Forum on People’s Struggles

Leave a reply

forum_poster

Come to the event that Dacyn and Simon have been organizing!

Forum on Peoples’ Struggles

Today (Friday), 4-6pm
Barber Centre Room 155

Although geographically in different regions on the globe, activists, indigenous peoples and citizens are facing very much the same struggles against increasingly repressive states and corporations. The same mechanism to suppress dissent has caused extrajudicial killings of journalists, and activists in the Philippines, as well as the arrest of Dr. G. N. Saibaba along with student leaders involved with the Jawaharal Nehru University protests in India. The same mechanisms are used by Canadian resource extraction companies to plunder land in the Philippines, India, and the Americas, while we turn a blind eye to this injustice. The same mechanisms to uproot indigenous communities have caused 40000 Lumads (indigenous peoples) in Philippines to be displaced, not to mention that the same displacement perpetrated by the state and its partners occurs to this day in the Americas.

In response to these struggles, and courageous resistance to repressive states and corporations presently happening around the world, the Revolutionary Student Movement – Vancouver chapter would like to inform students on campus about them, especially when these issues are not discussed in the lecture hall or reported widely in the media. We will be hosting a forum in the Irving K. Barber Learning Centre, Room 155 on Friday March 4th 2016 from 4-6pm where a number of speakers will be giving some presentations about these global issues. Coffee will be provided at the event. Furthermore, panelists include:
– Eviatar Bach, of the UBC Social Justice Centre, who will speak on mining injustice.
– Lakhbir Khunkhun, of the East Indian Defence Committee (EIDC), who will speak on state repression in India.
– Representatives from RSM who will speak on what our organization does.

Join us for an informative afternoon of presentations, so that we may strengthen international solidarity for our global comrades.

Facebook Event Page

Midterm Questions

Leave a reply

[Sorry these are late… I have been having computer problems.]

Together, you will collectively produce a document (using Google Docs) in response to one of the following three prompts. It will be only at the time of the midterm itself that you will be given the specific prompt that you have to answer, but it will be one of these three:

  1. What is a revolution? And why might we (anybody) want one?
  2. What are the main obstacles to revolution, or dangers inherent in trying to organize one?
  3. How have revolutions been represented or depicted, and how should they be portrayed?

In each case, please respond with specific reference to the full range of texts we have read and discussed in class.

Ensure also that the document you produce is well-structured, organized, and coherent. It should have a beginning, a middle, and an end, and a coherent thesis, which may (and probably should) of course be broken down into discrete but complementary elements.

It is up to you to figure out how to organize yourselves and assign responsibilities and roles to tackle this task. The result will be viewed and assessed as a collective project, and if it is judged unsatisfactory, then everyone will be involved in rewriting and revising (and/or redoing) it until it is satisfactory.

Though I am giving no hard guidelines on length, I am expecting a substantial document. I think you should probably aim for ten pages (double spaced).

In the midterm itself, you are allowed to use whatever resources you deem necessary: books, notes, the Internet, whatever. You are free (indeed, encouraged) to talk to each other as you work together.

Blueprint for Revolution

Blueprint for Revolution

Srdja Popovic was a leader of the Serbian youth movement Otpor!, which organized non-violent opposition to President Slobodan Milošević in the late 1990s. Otpor! was, by all accounts (not least Popovic’s own), remarkably successful: less than two years after the group was formed, and in the wake of the Kosovo war and NATO airstrikes, Milošević was overthrown amid mass demonstrations and at the cost of surprisingly few casualties. After a brief foray into parliamentary politics, Popovic helped to found the Belgrade-based Centre for Applied Non Violent Actions and Strategies, a kind of consultancy for non-violent activism that has advised activists from Egypt, Venezuela, Syria, the Maldives, and elsewhere. Now, with Blueprint for Revolution, he offers us all the lessons he’s drawn from a decade and a half of global protest, from Burma to Yemen, Occupy to the Arab Spring. For as he repeatedly tells us, the principles he proposes “are universal, and they apply no matter who you are and what your problems may be” (244). You, too, he insists, can overthrow a dictatorship and even (or “simply,” as the book’s subtitle has it) change the world.

The book is presented, then, very much as a popular and practical guide. Popovic makes no pretence to be a deep thinker or theorist, and his style is resolutely jocular, sometimes gratingly so. His stress is as much on style as on substance: the very first step for a would-be revolutionary, he tells us, is to come up with a decent logo; as he says of Otpor!, “branding was important to us” (7). And branding is important because protest has to be presented as “cool,” even “sexy.” Popovic reports that Otpor! was so successful at crafting a hip image for revolt that their “little demonstrations became the hottest parties in town” (10). So in line with this dictum, Popovic’s own style (and let’s pass over the presence of a ghost writer, Matthew Miller) is all about being down with the kids. Almost embarrassingly so, though he saves himself by recognizing that at his age he’s probably not as cool as he once was, and by self-deprecatingly acknowledging that ultimately he was never really all that cool anyway. After all, as he repeatedly tells us, he’s a huge fan of Lord of the Rings. So the key is to be hip, but not too hip. Because you don’t want to scare people away. You need to appeal to the broadest cross-section of society possible.

For Popovic is unabashedly populist. And though he doesn’t use the term (which might smack too much of alienating theoreticism), he provides perhaps the best practical definition of populism I have seen:

Take a piece of paper–even a napkin can do the job–and draw a line. Mark yourself on one side of it, and then try to think who could stand together with you. If the answer is just a few people, start over–no matter how committed you are to a cause, or how troubled you are by a problem–and try again. When you’ve managed to place yourself and your friends and just about the rest of the world on one side of the line and a handful of evil bastards on the other, you’ve won. (52)

What this means is the specifics are almost always beside the point. Who cares what the issue is, so long as you can draw that line, construct a “people” in opposition to an evil elite? It might (as in the examples he provides) be a rallying call for cheaper salt (Gandhi) or less dog shit on the streets (Harvey Milk). But then what if the cause that unites people on your side of the line is opposition to immigrants or (Heaven help us) a crackdown on separatism in a breakaway republic? As with all populists, Popovic has little if any means to distinguish between different forms of populism; he’d be at a loss, for instance, if he had to justify supporting Sanders over Trump.

To put this another way: this is a book that’s for revolution, but against politics, “because politics is boring, and we wanted everything to be fun” (11). And in the end, in part because of this, it’s not clear how very revolutionary it is, either. Popovic tells us that a successful movement for social change has to have a vision, because “it’s never enough just to throw a party” (67). But it turns out that the vision that Otpor! had for Serbia was more backward-looking than progressive: “We just wanted a normal country with cool music. That’s it. We wanted a Serbia that was open to the world, as it had been under Tito” (70). For under Tito, Yugoslavia’s official record label had provided young Yugoslavs a steady diet of “the Beatles, David Bowie, Kraftwerk, Whitesnake, and Deep Purple. Growing up in the 1980s, my friends and I barely felt the yoke of dictatorship, busy as we were with great music from around the world” (69). Indeed, if there’s anything revolutionary in Popovic’s proposals, it is a revolution against politics. It’s a call for more bread and (especially) more circuses, more Heavy Metal. It’s a plea for the return of hegemony, or at least its simulacrum, as nostalgically remembered in an idealized childhood homeland that no longer exists.

Reflections and Lesson Plan for Week 7

Lesson Plan:

Che Presentation Notes:

Debate: Is Revolutionary justice (i.e. executions) justifiable for a means to an end?

  • Explain the “revolutionary code”
  • Talk about machismo in death (execution scene)

Compare and contrast Cuba

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ekfej_kmHQ (Che’s U.N. Speech)

http://writing.upenn.edu/library/Marti_Jose_Our-America.html (Jose Martí’s “Our America”)

 

Questions:

  1. How does American Imperialism drive revolutions?
    1. What is imperialism
  2. Does one ever stop being a guerilla soldier?
  3. What is the difference between a national liberation struggle and a “revolution”?
  4. What is the role of women in the Cuban Revolution?
  5. Why does Che believe that armed struggle is preferential to urban warfare/sabotage?
  6. What is the importance of national figures such as Jose Martí in revolutions?
    1. Not a socialist but how is he still represented as a hero by the Cuban revolution?
  7. What is the pretext of the revolution
    1. Batista Regime
    2. Cuban Independence (mestizo population defeating a “white” population
  8. Is there another alternative to “violent” revolution that can bring about lasting change?
  9. Why is land always so central to a revolutionary struggle?

Reflections:

George: I think we can say we had a fun, engaging, and educational debate! Is revolutionary justice (in this case through means of executions) justifiable and a means to an end? Both sides made great points. On the one side, it is a form of discipline and deterrence, and yes, one could argue the most efficient and productive way (rather than using resources on a prisoner). Also, all revolutions, I think, are also based on this notion of bringing justice; however, what justice entails may be different for every individual or country. Some base it on land reforms, others on a draconian government. The point is, revolutions are founded by this guiding principle of bring justice. So therefore one could take the side of pro revolutionary justice. On the other side however, killing people does not, as Aja mentioned, solve the root problem. And as Thomas also mentioned in his blog, it goes against Che’s goal of bringing peace. How can he be fighting for change and peace when he is at the same time condoning punishment, violence, and executions, which arguably only make the situation worse? Based on this paradox, one could also ask the question, can there even be revolutionary justice in a revolution? Or simply, is there ever truly justice in a revolution? Both terms, justice and revolution, are in contrast to one another, so I don’t know whether such a thing can even exist. Also, I think using terms such as revolution and justice are very subjective, and whatever one says really depends on how they are affected and see it in relation to their life or others. Therefore, in the end I must say both sides won. Each side looked at the revolution and justice in a particular way and addressed them very well.

Dacyn: I really enjoyed leading the class this week and feel that we were able to really create meaningful discussion from the debate that took place. I am very thankful for George for suggesting that we do a debate in the first place. I was a little hesitant about it because I wasn’t sure if people were actually going to participate but the response seemed very positive and people seemed to really have fun with it! I though both sides conveyed some very good points and again I have a bias already to one side so it would be unfair of me to declare one side a winner. Overall I think both sides made compelling arguments that at the very least made the team think of logical responses, which was our goal with having the debate in the first place. I also enjoyed the passion that was elicited from the class, something that seems to be occurring more frequently now that we are all getting more comfortable with each other in the classroom. I wished that we could have showed the clip of the real Che speaking at the United Nations (and I encourage those with free time to do so because it really is captivating) because it shows how passionate, intelligent and rational Guevara was. His charismatic speaking style was something that was marveled at by many and was worthy of us taking a look at. All in all I feel that this week went very well and I am happy with the discussion and debate that was stimulated from our lesson.

Week 8: The Bolivian Diary, Historical Context and Death

This week we were tasked with reading The Bolivian Diary, by Che Guevara. This was Che’s last text that he wrote, and while a bit boring and dry at parts, I feel is one of his most important works. When we analyze the diary itself, it seems rather unimportant. A large part of the book Che is simply describing the harsh attributes that a guerilla fighter faced. Often times entries were short and uneventful. But this text’s purpose has somewhat transcended simply being another book by Che. In my eyes the text serves as an account of the final thoughts and ideas of one of the most influential revolutionaries of the 20th century.

I can understand however why some may find this text boring and unimportant. To truely do this book justice, the reader needs to have some knowledge of the socioeconmic conditions surrounding Bolivia at the time, and why Che attempted revolution there. At the time, the president of Boliva, René Barrientos came to power after the overthrowing of the liberal government of Paz Estenssoro. The laissez-faire economic model was introduced and many industries were directly impacted in a detremental way. Miners were especially angry with the new goverment and their protests were met with violent resistance from police, often resulting in the deaths of miners. Most notably the catalyst and pretext for revolutionary activity was the Catavi Massacre of 1942. The miners of the Catavi and Siglo XX mines demanded a 100% increase in wages. The response of the Bolivian government was to send troops to the mines and open fire for six hours. Now I understand this is a bit of an aside, and not exactly related to The Bolivian Diary but I feel that this background information is important because it explains the reasons as to why Che decided on Bolivia as his next latin american country for which he would instigate armed struggle.

What I find so interesting about Che’s time in Bolivia is how ripe Bolivia was for revolution, yet Che ultimately made some initial choices that set himself up for failure. The movement of the intial guerilla camp seems baffling to me, as he moved from an area that was projected to be friendly and sympathetic to the Guerilla cause (the countryside around the Siglo XX mine) to another area which may have be detrimental to the Guerilla movements.

The true significance of this text lies in the legacy that it builds around Che Guevara. To me Che is an inspiration because even in the face of defeat Che never once falters in his beliefs and ideology. Even in death, his final words are repeated and remebered all over the world: “Shoot coward, you are only going to kill a man”.

The Bolivian Diary

While this book may be the driest and less inviting reads we have been faced with this class, it is also fair to say that it is probably the most historically important. As the preface and Fidel Castro’s introduction in particular point out, the events Che describes in his Bolivian Diary and his ensuing execution transformed the revolutionary hero into a martyr, further magnifying his legend. The Diary was a key part of this process, and in spite of the number of descriptions of “uneventful days” spent trekking through the rainforest or worrying about dwindling rations it does help build a certain image of Che and his revolutionary goals.

One of the main things I was hoping the Diary would cover were some of the reasons why Che and his men’s attempted revolution in Bolivia failed, and in this respect it provides some thoughtful insights. The most significant of these lies in the guerrilla’s inability to recruit Bolivian peasants into their forces or as reliable informants. Che argued that the support of local rural inhabitants is vital to a successful revolution in Guerrilla Warfare. While he does seem to have initially counted on this support, it quickly becomes clear that he overestimated their revolutionary potential in Bolivia. As a result, any casualties Che’s column suffers are irreplaceable, and food and supplies remain scarce. Che’s monthly summaries express his growing concern at the absence of recruitments, and his assessment of September is especially bleak: “the peasant masses are not helping us with anything and are becoming informers” (p.248).

Two other points that stand out in Che’s Diary are issues regarding discipline within his troops, and communication with the outside. In spite of Che’s efforts, some of his men (such as Marcos and Camba) show disregard for the orders commandante issues, often resulting in arguments or lost supplies. Food in particular seems to be a major object of desire and contention for the guerrillas. They also have a lot of trouble maintaining contact with their allies both within and outside Bolivia, especially with “Manila”, who nonetheless claim they are receiving news from the guerrilla army, something Che quips is “a miracle of telepathy!”(p.234). The loss of all contact with Joaquín and his column is an even bigger blow for Che, as it eliminates the possibility for the coordinated actions that played a huge role in the Cuban Revolution.

However, in spite of all these difficulties, as well as the terrible conditions and health problems he and his men faced, Che’s writings shows a great deal of composure. His determination in the face of the guerrilla’s dire situation is quite striking, and he seems to retain lucidity and self-control while some of his soldiers appear on the verge of losing their minds. Che’s resilience in pushing forward regardless of circumstances is where The Bolivian Diary comes closest to depicting him as an ideal revolutionary fighter, and does so without a trace of romanticism.

The Bolivian Diary

I found myself skimming a lot of the beginning of the book. Once the group settled in their camp the book got more entertaining to read. I was very surprised to read that Che’s guerilla group consisted only of around 25 people. I think there were other guerilla groups fighting alongside Che in other parts of the countryside, but even so If you put this in context against an army of reportedly 1,800 people your odds do not seem very good. Even if you rely on surprise attacks I think the capabilities of an army are too much for a guerilla group with scarce resources. I think at one point the quantity of soldiers matters as opposed to quality, which Che seems to emphasize in Guerilla Warfare. Also The Bolivian Diary reinforced one point I put forward a couple weeks ago that people and soldiers are fallible and that no manual can be a universal manual for successful guerilla warfare. Marcos, for example, seems to be a horrible character and is consistently provoking problems in the group. At some points in the book it seemed to me that people were aimlessly walking around the Bolivian countryside. We hear the numbers of dead soldiers the guerilla inflicted and none seems really like an overarching victory. It looks like Che’s surprise attacks and ambushes didn’t work in Bolivia. It would be interesting to know why. Maybe it was down to the capabilities of the Bolivian army. Also Che’s hiding spots for food and arms are found by the army, maybe Che should have had a section in Guerilla Warfare explaining how to set up perfect hiding spots for materials (although considering what happened in Bolivia it might have been a bad idea to follow his guidelines). Slowly Che’s guerilla group seems to dismantle to pieces. They are wrecked by deaths to important people in the group, some were even accidental deaths, for example in one case one young man is caught by a violent river. Also Che repeatedly states that the group’s morale is very low, and I can’t see how it was any other way. Plagued by deaths and seeing no end to their fighting must have left many soldiers questioning what exactly they were doing in the countryside, and if there was any possibility of being successful. Some soldiers must have felt deep down that they were doomed against such a big army, but there was no backing down now that they were so deeply involved. I’m very interested to know how much of the diary was left out in the publication I read. I find it hard to believe that there was no editing and that they published Che’s diary completely transparently. There must be parts of the original diary that the people who commissioned the publishing of the book did not want the public to view. I think this was done to keep Che as the symbol people think they know him as. One part I enjoyed about the book were the pictures of Che in disguise entering Bolivia, half bald and shaved and looking completely like another person.

The Bolivian Diary

The Bolivian Diary

Che Guevara’s career as a revolutionary ended not with a bang but a whimper. There were just seventeen men left in his guerrilla band when, in early October, 1967, they were cornered in a remote ravine in Southeastern Bolivia. Che’s rifle was damaged in the engagement, so he didn’t even have the satisfaction of going down fighting. In the heat of battle, as Bolivian soldiers closed in on his position, he is said to have called out “I’m Che Guevara! I’m worth more to you alive than dead.” But the Bolivians didn’t think so: they captured him alive only to execute him the next day, in the nearby hamlet of La Higuera. Then they tied his body to the skids of a helicopter and flew it to the town of Vallegrande, where they washed it down in the local hospital laundry before inviting the press and curious locals alike to come in and gawk. Contemporary film footage shows many people holding their noses as they circle the cadaver. Either the corpse had already begun to decay or, just as likely, despite the washing it still stank from the previous eleven months of privations and sickness. After its hands were cut off and kept (to ensure fingerprint evidence in the case of doubters or official Cuban denial), the rest of the body was then unceremoniously buried.

Che Guevara corpse

It had been clear for a while that the Bolivian campaign was doomed–and not just because Che had lost his boots almost a month previously, as his diary notes (231). There had been multiple signs of the coming disaster: the guerrilla army had split into two parts, which had lost touch with each other; all contact with La Paz and Havana had also long since been lost, not that there had been much of an urban network in place (while some argue that for his part Castro was happy to abandon Che to his fate); deserters had offered up valuable information to the Bolivian authorities; as a result, the guerrillas’ base camp and supplies had been discovered and destroyed; short of medicine, Che found his asthma attacks more and more burdensome; other members of his group were also ill and increasingly malnourished. Above all, despite a string of small but significant military victories earlier in the year, the guerrillas had steadily lost fighters without managing to attract a single new recruit from the local peasantry. Far from establishing trust and sympathizers among the people, they were consistently greeted with fear and suspicion. Instead of establishing the conditions for a general revolutionary uprising, Guevara’s ill-judged enterprise brought his entire foco theory of guerrilla warfare into disrepute.

It might be argued that the problem was a failure to achieve (anything close to) hegemony. But there’s no doubt they tried: though there’s not much in the way of ideological exhortation in Che’s own diary entries, the group’s various communiqués “to the Bolivian people” are classics of their genre, appealing (for instance) “to workers, peasants, intellectuals, [. . .] everyone who feels that the time has come to confront violence with violence [. . . to] raise the standard of living of our people, who grow hungrier every day” (266). And it may even have been true, as Che notes, that “the legend of the guerrilla force [was] acquiring continental dimensions” (203). But this was no way sufficient. Even within the group itself, Che was aware of and no doubt played off his own personal mystique (early on, upon “discovering [his] identity,” one of his men was so taken aback that he “almost drove into a ditch” [35]). But the small band of revolutionaries was still wracked with dissent and infighting, as Che records on an almost daily basis: the Bolivians complained that the Cubans were treated too favourably; people stole food or didn’t pull their weight; everybody got on each others’ nerves. Given the circumstances, it’s amazing that there were not more deserters, especially as the situation got more and more dire. By the final weeks, they must have known that they were dead men walking. Yet the pathos of it all is that still they walked.

There is something admirable–pathetic as much in the sense that it inspires pathos–in such dedication and self-sacrifice. Almost all the Cubans on the expedition (and whatever the communiqués said about this being a home-grown rebellion, they made up almost half the total number of combatants) had senior posts within the revolutionary apparatus. Joaquín, Marcos, Rolando, and Rubio were all members of the Central Committee of the Cuban Communist Party. Alejandro and Pachungo had held top positions in the Ministry of Industry. Many had already fought with Che in the Congo. They had no need to be here. Nor, of course, did Che himself. And yet they went, and endured the most awful conditions: surviving on a diet of horsemeat, rotten cat meat, tapir, and whatever they could forage or hunt; forever exhausted as they traversed the most inhospitable of terrain, scrambling up cliffs and fording rivers (Che continually records the ever changing altitude), hacking through undergrowth; getting so sick as when Che passed out from his diarrhea and woke up “covered in shit like a newborn baby” (154); generally living in extreme squalor and discomfort, such that Che notes he goes six months without a bath (232). And yet they continue to believe that “this type of struggle gives us the opportunity to become revolutionaries, the highest form of the human species, and it also allows us to emerge fully as men” (208). In the end, though–and passing over the not inconsiderable number of soldiers they kill, even in this failed campaign–one is led to borrow a phrase (from Pierre Bosquet, on the Charge of the Light Brigade) and say: C’était magnifique. Mais ce n’était pas la Revolution.

who uses this text

While reading Che Guevara’s Bolivian Diary I kept coming back to something, but it wasn’t something Che wrote, it was something Fidel Castro wrote in the introduction. He wrote, “some may interpret our decision to publish [The Bolivian Diary] as an act of provocation that will give the enemies of the revolution–the Yankee imperialists and their allies, the Latin American oligarchs–arguments for redoubling their efforts to blockade, isolate and attack Cuba.” (pg. 11) I was intrigued by this admission because it seemed startlingly obvious once I read it but had not occurred to me until then. Not only could the publication of this text potentially support action like that, it also potentially allows enemies at the time and in the future a glimpse into the day-to-day mechanisms and strategies of this guerrilla group. One might wonder what could be gleaned from this text as it is often slow and mundane and any helpful information would surely have been obvious to their enemies anyways. It is a text that is preoccupied with many of the small aspects of guerrilla warfare that are often invisibilized within a larger, theatrical depiction of events (such as the Soderberg’s Che.) Che meticulously recounts events such as surveying land, patiently awaiting additional recruits, the weather and the precarious nature of communication amongst guerrilla soldiers. His entries do not hide or emphasize the sometimes disorganized state of his troops. What could their enemies learn from this text that they would not already know by virtue of being soldiers themselves? A lot, actually (I think.)

I think we often overestimate the intelligence of military apparatuses, especially large ones. I sometimes forget that funding/resources does not (actually almost never) equals competence. Hitler tried to invade Russia during the middle of winter, twice. Not only could their enemies, imperialist and oligarchs alike, stand to learn about them, they could also improve their own strategies against Che and his fighters. Che is often cited as inspirational by guerilla groups operating presently which suggests that this text has not lost its relevance of applicability today. Since it is still being used by guerrilla group it stands to reason that it could still be being used by their opponents as well. The people who published this text must have realized and assumed responsibility for that risk. Perhaps they assumed that the potential good that might arise from its circulation would outweigh the potentially negative ways it might be taken up and studied by some.

Bolivian Diary – SPAN 280 – Blog 8

I found this book to be quite dry. I know it is written in the form of a diary, but much of what Che says is very dry and repetitive: talking about ambushes, traveling, meeting local people, recruiting, challenges they faced, etc. Nevertheless unlike the other diary we’ve read, this diary had a purpose behind it which was to keep down all important details, maybe because Che believed that they could be of use sometime later on in the revolution or post-revolution. Therefore, Che already writes his diary in a somewhat more formal way than how most diaries are written, and the way he writes (i.e. his language) reflects that and is detailed and concise. Nevertheless, somethings in this diary are worth noting. For example, how he portrays himself in such great ways. Page 2 where it says “but the respect he inspires and the power of his stony gaze deeply affects and confuses them”. Then on page 7 “Che is transformed into a hardened symbol of resistance, a symbol of the fight for what is just, of passion, of the necessity of being fully human, multiplied infinitely in the ideals and weapons of those who struggle”. This quote besides idolizing Che, also represents what the Cuban Revolution meant to Cubans. For them the revolution was a symbol of resistance, and it was a fight for justice; and when it says “of the necessity of being fully human”, it suggests that fighting for a good cause is natural and nothing to be ashamed of, that having these feelings makes us human. On page 6 it is also interesting how Che says, “A phrase comes to mind, one of those that reduces great truths to a few words “in a revolution, if it’s a true revolution, you win or die”. This quote is interesting because Che is suggesting that certain revolutions are true or not. In other words, in a true revolution there is really only one cause, you fight to win, or you die. Maybe Che does not see or believe in some “middle point” as this means that what was fought for has not yet been achieved. Besides, this quote also shows how much a soldier he is, that when on the field it’s either life or death. I also like this quote on page 19 where he mentions that “he did not see the struggle in Bolivia as an isolated occurrence, rather as part of a revolutionary liberation movement that would soon extend to other countries in South America. This quote shows us that Che’s ultimate goals was to spread the revolution, to free all the people who were enslaved or lost their land, he saw this a global problem, one that required everyone to join in. This global problem he refers to as “being converted into economic colonies of Yankee imperialism” (page 27). Despite his maybe seriousness and dedication to the revolution he is also depicted as a caring man. Page 28 describes him in this manner “Che did his utmost to safeguard the withdrawal of these comrades to a safer place”. This quote seems to want to portray Che as this protector. Lastly, page 31 made me realize of another interesting thing. It says that this book was translated into other languages and sent to different countries thereby to help “spread the revolution” which was Che’s goal, going back to what I mentioned previously, that Che did not want this to stop in Bolivia, he wanted this to expand. The end of the book also has 2-3 interesting things. On page 266 he says, “in publicly announcing the first battle of the war, we are establishing what will be our norm: revolutionary truth”. The part “revolutionary truth” really furthers his cause and the revolution, making the revolution seem more honest, without bad intentions, a revolution based on the true conditions that led to its genesis, and once again goes back to what was mentioned earlier when he seemed to suggest that there are “true and fake” revolutions. I especially found interesting what he said further down the page, “today we make an appeal to workers, peasants, intellectuals, to everyone who feels the time has to come to confront violence with violence….”. At the beginning of the semester we had to come up with what ideas we associate with revolutions, one of which was violence. Here Che not only mentions that reality, but he also seems to justify it implying that the only way to win a revolution is by violence and destroying the enemy. I end with page 276 where he says “a worker has the obligation to struggle with all their strength against the common enemy”. Here once again he seems to be justifying revolution and violence and implying that it is a moral duty, because otherwise you are allowing the enemy to win and continue his oppressive ways of ruling. Then I liked how he says “I invite you to join workers of the underground….”. By saying underground it shows that revolutions start from the lower class, those left at the bottom who are forgotten by the government. And finally, he ends with these words “we await you”, once again showing that his goal was to spread the revolution and await more people to join in his cause. The revolution for him was a global project.