askchapo

Che and the Cuban revolutionaries were not adventurists in either case because their primary strategy was in building a base of support among workers. Adventurists only do violence, with no attempt at building a base or community outreach. The same was true of Che's efforts in Bolivia, he was trying to build a local base of support first and foremost.

To add context, as based as it was, the recent assault on the Israeli embassy was adventurist in essence because it was disconnected from any greater project, and had no association with the people in general.

I was just listening to that a couple days ago, it wasn’t adventurist because there was a collective effort and a network of revolutionaries working together and gradually expanding their operations.

It wasn't adventurism in the formal term, Che by that point would never do something so frivolous after the experience of the Cuban Revolution. It was just not a great plan and didn't have enough support (though it certainly had some) and seemed to favor doing more warfare over the obvious task of nation-building that he absolutely could have continued with back in Cuba, and I think that last part is why it gets called adventurist, because there is a superficial similarity in terms of the vibe.

He was fairly adventurist before he became communist. But in Bolivia he just miscalculated on how he could build support. The same strategy that worked in Cuban countryside did not work in Bolivia, it did not balloon with basically universal support. His understanding of local conditions was insufficient.

It would be a touch more accurate to say his actions after Cuba were more commandist than adventurist

You should watch the motorcycle diaries for a bit of insight into where he was coming from. I found it insightful.