Log in

View Full Version : The Hero Vs. The Anti-hero



FarfromNear
3rd October 2004, 23:50
The Hero vs. The Anti-Hero: Raúl Rivero vs. Che Guevara
by News Wire (September 27, 2004)


[CapMag.com]

The scoop on the anti-hero Ernesto Che Guevara:
...Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.
The present-day cult of Che—the T-shirts, the bars, the posters—has succeeded in obscuring this dreadful reality. And Walter Salles' movie The Motorcycle Diaries will now take its place at the heart of this cult. It has already received a standing ovation at Robert Redford's Sundance film festival (Redford is the executive producer of The Motorcycle Diaries) and glowing admiration in the press. Che was an enemy of freedom, and yet he has been erected into a symbol of freedom. He helped establish an unjust social system in Cuba and has been erected into a symbol of social justice. He stood for the ancient rigidities of Latin-American thought, in a Marxist-Leninist version, and he has been celebrated as a free-thinker and a rebel... ["The Cult of Che: Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries", Paul Berman, Slate]

...and the result today of those who worship him:

...Right now a tremendous social struggle is taking place in Cuba. Dissident liberals have demanded fundamental human rights, and the dictatorship has rounded up all but one or two of the dissident leaders and sentenced them to many years in prison. Among those imprisoned leaders is an important Cuban poet and journalist, Raúl Rivero, who is serving a 20-year sentence. In the last couple of years the dissident movement has sprung up in yet another form in Cuba, as a campaign to establish independent libraries, free of state control; and state repression has fallen on this campaign, too.

I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba—will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents. It's easy in the world of film to make a movie about Che, but who among that cheering audience is going to make a movie about Raúl Rivero?




http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1204 (http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1204)

I am Latin American. This is pretty much true. I used to think Che was cool when I was growing up, till I actually learned about it. Not only in school, but by reading about it and asking people who lived through it.

redstar2000
4th October 2004, 00:44
I am Latin American. This is pretty much true.

Well no, it's mostly untrue and some of it is simply beyond truth or falsehood altogether.

I mean, what do you make of a statement like...


To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination.

Never mind smashing the tyranny of U.S. imperialism in the western hemisphere, never mind all that stuff about a new and more just social order...it was "really all about the blood".

Yeah, sure it was. :huh:


And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin American democracy - a tragedy on the hugest scale.

Who did the overwhelming majority of the killing if not reactionary dictatorships armed and financed by U.S. imperialism?

If you are, as you claim, Latin American, then you should know better than to believe a word this asshole says.

Oh, and his idea of "democracy"? That's a country where elections can be bought.


Right now a tremendous social struggle is taking place in Cuba...

No it's not.


Dissident liberals have demanded fundamental human rights...

The "right" to practice capitalism. All the rest is window-dressing.


...and the dictatorship has rounded up all but one or two of the dissident leaders and sentenced them to many years in prison.

Some "dissidents"...mercenaries on the payroll of the U.S. Interests office in Havana.


I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba - will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents.

I certainly hope not...but these days, you never know.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

Commie Girl
4th October 2004, 02:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 04:50 PM
...Right now a tremendous social struggle is taking place in Cuba. Dissident liberals have demanded fundamental human rights, and the dictatorship has rounded up all but one or two of the dissident leaders and sentenced them to many years in prison. Among those imprisoned leaders is an important Cuban poet and journalist, Raúl Rivero, who is serving a 20-year sentence. In the last couple of years the dissident movement has sprung up in yet another form in Cuba, as a campaign to establish independent libraries, free of state control; and state repression has fallen on this campaign, too.

I wonder if people who stand up to cheer a hagiography of Che Guevara, as the Sundance audience did, will ever give a damn about the oppressed people of Cuba—will ever lift a finger on behalf of the Cuban liberals and dissidents. It's easy in the world of film to make a movie about Che, but who among that cheering audience is going to make a movie about Raúl Rivero?




http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1204 (http://www.capmag.com/news.asp?ID=1204)

I am Latin American. This is pretty much true. I used to think Che was cool when I was growing up, till I actually learned about it. Not only in school, but by reading about it and asking people who lived through it.
You are a very ill-informed Latin American.....these "dissidents" are nothing more than well-paid CIA mercinaries...

Source (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4332.htmhttp://)

Far from being “independent” journalists, “idealistic” human rights activists, “legitimate” advocates for change or “Marian librarians from River City”, every one of the 75 “dissidents” arrested and convicted was knowingly a participant in US government operations to overthrow the government and install a US-favoured political, economic and social order. They knew what they were doing was illegal, they got caught and they are paying the price.

Many governments, including the U$, have similar laws against treason...and the U$ has executed people for much less.

While learning, pick up a copy of Jon Lee Anderson's work, Che Guevara, considered to be the definitive book on Ernesto's life.

In my somewhat limited, but enlightened travels of Cuba, I must say these people are NOT oppressed or hoping for "freedom" and "democracy", U$ style. As one Cuban village woman said, "Why can they not just let us live our lives our own way?"

As for the Motorcycle Diaries", the reviews are amazing! We will be cheering on Che!

Review (http://toronto.cbc.ca/metromorning/movies/http://)

The Motorcycle Diaries is the story of Ernesto Guevara as a young medical student. Before the beret. Before he was even called Che.

In 1952, he and friend Alberto Granado set out from Argentina to travel the length of South America. That's a trip of 8,000 kilometers, and they started out on a broken down Norton motorcycle.

We see a man who is not yet a revolutionary, but is serious, sincere and stubborn. He cannot tell a lie. His friend, Granado is an easy-going charmer. He tells people what they want to hear. But when a farmer along the way asks for a medical examination, Guevara can't help but tell the man the truth: his tumor is malignant. A doctor who's been writing a book on the side gets this news from Guevara: it's "basically unreadable".

The Motorcyle Diaries is one of the best making-of-the-man movies I've ever seen. It features a strong performance from Gael Garcia Bernal as Che Guevara. You may have seen him before in Y Tu Mama Tambien. Sure-handed direction is provided by Walter Salles (who was at the helm of Central Station). Salles is Brazilian and he tells this story of two Argentinians on the road with a rare, pan-American embrace. This isn't a rabble-rousing movie, nor an especially fast one.

Salles goes for the slow build, showing how each new experience shifts Guevara's perspective, whether it's dancing at a bar in Chile or swimming the river between a leper colony and a hospital.

The best thing about this movie is that it's not a big, ponderous epic about a Great Man. Instead, it carries a simple, unspoken message: experience makes a difference. The more you see of life, the more richer your view. Travel may not always broaden the mind, but it can often change it.

Dr. Rosenpenis
4th October 2004, 07:21
You've obviously been very ill-informed, FarfromNear.

To learn about Cuba's true political system, you ought to read this (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html).

Che Guevara is also absolutely not the man who you seem to think he was. He fought to liberate peasants from oppression and fought against their oppressors. Folks throw around words like "love" and "hate". That doesn't fucking matter. He loved his comrades enough to fight for their freedom and hated the oppressive ruling class enough to fight against them.

It's also perfectly suitable to have hatred for your enemy. Somebody who lacks respect for his countrymen and exploits their labor for personal gain deserves a shot in the face.

You should also consider the huge improvements that have taken place in Cuba since the revolution. Cubans are free to get an education, something that many Latin Americans have no access to. All Cubans own a home, something that hundreds of millions of third worlders do not enjoy. And Cubans also consume more calories on average per day than any Latin American country, with the exception of Argentina. Nobody in Cuba dies of starvation. Nobody! Find me one capitalist country where the same can be said.

Professor Moneybags
4th October 2004, 22:14
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 11:44 PM
Oh, and his idea of "democracy"? That's a country where elections can be bought.
Your idea of democracy : A place without elections altogether and where dissidents are shot.

Professor Moneybags
4th October 2004, 22:16
As one Cuban village woman said, "Why can they not just let us live our lives our own way?"

Because it's not their way, it's Fidel Castro's way (or a bullet through the head).

Professor Moneybags
4th October 2004, 22:19
Cubans are free to get an education, something that many Latin Americans have no access to.

At whose expense ?


All Cubans own a home, something that hundreds of millions of third worlders do not enjoy.

At whose expense ?


Find me one capitalist country where the same can be said.

Find me one capitalist county full stop.

Commie Girl
4th October 2004, 22:52
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 4 2004, 03:16 PM

Because it's not their way, it's Fidel Castro's way (or a bullet through the head).
<_< That is your opinion...you probably also believe U&#036; propaganda that Fidel is a dictator, that people are dragged away to be tortured, etc. The ONLY place this happens in Cuba is in the Occupied Area of Guantanamo Bay&#33; Ask any Cuban living in Cuba, they are shocked and confused by these claims about their government. The PEOPLE want to live their own lives, which happen to be the same vision Castro has seen for his countrymen, and that pisses off the U&#036;. What the U&#036; fails to realize, is that the people would defend their way of life and their country, if necessary, against an invasion. Have the lessons from the Bay of Pigs not been heeded? The U&#036; may see their own Country as a "melting pot", but the world is not theirs...Stay away, it is okay to be different.

Dr. Rosenpenis
5th October 2004, 00:00
Because it&#39;s not their way, it&#39;s Fidel Castro&#39;s way (or a bullet through the head).

That&#39;s absolutely not true&#33;
read this, dumbfuck (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

Clearly Cubans hold political power. Dissidents of socialism are phased out because the people want to protect their freedom.


At whose expense ?

At whose expense ?


Cubans have access to education, food, and healthcare at the expense of their own collective labor. What are you trying to prove here?


Find me one capitalist county full stop.

My apologies.

Cubans consume more calories on average per day than any Latin American country, with the exception of Argentina. Nobody in Cuba dies of starvation. Nobody&#33; Find me one third world country where their is a free market where the same can be said.

Besides, a country where owners of capital wield power is capitalist in my book. The government may place some laws and restrictions, but I call it capitalist nonetheless. But let&#39;s not get into that argument, huh? Let&#39;s stick to Cuba. And please don&#39;t forget to read that article.

Professor Moneybags
5th October 2004, 15:28
Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 4 2004, 09:52 PM
<_< That is your opinion...you probably also believe U&#036; propaganda that Fidel is a dictator, that people are dragged away to be tortured, etc.
Blah blah blah....U&#036; propaganda....blah blah blah....Auschwitz never existed....blah blah blah....Stalin murdered millions and it was all the fault of AmeriKKKa....etc.

Professor Moneybags
5th October 2004, 15:43
Clearly Cubans hold political power. Dissidents of socialism are phased out because the people want to protect their freedom.

I&#39;ve been through this countless times.

"But our right to a job, a home, medical care, education beyond high school, and a living wage, are not guaranteed."

Because a "right to a job" demands, by law, that someone has to provide you with one. The same goes with all the others- they are postive rights i.e. they demand actions and goods from other people without reason. These rights entail involuntary work (also referred to as slave labour).


Cubans have access to education, food, and healthcare at the expense of their own collective labor. What are you trying to prove here?

That the people paying for it are not the ones recieving it. Were all of these people asked before this system was put into place ? What happens to those who don&#39;t want to take part in this wonderful scheme ?

(I think I know the answer to the last one.)


Besides, a country where owners of capital wield power is capitalist in my book.

I wield &#39;capital&#39;, but I&#39;m not running my country. Not by a long shot.

Forward Union
5th October 2004, 16:06
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 4 2004, 09:14 PM
Your idea of democracy : A place without elections altogether and where dissidents are shot.
Pop your head out of your ass for a minute and let me teach you what Democracy is, and no, i don&#39;t mean the &#39;fake Democracy&#39; in the US, I mean true, or &#39;Direct&#39; Democracy:

"Direct democracy works off of consensus and more involves people expressing their ideas, opinions, concerns, criticism and suggestions about certain issues that effect that group of people. This is what makes direct democracy different than representative democracy. It eliminates all top-down hierarchical means of decision making. Many believe using consensus is naturally how humans work. For example, when you go out to see a movie with your friends you work on consensus.. You make a proposal by asking everyone, "what do you want to see?", and everyone decides. If there&#39;s a conflicting decision people usually talk about it. That&#39;s direct democracy. We do the same thing when we want to go out and eat for example. All these decisions effect us directly thus we engage in a format of a consensus decision making process so the decision can best fit our needs without excluding anyone&#39;s opinion or concerns from the group. This insures that everybody&#39;s voice is heard. Direct democracy also eliminates the top-down hierarchical in decision making format. People usually don&#39;t like it when another has the authority to make all decisions and boss everyone else around, therefore we naturally engage in consensus."

Dr. Rosenpenis
5th October 2004, 20:37
Because a "right to a job" demands, by law, that someone has to provide you with one.

What exactly do you mean that someone has to provide you with a job? There are no employers, if that&#39;s what you&#39;re getting at.


The same goes with all the others- they are postive rights i.e. they demand actions and goods from other people without reason. These rights entail involuntary work (also referred to as slave labour).

Oh, I see what you&#39;re saying.

So in education, for example, for the government to guarantee everyone education, teachers are demanded. So what’s the big deal. The teachers aren&#39;t going to be forced to provide everyone with education with nothing in return. Just because education is public, doesn&#39;t mean that teachers will be forced to work or will work without pay. I don&#39;t really know what the fuck you&#39;re saying. It&#39;s getting hard to follow your train of thought here, buddy.


That the people paying for it are not the ones receiving it. Were all of these people asked before this system was put into place ? What happens to those who don&#39;t want to take part in this wonderful scheme ?

Why do you think that doctor, teachers, farmers, and pretty much everyone is being forced to work for everyone else? Everyone wants to have a job. Nobody is jobless because they want to be. If the job they want is available, they will take that job and work. In return he will receive goods that others produce from doing their work. It&#39;s not like some people are being forced to work for everyone else. Everyone works for everyone else. They work for their collective good. As opposed to working fro the good of your boss.


I wield &#39;capital&#39;, but I&#39;m not running my country. Not by a long shot.

If you own capital, then you wield economic and therefore social power as well.

Osman Ghazi
5th October 2004, 21:22
Because a "right to a job" demands, by law, that someone has to provide you with one. The same goes with all the others- they are postive rights i.e. they demand actions and goods from other people without reason. These rights entail involuntary work (also referred to as slave labour).


You really grasping at straws you know. I thought you of all people could come up with a better argument than this. Theoretically, your argument is all true. But in the real world, no one is being forced to do anything. The average person in Cuba has the ability to pick between things they would like to do, as in any capitalist country, more so even, because they are also able to get an education for free. If everyone comes together to mutually guarantee these things, then no slave labour exists, except in the abstract.

Your point sir, is moot.


Were all of these people asked before this system was put into place ?

As opposed to capitalism, where they were asked? Oh wait...


What happens to those who don&#39;t want to take part in this wonderful scheme ?


They can build a raft and sail to America. :lol: But seriously, the doors are always open for those who have &#39;had their lives destroyed by collectivist tyranny&#39;.


I wield &#39;capital&#39;, but I&#39;m not running my country. Not by a long shot.

Well, to be fair, he didn&#39;t say, &#39;Everyone with capital wields power&#39;, he said, &#39;a country where owners of capital wield power is capitalist.&#39;

You don&#39;t wield national power, because you don&#39;t have that much relatively. If you were the richest man in your country, you would wield political and especially social power.