Rebel Wrote:You need to study this stuff more before making a comment like that. There is a reason I have been studying up on him and reading his journals and bios, etc. It's because I see people (a minority it seems) post things like the post you just made about Che. But of course, (being an American and all) I can see how you are blinded to look at him like that. There is a reason he is popular all over the world and I see his face a lot. He believed in fighting for a reason or cause... You obviously hear this fighting for a cause shit a lot but hey... he did help defend Cuba from the American attacks... But oh yea... They are terrorists and psychopaths... All of them... Right? Isn't that what your governments tell you? Oh well it must all be true then...
Woah buddy, that is a lot of accusations. He's known all over the world because he is a symbol of youth rebellion- a symbol that was
created for marketing purposes. This over simplification of character, the creation of an identity that isn't wholly true, and the subsequent selling of this identity is in reality a byproduct of Capitalism- the very thing he was against. And furthermore, it isn't mutually exclusive to che either, there are thousands of examples from Steve Jobs to Jesus Christ.
In reality Che openly rejected the idea that a vanguard party could be used as a catylst not for starting a state, but for inducing higher social awareness within the proletariat as Marx described. In his own eyes, people can't serve there own interests since they're generally stupid- and while I agree with the latter argument, the former is the very anti-thesis of Socialism and of Marxism in general. Che was not good news for Marxism, he is as much to blame for it's negative reputation as Stalin and Mao are, because his interest was inherently the state, and not the people who comprise it.
Authoritarian and National Socialism have had demonstrably negative impacts on not only the reputation, but of the application of far left political ideologies, and in many cases have done so without regret. A man who executed people for either contributing to or harboring longing for the old system is no one to aspire. If he were truly interested in a practical and benevolent continuation of Marxism than he would have spent more time at the chalkboard and less at the gallows.
If you are looking for someone to aspire then look more towards Marx and Engels, who laid the foundation for Marxist thought when they pioneered dialectical materialism and class warfare as focus points in rationalising the disparity in mankinds current socio-economic conditions. If you're more interested in the execution rather than ideas, then perhaps Lenin and Trotsky are more appropriate characters to examine. But for the love of god, don't be a flaming hipster faggot who waltzes around in their che shirt touting "fuck the system" when they have literally no idea what they would do in the event that they found themselves in the position to initiate social and economic reform at the fundamental level. People like that are even wore than useful idiots- they're hopeless fools mistaken on which side of the road they're walking on.
