The "Che phenomenon"

alastair

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Can someone clarify this for me
Che Guevara was a "revolutanary" in Cuba. his side won and communisim took hold.

So by left wing logic thats the "ultimate goal or paradise" or whatever there trying to achieve.

Then why are there so many Cuban people risking there lives to get into America the bastion of capatalism every year.

If communism was so good why dont they stay, and going by that why dont we have a system where we can swap people who want a marxist country with those who see it doesnt work and want to come here to try there hand at capatalism.?

Well - Che wasn't Cuban, and spent most of his his post-Cuban-revolution years outside Cuba, so you can't really blame him for the long-term failings of that state. It's worth pointing out that there's many more Mexcians etc risking their life to get into the US too - and last I heard Mexico was a capitalist country too.

People admire Che because he promoted revolution in places that needed a change in the status quo. I doubt you'd find many (Cubans included) who advocated the reality of the Batista government over the Castro regime. That doesn't make him perfect by any stretch, but there's not too many political activists who were prepared to commit to their ideals so whole-heartedly.

peasant

cookies221 wrote: »

The put on a suit and join the capitalist workforce that they denounced as evil a few years earlier. Oh the irony.

Oh the irony indeed

The workforce is never capitalist (otherwise it wouldn't be the workforce)

If you need to rant, at least get your termini right

laoch na mona

Barrt2 wrote: »

your kidding right?

about what? Dictatorships should fall
the rising happened after home rule was postponed
and I admire che for trying to better the life of the poor

fontanalis

laoch na mona wrote: »

about what? Dictatorships should fall
the rising happened after home rule was postponed
and I admire che for trying to better the life of the poor

Bu tin the case of Cuba it was swapping one sh1t regime for another.

Molloys Clondalkin

alastair wrote: »

Well - Che wasn't Cuban, and spent most of his his post-Cuban-revolution years outside Cuba, so you can't really blame him for the long-term failings of that state. It's worth pointing out that there's many more Mexcians etc risking their life to get into the US too - and last I heard Mexico was a capitalist country too.

People admire Che because he promoted revolution in places that needed a change in the status quo. I doubt you'd find many (Cubans included) who advocated the reality of the Batista government over the Castro regime. That doesn't make him perfect by any stretch, but there's not too many political activists who were prepared to commit to their ideals so whole-heartedly.

I think its irrellevant where he came from and where he went to after the revolution. and as for the Mexicans thats a moot point as were discussing Cuba and Che Guevara. ie Communism Vs Capatalism ( ok I know its not that simple ) Mexicans in America leaving one capatalist country for another dont show the failings of capatalism or why so many Left wing people in Ireland support Marxism socalism etc.

I can blame him and his fellow fighters because it was there Ideals and way of achieving them that led Cuba to the way it is today Isnt his comrade still incharge there.

Is it just because he was a figure head in a war that people look up to him then?

laoch na mona

fontanalis wrote: »

Bu tin the case of Cuba it was swapping one sh1t regime for another.

he was not involved in the government of Cuba
he was busy fighting for the poor else where
I agree Cuba is not a good country now but it is better than it was before there revolution
I'm not a Marxist but I believe in revolutions(when necessary )

fontanalis

laoch na mona wrote: »

he was not involved in the government of Cuba
he was busy fighting for the poor else where
I agree Cuba is not a good country now but it is better than it was before there revolution
I'm not a Marxist but I believe in revolutions(when necessary )

If anything I think Guevara was more extreme than Castro; revolutions are all well and good but things tend to go all Animal Farm when people think their ideology is perfect one.

peasant

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Is it just because he was a figure head in a war that people look up to him then?

I think people look up to him because he was like the Trinity student from the OP ...but he stuck to his guns (literally) and pulled it through.

He came from a well to do family and was a qualified physician ...he was also an asthmatic.

He could have opened a private practice in Argentinia, lived capitalism to the full and used his education to make bucketloads of easy money.

Instead he crept around in the jungles of Cuba, Africa and Latin America to fight opressive regimes ...he stood up in the United Nations and told the world what he thought of it, he was minister for Industry and Finance in post revolutionary Cuba before he went off to fight some more.

The man had his failings ...but you can't but admire him for sticking to his convictions 100% ..all the time.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cuban3Pesos.jpg

Haelium

Meh, at least the Che followers have their hearts in the right place. Unlike the new Internet-Libertarian craze.

laoch na mona

fontanalis wrote: »

If anything I think Guevara was more extreme than Castro; revolutions are all well and good but things tend to go all Animal Farm when people think their ideology is perfect one.

fair enough your entitled to your opinion
he did help people though you cant deny that

fontanalis

laoch na mona wrote: »

fair enough your entitled to your opinion
he did help people though you cant deny that

Provided they didn't disagree with him.
Personally I think a lot of the support for Cuba/Che Guevarra is some attempt to have a go at Americas intereference. Why does it have to be that simplistic; why can't people be against both?

strobe

Molloys Clondalkin wrote: »

Can someone clarify this for me
Che Guevara was a "revolutanary" in Cuba. his side won and communisim took hold.

So by left wing logic thats the "ultimate goal or paradise" or whatever there trying to achieve.

Guevara was forced out of Cuba for vehemently criticising regimes like Russia's for betraying the ideals of Marxist revolution he had helped them fight for.

So 'his side won' but it soon became apparent that they weren't actually 'his side' at all. He was more of a Trotskyite in his views in that he believed the purpose of Marxist revolt was to eliminate hierarchical society and was openly hostile towards regimes like those that developed in Russia and Cuba where one elite was replaced by another. Stalinism and what became of Castroism were corruptions of Marxism in Che's opinion and a betrayal of 'the cause'.

strobe

As to why so many people admire Che Guevara I think's it's the same reason people like Robin Hood or Russel Crowe's Gladiator character (both fictional I know but two examples everyone will know). It's that people like the idea of an underdog taking on 'the establishment'. Literature is littered with heroes of the same archetype.

laoch na mona

fontanalis wrote: »

Provided they didn't disagree with him.
Personally I think a lot of the support for Cuba/Che Guevarra is some attempt to have a go at Americas intereference. Why does it have to be that simplistic; why can't people be against both?

I don't have any anti american feelings I try to judge every issue on its own merits and ignore propaganda from left or right. Che was not afraid to be critical of Russia

Johro

cookies221 wrote: »

Teenagers like to rebel or to reject the status quo. It gives them a sense of power and independence to hold opposing views to their parents. They often adopt (what they perceive as) radical left wing views and wear PLO scarves or Che Guevara tshirts to pronounce their political ideology to the world, without really having a clue of the issues involved. In other words, they do it because they think it's cool. They will attend anti-America and anti-Israeli marches, and then go home to post on Facebook about how radical they are and give themselves a pat on the back. The more dedicated may read Karl Marx and dabble in Islam.

Most children grow out of this phase when they realise it's time to cut the ridiculous ponytail, shave the bum fluff goatee, and get a job to pay the bills. The put on a suit and join the capitalist workforce that they denounced as evil a few years earlier. Oh the irony.

Sadly, some poor individuals never grow out of this adolescent mindset and fail to ever grasp a mature understanding of the world or its politics. They remain unemployable for life and so sit at home all day, posting long hate filled diatribes on internet forums, under the delusion that people are listening to them. Take the politics forum on this site for example. There are at least five Israel/Palestine threads on the first page. Let me remind you that this is an Irish site. We have zero historical ties to Palestine. Most Palestinians have never even heard of Ireland. Why not the same obsession with China/Tibet? Or Russia/Chechnya?

My question is: what makes a white, middle class, Trinity student in Ireland think that they can save the world? Remember when Irish student Kate O'Sullivan made an embarassing attempt to perform a citizen's arrest on Tony Blair at his book signing in Dublin last year? Cringe. Blair just rolled his eyes and made a nod towards security to chuck her out on the street with the other loonies. Only in Ireland. She will remain unemployable for life. I wouldn't expect any other diplmats to bother visiting Ireland again.

Tha's riiiiiiight.

Johro

Diabhal Beag wrote: »

Those t-shirts are a great dickhead indicator though. The same people nost likely who give out about the country and have probably never volunteered for a charity in their lifetime.

Em.. Possibly another dickhead indicator?

Monty Burnz

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Give us a few examples there my good man. And what is this human nature you speak of? You reckon cavemen were obsessed with materialism and screwing each other over? Nature/nurture, know which side I come down on anyway

Cogged from Wikipedia - feel free to highlight the successful, Utopian countries on the list:

People's Republic of China (since October 1, 1949)[1]
Republic of Cuba (since January 1, 1959) [2]
Lao People's Democratic Republic (since December 2, 1975)[3][4][5]
Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal (since May 28, 2008)[6]
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (officially in reunified Vietnam since July 2, 1976, but in the North since 1954) [7]
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (since September 9, 1948,[8] see: Constitution of North Korea). In 1992, all references to Marxism-Leninism were removed from the constitution[citation needed] and Juche became the official philosophy. But Juche was also described as a creative application of Marxism-Leninism.[9]

Former

Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (April 27, 1978 - April 28, 1992)
People's Socialist Republic of Albania (January 1, 1946 - March 22, 1992)
People's Republic of Angola (November 11, 1975 - August 27, 1992)
People's Republic of Benin (November 30, 1975 - March 1, 1990)
People's Republic of Bulgaria (September 15, 1946 - December 7, 1990)
People's Republic of the Congo (January 3, 1970 - March 15, 1992)
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (July 11, 1960 - March 29, 1990)
Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia (June 28, 1974 - September 10, 1987)
People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (September 10, 1987 - May 27, 1991)
German Democratic Republic (October 7, 1949 - October 3, 1990)
Political Committee of National Liberation (Greece) (December 24, 1947 - August 28, 1949)
People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada (March 13, 1979 - October 25, 1983)
People's Republic of Hungary (August 20, 1949 - October 23, 1989)
Democratic Kampuchea (April 4, 1976 - January 7, 1979)
People's Republic of Kampuchea (January 7, 1979 - May 1, 1989)
Mongolian People's Republic (November 24, 1924 - February 12, 1992)
People's Republic of Mozambique (June 25, 1975 - December 1, 1990)
People's Republic of Poland (June 28, 1945 - July 19, 1989)
Socialist Republic of Romania (December 30, 1947 - December 21, 1989)
Somali Democratic Republic (October 21, 1976 - January 26, 1991)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (December 30, 1922 - December 26, 1991)
Tuvan People's Republic (August 14, 1921 - October 11, 1944)
Democratic Republic of Vietnam (September 2, 1945 - July 2, 1976)
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (November 30, 1967 - May 22, 1990)
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (November 29, 1943 - October 8, 1991 / April 27, 1992)

Computer Sci

It’s the most cringeworthy thing when rich posh kids, born with silver spoons in their mouths decry the economic system which has lifted billions, and continue to lift billions more out of poverty – namely capitalism – whilst given many ordinary people the chance for upward mobility for over two centuries.

What should not be forgotten though is that many of these pontificating smoked salmon socialists wouldn’t last a day in a country run by communists. Not only have communist politico-economic systems rendered poverty upon hundreds of millions, but has also resulted in the mass murder of hundreds of millions – including those who dared opposed the prevailing communist governmental autocracy. Anybody protesting, or going against the status quo in communist states is for the most part locked up and/ or silenced. Ironic that so many of these clowns – particularly in colleges in the Western World – idolise such a system.

It makes me laugh in a way too, a bit like watching that tool John Lennon signing “imagine no possessions” from the confines of his 10,000 square foot mansion, situated within a few hundred acres of parkland, on a piano that was probably worth over half a million pounds. I blame idiots like Lennon and other 60s celebrities for bringing about this association of communism with freedom and idealism, when in fact communism has been nothing but a bane on so many with mass deaths/ mass starvation/ whitewashing and eradication of cultures, religions, as well as starting a nuclear arms race that not only held the potential to annihilate all life on earth, but impoverished many in Russia, often living near starvation.

Dudess

Haelium wrote: »

Meh, at least the Che followers have their hearts in the right place. Unlike the new Internet-Libertarian craze.

Exactly. People like that Cookies one and the usual crew (everyone knows who I mean) whinge about people who celebrate Che only doing so to be fashionable or whatever, whereas to be all no-nonsense and right-wing about everything is actually far more like a "craze" as you say, IMO...

Call Me Jimmy

strobe wrote: »

I'm not a Marxist but I can't stand the 'human nature argument' against socialism. It's so shallow and lazy and is the same argument anti-abolitionists used to try and prolong the slave trade. Not to mention the argument war mongers use against pacifism and misogynists/misandrists use against sexual equality. I mean Jaysus, rape and murder can be argued to be 'human nature' but we don't say "ah well, what's the point trying to convince people to not rape and butcher each other. It's human nature.".

Hi, I go to the bastion of education that is DCU. Let me try and be intelligent for a second (note: I am not)...


The semiological output of the bourgeoisie is based on the notion of masking intentional oppression using the mythology of 'human nature', creating a static future based on reducing all human actions of the past to tautology, i.e. humans are human.


God I feel like an ass... but thank god I'm not oblivious to that fact. Nothing worse than being a gimp and not knowing it!

What I don't get is, if I win the lotto tomorrow and start buying loadsa **** and not helping society I am part of an oppressive class. If I follow the rules, come up with something that loads of people want/need and slowly create a profitable company, again I am in the end one of the oppressors.

I don't want things, I just want to be able to live somewhere (anywhere actually) and pay the bills and have a bit of money left over. But if I get lucky/use my abilities well and make a truckload of money, I am part of a manipulative class of people.

Are all the people at the top of the hierarchy organised? Assuming the top of the hierarchy includes people in the top tax bracket and above for example...

Monty Burnz

Computer Sci wrote: »

It makes me laugh in a way too, a bit like watching that tool John Lennon signing “imagine no possessions” from the confines of his 10,000 square foot mansion, situated within a few hundred acres of parkland, on a piano that was probably worth over half a million pounds. I blame idiots like Lennon and other 60s celebrities for bringing about this association of communism with freedom and idealism, when in fact communism has been nothing but a bane on so many with mass deaths/ mass starvation/ whitewashing and eradication of cultures, religions, as well as starting a nuclear arms race that not only held the potential to annihilate all life on earth, but impoverished many in Russia, often living near starvation.

The problem is that a lot of left-wing idealists imagine that a marxist world would be one where everyone is rich - everyone has the mansion, and the grand piano. The reality is that everyone would be poor.

We've seen it in the contrast between the hours-long queues for bread and basic living requirements in the USSR and the staggering wealth of the USA. Sure, there were poor people in the USA too, but in the USSR, everyone was more-or-less poor except for the party hierarchy, in classic Animal Farm style.

I don't blame people for thinking this way: I thought like that before I learned anything about economics, and the role that the market plays in creating wealth and allocating capital towards what people want and need. I think 'left wing' is the default setting for good natured people who don't understand economics, the same as right wing is the default setting for ignorant, small-minded selfish people.

There we go, I think I've probably managed to offend just about everybody there...:o

cookies221

@Computer Sci, excellent post. One of the best on the thread and well articulated. As I mentioned earlier, the hypocrisy of these champagne socialists is astounding. They are happy to reap the benefits of living in a successful Western capitalist democracy but champion socialism and other airy fairy ideals. "No possessions" lol.

To the armchair revolutionaries: Why do you think that people living in Communist countries continually risk their lives to get out? Look at the Mariel boatlift from Cuba. Look at the mass exodus from Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. How many Chinese nationals are living abroad to escape the oppressive regime in their homeland? Your leftie ideals have been shown to epic failures countless times, and in fairness most of you will grow out of it by your early 20s. As for the remaining deluded few...well, you still have the politics forum to get your kicks, I guess.

Greentopia

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem is that a lot of left-wing idealists imagine that a marxist world would be one where everyone is rich - everyone has the mansion, and the grand piano. The reality is that everyone would be poor.

If they do then they have a very poor understanding of the work and thinking of Marx.
If you have read and understood what Marx meant by communism you will know that he envisioned two very different kinds of communism.

One, which he wanted and approved of, was a 'genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature, and between man and man', the other, which he dreaded, 'has not only failed to go beyond private property, it hasn't yet attained to it.'

What he meant by that is for him, genuine communism was only possible on the basis of a mature and fully developed capitalism.

The communism we have seen in the 20th century in the list of countries you mentioned, which quite rightly people fear and condemn, is more a kind of state-capitalism, brutally managing poverty and imposing industrial development.
The years since Marx's death has seen plenty examples of the second kind of communism and none yet, unfortunately, of the first.

And actually if you read his work you will see that he said very little indeed (no more than a paragraph in The German Ideology) about what a geniune communist society should look like, but this is only as a natural consequence of his ideas about individual freedom. After all the thread that runs through all his over 50 volumes of work, the consistant unchanging thread, is Marx's vision of the free individual.

Johro

Most people will have an awareness of all the injustices in the world from an early age, children typically question why some children in other parts of the world don't have any food, and as for teenagers, when you say they 'rebel', it's really just that they've become more aware of how the world works and realise that, hey, adults aren't always right, or honest, or law abiding.
If anything, the working adults they're supposed to aspire to are pretty hypocritical for the most part.
People get too involved in left wing/ right wing generalisations.
I think I'd rather be around people that hold on to their youthful ideals, it's much more about a sense of right and wrong than a political or economical question.
I don't care if someone works hard and makes a shedload of money. Good luck to him/her.
It's the people with the big dollars who are in charge of how the world is run, the politicians, bankers, lawyers, insurers who set the rules for everyone else while enriching themselves that piss me off.
Or the fact that if the west stopped spending on arms for a week there'd be no hunger in the world. Or the obvious hypocrisy of politicians, like Tony Blair being perfectly happy to shake Gaddafi's hand when BP were negotiating an oil deal, or the US government propping up the Saudi Royals while calling for Syria's Assad to step down, or conveniently forgetting the Geneva Convention while torturing prisoners who hadn't even undergone trial. Or if it takes only 3 euro a month to stop a child starving/going blind/dying of aids or malaria, why can't the big pharmaceutical giants use some of their frankly obscene profits to benefit them?
As for Che Guevara, there was a lot more to him than your so-called democratic politicians would have you believe. Communism means everybody's poor?? I'm not a communist/socialist, but I do understand that the whole idea of it is that nobody is poor, a society where everyone has enough. That's the ideal. It's better than the rich/poor divide we have now. Wearing a Che T-shirt doesn't mean you're a communist. It just means you reserve the right to question the status quo.

Johro

cookies221 wrote: »

@Computer Sci, excellent post. One of the best on the thread and well articulated. As I mentioned earlier, the hypocrisy of these champagne socialists is astounding. They are happy to reap the benefits of living in a successful Western capitalist democracy but champion socialism and other airy fairy ideals. "No possessions" lol.

To the armchair revolutionaries: Why do you think that people living in Communist countries continually risk their lives to get out? Look at the Mariel boatlift from Cuba. Look at the mass exodus from Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. How many Chinese nationals are living abroad to escape the oppressive regime in their homeland? Your leftie ideals have been shown to epic failures countless times, and in fairness most of you will grow out of it by your early 20s. As for the remaining deluded few...well, you still have the politics forum to get your kicks, I guess.

No recession/wage cuts/spending cuts/banker's bonuses/future of debt in cloud cookie land.

Computer Sci

Johro wrote: »

It's the people with the big dollars who are in charge of how the world is run, the politicians, bankers, lawyers, insurers who set the rules for everyone else while enriching themselves that piss me off.

Hang on a second, politicians are elected into office, providing they meet the criteria of the general public - it's called democracy. Bankers/ Lawyers/ Insurers work for a living, buying and/ or selling a product or service - it's called capitalism.

Or the fact that if the west stopped spending on arms for a week there'd be no hunger in the world.

You are aware that the USSR went bankrupt and starved millions of it's citizens by developing thousands of nuclear warheads aren't you?

Or the obvious hypocrisy of politicians, like Tony Blair being perfectly happy to shake Gaddafi's hand when BP were negotiating an oil deal, or the US government propping up the Saudi Royals while calling for Syria's Assad to step down, or conveniently forgetting the Geneva Convention while torturing prisoners who hadn't even undergone trial.

Perhaps this is wrong, but are you honestly telling me that the USSR or other communistic countries have never propped up and supported regimes toward their own geo-political ends?

Or if it takes only 3 euro a month to stop a child starving/going blind/dying of aids or malaria,

Some of the richest capitalists on earth such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc. are also extraordinarily generous and charitable people, as are millions of people who earn their living through the capitalist system. Communism and Communist governments on the hand have reduced hundreds of millions to poverty and starvation.

why can't the big pharmaceutical giants use some of their frankly obscene profits to benefit them?

What a stupid sentence. Since when are pharmaceutical companies responsible for third world poverty? Take Zimbabwe for instance, who is responsible for that humanitarian disaster - pharmaceutical companies, or the Communist Mugabe?

As for Che Guevara, there was a lot more to him than your so-called democratic politicians would have you believe.

Such as?

Communism means everybody's poor??

Pretty much, with the exception of the political establishment in Communist countries.

I'm not a communist/socialist, but I do understand that the whole idea of it is that nobody is poor, a society where everyone has enough.

You do realise that Capitalism has lifted more nations and peoples out of poverty - including Ireland - than any other economic system in history?

That's the ideal. It's better than the rich/poor divide we have now. Wearing a Che T-shirt doesn't mean you're a communist. It just means you reserve the right to question the status quo.

More nonsense. The rich/ poor divide now is absolutely nothing like the rich/ poor divide that exists in countries run by communists. A poor person in a capitalist country for instance can still afford shelter, descent food, travel and even accessories such as televisions, radios etc. Meanwhile, even a hard working person in a communist state can be reduced to living a life of squalor, hunger and poverty.

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

You are aware that the USSR went bankrupt and starved millions of it's citizens by developing thousands of nuclear warheads aren't you?

Perhaps this is wrong, but are you honestly telling me that the USSR or other communistic countries have never propped up and supported regimes toward their own geo-political ends?

Some of the richest capitalists on earth such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc. are also extraordinarily generous and charitable people, as are millions of people who earn their living through the capitalist system. Communism and Communist governments on the hand have reduced hundreds of millions to poverty and starvation.

What a stupid sentence. Since when are pharmaceutical companies responsible for third world poverty? Take Zimbabwe for instance, who is responsible for that humanitarian disaster - pharmaceutical companies, or the Communist Mugabe?


You do realise that Capitalism has lifted more nations and peoples out of poverty - including Ireland - than any other economic system in history?

Excuse me, but I'm not a communist. I pointed out what the communist ideal was. The USSR government, and other communist governments are hypocritical in the extreme, you'll get no argument there.

Yes there are rich people who give to charity. And?

Where did I say pharmaceutical companies are responsible for third world poverty? I said they could contribute aid out of those huge profits they make.

Capitalism didn't lift Ireland out of poverty. Working people did. Capitalism f#cked it over.

Monty Burnz

Johro wrote: »

Where did I say pharmaceutical companies are responsible for third world poverty? I said they could contribute aid out of those huge profits they make.

The simple answer is that it would likely be illegal for them to give away the profits of the shareholders. The companies exist to try to generate money: the money does not belong to them.

You might as well ask why the Irish prison service doesn't try to liberate North Korea, or why the British army doesn't try to find a cure for HIV.

Johro

Computer Sci wrote: »

The rich/ poor divide now is absolutely nothing like the rich/ poor divide that exists in countries run by communists. A poor person in a capitalist country for instance can still afford shelter, descent food, travel and even accessories such as televisions, radios etc. Meanwhile, even a hard working person in a communist state can be reduced to living a life of squalor, hunger and poverty.

Again, in states that call themselves communist states but have capitalist ideals, like China, for example.
Your capitalist state's government lets the banks repossess homes of tax paying citizens after their taxes bailed them out.

Johro

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The simple answer is that it would likely be illegal for them to give away the profits of the shareholders. The companies exist to try to generate money: the money does not belong to them.

You might as well ask why the Irish prison service doesn't try to liberate North Korea, or why the British army doesn't try to find a cure for HIV.

I'm not saying they should give all their profits to charity.:rolleyes:
A percentage would be nice. After all, one man's aids epidemic is another man's bread and caviar.