Re: [Marxism] Che Guevara - Myth and reality

[Nikolai Beltov <beltov1895@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> There really is no point in discussing this since it would involve
> clashing criteria.

Err... What does that mean? How can there be a discussion if we can't raise our 
differences? Do we have to stick to a set of lowest common denominators? What's 
that all about?

> We tend to look at the practice of self-proclaimed
> revolutionaries while left communists (and anarchists) are only
> interested in defending their ideas of freedom, justice, etc. What is
> the point?

That's not true at all. The article I linked to was actually part of an ongoing 
exchange we were having with someone who was pro-Che. I'm certainly are 
interested in defending left communist positions, but I'm are also in favour of 
the widest debate, and actively encourage it. At the moment the ICC is having 
an internal debate on the causes of the post-1945 economic boom, which we have 
made public here:
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/133/economic_debate_decadence

We've also published a text on the importance of a 'Culture of Debate':
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/131/culture-of-debate

The point is *clarification* of where we agree and disagree.

I agree that it's important to look at the practice of 'self-proclaimed 
revolutionaries' such as Che, Castro, Chavez the FARC etc. etc. That's cool. 
But I'd go further and take a position on them that they are nationalist 
gangsters, part of the left-wing of capitalism, and thus counter-revolutionary 
enemies of the working class. I'm perfectly happy to debate this, but at the 
bottom it's a question of principles. Not everything is up for discussion. The 
litmus test for left communists is the proletarian principle of 
internationalism - rejection of support for any fraction of the bourgeoisie, 
whether 'oppressed' or not. These guys ain't internationalists by a long chalk.

> Btw, one of your co-thinkers on the Greenleft mailing list 
> serves this kind of thing up on a daily basis. This is not permitted
> here since we are not really set up for one-way conversations. 

I don't know who you mean but I take your point. I'm seriously interested in 
two way discussions. I guess I'll have to prove it in action. Maybe on another 
thread then...

:)

Beltov. 


      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at 
Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu