portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

actions & protests | imperialism & war | political theory

The Militant Communist Legacy of Ernesto Che Guevara

This is something I found on-line that I feels speaks volumns about the hypocracy and backwardsness of the US anti-globalism movement.
The Militant Communist Legacy of Ernesto Che Guevara

---Hassan Nasir, Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party

ERNESTO (Che) GUEVARA is a cult figure of the leftist youth all
over the world. While nearly everyone on the left admires Guevara few
really understand who he was and what he stood for. There has been an
attempt on the part of wide circles of liberal leftists to convert
Guevara into a harmless cultural icon. It is unfortunate that "Che"
as understood by the liberal left is mainstream Che. The real Che
Guevara is obscured from view and rendered harmless with this subtle
liberal subversion.

Just like there is an attempt to make Faiz Ahmed Faiz into
a "humanist" and to ignore his life-long affiliation with the
communist movement, there is a similar attempt to render Che into "an
idealistic rebellious young man." Many young people are shocked to
even hear that Che was a communist. They hear of him as a rebel but
never as a communist rebel. They are even more shocked to find that
Che abhorred anarchism, pacifism, liberalism, and all `non-
hierarchical' forms of organizations or resistance movements. In
fact, Che was a strict (some even say overly strict) disciplinarian
and an extremely exacting taskmaster. If anything he was the
equivalent of the Latin American Jacobin for the communist movement.

Guevara was totally opposed to bourgeois individualism. In March of
1960, he declared that, "one has to constantly think on behalf of
masses and not on behalf of individuals...It's criminal to think of
individuals because the needs of the individual become completely
weakened in the face of the needs of the human conglomeration." In
August of 1964, Che postulated that the individual, "becomes happy to
feel himself a cog in the wheel, a cog that has its own
characteristics and is necessary though not indispensable, to the
production process, a conscious cog, a cog that has its own motor,
and that consciously tries to push itself harder and harder to carry
to a happy conclusion one of the premises of the construction of
socialism -- creating a sufficient quantity of consumer goods for the
entire population."(Anderson, pp.470, 605)

And if that wasn't enough to shock you about the person on your
coffee mug or hip T-shirt, Che Guevara was an open admirer of Joseph
Stalin. While traveling across Latin America Che witnessed first hand
the awful exploitation of the continent by US imperialism and
specifically the United Fruit Company. This experience made Guevara a
supporter of the Soviet Union and Stalin. While traveling through
Costa Rica he wrote to his aunt Beatriz telling her that he had
sworn "before a picture of our, old much lamented comrade Stalin that
I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated."
Another letter to the same aunt was signed with the words "Stalin
II." (p.62 and Anderson, p.167). Even after Khrushchev's so-
called `revelations' of Stalin's crimes at the 20th Congress, Che did
not change his views about Stalin. In fact, when Guevara visited the
USSR in his capacity as one of the most important leaders of the
victorious Cuban revolution in November of 1960, he insisted on
depositing a floral tribute at Stalin's tomb (p. 181).

Che is a symbol of militant communism.

Che must not be abandoned to those who pervert his views and turn
him into a garden liberal.

Long Live the Militant Communist Legacy of CHE !!!

homepage: homepage: http://www.geocities.com/cmkp_pk/

so.... 18.Aug.2004 17:19


why would anyone think any less of che because he's a commie?

as my favorite che t-shirt says: not bad for a fucking pinko commie.

Read: the Motorcycle Diaries 18.Aug.2004 18:43

Different View

May I suggest a little primary research on your subject rather than a politicized summary. Che spoke volumes for socialist ideals and fought heartily agaist the exploitation of latin and south america. I wonder if the original poster has done any research into the times and political climate of Che? Of course that would require an open mind and an understanding of the influence that the U.S. Government allowed corporations to exercise among our 'little brown brothers'. Che was finaly killed under the direction of the CIA.

Sartre said of Che; "he is the most realized human being alive" or something to that effect.

I have had trouble Che's violence and I finally resolved it in this way. Che was a trained physician and became, by necessity, a surgeon. If there were anyone familiar and qualified to inflict damage to save the patient it would have been Che. Che possesed the rare qualities infrequently found in combination; briliant intelect, cunning tactician and a bold spirit. Comparisons to leaders of our age are simply unfair to our leaders they don't hold a candle.

Idealists of strength, courage, conviction, and intelelect are few and far between. I have never met one. Maybe someday; I hope that I will recognize that person.

sunlight 19.Aug.2004 06:44


Militant Individualist Imperialism is much better. I've been admiring the wrong crowd. Fuck, thanks for pointing all this out.

Guevara vs. Aymara 19.Aug.2004 17:46

Yumi-chan cat

Che may have been a communist, an idealist, a "surgeon" for the masses, but at the end of the day he was still an authoritarian fuckhead who had to be restrained by Castro, of all people, from summarily executing prisoners on multiple occasions. Not to mention the ideological arrogance of thinking he could "export" his uniquely Cuban revolution to Bolivia and elsewhere. Perhaps if he had tried to help Bolivians liberate themselves rather than trying to build a vanguard, revolution might have succeeded and he might still be alive.

Che's motivations can inspire us, but his approach can never be a model.

The problem with hero worship 19.Aug.2004 23:51


Che did measurable good for Cuba at that time. That much is certain. Yes, he was authoritarian. Authority is sometimes required as a weapon against the neoliberal fascism that the ruling elite inflict on the people. People in general have a certain way of thinking that the current status quo has fostered in them, and an overnight mass enlightenment into anti-authoritarian anarchists/libertarians is not likely.

No one is/was perfect. If someone is touted as perfect, with T-shirts of their face and similar idolatry, you know there must be a sheen of BS covering up the truth. The methods of one successful revolutionary of a certain time and place will not necessarily work in a different time and place. As Yumi-chan points out, Bolivia didn't take to Che's approach because they were in a different situation than Cuba was in. And they also didn't even particularly like him, either.

The overt spiritualism of impoverished Indians was perfect for Gandhi's message of unity, even though that struggle was consistently violent and not truly led by Gandhi, to say nothing of the UK's financial troubles at that precise time.

The lesson of Che's failures and successes should be taken with care to identify differences in context.