Che Guevara (Mod Note: read full thread before posting)

donaghs

Probably more accuarate to say that Cuba was a better place to live after any control over the economy was taken away from Che.

In his defence, he was hard-working (e.g. long office hours and volunteering to cut sugar cane) and well-intentioned (trying to raise living standards and grow the Cuban economy). But still incompentant. Like many a Marxist before him he thought he could change peoples fundamental nature through agit-prop, hard work, and a lack of material incentives.

Is also a fair point that "fighting for what you believe in" isnt always a good thing.

dlofnep

donaghs wrote: »

Probably more accuarate to say that Cuba was a better place to live after any control over the economy was taken away from Che.

Cuba is a socialist state. That would not be more accurate.

donaghs wrote: »

Is also a fair point that "fighting for what you believe in" isnt always a good thing.

It is a fair point if it's meant in a general consensus. It's not a fair point in regards to Ché - as his work directly bettered the lives of Cubans. What he fought for, and what he believed in - is the reason why Cuba, despite being ridiculously poor - has better healthcare penetration, and better literacy rates than it's larger neighbour.

ejmaztec

This is some anti-Che propaganda on a site presumably set up by those opposing the Castro regime.

http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm

paky

Junior D wrote: »

I was in history class the other day when I happened to mention Guevara's name, when suddenly a war nearly broke out. Personally I see him as a hero who had his problems, but I love the way he stood for his opinions. However, other people in my class see him as a scumbag. I'd like to know what the general opinion on him is.

Nelson Mandela has referred to him as: "An inspiration for every human being who loves freedom"

Che Guevara today would be classed a terrorist. no different from todays real ira

brianthebard

*sigh* I didn't think things would get like this. The thread is about Che, the historiography relating to, etc.
It is not about Cuba. There are plenty of threads in politics on that topic. I'll decide later if I'm bothered deleting the off topic posts, but from now on its either about Che Guevara or its off topic, and that's not allowed. Mod.

dlofnep

Apologies for going off-topic. It's hard to separate Ché and Cuba when discussing his works. I'll try keep the content more relevant to Ché as an individual.

brianthebard

I don't have a problem with discussing the politics and running of Cuba while he was finance minister but once he left that position he no longer had any input and thus it doesn't relate to the thread topic.

brianthebard

Posts without reference to Che deleted. Keep it topical people.

Junior D

brianthebard wrote: »

*sigh* I didn't think things would get like this. The thread is about Che, the historiography relating to, etc.
It is not about Cuba. There are plenty of threads in politics on that topic. I'll decide later if I'm bothered deleting the off topic posts, but from now on its either about Che Guevara or its off topic, and that's not allowed. Mod.

But how Cuba is today, is because of Che. Che cant really be discussed without referring to the legacy he has left behind, and that is modern Cuba isn't it?

ejmaztec

Junior D wrote: »

But how Cuba is today, is because of Che. Che cant really be discussed without referring to the legacy he has left behind, and that is modern Cuba isn't it?

I get the impression that Castro wasn't as left-wing as Che, but pretty much left Che to his own devices after the revolution. With Che dead, I don't think that Cuba became as extreme as Che would have wanted.

I also think that Soviet money, technology and influence made Cuba what it is today, and that the Castro regime would have failed by the end of the 60s without this backing.

shqipshume

For them he was a hero for the other side he was a terrorist.So if they can call IRA terrorists from back in the years of freedom then so shall he be called.
Someone said like Micheal Collins above.Yeah in the regard called terrorists in their own country by their own people.But i dont think many of his people would sell his men and his name up river so fast.

Personally i think anyone who stands up against oppressors of the people are heroes.So che wanted better for people so land mark hero.

brianthebard

Junior D wrote: »

But how Cuba is today, is because of Che. Che cant really be discussed without referring to the legacy he has left behind, and that is modern Cuba isn't it?

I deleted about a dozen messages that had no relation to the thread topic/Che. There is a political forum for a reason and if people want to talk about the politics of Cuba they are welcome to do so there. But this is a history forum and thus the discussions should be about historical issues. It is possible to talk about the politics of Cuba while Che was finance minister as I already said, but once he left that position then his connection to Cuban politics ends, and so the discussion of Cuban politics in this thread should also end. There's no point in me saying that people can discuss modern Cuba if its with reference to Che, because people will just continue their off-topic bickering and throw the occasional name drop to avoid censorship. I'm not going to allow that.

AttackThePoster

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong.



Communism wasn't responsible for one death. The people behind the wheel of states that may have used communist policies on the other hand is a different story. Che was a marxist. He saw mass inequality in Cuba and created the framework that corrected what Batista promoted.



I would imagine because both were revolutionaries.

Um, what about the camps?

AttackThePoster

dlofnep wrote: »

Hitler fought for a supreme race and murdered 6 million jews.

Do people still forget that Jewish people weren't the only ones that were sent to their deaths at the camps?

ejmaztec

AttackThePoster wrote: »

Do people still forget that Jewish people weren't the only ones that were sent to their deaths at the camps?

Only in Hollywood, but that's beside the point.

brianthebard

AttackthePoster infracted for ignoring 4 (yes four) in thread warnings. Last warning for everyone.

Snickers Man

grenache wrote: »

On a side note, i'm sure this has been mentioned many times before, but his full name is Che Guevara Lynch. He has relations in both Galway and Kerry. One of the Kerry lads in the my supporters club is a third cousin of his.

No it wasn't. His full name was Ernesto Guevara De La Serna.

In the Spanish tradition, your full name comprises both your father's and mother's surnames. Che's mother was De La Serna so that was where he got the second half of his surname.

His father was indeed called Ernesto Guevara Lynch for exactly the same reason. So Che's granny was indeed called Lynch but she was of American origin. I think his Irish ancestry goes some way back.

As to whether I regard him as a hero or not. I think it is always dangerous to idolise somebody from a situation of which one has no particular knowledge. The Batista regime was indeed brutal, but Castro (and his lieutenants like Che) were guilty of some excesses as well.

Having said which, Cuba has done remarkably well as a society in the face of a debilitating blockade and swingeing trade embargo by the United States.

For an island with few export markets and limited capital investment it still has basic health indicators (infant mortality, life expectancy etc) which compare with western democracies. If you doubt this, don't take my word for it. Go to that bible of the dry factual statistic the CIA world factbook and see how Cuba's indicators in those areas stack up against western democracies on the one hand, and other Latin American countries on the other.

Not to mention African countries where the life expectancy for men is often in the 40s.

Rebelheart

paky wrote: »

Che Guevara today would be classed a terrorist. no different from todays real ira

As would George Washington. Your point?

Then again the sort of people who throw the word "terrorism" at anybody who uses violence to achieve aims contrary to their own (violence-supported) aims are generally grade A idiots of the Bill O'Reilly/George Bush/Jim Allister type.

They're not even intelligent rightwingers like P. J. O'Rourke. For them it's just a nice, simplistic modern-day cowboys versus "Indians", western civilisation versus "terrorism". They are as offensive as the PC-driven "liberal" (the PC motivation usually nullifying the genuinely liberal aspect of their positions) types any day. And more is the pity.

Rebelheart

Snickers Man wrote: »

No it wasn't. His full name was Ernesto Guevara De La Serna.

In the Spanish tradition, your full name comprises both your father's and mother's surnames. Che's mother was De La Serna so that was where he got the second half of his surname.

His father was indeed called Ernesto Guevara Lynch for exactly the same reason. So Che's granny was indeed called Lynch but she was of American origin. I think his Irish ancestry goes some way back.

Good man, Marathon. And of course, while he came from the Lynch family of Gaillimh (Patrick Lynch, born Galway 1715, appears to be the earliest known relative), that Lynch family had left Cnoc an Línsigh in Meath in the 14th century. Cnoc an Línsigh was known as "Lynch's Knocks" in English until around 1667 when it was renamed Summerhill. You can still see the quite massive ruins of Lynchs' Castle in Summerhill there today. There was a massive battle there in 1647, the Battle of Dungan's Hill.

Snickers Man wrote: »

As to whether I regard him as a hero or not. I think it is always dangerous to idolise somebody from a situation of which one has no particular knowledge. The Batista regime was indeed brutal, but Castro (and his lieutenants like Che) were guilty of some excesses as well.

Fair comment. Heroes are very thin on the ground the longer one lives, I find. If there are "heroes" they are probably the mothers or fathers of large families who work huge hours and overcome massive obstacles - drugs, abuse, poverty etc - to provide for their families without any recognition.

Snickers Man

Rebelheart wrote: »

Heroes are very thin on the ground the longer one lives, I find. If there are "heroes" they are probably the mothers or fathers of large families who work huge hours and overcome massive obstacles - drugs, abuse, poverty etc - to provide for their families without any recognition.

Ah g'wan ya big PC softie!!

You just said that because it was Mother's Day!

not bakunin

When Alberto Korda took that photo, I don't think that anyone could have seen where it would bring Guevara. By the way, the famous artwork of it you see everywhere was done originally by Irishman Jim FitzPatrick.

Anyways, the image is what inflates the whole thing about Che. I don't think that it is an aspect of his historical judgement that he would ever have wanted to see. Because of the image, he's scrutinised more, blamed more, idolised more. There were others like him, such as Camilo Cienfuegos, who never got such lauding. I just think that the issue of Guevara's life and times is over analysed and drawn out. To me, he was a man of principle, and maybe sometimes those principles brought him to a dark and questionable place, but fuuck it, life isn't black and white.

donaghs

This page on a Trotskyite site gives an intestesting slant on Che:
http://www.workersliberty.org/node/3076

Shows that despite all his rhetoric and good intentions, in the end of the day he was essentially a Stalinist. Coming from an admiring position over a decade ago, the more I learn about the man, the less I'd like to live a country he would have liberated from Imperialism.

brianthebard

That's an odd sort of article with an obvious agenda. They don't seem to address the fact that Guevara rejected the 'communism in one country' philosophy of Stalin and embraced the Trotskyist notion of perpetual revolution. That's not to say that he didn't have Stalinist ideas, I think many socialists were still impressed by the 5 year plans for example, but the article you've selected is a bit of a hack job designed to discredit any Trotskyist position within Guevara's politics.

donaghs

Yes, they do have a chip on their shoulders alright. And they certainly have their biases. A peculiar enough bunch if their Wikipedia entry is accurate.

But I do think you can extract from the article some interesting points on how Che could turn a blind eye to tyranny in the name of Communism.