Why Did Che Succeed When Others Failed

[che_4_ever]

Hi comrades...

All of my life i was wondering why did communisim fall, while some people likfe Che managed to become immortal. i found that it was something related to how did everyone understand communisim and how dep they go in applying it to humans rather than to countries and governments.

Che believed in something and lived for it the revolution for the sake of man and not the sake of a reign or a thrown, thats hy threw his life he has kicked every throne he was given, when he became a doctor, when he was a minister and others, the man didn't want to rule, he wantd to change the world to becaome a better place, i remeember a word he said, that he didn't care when, where or how he will die, but all he cared for was that the world won't rest on the shoulders of poor people... and so he did moving from one place to another and where he found that he can bring a new dawn to these people, and i'm sure if he didn't die in bolivia, things wouldn't have changed and he would have kept on helping people...

Other communists who lead nations sad to say became the very first thing thy faught against and then they fell, but my "father" he was gratr than than all the seductions of power and faught for his dream, freedom for all...

I Will Fight Forever and Till I Can Fight No More...
Then I'll Scream Till I Lose My Voice...
And When I Die, I Will Die Standing,
They Will Never See Me On My Knees...

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It's true.

Che's vision of a world of Socialism was based on his ideal of a New Socialist Man. He did appeal more for the human evolution rather than the evolution of governments and regimes like, for example, Marx did.

It is surely one of the reasons why the Capitalist world cannot destroy Che's legacy. They can throw accusations and claims at governments and government leaders like Castro, Lenin, Stalin etc. But with Che, he desired no power but the empowerment of man. Yes, he looked to the peasants and the workers to help his struggle, but despite his resentment for the sins of many of the higher classes, he wanted to liberate the human beings of the middle classes and the like. Of course thats the reason people across all classes and all races respect Che, even if they disagree with his ideals.

He was no hypocrit. He didn't, like you rightly point out about other leaders, "become the very first thing he" faught against. And after acheiving what he did in Cuba, he didn't stay in the comfort of the system he'd helped create; instead he moved on and helped others.

In the end, even his capturers and killer didn't want to rid the world of Che. In following their orders, howver, they have created an icon of struggle and an icon for the liberation and progression of human beings, not governments.

Good post.

[bunk]

but Che Guevara was actually more authoratarian than Castro, he just isn't pictured that way.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

He was so because he wanted to revolutionise man.

That is the point is it not? Castro revolutionised regime.

And I don't think he isn't pictured that way. We all know exactly how ruthless and demanding Che was.

[che_4_ever]

Dear Comrades

I once met someone in Dubai from the cuban embassy, a man who live with Che and knew him well, i was tlling him how much i loved Che and welling to follow his footsteps through my life, he laughed and said you know that he is a great fighter but he was a cold bloodd man who only for revolution and when he found any mistake in the path of revolution he would correct it with a firm of steel.


My Friends and Comrades

I believe in this man because he is from the very few people i found out to stand for their believes and stay on the path of revolution no matter what.

Thank You Comrade "Socialsmo o Muerte".


Hasta Siempre,...

[fernando]

Che has overcome his astma, which is something rare I think, but he also was very hard on himself, and what made him to brutal in some people's eyes is that he was also so hard on his people, he expected them to give it a 110%, like he did himself, I think maybe he thought that if he could overcome his weaknesses, everybody could

[che's long lost daughter]

I think the reason why Communism did not succeed is because most of the people who tried to establish a communist state were blinded by all the power within them. They let themselves be wrapped around in the glory of their so-called power, thus they abused it, like what happened to Stalin. They forgot that a communist state is the people's state. They focused so much on what they themselves can do rather than what they can do together with the people. Without the people, the state will certainly fall.

[fernando]

The "communist" states we had are not states which have followed to revolutionairy vision of Marx, the entire population has to rebel...these revolution were held by relatively small groups of people

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It is the very nature of men to be corrupt by power though. (Hey, we've all seen Lord of the Rings!)

That is why when men like Che come along, they stick with us. It is also why Che's vision of the New Socialist Man is the only method that will lead us fully to Socialism.

Marx concentrates too much on systems. Che, so rightly, took it further by emphasising the need for man to change.

Che's demanding of people did probably come from the fact that he always demanded no less than 100% from himself so he expected others to do it, but I think it also came from his genuine urge to change things and to help people.

We love Che for his persona and due to his involvement in a revolution we all admire. But he is not admired enough for his real philosophy. Guerilla Warefare aside, everything Che stood for can be adapted to even the most modern parts of our world today.

[Cheech06]

i was tlling him how much i loved Che and welling to follow his footsteps through my life
Hey man...that makes two of us. I plan on dying for it...i will not settle for less.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Saying you "plan" on dying for something is ridiculous.

I bet I will see your name listed under Conservative Party members when you are 40.

[red_ale]

I bet I will see your name listed under Conservative Party members when you are 40.

lol!

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Che never succeeded at his plans.

Sure Cuba defeated american imperialism...but look what happened; a dictatorship followed. What's worse...american corp's enslaving a people, or a dictator making all the decisions for the country? I think both are pretty horrible. lol.

If you look at his military tactics...they all were horribly planned. In the Congo, he made guys carry 70-pound bags for miles w/o stopping to rest. I think after his mother died, he slowly saw no point to existence anymore.

He wanted socialism...and it didnt even happen in Cuba. Would he like modern-day Cuba? It's debatable...but honestly if there was equality in Cuba, I dont see why Castro should live like some king.

Che had high hopes for a world revolution...did it succeed? not by a long shot. But he gave his life to it...and that's admirable to say the least.

[DaCuBaN]

Had Che survived, I guess you could argue that Castro wouldn't be living in the relative opulence that he does...

But 666 is right... he was a failure, not a success. He was a part of a succesful revolution, but in the end was of course captured and executed.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

He didn't succeed in his ultimate goal, no, but amongst left-wing politicians/statesmen/revolutinaries, Che ranks amongst the top for sure.

His gritty determination and complete devotion to the cause of equality and global justice was not matched by ANY other left wing revolutionary and it was his fighting and his example that puts him apart. If Che had succeeded more with his plans, say for example if Congo and Bolivia had been liberated, then the hero worship for Che would be even larger.

Che was by no means a failure. That is ridiculous. Yes, we must of course look at this in a balanced view and we do see that no achievements were obtained in stone, but it is deeper than that.

Lenin may have lead the Bolsheviks to victory, Tito may have stood up to Stalin, Castro may still be at his helm now, Atlee may have revolutionised the way Western Europeans thought, Mao may have fought out the Chinese elite rulers and Ho Chi-Ming and the Viet Cong stood up to America with every last bit of strength in their body; but who do we carry the flags of, who is on our placards and whose name is most symbolic with revolution. We look to Che to see how to fight for what is true and this is his success which, in my view, is more powerful than Lenin leading the Russians to a Communist rule which lived in corruption for so many years and eventually collapsed in the face of Capitalism. It is more powerful than the notion of Welfare being introduced to Europe, more powerful than winning a victory over America which ultimately crushed a whole generation and left scars that could neverbe healed.

I am in support of your comments that Che didn't acheive anything on paper; no government that is set in stone in history was there because of Che. Don't get me wrong, I understand and agree with that. But there is more to what is a successful freedom fighter.

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 05:15 PM
but Che Guevara was actually more authoratarian than Castro, he just isn't pictured that way.
ditto SoM

perhaps the people who have no idea who Che was may think Castro an authoritarian, but for those of us in the know, there's no question on how tough Che was with people.

[Knowledge 6 6 6]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 12 2004, 03:02 AM
His gritty determination and complete devotion to the cause of equality and global justice was not matched by ANY other left wing revolutionary and it was his fighting and his example that puts him apart.
Umm sorry to burst your bubble...

There have been ppl like Che before. In India there was Bhagat Singh, who was hung at the age of 23. He didnt even have a social life...he lived and breathed the socialist movement of India. One of his creeds was that a true revolutionary has no joys, no pleasures, etc. but is fully dedicated to the cause.

Like I said, Che is admirable in the sense that he gave his life to a world revolution...but it isnt like this world hasn't seen his likes before.

What sets Che apart is the amount of setbacks he had, yet still had the heart for the revolution. Look at him, coming from a wealthy family, studied medicine and had asthma. These conditions would hardly breed a revolutionary...yet it did. That's why i think Che is memorable to say the least.

[Cheech06]

Saying you "plan" on dying for something is ridiculous.

I bet I will see your name listed under Conservative Party members when you are 40.
And whats wrong with me planning on dying for a cause. Conservative party my ass! I dont know what that party is, but it sounds like its anti war....not me.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Firstly, nobody is denying Che's hard-lined attitude. However to call it authoritarian I think is wrong. Che didn't desire authority and his highest authority came as a Commandante of the rebel army. Other than that, he was simply Che Guevara.

Second, I am not denying there have been other people with undying loyalty to the cause. I've not heard of the name you mention, however I'm sure it is true. I'm saying that nobody has been more committed to the cause of Socialism, equality and justice than Che.

And as for your point about his background; we know the middle class often breeds revolutionaries.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 13 2004, 05:11 AM
I'm saying that nobody has been more committed to the cause of Socialism, equality and justice than Che.

Or has been so stupid as Ernesto to rush headlong into battle.

[suffianr]

Or has been so stupid as Ernesto to rush headlong into battle.

Not stupid. Che believed in creating the conditions for revolution. He thought he was setting up the pieces, so to speak. That the Bolivian insurrection, if this is the "stupid rush into battle" that you're talking about, was to be the first strike that would eventually lead to a continental insurgency.

[Colombia]

He clearly did not put much thought to it seeing that he could not even get the backing of the communist party of Bolivia.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

How was he to know that the "Communist Party" in Bolivia wasn't actually as devoted to the cause of Communism as they should be? Mario Monje deceived him. Monje was the fundamental reason for the failure of the gueriallas and, henceforth, Che's downfall.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 03:14 PM
Or has been so stupid as Ernesto to rush headlong into battle.
Che rushed head on into battle because he was setting an example for hisa men, how could he expect them to be fearless on the battlefield, if their leader didn't exemplifiy fearlessness every battle?

As far as Che's success, Che succeeded in part to his willingness to committ everything to the revolution and hold nothing back, he also realized that in order to carry out a succesuk revolution, you had to win over the general population and also rely on others as well. In the instances where Che failed (Congo, Bolivia) he was let down by others and also failed to win over the general population.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 06:55 AM
Che rushed head on into battle because he was setting an example for hisa men, how could he expect them to be fearless on the battlefield, if their leader didn't exemplifiy fearlessness every battle?

As far as Che's success, Che succeeded in part to his willingness to committ everything to the revolution and hold nothing back, he also realized that in order to carry out a succesuk revolution, you had to win over the general population and also rely on others as well. In the instances where Che failed (Congo, Bolivia) he was let down by others and also failed to win over the general population.
He sure must of set an example with his asthma attacks becoming more frequent in Bolivia and Congo when he ran out of medicine.

[pandora]

I have found if one takes the time for reflection necessary to contribute real theory on to the plateau of higher learning and has developed their mind then they have a natural eloquence when speaking their theories that convinces others.

All of the great leaders had this and Subcommandante Marcos has this quality as well.

There is also the mental sophistication of self sacrifice which comes from setting an intention and fulfilling that obligation at the sacrifice of the self.

Others can feel this and will react to it appropriately, either listening and being converted to a similar understanding, but in a way that is appropriate for that person in that culture, or to understand someone is a threat to the same bullshit that has always passed for good judgement, but actually more of the status quo. :P :ph34r:

[Subversive Pessimist]

Actually, Che was not born in a "wealthy" family as many people think. He was born in a working class family. I believe the father was an architecht (one of the higher stratas in the working class, me thinks). I've heard stories that he actually found shoes in dumpsters and would go around and sell them.

On the other hand, Cheech. Why would you "plan" to die for something? :huh:

One thing is to fight for something, but all I imagine is you in the battlefield thinking "Yes!!! I will die like Ernesto Guevara!! *Hahaha!*" then you run into the battlefield without any guns, running against them with your arms spread like Jesus when he was nailed to the cross,and the enemy shoots you while you scream "yeeeeehaw, hasta siempreeee!!!!!" and then your head is blown off, and blood is splashing from your neck like a fontain.