• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Che Guevara: Hero or thug?

alphamale said:
He was one of the minions of what is by far, way way by far, the most bloodthirsty plague every let loose on human beings, the communist movement of the twentieth century, responsible for 100 million deaths, nearly infinite destruction and misery: from the bloody lawless murders in the Cabana prison, to the extinction of 1/4 of the population of Cambodia, to the tens of millions who died in the Chinese Great Leap Forward, to the tens of millions dead in the Soviet engineered Great Ukrainian Famine. It's almost unbearable to me that people can refer to "justice" and any communist who ever lived in the same breath, even if it is an uneducated sophomoric punk like you.

I don't support this type of communism, as I am a democratic socialist. I agree with you that it was tyranical and evil. This was not what Che was fighting for. You know nothing about Che until you actually read about the rest of his life, not just his oversseeing of La Cabana. You are a ignorant fool if you are stupid enough to base him on something he was forced to do. You don't understand that CHe lived in the poverty. He witnessed little children die because they're parents couldn't afford to get medical treatment in this greedy capitalist system. He fought solely for the poor and the less fortunate. For prosperity, peace and justice. You are a complete moron if you speak about someone you know nothing about.
 
Che said:
I don't support this type of communism, as I am a democratic socialist.

Then use a democratic socialist avatar, not a murderous punk.

I agree with you that it was tyranical and evil. This was not what Che was fighting for. You know nothing about Che until you actually read about the rest of his life, not just his oversseeing of La Cabana.

Communists are what communists DO, not what you say they are. The same people like you who complain about islamofascist savages being held in prison in Cuba wear T-shirts with the face of the person who blew the brains out of "enemies of the people" in Cuba in post-revolution blood vengence.

You are a ignorant fool if you are stupid enough to base him on something he was forced to do
.

Whaaattttt?????? Forced to do? He was on the winning side, and he was forced to murder???

You don't understand that CHe lived in the poverty.

I grew up in poverty, but I never blew anyone's brains out.

He witnessed little children die because they're parents couldn't afford to get medical treatment in this greedy capitalist system. He fought solely for the poor and the less fortunate. For prosperity, peace and justice. You are a complete moron if you speak about someone you know nothing about.

I know more about history, particularly the Communist Holocaust, than you would if you lived to be a century. Castro and his henchmen CERTAINLY didn't bring either prosperity OR peace OR justice anywhere they went, but rather death and destruction. Castro asked Krushchev for a first nuclear strike against the U.S. during the cuban missile crisis, a fact I'm sure you haven't learned in your government school brainwashing classes. If Krushchev didn't have a lot more sense than the banana republic punk-with-a-gun castroites, you probably wouldn't even BE HERE to treat everyone to your pathetic, sophomoric dribble.
 
alphamale said:
Then use a democratic socialist avatar, not a murderous punk.



Communists are what communists DO, not what you say they are. The same people like you who complain about islamofascist savages being held in prison in Cuba wear T-shirts with the face of the person who blew the brains out of "enemies of the people" in Cuba in post-revolution blood vengence.

.

Whaaattttt?????? Forced to do? He was on the winning side, and he was forced to murder???



I grew up in poverty, but I never blew anyone's brains out.



I know more about history, particularly the Communist Holocaust, than you would if you lived to be a century. Castro and his henchmen CERTAINLY didn't bring either prosperity OR peace OR justice anywhere they went, but rather death and destruction. Castro asked Krushchev for a first nuclear strike against the U.S. during the cuban missile crisis, a fact I'm sure you haven't learned in your government school brainwashing classes. If Krushchev didn't have a lot more sense than the banana republic punk-with-a-gun castroites, you probably wouldn't even BE HERE to treat everyone to your pathetic, sophomoric dribble.


it is true, that all faithful attempts at communist revolutions turn into totalitarian revolutions. Its certainly not what marx wanted or what most communist instigators want in the beginning.

communism itself was just another economic model where the assumption was that people would try to take other's welfare into account almost as equally as their own. This model obviosuly doesn't work, humans are selfish and competitive. However, It was not an attempt by Marx to destroy the world...That is obvious government brainwashing.

Take Kerala, it is one of the few societies where a semi-communist form (formally known as Democratic Socialism) works beautifully. Many social scientists attribute this to the fact that people there, are brought up in a society where the welfare of the people is cultivated. Of course this means that there is gonna be less economic development. (less competition). however, ironically, there is high-literacy (highest in India), much religious tolerance (hindus, one of the oldest jewish communities in Asia, largest christian population in india, muslims, and buddhists), high life expectancy, very little poverty, high human rights standards, and the people for the most part are self-reliant.

its this type of society that people like che wanted to initially acheive. Whether extrenuating circumstances pushed him in the wrong direction, Che's initial goals were still for the good of the people, and most of his life was based on these initial goals.
 
alphamale said:
Then use a democratic socialist avatar, not a murderous punk.

He wasn't a murderous punk. He was an advocate of democratic socialism and a revolutionary who fought against a US backed dictatorship that killed thousands. Eisenhower did the exact same things when he signed papers to kill army defectors during WWII, yet you don't call him a murdeous tratior



Communists are what communists DO, not what you say they are. The same people like you who complain about islamofascist savages being held in prison in Cuba wear T-shirts with the face of the person who blew the brains out of "enemies of the people" in Cuba in post-revolution blood vengence.

He never actually killed the rapists, gang members, defectors, criminals, and murderers, he merely oversaw the execution of them. Of course some innocent were killed as they are in every revoltution and every legal system.




Whaaattttt?????? Forced to do? He was on the winning side, and he was forced to murder???

It was his duty. Castro put him there. He was in charge of a prison that held, above all, criminals. He didn't blow people's brains out like conservofascists claim.





I know more about history, particularly the Communist Holocaust, than you would if you lived to be a century. Castro and his henchmen CERTAINLY didn't bring either prosperity OR peace OR justice anywhere they went, but rather death and destruction. Castro asked Krushchev for a first nuclear strike against the U.S. during the cuban missile crisis, a fact I'm sure you haven't learned in your government school brainwashing classes. If Krushchev didn't have a lot more sense than the banana republic punk-with-a-gun castroites, you probably wouldn't even BE HERE to treat everyone to your pathetic, sophomoric dribble.

Did I say anywhere that I am an advocate of soviet communism, or even the totalitarian cuba? No, I didn't because I'm not. I simply believe that Che's goals were noble and just what ended up happening is the reason why he left Cuba, and why I despise Castro.

BTW Please stop making assumptions about me, when you nothing about me. Please go back into your flagdraped, redneck trailer and stop bugging me with this over exagerated conspiracy.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Actually it sort of is. The swastika is a religious symbol of many cultures. It was also the Aryan symbol of life, if I remember correctly, and ironically the Nazi swastika is clockwise, Aryan is counter-clockwise, backwards. Also swastikas were supposed to bring good luck, "Allied" pilots in World War 1 painted swastikas on their planes like crazy.


Correction, I'm pretty sure that allied pilots painted small swastikas on their planes to represent the number of German planes they had shot down.:twocents:
 
What I don't understand; is why so many on the left idolise Che? If you wanted an example of a good domacratic socialist model, then you need look no further than Sweden. But I suppose Swedish Social Democrats, don't come across as glamorously as Che.
 
Australianlibertarian said:
What I don't understand; is why so many on the left idolise Che? If you wanted an example of a good domacratic socialist model, then you need look no further than Sweden. But I suppose Swedish Social Democrats, don't come across as glamorously as Che.

People idolize him because he was just one guy looking for equality and what is simpler then that?
 
Davo said:
People idolize him because he was just one guy looking for equality and what is simpler then that?


Bullshit he was one guy responsible for overseeing the Cuban death camps and in collaboration with Castro is responsible for the ruin of the island of Cuba.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit he was one guy responsible for overseeing the Cuban death camps and in collaboration with Castro is responsible for the ruin of the island of Cuba.

Do you have any proof he was "responsible" for overseeing the death camps? Other then your word? Right...the ruin of the island...because...Batista was such a good guy...he only tortured and killed thousands of teenage boys(anybody who was old enough to join the 26th of July movement) and young men. Want to ask for proof on that one? One of my dad's uncles was tortured to death in Olguin. You know what they did? they'd stick wires to your testicles and at the same time put metal pins in your nails. After that if you were still alive they'd castrate you and give you water shock treatments for 2-3 days. While all of this was going on you didnt get any food. Finally if you didnt give away information ( most of them didnt know anything about the 26th of July movement cause they were just regular highschool-college kids ) they were shot in the back of the head and burried in the outskirts of Havana. Where the Miramar district is now. All of this torture was done by a U.S. backed goverment. Do you agree with what was done to these innocent kids (and most of them I`d say 90% of them were) by a U.S. backed goverment? If you do then you agree with torture and injustice. Isnt that what the U.S. is fighting against?
 
Davo said:
Do you have any proof he was "responsible" for overseeing the death camps?

Oh why yes:

Following the collapse of the Batista regime, Guevara served as commander of the La Cabaña prison, where he personally presided over the extrajudicial executions of hundreds-perhaps thousands-of former regime officials and opponents of Castro's dictatorship.

Former dissident Armando Valladares has documented Che's personal involvement in the tortu2e and execution of political prisoners. Lest one dismiss these atrocities as relics of a bygone era, a recent Amnesty International report reminds us that, "Cuban authorities continue to suppress any form of dissent by methods such as harassment, threats, intimidation, detention and long-term imprisonment." In short, the very methods Guevara helped pioneer.

In a July 2005 New Republic essay entitled "The Killing Machine," Alvaro Vargas Llosa offers a chilling description of Guevara's serial bloodletting in the name of communist revolution. Llosa's title is an allusion to Che's famous "Message to the Tricontinental," which contained this charming passage: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine."

Llosa writes, "Che ordered the execution of a couple dozen people in Santa Clara, in central Cuba, where his column had gone as part of a final assault on the island. Some of them were shot in a hotel...among those executed, known as casquitos, were peasants who had joined the army simply to escape unemployment." Guevara later supervised the construction of a constellation of hellish "labor" camps across Cuba, which were used to imprison dissidents and, not long after his death, homosexuals and AIDS patients.

During a 1960s tour of Stalinist nations, Guevara was said to have been most enchanted with North Korea, perhaps the most Orwellian state in human history. Having personally engineered the alliance between Castro's nascent dictatorship and the Soviet Union-the oppressor of hundreds of millions of people from Pyongyang to Prague-Guevara lamented the Soviet "betrayal" of Cuba following the Cuban Missile Crisis. He informed a reporter for the socialist newspaper, The Daily Worker, that, "If the rockets had remained, we would have used them all and directed them against the very heart of the United States, including New York...."


http://www.ksgcitizen.org/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=6fd19aee-10d2-478b-ad8b-a99d7d47d428

AND there's much much more.
 
Last edited:
Che, can you give us examples of communist leaders who weren't absolute dictators?
 
Wasn't he like... a guerrilla fighter. What a great example to follow. Don't guerrillas kill people? Why would anyone follow someone who kills outright to get their gov't style. Can someone enlighten me on everything about Mr. Guevara?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Oh why yes:



AND there's much much more.

Do you honestly think cuban dissidents have much to say about Cuba? Thats like asking Palestinians about what they think of the Israelis. It's never going to be "They're ok guys". You're foolish for believing what the Cuban-American league says. It's like asking Hamas what they think of Israel. Most of what Cuban dissidents say is nothing more then exagerated fiction. Think of it as....what the prisoners in Gitmo will say after they're released.

The first words to come out of their mouths will be "We were tortured."
 
Davo said:
Do you honestly think cuban dissidents have much to say about Cuba? Thats like asking Palestinians about what they think of the Israelis. It's never going to be "They're ok guys". You're foolish for believing what the Cuban-American league says. It's like asking Hamas what they think of Israel. Most of what Cuban dissidents say is nothing more then exagerated fiction. Think of it as....what the prisoners in Gitmo will say after they're released.

The first words to come out of their mouths will be "We were tortured."

Cuban dissedents? You mean me? I'm foolish? You're not catching it partner, I have a personal vendetta against Che and those that follow him now will taste my steal the same!!! Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!!! Viva alpha 66!!!
 
Australianlibertarian said:
What I don't understand; is why so many on the left idolise Che? If you wanted an example of a good domacratic socialist model, then you need look no further than Sweden. But I suppose Swedish Social Democrats, don't come across as glamorously as Che.

It's based on nothing other than a very famous "cool-looking" photo of him, added to the brainwashing and historical ignorance of many mush-heads churned out of the infamous american government school system.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Cuban dissedents? You mean me? I'm foolish? You're not catching it partner, I have a personal vendetta against Che and those that follow him now will taste my steal the same!!! Nex ut tyrannus y sic semper tyrannus, licentia vel nex!!! Viva alpha 66!!!

You're a cuban dissedent? Are you like one of the many worms who talks "smack" about Cuba but a year before you left were right at the Plaza of Revolution chanting "long live Fidel"? Your steal?....You mean steel right? Or are you one more of the Miami-born cubans that has never been there yet talks about the situation in Cuba like they live in Cayo Hueso? Alpha 66....arent they responsible for the murder of 24 Cuban athletes? You tell me...how is a chickenshit terrorist organisation like Alpha 66...who got it's *** kicked in the Bay of Pigs...any worse then the Taliban?
 
Re: CHe Guevara: Hero or thug?

I honestly don't know much about him. But if whites hate him and people of color love him, obviously he's a hero.
 
vibeeleven said:
Che, can you give us examples of communist leaders who weren't absolute dictators?

I could- I'll give you examples of ones anyone should know. Lets' see-Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Minh. Ones that aren't so famous-Kautsky, Leibknicht, Luxemburg, Kamenev, etc. etc.

But then again, it would have to do of what you think are communists from your perspective, some people think any dictatorship is communist, some think dictatorship and communism are opposites. Much of it has to do with perspectives. I personally don't see Stalin, Mao, Kim, etc. etc. as commies or "good" ones.
 
Comrade Brian said:
I could- I'll give you examples of ones anyone should know. Lets' see-Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Minh. Ones that aren't so famous-Kautsky, Leibknicht, Luxemburg, Kamenev, etc. etc.

Uhh.. None of these guys fall under the true communism or marxism. 'cept Marx and Engels of course. Lenin was a fool because he set up the Dictatorship of the Protaleriat. I do agree with most of the stuff he says but not the DOP. Trotsky was a Leninist puppet. Frankly there is little difference b/t the two. Minh was a dictator, right? I know nothing about the rest but I will say that true communism has never exsisted. The only "Communism" that has exsisted are "State Capitalism" and DOPs, stepping stones to true communism.

But then again, it would have to do of what you think are communists from your perspective, some people think any dictatorship is communist, some think dictatorship and communism are opposites. Much of it has to do with perspectives. I personally don't see Stalin, Mao, Kim, etc. etc. as commies or "good" ones.

Basically these are the guys that ****ed communism up and helped make America think it is a theory from hell.
 
Lenin was a fool because he set up the Dictatorship of the Protaleriat. I do agree with most of the stuff he says but not the DOP.

Strange, "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was an idea originating with Marx. This has also been with much controversy particularily between with the anarchist types, because anarchists are often idealistic. But anyways this notion "dictatorship" has often been used as a point to argue against Marxists, etc. but most who think like that misunderstand the words, "proletariat" is plural for "proletarian", therefore that implies the proletariat as a whole dictates. Also it was later cleared up by naming it "the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Any such state must have many democratic institutions more than seen in much of today.
Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it; and today, too, the forms of state are more free or less free to the extent that they restrict the "freedom of the state".

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
-Marx/Engels
Critique of the Gotha Programme
http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm

This dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. This dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
-Rosa Luxemburg
The Russian Revolution
http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm

What, then, is the relation of this dictatorship to democracy?

We have seen that the Communist Manifesto simply places side by side the two concepts: "to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class" and "to win the battle of democracy". On the basis of all that has been said above, it is possible to determine more precisely how democracy changes in the transition from capitalism to communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed by force; it is clear that there is no freedom and no democracy where there is suppression and where there is violence.
-V.I. Lenin
The State and Revolution
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm
Minh was a dictator, right?
That would not probably be a correct term.
I will say that true communism has never exsisted.
What is this "'true' communism"? But anyways, communism has existed before in some the earliest human societies, but those of course, have not been through the feudal and industrial societies that have been experienced today.
I know nothing about the rest
Kautsky was probably THE leading Marxist after Engel's death until about WWI, one of the leaders, and leading theoreticians of the Second International. Helped create German Social-Democracy, and was later sort of ousted for his support of WWI, which caused a large break in the socialists because many supported their own countries, and others declared it nothing more than an "imperialist war".
Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Leibknecht were the two main leaders of the Sparacus League in Germany, known for supports and criticisms of the Bolsheviks, in certain parts. Later executed by the German military for their part in a Berlin worker revolt in January 1919.
Kamenev worked close with Lenin and Trotsky in the Bolshevik govt. Kamenev is probably most known for being executed along with many other Bolshevik leaders in 1936 for not being insupport of Stalin.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Strange, "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was an idea originating with Marx. This has also been with much controversy particularily between with the anarchist types, because anarchists are often idealistic. But anyways this notion "dictatorship" has often been used as a point to argue against Marxists, etc. but most who think like that misunderstand the words, "proletariat" is plural for "proletarian", therefore that implies the proletariat as a whole dictates. Also it was later cleared up by naming it "the Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Any such state must have many democratic institutions more than seen in much of today.

I am by no means a anarcho-Communist or a lib-communist or an Anarcho-syndicalist because these ideas are too idealistic too work. I like to consider myself a Reform leninist because classic leninism is what set the mold for Stalinism and the USSR. some form of the vangaurd is good but the DOP is what gives communism the common mis conception of it being a tyranical system. I like the idea of "the Democratic dictatorship of the protaleriat" but many leninists I've spoken to never mentioned it.
 
I am by no means a anarcho-Communist or a lib-communist or an Anarcho-syndicalist because these ideas are too idealistic too work
It is good that you do realise that.
I like to consider myself a Reform leninist because classic leninism is what set the mold for Stalinism and the USSR
I would be lying if I claimed that Leninism didn't give way towards Stalinism, but then again since Marxism gave way to Leninism, so Marxism has too given way to Stalinism. But then again Stalinism has contradictions with both Leninism and Marxism, particularily with their "worshipping" of Lenin and Stalin, nationalism, statism, extravagant bureaucracy, etc. etc.
I like the idea of "the Democratic dictatorship of the protaleriat" but many leninists I've spoken to never mentioned it.
I believe the term was made by Trotsky to criticise Stalin that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" must have democratic institutions to be genuine.
 
I'm glad he's dead and if he wasn't I'd put a bullet in his head myself fuc/k Guevara may he rot in hell. Viva alpha 66!!!!

You are a terrorist sympatizer. Alpha 66 is a terrorist organization.
 
and in collaboration with Castro is responsible for the ruin of the island of Cuba.


In 1953, Cuba had 25 percent unemployed. Today, unemployment is at 1,9 percent.

Most people did not have toilets, not even a privy. Only 44,4 percent of the population had showers or bathtubs.

90 percent of the people in rural areas were undernourished.

In 1958, Cuba had some 6,000 doctors. Today, Cuba has 71,000 doctors.

In the 1950's, Cuba had a child mortality of 37,3. Today, it is 5,8. Lower than that of many industrial countries, including the United States.

Cuba was in a horrible state.

Ray Brennan, Chicago newspaperman, gave a vivid account of this horror:

Parasites grow and mulitply within the bodies of little children.
Some of those worms, the size of an ordinary lead pencil, gather in clusters or balls, clog the intestinal system, block elimination, and cause anguished deaths. Such parasites often get into the body through the soles of the feet of children walking without shoes on infected ground. After a child dies the parasites may come slithering from the mouth and nasal passages, searching for a living organism on which to feed. What has been done about it over the years? Nothing.



In the 1950's, Cuba had 23 percent illiteracy (50 percent in rural areas).

Today, education is free of charge. Everyone can go to school.

Today, the country has 30 university graduates, intellectuals and professional artists for every one there was before the Revolution.
Life expectancy has increased by 15 years.
 
Comrade Brian said:
I would be lying if I claimed that Leninism didn't give way towards Stalinism, but then again since Marxism gave way to Leninism, so Marxism has too given way to Stalinism. But then again Stalinism has contradictions with both Leninism and Marxism, particularily with their "worshipping" of Lenin and Stalin, nationalism, statism, extravagant bureaucracy, etc. etc.

Over at another forum I post on alot of anarcho-communists use this arguement. They then claim We must stop thinking about Russian revolutionaries and start thinking about a revolution of the people with no vanguard party and 90% population support. I think this'll like 1000's of years if it'll ever happen so is a joke. Leninism that doesn't give way to Stalinism is the way to go, and from what I've read and heard in the past couple of days, Trotskyism seems like just that.

I believe the term was made by Trotsky to criticise Stalin that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" must have democratic institutions to be genuine.

I like Trotsky and Trotskyism. I like it because it is very critical of Stalin who was a monster so must be anti-dictatorship and is also pro-democratic centralism. In the past couple of days I've been reading and asking around about it and it seems like it's the branch of communism that fits me the best. I liked leninism before but there were large portions of it that I disagreed with.
 
Back
Top Bottom