Monthly Archives: February 2016

Week 7 – Che: Part 1

This week we watched Che – part 1. In my opinion, it brought to life some of what the book Guerrilla Warfare outlined. It showed the growth of the revolution, from dinner table talk to small groups marching for days, to taking Santa Clara. Some of their base camps were more developed than I would have imagined them. The movie also showed women among the ranks, and had somewhat of a female supporting character.

Taking a look at Che’s character, he is depicted as a charismatic speaker, who never has outbursts of rage – he is always collected. He delivers punishment to those who do not follow the revolutionary code. This can be seen when someone forgets to assure relief to the night watch, and when some men harass a peasant family. In general the movie helps to create the view of Che as a symbol of revolution. He fights alongside his men, even when he injures his arm. This movie also showed me that Che had bad asthma. Yet he did not complain, marched on, as if it were just a small inconvenience. Amusingly, he still chose to smoke cigars.

Again, in agreement with the book, Che gives the peasants respect. He only allows people to join if they can read or write, and sets up a school to teach the guerrillas, since “a country that can not read or write can easily be deceived.” He even made his men take back a car that they had taken from Santa Clara.

Che held fast to most of the rules, and at first wouldn’t let those join who were too young. This of course was challenged by two boys who were very stubborn and are eventually let in due to their spirit. Some parts of guerrilla warfare I didn’t catch in the movie, one of them being sabotage. No communications seemed to be cut,  although there was some dialogue about blowing up a bridge.

It still blows my mind that Cuba has been fighting for the five points Che mentions in his U.N. for so long, and not much has changed. If any of the points were happening to the U.S. I’m certain that there would be swift military action taken by the States. I’ll link the speech below for anyone interested. One part that absolutely disgusts me is the behaviour of the U.S. around the Cuban boundary line. Che states that there was “commission[s] of acts of sexual exhibitionism by U.S. personnel of both sexes, and verbal insults. It includes others that are more serious, such as shooting off small caliber weapons, aiming weapons at our territory, and offenses against our national flag.” Again, were this to happen to the States, it wouldn’t last long. But Che claims that “only a perfectly disciplined army with a morale such as ours could resist so many hostile acts without losing its self-control.”

 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/12/11.htm

Che: Part One

In my opinion the movie very much glorifies Che and helps his status as a revolutionary with a mystic aura. You see Che fighting heroically alongside his guerilla soldiers, shooting bazookas with skilled accuracy, condemning the actions of soldiers who killed and raped innocent people, standing in front of the U.N and challenging imperialism, the list could go on. I felt almost as if Che was superhuman after watching this film, Che is really portrayed as a man who always does what’s right, never diverting from the true revolutionary quality, which is love. In the movie, Che never really acts in bursts of fury or anger; he is always really composed, adding to his overall mystic quality.

I thought that the movie was quite epic, with great shots of the Cuban countryside and filled with action packed scenes as well. I also enjoyed watching the tactical side of the battle, and aspects of guerilla warfare being employed that we had just read about. The movie also reinforced my idea of how strong one has to be in order to be part of a guerilla group. We see the group hiking for hours in hot conditions, carrying their homes on their back, going straight into battle, and also carrying wounded soldiers in hammocks. We also see the fighter’s ideals of saving ammunition and weapons they find being reinforced in the movie. Overall, I liked that the movie Che was straight to the point, as in it went directly to the fighting in the countryside of Cuba, instead of telling the whole upbringing of Che. After having seen part one I will definitely watch part two, to see an opinion and enlighten myself a little on how that campaign in Bolivia was so disastrous.

Something that left me thinking was the part when Che says that the biggest revolutionary quality is to have love of humanity. In my opinion if you have love of humanity you don’t kill. I understand that Che saw armed warfare as a means to an end, to reach his goal of toppling Batista and making Cuba for the people. But I think that if one has love for humanity one would believe in non-violence/passive resistance, and not take up arms and kill fellow human beings. Obviously, there’s the whole” there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution, and that history is written with bullets and not a pen”. But I think that to say that you have love of humanity and choose to kill is contradictory and hypocritical. One last thing I’ll write is that I was surprised to not hear Che say “Hasta la victoria siempre!” since this is one of the quotes I most associate with Che.

Reflections on leading class

Reflections and Lesson Plan

This is the lesson plan we used for class on Thursday 11th of February:

Introduction song:

El Vals del Obrero by Ska-p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qjU0gEXX4

Section 1: Pretext For Armed Struggle

When is violence justified?

Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”— Malcolm X

What conditions existed in Latin America that allowed for guerilla warfare to be viable (or popular)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdo6FwAPyng (Che’s speech on imperialism)

Che says that minimum requirements must be met before a country can successfully engage in armed struggle, what are these?

You don’t have a peaceful revolution. You don’t have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There’s no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.

Section 2: Revolutionaries and Armed Struggle

What are important qualities should a revolutionary have? Can a revolutionary truly be “ideal”?

What differences are there between a revolutionary and a normal conscripted soldier?

Who does armed struggle serve?

Are indigenous peoples central to revolutionary struggles?

How can a small band of guerilla fighters take on a much larger army?

  • Psychological warfare
  • Guerillas becoming feared (come from nowhere, fight with the enemy and then disappears again).

Section 3: Guerilla Warfare in a Modern World

What is the value of this text in today’s world? Is guerilla warfare still practical?

Why did some guerilla groups fail? Did they fail? FARC, Shining Path

How relevant is armed struggle in today’s world?

Does armed struggle lead to “change” or does it just replace one political faction with another?

Guerrilla leaders win wars by being paranoid and ruthless. Once they take power, they are expected to abandon those qualities and embrace opposite ones: tolerance, compromise and humility. Almost none manages to do so- Stephen Kinzer

Reflections on leading class, Guerilla Warfare

Dacyn Holinda :

This past week Thomas and I presented Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfareto the class. Overall I feel that everything went well and it was interesting to see how some of our questions were able to stimulate some really good topic. There was however some comments that indicated our questions were quite long and at times hard to follow. I think going forward I will have to remember this, as I can definitely see how some of our question might be strenuous and hard to answer. I also felt that it was interesting because I kept thinking that our questions were too broad and I was worried that since we didn’t reference the text a whole lot that the class might stray off topic. I suppose though, with a text like Guerilla Warfare it is easier to talk about the books context and general ideas as opposed to specific quotations from the text. It was enjoyable to see everyone participating as well, because usually I feel like I talk a lot, so I liked being able to sit back (a little, I still talked a lot) and hear solely from other students and their opinions. Overall I feel that we did a good job and I am happy with the outcome of the class.

Thomas:

I think the class went well. People discussed the questions on the computer with relative ease most of the time, not too many “passes” throughout. I enjoyed being at the front and proposing questions and hearing people’s ideas. I think the quotes that we chose helped the class discussion as a starting point for the questions. I would have wanted to hear people’s ideas on the value of the text today a little more, that was the one question I think I was most looking forward to hearing. I also would have liked to hear more on the parallel state, if revolutions just replicate the state they have overthrown after they are successful. If we had more time, I think a great discussion would have centered on indigenous groups and armed struggle and what the future holds. After the experience, I prefer splitting the group into small discussions rather than proposing a question and then going around the class asking for opinions. I know it is voluntary, and you can “pass”, but the round circle form can sometimes feel a little forced upon people. You have little time to come up with what to say, and feel like you have to say something just for the sake of it. When we split into groups and then keep the discussion open for anyone rather than going in an order, I felt we got a more diverse discussion of ideas. The going around the circle felt like we hear one opinion and then that’s that and we go over onto the next. It is something I felt after leading the class, and hadn’t really thought about it when I was the audience, so to say. Overall, I think the whole deal was satisfactory.

 

Reflections on leading class

Reflections and Lesson Plan

This is the lesson plan we used for class on Thursday 11th of February:

Introduction song:

El Vals del Obrero by Ska-p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qjU0gEXX4

Section 1: Pretext For Armed Struggle

When is violence justified?

Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”— Malcolm X

What conditions existed in Latin America that allowed for guerilla warfare to be viable (or popular)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdo6FwAPyng (Che’s speech on imperialism)

Che says that minimum requirements must be met before a country can successfully engage in armed struggle, what are these?

You don’t have a peaceful revolution. You don’t have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There’s no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.

Section 2: Revolutionaries and Armed Struggle

What are important qualities should a revolutionary have? Can a revolutionary truly be “ideal”?

What differences are there between a revolutionary and a normal conscripted soldier?

Who does armed struggle serve?

Are indigenous peoples central to revolutionary struggles?

How can a small band of guerilla fighters take on a much larger army?

  • Psychological warfare
  • Guerillas becoming feared (come from nowhere, fight with the enemy and then disappears again).

Section 3: Guerilla Warfare in a Modern World

What is the value of this text in today’s world? Is guerilla warfare still practical?

Why did some guerilla groups fail? Did they fail? FARC, Shining Path

How relevant is armed struggle in today’s world?

Does armed struggle lead to “change” or does it just replace one political faction with another?

Guerrilla leaders win wars by being paranoid and ruthless. Once they take power, they are expected to abandon those qualities and embrace opposite ones: tolerance, compromise and humility. Almost none manages to do so- Stephen Kinzer

Reflections on leading class, Guerilla Warfare

Dacyn Holinda :

This past week Thomas and I presented Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare to the class. Overall I feel that everything went well and it was interesting to see how some of our questions were able to stimulate some really good topic. There was however some comments that indicated our questions were quite long and at times hard to follow. I think going forward I will have to remember this, as I can definitely see how some of our question might be strenuous and hard to answer. I also felt that it was interesting because I kept thinking that our questions were too broad and I was worried that since we didn’t reference the text a whole lot that the class might stray off topic. I suppose though, with a text like Guerilla Warfare it is easier to talk about the books context and general ideas as opposed to specific quotations from the text. It was enjoyable to see everyone participating as well, because usually I feel like I talk a lot, so I liked being able to sit back (a little, I still talked a lot) and hear solely from other students and their opinions. Overall I feel that we did a good job and I am happy with the outcome of the class.

Thomas:

I think the class went well. People discussed the questions on the computer with relative ease most of the time, not too many “passes” throughout. I enjoyed being at the front and proposing questions and hearing people’s ideas. I think the quotes that we chose helped the class discussion as a starting point for the questions. I would have wanted to hear people’s ideas on the value of the text today a little more, that was the one question I think I was most looking forward to hearing. I also would have liked to hear more on the parallel state, if revolutions just replicate the state they have overthrown after they are successful. If we had more time, I think a great discussion would have centered on indigenous groups and armed struggle and what the future holds. After the experience, I prefer splitting the group into small discussions rather than proposing a question and then going around the class asking for opinions. I know it is voluntary, and you can “pass”, but the round circle form can sometimes feel a little forced upon people. You have little time to come up with what to say, and feel like you have to say something just for the sake of it. When we split into groups and then keep the discussion open for anyone rather than going in an order, I felt we got a more diverse discussion of ideas. The going around the circle felt like we hear one opinion and then that’s that and we go over onto the next. It is something I felt after leading the class, and hadn’t really thought about it when I was the audience, so to say. Overall, I think the whole ordeal was satisfactory.


Che

Che poster

Steven Soderbergh’s Che is far from being a conventional biopic. There is, for instance, little to no back-story: no sequences of a young Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, for instance; no narrative of his politicization; no details of his home life, his wife and family. It’s not as though there is not space enough to flesh out these aspects of Che’s life: taken together, the two films that constitute Soderbergh’s epic make up four and a half hours of screen time. But they focus rigorously on two military campaigns: the (successful) Cuban revolution of 1956 to 1959; and the (disastrous) Bolivian campaign of 1966 to 1967, at the end of which Che was captured and summarily executed. Moreover, in telling the tale of these two episodes, though the spotlight is always on Che, there is hardly anything in the way of introspection or interior monologue. We almost always see our hero from without, and he is consistently aloof and distant. One of the most famous images of the twentieth-century remains resistant to the gaze. Or as the New York Times put it, “the film is [. . .] in a very precise and unusual sense, an action movie. I don’t just mean that it is heavy on battles and gunfights, but rather that action–what people do, as opposed to why they do it–is its primary, indeed obsessive concern.” This is, then, less the story of a life than the sketch of a man in movement, a body in motion amid the chaotic interactions, the complex struggles that (may) lead to widespread social change.

Yet even the depiction of these struggles is curtailed: the first film, which deals with Cuba, stops while Che is still (we are told) 186 miles short of Havana. The triumphant arrival in the capital is eliminated. This despite the fact that, shortly beforehand, we see Che respond to a fellow fighter who asks if, the revolution now won, he can go home to his family. “No,” Che replies. “We only won the war. The Revolution begins now.” As such, then, what the movie presents is not so much the revolution itself as the pre-requisites for revolution. Almost everything else is methodically stripped away, in favour of a strangely unemotional examination of the ways that a revolutionary movement either expands and increases its power and its resonance (in the Cuban case) or contracts and dissipates (in the Bolivian example). Che is the nucleus of these films, but in the sense that his own theory of insurrection understood the role of the guerrilla foco: that what matters is what accretes around it, its capacity to affect its surrounding milieu, rather than any essence that it may have of its own accord.

The second half of the movie (its second part: Che: Part Two or Guerrilla) is more meticulous in its commitment to this principle, and to presenting us its action consistently and solely “in the present tense” (as Roger Ebert observes). Here, the linear chronology of its source, Che’s Bolivian Diary, is respected, and what’s more there are relatively few cutaways to what is happening beyond the (ever-diminishing) sphere of action of Che’s own guerrilla band. The first half (Che: Part One or The Argentine) oscillates between the guerrilla campaign itself and two later brief episodes in Che’s life, both set in 1964 (and both shot in grainy black and white): a visit to New York to address the UN General Assembly, and an interview in Havana with US journalist Lisa Howard. As such, this part of the film–again, perhaps in sympathy with its source, Che’s Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War–allows itself the luxury of, if not introspection, then at least a measure of retrospection. Even in Manhattan, though, Che remains very much the guerrilla commander. Not simply sartorially, in his beret and fatigues surrounded by men in suits and ties, but also in his relations both with his own entourage and with the US high society, UN dignitaries, or the crowds, whether hostile or supportive, that follow him wherever he goes. Throughout, he is unperturbed and unflappable, unhesitatingly direct, and at most ironically amused by the fuss he consistently occasions.

In short, Soderbergh’s film bucks Hollywood conventions most significantly in its determination to present affect shorn of emotion. This is a movie that refuses triumph (in part one) and tragedy (in part two) alike. We never particularly warm to Che, but nor does he inspire (say) fear or disgust. This is the portrait of an individual, but not of a subject with whom we might empathize or identity. Here, affect is always a matter of the correlation of forces, the concatenation and interaction of bodies in motion. Even in the climactic scene at the end of the second part, which gives us perhaps the only point-of-view shot in the entire four and a half hours, extraordinarily from the viewpoint of Che as he dies on the floor of a Bolivian shack, we feel, I think, that this is a thoroughly impersonal death. It’s as though it served to disprove Che’s (alleged) last words, his claim to transcend the individual body: “Shoot, coward. You are only going to kill a man.” For in fact those bullets did indeed put an end to a Revolution. Which is not to say that another could not arise elsewhere, some other time, around some other nucleus or foco.

Fire from the Mountain

Leave a reply

Omar Cabezas, Fire from the Mountain, cover

Omar Cabezas’s Fire from the Mountain is now available here.

In this version, it’s a little longer than in the one I have. I may (as with The Country Under My Skin) suggest you only need to read some parts of it, but I may not. I will look over it and tell you.

Week 6: Guerilla Warfare and Che Guevara

This week’s assigned reading was the greatly influential novel Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara. It is often widely considered a guidebook for creating a revolution and waging armed struggle. It should be noted however that as military tactics advance and the novel itself might lose some relevance in the sense that some military strategies that Che employs are no longer useful. For instance, the section where Che talks about making mobile mortar shelters is for the most case irrelevant with today’s advances in the military. The true importance of this text in my opinion are the sections where Che outlines the tactics a guerilla band must employ on certain terrain and the favorability and disadvantages that revolutionaries face when they employ armed struggle as a means to achieve political power. I firmly believe that these tenants that Che describes are crucial for the success of the revolution, as it is this general outline of the progression of the guerilla force from a small band, to a self-sustaining army with many qualities that can rival the existing state (schools, media outlets, hospitals, tax collection etc.).

The next key topics that Che writes on regard the use of terrorism and its place in the revolutionary struggle. What I find most interesting is it is clear Che has a bias against using terrorism as a means of achieving ones goals, but instead of dismissing terrorism from a solely moral standpoint, he explains the logistical issue surrounding it. He explains how it is illogical (this is expanded on more in other texts beyond Guerilla Warfare to be fair) to subject the very people that a revolutionary is fighting for to pain and fear in the hopes to get ones message across. His case for armed struggle is a very strong one, where he describes the benefits of this type of warfare over terrorism. This notably culminates in the fact that an armed struggle can only be won with the popular support of the people, and that terrorism, while occasionally being useful for revolutionaries in some circumstances (extremely rare) it can never be a means to and end.

To me Che Guevara is an incredible figure and “true” revolutionary. Not because the man was without flaws, because some of his views definitely were homophobic and misogynistic, but because Che embodies what it means to be revolutionary. The Cuban revolution, and to a greater extent all revolutionary activity in Latin America and the rest of the world, is influenced by Che. His willingness to devote himself to an ideal, and fight until the death is something that profoundly impacts me. It is this quality, which Che describes as a “love for humanity” which is his lasting legacy. Only through a love of the people, and a commitment to them to fight until the last breath, can one truly become revolutionary in my mind. Successful revolutions (which here I will define as an overthrow of power structures and the attempt towards communism) only succeed because the individuals who fight in them are so willing to see the proletariat break free of their chains, and they are willing to die for this. It is this ultimate sacrifice, that Che and many other revolutionaries make, that solidifies their presence in revolutions to come.

Che’s Guerilla Warfare

It’s going to be fun to run a class about Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare, a text that is very different to what we have read so far in class. The text is a hands-on, practical manual on how to fight battles in the countryside, with the ultimate goal of toppling an unwanted dictatorship or government. The text is very direct and detailed. According to Guevara, if you follow his manual, you will successfully find the means for a revolution to take place. Reading the text was rather eerie; it had me thinking that I am in now ways adept to fight for a revolutionary cause in the countryside (not that I was ever considering it). But reading the manual made me think about how strong men and women are who fight in the conditions specified in the text. For example, your knapsack is your home, just like a snail; everything that you hold in your back contains all your possessions. Being a part of a revolutionary force in the countryside is a very nomadic way of life. Sometimes you can be walking for hours with up to 25 kilos on your back, fighting a battle, and then continuing your cause non-stop. All this is done with a limited amount of food, both in quantity as well as nutritionally. You have to leave everything you have and commit fully to the cause. You have to be incredibly fit physically as well as mentally. For some reason, while I was reading the text, I felt that Guevara’s form of guerilla warfare is rather doomed to fail. Although the text is highly specific, you have to keep in mind that you have to have adequate people to carry out this kind of warfare. As we know, people, as well as rulers are fallible, and this thought didn’t leave me as I read the text. Guevara makes it seem too easy, just follow these guidelines and you will be successful no matter what, no matter where. This is where I encountered another problem with the text; Guevara bases it all on the successful Cuban revolution Fidel Castro and Guevara led. To universalize warfare solely on one example is ambitious. However, there was lots of stuff that I enjoyed reading. The element of surprise is essential to Guevara’s kind of warfare. Mostly, this means that most fighting occurs at night. Moreover, to read that weapons and ammunition relied solely on the enemy was eye-opening. This kind of warfare is truly revolutionary and low scale, based on scarcity. At the end of it all there was one question pondering my mind, does this text hold any value to violent revolutionary causes today? I hope we will attempt to tackle this question in class.

How to become a Guerrilla in 10 easy steps.

Before anything else I’d like to share this quote from the book which in a way describes what to Che Guerrilla warfare meant.

“Guerrilla warfare, the basis of the struggle of a people to redeem itself, has diverse characteristics, different facets, even though the essential will for liberation remains the same.”

In essence, this quote is stating that every single instance of Guerrilla warfare is unique and methods and techniques learned and applied in one can not be applicable to another, the only thing that each unique event share is the will and struggle to gain liberation. Although I agree with this statement which describes each action in Guerrilla warfare as though they are occurring for the first time, which they most likely are given the circumstances that Guerrilla warfare entails, it makes the idea or concept that this book is a guideline for future Guerrilla fighters to be redundant. For almost the whole first chapter of the book, Che goes into great detail in describing the perfect characteristics for what a Guerrilla fighter should be or what tactics fighters should use in specific situations and such. Although he states earlier that each instance of war is different and unique, he explains and molds a fit-all strategy for fellow fighters. Even though he describes different fighting types that he has learned about, his theories and experiences are heavily tied to his time in the Cuban movement. What this book does do, is provide basic information for starting Guerrilla movements with existing tactics which have worked for another movement. Even if these tactics do not work on the same level as they have worked for another movement they provide the basic groundwork for establishing a potentially good Guerrilla movement. I found some of his advice to be somewhat redundant, though, he mentions for the Guerrilla fighter to be willing to die for the cause but to be able to retain his life for his death causes more damage to the cause than the death of one soldier.

Overall I found the book to contain some interesting aspects of what it means to be part of a Guerrilla movement, but I did not feel as though some of those aspects were new to me. Even most Guerrilla movement is usually tied to strong social and political reform, I found that the book had very little to do with political ideologies of Guerrilla fighters. Something which I found weird as this book is very much a guidebook on how to become a true Guerrilla fighting for a cause. Yet at the same time, I do see how someone could become a successful Guerrilla fighter following Che’s steps. He makes it sound so easy as though if you follow his steps you could be toppling governments left, right, and center.

Guerrilla Warfare

While I enjoyed this week’s reading of Che Guevara’s Guerrilla Warfare, I still think it was somewhat held back by its aim of extracting general teachings from the Cuban revolution. If anything, it is very interesting as a historical account of the military strategies and techniques of Fidel’s revolutionary forces, and also provides detail on the conditions and needs of the individual guerrilla fighter. However, I am less convinced about its use as a handbook for successfully waging guerrilla warfare in order to topple one’s own oppressive regime. Marc Becker’s introduction writes that “it has become a historical document rather than a manual or blueprint” (vi), and considering how Che’s two attempts at guerrilla warfare following Cuba failed – in Congo and Bolivia respectively – it isn’t too difficult to understand why.

Even disregarding modern advances in current military technology, Che’s recommendations seem very specific to the case of the Cuban revolutionary struggle in the late 50s. This is completely understandable, and he himself recognises this, directing his advice to “Underdeveloped America”. This leads Che to focus on the countryside as the central point of revolutionary guerrilla warfare. He also emphasises how the support of the local peasant population is key to the guerrilla military apparatus, be it for gathering information, setting up infrastructure, or building the basis for the future revolutionary state. While popular support does seem like a necessary element to any revolution, Che’s description of how to obtain it either omits or takes for granted several factors that were somewhat specific to Batista’s Cuba.

Firstly, there is the case of the Cuban peasantry, which Marc Becker contrasts with that of the Bolivian rural workers when listing some of the criticism directed at Che’s Bolivian campaign. Then, there is Batista himself. While Cuba was in no way unique in terms of its dictatorial regime, Fulgencio Batista was far from competent in keeping a grip on power. He was unable to maintain loyalty within the upper ranks of his army – culminating in an attempted coup – and the Cuban national army was therefore hampered effective in its campaign against the revolutionary guerrilla forces. Batista was also responsible for brutal acts of repression against his opponents, and he ordered multiple cases of torture and arbitrary executions. This served to make him extremely unpopular among almost all of the Cuban population, and as a result Castro was commonly seen as a welcome alternative. In a sense, Batista was a significant contributor to his own overthrow.

Even though they weren’t required reading for this week, the two essays at the end of the Bison Books edition of Guerrilla Warfare were perhaps more useful for considering revolution in a more general case. “Guerrilla Warfare: A Method” takes a more theoretical approach to the question of revolution, while the “Message to the Tricontinental” focuses on the struggle against colonialism and the more recent case of United States imperialism. While these weren’t as historically instructive as the main text of Guerrilla Warfare, they did provide more insight into Che’s own ideas and conceptions about revolution.