Why Che?

[WorkerBolshevik]

Though I do not challenge the Revolutionary Vision of Comrade Che, his dedication to Socialism and the Working Class, and his value to the Latin America people and global Proletariat, I do beleive that as Historical Materialists, we must reevaluate what sets Che appart. Che was not extraordinary in most areas: he was known to be a poor doctor, his geurilla groups lost the most men and gained the least ground, he was a mediocer government official, and his writing lacks both originality and character. Taking these aspects into consideration, I believe that Che is largely the romantic product of the Cuban Beaurocracy, attaining this position ahead of others who may have been more qualified in theorey or more succesful in combat due to his loyalty, clean record, and primarly because of his looks. I will repeat, I am not out to damage the reputation of Che, but I do believe that the cult of personality based around him, one which has spread from Cuba to leftists of all schools and even into American Mainstream culture is inapropriate: he is not the best figure to learn from, and the obsession with him is merely the result of the 'cool' stigma surrounding him coupled with a lack of revolutionary insight. If we are to learn anything from Che, let it be how one man, who was not perfect, and did not excell in any field, took up the struggle of the Working Class and died fighting for it. It would be better for common people to follow this example rather than merely idolizing him.

[Senka]

I'm with you about these sentences:

''If we are to learn anything from Che, let it be how one man, who was not perfect, and did not excell in any field, took up the struggle of the Working Class and died fighting for it. It would be better for common people to follow this example rather than merely idolizing him.''

But everyone needs one idol.For people who are into religion that is Christ,well,I wouldn't like this to sound like I'm comparing Che with Jesus,but in one way he's my idol because you need something to believe in it.Even if that's not 100% true(I mean on idolizing).I need to believe in man who had nice ideas to make this world better,who had courage, strength and all things he needed to have to do all what he had done during his life.He is man that had failtures and mistakes but I think even now when I've done much researching about him athat he's excellent character to be my idol-idol in way to always remind me on things that are good and bad in this life.

Cheers

[Comrade J]

I think in our modern celebrity/idol-obsessed society, when attempting to teach people the truths behind socialism and how it can benefit the world protelariat, many people really won't care enough to listen. However, give that teaching a face and it creates interest. I believe Che is the necessary personification of modern day socialist principles.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yea and he's the like the 'good looking, tragic romantic doomed to fail' figure. goes out to battle for the cause of the poor and opressed peoples and end up tragically killed fighting his cause. Gives hope to people for a better future for everyone.

[Red Rebel]

Che was by no means a great doctor, guerrilla leader, or political leader but his devotion to his cause was never underminded. And such confidence is what makes him an idol.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why do you believe Che was by no means a great guerilla leader, or political leader for that matter?

[Abood]

ea and he's the like the 'good looking, tragic romantic doomed to fail' figure. goes out to battle for the cause of the poor and opressed peoples and end up tragically killed fighting his cause.
sounds like Robin Hood to me, lol! :lol: no offence to Che..


and his writing lacks both originality and character.
did we ever compare him with Shakespeare? hello? hes not a literatureist.. or whatever that is.. lol.. hes a marxist guerilla leader. and well, he made mistakes.. hes only human..


If we are to learn anything from Che, let it be how one man, who was not perfect, and did not excell in any field, took up the struggle of the Working Class and died fighting for it. It would be better for common people to follow this example rather than merely idolizing him.
i agree on that. and i don't think i idolize him. to me, hes a hero who should be learnt from. hes also a communist revolutionary martyr, give him credit for that.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

To all those who criticize Che, I ask you: Would you do any better?

[fernando]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 21 2006, 12:31 AM
Che was by no means a great doctor, guerrilla leader, or political leader but his devotion to his cause was never underminded. And such confidence is what makes him an idol.
I know that as a politician he wasnt that impressive. Guerilla leader, well COngo and Bolivia were failures while in Cuba he was quite successful, I think it was also with who he fought. The Congolese werent quite ready for a revolution if you read his book African Dream. Bolivia became a fiasco due to the betrayal of the local communists there, but it still seems strange why Che didnt recruit a single new guerilla there...

A not so great doctor? Where did you get that from? Was he a louzy doctor? If I remember correctly he finished his medical education in half the time it normally required to do so.

But it is his dedication to his cause which granted him the respect of many, he stayed "true" to his ideology, during the Cuban Revolution he ate alongside his soldiers, eating whatever was available while Castro was rumoured to have his own cook. (perhaps this is propaganda) The point Im trying to make is that Che stayed true to his ideals eventhough he had every opportunity to get so much more (as in wealth, status, etc)

[Karl Marx's Camel]

eating whatever was available while Castro was rumoured to have his own cook. (perhaps this is propaganda)

If it is possible, would anyone here confirm or dismiss this claim? It would be good to know wether it is true or not.

[Brujo]

Why Che? Che was an very interesting guy. True, by no means perfect as described by Jean-Paul Sarte, but it's admirable how he left behind the comfort of his home in Agentina to die liberating other countries. Spending his weekends on the sugarcane farms and refusing pay raise. On the other hand, I think Camilo should deserve just as much attention.

[Abood]

but it's admirable how he left behind the comfort of his home in Agentina to die liberating other countries. Spending his weekends on the sugarcane farms and refusing pay raise. On the other hand, I think Camilo should deserve just as much attention.
adding on, he gave up his cuban nationality and all his high ranks to go back to his revolution. hes the only communist leader i know who didnt get corrupt and start takin advantage of his power.

[Wiesty]

Che, to my knowledge, was a great guerrila leader, he wrote the book on it, that revolutionary groups use to this day.

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 05:15 PM
Che, to my knowledge, was a great guerrila leader, he wrote the book on it, that revolutionary groups use to this day.
And those revolutionary groups mostly failed. I mean the MRTA is as good as dead, Sendero Luminoso is as good as dead, the FARC is still trying for 40 years to create a revolution. Also note that Che's tactics are lets say 40 years old now or something. War has changed a lot during those times, I do think that Che's books about guerilla warfare and military campaigns could be analysed, we can study from it, but I dont think that it should be used as some sort of "holy" (different word, but you know what I mean) doctrine which every guerilla should follow to be succesful.

[Red Rebel]

NWOG-

Why do you believe Che was by no means a great guerilla leader, or political leader for that matter?

He failed in 2/3 guerilla campaign. As for politics, he had no history with it, and he was given a high position in the Cuban goverment.

fernando-

Guerilla leader, well COngo and Bolivia were failures while in Cuba he was quite successful, I think it was also with who he fought. The Congolese werent quite ready for a revolution if you read his book African Dream. Bolivia became a fiasco due to the betrayal of the local communists there, but it still seems strange why Che didnt recruit a single new guerilla there...

He based his strategy too much off Cuba. In his book "Guerrilla Warfare" he seems to have the idea that a revolution should be like Cuba. I think he failed to see that Cuba was more unique and not common.

fernando-

A not so great doctor? Where did you get that from? Was he a louzy doctor? If I remember correctly he finished his medical education in half the time it normally required to do so.

I completely forget why.

[Zero]

Dedication to our cause, and dieing for a better world as he did makes him more then worthy of the praise we rightfully give him.

A comment to the one who used him as a idol as a arguement, also put up next to "Jesus"; at least our idol is real.

[buffalosoldr]

I have to disagree with you on somethings. Che Guevara was an extrodinary person, mainly because of his parents, especially his father. His father taught him to have compassion for those less fortunate than him and his father made sure that despite Che's constant asthmatic problem that he would do everything that a normal person could do plus more. As many of you know, Che went on constant travels in college throughout Latin America. When he went back to school, in a matter of a couple months he finished school and was a doctor. (How many people could do that?) Instead of using his expertise for the benefit of himself, he used it for others, working in leper colonies and even during his revolutionary days fighting, in many peasant areas that he camped in, he attended to the peasants despite the threat of Batista's army attacks. His asthma constantly burdened him but while most soldiers quit the revolutionary army, he stayed and it was considerably harder for him. He was also a man that was constantly in search of knowledge. During his days as the head of National Bank in Cuba, he knew every in and out of accounting. Walter Sauer, executive vice president of the Export-Import Bank, (which is a part of the United States Treasury Department) spoke with Che several times on business and is quoted as saying "Guevara knows and understands foreign exchange, balance of payments, etc., and in fact he understands finance and economics, and he knows exactly where the hell he is going...It was just like talking to another banker except the son of a b*tch is an orthodox Marxist." (I found this quote some time ago). I have read a lot about Che, both good and bad but the thing that stood out about him is that he is a humanist (also a pet activist, a fun fact for all you pet lovers out there). I don't agree with Communism or Marxism for my own personal reasons, but the fact that this man who grew up in middle class settings, went to school and became a doctor decided to devote his life to the liberation and the equalization of the poor is enough for me. You must remember that after he "finished" with Cuba, he went on to Bolivia and Africa to help the poor there also before he had to go into hiding from the CIA. His stance on Marxism wasn't traditional. He believed that the "betterment" of man was more important than any government (which is the opposite of Marxist teachings). For me, he is someone that I can realistically look up to. I don't have to run around killing in the Sierra for my beliefs, but I use what little brain I have to expand my knowledge and hopefully gain some wisdom and I can show compassion for others and try to do what I can to help my fellow man instead of selfishly using everything I have for my gain. That's why I chose Che.

[Pax]

I think that Che had all the right desires. He wanted to help those who could not help themselves. He wanted to fight the injustices that he saw taking place and that he wanted to make life better for his fellow people.

I think when he saw what the USA did in Guatamala, that was the turning point that made him say in his mind that it is time to act. What happened there was wrong, and he had had enough.

I agree that what he wanted to do was just and noble, but I do not agree with his methods. Violence is not the only answer, and revolution doesn't have to happen with guns. Look at Ghandi. That being said, this is my opinion and I understand that others don't hold my view.

I think it is just that the guy is cool and people embrace that. I find it ironic that the USA hold him up in such a high light, considering what he did to them by making them look the fool, and then by them killing the guy.

USA. Won't you ever learn to mind your business?

[Janus]

I agree that what he wanted to do was just and noble, but I do not agree with his methods.
His experiences in Guatemala made him realize that violence was needed to defeat the counter-revolutionaries.


Look at Ghandi.
Gandhi took nonviolence to the extreme. Read this statement he made to the British people. This type of thinking only spawns apathy and more subjugation.
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them".


I find it ironic that the USA hold him up in such a high light, considering what he did to them by making them look the fool, and then by them killing the guy.
The US doesn't glorify him. Many youths do because they see him as an icon of rebellion and the clothing manufacturers have taken advantage of this.
Also, the US didn't want to execute Che but the Bolivian government feared that a trial would only cause people to sympathise with Che. Therefore, they executed him and tried to hide his remains in order to bury his legend. However, they only succeeded in making him a martyr.

[!Injustice!]

why che is a great question i believe che is wat u said not to be idolize because he is not a god in any form or way...but he was a man like u said that stood up for people who couldnt do it he spread intelligence and he died not for himself but for others...


But everyone needs one idol.For people who are into religion that is Christ,well,I wouldn't like this to sound like I'm comparing Che with Jesus,but in one way he's my idol because you need something to believe in it.

jesus is not 2 be idolized because he is the same as gahndi, malcolm x, martin luther king, and Che.....each of these people were revolutionaries...jesus wanted to reform the jewish belief and help the people out so he himself died for his beliefs so these people are not idols but men leaders that should be followed and help us free our minds and others as well

[!Injustice!]

o and that "idol" che picture is much to god like thas y people like it some people say he looks like jesus actually

[Simotix]

I think the reason people get so interested into Che is because he had a very interesting life that we know so much about and find so interesting (atleast I do).

Also the fact that society builds off one of another of liking Che because he is a face of "sticking it to the man" and is a product pusher.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I have read a lot about Che, both good and bad but the thing that stood out about him is that he is a humanist (also a pet activist, a fun fact for all you pet lovers out there).

Interesting. Could you, or anyone else here, tell us more about that?

What do you mean by "pet activist"?

[Epoche]

The popularity of Guevara in Capitalist countries is a device used to pacify the rebellous sentiments of the youth-- his image is now merely sold, watered down, and made into a fashion statement-- t-shirts, rock-n-roll bands, movies, etc. There is an irony here that should be noted. If Fuser's publicity were truely a threat to social complacency, I doubt his image would have developed such popularity.

Picture a fat white man who owns a t-shirt factory where exploited workers are paid peanuts to print his image on shirts to be sold to every teenager in America who is angry at his parents, who says to himself "Fuser is dead, he is no longer a danger to my kind. I might as well make some money off his legend...besides, there is teenage angst everywhere...nows my cue to get rich," as he laughs to himself.

What the world has done with his image would make Fuser sick. Do not accept the propaganda and do not accept the critiques written by non-Marxists. They are all bullshit.

Regarding what some of you consider a misguided judgement toward the superiority of Fuser as an appropriate representative of the Marxist movement, what must also be remembered is the context and conditions which were present during his rise to power and effect. Other than his medical training he had no formal military training and was a self-made man. His studies of philosophy, military strategy, and political sciences were primarily "on the fly," and considering this I would say that what he had accomplished, having this in mind, is quite remarkable. Have a look at the statistics of the battles he was involved in. What he achieved with such odds against him most certainly grants him the title of brilliant tactician, not to mention the heresy of Castro's possible conspiracy to get rid of him, and his ambition to continue his efforts in the face of tyranny.

What I believe Fuser can stand for today is the inspiration of the common man of leftist leanings to educate himself and develop a greater potential. If what is needed is the liberation of the proletariat, and the average proletariat is an ignorant idiot by the hand of capitalist oppression, then Fuser is the perfect symbol for the Marxist mantra. A common man takes a tour through Latin America, discovers its poverty and depression, ....and a few years later is leading a war in Bolivia against Imperialist scum.

I'd say that is quite an inspiration.

[bezdomni]

I agree.

We need more Che Guevaras, and less people just wearing the t-shirts.

[Epoche]

True, by no means perfect as described by Jean-Paul Sarte

I think Sartre admired Che because his principles fit the criterion for what Sartre considered a responsible person. Che chose to enter the war and identified his personal responsibility with the welfare of the entire movement itself. Che did not blame fate, what Sartre would call a practice of bad-faith.

"If I am mobilized in a war, it is my war and I have nothing to blame but myself."- Sartre

Perhaps the only reconciliation needed here is that of Marxist material determinism and Sartrean transcendent freedom. It may be possible that Che did not endorse Sartrean existentialism and maintained his theory of determinism, however according to Sartre that choice to do so is fundamentally the same as an exercise of conscious freedom.


We need more Che Guevaras, and less people just wearing the t-shirts.

I agree, CPA, but I wonder if that is possible. Aside from the small and otherwise impotent organizations scattered throughout the world, I don't believe the appropriate momentum has been gained to really effect any political activity. It is as if action must be sudden and forceful if it is to gain control and have any influence. This is to say that I don't think "passive discussion" will ever achieve anything, but remain a "hobby" for communists around the world who lack the resources to be united as a military force with any formidable power.

They say talk is cheap. Yeah...but working for the man is ever cheaper. [laughing]

Even if any strength develops in communist organizations, in todays age everything is so closely monitored that we'd be blasted before our army even made it to Washington.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Continue with the Marxist meme, hoping that three generations later something will happen? Start a conspiracy? Form a terrorist group?

[scratches chin]

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:08 AM

Even if any strength develops in communist organizations, in todays age everything is so closely monitored that we'd be blasted before our army even made it to Washington.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Continue with the Marxist meme, hoping that three generations later something will happen? Start a conspiracy? Form a terrorist group?

[scratches chin]

Aside from the small and otherwise impotent organizations scattered throughout the world, I don't believe the appropriate momentum has been gained to really effect any political activity.
Countries in which there is a substantial amount of communist activity:
-Venezuela
-Bolivia
-Chile
-Mexico
-Cuba
-Nepal
-India
-China (the people, not the government.

There are probably a few I've forgotten. Oh well.


...This is to say that I don't think "passive discussion" will ever achieve anything, but remain a "hobby" for communists around the world who lack the resources to be united as a military force with any formidable power.

Nobody believes we will change anything from passive discussion other than the reformists.They constitute a minority, so it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of the movement. Historically, the working class has been able to organize when the conditions are right.

I get what you are saying though.



Even if any strength develops in communist organizations, in todays age everything is so closely monitored that we'd be blasted before our army even made it to Washington.
The revolution will not start in the United States. I can guarantee that much.


What do you suggest as an alternative?
Fight as a united, international coalition of workers against the tyranny of the bourgeoisie.


Continue with the Marxist meme, hoping that three generations later something will happen
Don't leave it to the future generations. Start building your party now!


Start a conspiracy? Form a terrorist group?
:lol:
Terrorism would only hurt our movement.

Conspiracies would alienate the masses.

[guevarista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:46 PM
I agree.

We need more Che Guevaras, and less people just wearing the t-shirts.
Totally agree with you!!! He was a human being prepared for comunism...so few of us are. I mean really comunism. The social before the individual. We can say it but not practise it. He did, to the last consecuences. That´s why Che. That´s why he entered the history and he will be remembered all times.

[Epoche]

Nobody believes we will change anything from passive discussion other than the reformists.They constitute a minority, so it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of the movement. Historically, the working class has been able to organize when the conditions are right.

Let's talk practically. Political reform will not happen unless power is seized suddenly and forcefully, or a ballot system is inspired through a form of propaganda.

Either it will be done with guns, or votes.

What might be more practical is the idea of preserving what existing communist nations there are and isolating them from trade capabilities with capitalist nations. So rather than reforming the world capitalisms...simply let them destroy themselves and dissappear, then re-establish communist world order.

No?

[Godfather]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 06:58 AM
Che was not extraordinary in most areas: he was known to be a poor doctor, his geurilla groups lost the most men and gained the least ground, he was a mediocer government official, and his writing lacks both originality and character. Taking these aspects into consideration, I believe that Che is largely the romantic product of the Cuban Beaurocracy, attaining this position ahead of others who may have been more qualified in theorey or more succesful in combat due to his loyalty, clean record, and primarly because of his looks.

Che defined himself to the core. He knew exactly what his opinions were and what he stood for. He would not be swayed for any means of bribary such as power and bribary.

He stood out as a capable and valiant leader, one of those who, when a difficult mission is pending, do not wait to be asked to carry it out.