The difference between the ideologies of Che Guevara and Trotsky?

Comments ( 3 )

1. Dr.John L says

   El Che by fighting on an international level, put into practice Trotsky's theories of the need for socialist world revolution rather revolution one country at a time. I am not sure if I agree completely tactically but they were both great leaders in the struggle for Socialism

   Reply

2. justgoodfolk says

   Che believed in guerrillaism, a small group of armed men bringing socialism, no role for the working class. This perspective is fundamentally flawed and the reason real Marxists consider Cuba petty bourgeoisie nationalism.
   This is not merely a political epithet thrown by Marxists at their opponents. It is a scientific definition of the class interests and methods which characterize these movements. Marx, basing himself on the experience of the 1848 revolution, and Trotsky, in his theory of Permanent Revolution, demonstrated that the petty-bourgeoisie is incapable of independent and consistent political action. Its inconsistency is a reflection of its intermediate social position. Caught between the two main classes of society and continuously being differentiated into exploiter and exploited, it is compelled to follow one or other of these classes — either the proletariat or the bourgeoisie.
   What is it about Che that makes him so susceptible to being turned into a harmless, though profitable, icon? The qualities which his admirers cite are well-known. Physical bravery, self-sacrifice, asceticism, giving his life for a cause. These can all be admirable traits. No doubt they present a stark contrast to the prevailing social ethic in which a man's worth is determined by the size of his stock portfolio. But these qualities, in and of themselves, are by no means indicators of the political and class character of those who possess them. Religious sects and even fascist movements can claim to have produced martyrs with similar qualities in their own struggles for wholly reactionary ends.
   A careful review of Guevara's career demonstrates that his political conceptions had nothing to do with Marxism and that the panaceas of armed struggle and guerrilla warfare with which he was identified were fundamentally hostile to the revolutionary socialist struggle of the working class.
   Like virtually all the nationalist regimes and tendencies that emerged in the postwar period, Castro ism has rested on a set of myths concerning its own origins and development. Such mythologizing is inevitable, given the class character of these movements, resting as they do upon the petty bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie, while claiming to represent the interests of the oppressed masses.
   The myth developed by Castro and Guevara was to be exported with catastrophic results. The so-called Cuban road was promoted throughout Latin America as the only viable form of revolutionary struggle. Thousands of Latin American youth were led to the slaughter by the promise that all that was required to overthrow governments and end social oppression was courage and a few guns. http://www.wsws.org/
   Leon Trotsky was one of the greatest socialist minds of all time. He was a consistent Marxist who believed in the revolutionary role of the working class and stood strong against any form of opportunism or ideogical weakness. There's simply no comparison
   While Che is the icon of radicalized and misdirected leftists Trotsky is the Che of the people who actually understand socialism

   Reply

3. Byte Me says

   Che advocated what later became known as the "foco" theory – that a small group of guerrillas could form the network hub for building a large social movement.

   This "short cut" past party building was his attempt to generalize from his experiences in the (non-typical) Cuban Revolution.

   Trying to universalize an isolated experience resulted in his being isolated out in the Bolivian countryside, hunted by CIA assassins, in his being ignored by Bolivian peasants, and eventually, in his death.

   Trotsky advocated mass revolutionary parties, of the old-fashioned Marxist type, with city workers, not the peasantry, at the forefront.

   In a way, the stalinist bureaucrat and the guerrilla are opposite sides of the same coin. The bureaucrat seeks to substitute decrees within his machine for the action of the working class. The guerrilla seeks to substitute the actions of a small armed group. Neither trusts the masses, and neither wants to organize them directly, only, at best, indirectly.
   .

   Reply