Book Report I Wrote On "A Revolutionary Life"

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life
By Jon Lee Anderson
Published In 1997 By Grove Press


The publication of Jon Lee Andersons book on Ernesto “Che” Guevara marked the first major biography on the subject. I will be focusing on Che, and in specific his determination and loyalty to Marxism.


Ernesto “Che” Guevara was an Argentine-born Communist guerilla fighter and politician. Most of his political life was spent in Cuba. Che was a very handsome man, with unkempt, wavy, dark hair. He also sported a ragged beard and mustache. He always wore a black beret that had a star on it, the star symbolizing Communism. He wore an olive green uniform, with a button up shirt, and black combat boots. He spoke with a deep voice, and a heavy Argentine accent.


Since the age of 2, Che always displayed great determination. When he turned 2 years old, he developed a severe case of asthma that would plague him for the rest of his life. Yet despite this, Che never complained about his asthma, and was absolutely focused on participating in all the games the other children enjoyed playing. He was an excellent athlete.

Later on in his life, Che’s determination came out in other forms. The most dominant was his strong desire to spread Marxism through guerilla warfare, and therefore liberate the people of Central & South America. Che only succeeded in one instance however, and that was in Cuba with his comrade Fidel Castro. Though he also tried in The Congo and Bolivia respectively. This determination, and reckless abandon would eventually lead to Che’s demise. But he never would’ve minded that, because that’s how indomitable he was.

When Che was in his mid to late twenties he started taking motorcycle journeys throughout Central & South America. These journeys awakened him to the awful living conditions of the Latin American people. Through this, he discovered Marxism, which talked of liberation and representation for the proletariat or the working class. Che adopted this ideology and worked his hardest to practice this ideology in all his affairs. When he was in Mexico in 1956, he met a young man named Fidel Castro. They immediately bonded, and Che joined Castro’s Cuban liberation movement called the “26 de Julio” or “July 26th”. Che soon went to Cuba to fight, and in 1959 the 26th of July movement had won the Cuba’s Civil war. Che was appointed high positions in Castro’s government, and in the early 1960’s traveled to communist superpowers such as The Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic Of China. There he met with Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev and Chinese Leader Chairman Mao Tse Tung, one of Che’s heroes. Yet Che was restless in Cuba, and here his loyalty to Marxism really shows. He had excellent positions in the Cuban government, such as head of the National Bank Of Cuba, among other things. He lived comfortably with a wife and four children. Yet still, this was not what Che had envisioned his life as. While having more than a comfortable life in Cuba, Che secretly left the island in 1965. He traveled to The Congo, to help fight a guerilla war there. He was trying to spread Marxism, yet it wasn’t working. Frustrated with the incompetence of the Congolese guerillas, Che left The Congo for Bolivia in 1966. There he waged another Marxist guerilla war, until he was captured and murderd on October 7, 1967, in a joint effort by The Military Government of Bolivia and the CIA.


I greatly admire Che for many things. Some of them are his charisma, his determination, his ability to never back down, and his loyalty to Communism, the ideology I myself strongly believe in.



C. Buki

September 27, 2003

[Comrade Ceausescu]

i will keep you guys posted on the grade i get when i hand it in monday.

[nezvanova]

Nice. Though one thing, I was always told my my english teacher to avoid saying "I" in an eassy "I believe...I think" etc etc but I guess that may vary from teacher to teacher. Great essay though! Hope you get a high mark.

Just curious, and if you don't mind my asking, what grade are you in?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

i'm in 8th grade.

[Sasafrás]

The essay is good.. Especially for an 8th grader.

Good job. Keep us posted, kiddo.

[Zafiro]

;) Very good essay.
Btw~ Hope your teacher is not a 'x-treme capitalist'! LOL
You won your star,use it as avatar if you like.

[nezvanova]

Wow! 8th grade! I'm impressed. I somehow took you for older based on your political opinions and such. When I was in eigth grade (two years ago) I was pretty much in the dark when it came to politics, marxism, leninism etc... And yes, lets hope your teacher isn't some extreme capitalist!

[bluerev002]

Good essay mate. Although nezvanova was right, you shouldnt say "I" or "I belive in..." but thats only in letters taht people can respond. For example if your writing a letter to the editor of the newspaper its best to keep away from stating your a leftist or communist because it will detract from what you really want to state and people will attack you on the fact that your a communist or leftist and not on whatever your writing about.

Its safe for an essay though, but its always best to keep it on Che and not on you.

Oh and I might be wrong but I think the star on his barrey meant Commandante. Like if you look at earlier pictures of his, he had swords simbolizing Leutanant.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

thanks a lot guys.i know my teacher very well.i think she is probobly the best teacher i've ever had.she likes che,and is very tolerant(sometimes supportive!!) of my communism.comrade Zafiro,i greatly appreciate the star you gave me!i'll be sure to save it,and use it as an avatar somewhere!

[Zafiro]

Hey, the star looks great!!

I'm happy you have a supportive teacher.
You are young and full of live, reach for the stars, amigo!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Bang up job comrade. Hopefully your teacher will not let the western bias against communism spoil an A+ grade that you deserve for this.

If you get anything less than that, you know that your teacher simply was unable to oversome their western conditioning and grade you impartially.

[Sovietski Soyuz]

I first read that book at your age, maybe a little older. It is partly what made me interested in alternatives to capitalism. Good job.

[ElRuso1967]

I would like to point out that the crossed swords that che had on his beret before he had the star do not mean that he is a leutenant, the crossed swords are the insignia of one of batistas cuban paratrooper regiments, he took it off one of them that he killed. one of che's comrades almost shot him in the head because he saw the crossed sword insignia on the beret and thought che was an enemy paratrooper! has anyone else heard that story?

[Dirty Commie]

8th Grade? I'm in 9th and I couldn't write that. Glad to see that more younger people have been resisting public school attempts at brainwashing.
I read Andersons book last year as well.

[dannie]

8th grade = how old? 16 or something,

nice essay, haven't read the book tough, anyone got it on his puter?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

i'm 14

[bluerev002]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 02:40 AM
I would like to point out that the crossed swords that che had on his beret before he had the star do not mean that he is a leutenant, the crossed swords are the insignia of one of batistas cuban paratrooper regiments, he took it off one of them that he killed. one of che's comrades almost shot him in the head because he saw the crossed sword insignia on the beret and thought che was an enemy paratrooper! has anyone else heard that story?
I had not heard that story, interesting. but non the less crossed swords do mean leutanant or some type of rank. My bro was in da Cadete Corps and they gave them things like that to wear on their hats n shirts n stuff.

[nezvanova]

Hurray! the book i ordered finally came in! the john lee anderson biography! I'm picking it up from the book store tomorrow! I can't wait to read it :D !

[Comrade Ceausescu]

its a good one comrade.btw,that avatar is fucking kick ass!

[X JoeyNormal X]

It betrays your age. Quite poor.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

what?how old are you?if you're my age you proboly havent even read the book.if you have,then i offer you the challenge to write a better one.

[X JoeyNormal X]

I am eighteen.

To be honest, I have not yet read the book. I'm dipping in and out of it, while working on a university- entrance assignment on Guevara.

The real problem I have is with your clumsy syntax and immature style. However, as I implied in my last post, don't be defensive. That is understandable, at your age. Most 14-year-olds I have encountered would have given up before the end of the introduction.

However, let me give you a critique point-by-point:


The publication of Jon Lee Andersons book on Ernesto “Che” Guevara marked the first major biography on the subject. I will be focusing on Che, and in specific his determination and loyalty to Marxism.

Clumsy. Missed an apostrophe; should be "Anderson's". The initial sentence could be greatly simplified to "John Lee Anderson's Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life was the first serious biography of Ernesto Guevara Lynch de la Serna." The second sentence does not address the book, and thus does not address the question. A better sentence would be "Anderson's work details both Guevara's personality and ideology."

However, you, ideally - although here I'm starting to talk at my own level, Stage One Uni - should match the introduction to the essay. List the points you will make, basically. For yours: "Anderson's work details Guevara's physical appearance, childhood, ideology and, most importantly, his contribution to the Cuban revolution."


Ernesto “Che” Guevara was an Argentine-born Communist guerilla fighter and politician. Most of his political life was spent in Cuba.

Blunt, clumsy simple sentences. They are ill-connected, and this leads me to suspect that you're a little unfamiliar with the traditional paragraph structure of all transactional writing. Each paragraph should begin with a short summary sentence introducing the point you are making. You then detail this point - anything up to a page is acceptable, although paragraphs within an essay should be balanced in length - and finally sum up and conclude in anotther short sentence.

This flaw becomes more obvious in the next sentence:


Che was a very handsome man, with unkempt, wavy, dark hair. He also sported a ragged beard and mustache. He always wore a black beret that had a star on it, the star symbolizing Communism. He wore an olive green uniform, with a button up shirt, and black combat boots. He spoke with a deep voice, and a heavy Argentine accent.

How is this relevant to the previous sentence? Why is it in the same paragraph? More importantly, who cares? Anderson's work did not dwell overly on Che's appearance - why do you?


Since the age of 2, Che always displayed great determination. When he turned 2 years old, he developed a severe case of asthma that would plague him for the rest of his life. Yet despite this, Che never complained about his asthma, and was absolutely focused on participating in all the games the other children enjoyed playing. He was an excellent athlete.

A much better paragraph, although lacking a conclusion. However, the final sentence is false. Guevara tried hard, I admit, but athletic excellance...is not the path of a chronic asthmatic. I recall that, in rugby, he was feared for the first few minutes of the game. Only. He became known as "Furibundo" or "Fuser"; furious. However, to quote "he did not always survive to the end of the match."

Oh, and the bold part is impressively clumsy and childish prose; predicatable, given your age.


Later on in his life, Che’s determination came out in other forms. The most dominant was his strong desire to spread Marxism through guerilla warfare, and therefore liberate the people of Central & South America. Che only succeeded in one instance however, and that was in Cuba with his comrade Fidel Castro. Though he also tried in The Congo and Bolivia respectively. This determination, and reckless abandon would eventually lead to Che’s demise. But he never would’ve minded that, because that’s how indomitable he was.

Starts well, falls down. Still not addressing the book. Some words clunk notably - "dominant", for example. Don't use'em to sound smart if you don't know their usual connotations.

"Though he...respectively" is an incomplete sentence. Acceptable in poetic works and fiction...but not in an essay. The rest drops down this path; overly dramatic. And, dear God, hero worship has no place in an academic essay. Please try to at least appear rational and unbiased.


When Che was in his mid to late twenties he started taking motorcycle journeys throughout Central & South America. These journeys awakened him to the awful living conditions of the Latin American people.

Poorly phrased, and the plural "journeys" is out-of-place.

And...topic sentence?


Through this, he discovered Marxism, which talked of liberation and representation for the proletariat or the working class.

Should really specify "Marxist-Leninism", and don't bother defining words in essays. If the marker has to look it up, that's their problem...and they probably shoudn't be teaching.


Che adopted this ideology and worked his hardest to practice this ideology in all his affairs.

Arguable. Don't make controversial or debatable statements without supporting evidence.


When he was in Mexico in 1956, he met a young man named Fidel Castro.

A young man? How cliche!

And, how, pray, is this related to the last sentence? New paragraph, please!


They immediately bonded, and Che joined Castro’s Cuban liberation movement called the “26 de Julio” or “July 26th”.

Unnecessary detail, and detail that, alone, raises too many questions; namely, why was it called that?


Che soon went to Cuba to fight, and in 1959 the 26th of July movement had won the Cuba’s Civil war.

Did you proof-read this before posting? Here, you prove that you can use apostrophes correctly...but you add "the" innappropriately. Should be "...Cuba's..." or "...the Cuban...".


Che was appointed high positions in Castro’s government, and in the early 1960’s traveled to communist superpowers such as The Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic Of China. There he met with Russian premier Nikita Khrushchev and Chinese Leader Chairman Mao Tse Tung, one of Che’s heroes. Yet

Although you neglect to mention that these are seen by many as an exile enforced by Castro as he saw Guevara's popularity and Marxist extremism as a threat to his power. You also fail to note that he came to believe that these nations were betraying Marxism, an important point, in an essay that dwells so much on Marxism.


Yet Che was restless in Cuba, and here his loyalty to Marxism really shows.

Yet? Overly dramatic. And, besides, you are simplying matters overly.


. He had excellent positions in the Cuban government, such as head of the National Bank Of Cuba, among other things.

Redundancy. The final clause is unnecessary, and it renders the whole sentence loose, floppy and ugly.


He lived comfortably with a wife and four children. Yet still, this was not what Che had envisioned his life as.

Overly-dramatic over-simplication.


While having more than a comfortable life in Cuba, Che secretly left the island in 1965.

Still not giving us sufficient explanation; the waffle about loyalty to Marx doesn't cut it. Why did Che leave all this behind?

And, besides, are you writing a biography, a response to Anderson's, an essay on Che's determination or...what? It's not clear, and it should be.


. He traveled to The Congo, to help fight a guerilla war there. He was trying to spread Marxism, yet it wasn’t working. Frustrated with the incompetence of the Congolese guerillas, Che left The Congo for Bolivia in 1966. There he waged another Marxist guerilla war, until he was captured and murderd on October 7, 1967, in a joint effort by The Military Government of Bolivia and the CIA.

Nicely skipping out the interesting parts and controversy. Tell us about Doctor No.3, tell us about his split with Castro, tell us about the irony of Simoeon Cuba...


I greatly admire Che for many things. Some of them are his charisma, his determination, his ability to never back down, and his loyalty to Communism, the ideology I myself strongly believe in.

A loose and ill-worded conclusion, and one that does not match the essay it ends.

O'course, I'm giving you, as I said, criticism pitched at my own level. In a few years, perhaps, you'll be writing better than I ever will. However, your essay, objectively, making no accounts for age, is pretty damn poor. I could be nice, like most here - although many here seem to be nearly illiterate, which may explain things - but...I'm not into that sort of thing.

Like I said, the essay shows your age.

[Edit:] Also, looking at the due date, you have three days to clean it up. Feel free to take my criticism on board and present an edited version; however, I suggest you don't use any of the sentences I suggested, as I have a very distinctive writing style*, which your teacher would easily spot as not your own.

*IE, I write like an anally-retentive goat on acid.

[truthaddict11]

Listen to this guy cheguevara717 work on your essay a little more. I wish I could have learned better essay skills when I was in school, probally would have helped me on term papers in my last year.They could have been much better. Pay attention in english and grammer classes you'll need it later in your life.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

i do pay attention in english.i just dont need some random fool critizing my grammar.btw, joeynormal,maybe i will send you the assingment sheet,if you think some of the things i wrote were irrelavent.i was instructed to write about certain aspects of the main character,i.e apperance..

[Sasafrás]

Don't worry about it, cheguevara717.. You're in the 8th grade. It's not like you're trying to write an award-winning novel or something. Nobody ever writes perfectly, but take it from me (someone who pretty much excelled at writing in high school and who is a journalist [to a certain extent :P]), your essay is fine.

Don't worry about asshole-esque comments from people on the internet.

<_<

~ Sassy

[Zafiro]

BTW~ Mr. Joey

Post one of your essays,...
Got my RED pen ready&#33;&#33; :angry:

[X JoeyNormal X]

Zafiro - By all means. Will a history essay suffice? Nineteenth century, no relevance to Che, but this is not about Che, is it? It&#39;s just one-up-man-ship. I have posted a recent essay of mine: http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...=ST&f=5&t=17834 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=17834)

Che717 - There is no need to be defensive. You state that you "don&#39;t need" criticism of your grammar, and yet...it&#39;s poor. You could choose either to take my criticisms on board and improve your essay, or to reject them outright. It&#39;s your choice. One option may improve your mark, and, as TruthAddict said, improve your writing ability, an important skill.

Sasafra - A "journalist [to a certain extent]"? You write for a university newspaper? You post &#39;news&#39; stories on an obscure website? How can you be a "journalist [to a certain extent]"?

[nezvanova]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 04:29 AM
its a good one comrade.btw,that avatar is fucking kick ass&#33;
are you referring to my rolling stones tongue? Because, if you are I thank you&#33; I am very proud of it :D

I also just started reading the Che biography today...I&#39;m already about 50 pages in, and I must say, Che was quite a rambunctious teenager. I was suprised that he wasn&#39;t very political as a teenager, but more...well...erm,lets say, randy at that age. I guess girls are always more interesting than politics at that age&#33;

oh, and joey, you critiques are very well grounded (my mother gave me very similiar criticisms when i was doing writing assignments in grade 8 and it helped me to no end. she was a meticulous proof reader, and was very critical of my writing, seeing as how she&#39;s a lawyer and has to be picky about writing in he profession...) but one must keep in mind that it is 8th grade. They barely even scratch the surface of clauses, paragraphs, and other very important details of proper writing style at that grade level.
When i entered 9th grade English, having been taught more advanced writing techniques by my mother the previous year, it really struck my teacher. They don&#39;t expect a student of that age to write university grade essays. often, they suspect that a parent, or someone of that nature, has written the essay for the student. I hated having discussions like that with my social studies teacher in grade 9 when he accused me of such tripe. but, like i said, most all of what you pointed out is very well grounded. Even as soon as 10th or 11th grade, you will be expected to write as joey had explained.

Still, for 8th grade, good job. I&#39;m still impressed that someone in 8th grade actually has an interest in politics, and che guevara. When i was in 8th grade i don&#39;t think i could even define communism&#33; just keep up the good work&#33;

[Comrade Ceausescu]

are you referring to my rolling stones tongue?
yes.

[Sasafrás]

Originally posted by X JoeyNormal [email protected] 4 2003, 06:45 PM
Sasafra - A "journalist [to a certain extent]"? You write for a university newspaper? You post &#39;news&#39; stories on an obscure website? How can you be a "journalist [to a certain extent]"?
Yes, I write for one of the University of Memphis&#39; papers and I also write for a city-wide weekly newspaper in Spanish. I also wrote for my high school paper and a city-wide high school paper called "The Teen Appeal." But, I have no degree yet, so I don&#39;t want to officially call myself a journalist..

[X JoeyNormal X]

Sasafras - I wish you luck in journalism, in future. What sort of articles do you pen? Are you aiming to be a serious journalist like Pilger, or a swallow propagandist?

Nezvanova - Agreed. As I conceded, my criticism was not pitched at a fourteen-year-old&#39;s level. I would make a horrible parent; my standards are too rigid. I expect others to reach my own standards, with no allowance for their age, etc, etc. However, I have to say, American schools do strike me as far from demanding, compared to my own experiences in New Zealand.

For example, the pass make for university entrance exams here is 45%. They are scaled to achieve a median of 40-50%. Roughly half the nation&#39;s students fail. I hear of pass-marks in the US and Canada that are comparible to our scholarship grades. Ridiculous.

I recall that at, what, the equivilent to ninth grade, we were expected to produce six full-page essays, following standard paragraphing and so on.

Heh, when I was in "eighth grade", when I was fourteen...I was a Communist. How things change...

[Saint-Just]

Your criticisms are accurate JoeyNormal. However:

Anderson&#39;s work did not dwell overly on Che&#39;s appearance - why do you?

I think Che&#39;s image is an important point since John Lee Anderson did mention it as far as it was necessary and I believe that it is necessary here to give the book review more character.

You also fail to note that he came to believe that these nations were betraying Marxism

In addition, Che may have criticised the Soviet Union but he did not criticise the PRC in the same way.

As you know essays that make an argument that is sustained and clearly referred to throughout are better than those that pop up with an opinion only at the very end. At this level though credit is acquired for merely having an opinion. As a result, the book report here could easily receive good makrs without following that piece of advice, a piece of advice that I am not sure a 14-year-old will be able to take in.

Edit: How did you turn from being a communist to being &#39;straight edge&#39;? That is if indeed you are straight edge.

[Sasafrás]

Originally posted by X JoeyNormal [email protected] 5 2003, 10:51 PM
Sasafras - I wish you luck in journalism, in future. What sort of articles do you pen? Are you aiming to be a serious journalist like Pilger, or a swallow propagandist?

Well, I really don&#39;t have the biggest intentions of beng a journalist, although I may freelance. Journalism was my major, but I have already changed it to foreign languages with a triple-focus on Spanish, Arabic, and Hebrew. I plan to be an ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher. Articles I have written? For the Teen Appeal, I did an article about the Teen Appeal camp and a music review for rock/pop/country music. For the high school paper, I wrote an article about the importance for young people to participate in elections and another one about how idiotic the teenage idea of "love" is and how ineffectively teenagers try to "run game" on their counterparts. Most of my work for the Spanish paper is simply translations of articles from English into Spanish. I have a weekly column, though, which salutes a "cool" music artist as well. I also wrote an article about interracial relationships for the Spanish paper. And, I wrote an article about AAVE for the Black Student Association&#39;s on-campus newspaper, "The Torch." I love writing. I have done it since I was a child (I actually wrote short fiction stories... I was such a child geek :P ). But, I came to college and realized that I may love writing, but that it&#39;s not really what I want to do for the rest of my life. I also realized that I FREAKING LOVE foreign languages. :D So, I&#39;m a foreign languages major and a linguistics minor.

[X JoeyNormal X]

I think Che&#39;s image is an important point since John Lee Anderson did mention it as far as it was necessary and I believe that it is necessary here to give the book review more character.

And he states that the question demanded it, but it seems a little incongruous. Ah well...

...also, he sez that the question specified "main character". Hmmm, sounds like he&#39;s railroading a biography into a question designed for fiction...


In addition, Che may have criticised the Soviet Union but he did not criticise the PRC in the same way.

That is true. However, I tend to idealise Guevara, and as I see Maoism as on par with Stalinism, I dislike both.


Edit: How did you turn from being a communist to being &#39;straight edge&#39;? That is if indeed you are straight edge.

The two are not mutually exclusive. One is a solely political stance, one is - or should be - a solely personal one.

As a young teen, I was a Communist, &#39;cause, like, Rage Against the Machine were. And, like, hammers&#39;n&#39;sickles look cooool. And &#39;cause I had no sodding idea what I was blathering about. As I developed an understanding of what I was talking about, I came to realise that I was not a Marxist, Leninist or Maoist. That, while I respect Marx&#39;s works, they were flawed - illogical and overly utopian. And for the so-called &#39;Communist&#39; nations, well, too authoritarian. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was s&#39;posed to be a metaphor&#39;n&#39;shizzit.

So, I came to describe myself as a Libertarian Socialist. Then, fed up with Objectivists with no sense of the word "Libertarian"&#39;s history, a Democratic Socialist. That, however, put me near the reformist neo-liberals in describtion, so "Directly" began to prefix it.

Now, an Anarcho-Socialist or Anarcho-Syndicalist. Still not a fully accurate description, but...the Syndicalists are the group with ideals closest to my own.

I swore Edge early this year; exactly one year, oddly enough, after I stopped drinking. That was a personal choice. I believe that mind-altering substances are no more than a crutch for the weak. I wish my thoughts to be the product of my own mind, not of some chemical.

No, I am not vegan. I am not a hardliner. No, I do not mind others drinking, as long as they do not throw up onme, hurt others or themselves, and don&#39;t mind me laughing at their drunk antics. And, no, Straight Edge does not mean "no sex", rather, "no promiscuous sex".

[Patron]

Mr. Joey

Just to clarify, Canada and the U.S. have different education systems as they are different countries. I am sure that you have visited both countries schools and are qualified to make assumptions about the quality of our systems. Being that I have, in fact, studied at both I must say that one can not even begin to compare the two.
I must say that with the high standards that you set for yourself you are quite quick to make assumptions and jump to conclusions. This as we all know is certainly not what we are to do unless we have fully researched the situation.

Book Report writer: Great work&#33;

It is a book report not an essay. Different rules apply to the two. Many book reports specifically ask for personal opinions on the subject.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by X JoeyNormal [email protected] 7 2003, 03:11 AM
The two are not mutually exclusive. One is a solely political stance, one is - or should be - a solely personal one.

As a young teen, I was a Communist, &#39;cause, like, Rage Against the Machine were. And, like, hammers&#39;n&#39;sickles look cooool. And &#39;cause I had no sodding idea what I was blathering about. As I developed an understanding of what I was talking about, I came to realise that I was not a Marxist, Leninist or Maoist. That, while I respect Marx&#39;s works, they were flawed - illogical and overly utopian. And for the so-called &#39;Communist&#39; nations, well, too authoritarian. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was s&#39;posed to be a metaphor&#39;n&#39;shizzit.

So, I came to describe myself as a Libertarian Socialist. Then, fed up with Objectivists with no sense of the word "Libertarian"&#39;s history, a Democratic Socialist. That, however, put me near the reformist neo-liberals in describtion, so "Directly" began to prefix it.

Now, an Anarcho-Socialist or Anarcho-Syndicalist. Still not a fully accurate description, but...the Syndicalists are the group with ideals closest to my own.

I swore Edge early this year; exactly one year, oddly enough, after I stopped drinking. That was a personal choice. I believe that mind-altering substances are no more than a crutch for the weak. I wish my thoughts to be the product of my own mind, not of some chemical.

No, I am not vegan. I am not a hardliner. No, I do not mind others drinking, as long as they do not throw up onme, hurt others or themselves, and don&#39;t mind me laughing at their drunk antics. And, no, Straight Edge does not mean "no sex", rather, "no promiscuous sex".
I know they are not mutually exclusive. I thought that most straight-edge people were anarchists just because they tended to have a view that to me seems very much to do with humanism. And thats where I think the straight edge ideas come from to some extent, as you said to not alter your state of mind. Its difficult to say really.

I did not think straight edge had anything to do with sex. I would certainly have to agree with you on no promiscuous sex.

I thought Marx&#39;s ideas may be utopian until I realised the idea of the complete homogenisation of people in thought, ideas, desires etc. and of a highly self-disciplined people. But I would have thought that equally anarchy is rather utopian.

[X JoeyNormal X]

Communism is the positive supersession of private property as human self-estrangement, and hence the true appropriation of the human essence through and for man; it is the complete restoration of man to himself as a social -- i.e., human -- being, a restoration which has become conscious and which takes place within the entire wealth of previous periods of development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man, the true resolution of the conflict between existence and being, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be the solution. - Marx

What was that about humanism bein&#39; in conflict with Marx?

[mamboman]

I am a Primary School teacher. I think that essay is excellent. In fact I have seen worse essays from Grade 12. One tip... break your big paragraph into two or more.
Please keep up your interest in El Che&#33;

[Comrade Ceausescu]

update guys:i got an A&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Hampton]

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/winnarblinkingglasses.gif

Good job.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

:lol: :lol: Where do u find this stuff??

[Zafiro]

;) Excellente&#33;

[nezvanova]

Wow&#33; Congratulations on the A&#33; Glad to hear it&#33; :)

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Thanks Comrades&#33;

[Hitman47]

Hi guys&#33;&#33;

Can u guys proofread my "The Crucible" Essay i did for my English class. Im a Junior in high school, and i completely suck in essays, because i don&#39;t have English-speaking parents.

So please tell me what im doing wrong, I want to improve in essays :rolleyes:

Here ya go:





John Proctor – The Individual versus Society



In Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, society continually suppresses the individual by means of religion. John Proctor, the central character of the story, portrays the individual against society. Through his skepticism of the witchcraft trials, he pinpoints the false accusations. However, the Salem court does not buy into any of this, still believing the accusers. Reverend Parris’ vengeance, John Proctor’s secret flaw, and Proctor’s sacrificial death emphasize John Proctor&#39;s struggle against the Salem community.
Reverend Parris exhibits qualities of a paranoid man who is easily influenced by the false accusations of Abigail, who makes life impossible for John Proctor. To get into detail, we must analyze the Salem community. The Crucible takes place in a deeply religious and superstitious society. Many of the characters believe that exterminating witches from the community represent the work of God. Generally, in a community there are two groups of people: the majority and the minority. Unfortunately, the majority of the people in The Crucible use the witchcraft trials to unleash their grudges and to retaliate in order to get revenge. John Proctor for example, criticizes Reverend Parris, because Parris doesn’t talk about God anymore in his sermons. A clear example of this is when Proctor says, “I have trouble enough without I come five mile to hear him preach only hellfire and bloody damnation. Take it to heart, Mr. Parris. There are many others who stay away from the church these days because you hardly ever mention God anymore.” Reverend Parris then embodies his authority over John Proctor when he comments on how Proctor disobeys the obligations of the church. Later on, Parris uses the trials to increase his power and punish John Proctor, and also lies about how he didn’t see the girls dancing naked in the forest. The Salem court is easily manipulated when Parris suggests to Danforth that John Proctor is condemning the court. He uses this technique throughout the play, so that John Proctor cannot have his say in the court.
John Proctor not only suffers from the suppression of the authority of the court, but also faces an inner conflict to overcome. Abigail, the creator of the hysteria, holds a grudge against Elizabeth Proctor, due to the fact that Elizabeth fires her after discovering the affair between Abigail and Proctor. Proctor feels uncomfortable about going against Abigail, because he doesn’t want to ruin his good name. When Hale asks Proctor to recite the Ten Commandments, Proctor forgets to say adultery, which illustrates the inner struggle to go against Abigail in court. Abigail uses the situation of the poppet scandal to accuse Elizabeth and have her sent to jail. The event constitutes Proctor to participate in the community and hints that his individual needs power, for it needs to be sacrificed for the good of the community.
John Proctor’s sacrificial death conveys the good for the community to be finally unsuppressed from the hysteria of society, which portrays the theme of individual versus society. When John Proctor feels he is unheard in the court, he confesses his sin in court and calls Abigail a “whore,” by that he exhibits the final struggle the individual faces against society. He then faces the pressure to sign a false confession, in whether or not he is in league with the devil. John Proctor’s conscious choice to choose self-sacrifice allows him to recover the sense of goodness that he lost when he commits adultery with Abigail and serve his community. His decision to accept death rather than “blacken” the names of those wrongfully accused, symbolizes the individual representing the minority going against the majority of society.
The individual verses society theme presents Arthur Miller’s purpose of demonstrating the inner struggle that an individual faces against society, which in this case can be emblematized by John Proctor. The grudges that people have, secrets an individual might have, and a way to illustrate the wrongdoings of a society, like John Proctor’s sacrificial death, adds up to the struggles the individual faces in a society.

[Hitman47]

so is it good? :ph34r: