In Socialist Outlook 29 John Lister explained, on the 25th anniversary of Che Guevara's death, the strengths and weaknesses of the Cuban leader's politics. Here ROLAND WOOD outlines an alternative view. INTHE PAST Latin America possessed - in the best of cases - what Gramsci called 'organic intellectuals'.
Writers, journalists, and political economists linked directly to political and social struggles against imperialism as an integral part of the workers and peasant movements.
Camilo Torres in Colombia, Luis de la Puente and Mariategui in Peru, Roberto Santucho in Argentina, Julio Castro in Uruguay are just a few of the many intellectuals that integrated their work with the social struggles of their country.
The person who symbolised this fusion of theory and practice more than any other was Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, who died 25 years ago in Bolivia at the hands of the CIA.
Since his death, an image has been created; that of an adventurist guerilla fighter, a sort of martyr. This is a view that is propagated, even by some trotskyists, the better to bury his political ideas.
But Guevara was not a Trotskyist, and while we cannot simply brush our criticisms under the carpet, we have to ask: was he closer to Stalinism or revolutionary marxism? I say he was closer to revolutionary marxism.
With the threat to the survival of the Cuban revolution and the increasing danger of military dictatorship in Latin America as a whole, many of his ideas are as relevant today as they ever were.
Much of his strategy was developed as a break with the fatalism of those who thought that because of the strength perialism it was impossible to takepower. Guevara reaffirmed the possibility of taking power; but only if the bourgeois state apparatus was destroyed and imperialist intervention was resisted by the armed struggle.
Further, in a break specifically with the practice of Stalinist parties, he re-emphasised the necessity for the leaderships of struggles to be politically and organisationally independent of the bourgeoisie.
Lesser evil He did not rule out that in the struggle for power individual bourgeois or even sectors of the bourgeoisie could, within a certam context, support a revolutonary process, seeing it as the lesser evil.
In his writings he points out that this actually happened in Cuba. But he reflects upon the reasons for this. He points to certain ambiguities in Fidel Castro's formulations during the first phase of the struggle and in the practice of the guerillas of the July 26 Movement.
He describes for example how, under the impact of the peasants, the guerillas went from an absolute respect for private property to the systematic expropriation of livestock and the decision to apply radical agrarian reform.
While he clearly believed that the Cuban revolution was not an exception, he understood that important sectors of ,the Latin American bourgeoisie had learnt their own lessons, and that in other countries things would certainly not occur exactly as they did in Cuba.
His conclusions on these points are expressed most succinctly in Message to the Tricontinental: 'The national bourgeoisie are no longer at all capable of opposing imperialism - if ever they were - and they now form its rearguard. There 7 Nov 1992 No. 31 of US imGuevara understood that the fate of the Cuban revolution depended on the weakening of imperialism by other revolutions. is no longer any other way: either socialist revolution or caricature of revolution'.
On these strategic questions, Guevara remains correct.
So what do we criticise? First, an analytical weakness concerning the social base of the revolution. The guerilla warfare tactic advocated by Guevara was based primarily on the peasantry at a time when urbanisation and industrialisation was changing the social conditions of the revolution.
Guevara did not understand this, or understood it only very partially.
Secondly, Guevara left Cuba for Bolivia banking on the Bolivian Comnunist Party as his support. A prop that vould betray him, as Fidel Castro saic later.
How could the author of the Algiers speech (which denounced the complicity of the 'socialist camp' with capitalism), or the message to the Tricontinental -how could this leader in open conflict with the Soviet leadership and its international policy find himself in this situation?
Contradiction
This contradiction showed the difficulties of the Cuban leadership, caught on the one hand between its diplomatic policy and on the other, its policy of support for the Latin American revolution; and the difficulty of criticising Soviet policy while depending for one's survival on Soviet aid. with all that implies in terms of "good relations" with If we examine Che's ideas only through the prism of the Russian revolution we will always seriousiy underestimate the enormous contribution he made to the revival of revolutionary marxism in Latin America.
He understood that after the Russian revolution there had to be a two-fold answer to the problems encountered in building socialism. First, to extend the revolution, because socialism cannot be built on a single island. Second, to analyse and find answers to the problems of bureaucratisation in post-capitalist societies.
The first answer was internationalist. Guevara understood that the fate of the Cuban revolution depended on the weakening of imperialism by other revolutions. This is the political content of the formula " Create two, three, many Vietnams".
This has nothing to do with adventurism. Once the conditions for taking power have been defined, this power has to be defended, both internally and externally. Here, Guevara was linking up with longstanding revolutionary tradi. tions.
His internationalism cannot be separated from his conception of the transition to socialism. His last political fight in Cuba, which is perhaps the most relevant today, took place from 1963-65. A number of Cuba's leaders were involved and took different positions. This discussion was not simply about economic problems, but about the conception and significance of socialism.
Humanism
This debate is summarised in Guevará's book, Man and socialism in Cuba. Here Guevara restores the dimension of revolutionary humanism to socialism, of a struggle for a society free of explitation and alienation.
We sh ild however, point out the weakness " Guevara's thinking on these issues he lack of an institutional conception or socialist democracy.
He had stated his own powerlessness. He did not want to become an op positionist. He estimated that he had made his contribution to the Cuban revolution and that from the inside he could do no more.
We may be critical of him for having reached this decision but that should not undercut the true value of the struggle that he carry out bureaucratisation and privilege.
He wanted to build an egalitarian society centred on solidarity. This may not be very fashionable today, but it is still surprisingly relevant.
Guevara died as he lived, in the service of the revolution. We should pay due tribute to his contribution to our revolutionary heritage.
Features