Read this paragraph, and then, tell me, what is Che to you?

Che to me is a symbol (much like Castro) of good ideas gone awry through the use of "revolutionary" violence. I won't lie and say that I'm not sympathetic to many of the doctrines preached by people like these, and I, for the most part, share their view of the world, but it is when these ideas are transformed into violence that I distance myself. I think one of the biggest failures of these ideologies is the ease in which revolutionaries became the same things they were revolting against, essentially creating, if you want to use the term, a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. I think most common folk could associate with a statement from Che like "If you tremble indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine" while disagreeing with his course of revolutionary actions. For me leftist power is best achieved with examples like Zapatero in Spain, rather than through violent means.

I laugh everytime I see some idiot with a Che t-shirt or poster because it means that they have no idea who the real Che was. They read The Motorcycle Diaries and think he was this idealistic hippy type, which maybe he once was, who knows, but he became a killer as bad as any who lived in the 20th century and he deserves to be remembered for that.

--PunkDavid

heh.. just like Bush..

Power corrupts absolute.

The same happened to Castro and really socialism and communism in general. Both routes led to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

The idea was for the people, by the people. But Castro (and Che) were ultimately corrupted by their own power and Cuba became for Fidel, by Fidel.

Socialism/Communism as an absolute political system/societal system has failed time and time again. Facists systems and far right grand schemes have also failed due to the same thing....once in power - stay in power.

What this tells me, in an off-hand way, and with my readings on Che and many other revolutionaries is that quests for utopian societies based on the "good" of humans working together in common always fails due to corruption, greed, and dictatorship.

A realize he was not a perfect man, but he still deserves to be recognized for his influence and as the symbol of resistance that he was. I think that the ultra-negative viewpoint of Che is just as wrong as the ultra-positive one.

Correct, though it should be known that as history played out, Castro's government became as bad if not worse than the one he replaced (Batista's government).

meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I went to Cuba over the summer. It is a country riddled with paradox for it is a place of incredible natural beauty but one so poor and dilapidated it raises the question of Communism's success on the island. People beg everywhere, food is in constant demand and shops stock almost nothing apart from the odd, unwanted item. It is a crumbling nation, one which used to possess the finest health care system in the world but now doctors are abandoning medicine for tourism which will earn them a greater wage. And who can blame them? For in a country so aesthetically opposed to materialism it is actually all they yearn for. It is not much of a legacy for Che and Castro, but rather a gravestone to their actions.

Totally unexpected, but totally satisfying responses. Except for the Bush remark. If that isn't OT I don't know what is.

One of the greatest tragedies of the Communist world view comes from the same source as its founders. It has plagued every attempt at implementing it and will continue to do so forever more.

I don't subscribe to the "oh well they forgot about human nature" argument. That amounts to nothing more than an affirmation of the current state of affairs simply because we know little else.

It is something else. Actually 2 things.

1. The failure by Marx and Engels to utterly condemn violence in the revolution phase. Let's be clear about a few things though. Marx never openly advocated violene, and if you take his writings as a whole, it is pretty clear that as a humanist philosopher, he was probably one of the more pacifistic of all time. Not to mention sheer genius.

[As an aside... has anyone here ever read his early philosphical writings? Some of that stuff is so beautiful it brings me to tears]

But as I was saying, while he didn't promote violence, he certainly didn't do enough to condemn it and rule it out as an unacceptable way of aiding the revolution of the proletariat.

The kind of violence that was carried out in Marx's name ensures that Communism will always be stained red. So does the blame lie with guys like Stalin, Trotsky, Lenin, Mao and Che etc? Or does it lie with Marx and Engels.

Most often I find it difficult to blame Marx for Stalin's atrocities as I find it difficult (actually, laughable) to blame Nietzsche for Hitler's atrocities.

Yet it would be dishonest to say that Marx doesn't shoulder at least some of the blame for setting up the system the way he did and leaving so much of it to chance.

Then again, there's the argument that Marx never envisaged Communism to take effect in countries where you haven't had a robust Capitalist society. (Capitalism was supposed to be the seed of Communism)

This is university thesis stuff...

2. The failure of Marxism to provide a viable alternative to our "rule of law" system. This one is a little more difficult to argue without letting hindsight be our guide... but it's pretty clear to us now given the Soviet experience that arbitrary punishment is a guaranteed recipe for discontent.

Our rule of law systems give high priority to stability, and predictability in law, punishment and pretty much every aspect of our lives in the social sphere. Communism (both in theory and in practice) never adequately replaced the rule of law. Administrative decisions and punishment were arbitrary and whimsical. No society can ever put up with that for very long.

In that sense, there probably was some kind of miscalculation as tio human nature. Then again, if Communism was not set up the way it was supposed to be set up, then how can we be sure that this was an oversight?

Anyways... enough from me. Funny... I'm sitting here in Zurich pretty much 10 yards away from the Odeon Cafe where Lenin was supposed to have mapped parts of the revolution out so many years ago.

Well... at least I find it amusing...

Marxism ironically shares one thing in common with Religion.

While violence is never openly condoned, it sure is enabled by the preachers of both ideologies.

Communism and capitalism are simply two sides of the same coin. All modern industrial democracies are a mixture of both, some balancing more towards one than the other.

The failures of the so-called "Communist states" of the 20th century were, as s-a-r noted, TOTALITARIANISM, which can bring down a government of the right just as well as a government of the left, and their attempt at wealth redistribution in countries that DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEALTH TO BEGIN WITH.

--PunkDavid

So, historically, communism, or the notion of acceptance of communism, and totalitarianism, have never been mutually exclusive.

I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't believe totalitarianism is a necessary component of communism, however all of the states that have called themselves (or which we have called) "Communist" have been totalitarian. Maybe it's impossible to run a planned economy without infringing on basic civil rights and freedoms in a significant way. I don't know, nobody's ever tried it.

--PunkDavid

Bingo.

Does that mean you're in?

--PunkDavid (viva la revolucion!)

*looks at paycheck*

Er... maybe, y'know... later?

Right, he's remembered for having killed all those capitalist pigs.

Don't forget their wives and piglets as well.

--PunkDavid