No revolutionary develops ideas in a social vacuum or in total isolation. In this respect the ideas that Che Guevara developed and supported were not an exception. In looking at Che’s life nobody who regards themselves as a revolutionary, fighting against exploitation and oppression, can question his heroism, determination and self-sacrifice. By the time he arrived in Cuba he was wedded to the idea that socialism had to be built throughout Latin America to liberate the masses from exploitation and free the continent of imperialist domination.
However, what Che did not have was a clear understanding of how this could be done and which class would have to play the leading role in achieving it. From a Marxist point of view the most important deficiency in Che’s ideas was his underestimation of the role of the working class in overthrowing capitalism and building socialism.
Because of the specific conditions that existed in Cuba this deficiency did not prevent the defeat of Batista or the coming to power of the guerrilla force Che was fighting with. Because of international factors and the momentum of the revolution, neither did it prevent the overthrow of capitalism in Cuba (discussed in later chapters).
It did shape the character of the new regime that was to emerge after the triumph of the revolution. Moreover, when Che’s ideas were later applied to other countries in Latin America, where objective conditions were very different, they failed. Many heroic and genuine revolutionaries used their energies and not a few gave their lives in trying to apply his incomplete ideas.
What Che had not absorbed from his studies of Marxist literature was the experience of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ideas of the Permanent Revolution. In particular, he did not grasp the role of the working class even in countries where it constitutes a minority in society.
Unfortunately after the victory of the Russian working class the revolution was not victorious in the developed industrialized countries. The Bolshevik victory remained isolated. A combination of intervention by the armies of Western imperialism and civil war exhausted the Russian workers’ movement. Whilst capitalism remained defeated in Russia for a prolonged historical period of time, until the capitalist restoration of 1989/92, the working class was robbed politically of its control of society. This was usurped through the emergence of a vicious, privileged bureaucratic elite.
Che failed to grasp the lessons of the revolution of 1917 or later events. To do this and apply the lessons of these events to the specific conditions which emerged in Central and Latin America required a gigantic and audacious leap forward in political understanding and vision. In isolation and under the influence of events and alternative ideas, Che could not complete the leap (which was and still is) required in applying the methods of Marxism to the particular conditions that exist on his continent.
Under capitalism the working class is compelled to struggle collectively through strikes, demonstrations and workplace occupations etc. in order to win concessions and to defend its interests. Of course where necessary the workers’ movement needs also to organize its own defense from armed attack by the employers and those that defend their interests.
The decisive role of the working class in the socialist revolution arises because of the collective class-consciousness which it develops in the workplace and which allows it to prepare the basis for the collective democratic control and management of society. This lays the basis for establishing a workers’ democracy in order to begin the task of building socialism. By incorporating into its socialist program the interests of other exploited layers of society, the working class can win their support to carry through the revolution and overthrow landlordism and capitalism. In this way the proletariat play the leading role in the revolution and the building of socialism.
The Rural Struggle and Marxism
The poorer peasants, whilst able to play an important revolutionary role in struggle, lack the collective class-consciousness that predominates amongst the working class. The peasantry, because of its isolation in rural areas and economic relationship to the land, with its narrow, parochial and individualistic outlook, cannot play the same role in the revolution as the workers in the cities.
Whilst Marxism defends the leading role of the working class in the socialist revolution it also recognizes the importance of the struggle in the countryside, especially amongst rural agricultural workers and the poorer sections of the peasantry.
Even today, after a massive urbanization of society in South America, there are many important links between the rural areas and the urban population, especially the working class. This is pointedly the case in Central America. Workers from the cities will periodically return to the countryside for work or to support their families who are still there. Sections of the urban poor, living in shantytowns on the periphery of major cities, live almost as peasants on the outskirts of the industrial centers.
These sections of the population are bound to be affected by the rural movements and will frequently take up the methods of struggle mainly used by peasants and rural workers. These methods of struggle will include land occupations and forming contingents of armed groups to fight the military, the police and the armed thugs used by the landlords to protect their interests. Under certain conditions these movements in the countryside can erupt prior to movements in the cities and can bring with them a boost in the confidence of urban workers.
This process has been seen recently in the Zapatista (a radical, mainly rural militia) uprising in Mexico and by the explosive movement of the Brazilian landless organized in the MST (Movimiento Sem Tiera).
A revolutionary Marxist program would support such struggles in the countryside and take every step to incorporate them with the workers’ movement in the cities. They would, however, play an auxiliary role to the movement in the cities.
Che, influenced by a combination of factors, drew other conclusions that under-estimated the role of the working class. His conclusions evolved over a period of time. They were being formed through his observations, discussions and then his participation in the Cuban movement. His ideas were most clearly expressed in articles and publications after the conquest of power by the 26th July Movement in 1959. One of the most complete explanations of his policies is to be found in his book, Guerrilla Warfare, which was not published until 1960.
A Different Conception
Partly as a result of his own class background and the fact he was not an active member of any organization in the workers’ movement, Che never actively participated in the actual struggles of the proletariat. Apart from some activity in Guatemala his only active participation in the revolutionary Left was through the July 26th Movement and the guerrilla struggle in Cuba. As a result he failed to grasp the revolutionary potential and strength which workers possessed as a class.
Other political ideas and experiences he was exposed to inevitably had an important impact on the formulation of his hypothesis. He was bound to be under the influence of the powerful traditions of historical struggles throughout the Latin American continent. The wars for independence led by Simón Bolívar, who even posed the idea of unifying the entire continent, Sandino’s struggle in Nicaragua, Martí in Cuba and others during the 19th century, together with the Mexican Revolution (1910-18) and the peasant armies of Zapata and Pancho Villa, all form part of a strong tradition on the continent and are engraved onto the outlook of political activists.
These struggles took place in a previous historical epoch when the proletariat and the workers’ movement was only in its very early stages of conception. Since that period the working class has enormously developed throughout the region.
In Cuba by 1953 according to Hugh Thomas, only 42% of the working population was employed on the land. By the end of the 1950s there were about 200,000 peasant families and 600,000 rural workers. In the cities were to be found 400,000 families of the urban proletariat and 200,000 families of those employed as waiters, servants and street vendors. The social weight of the Cuban working class was far greater at the end of the 1950s than the Russian working class was in 1917.
As well as the weight of historical tradition Che was also influenced at an early stage by the ideas expressed by the Peruvian, Pesce. Pesce articulated the theories that he and Maríategui had begun to advocate during the 1920s. They revised the classical analysis of Marxism regarding the role of the working class and the peasantry, giving far more importance to the latter in the socialist revolution. Che was also attracted by the victory of Mao Tse Tung’s peasant army in China in 1949, together with the ongoing national liberation struggle in Vietnam. Undoubtedly he was influenced by some of Mao’s writings.
The Latin American communist parties, although formally adhering to the working class in the cities, followed the polices of supporting People’s or Popular Fronts. This policy attempted to limit the struggles of the masses from going beyond the interests of capitalism. Che, along with a broader layer of youth in Latin America, regarded this policy as too “dogmatic” and looked for something more “radical”.
As far as Che was concerned the ideas he defended were an attempt to apply a fresh “Marxist” approach to the specific conditions of Latin America. He was unable to formulate another alternative to the pusillanimous role of the communist parties apart from defending the guerrilla struggle as the driving force of the revolution throughout the continent.
As a result the leading class in the revolution was the “peasantry with a proletarian ideology”. As he put it in a speech which was published in June 1960, entitled, ‘The Responsibilities of the Working Class in Our Revolution’, “…It is no secret that the strength of the revolutionary movement was primarily among the peasants, and secondarily among the working class…Cuba, like all underdeveloped countries, does not have a powerful proletariat.” Che continued in the same speech to say “…the worker at times became a privileged individual”.
In reality the “primary” position of the peasants in the revolution reduced the working class to playing the auxiliary role. The exact opposite of what Marxism explains is the class able to play the leading role in the revolution and in building socialism.
It was true that the workers in the cities in Cuba at the time did enjoy a higher standard of living than the peasants in the countryside. Behind the idea of a “privileged” working class lay the idea that the revolutionary potential of any social grouping is only determined by the depth of its poverty. What Che missed was the potential role of the working class because of its position as a class. A contributory factor in Che reaching these conclusions was the timid role of the communist leaders.
In his book, Guerrilla Warfare, Che again plays down the potential role the working class can play. Referring to the “three contributions” Cuba has made in revolutionary strategy Che argues: “The third contribution is fundamentally of a strategic nature, and is a rebuke to those who dogmatically assert that the struggle of the masses is centered in the urban movements, totally forgetting the immense participation of the people from the countryside in the life of all the underdeveloped countries of Latin America.” He continues to argue that the repressive conditions that exist in the cities make it more difficult for the organized workers’ movement. The situation, he argues, is easier in the countryside where the inhabitants can be “supported by armed guerrillas.”
Che again misses the central point about the role of the workers as a class in building socialism and reduces the question of revolution to one important issue, logistics. The issue is how the difficulties the movement in the cities encounters can be overcome. Che, unfortunately flees from this issue to the mountains where the guerrillas can “support” the local inhabitants.
In the same book he argues that “…the arena for the armed struggle must basically be the countryside.” The guerrilla centers would rest upon the support of the peasantry and would act to ignite a movement to overthrow the established regimes – the “foco” theory. While Che advocated this thesis it was developed into a rounded-out policy by Regis Debra, the French intellectual who generalized it for the continent and beyond. Che echoed Debra in 1963 in an article entitled, ‘Building a Party of the Working Class’: “We went from the countryside to the city, from lesser to greater, creating the revolutionary movement that culminated in Havana” (Our emphasis).
Rather than the guerrillas “creating” the revolutionary movement they were able to step into a political vacuum and seize the initiative. This was possible because of the specific objective situation that unfolded in Cuba. When Che attempted to apply his ideas to other countries in Latin America they were a failure.
Marxists recognize that under certain specific conditions a guerrilla struggle in the countryside where the working class is not playing the leading role, may be victorious and overthrow an existing regime.
However, without the working class-consciously at the head of the revolutionary process, it will not be possible to establish a new regime based upon workers’ democracy, which is able to begin the task of constructing socialism.
Despite Che’s wrong approach to these questions, his support for the idea of socialism was to have a profound effect on developments inside the July 26th Movement and on the future direction of the revolutionary processes in Cuba.