't pretend it's a strawman when people genuinely believe it. Furthermore, regardless of why people bring it up, it doesn't change the actual critiques of the book in the rest of the section.
If your revolution isn't democratic then you're not a fucking socialist, you're a crypto-Blanquist.

It's all about who participates in this "democracy". The Russian experience, far from being an example of blanquism, clearly shows that you cannot even consider revolution without the organization and democratic deliberation of the masses through their respective organs of power (the Soviets), but on the other hand we need to crack down ruthlessly on the bourgeois and opportunistic elements within organization.

Since it's already established you have dogshit reading comprehension, I'm going to guess they were referring to his insistence on smashing the bourgeois state, and also on the withering away of the DOTP, IE he was definitively for the elimination of the state (Marxist definition) in the long run. This has nothing to do with being "authoritarian" or "democratic."

I need quotes before I start accusing people of being idiots, revisionist scum, or degenerate pseudo-Leftists.

Well, the big question here is if those people actually are "Leninists".

One would assume that the "actual critique" should be the entirety of the section. If that is not so, then I'd like you to point out those "actual critiques" so as to avoid further instances of you claiming that "this is not an actual critique".

Socialism is not about pandering to Capitalists and Petit-Bourgeois. All-encompassing democracy is a fetish of SocDem, not Communists.

Moreover, democracy (limited, since it is for Proletariat alone) is not a method, but a goal. I.e. we do not intend to win Revolution through elections or referendums. We make Revolution happen so that we can have elections and referendums - afterwards. And this clearly means that democracy is not the defining feature of the Socialist Revolution - a position Lenin always supported, and supported openly.

Lenin, Petty-Bourgeois and Proletarian Socialism (1905):
> To the Marxist, the peasant movement is a democratic, not a socialist, movement. In Russia, just as was the case in other countries, it is a necessary concomitant of the democratic revolution, which is bourgeois in its social and economic content. It is not in the least directed against the foundations of the bourgeois order, against commodity production, or against capital.

Fuck me I need more whiskey to drown in.