Che

[redhmong]

Che, a great name, I think everyone must remember his name. If we say that there were some great men in 20th century, at least, Che was the one of them.
Well, the capitalists may describe him a terrorist, a crazy man even a neuropath. No, that cannot destroy Che’s figure, if you know the truth, know his idea and his character, you will find Che is a so great man.
This year is the 38th anniversary since he sacrificed in Bolivia. Now, socialism is in low. Even in some so-called“Socialism Nation”,especially, P.R. China, the tendency is capitalist. I cannot understand that there is more deeply exploitation in “Socialism Nation” than that in capitalism nations. Marxism is wrong? No, I think wrong-makers are we ourselves.
Socialism cannot be achieved in one country and I firmly believe this point. But I am happy to see more and more “Socialism Nations”built up. It is trended to socialism. Notices the Latin America, so many countries turn left, and it is just what we hope to see. But as for the U.S.A., it doesn’t want a fired yard. So Latin America will be in trouble in a long time. But I support them. I don’t discriminate somebody weather he believe in socialism or not, but if he exploits, depresses and looks down others, I will be very angry. Where there is depression, where there is resistance. Che set a good example for us. Of course, we cannot support them by words. We must do what can we do for them. As for me, I am so young and now, in Latin America─I think it is the most active place─most countries turn left. It is a chance for us to drive socialism campaign.
I don’t think violent revolution is a wrong way. On someone’s opinion, we should wait for working people’s awakened. I don’t deny that people’s awakened is very important. Frankly, many many poor people, they don’t know Marxism and they don’t understand what socialism is. So, we need propagandize our idea and aim. Importantly, we must obtain a chance to do things for the poor, the proletariat and any other oppressed and exploitee. The capitalist will give us the chance? Without question, the answer is no. If we ourselves don’t try for it, like Cuba, we can get this chance? No! So, violent revolution is necessary! The guerillas in Latin America, such as Brilliant Road and Revolution Armed Forces of Colombia, are not terrorists. They are aspiring revolutionists.
Nowadays, the socialism is in low tide. The communist parties of Europe have changed into reformists. China and Viet Nam are have been the representatives of “National Capitalism”. North Korea is the model of dictatorship. Laos and Cuba are all in difficult. Under these situations, there are some people fighting against capitalism for socialism. They don’t deserve being respected?
There is no successful experience of Socialism. Which way of Socialism is right? Nobody knows. So, I think we can accept any way of socialism, but the aim must be Socialism. As for me, I don’t like facile socialism. Socialism can solely depend on Marxism. And Marxism is a practical science. We cannot calmly wait for what happening. We must do it by ourselves: propaganda, capturing regime, socialism construction and so forth. We fight for non-fighting society, we fight for non-exploitation, we fight for everyone’s liberation, we fight for non-discrimination, and we fight for a free and equal society. One important point, revolution isn’t gambling. We must put our all enthusiasm and courage on it. When it is in low tide, when it is in difficult, when it is running in the high way and when it needs our sacrificing, we must make a right decision for revolution without. A Chinese philosopher had said “If I can understand the ‘Tao’ in the morning, I can accept the death without regret in the evening. ” . And every revolutionary should have such spirit that takes the bull by the horns for Socialism.

[cubalibra]

Welcome. Great, thought-provoking first post. I write to you from the belly of the beast. Things are looking up. Look at the Bolivian uprising, when it's government, with the help of Bechtel (an American corporation) tried to privatize their water.

I think most small socialist countries should follow Vietnam's example and prepare for battle by creating underground bunkers and tunnels ready to repel any type of invasion. If Che could have something like this in Bolivia, he would have had a chance.

[DarthVader]

Great man who murdered and tortured hundreds, reportedly taking much pleasure in the process.

Che was a passionate man who believed sincerely in his ideals, which is uncommon and admirable, but he was ultimately a vicious killer who has inspired thousands of misguided dissaffected youth into anarchism and other anti-social behavior.

Whenever someone uses violence or cruelty as a means to an end, they lose all credibility and become yet another criminal in history.

[cubalibra]

The US secret police has arrived.

[LSD]

Whenever someone uses violence or cruelty as a means to an end, they lose all credibility and become yet another criminal in history.

Like, say, George Washington?


but he was ultimately a vicious killer who has inspired thousands of misguided

Are you saying that communism is "misguided"?

Tell me, what do you think about capitalism?


dissaffected youth into anarchism and other anti-social behavior.

If by "anti-social behavior" you mean overthrowing a brutal and oppressive dictatorship.

And, while I respect the man greatly, Che was no Anarchist. I don't even know where you got that one from!

[DarthVader]

I'll blow your planet up.


First off, yes, I do think Communism is misguided. I think that pure Capitalism is misguided also. Capitalism is a superior system though because is recognizes the inherent exploitive and competetive nature of human beings, and creates incentives for people to work harder. It is no coincidence that the wealthiest, most prosperous and most technologically advanced societies on earth are Capitalist, or atleast based on Capitalist values, such as the US, UK, Germany, Japan, and the Galatic Empire.

Human beings are, sadly, not altruistic enough to work to their full potential for the benefit of mankind. People need some sort of reward, some incentive. Communism does not allow for that. I am not saying that workers do not get exploited in Capitalism, and that Capitalist nations often run amok and create evils, but in general, Communism leads to economic failure and societal ruin. There is not one single example in history where Communism has successfully been inplemented into an advanced democratic nation.

As for violence, that is a complicated issue that you brought up a good point on. Perhaps not all violence is bad, obviously violence ended slavery in the US and defeated Nazism. Max Weber defined the state as the "legitimate control of violence," meaning that if you control the police force and the military, you are a state. I think that certain situations call for violence, but violence should always be a last resort. And, if violence is part of a political program, like Nazism or Communism, then that system us inherently flawed. Despite his noble ideas about equality and liberation, Che ultimately was a violent facist who opposed freedom and lived by the sword, so to speak.

Yes, I saw the "Motorcycle Diaries" and for a while was caught up in the hero cult of Che, I had the romantic notion of him as a cool hero defying global evils, but then I read more about him from primary sources the more I saw that there are two sides to every story.

[LSD]

And, if violence is part of a political program, like Nazism or Communism, then that system us inherently flawed.

But violence isn't "part of the political program". It probably will be nescessary in a revolutionary context, but that is not because of any feature of communist ideology, it's just the nature of massive social change.

Whenever there's a socio-economic upheaval, those who bennefited from the previous order will fight "tooth and nail" to preserve it. Unfortunately, this kind of resitance usualy requires violence to overcome. But believe me, there isn't a communist alive who wouldn't prefer a peaceful revolution if it were feasable.


Despite his noble ideas about equality and liberation, Che ultimately was a violent facist

Clearly you do not understand the meaning of "fascist". It isn't just a synonomy for "bad", it is a specific and complex socio-political model, one strongly rooted in corporatism and traditionalism.

Che Guevara never espoused anything approaching fascist ideology.


who opposed freedom

Except that he was instrumental in the overthrow of a horribly brutal despot and helped Cuba develop such that it, even now, has a higher living standard than almost any other comparable South American country.


Capitalism is a superior system though because is recognizes the inherent exploitive and competetive nature of human beings

I'm sure that you have evidence for this "inherent nature", you just neglected to post it. :rolleyes:


It is no coincidence that the wealthiest, most prosperous and most technologically advanced societies on earth are Capitalist

No it isn't!

Capitalism is a vastly superior system to the economic models that preceded it. Of course it also tends to be highly parasitic and imperialistic. You notice that those "prosperous" nations are also the ones with advanced global economic empires.

But no one here is arguing that capitalism doesn't work better than feudalism or any of the myriad of pre-capitalist models one finds around the world. The point is merely that capitalism isn't the "end of the line".

There's something better still!


Human beings are, sadly, not altruistic enough to work to their full potential for the benefit of mankind. People need some sort of reward, some incentive.

Absolutely, but that incentive need not be material.

That's the capitalist fallacy. The assumption that people will only work if they get "things" for working. The truth, of course, is that most people work on things which they don't get paid for. They're called hobbies.

Honestly, do you really think that most physicists are in science "for the money"? :lol:


There is not one single example in history where Communism has successfully been inplemented into an advanced democratic nation.

That's because there is not one single example in history where Communism was seriously or legitimately attempted.

And, besides, in 1500, I could argue that republicanism had "never been implemented" ...does that mean that it can "never work"?

[novemba]

Darth Vader....

....fuck off.


your username is darth vader. i dont even have to make an arguement.

[DarthVader]

Nice, can't come up with an argument, so the F-Bomb is dropped.

[LSD]

Darth, are you going to defend your assertions or not?

[DarthVader]

What do you mean, defend my assertions? I thouht I already did, History speaks for me. Look up Che Guevara on Wikipedia, and then read Armando Valladares' testimony about Che's sadistic love of torture. Oh, but you'd probably just call that "Capitalist brainwashing" and deny it without any logic or reasoning.

And, as for the definition of facist, I can assure that I understand it beyond your simplistic and myopic definition. Fascism is a complicated term with many meanings, but one definition includes violence and oppression to support a political program. Well, that is pretty much exactly what Che did. Therefore, he had fascist elements to his politics.


But violence isn't "part of the political program". It probably will be nescessary in a revolutionary context, but that is not because of any feature of communist ideology, it's just the nature of massive social change.
That is spitting hairs, arguing semantics. You are fundamentally incorrect. Marx never actually called for violence, but his manifesto called for a movement which is impossible without violence. Therefore, marxism is inherently violent. Also, if you read Lenin's State and Revolution (a fascinating read, by the way), Lenin explicitly calls for violence. Therefore, you are wrong, violence is part of the communist political program.



Except that he was instrumental in the overthrow of a horribly brutal despot and helped Cuba develop such that it, even now, has a higher living standard than almost any other comparable South American country.
Well, that is a good point, I will give you that. Except, when you trade one dictatorship for another, you are still left with a dictatorship. The difference between Batista's government and Castros is that one was a right wing dictatorship and one was a left wing dictatorship. Also, I recall Castro banning elections when he achieved power. Tell me, how free are elections in Cuba? How has the same man ruled for over 40 years?

I need to go for the time being, but I enjoy debating with you, so continue if you want to challenge other things I have said.

[Redvolution]

EDIT: oops, you posted right before me! My bad.

DELETED.

[LSD]

Fascism is a complicated term with many meanings, but one definition includes violence and oppression to support a political program.

It may include violence and oppression, but it is not defined by violence and oppression. That is every violent/oppressive government is not by definition fascist. It is far more complex than that.


Well, that is pretty much exactly what Che did. Therefore, he had fascist elements to his politics.

It's also what every revolutionary has done throughout history. Washington used violence, Bolivar used violence, Sun used violence. But that doesn't make these men fascists, it just makes them realists.


That is spitting hairs, arguing semantics.

No it isn't.

There is a fundamental difference between a violent revolution and a violent society, and one does not nescessitate the other.


Marx never actually called for violence, but his manifesto called for a movement which is impossible without violence. Therefore, marxism is inherently violent.

Again, violence is only needed to deal with the violence of the bouregois resistance. If they don't fight, we won't fight. If the rulling class will peacefully surrender to the proletarian mass, there will be absolutely no need for violence. It's just that that is unlikely to happen.

And I remind you, if we hold every political movement to your bizzarre standard, then none are more guilty than your "founding fathers".

The simple fact is that every great liberation movement in history has, at one time or another, needed to utilize or threaten violence. It is simply an unfortunate fact.


Also, if you read Lenin's State and Revolution (a fascinating read, by the way), Lenin explicitly calls for violence.

Lenin isn't communism. Not being a Leninist, I really couldn't give a shit what Lenin wrote on the subject.


Therefore, you are wrong, violence is part of the communist political program.

It's probably going to be a part of the creation of communism, but not of communism itself. Think of it as "birth pangs", to borrow a metaphor.


Well, that is a good point, I will give you that. Except, when you trade one dictatorship for another, you are still left with a dictatorship.

True enough. But saying that Guevara "opposed freedom" when he was instrumental in a populist revolution is ludicrous.

[KC]

Armando Valladares was guilty of treason.

[DarthVader]

Your point being?

[KC]

My point being that that's a highly questionable source of basing your entire opinion on Che on.

Don't forget to respond to everybody else's arguments!

[freedumb]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:33 PM
Also, I recall Castro banning elections when he achieved power. Tell me, how free are elections in Cuba? How has the same man ruled for over 40 years?

I need to go for the time being, but I enjoy debating with you, so continue if you want to challenge other things I have said.
Don't forget that Kennedy had already decided that he was going to do whatever possible to get rid of Castro BEFORE Castro had decided to ban elections. America's determination to get rid of the revolution has more to do with Castro's platform of helping Cubans rather than protecting business interests.

When a superpower to the north is willing to use massive resources to do absolutely everything possible to undermine democratic elections (as they did in Chile later on), then the revolution is left with no choice but to call off elections in order to protect itself.

If Castro could choose, I'm sure he would love democracy, but it remains that as soon as America and Business interests see an oppurtunity to seize power they will do so (by violating democracy if neccessary). The decision to become a dictatorship and ban elections was made out of neccessity not because Castro or Che had fascist wet dreams.

[redhmong]

Darth Vader
Well, first, I want to say Che is a man, not God. If you want to find a person that has no any defect, not only his thought, behaviors and words but also his visage. Ok, I suggest you should ask the God. Maybe it knows.
I don’t know how much you know about communism. Communism pursues the whole being’s richness. It is not for the exploiting class. Communism allows reward and incentive: people can get what they need in communism society. In communism society, the material civilization is highly developed and nobody worry about survival. People work for the whole society, not only for himself.
Just like Lysergic Acid Diethylamide said ‘Violence isn't "part of the political program". It probably will be necessary in a revolutionary context, but that is not because of any feature of communist ideology, it's just the nature of massive social change’, violence cannot be avoided in the communism campaign. In fact, from slave society to feudal society and from feudal society to capitalist society, which one of changing of social formations is peaceful? Can you give me a reason that the course of changing into communist society is peaceful, firstly? The nature of capitalist decides that capitalism would not peacefully withdraw from the world.
Another question, how do you think about violence? You think violence is murder, terrorism and torture? If you think so, I tell you that you are wrong. Violence we said means armed struggle that used to resist the repression of capitalist. And Che is not a killer. In Bolivia, he dropped a ambush, because the soldiers of government troops are so young that he could not bear to pull the trigger. Do you arbitrarily say he is a killer?

[DarthVader]

Facts speak for themselves, Che personally oversaw execution and torture. By definition that makes him a killer.

Not saying he didn't have some good or revolutionary ideas, and not saying he didn't address social problems in Latin America, but he still embraced violence as a means to an end. Of course, a lot of great men have done that, but still, that makes Che a killer. Che also oversae executions of people based on religion, sexual orientation and political affiliation. That alone puts him in, dare I say, the same category as someone like Hitler.

Before you admire this man, learn the facts. There definetly is a dark side to Che Guevara.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:38 AM
Facts speak for themselves...
Usually when someone says that, you would expect to see some proof.

Where is your proof?

[Commie Rat]

It is incredibly hard to get unbiased facts on this man -
if it is written by cappies it is denoucing everythign he did and lowering him as a person
if it is written by leftists then is a glowing apraisal of a 'hero' and a 'god' with as many romatic notions as some fuck off hollywood romace
he wasn't a hero he murded people, it was for a good cause which is admriable,
means doesn't justify the end

[cubalibra]

How many innocents has the Bush crime family killed in Iraq so far?

Don't let me get started on Iran, El Salvador, South Africa, etc, etc.

[aztecklaw]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:38 AM
Facts speak for themselves, Che personally oversaw execution and torture. By definition that makes him a killer.

Not saying he didn't have some good or revolutionary ideas, and not saying he didn't address social problems in Latin America, but he still embraced violence as a means to an end. Of course, a lot of great men have done that, but still, that makes Che a killer. Che also oversae executions of people based on religion, sexual orientation and political affiliation. That alone puts him in, dare I say, the same category as someone like Hitler.

Before you admire this man, learn the facts. There definetly is a dark side to Che Guevara.
Dark side to Che?

Che didn't grant clemency to his enemies. That doesn't make him a bad person.

There were people that committed injustices. They exploited people that caused disease and starvation and people with almost no dignity left.

Che fought for these people and was dedicated to the cause. When Cuba was finally liberated, Che didn't sit back on his throne having grapes fed to him.

He was busy in forming the government in Cuba and shortly after he went back to the revolution.

Your perspective is warped. You think that as long as Bush isn't there where the people are being tortured, thanks to extraordinary rendition, everything is all good.

Che carried out executions and torture. This was war. This was a revolution. This stuff happens.

Also keep in mind that they had a clearly defined enemy and his revolution was a military outfit. He wasn't just grabbing anyone. Their enemy was well defined. The enemy wasn't identified as enemy combatants.

Also, during the revolution, there were some enemy outfits that broke off and joined Che in the revolution.

In the revolution the intent was to kill the enemy.

He executed the enemy, this is war.

Did he enjoy the tortures? This is all pure speculation. This is all based on a prisoner in the Fortress that wrote some poem how much he enjoyed torturing and killing people. There is no substantial evidence that he enjoyed torturing.

Your perspective is that America is the only one allowed to carry out justice, well you're wrong. Che also carried out justice, you refuse to accept that any other body of government is capable of carrying out justice.

Also, why is there always that stupid arguement that capitalism is great because it caters to greed and 'human nature'. Communism can never succeed because 'human nature' prevents it from working? People that have a low opinion of human capabilities are the same ones that love capitalism.

[KC]

I still have yet to see your proof. And Armando Valladares isn't a reliable enough source to use.

[DarthVader]

I feel like I am speaking to a wall. I am going to discontinue this, it is pointless. If you want to continue believing in a romanticized immature view of Che, go ahead.

I am given you facts. I don't know how to convince you, other than going back in time and showing you.

Maybe our dissagreement stems from the fact that you think that torture and murder are acceptable under certtain cirsumstances. I, however, don't.

[LSD]

I am given you facts.

Where?

Not only have you failed to defend your assertions, you haven't even responded when they have been refuted.


Maybe our dissagreement stems from the fact that you think that torture and murder are acceptable under certtain cirsumstances

Everyone thinks that murder is acceptable under certain circumstances, we just often disagree on which.


I, however, don't.

You don't think that the French Resistance's murerdering of SS officers and Nazi collaborators was acceptable?

Really?

[colombiano]

Darth ,I am going to quote specific pieces of your drivel and offer some advise.



Whenever someone uses violence or cruelty as a means to an end, they lose all credibility and become yet another criminal in history.



And, if violence is part of a political program, like Nazism or Communism, then that system us inherently flawed



Facts speak for themselves, Che personally oversaw execution and torture. By definition that makes him a killer



Maybe our dissagreement stems from the fact that you think that torture and murder are acceptable under certtain cirsumstances. I, however, don't.


Your thoughts (because you have presented NO Hard Facts) are well documented .Now may I ask do you share the same attitude towards the US Governement? Which has had a hand in some of the most atrocious crimes against humanity since the holocaust. Installing and funding puppet governments throughout the world that have systematically hunted down and murderd in cold blood political opposition from the Left. Many of which have been Democratically Elected and yet the US decides to Intervene or as Reagan Put It "Restore Order" WTF!?!?! The US Government has this sense of self-rightousness to Pillage and Plunder, while speaking of Self Determination and "Democracy". When in actuality it could not be further from the truth. In Short I guess you said it best and it must make you proud to live in such a hypocritical country.

Whenever someone uses violence or cruelty as a means to an end, they lose all credibility and become yet another criminal in history

[cubalibra]

I got 2 words for you, Darth: ABU GRAIB

[Andy Bowden]

Armando Valladares and his supporters claimed he had been tortured so badly by Castro's regime that he was paralysed from the waist down. Then he was released and staged a "miraculous recovery" :lol:

[redhmong]

Facts?
You think you know all facts? The facts that US propagandized are real facts? If you accept the ex parte words, you only another tongue of US imperialism.
Of course, we have different standpoint. We speak for different class.

[KC]

Armando Valladares and his supporters claimed he had been tortured so badly by Castro's regime that he was paralysed from the waist down. Then he was released and staged a "miraculous recovery" laugh.gif

I think this would prove my point completely. Thanks Andy!

[black magick hustla]

Even if Che was admirable to a certain degree, he was to my definition, a thug.

He was the kind of guys that would pull his damn revolver whenever there was a guy THAT DIDNT LIKE HIS WAY OF THINKING.

He was a passionate man, leaded by passion instead of reason.

[Urban Guerrilla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:19 AM
He was the kind of guys that would pull his damn revolver whenever there was a guy THAT DIDNT LIKE HIS WAY OF THINKING.
Oh ok. That is why he held debates at a College, and shot students when they disagreed :che:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Urban Guerilla+Aug 2 2005, 08:48 AM--> (Urban Guerilla @ Aug 2 2005, 08:48 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 08:19 AM
He was the kind of guys that would pull his damn revolver whenever there was a guy THAT DIDNT LIKE HIS WAY OF THINKING.
Oh ok. That is why he held debates at a College, and shot students when they disagreed :che: [/b]
I like how you takE COMPLETELY LITERALLY what I said.

However, Che was known to treat those guerrilleros who disagreed with him as shit., and he sadly, was a stalinist, he was also a ruthless prosecutor of those who opposed the Cuban communist party, even anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists.

Read this:

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/192...evara/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1928-1967-ernesto-che-guevara/index.php)

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Marmot+Aug 2 2005, 12:47 PM--> (Marmot @ Aug 2 2005, 12:47 PM)
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2005, 08:48 AM

[email protected] 2 2005, 08:19 AM
He was the kind of guys that would pull his damn revolver whenever there was a guy THAT DIDNT LIKE HIS WAY OF THINKING.
Oh ok. That is why he held debates at a College, and shot students when they disagreed :che:
I like how you takE COMPLETELY LITERALLY what I said.

However, Che was known to treat those guerrilleros who disagreed with him as shit., and he sadly, was a stalinist, he was also a ruthless prosecutor of those who opposed the Cuban communist party, even anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists.

Read this:

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/192...evara/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1928-1967-ernesto-che-guevara/index.php) [/b]
That's some Right-Wing propaganda trying to discredit Che. He wasn't a fucking Terrorist, and I'm sick of people claiming that he was.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Aug 2 2005, 06:08 PM--> (Ownthink @ Aug 2 2005, 06:08 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2005, 08:48 AM

[email protected] 2 2005, 08:19 AM
He was the kind of guys that would pull his damn revolver whenever there was a guy THAT DIDNT LIKE HIS WAY OF THINKING.
Oh ok. That is why he held debates at a College, and shot students when they disagreed :che:
I like how you takE COMPLETELY LITERALLY what I said.

However, Che was known to treat those guerrilleros who disagreed with him as shit., and he sadly, was a stalinist, he was also a ruthless prosecutor of those who opposed the Cuban communist party, even anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists.

Read this:

http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/192...evara/index.php (http://www.libcom.org/history/articles/1928-1967-ernesto-che-guevara/index.php)
That's some Right-Wing propaganda trying to discredit Che. He wasn't a fucking Terrorist, and I'm sick of people claiming that he was. [/b]
How is the ANARCHIST FEDERATION right wing propaganda?

[Urban Guerrilla]

He wouldn't have made it very far in the revolution if he was a Stalinist, problem is: he wasn't a Stalinist :che:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2005, 06:43 PM
He wouldn't have made it very far in the revolution if he was a Stalinist, problem is: he wasn't a Stalinist :che:
"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don't have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context . . . I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn't read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I'm not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."


-Ernesto "Che" Guevara

[Urban Guerrilla]

He still didn't call himself a Stalinist. He was a Maoist :che:

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2005, 07:59 PM
He still didn't call himself a Stalinist. He was a Maoist :che:
I cant think good about someone who supports stalin, sorry.

[OleMarxco]

Yeah, be&#39;cuz Mao&#39;s supported Stalin, RIIGHT, so it&#39;s right to assume a Maoist -OBVIOUSLY- will think the same as Mao, have his exact-same-personal opinion&#39;s etc., etc., idiot, and not just the same stupid totalarian ideology? <_<

Worker&#39;s in Communism get&#39;s rewarded by getting everything available to them on all times, with no restrictions, all land, all properity, no borders, and gift economy. There is no "this-for-that" mentality. The reward is given at-forehand; Everything&#39;s free and you don&#39;t get paid for work. Then you might say they will let the land just go to hell, but if they do, it has clear consequences on the "economy" a.k.a. the products, so they&#39;ll work, but because they enjoy it (?) and it&#39;s physically necessary, not to get money to survive. Plus, you won&#39;t need education to do a job in Communism, either ;)

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:19 PM
Yeah, be&#39;cuz Mao&#39;s supported Stalin, RIIGHT, so it&#39;s right to assume a Maoist -OBVIOUSLY- will think the same as Mao, have his exact-same-personal opinion&#39;s etc., etc., idiot, and not just the same stupid totalarian ideology? <_<

I don&#39;t care because I hate Mao too.

Regardless if he was a stalinist or not, he was still a thug.

Also, I love how people here vigurously protect Che. He was just a man, thats all. We shouldn&#39;t make icons of people.

[KC]

"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don&#39;t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context . . . I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn&#39;t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I&#39;m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."


-Ernesto "Che" Guevara


Where&#39;d you get this from?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 02:52 AM

"In the so called mistakes of Stalin lies the difference between a revolutionary attitude and a revisionist attitude. You have to look at Stalin in the historical context in which he moves, you don&#39;t have to look at him as some kind of brute, but in that particular historical context . . . I have come to communism because of daddy Stalin and nobody must come and tell me that I mustn&#39;t read Stalin. I read him when it was very bad to read him. That was another time. And because I&#39;m not very bright, and a hard-headed person, I keep on reading him. Especially in this new period, now that it is worse to read him. Then, as well as now, I still find a Seri of things that are very good."


-Ernesto "Che" Guevara


Where&#39;d you get this from?
google it and you will find it in many pages

[Blackwater]

Ché, such a great man for fighting White Capitalist Imperialism in the name of Socialism.

Too bad he was Irish, and was killed by police while wearing a gold watch. Which he inherited. :lol:

Oh, the irony kills me.

[KC]

google it and you will find it in many pages

I don&#39;t want the website you got it from. I want the particular writing where he wrote it.



Too bad he was Irish

So what if he was of Irish descent? What&#39;s this prove, anyways? He was born in Rosario, Argentina. That makes him Argentine. His great-grandfather was an irish immigrant. So he&#39;s not very Irish.


and was killed by police while wearing a gold watch. Which he inherited.

Sources please??? And why does this matter?



Oh, the irony kills me.

How is that ironic?

[Blackwater]

LINK (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8702/irishamerica.html)


Guevara, a starry-eyed, impetuous spirit, grew tired of post-revolution life and thought little of Castro&#39;s offer of a position in Cuban government. He wanted to return to the continent, where he saw ideal conditions for a peasant revolt in the mountains of Bolivia. Before leaving the island, Guevara discarded a wristwatch given him by Castro in favor of an old gold one belonging to his father, a family heirloom passed on from Grandma Lynch. Guevara would later be killed while wearing that watch in Bolivia.

The Communist Manifest condones Rights of Inheritance, does it not?

[KC]

I don&#39;t understand why him having this watch is a problem. If you think it goes against some communist rule then you&#39;re mistaken.

And this article is pretty unreliable.


One little-known fact about Ernesto Guevara ("Che" was a childhood nickname) is that he was of Irish heritage.

Che was not a childhood nickname. Che is a word used in Argentina much like the word dude is used in the United States.


He was born in Buenos Aires in 1928, the first child of Ernesto Guevara Lynch and Celia de la Serna.

He was born in Rosario, Argentina on June 24th, 1928.


Ernesto Guevara Lynch&#39;s mother, Ana Isabel Lynch, with whom Che&#39;s family lived for years and to whom Che grew especially close, was the daughter of immigrants who had sailed to Argentina from County Galway, Ireland, at around the time of the Irish Famine.

Yes, his great-grandfather.


As a white-skinned Argentinean descended from local nobility on his mother&#39;s side, Che lived among the more privileged ranks of his country&#39;s class- and race-conscious society.

He lived among them but he didn&#39;t associate with them. He played with the poor kids.

That article is horribly unreliable.

[Blackwater]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 03:34 AM
I don&#39;t understand why him having this watch is a problem. If you think it goes against some communist rule then you&#39;re mistaken.
The Third Plank of Communism...

Oh, and it&#39;s not sure when he was born, because his birth certificate may have been falsified.

[KC]

The Third Plank of Communism...


...

[Blackwater]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:40 AM


The Third Plank of Communism...


...
Rights of inheritance...

[gebeleizis]

I would like to tell my opinion about the afirmation that Che murdered, tortured, executed, etc. (I know i come a little late to say it.)

Che wrote a book called "Guerra del Guerrilla (Guerrilla Warfare)". There he constantly mentioned that, if a guerilla unit wants to survive, it needs the suport of the local people. In order to get their support the guerrilla fighters should earn their trust. And he tells how to achieve this. (example: they should try to offer medical service, etc) If the "campesios" (the peasants) trust the guerrillla fighters they will ofer them shelter, food, information about troop movements and they will want to join the guerrilla.

Otherwise defeat is iminent.

He wasn&#39;t a maniac that ran around through Latin America shooting everything that mooved or torturing and killing all day long, how Vader and other vader-like individuals belive.

I think they are misinformed. Their opinions were formed by receiveing by receiveing false, incomplete or ill-intended information.

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 2 2005, 08:17 PM
He still didn&#39;t call himself a Stalinist. He was a Maoist :che:
He was a Maoist??

That&#39;s even worse... are we all aware what Mao did? He executed anyone (especially his own people) who even spoke out against him. He and Hitler are together in you know where.

As for Che:

Is is true or not that Che executed also executed dissenters for simply speaking out against him??

Anyone that executes an unarmed man is simply a spineless coward and totalitarian.

Yeah, Che may have done some "good" things, but so did Hitler.

Seriously why would anyone support an executionist of this nature?

And furthermore, I think Bush is just about as bad, he is a war-mongering tyrannical asshole - I would never, ever support the likes of him either.

[KC]

That&#39;s even worse... are we all aware what Mao did? He executed anyone (especially his own people) who even spoke out against him. He and Hitler are together in you know where.

Where&#39;d you get that idea from?



Is is true or not that Che executed also executed dissenters for simply speaking out against him??

Not true.



Anyone that executes an unarmed man is simply a spineless coward and totalitarian.


What? So before someone gets lethally injected for committing a vicious crime, they should be provided with a weapon?