MovieChat Forums > Che: Part Two (2009) Discussion > The real Che Guevara

The real Che Guevara

posted 17 years ago by victorin1
494 replies | jump to latest

Can his reputation survive the publication of his own words?

In December 1953, he wrote to his aunt from San José, Costa Rica, “I have sworn before a picture of our old, much lamented comrade Stalin that I will not rest until I see these capitalist octopuses annihilated.” [1, p. 62]Another letter to the same aunt was signed with the words "Stalin II." [2, p. 167] More important was the fact that when Guevara visited the USSR in his capacity as one of the most important leaders of the victorious Cuban revolution in November of 1960, he insisted on depositing a floral tribute at Stalin's tomb[1, p. 181]. It is important to remember that this was more than four years after Khrushchev's revelations of Stalin's crimes.

This from Che Guevara's Guevara journal of his travels through Latin America: “I now feel my dilated nostrils, savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood, of enemy death; I now tense my body, ready for the struggle, and I prepare my being as a sacred place so that in it resounds with new vibrations and new hopes the bestial howl of the triumphant proletariat.” The Motorcycle Diaries omitted this inconvenient portion of Che's diaries form the film.

A phrase in a letter to his wife on January 28, 1957, not long after disembarking in Cuba, which was published in her book Ernesto: A Memoir of Che Guevara in Sierra Maestra: “Here in the Cuban jungle, alive and bloodthirsty.” It is hardly a surprise that during the armed struggle against Batista, and then after the triumphant entry into Havana, Guevara murdered or oversaw the executions in summary trials of scores of people.

[1] Jorge Castañeda, Compañero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara (New York: Vintage, 1998).

[2] Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (New York: Grove Press, 1997.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 17 years ago

People (that is, those who have studied the Cuban Revolution)admire Che as a man who fought against oppression. Guevara killed many men, this is true. But one must look at his motivation. He did not "murder" because he enjoyed it, he believed the casualties were necessary for the Revolution to be successful. There can not be a Revolution of such political and social change without casualties. Because, you know, the American Revolution was an entirely bloodless affair.

That said, Guevara is not admired because he "murdered". He's admired as a man who believed in something greater and acted selflessly to attain it. He died fighting for what he believed in. His intentions for Latin America were noble. In retrospect, many argue he was misguided but I'm not sure if that's necessarily true.

Furthermore, because Che Guevara is a Communist that does not make him less respectable or invalidate his actions. I'm not a Communist by any means, but in theory it's a beautiful (also impractical) system. Che may have been naive to think Communism is possible in its true form, but he remains one of Latin America's most beloved figures for a reason. Not everyone admires his actions, but those who do have their specific reasons. Comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, etc are uncalled for.

I admire Che Guevara. Not as a commie. Not as a "murderer". I admire him as a man who loved his people and wanted more for them. A man who died in the jungles of Bolivia for his people.

Cuba, despite the Embargo, isn't doing horribly either. They have decent, universal health care and their literacy rate is close to 100%.

I know some of you will retaliate with "You admire a murderer!" Well, that's what YOU believe Che is. I believe Che is a remarkable, courageous man. He may have killed, but he pulled the trigger himself unlike two certain draft dodgers who send young men and women to die in a desert for a terrible lie.

You're not changing anyone's opinion (at least those who have made up their mind) of Guevara so stop flogging a dead horse and let the debate rest.

[–] jojak 17 years ago

Everybody hates the Virginia Tech Killer Cho because his motivation was not clear. Che's motivation was clear. It's on you to decide if you like Che or Cho, their are both ideological killers, fighting the system.

[–] dsatchmo 17 years ago

This is a fallacious point...Cho was a lost, sociopathic-pathetic excuse for a college kid, Che was a doctor of souls who, (although his methods seemed harsh) managed to spearhead the only REVOLUTION in modern history 90 miles away from the US border. Cuba si...Yanki no.

I suggest a better approach to paint a picture of our our beloved CHE. Nice try rookie, what are you and Valentin AND Blueballs trying to sway dissention over to the Che haters?

OSPAAAL

Una mensaje para nuestros Xcubanos:
Espero que un dia, se pueden regresar a su pais, pero el problema que el XCubano siempre encuentra, es una problema de ser "estomago-amarillo". Andan nadando a My-jami, para continuar una vida de bestialiad, oppresion a los pobres, vivir para trabajar, pobres pendejos...se me parece que Uds. son completamente...Come Mierda.

[–] jojak 17 years ago

You don't know what Cho's ideals were. The American media only showed sound bits of his much longer video. The one thing we both know is that he used the same techniques as Che. And by the way, I'm not a Che hater, just like him for what he is: a poetic serial killer.

[–] Oh_Daesu85 17 years ago

There can be no comparison. The Virginia Tech Killer was a disturbed sociopath who's intentions did not extend beyond personal satisfaction and self righteousness.

Furthermore, Che can not be labeled a serial killer. A serial killer, by definition, is someone who feels the psychological urge to murder to feel powerful and in control.

[–] jojak 17 years ago

and please explain to me what part of Che Guevara doesn't match that description? "someone who feels the psychological urge to murder to feel powerful and in control?" It's almost a direct quote from Che's diaries.

[–] DerSchadel 17 years ago

God bless Che. He.was a hero of the last century.

[–] LordEdge 17 years ago

uhhhhh...
Does that make every American president (and many people of power around the world, just using the USofA for my familiarity) serial killers?
I mean, would you consider Hussein, Pot, Noriega, Truman, Hitler, Kennedy, Clinton, Pahlavi, Pinochet, and many more serial killers?
If so, badass, dude.

"I am also a married swinger."

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Cho: Some crazy Korean kid who was clearly disturbed, suicidal, and killed random people to fight "the system" (so you say).

Che: Valiant, heroic revolutionary who died for his cause fighting the ENEMY...fought for something, not simply against something.

Main difference: Che fought the enemy, Cho just randomly killed people.

If I have a problem with Chevron's horrible human rights abuses in Africa, do I go shoot a 16 year old high school gas station attendant?

Che would not. Cho would. Plain and simple.

Also: I believe Cuba's literacy rate is at 100%, according to recent data. That makes it the most literate country in latin america, does it not?

________________________________________
SUPPORT JERICHO AND HELP KEEP IT ON THE AIR!

[–] Oh_Daesu85 17 years ago

metsboyct,

Well said. It's a ridiculous comparison to begin with.

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

When a boy in Guevara’s forces stole some food, he ordered him shot. In January 1957, Guevara personally executed a peasant named Eutimio Guerra because he suspected him of passing on information and described the act in his diary:

“I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal. He gasped for a little while and was dead. Upon proceeding to remove his belongings I couldn’t get off the watch tied by a chain to his belt, and then he told me in a steady voice farther away than fear: “Yank it off, boy, what does it matter… I did so and his possessions were now mine.” [2, p. 237]

Later he shot Aristidio, a peasant who expressed the desire to leave whenever the rebels moved on. He ordered the death of Echevarría, a brother of one of his comrades, because of unspecified crimes: “He had to pay the price.” At other times he would simulate executions without carrying them out, as a method of psychological torture.

He wrote to a friend in December 1957, “Because of my ideological background, I belong to those who believe that the solution of the world’s problems lies behind the so-called iron curtain....” [3, p. 269]

“If in doubt, kill him” were Che's instructions. On the eve of victory, according to Costa, 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, as Marcelo Fernándes-Zayas, another former revolutionary who later became a journalist, has written--adding that among those executed, known as casquitos, were peasants who had joined the army simply to escape unemployment.

[2]Jon Lee Anderson, Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (New York: Grove Press, 1997).

[3] Carlos Franqui, Diary of the Cuban Revolution (New York: Viking Press, 1980).

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] liam_cos 17 years ago

Che killed anyone who didn't agree with him.

Che was against democracy.

Che was an idiot who when put in charge of Cuba's nat'l bank and sugar production caused a growing trade to crumble.

Che didn't die fighting the enemy, he got caught alive in hoppes that he would be spared.

It is funny that not a single peasant who he was there to help in bolivia took up arms with thim.

You have been sold a legend about a man who would be more than happy to put you against a wall and put a bullet in your head simply because you don't think like he does.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Che went to Guatemala and loved Arbenz's democratically elected government. The U.S. overthrew it. Che went to Cuba. Cuba's revolution succeeded. He did not want to see the U.S. overthrow this new country's government. I believe his words were "Cuba will not become another Guatemala". Hence, he could not allow it to be a democracy.

Was he against democracy? He did sign his letters Stalin II. However, once he went to the USSR, he was disillusioned by it (similar to Emma Goldman). He was, what, 22 when he wrote the letters? Stalin had a lot of lies coming out of his country, so its sensible that Che could think Stalin's government was good. After he went to Russia, he changed his mind.

Che did hurt the bank and such, but honestly...he was a doctor! Did he train in business? Let's see you study your whole life on literature, then pick up a book or two, read about business, then run Apple.

Would Che kill you if you disagreed with him? I doubt it. I think that Che would imprison you in Cuba because if he didn't, the next thing that happens is the US starts flying planes over Cuba distributing anti-Castro pamphlets, and then who knows? They might try to invade you (a la Bay of Pigs)!

And everybody brings up Che's executions. He executed people who were part of Batista's army. He executed people who shot, tortured, raped, and coerced the poor working class of Cuba. I'd shoot them too.

Would you be upset if Washington had wrote, "I hate the British. I hate them with every ounce of me. American soldiers need to hate the British, so they will be able to kill the enemy"? Would that be so horrible? Thats essentially what Che wrote about his enemies.

And as for nobody joining up with Che in Bolivia? Some peasants did help him. But imagine: you're alone with your son in the middle of the woods. Army helicopters fly overhead, along with planes. The U.S. backs them. You have little to no education. Army soldiers march by, saying how bad the Reds are. Suddenly, Che Guevara shows up. He says join his forces. Do you have any idea whats going on? Do you know what Communism, or fascism, or the political landscape of Latin America is? How can you just blindly throw your life at something like that? Both sides promising freedom, but essentially Che helped his people much more than the Bolivians did.

Americans are really the only people who hate Che. Especially East Coast Americans. I've seen Che shirts in Venezuela, Cuba (obviously), Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Mexico, and one of my friends just got back from Hong Kong, and said Che shirts were everywhere. So tell me. Are the Americans right, and the rest of the world wrong? Or have we simply been bombarded with enough propoganda to ignore all the great things Che did, and instead focused on the WAR CRIMINALS he executed? And worse, say that the WAR CRIMINALS deserved a fair trial?

________________________________________
SUPPORT JERICHO AND HELP KEEP IT ON THE AIR!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Let me start off by saying that was a great response.

Did Che feel he would be better running a business than a peasant? Yes. Does that mean hes good? No. I'm a better baseball player than a 90 year old woman, but that doesn't make me a good baseball player. Che had an education. Most of the Cuban people who weren't expelled (everyone except the mob and Batista's thugs) did not have an education. So is an educated doctor better to run a country's economy than an uneducated peasant? Yes. Is he a good person to run it? No.

You're right about the counter-revolutionary comment. Che did feel that way, but during the revolution. I truly believe, that had Arbenz (I'm sure you know who I mean, the Pres. of Guatemala) not been overthrown, Che would not have treated Cuba so brutally AFTER the revolution. I agree with Che. Revolutions have to be fierce. They have to be quick and hard. You cannot fight a revolution with rubber bullets.

He was fearful of the U.S. He did not want Cuba to become Guatemala. In order to make sure of that, he had to establish a dictatorship. If you want to see how the US has undermined DEMOCRACIES, look at Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc. As recently as 2002 we tried to overthrow a democratically elected government. As recently as 2006 if you count the Gaza Strip.

If Sadaam's army had raped and tortured Iraq's poor population, they should be shot and killed. I could care less if they are part of Sadaam's army, but if they were to use that position of power to rape and torture people, they should not be allowed to live.

I really cannot see how you can compare Bush and Che. Bush wants to INCREASE the gap between rich and poor. Che wanted to eliminate it. It's a completely opposite goal. If I want to get rid of someone who raped my wife, and I shoot him with a Colt pistol, you can't compare me to someone who shoots a child with a Colt pistol. Just because we use similar methods does not mean we are similar people.

Che is a romantic figure. People see him as all good. Nobody is all good. Do I wish Che had established a democracy? Yes. Do I think he could, without fear of the U.S. overthrowing it? No. Do I wish Che hadn't executed people so quickly? Yes. Do I have a problem with those people being killed? No.

And one point in which I strongly disagree:

"ultimately the Che, Castro and the Cuban Revolution the created on their own sabotaged one of LA's most promising countries, replacing it with an intolerant police state with no free expression or civil liberties and an economic system that keeps the country down."

Cuba, under Batista, would be worse off than under Castro. But the difference is, if Batista was still president, he wouldn't be considered "bad" in the US. Castro's two biggest accomplishments: education and health care. His citizens are learning and living. That's more than Batista did. Are they able to argue against the government? No. But you wouldn't be able to under Batista either.

And the reason their economy sucks? The United States. What do you always hear when people talk about Chavez? "Chavez, friend of Castro,..." Not only does the US NOT trade with Cuba, we pressure other countries not to trade with Cuba. One of the things we want from Chavez is to stop trade with Castro. Chavez is giving Cuba free energy and gas. Thats so awful, its clearly a threat to the United States.

In fact, in September last year, the United Nations (in a democratic way) voted for the US to END THE EMBARGO with a vote of 142-2. So if democracy is whats most important, why wouldn't we listen to the UN? Why are we hell-bent on starving the poor population of Cuba? Let's be honest, the embargo has done nothing to hurt Castro, just the poor people of Cuba.

________________________________________
SUPPORT JERICHO AND HELP KEEP IT ON THE AIR!

[–] lastknown 17 years ago

Kissinger sent flowers to Suharto's wife after he expired.

You try to make Guevara sound dirty. Noone is filth like those in the current Washington administration.

[–] basnuevo 16 years ago

I don’t know what enemy you are talking about….when Che died he was waving a guerrilla war against a government that was democratic elected. He could only gathered a couple of peasant not even the communists of Bolivia followed him and one reason was because from the beginning he put as a pre-condition that he would be the one calling the shots..what arrogance! to go to another country with that attitude. At the end, there are several quotes, letters and diary from this man that show he had not value for human life so it is useless to argue what even el Che left in writing

[–] Misanthropic_Humanist 16 years ago

And what of Cuba's human rights record? You don't know a thing. I'm Cuban. I have Cuban family members who lost friends to Castro and his evil machine. There are people in the EAST who have suffered greatly under the weight of Communism.

You know nothing.

http://RedPhantomAdventures.blogspot.com Adventures in Writing!

[–] TheLuddite 16 years ago

You know nothing.

Don't be so rough on Victorin ... he's trying his best with the lies he's been given.

[–] liutenantsalt 16 years ago

>>Don't be so rough on Victorin ... he's trying his best with the lies he's been given. <<

So pathetically and delusionally entrenched in his fantasy Proleteriat Dictatorship utopias and Golden Calves is TheLuddite, that he resorts to telling people who have suffered under Che and Castro and seen their atrocities first- and secondhand that what they actually lived through are but a pack of lies, and instead he, the adolescent joiner (probably also white and self-hating American) whose experience relies solely on cowtowing the conformist Marxist line and lies and historical revisions/omissions he's read in books written by capitalists seeking to make money by selling an image to gullible young Marxists, will show us all the way.

Provided, of course, we take his word without question or dissonance, and respond with haste and violence on anybody who challenges him with pesky facts. :)

It would be funny if it weren't so Hitleresque.

All the same, I'll take the firsthand accounts of victims over the parrotings of an ironically overpriviledged youth with delusions of iconoclasm who has never actually experienced Che's regime (aside from wearing shirts and reading disinegnious books manufactured to make a buck off the highly profitable gullibility of Marxists, of course) any and every day.

Keep up the good work, Victorin. Luddite may have glib intimidation attempts at ad hominem and jingoistic knee-jerk Communist rantings to parrot, but you have citable fact and testimony on your side.

[–] sacred_spot 15 years ago

I wish I had drawn the short straw.

[–] tomx1000 15 years ago

"I believe Cuba's literacy rate is at 100%"

yeah. and Cuba is also listed 5th from the bottom by the World Press Freedom Index, is "the second biggest prison in the world" for journalists (according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), and Human Right's Watch reports that the regime "represses nearly all forms of political dissent" and that "Cubans are systematically denied basic rights to free expression, association, assembly."

And by the way, the Cuban literacy rate is not 100%. The US currently has the highest literacy rate in the world, Cuba is tied for 17th, and even those statistics are dubious because it's a dictator that's releasing them.

and Cuba always had a good education system. It had nothing to do with Castro.

[–] ktrush 16 years ago

Doctor of souls???? You deluded moron. Che was a spoiled brat, too lazy to complete medical school or hold a steady job, who wandered S. America seeking pleasure and excitement. He was a coward who flinched in battle when he didn't completely turn tail and run. Che did not spear head a revolution. The revolution was bought and paid for by the Soviets, and Fidel was able to take power because Batista's army was bribed not to fight. He was a vindictive psychopath who killed without cause for the pleasure of it. He was a social climbing misfit, who, like every Stalinist, simply wanted to consolidate his own power, and live of the labors of others. He appropriated the most expensive mansion in Cuba to live in and even wore a gold Rollex. Even Fidel grew tired of him (and probably feared his psychotic tendencies) and so sent him off to the Congo to die. When Che ran away from battle in the Congo, Fidel sent him to Bolivia, where he deserted his troops and surrendered with a full clip in his sidearm, begging for his life.

Beloved Che? You're either a complete moron, and just as evil as he was.

[–] TheLuddite 16 years ago

Ktrush is full of $hit, as most right wingers are. The great thing about the internet is that every douche with a computer in his Mom's basement can spread libel and make up uncited lies and get away with it.

To his actual bull$hit post ...

Che was a spoiled brat

"He was demanding of everyone and practiced being a personal example. Once, Guevara and other ministry officials were served steaks during a severe food shortage. Steaks are a treasured meal for Argentines, but Guevara became incensed and ordered it all removed. "What is this?" Saenz quoted Guevara as saying in his biography. "No one is touching this meat. Take it away."

~ Tirso Saenz, fought under Che

too lazy to complete medical school

He recieved his medical license.

who wandered S. America seeking pleasure and excitement.

wow ... what a devil. As a young man he traveled South America and after seeing the under the scab of Imperialism ... he became a revolutionary. Go play in traffic you douche.

He was a coward who flinched in battle when he didn't completely turn tail and run.

“1:30 p.m.: Che’s final battle commences in Quebrada del Yuro. Simon Cuba (Willy) Sarabia, a Bolivian miner, leads the rebel group. Che is behind him and is shot in the leg several times. Sarabia picks up Che and tries to carry him away from the line of fire. The firing starts again and Che’s beret is knocked off. Sarabia sits Che on the ground so he can return the fire. Encircled at less than ten yards distance, the Rangers concentrate their fire on him, riddling him with bullets. Che attempts to keep firing, but cannot keep his gun up with only one arm. He is hit again on his right leg, his gun is knocked out of his hand and his right forearm is pierced.”

~ Daniel James, Che Biographer

The revolution was bought and paid for by the Soviets.

The Soviets were not involved at all in 1959 when the Revolution occured. They became relevant later when the US forced Castro into their hands.

He appropriated the most expensive mansion in Cuba

LIE ! I have seen his former house ... very small and basic.

to live in and even wore a gold Rollex

A gift from his father which is also a very reliable watch and thus he kept it.

"On his trips, he would receive gifts from his hosts, some of them very expensive. He would get presents for me as well, and he would give them away if he considered them too ostentatious. I was given a color TV only to see Che pass it on to a factory worker. And back then, it was sort of an unimaginable item. Once, after a trip to Algeria, he received a barrel of an excellent wine. When he arrived home, he told me to give it to the army barracks near our home. I would not always unconditionally obey his mandates. Knowing that wine was one of the few treats he allowed himself, I kept five liters."

~ Aleida March, Che's Wife

[–] plesma 14 years ago

*beep* A right he was a spoiled brat. its interesting that is favorite book was don quixote. a story about a delusional, insane man, who tries to make the world a better place by trying to impose outdated, ridiculous and childish ideas and ends up just creating more trouble.

i only wish he has been killed before cuba

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lop_gen 16 years ago

Well, i dont knwo who Cho is, But i think Bush and the American government killed many many many more people than Che did, and for unclear reasons.

[–] Wordsmith80 17 years ago

That said, Guevara is not admired because he "murdered". He's admired as a man who believed in something greater and acted selflessly to attain it.[i]

Acted selflessly to attain it? Maybe. Something "greater?" No. We already have an economic system that works...it's called Capitalism.

[i]He died fighting for what he believed in.

Duh. Many do.

His intentions for Latin America were noble. In retrospect, many argue he was misguided but I'm not sure if that's necessarily true.

He believed in an economic/government system that in order to attain a human race wide "equality" one must essentially surrender the monitoring of the goods, services, supply, and demand functions to the state (which is in effect, run by a few, or one supposedly highly "enlightened" individual who must have more powers and possessions than everyone else in order to lead and enforce the many in a permanent state of "equality" )

which is in itself highly hypocritical and HIGHLY inaccurate in regard to human nature. (if we all REALLY wanted to be economically/socially equal, why would we need a strong man/iron regime to enforce it? Wouldn't we all gladly become equal partners and comrades in the revolution instead of the fighting and back-stabbing that went on in the USSR to become the tyrannical dictator...err...I mean the "Chairman" or the "Premiere" of the state? ) You can't trust anyone or any idea to do exactly what it says in person or practice.

Believing in/ fighting for a system that denies the eternal human desire to want to individually rise above all of his or her peers and acquire more wealth, status, and power, and instead creates mass mediocrity and apathy in the workforce and in society as well as stagnation in achievement, yet still allows a few to oppress others with wealth and power as privileged individuals, exactly what it was set up NOT to allow....

= the very definition of misguided.

Bottom line, there will NEVER be universal social, and economic equality for humanity because humanity at large really doesn't want it...we're always looking out for number one to be "better" than the many, whether we like to admit this or not.

It's human nature...and if history has taught us anything, that innate part of us never changes...only the way in which we exercise it. At least Capitalism is honest about all this.

Bottom line...Che didn't really accomplish much and died for nothing...period.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Lazertron 17 years ago

He killed babies too. Awesome guy

[–] BoudreauxO76 17 years ago

Though I'm not sure I agree with you that its unfair to compare him to Stalin and Hitler I think you're right about why so many people-here in the US and abroad-admire him. They see him as an icon of the ancient struggle against power. Perhaps the best picture of Che would be the horse in Animal Farm, we can all guess who Stalin and Lenin were. One thing that Communism seeks to destroy that can never be destroyed is the cultural context of ideas. Russian and Chinese communism took hold in a very specific historical context that did not exist in the Western Hemisphere. The historical and cultural context of Latin America is such that it tends to exalt Revolutionaries for their own sake irregardless of their ideals. As to the bloody American Revolution this is true but we're not talking about the same thing at all. The North American historical and cultural context was much different than Che's so this really isn't a fair comparison.

I hope one day y'all will be talking about my stories on this website.

[–] AltaireIII 16 years ago

"Cuba, despite the Embargo, isn't doing horribly either. They have decent, universal health care and their literacy rate is close to 100%. "

Yes and under Apartheid in South Africa, the average black family was economically better off than black families in the rest of Africa. So Apartheid must not have been that bad after all?

The ends don't justify the means.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] imeiunovo 12 years ago

"a man who believed in something greater and acted selflessly to attain it".I'm always scared of this people they usually *beep* up and end killing a lot of people in the name of something greater.I don't believe in selfless acts, in his case even if he was doing things "for the others" he was at the same time fullfilling his own motivations.

[–] andrewh2 17 years ago

Can his reputation survive the publication of his own words?

" AT THE RISK OF SEEMING RIDICULOUS, LET ME SAY THAT THE TRUE REVOLUTIONARY IS GUIDED BY GREAT FEELINGS OF LOVE...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND A TRUE ( REPEAT TRUE--A.G.H. ) REVOLUTIONARY LACKING THIS QUALITY."

ERNESTO CHE GUEVARA, 1965

READ CHE'S PUBLISHED WORDS AT PATHFINDERPRESS.COM !

Comandante Ernesto Guevara was a doctor, an MD, an allergist, it is true. But above all he was a revolutionary SOLDIER.How many people can you name who Che murdered ? Killed or wounded enemy SOLDIERS in combat in the war against the Batista dictatorship, yes. A U.S. backed dictator, beloved of the Mafia of USA as well, who killed 20,000 Cubaans in the 1956-59 revolutionary war. Almost all of them CIVILLIANS.

So it was Batista and his backers in the US govt who were murderers-- mass murderers.

Perhaps 1500 of Batitsta's USA trained torturer-rapist-murderers were executed for their crimes after the triumph of the Revolution. That is who la señorita Victoria mourns. I say señorita in the sense of señorito--"little rich ( female ) person."

She does not mourn the literacy teachers, teenagers, murdered by the same types as those who landed at Playa Girón/Bay of Pigs.

To other readers: next time somebody says to you "Castro ( or Che ) killed my relative ! ", ask them what part of the Batista murder machine their relative worked for...or which branch of the US govt paid them to do murder and terrorism AFTER 1959, in Cuba.

Fifity thousand citizens of the country of my ancestors. Nicaragua, were murdered 1977-79 by the US- backed and trained Somoza dictatorship . That was a family dynasty placed in power in 1930s by...the U.S. Marines. FDR said the origianal Somoza was " a sonofabitch, but he's OUR sonofabitch."

Fifty thousand more Nicaraguans, mainly civillians, died at the hands of the " contra "terrorists trained and financed by Sra. Victoria's undoubted hero Ronald Reagan ( with the Democrats aid and comfort, as well as by CIA airlifted COCAINE ) from 1981-88 approx.

Saddam Hussein used Dow chemicals, with US technicians, to gas-murder thousands of Kurds at Jalabja.

Che fought his entire conscious life against the biggest terrorist apparatus in the world to this day-- The Empire based in the modern Rome, Washington, D.C. He shed blood in Cuba-- a "foreign" country to him. He shed blood in the Congo, for African liberation.He died fighting for and with the workers and farmers of Bolivia-- another "foreign" country to him. He died trying to take some of the heat off of Herioc Vietnam, at that time resisting the armed might of this Empire alone-- at least one to three million Vietnamese were rubbed off the face of the planet by the Empire.

But for Che, as for José Marti, the Apostle of Cuban independence, " the name of my country is humanity."

Andrew G. Hunt

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Typical lefty. "The USA is responsible for all of the ills of the world." What will you idiots do when we are gone and you no longer have anyone to blame for your fatally flawed ideology? Hope that the stste-owned transportation system is fast enough to get you the hell out of Dodge before the disillusioned masses tear you apart.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

I don't believe that at all. The USA has done some great things. They have also done horrible things.

Without the US, the Nazis may have conquered Europe. Also without the US, thousands of Japanese civilians would not have been nuked.

Things are not black and white. I just recognize that things are mostly gray.

________________________________________
SUPPORT JERICHO AND HELP KEEP IT ON THE AIR!

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

Guevara became “supreme prosecutor” at Havana’s La Cabaña fortress after Batista fled Cuba. Here he presided over hundreds of executions in proceedings that even a sympathetic biographer notes “were carried out without respect for due process.” [1, p. 143]

The "cold-blooded killing machine" did not show the full extent of his rigor until, immediately after the collapse of the Batista regime, Castro put him in charge of La Cabaña prison. Guevara presided during the first half of 1959 over one of the darkest periods of the revolution.

In April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his "Message to the Tricontinental": "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredon! (The Wall)" [4]

The first three months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. Even the New York Times admits it. The preceding "trials" shocked and nauseated all who witnessed them. They were shameless farces, sickening charades.

Nazi Germany became the modern standard for political evil even before WWII. Yet in 1938, according to both William Shirer and John Toland, the Nazi regime held no more than 20 thousand political prisoners. Political executions up to the time might have reached a couple thousand, and most of these were of renegade Nazis themselves during the indiscriminate butchery known as the "Night Of The Long Knives." The famous night that horrified civilized opinion worldwide caused a grand total of 71 deaths. This in a nation of 70 million.

Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million in 1959. Within three months in power Castro and Che had shamed the Nazi prewar incarceration and murder rate. Cuban journalist Luis Ortega who knew Che as early as 1954 writes in his book "Yo Soy El Che!" that Guevara sent 1,897 men to the firing squad. In his book "Che Guevara: A Biography," Daniel James writes that Che himself admitted to ordering "several thousand" executions during the first few years of the Castro regime.

[4] Alvaro Vargas Llosa, The Killing Machine, The New Republic, 11/7/2005

[–] dsatchmo 17 years ago

Victorin,
Stop posting the same bu llsh it over and over...have something new to say, in your own words, or did the public school in miami fail you? Stop using John lee andersons' book as your reference bible...
July 26 was yesterday, had your relatives stuck around to see what would've become of them, they and you could see the wall firsthand.

Go away you pansy pussy.

OSPAAAL

[–] don-biggs 17 years ago

Yeah Victorin,

Stop trying to confuse us with your facts. That is dangerous revisionism (even though it's the truth). This isn't about reality or improving the lives of the people, it is about following your emotions and undoing perceived injustices even if it means righting a wrong with a thousand more wrongs. We are talking about a pompous ideology here that declared itself scientific fact when in fact it was only a flawed theory and if the venomous passion is lost from the debate and it is looked at rationally it is only too obvious that it would never truly be implemented or work because man will not develop into "new man".

Any good that came from attempts at communism was a result of breaking trade barriers and the expansion of unfettered capital trade, not the suppression of this indispensable core of commerce... But we must ignore that and follow bitterness and envy until the whole globe is covered by this unrealistic philosophy and we can all equally suffer the consequences together.

[–] Frankc_ca 17 years ago

dsatchmo has done more to convince me that Communists are irrational than any history book. Not even Creationists get that angry when confronted with the truth.

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

In writing about Pedro Valdivia, the conquistador of Chile, Guevara reflected: “He belonged to that special class of men the species produces every so often, in whom a craving for limitless power is so extreme that any suffering to achieve it seems natural.” He might have been describing himself. At every stage of his adult life, his megalomania manifested itself in the predatory urge to take over other people's lives and property, and to abolish their free will.

He ordered his men to rob banks, a decision that he justified in a letter to Enrique Oltuski, a subordinate, in November of 1958: “The struggling masses agree to robbing banks because none of them has a penny in them.” This idea of revolution as a license to re-allocate property as he saw fit led the Marxist Puritan to take over the mansion of an emigrant after the triumph of the revolution. The urge to dispossess others of their property and to claim ownership of others' territory was central to Guevara's politics of raw power.

[–] dsatchmo 17 years ago

Victorin,
Your an IDIOT...stop trying to paint an image of CHE you cannot expect anyone with half a brian to buy...much less the guaticos you swam over to Miami with from Cuba.
Give it a rest, or put a personal idea on the board, but please, stop putting all this propagandist, crap out...were all tired of your stupid posts...

OSPAAAL

[–] jjmonitez 17 years ago

The truth hurts doesn't it?
Stupid left wingers. If some idiot comes and yell about the "atrocities" of the "right" that's TRUE, but if someone comes and show all the crap and filth of some *beep* like Ernesto Pin-Che Guevara, that´s just bull%%&sh%/it, right?
Grow up.
That poor idiot was a small time crook now glorified by a bunch of *beep*
By the way, the poor bastard died screaming like a pig. Well done Bolivia!!!!

Q: What happens if you get a gigabyte? A: It Megahertz!

[–] dsatchmo 17 years ago

I know this name..."Monitez" you are Cuban yes? Ahhh I do know you, the ones who werent chased off the island met their fate at the "wall"?

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Please...someone...tell me (with proof) what INNOCENT people Che killed. Maybe you are against the death penalty, and thought the punishment was harsh, but how many were innocent?

ALSO regarding the book "The real Che Guevara and the idiots who idolize him". I skimmed through the book the other day, but I didn't have the time to buy it. But I'm sure some of you have. Tell me: How many good things does it say about Che?? Whether or not you support him, you have to realize he did SOME good things. How many of these "good" things does that book tell you about? So if you want to cite that, its irrelevant. Thats the type of book where, if you shot someone while he was raping your child, it would say you "killed a man in cold blood without due process".

And about communism in general, I've never heard an academic talk about "human nature". Honestly, we can't predict the behavior of rats, and everyday normal citizens know all about HUMAN nature??? Also, Marxism is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy. The USSR was not strictly Marxist. It was communist in a very general way, but it did not benefit the people. Dictatorship of the proletariat (a term rightwingers love to use) MEANS rule of the masses. Hence, the democracy. Does capitalism mean democracy? Can it also be a dictatorship? The same goes for communism.

Also, for normal people...the top 10% of America owns 70% of the wealth. Therefore, 90% of America only has 30% of the wealth. In a communistic America, most people would see a spike in living conditions, and would actually have more than they do now. The same 90% of the population would control 80% more wealth! And lets be honest...who's a harder worker? The farmers and wage workers or Paris Hilton?

And dsatchmo isn't simply rejecting the truth. He's merely trying to say that Che is a very complicated character. You CANNOT simply put him in the "good" or "bad" category. When people come on these boards saying HE KILLED 500 PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD! HES A MURDERER! etc. etc. those are very, very, very one sided facts. Just as one sided as the people go "He was perfect! He did no wrong!" etc etc.

And like that stupid Cuban exile said: "That poor idiot was a small time crook now glorified by a bunch of *beep* "

Yeah...overthrowing a government is classical from SMALL TIME CROOKS. Reading philosophy, writing books, and now a source of inspiration to millions is definitely what happens with SMALL TIME crooks.

And what the hell are you talking about here: "The first three months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. Even the New York Times admits it. " You must be a right-winger, who thinks all the media is against them. It's a fact Che killed those people, or sentenced them to death. But again, how many were innocent? And the same trials that you claim shocked and nauseated people were cheered on by the massive crowds in the streets.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dhouseforlife 17 years ago

read exposing the real che guevara and the useful idiots that idolize him by Humberto fontova... i think its an interesting book that basically sums up che's atrocious behavior

[–] lastknown 17 years ago

dhouseforlife:

The deficience of such a book is that it Does sum up Guevara.

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

“It was during the last days of December 1959, the sound of the iron door opening was heard as they threw another person into the already crowded cell. It was a boy some 12 to 14 years old at most who had just become our newest cellmate. And what did you do? I defended my father so they wouldn't kill him, I couldn't stop it. Soon Che's goons came back, and they yanked the valiant boy out of the cell.

He gave the order to bring the boy first and he ordered him to kneel in front of the wall. The boy disobeyed the order with a courage that words can't express and responded to this infamous character: “If you're going to kill me you're going to have to do it the way you kill a man, standing, not like a coward, kneeling.”

Walking behind the boy, the Che said “whereupon you are a brave lad.” He upholstered his pistol and shot him in the nape of the neck so that he almost decapitated him.”

Here's a cold-blooded murderer who executed thousands without trial, who claimed that judicial evidence was an ”unnecessary bourgeois detail,” who stayed up till dawn for months at a time signing death warrants for innocent and honorable men, whose office in La Cabana had a window where he could watch the executions – and today his T-shirts adorn people who oppose capital punishment. By his own count, Che sent 2,500 men to "the wall." [5]

[5] Pierre San Martin, El Nuevo Herald , Diciembre 28, 1997.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

You cite from the Miami Herald? You cite from the spanish version of the Miami Herald? You cite from the Miami Herald who has government-paid reporters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nuevo_Herald#Government-paid_journalists

And I cannot help but notice, in a massive post like mine which raised many issues, you can only bring up one unverified instance taken from a very biased source. I could find a lot more bad things about Che on therealcuba.com, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

So, victorin, how about you find a real, viable source to cite that information (like a NEUTRAL source), and then respond to the rest of my post. Or are you unable? Are you so blinded by hate that you can't possibly respond?

Can you tell me one good thing Che did? He certainly did some good things. Lets hear one. Or are you another propagandist who presents half truths and flat out lies?

In case you forgot what my last post said, here it is:

Please...someone...tell me (with proof) what INNOCENT people Che killed. Maybe you are against the death penalty, and thought the punishment was harsh, but how many were innocent?

ALSO regarding the book "The real Che Guevara and the idiots who idolize him". I skimmed through the book the other day, but I didn't have the time to buy it. But I'm sure some of you have. Tell me: How many good things does it say about Che?? Whether or not you support him, you have to realize he did SOME good things. How many of these "good" things does that book tell you about? So if you want to cite that, its irrelevant. Thats the type of book where, if you shot someone while he was raping your child, it would say you "killed a man in cold blood without due process".

And about communism in general, I've never heard an academic talk about "human nature". Honestly, we can't predict the behavior of rats, and everyday normal citizens know all about HUMAN nature??? Also, Marxism is not a dictatorship. It is a democracy. The USSR was not strictly Marxist. It was communist in a very general way, but it did not benefit the people. Dictatorship of the proletariat (a term rightwingers love to use) MEANS rule of the masses. Hence, the democracy. Does capitalism mean democracy? Can it also be a dictatorship? The same goes for communism.

Also, for normal people...the top 10% of America owns 70% of the wealth. Therefore, 90% of America only has 30% of the wealth. In a communistic America, most people would see a spike in living conditions, and would actually have more than they do now. The same 90% of the population would control 80% more wealth! And lets be honest...who's a harder worker? The farmers and wage workers or Paris Hilton?

And dsatchmo isn't simply rejecting the truth. He's merely trying to say that Che is a very complicated character. You CANNOT simply put him in the "good" or "bad" category. When people come on these boards saying HE KILLED 500 PEOPLE IN COLD BLOOD! HES A MURDERER! etc. etc. those are very, very, very one sided facts. Just as one sided as the people go "He was perfect! He did no wrong!" etc etc.

And like that stupid Cuban exile said: "That poor idiot was a small time crook now glorified by a bunch of *beep* "

Yeah...overthrowing a government is classical from SMALL TIME CROOKS. Reading philosophy, writing books, and now a source of inspiration to millions is definitely what happens with SMALL TIME crooks.

And what the hell are you talking about here: "The first three months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. Even the New York Times admits it. " You must be a right-winger, who thinks all the media is against them. It's a fact Che killed those people, or sentenced them to death. But again, how many were innocent? And the same trials that you claim shocked and nauseated people were cheered on by the massive crowds in the streets.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] Frankc_ca 17 years ago

Your-God, I really hope you are joking.

"Can you tell me one good thing Che did? He certainly did some good things. Lets hear one. Or are you another propagandist who presents half truths and flat out lies?"

It doesn't really matter how many good things the man did when he was executing thousands of people, especially when he did it in such a flippant way. I'm sure I could come with a lot of good things Hitler did, but since he started the bloodiest war in human history and killed over 12 million people (6 million of them Jews) in the most planned mass murder of all time, I'm sure the Autobahn is a small consolation.

"Please...someone...tell me (with proof) what INNOCENT people Che killed. Maybe you are against the death penalty, and thought the punishment was harsh, but how many were innocent?"

You obviously don't know how guilt is determined. YOU have to provide evidence that they were guilty. That is how all people that care about not punishing innocent people do it.

"And about communism in general, I've never heard an academic talk about "human nature". Honestly, we can't predict the behavior of rats, and everyday normal citizens know all about HUMAN nature???"

You do have a point, 'human nature' is a way of saying 'because I said so'. Humans are flexible and have free will, human nature is effectively saying that neither is the cause. However, the reason why free will exists is what cancels out Communism. For Communism to really work, everyone has to be playing by the rules at all times and everyone has to be working as hard as they can and take only what they need, if they take a little extra or slack off for a bit, it creates instability. If the system becomes unstable, you either don't deal with it, which causes further break down or you deal with it in a way that is far more tyrannical than anything capitalism has to offer.

"Also, for normal people...the top 10% of America owns 70% of the wealth. Therefore, 90% of America only has 30% of the wealth. In a communistic America, most people would see a spike in living conditions, and would actually have more than they do now. The same 90% of the population would control 80% more wealth! And lets be honest...who's a harder worker? The farmers and wage workers or Paris Hilton?"

No, there would probably NOT be a rise in living standards. Most of the wealth is in things like stocks and bonds, things that would become worthless if Communism ever did take hold.

And the Labor Theory of Value is stupid. Hard work does not make anything valuable. Value is subjective. I could spend hours crapping into paper bags and drawing nice designs on them, but no one would want it, despite my hard work.

"And dsatchmo isn't simply rejecting the truth."

Yes, he is. He is also rejecting logic and all debating standards.

"Yeah...overthrowing a government is classical from SMALL TIME CROOKS. Reading philosophy, writing books, and now a source of inspiration to millions is definitely what happens with SMALL TIME crooks."

Helping overthrow Batista wasn't a bad thing, the bad thing was installing a dictatorship and killing thousands (which is less than Batista killed). Best case, Che just replaced one tyrant with another. Hardly noble.

Hitler also wrote a book that still inspires people to this day, his politics had its roots in the works of several philosophers, and his writings, speeches, and methods have influenced political theory as well. He was also a highly decorated war veteran. See how flawed your above paragraph is? Everything I said is true and it makes it sound like he was a respectable man, but he wasn't. He was a murderer and tyrant who let nothing and nobody get in way.

"And what the hell are you talking about here: "The first three months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. Even the New York Times admits it. " You must be a right-winger, who thinks all the media is against them."

I agree, the comment about the New York Times is rather questionable, but during the reign of Stalin, the New York Times did have a lot of opinion pieces and reporters who were sympathetic to Stalin and it is documented, so it is not there has never been any bias in the paper's history.

"It's a fact Che killed those people, or sentenced them to death. But again, how many were innocent? And the same trials that you claim shocked and nauseated people were cheered on by the massive crowds in the streets."

A blood thirsty mob cheered on violence. What does this prove exactly?

[–] dsatchmo 17 years ago

I have never stated that I reject the truth...I have however stated that the complexities and nuances of leaders during wartimes cannot be put into a simple context of "black and white" right and wrong.

With regards to "debating standards" this is absurd. Are these standards set forth by the official debating offices of the American debating federation?

Truthfulness, introspection, reason, recognizing other points of view...etc. I dont know why you paint a picture of all opposing thoughts of reason as "childish, unrealistic, untruthful.

The Hitler comparison angers me more than others, mainly because this is a moot point. How can I reason with a man who actually belives Che Guevara can be compared to Adolf Hitler?

Remember that Che Guevara, although a true utopian dreamer...has captured the hearts of millions around the world for his unfaltering drive and conviction to better his world, to speak for the masses, the proletariat, the voiceless....

There is no debate...you dont like his methods? Lets put you in the drivers' seat and see how your leadership would play out? There is death and destruction during war, thats a fact-deal with it. People responsible for the exploitation of Cuba were held responsible and summarily executed. I would do the same under those conditions.

There were innocents Im sure, however there is an acceptable "marginal-error" and although you probably dont agree, our American generals in Iraq have their spreadsheets with boxes like "collateral damage", "hostiles insurgents" "friendly-fire"...the point is, we are human-imperfect in our objectives, there are always mistakes, people die.

Hope there is a little more clarification now, and thanks to people like Your-God who get the big picture, and see there is a "method to the madness" in wartime and leadership.

dsatchmo

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Tell me how I'm joking?

The one good thing I asked that bozo to tell me about Che Guevara is to bring in objectivity. Adolf Hitler did some great things for Germany. Many people still believe in his form of government. I understand that Hitler did good things, and bad things. The same thing applies to Che. I understand he did good things, and he did bad things. What I'm trying to get at is that people like victorin present an OBJECTIONABLE view. Any moron can say "Hitler is evil. He killed millions. He was a bad man." But a true scholar and intellectual would say "I understand that Hitler was elected in a democracy, and I understand that he was arguably the greatest leader in history with is ability to unite a country. That said, I think that he is a bad stain on history because those good things were vastly overshadowed by his genocide." That is what I'm trying to establish. There are too many people who simply put Che in a "good" or "bad" category. I can go on therealcuba.com and read about how much of a murderer he is, how he was a monster, the same as I can read Fidel Castro's speeches about how Che was a great man, the perfect human, etc. etc. You have to UNDERSTAND WHY he executed the people. He didn't overthrow Batista then go "I think I'll shoot everyone who gave me a bad look". They had public and open trials with defense lawyers, and determined to execute the people. You can disagree with the punishment, but there were no "innocent" people killed. If you want to find an innocent person killed thanks to Che, look at the civilians Batista's army killed simply for being poor and at the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose you could blame Che for those deaths too, because if his group of fighters weren't there, Batista's troops wouldn't have been there either.

"You obviously don't know how guilt is determined. YOU have to provide evidence that they were guilty. That is how all people that care about not punishing innocent people do it. "

They did. They held open, public trials. The people, along with the judge, determined guilt. They did not simply execute people who was left handed or brown eyed.

"For Communism to really work, everyone has to be playing by the rules at all times and everyone has to be working as hard as they can and take only what they need, if they take a little extra or slack off for a bit, it creates instability. "

Wrong. Communism is "the advancement of one is the advancement for all" (or something like that). In a nutshell, its a system where people advance themselves as much as they can SO LONG AS they do not impose an inverse reaction among other humans.

"No, there would probably NOT be a rise in living standards. Most of the wealth is in things like stocks and bonds, things that would become worthless if Communism ever did take hold. "

Well, if I have 70 dollars in stocks, and my 9 neighbors have only 30 dollars in stocks together, and I spread it out then it is different. It would be: I have 10 dollars in stocks, and the 9 other neighbors have 90 dollars in stocks as well. Thats 10 dollars in stocks per person. So yes, there would be a rise in personal wealth. Would that alone give people clean drinking water? No, but they would have the money to do it.

But my original point was that if you took 20% of the wealth away from the top 10% of America, you could invest that in massive social programs. You could take that money and make better schools, hospitals, etc. Thats how you put people over profits in a capitalist society.

"Best case, Che just replaced one tyrant with another. Hardly noble. "

That's just ignorant. One dictatorship was one that horribly oppressed its people, let them starve ignorant and helpless. The other one is a government that has made a country with 100% literacy rate. It has universal health care despite an embargo that prevents them from getting many necessary tools/medicines. This is all when most other Latin American/Caribbean nations are starving to death, with literacy rates that are embarrassing.

"Hitler also wrote a book that still inspires people to this day, his politics had its roots in the works of several philosophers, and his writings, speeches, and methods have influenced political theory as well. He was also a highly decorated war veteran. See how flawed your above paragraph is? Everything I said is true and it makes it sound like he was a respectable man, but he wasn't. He was a murderer and tyrant who let nothing and nobody get in way. "

YES! That is what I am saying. You can say all good things about Hitler AND Che. You can say all bad things about them both. BUT THE FACT IS, THINGS ARE NOT THAT BLACK AND WHITE. THEY ARE A GRAY. You have to understand that people like viocdin are presenting HALF TRUTHS. dsatchmo IS TRYING TO SAY THAT. He's calling what viocdin is saying false because THEY ARE! They may be true, but they are taken out of context. To me, if you were to say "Hitler was a great man" I'd say what did he do wrong? If you said to me "Truman's decision to nuke Japan was a monstrous act" I'd say what did he do it for, and what else did he do right? I would not simply accept the fact that Che executed people without finding out WHY he did it and what the circumstances were. Therefore, because it is a half truth, it is a lie. Some 14 year old who hops on this board and reads that will see only the bad side of Che when that's not all thats there.

Regardless of your opinion of Che, you MUST recognize that there is good and bad. I asked viocdin to tell me a good thing about him because it has to be shown that he isn't simply a propagandist. It has to show that he knows THE WHOLE TRUTH, and then makes a decision.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] tquinlan-1 17 years ago

Wow.

This is just wow.

Che Guevara wasn't complicated. Not many people are. From the standpoint of many people, he was a monster. There are certainly many facts to back that up. Other people view him as a savior, hero, and legendary figure.

But let me ask you all one question. And answer it truthfully: Would you rather live in any part of Cuba or any part of the United States?

Answer as you see fit, but I'm willing to put money on the outcome.

People can hate both places all they want, but the big difference is that in one place you get killed for it and in the other people argue with you.

And who did that killing in Cuba?

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

What? Please explain to me how he was not complicated? Volumes have been written about this guy. And for that matter, everyone is pretty much complicated, unless you spend your life in a coma.

Are you like...mentally impaired? How can you possibly say a figure that is this polarizing is not complicated? I mean, if we are all just naturally "good" and "evil", then I guess murderers are not to be held responsible for their own actions, Truman nuking Japan was an act from God, and 9/11 would happen no matter what. Yeah. That makes a whole boatload of sense.

And as to your question, it's very complicated. That is like comparing the US to Switzerland. It's obvious where I'd live, but it has nothing to do with governments. A similar question would be "Who would you rather play for? The Mets or a little league team?" The answer is obvious, but it has nothing to do with the coaching styles or team management. If the choice were between MEXICO, or CUBA, I'd choose Cuba hands down. If they choice was between Cuba and Haiti (which is capitalist), I'd choose Cuba. If the choice was between Batista's Cuba, or Castro's, I'd choose Castro.

A common argument is "if Cuba is so great why do people float over on rafts to Florida?" It's economics. Its funny that whenever people migrate from Cuba, our enemy, they do it to avoid a ruthless, horrible tyrant. But when they migrate from Mexico in much larger numbers, it isn't the government or capitalism's fault, its just poverty.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

When the Rumanian writer Stefan Baciu visited Havana, Che Guevara
invited him to be present at an execution. Baciu has made reference a few times
to this macabre invitation, the last time in his poem:

"I DO NOT SING TO CHE"

I do not sing to Che,
neither I have sung to Stalin
with Che I spoke enough in Mexico,
and in Havana he invited me,
biting the pure between the lips,
like inviting somebody to a drink in the bar,
to accompany him to see how people are shot at the wall in la Cabaña.

I do not sing to Che,
neither I have sung to Stalin;
let Neruda, Guillen and Cortazar sing to him;
they sing to Che (the singers of Stalin),
I sing to the youth of Czechoslovakia.

The difference between ‘Che’ Guevara and Pol Pot was that Guevara never studied in Paris.

But the mass-executioner gets a standing ovation by the same people in the U.S who opposes capital punishment! Is there a psychiatrist in the house?!

[–] tquinlan-1 17 years ago

First off you never answered my question. That, to me, speaks volumes about anything you could offer in this debate.

Second, I don't find him complicated at all. Volumes have been written about plenty of men I don't find complicated. There are volumes on George W. Bush and find him very simple.

Third, your analogies are flawed. It isn't like comparing the Mets and a little league team. A better analogy could be the Mets and the Pirates. The "Mets to little league" analogy would make more sense if we were comparing a country to a colony or a country to a territory. But Cuba and the US are both countries, have leadership, have money, and are on the same playing field. So your question should really be "would you rather play for the Mets or the Pirates", then it'd make more sense.

Finally, you proved my point without answering my question. The US is a better country than Cuba. It is more free, people have better oppurtunity, and living conditions are better. Whether it be from poverty or a dictator, the US is a better country. I never mentioned Mexico or Haiti. They have nothing to do with this. If you want to reply to my question, answer it. Don't try to spin it because I'll call you on it.

So please, answer the question I asked.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Well I don't see how you can find this man "simple". He has changed history, and he was a very bright man. Do you find Nietzsche "simple" too? If so, why bother even reading his work? Just read the back of the book so you can find how "simple" he is. Che Guevara's ideologies were very complicated. Communism is a very complex idea and theory, and Che Guevara believed in it. Therefore, you cannot say he was simply a "communist". You have to know if he was a Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, or libertarian socialist. Did he believe in democracy? Etc. You cannot sum him up in 3 paragraphs. He is complicated.

And no, my analogies are not flawed. You are comparing the worlds biggest superpower to a tiny country that is prohibited from trading with any of the superpower's allies.

Are you really serious about this? Let's compare:

One was founded around the year 1800, when travel was slow, and after a popular revolution they were able to safely institute democracy. It had enemies, but after the Revolutionary War they were not really threatened much. The US was able to trade with whoever it pleased.

One was founded after a hard, but popular civil war. A short time after victory, they were invaded by the world's largest superpower. Immediately after that, an embargo was placed on the country preventing trade.

So you cannot compare the two. Would I rather live in the US or Mexico...the answer is the US, and it has NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNMENT. Can you comprehend this? It is simple economics. If the polar ice cap was the freest, most democratic nation in the world, I'd still rather not live there.

So can you understand this? When the world's SUPERPOWER tries to make a tiny country POOR, it has no problem doing this. So to say would you rather live in the SUPERPOWER or the country that is poor because of the superpower, its not a choice at all.

If I punched a kid in the nose, who would you rather be? The kid who got punched, or the kid who did the punching? Of course you'd rather by the kid who threw the punch, but does that make him better?

So you cannot compare a poor Latin American country to the world's richest country. It has nothing to do with government.

What you have to do, in this situation, if you want to compare countries LEADERSHIP, you have to compare one poor country to another. You know, in science, you try to have as few variables as you can. Did you pass science? Well, since America is massive, has many more natural resources, a much larger military, has been around longer, and is in fact the richest nation, you can't compare governments. You compare a poor country with Castro to a poor country like Mexico. That way, you reduce the variables as much as you can, and you compare Castro to American allied democracy.

But then again, someone who finds a very polarizing and influential character like Che Guevara simple probably will have trouble wrapping their heads around this. For the simple approach, I'm sure you read a book called "Che Guevara: and the idiots who idolize him" or a similar book. Or is it "simple" that Che died with a Rolex on his wrist, and therefore he was a hypocrite? Because you would find that a complex issue. In fact, and you can look this up if you don't believe me, one of his comrades died and the watch was of family importance, so Che put it on his wrist to give to his dead friend's family. Now, that's not TOO complex for you is it?

But then again, I'm sure GW Bush is really simple to you. I bet he's one of your "good" guys, right?

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

That response was...well...very unintelligent.

But in a capitalist economy, how else are you supposed to get your message across? I shouldn't buy any of Che's, Chomsky's, Marx's, or Proudhon's books in Barnes and Noble because that supports capitalism?

Honestly guys, lets put a little thought into these responses.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Basic tenets of Marxism

1. Abolition of property rights.

Government intervention in the buying and selling of goods increases by an order of magnitude. Investments are verboten. The concept of private property is virtually destroyed. Neo-marxists are quick to point out that Marx only wanted to eliminate "exploitative" capitalist property, rather than the personal property of the "artisan and craftsman". However, Marx never explained how to preserve one while eliminating the other. For example, at what point do Grandma's savings become exploitative capitalist investments? How do you criminalize one without criminalizing the other?. The result of his half-baked idea is a proposal which is impossible to implement, so real communist states have historically abolished all forms of private property (thus creating a vacuum which black marketeers sprang up to fill).

2. State seizure of transportation services.

Emigration is criminalized, and the state seizes control of all means of transport (note that this state monopoly should not be confused with modern public transit systems, which must compete with private companies and personal vehicles). This has the effect of eliminating freedom of movement, since citizens become dependent on government services in order to travel. Again, neo-Marxists claim that Karl Marx only had the loftiest of goals in mind (getting the vital transportation services out of the hands of greedy capitalists), but they forget that he failed to explain why a government would be a better service provider than a free market. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and the state seizure of transportations would represent a vast increase in government power. Do you remember the old adage about how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Karl Marx didn't.

3. State seizure of communication services.

Insurrectionist activities are criminalized, and the state seizes control of all means of communication. This has the effect of limiting or removing freedom of expression, since the state can easily muzzle anyone they wish. Again, neo-Marxists are quick to point out that Marx only intended to take vital services from greedy capitalists, but as before, his cure is worse than the disease.
Remember that true freedom of expression is not merely the right to express yourself at the government's forbearance; it is the right to express yourself even when the government is offended by your remarks. It is the right to express yourself even when many in the government fervently wish you would shut the hell up. How can this kind of freedom possibly exist when the government controls all the means of communication? How does Karl Marx solve this problem? He doesn't! He assumes the government will voluntarily restrain itself from abusing its newfound absolute power! "Naiveté" is a gross understatement.

4. Elimination of religion and traditional families.

Karl Marx predicted that religion would fall by the wayside with the advent of the Age of Reason. To be fair, he was hardly alone in this belief, and he didn't explicitly advocate the forcible elimination of religion. However, since he described it as a mandatory aspect of a communist state, real communist states have inevitably attempted to meet his expectations through force. As a result, his recommendations tended to result in the elimination of freedom of religion. The situation is simpler with the elimination of the family, which he did explicitly call for (most specifically in the areas of marriage and inheritance). Again, he claimed to have only the noblest of motives, insisting that the family structure was conducive to capitalist exploitation and was therefore harmful to society. Of course, he provided no evidence to support this attack on the family and no explanation of why noncommital sex and state-raised children would be an improvement over the status quo, but that was typical of his modus operandi: make questionable attacks on capitalists and then recommend state ownership as the solution without bothering to show how the state would do a better job.

5. State seizure of industry.

Naturally, if you're going to seize services such as communication and transportation, you might as well seize every other industry as well. In Karl Marx's collectivized utopia, monopolies are good, and competition is bad. All food and manufactured products come from only one supplier: the government. If they don't make a product the way you want it, then you're stuck because there are no competitors. If they don't make it at all, then you're SOL. If they don't make enough supply to meet demand, then you must line up for whatever they have made (remember the Soviet bread lines?). The effect of this proposal is greatly decreased consumer choice (why have thirty brands of breakfast cereal when there's only one supplier and no competition?), poor product quality (why improve the product when the "customer" has no choice but to take whatever you've made?), and chronic supply shortfalls (the inevitable result of production being managed by government bureaucrats rather than the self-corrective free-market supply and demand mechanism).

6. Citizens are forced to work.

Since citizens no longer have an economic incentive to work, there is no way to keep all of the populace working without resorting to the threat of punishment. Karl Marx describes it as the "equal obligation of all to work" rather than explicitly naming the use of force, but as with many of his other proposals, it is a half-baked and half-formed idea, lacking the courage to explicitly name the unpleasant mechanisms required for implementation. How is this "obligation" supposed to be enforced? Marx never explained, and neo-Marxists are quick to gloss over the subject.

oh wow. sweet. where do i sign up?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tquinlan-1 17 years ago

At this point I'm going to assume to aren't equipped mentally to answer the question.

I'm moving beyond you simply not wanting to and into you are mentally impaired in some way. You've had two chances, and you are 0 for 2.

And you clearly display your lack of any thinking skills when you say George Bush is one of my buddies or people.

You sir, are an idiot and not worth any more time.

P.S.
The answer to the question was the U.S.A. Where people aren't killed for what they beleive or beleiving different than the government.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Hey tquinlan-1, I guess you didn't read my post. You must not have made it past 2nd grade, have you?

I'm saying I would rather live in the US. I believe I said that. BUT, what I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with politics, just economics. Richest nation in the world vs. one of the poorest.

I compared your question to a simple scenario. A big, stupid kid punches a small, smart kid in the nose. Who would I rather be? I'd rather be the big kid, but not because he is "right" or "just" or anything. Simply because he is in a better condition than the small kid.

Now let me ask you this: is it in America's best interest if Cuba has a "successful" economy, or would America try its hardest to make Cuba a poor, starving country to show the world how "communism" and "nationalization of corporation property" doesn't work?

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

That's right. The old "it's only American imperialism and economic sabotage that blocks the utopia of communism from bringing sunshine and happiness to the worls - and not it's fundamental flaws.

This, with the USSR having done everything it could to try to ensure Cubam success. Oh yeah, forgot about that.

Wake up, man. Communism is, and always has been, simply a method of rallying ignorant, uneducated poor people to revolt, so that one ruling class can be replaced with another.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

How many capitalist countries have been overthrown? How many have been replaced by capitalist governments again?

Look, communism isn't just a cut and dry theory. After reading Wealth of Nations, its not like people can just go "Oh thats it" and adopt an economic theory for a country. Communism is an experiment, and it has not been given a fair chance.

You can say "of course it has" but it really hasn't. How many communist countries are/were democracies? The answer is 2. Arbenz was elected democratically in Guatemala, and the US overthrew him. Now, there is Chavez, who the US ALSO overthrew. But do you know what happened after that? Millions of people marched in the streets and popular support got him back into office. The point is that no country with a democracy that chose communism or socialism has existed for a sustainable period of time. And since communism helps the MASSES, it does need a democracy.

* Edit: I forgot about Allende. He was elected democratically, but it didn't work out. I guess therefore democracy doesn't work right? Actually, he was overthrown by the U.S. And, I guess you could count Ortega and Morales, but their revolutions aren't as radical as Chavez. Ortega was also overthrown by the US too, but they did it by pouring millions of dollars into the other candidate. One term later, he's back in office.

And let me ask you this: do you think capitalism works? Especially when millions of people die every day because of preventable diseases and famine simply because they are "poor"?

And as for my personal opinion, the USSR was awful and deserved to be overthrown. In my way of thinking, it was not even communist because it was NOT a democracy, it didn't care about the people, it established dictators in other countries, etc. Lenin said that the elements of a dictatorship would fade away as more countries turned commie, but that clearly did not happen.

People criticize the USSR and say it was "communist" and therefore communism doesn't work. Nazi Germany was capitalist. Does that mean capitalism is ALWAYS like Nazi Germany? Just like it doesn't ALWAYS mean communism is the Leninist/Stalinist model.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Thank you for proving my point. "Communism doesn't work because the US won't let it."

I also see that you have been drinking the "pure communism has never been implemented" cool aid. It's as though all of you took the same "How to Defend Communism in Conversation" class. And if it can't even be implemented to your liking, I'd call that a serious design flaw.

And please, the only reason Venezuela has a pot to piss in is because of the high price of oil - which is generally attributed to the good ole US of A. You're welcome. And they really aren't that strong an economy. Going on television and damning the US may present the illusion of strength (hell, it's the new fad, done by Iran, N. Korea and several others), but in the end, what you have is a very weak economy kept afloat by one single resource.

Another old standard I enjoy is your practice of blaming all the ills of the world on capitalism. People have been "dying of famine and disease" since the dawn of time. Capitalism didn't kill them all. Why don't you ask all of those people who are dying of malnutrition in N. Korean work camps (sound familiar?) how they feel about the splendors of communism.

Like I said above. Communism is a lie. It only seeks to rally the ignorant poor into a revolt against the ruling class so that another ruling class can take over. Any system of authoritarian government - communism, capitalism or whatever else - requires leadership, and those who seek leadership are ALWAYS going to be the same class of power-hungry, self-serving individuals that claw their way to the top of ANY system. That's why your naive and childish ideology has never and will never work.

All you end up with are these pseudo-military "cults of personality" of which Che and Fidel Castro are prime examples.

[–] dsatchmo 17 years ago

Blueboy,

You are a parasitic, little mosquito that will not go away. Everytime I check my arm, you have bitten me, taken more of my blood, left a welt on my arm. Please stop visiting me in the middle of the night, creeping along with your little fangs, waiting for the next time I lay my head down.

Above and beyond it all, you spread this disease everytime you bite another unsuspecting victim.

Go away little bloodsucking vampire...leave me alone.

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

You really think I'm stalking you? You are one delusional, angry little dude.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Two responses, both are long, so I will answer the separately.

This condescending joke of a post doesn't really deserve a response, but I'll respond anyways.

Venezuela's economy is on the verge of collapse. I will say that. It cannot go halfway socialist, halfway capitalist, or it will collapse. It also has to show it can do other things than pull oil out of the ground.

That being said, what is the best way to do this? It isn't letting Citgo and Mobil take all the profits for themselves, in fact it is education. Last I checked, Chavez's popularity is huge, he has increased both health care and education, and he is bringing simple things like electricity and water to poor villages.

And the next post had a better answer to the starvation point. I don't think that little kids should be punished with starvation because their parents were not born in the states. My personal beliefs are that, despite a capitalistic or communist economy, the whole world has an obligation to provide everyone with FOOD, CLOTHING, EDUCATION, and HOUSING. If that is implemented in a capitalistic society, then everyone has equal opportunity to advance themselves. If it happens in a communist society, they will all have the same opportunities for life as everyone else.

And when N Korea starves its citizens, it isn't because of a crazy dictator, it clearly must be a problem of communism! But when Africans die, it isn't because of capitalism, its because of crazy dictators.

Serious people don't consider N Korea communist. It's a Stalinist state.

Communism is not just cut and dry. I've been saying this for as long as I can remember. It is just like capitalism. In capitalism you have the threat of a crazy dictator, famine, human rights abuses, etc. The same thing applies to communism. There are communists who prefer dictators, and communists who prefer democracies, and communists who prefer no government.

And yeah. The part about communism being a lie makes a whole lot of sense. I mean, yeah, opinions and political theories are definitely capable of being a lie.

And yes, it will be power hungry people climbing to the top. It will have a threat of self-serving individuals in power. The same thing applies to the United States. That is the reason, in my opinion, that communism needs to be democratic.

But since you feel the need to call any ideology that disagrees with you "childish" and "naive", I guess your world would just be that much better if everyone agrees with you. I don't even want everyone to be a communist. The world needs communists just like it needs capitalists. But if you want to establish an Orwellean world, that's up to you.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frankc_ca 17 years ago

"Look, communism isn't just a cut and dry theory. After reading Wealth of Nations, its not like people can just go "Oh thats it" and adopt an economic theory for a country. Communism is an experiment, and it has not been given a fair chance."

It has. It has been tried out in more than 15 countries and its benefits have shown to be marginal at best.

In the best cases were large scale socialization has taken place, there have been shortages, hyperinflation, and even economic collapse. Wow, with that being the best cases the logical solution is to try it more often.

"You can say "of course it has" but it really hasn't. How many communist countries are/were democracies? The answer is 3. Arbenz was elected democratically in Guatemala, and the US overthrew him. Now, there is Chavez, who the US ALSO overthrew. But do you know what happened after that? Millions of people marched in the streets and popular support got him back into office. The point is that no country with a democracy that chose communism or socialism has existed for a sustainable period of time. And since communism helps the MASSES, it does need a democracy. [Allende] was elected democratically, but it didn't work out. I guess therefore democracy doesn't work right? Actually, he was overthrown by the U.S. And, I guess you could count Ortega and Morales, but their revolutions aren't as radical as Chavez. Ortega was also overthrown by the US too, but they did it by pouring millions of dollars into the other candidate. One term later, he's back in office."

I'm not very familiar with Ortega or Arbenz, so I can't say too much about them. However, I do know a fair bit about Allende and Chavez. There were two attempts to oust Allende by the US and both were unsuccessful. One was to fund opposition parties with the hopes of them winning the election, that wasn't successful. The next was to organize a coup, they weren't able to get enough officers in the Chilean military to support it. The September 11 Coup was Chilean in origin and the was merely happy that it happened. Allende had run the economy into the ground (look up the protests from housewives that where unable to buy food because of his economic meddling and look up what the inflation rates for Chile were during the Allende years). Not mentioning some of Allende's statements regarding those that opposed his policies or his relationship with Cuba and the KGB... In the end he was overthrown by a dictator who in 17 years of rule killed less people than Che and Fidel in their first three years and left Chile as a democracy (Pinochet lost an election) and with one of the strongest economies in South America. While his human rights record leaves much to be desired (an extreme understatement), he was far better than pretty much every socialist leader.

As far as Chavez goes, give me a break. Are you aware of his attempted coup in 1992? How about denying licenses to media outlets that are critical? How about his saber rattling at the United Kingdom that he started a few days ago? If you think that Chavez is anything other than a loudmouthed, pseudo-populist thug, you deluding yourself.

"And let me ask you this: do you think capitalism works? Especially when millions of people die every day because of preventable diseases and famine simply because they are "poor"?"

Yes. Key components of capitalism is what lead to the growth of the economy and the advancement of technology to the level that we consider starvation and illiteracy abhorrent. It used to be quite common and a fact of life.

Capitalism is a success in most regards. An economy that is mostly left to its own devices and is lightly taxed shows the best results. The economic growth in Singapore, Hong Kong, Chile, South Korea, and the Baltic states show that.

The following are from some of your previous arguments which I missed:

"A common argument is "if Cuba is so great why do people float over on rafts to Florida?" It's economics. Its funny that whenever people migrate from Cuba, our enemy, they do it to avoid a ruthless, horrible tyrant. But when they migrate from Mexico in much larger numbers, it isn't the government or capitalism's fault, its just poverty."

Because in most of those cases it is jumping over a fence or sitting in the back of a truck while Cuba involves possibly being shot by border guards if you are caught during your escape or execution if you are not killed outright or drowning during your several hours in a raft.

People have been killed coming the United States from Mexico, but that is usually when things go horribly wrong: the "coyote" is a psychopath, they get lost in the desert, and so on. But I would say that crossing that border is less dangerous than going across the Straits of Floria on a homemade raft.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

This is a much more intelligent response, and I respect it. Everyone has their own opinion, but don't worry. I don't find all ideas that I don't like to be childish and naive.

The problem is that all 15 of those countries (Cuba included) used a Leninist model. As nice as Lenin's model is, it is very difficult to find the rulers who will gladly give up power. America has a great system of checks and balances, and that is what the Leninist model lacks.

And I really doubt that Pinochet can be defended. I only have a cursory knowledge of Allende, but if he was a bad president then the people should vote him out of office, not by a military coup. And all I heard was that in the end, Pinochet had 17 years to work out an economy and he left it as a democracy. Allende was working on transferring systems within the democracy. I am against overthrowing democracies of any kind, so I feel that Pinochet's coup has no justification. I hate GW Bush. Do I have any right to shoot him in the head and take power for myself when the people vote him in? Of course not. As much as I may hate a president, I respect the fact that the country likes him. I feel that should be how our foreign policy should work.

The fact that Allede was a "bad" socialist leader in your book does not justify the actions of Pinochet. To say that America knows how to rule over the people of Chile more than the people do is a very Leninist-like model.

Again, about the Chavez thing, the same thing applies. He was elected in a democracy. Does this mean he is all good? Of course not. But it is what the people of that country want. (To clarify my previous statement, I believe a democratically elected government can be overthrown if it appears to end democracy [as long as it puts in another democracy], or if the democratically elected leader is planning a genocide). And RCTV wasn't just "critical". It played a huge part in the coup of 2002. How pissed do you think the government would be if we were invaded by Iran and CNN played only pro-Iranian messages that encouraged citizens to join Iran, and that the US was completely bad? (I'm aware Iran couldn't do that, I'm just making an example). And I must really be taking too many drugs, considering that when Bush tours Latin America, they riot and burn flags, but when Chavez goes thru there, they all support him and cheer for him. Yeah, I must be delusional if I think hes more than a loud mouthed thug. I guess all of Latin America is delusional. That makes a bunch of sense.

The fact is, whether you like Chavez or not, that most of Latin America loves him, along with Che. You have no problem when America is the cause of a lot of poverty that results in thousands of deaths, but when Che does it with a gun you get all up in arms.

I believe capitalism can work. I believe that utopia is a framework for utopia. My perfect world is communism, and yours is capitalism. I understand that, but regardless I think everyone should have the right to food, education, health care, clothing and housing. If we cut our "defense" budget in half we could probably get a really good head start on that, and still have the largest military budget in the world by far.

I disagree about your Mexican comment. It is very difficult to cross the Mexican border, just as it is hard to float to Florida. But just because it is harder to walk thru a desert than float over water doesn't mean its for the same reason. Plus, when Mexicans get here they have to face the constant threat of deportation, etc. Cubans are free to stay.

You people can dislike communism all you want. I have no problem with that. I just hope we can all agree that every human being deserves the four things I said before: health care, food, education, housing, clothing. No human being should be deprived of that. It is a shame that Americans driver sports cars and
own multimillion dollar homes when people are starving for no other reason then the place they were born.

Can we all agree on that? To give up some luxuries that people don't even need in order to feed people who are on the verge of death?

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Do you even know what you believe anymore?

"he is bringing simple things like electricity and water to poor villages."

Excellent, and the US has provided these things to every corner of the country for decades.

"And the next post had a better answer to the starvation point."

Or what? You'll spout more intellectual pablum at me?

"I don't think that little kids should be punished with starvation because their parents were not born in the states. "

They aren't. I already responded to this. And the US isn't the only capitalist nation in the world, but I never hear anyone bitch about how England or Japan have caused starvation and suffering. Think about it.

"If that is implemented in a capitalistic society, then everyone has equal opportunity to advance themselves. If it happens in a communist society, they will all have the same opportunities for life as everyone else."

A = C
B = C

Awesome. You are a moron.

"And when N Korea starves its citizens, it isn't because of a crazy dictator, it clearly must be a problem of communism! But when Africans die, it isn't because of capitalism, its because of crazy dictators."

No. N. Korea has a cazy dictator as a result of communism, and he starves his people. Africa has a police lineup of crazy dictators because those in power got there through the use of force. It has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. They use starvation as a tool of control.

"In capitalism you have the threat of a crazy dictator, famine, human rights abuses, etc. The same thing applies to communism. There are communists who prefer dictators, and communists who prefer democracies, and communists who prefer no government."

Once again, do you even know what you believe anymore? So - both communism and capitalism create "crazy dictators." And the solution is - what exactly? I also think it's great that communists can't even decide which structure of govt. to go with. Wow. Sounds like the world will be a whole lot more organized with you bickering idiots in charge.

And please tell me what capitalist is/was a crazy dictator. Certainly not Hitler. That wasn't capitalism. It was national socialism. GWB, while I am not a big fan, is an elected leader. The moment he becomes a crazy dictator, we will oust him. And really, if you think GWB is a dictator, you truly are a pampered westerner after all. You're welcome again. It's capitalism that gave you the luxury which enables you to see such a person as a dictator.

"And yes, it will be power hungry people climbing to the top. It will have a threat of self-serving individuals in power. The same thing applies to the United States. That is the reason, in my opinion, that communism needs to be democratic."

So - the US, a democratic system, is condusive to power hungry people climbing to the top, yet communism in democratic form, will not? How, exactly?

"But since you feel the need to call any ideology that disagrees with you "childish" and "naive"

I don't think I mentioned any other ideology but communism, which yes, I believe is so. You're using a logical fallacy, which is just amateurish.

"The world needs communists just like it needs capitalists."

Well, we have that now, so you should be happy. Check, please.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Geez I guess public schools really are failing us. I was hoping for at least a reasonably intelligent response. I can sit here and say that capitalism is a silly theory and it is bad and that you're an idiot too, but I choose not to.

For the more intelligent points, however, I will respond.

"Excellent, and the US has provided these things to every corner of the country for decade. "

They have in the US. Democracy has helped that happen. Chavez was elected in a democracy. He is doing it. Can you follow? It is in the US thanks to democracy, and now it is going to Venezuela thanks to democracy.

""And the next post had a better answer to the starvation point."

Or what? You'll spout more intellectual pablum at me? "

That does not make sense. Did you even bother reading it? I said the next post, in other words the post AFTER yours, had a better response to the starvation question. Can you wrap your head around that? When I say the OTHER post had a BETTER answer, usually I'm not referring to you.

""I don't think that little kids should be punished with starvation because their parents were not born in the states. "

They aren't. I already responded to this. And the US isn't the only capitalist nation in the world, but I never hear anyone bitch about how England or Japan have caused starvation and suffering. Think about it. "

I'm a little hazy on this point. People born in the US usually don't starve to death. People born in Darfur do. So clearly, people do die JUST BECAUSE they were born in a bad place. Did I say that the US causes all of this? No. I merely said that capitalism plays a huge role in it. In a communistic society (or even a capitalist one), the social conscious would feed these people, not just let them starve.

The US sent troops into Somalia to try to stop the famine. But the problem is not a one and done thing, it is a problem in the system. A famine ends in Somalia and starts up in Sierra Leone. So on and so forth. So if people don't die based on geography, why don't you move to Darfur and see how easy it is for people to find food.

I'm trying my hardest not to be condescending. I can actually prove my point without referring to people who disagree as "morons". I guess its just the maturity aspect of the discussion.

"No. N. Korea has a cazy dictator as a result of communism, and he starves his people. Africa has a police lineup of crazy dictators because those in power got there through the use of force. It has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. They use starvation as a tool of control. "

So because the dictator is bad in N Korea, its because of communism, but the bad dictators in Africa are just there because of force? Last time I checked, N Korea starves its citizens, has a holiday that is "Birthday of the great leader", has a highly militarized society, and has the least free press in the world. That sounds to me like Kim Jong is staying on the top BECAUSE of force. So lets get this straight. African dictators get power through force. N Korea's dictator has power through force. There is no difference. You were right when you said that communism or capitalism has nothing to do with it. There can be genocides under capitalism or communism. There can be dictators, human rights abuses, etc. under both systems. N Korea's leadership has nothing to do with communism.

"Once again, do you even know what you believe anymore? So - both communism and capitalism create "crazy dictators." And the solution is - what exactly? I also think it's great that communists can't even decide which structure of govt. to go with. Wow. Sounds like the world will be a whole lot more organized with you bickering idiots in charge"

Are you blind to the world? Capitalists can't agree on simple things either. Thats why there are democrats, republicans, anarcho-capitalists, fascists, etc. You do know that people don't just all believe one thing, and that dissent is the best protector of democracy? When capitalists disagree, its a healthy debate. But when communists disagree, they are clearly idiots? Sure.

Hitler was head of the socialist party. He was not socialist though. Last time I checked, one of the first thing he did was expel all communists. That doesn't sound like a communist leader now does it? Not to mention fascism is pro-big business.

"So - the US, a democratic system, is condusive to power hungry people climbing to the top, yet communism in democratic form, will not? How, exactly?"

That is exactly what I am saying. Power hungry people exist in the United States, and our form of government stops them from full power. In a communist society, power hungry people will still try to rise to the top, but if a form of government is installed to prevent that, clearly it will not happen. If you took the government form of checks and balances to a communist state, people will still want to rise to power, but they will be unable to. So when you say that communism is bad because people always want to rise to power and dominate, it can be prevented just like it is in the United States.

It seems to me you have communism up on this pedestal. It comes across as though North Korea and the USSR are the only way communism should work, and that every communist should be a clone. This is not the fact. It is like capitalism. There are capitalists that want more freedom, less freedom, more government, less government, pro-abortion, pro-life, conservative, liberal, etc. Communists fight about the same thing. If you became more absorbed with the communist cause (you can still have your opinion), you could see that. Keep in mind I'm not trying to force communism on you. I'm simply suggesting that you see both sides of the debate. I've said many times that things are not black and white. I refuse to read books that say Che is "great" or books that say Che is "horrible". I read books that are as unbiased as I can find, and the same thing applies to my news sources. That said, I also try to read/watch conservatives, and read/watch liberals. I absorb myself in both sides of the argument before I make a decision about anything. In order for people to have genuine, intelligent debates they have to do the same thing.

Now for another point. I disagree with racists. I don't think people should be discriminated against because of race. That being said, I understand the argument racists make, and if I were to get into a debate with one, I would not argue by calling him a "moron" or an "idiot". The same thing applies here. I understand that political debates can become heated, but there is no reason to call each other names. Not only is it unnecessary, but it is also childish and distorts the reasons of the argument.

Therefore, blueboy777, try to argue without using name calling. The next time I see name calling I will interpret it as a lack of the ability to articulate, and that the argument is not strong enough to present without personal attacks. If you want to reply to this message, which I'm sure you do, make sure you actually read it (I simply re-iterated many points in this post) and if you do happen to drop down to tossing around 5th grade insults I will consider the argument ignorant and not warranting of a response.

But I wouldn't be surprised if you wanted to get in the "last word", said communism is bad and that I'm stupid just so you would not be contested. If you are indeed as intelligent as you hold yourself to be, you won't do that.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

O gosh, where to begin.

Once again, you are completely wrong about Chavez. From Bloomberg Network:

"Hugo Chavez's economy is starting to unravel in the currency market.

While Venezuela earns record proceeds from oil exports, consumers face shortages of meat, flour and cooking oil. Annual inflation has risen to 16 percent, the highest in Latin America, as President Chavez tripled government spending in four years. Exxon Mobil Corp. and ConocoPhillips are pulling out after Chavez demanded they cede control of joint venture projects.

The currency, the bolivar, has tumbled 30 percent this year to 4,850 per dollar on the black market, the only place it trades freely because of government controls on foreign exchange. That's less than half the official rate of 2,150 set in 2005. Chavez may have to devalue the bolivar to reduce the gap and increase oil proceeds that make up half the state's revenue."

And what little leg he has to stand on is due to the price of oil. Please explain to me why this guy is so awesome.

You keep talking about how intelligent you are, but I just don't see it. My choice of words is not childish name calling. It's my honest assessment of your intellectual faculties. Your arguments make assertions, but when those assertions are challenged, you attempt to redefine what it is you were saying, which is a bit flimsy, in my opinion. Example?

The context of this argument is capitalism vs. communism, and you say something like: "I don't think that little kids should be punished with starvation because their parents were not born in the states." So, you have given me two groups of people: those born in the US and those "punished" because their parents were not born in the US." I call you out on this remark, and I get this in return:

"I'm a little hazy on this point. People born in the US usually don't starve to death. People born in Darfur do. So clearly, people do die JUST BECAUSE they were born in a bad place. Did I say that the US causes all of this? No. I merely said that capitalism plays a huge role in it. In a communistic society (or even a capitalist one), the social conscious would feed these people, not just let them starve.

First of all, nice use of the qualifier "usually." Whether intended or not, it protects you against any number of examples of Americans who starve to death. But then, you replace "not born in the states" with "born in a bad place." But do people really die "JUST BECAUSE" of where they were born? No, it's the political and economic climate that leads to this. And as you have already agreed, it happens in communistic societies (but, by implication not so much in capitalistic ones, hmmmm), so why is it that communism is a good system of government?

"Did I say that the US causes all of this? No."

No, of course not. You just gave me two groups of people, as mentioned above, the US and people who are punished because they were not born there, which you then changed to "a bad place." I'm sorry, I know your delicate sensibility will be devastated by this, but that is just gutless.

"I merely said that capitalism plays a huge role in it."

How? Since you chose Darfur, I'd like to point out that the overwhelming majority of people killed there die as a result of the Islamic genocides. What, exactly, did capitalism contribute to this?

"In a communistic society (or even a capitalist one), the social conscious would feed these people, not just let them starve."

Well, if as you have agreed, people starve in both systems, I'm not compelled to believe that one is a better solution to this problem. In fact, since far less people are subjected to this in capitalist countries, we would seem to have the better system. Either way, it would seem that it's "social consciousness" you should be fighting for, and not an entire system of government.

"The US sent troops into Somalia to try to stop the famine. But the problem is not a one and done thing, it is a problem in the system. A famine ends in Somalia and starts up in Sierra Leone. So on and so forth. So if people don't die based on geography, why don't you move to Darfur and see how easy it is for people to find food."

So people die strictly because of geography now? It's not capitalism or lack of social consciousness anymore?

Do you see the basis of my frustration with you. You keep trying to redefine your argument when it is challenged. And since you picked Somalia as another example, I'd like to point out that the US has sent BILLIONS of dollars in aid to Somalia, as well as many other places in Africa. In fact, the US sends more aid to other countries that ALL OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD COMBINED. Problem is, warlords keep hijacking the aid we send, WHICH IS WHY WE SENT TROOPS. But, we're the "big, bad Americans" as they are told by the very people who just stole their food. We're there to "spread our economic imperialism and convert them all to Christianity."

Read a newspaper or a book sometime. It will stimulate that whole "intelligence" thing you've got going on.

"Are you blind to the world? Capitalists can't agree on simple things either. Thats why there are democrats, republicans, anarcho-capitalists, fascists, etc. You do know that people don't just all believe one thing, and that dissent is the best protector of democracy? When capitalists disagree, its a healthy debate. But when communists disagree, they are clearly idiots? Sure."

I don't know about other countries, but here in the US, there is no strong debate between people who believe in democracy, anarchy and dictatorship. Are you really comparing Democrats and Republicans to Anarchists and those who believe in dictatorship? Yes, those philosophies exist in the US, but believe me, they aren't going to rise to power any time soon.

I don't think I said Hitler was a communist. He was a fascist. Look up the word "fascism." Fascism has some capitalistic elements, but it is far from "capitalism." It's FASCISM. That's why it gets its own word. Right? But anti-capitalists love the word "fascism," and use it to refer to all capitalists and most others who disagree with them, so I can see where you got confused.

"It seems to me you have communism up on this pedestal. etc. etc. etc."

No I don't. I cite the USSR and N. Korea as examples of the worst case scenario of a system that has never worked anywhere and that I believe can never work. As Einstein (a reported communist, actually) said, "the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Capitalism is all about competition. It's like the Olympic Games (yes, seriously). The whole philosophy of the Olympics is that mankind improves itself through competition. In communism, the competitive element is removed, which leads to stagnation.

If you want my full opinion on this, just go back upthread and read my indictment of communism. I'm not posting it again.

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

Che played a principal role in setting up Cuba's first labor camp in the Guanahacabibes region in western Cuba in 1960-1961, to confine people who had committed no crime punishable by law, revolutionary or otherwise. This "crimes" involved drinking, vagrancy, disrespect for authorities, laziness and playing loud music. Che defended that initiative in his own words: “We only send to Guanahacabibes those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail. I believe that people who should go to jail should go to jail anyway.”

This camp was the precursor to the eventual systematic confinement, starting in 1965 in the province of Camagüey, of dissidents, homosexuals, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, and other such scum, under the banner of UMAP, Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Producción, or Military Units to Help Production. Herded into buses and trucks, the “unfit” would be transported at gunpoint into concentration camps organized on the Guanahacabibes mold. Some would never return; others would be raped, beaten, or mutilated; and most would be traumatized for life, as Néstor Almendros's wrenching documentary Improper Conduct showed the world a couple of decades ago. In the 80s and 90s this non-judicial, forced confinement was also applied to AIDS victims [6].

[4] Álvaro Vargas Llosa, “Che Guevara, the killing machine”, The New Republic, 11/7/2005

[6] Samuel Farber, "The Resurrection of Che Guevara," New Politics, Summer 1998.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

I agree that Chavez is putting the economy in serious harms way. But he is undertaking a social and political revolution, so things will change. I'm not an economist, but I take it as logic that when someone wants to make a radical change, the economy will fluctuate wildly.

And I believe I did say that Venezuela's economy has to expand and diversify. I agree that he cannot simply rely on oil. The difference between Chavez and the people before him is that he is not giving the profits to Mobil and Citgo and all of these huge corporations. He is putting the profits in schools, in hospitals, in roads and waterlines and electricity to the poor. He is taking the natural resource and using it to help the people LEARN and be HEALTHY, and thats whats needed to expand the economy. Because if you have a nation of ignorant, uneducated people then they really cant help the economy grow can they?

"First of all, nice use of the qualifier "usually." Whether intended or not, it protects you against any number of examples of Americans who starve to death. But then, you replace "not born in the states" with "born in a bad place." But do people really die "JUST BECAUSE" of where they were born? No, it's the political and economic climate that leads to this. And as you have already agreed, it happens in communistic societies (but, by implication not so much in capitalistic ones, hmmmm), so why is it that communism is a good system of government?"

So when people are born in Sudan, or Somalia, etc. you really believe they can stop themselves from starving? When a 10 year old boy cannot feed himself, I consider it unlucky because he happened to be born in a place that isn't as rich as the US. So the only reason that BOY is starving is because he was born in "a bad place", or Africa, or outside the states, whatever. On the whole, the long term solution is because the country is poorly guided, but the people who suffer do nothing to deserve it. You compare a 10 year old boy in Darfur to America, and in America he will be fed. In Darfur he will not. Can the 10 year old boy change anything? Of course not, and therefore he will starve because of where he was born.

And yeah, I say usually because there are still poor people in America. However, they are a very small minority, especially compared with Somalia and Darfur.

"So people die strictly because of geography now? It's not capitalism or lack of social consciousness anymore? "

This is very, very tough. I am having trouble repeating myself over and over again. Let me try to use another example. I'm in a house with a stockpile of food. You are my neighbor, and you are starving. In capitalism, I would try to sell you the food, and you may or may not be able to pay. Its possible you could starve. In communism, we would share, and our destiny to starve or feed would be the same. So you understand that now? If, in capitalism, you starve, it is because of geography. However, its also because of a lack of social consciousness and my being greedy that played a big role.

And I know the US sends millions of aid to Africa. I'm not sure I made myself clear in all the posts before this. Do you recall me saying something to the likes of "things are not black and white"? I remember saying that a lot actually. The US does some great things. Our aid to Africa, our alliance with Israel, our democracy and our free speech, etc. But we will always have to send aid, and no matter what people will always be starving in a capitalistic society. In a communist society is it possible for people to starve? Of course. Its just that instead of one country having a huge obesity rate and the other country famished, the food will be shared, and therefore the threat of starvation will be minuscule. So yes, I love that we send aid to Africa. That being said, I think it acts as a band-aid. It will not solve the problem, but it is an immediate remedy.

"I don't know about other countries, but here in the US, there is no strong debate between people who believe in democracy, anarchy and dictatorship. Are you really comparing Democrats and Republicans to Anarchists and those who believe in dictatorship? Yes, those philosophies exist in the US, but believe me, they aren't going to rise to power any time soon. "

So they aren't "bickering capitalists"? But when communists disagree, they are "bickering idiot communists" or whatever term you used? C'mon, people disagree on everything. You can't expect ALL communists to think the same way, just like you cant expect ALL capitalists to think the same way. I know a fascist, a socialist, and an anarchist who all live in my town (a small town too). So when you say you don't want communists in charge because they don't agree, it really doesn't make any sense. If you want all communists to agree, without debate, then you want a Stalinist model, which most people don't like.

Fascism is really just heavily state-controlled capitalism. It is anti-socialist and anti-free enterprise, but it still keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.

And if you truly believe that "the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." then every capitalist country that is overthrown should never try capitalism again. Ever democracy that is overthrown should never try democracy again. Maybe its just me, but that doesn't make much sense. What you do is you rebuild and IMPROVE. I do believe I've been arguing for democracy since I started on this board. Have I ever said democracy was bad?

Maybe you can answer me this: was Lenin's Russia a democracy? Is N Korea a democracy? If you're a little hazy, the answer is no.

I've been arguing for democratic socialism, and I believe I said it has never been given a chance. Again, do you even read my posts? However, just like there can be bad leaders in a democracy, there can be good leaders in a dictatorship. I hate Fidel's form of government, but I like the way Fidel is running the country. That being said, I still wish it was a democracy.

And while you want to bring up sports, the concept is teamwork. If you were on a baseball team and everyone got equal playing time, does that mean you would just give up and not try? Wouldn't you still want to improve yourself so that the team does better? Apply that theory to a whole country and you have communism.

But the competition in sports is for fun. Its fun to watch the Sox and Yanks square off. Win or lose, its still fun. In capitalism though, the loser loses more than bragging rights. Depending on the situation, they can lose everything.

And, as a side note, just to clarify it so that you don't have to actually read my previous messages which I'm sure you haven't, I don't think America should go communist. We have a very great system in this country of free speech, opportunity, etc. America is the greatest model of capitalism to ever exist, in my opinion. That being said, I think there should be another communist/socialist superpower in the world that has a similar form of government. The USSR doesn't count, since it wasn't a democracy. That is why I want Latin America to turn socialist, and Africa as well. Utopia is a framework for utopias. (I got this theory from Noziak's book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia". Look it up, then tell me I should read. I'm sure you love the Garfield comics and such, but I read actual academic books that both criticize and idolize communism. Unlike yourself, I make it a point to understand the WHOLE argument, and not just one side of it)

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] goat84 13 years ago

LOL dude..Chavez (goverment of venezuela) owns CITGO.

[–] Frankc_ca 17 years ago

"This is a much more intelligent response, and I respect it. Everyone has their own opinion, but don't worry. I don't find all ideas that I don't like to be childish and naive."

Thank you. However, you shouldn't tolerate stupid ideas and views. I don't suffer Creationists and racists.

"The problem is that all 15 of those countries (Cuba included) used a Leninist model. As nice as Lenin's model is, it is very difficult to find the rulers who will gladly give up power. America has a great system of checks and balances, and that is what the Leninist model lacks."

I would say damn near impossible to find rulers who will give up power. My Pinochet example was not that he is defensible, but rather that he is the best example of a well-intentioned dictator and he still managed to kill about 6,000 people and torture about 20,000.

That is the problem with Communism. Large movements and organizations are best handled by an individual or a small group to help direct it and Marx made it explicit that the movement would have to have absolute power to succeed, however someone absolute power is likely to give it up. I don't like using the term, but it is human nature.

"And RCTV wasn't just "critical". It played a huge part in the coup of 2002. How pissed do you think the government would be if we were invaded by Iran and CNN played only pro-Iranian messages that encouraged citizens to join Iran, and that the US was completely bad? (I'm aware Iran couldn't do that, I'm just making an example). And I must really be taking too many drugs, considering that when Bush tours Latin America, they riot and burn flags, but when Chavez goes thru there, they all support him and cheer for him. Yeah, I must be delusional if I think hes more than a loud mouthed thug. I guess all of Latin America is delusional. That makes a bunch of sense. "

I would have no problem with pro-anyone or anti-anyone views on television.

Just because he is viewed as a hero, doesn't mean that he is one. I could point to a lot of corrupt and even murderous politicians who were popular in a lot of areas because they were populists. Okay, Huey Long (who is still respected by a lot people) and George "Segregation forever!" Wallace just to name two American ones.

"The fact is, whether you like Chavez or not, that most of Latin America loves him, along with Che. You have no problem when America is the cause of a lot of poverty that results in thousands of deaths, but when Che does it with a gun you get all up in arms."

And? Like I said, George Wallace is still popular among some Southerners and he was one of the most racist politicians to ever exist in the United States. Just because someone is popular among the ignorant and misguided, doesn't mean they are worth more than the spit it takes to utter their name.

"I believe capitalism can work. I believe that utopia is a framework for utopia. My perfect world is communism, and yours is capitalism. I understand that, but regardless I think everyone should have the right to food, education, health care, clothing and housing. If we cut our "defense" budget in half we could probably get a really good head start on that, and still have the largest military budget in the world by far."

There are very few truly poor people in the States. Not that they don't exist, neighborhoods on the West Side of Chicago, areas of the Bronx, and rural Mississippi are where you can find a lot of them. But America has so few really poor due to capitalism. People have been really poor since there were people and it was the development of technology and free enterprise that started getting everything in motion. You see it is not capitalism that makes people starve, it was the lack of it. The Industrial Revolution is what improved the lives of so many. Communists just see factories run by sneering bosses and happen to forget that without those sneering bosses (I work, so don't think I have a rosy view of employers), most of us would be doing field work.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Alright I'll finally get around to this response.

"However, you shouldn't tolerate stupid ideas and views. I don't suffer Creationists and racists. "

I disagree. If you refuse to argue with someone because of their views you further isolate them, and their opinions will remain the same. The only real debate that I try to avoid is religion. However, that is because reason does not figure into it at all. I can point to Katrina, the Holocaust, evolution, man-made wonders, etc. and the religious still say "I don't care what facts you present, I still believe in God". However, I'm always open to that debate, I just think its very difficult to have.

"I would say damn near impossible to find rulers who will give up power. My Pinochet example was not that he is defensible, but rather that he is the best example of a well-intentioned dictator and he still managed to kill about 6,000 people and torture about 20,000."

I agree that its almost impossible. I don't know if you can call Pinochet well intentioned, I mean he did overthrow a democracy, but I see what you are saying.

"That is the problem with Communism. Large movements and organizations are best handled by an individual or a small group to help direct it and Marx made it explicit that the movement would have to have absolute power to succeed, however someone absolute power is likely to give it up. I don't like using the term, but it is human nature. "

The first step in Marx's manifesto is to win the "battle of democracy". That means that once the proletariat come to power through democracy, they continue to execute their socialist changes within the confines of democracy. I see what you're saying in terms of the Leninist model, that the dictatorship will not "fade away", and I agree, however I think that even if the people come to power throughout a revolution, it should be in their beliefs to start a democracy. America was led by Washington, and he went unopposed in the first election and had no term limits. That being said, he was very rare. What was important, however, was that with Washington or without the Revolution was to promote democracy. That is how a socialist revolution should be. Not only to change the economic landscape, but also to establish a democracy with completely universal suffrage.

"I would have no problem with pro-anyone or anti-anyone views on television. "

I would not either. Personally I dislike the fact that Chavez shut down RCTV. But I completely understand it, and I hate it when people say that since he did that he must be a dictator. If the US had shut down the Iranian station in the situation I presented, nobody would scream "dictatorship". The sedition acts of 1918 and of 1812 (? im not sure, I'd have to check on that date) showed that the US can lean towards dictatorship. If those acts were passed in Venezuela now, people would go nuts. But when the US does it, it's completely OK.

"And? Like I said, George Wallace is still popular among some Southerners and he was one of the most racist politicians to ever exist in the United States. Just because someone is popular among the ignorant and misguided, doesn't mean they are worth more than the spit it takes to utter their name. "

Chavez fights for complete equality, not division based on race. I'm not familiar with George Wallace, but to bring up his name is irrelevant. People now bring up Hitler when they say Chavez was elected democratically. Does this mean that every person we don't like who comes to power under democracy is like Hitler? That every popular leader we don't like is similar to George Wallace? Of course not. If Chavez were to start a genocide, segregation, torture, terrorism, etc. I would immediately switch opinions of him. However, he doesn't appear ready to do that, and therefore I cannot compare him to Hitler, Wallace, or any other similar people.

"There are very few truly poor people in the States. Not that they don't exist, neighborhoods on the West Side of Chicago, areas of the Bronx, and rural Mississippi are where you can find a lot of them. But America has so few really poor due to capitalism. People have been really poor since there were people and it was the development of technology and free enterprise that started getting everything in motion. You see it is not capitalism that makes people starve, it was the lack of it. The Industrial Revolution is what improved the lives of so many. Communists just see factories run by sneering bosses and happen to forget that without those sneering bosses (I work, so don't think I have a rosy view of employers), most of us would be doing field work."

America is the perfect vision of capitalism. Everyone has about equal opportunity to succeed, and we have a very stable democracy. The left always loves to say that America is a horrible country, but I disagree. This is capitalism in its best form, where the government both promotes education and equality of opportunity AND social well being. That being said, I think that America's problem lies in its foreign policy. You say that lack of capitalism causes poverty in poor countries, I disagree. Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil all have/had pro-American capitalism. Now all three countries are ready to try socialism. Am I one of those people who thinks that capitalism is the greatest evil ever? No. I do understand though that the "sneering bosses" do exist in Latin America and parts of Africa. They pay their workers lousy wages and take all of the profits. In America its another story. America should not be communist. However, I think that America's standard of living cannot be duplicated in any other country, at least not soon. Therefore, America should remain capitalist, but its understandable and desirable for other countries to turn socialist.

I understand everything you're saying. It doesn't bother me that we disagree, and I respect your opinion. I say this to contrast it to blueboy77 or whatever, who apparently is unable to express his opinion in such a clear and intellectual manner. I can honestly say I hope he reads your messages and learns something, not your way of thought, but your way of expressing it.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Long time before responding. Did you go consult with the other communists before posting? I know how you people hate to lose arguments.

"Because if you have a nation of ignorant, uneducated people then they really cant help the economy grow can they?"

First of all, wat money is he using to do this with? If the currency is in rapid decline and there is little revenue, there is no money to dedicate to education and health care. They don't have the USR to be their big brother like Cuba did. Oh, and how's the Cuban economy doing these days?

"So when people are born in Sudan, or Somalia, etc. you really believe they can stop themselves from starving? When a 10 year old boy cannot feed himself, I consider it unlucky because he happened to be born in a place that isn't as rich as the US. So the only reason that BOY is starving is because he was born in "a bad place", or Africa, or outside the states, whatever."

Yes, if the aid we send them isn't interfered with by their own people. And don't emphasize the word "BOY" in a feeble attempt to make it look like I don't care about children. That's another crude device. Yes, the country he lives in is a bad place, but I still fail to see what capitalism has to do with this.

"On the whole, the long term solution is because the country is poorly guided"

No, it's to stop the country from being poorly guided, but that's probably what you meant. And it's the short term solution too.

"You compare a 10 year old boy in Darfur to America, and in America he will be fed. In Darfur he will not. Can the 10 year old boy change anything? Of course not, and therefore he will starve because of where he was born."

I didn't compare anyone to anything. And those small boys (you should have gone with girls) seem to know a lot about how an AK-47 works, so SOMEONE must think they have the capacity to change things, yes? Of course, it's the same bullies who created their situation in the first place.

And once again, it's not MERE GEOGRAPHY that causes this misery. In Somalia, you have warlords who use hunger as a means of control. Once again, can't blame the US or capitalism. We send aid, which is hijacked by the warlords who say the US is bad and wants to convert them all to Christianity. In The Sudan, most people are killed due to ethnic cleansing, also not the US's fault or the fault of capitalism.

And who's not reading who's posts?

"And yeah, I say usually because there are still poor people in America. However, they are a very small minority, especially compared with Somalia and Darfur."

Exactly, because we have capitalism. You're welcome.

"This is very, very tough. I am having trouble repeating myself over and over again."

I think you're having rouble doing a lot of things.

"I'm in a house with a stockpile of food. You are my neighbor, and you are starving. In capitalism, I would try to sell you the food, and you may or may not be able to pay. Its possible you could starve. In communism, we would share, and our destiny to starve or feed would be the same. So you understand that now? If, in capitalism, you starve, it is because of geography. However, its also because of a lack of social consciousness and my being greedy that played a big role."

That is the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I used to have a subscription to TV Guide. So, because I have no food and you do makes you greedy and lacking social conscience? What if my fate was determined by my refusal to work, or that I ate it all wastefully, or any number of reasons that are due to my own actions/inactions. Do you think it's fair that you are forced to share with me. I don't. But in communism, you do all the work and are forced to share with me. And if your model represents the US vs. a poor country, I will have to bring up that inconvenient "more aid than all other countries in the world combined" business.

So, if you worked hard in school and got an A, and the guy next you you skated and got a C, would you give some of your grade to him so you could both get B's? If the answer is yes, you truly are a communist, because you have embraced forced mediocrity. If no, welcome to capitalism.

Which one of us has to keep repeating himself.

"things are not black and white"

And they're kinda fuzzy from the cheap seats too.

"Our aid to Africa"

Which would not be possible without our capitalisticaly generated revenue.

"our alliance with Israel"

Isreal is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Don't even get me started. Yeah, it's great that I might get blown up here in DC because we support Isreal. Just peachy. I'd love to know why you think it's such a great idea.

"no matter what people will always be starving in a capitalistic society. In a communist society is it possible for people to starve?"

Not only is it possible, it happens, and far more than in capitalist countries.

"So when you say you don't want communists in charge because they don't agree, it really doesn't make any sense."

Not what I said, and I think you know that. I said that, here in the US, our leaders argue about HOW to EXECUTE our SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY. At no time does Congress debate whether we should switch to fascism, dictatorship or anarchy. There are SOME people who argue these things, but they AREN'T gonna win any Congressional seats anytime soon. You said that communists disagree about which of the above named modes of government to implement, and I derided that fact. Do YOU understand what I have been saying?

"Fascism is really just heavily state-controlled capitalism. It is anti-socialist and anti-free enterprise"

Anything that is anti-free enterprise is not capitalism. The second half of your sentence defeats the first. Congratulations.

"And if you truly believe that "the definition of insanity is attempting the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." then every capitalist country that is overthrown should never try capitalism again. Ever democracy that is overthrown should never try democracy again."

Einstein was referring to doing something THAT DOES NOT WORK, watching it fail and trying it again. Capitalism works, so the expression does not apply. Communism has never worked, so it does apply. And before you mention democracy and Venezuela again, I'd like to point out that Chavez is trying to become president for life, and of course, that his economy is getting it's a$$ kicked.

"I've been arguing for democratic socialism"

If that were true, you would have said that earlier, but you keep using the word "communism."

"just like there can be bad leaders in a democracy, there can be good leaders in a dictatorship."

Sure, except if you have a bad dictator, you're screwed.

"And while you want to bring up sports, the concept is teamwork. If you were on a baseball team and everyone got equal playing time, does that mean you would just give up and not try? Wouldn't you still want to improve yourself so that the team does better? Apply that theory to a whole country and you have communism."

And there you have it - namby pamby socialist thinking in a nutshell. The whole point of having a team is to have the best team possible. If the stars and the bench-warmers get equal time, this will not happen, so what's the point of even COMPETING.

"fun to watch the Sox and Yanks square off. Win or lose, its still fun."

Tell that to the Sox after they have had the *beep* kicked out of them by the Yankees. Or Michigan the other day. I'm sure they all sat around the locker room saying "Wow, wasn't it fun how we just got our a$$es handed to us by Oregon. Sure, we were humiliated and our own fans boo-ed us off the field, but fun it sure was. Good times."

"And, as a side note, just to clarify it so that you don't have to actually read my previous messages which I'm sure you haven't, I don't think America should go communist."

What really aggravates me are your repeated condescending remarks that I have not read your posts or don't understand them. Let me make myself very clear. I have read and understood every little word that has flowed from your little mind through your little fingers onto your little keyboard. I simply think that your intelligence level is FAR below what you imply it is, and that you use logical fallacies and other flawed argumentative devices to try and convince me that your position is correct.

And don't you mean "social democracy," not communism?"

"I think there should be another communist/socialist superpower in the world that has a similar. . . blah blah blah.

Once again, you presume things about me, as though if I had read up on the subject, I would "see the light" of your wisdom. Actually, you are a perfect example of what Reagan (that's right, Reagan) said many years ago.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin. An anti-communist is someone who UNDERSTANDS Marx and Lenin." Oh, but I forgot. Lenin is bad. We need to keep tweaking the system after it has failed over and over again until we finally get it right and no matter how many people die.

And personally, I form my own opinions. I don't let others feed them to me. You know, the whole intelligence thing.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

The reason I don't reply every 25 seconds after you post is because I'm out doing things. I don't sit at the computer and wait for people to respond to my posts. I haven't even responded to what Frankc said. I plan to, because he is clearly more level headed and intelligent.

"First of all, wat money is he using to do this with? If the currency is in rapid decline and there is little revenue, there is no money to dedicate to education and health care. They don't have the USR to be their big brother like Cuba did. Oh, and how's the Cuban economy doing these days? "

Well, besides the grammar (wat), this is an irrelevant point. The fact is that Chavez is trying to help his people. At the moment, he is using the massive reserves of Cuban doctors. However, he is improving electricity, running water, education, etc. Look up the statistics. If Chavez was SO bad, then why would they vote him in for a second term? Do you remember that election? It was a landslide victory.

" Yes, the country he lives in is a bad place, but I still fail to see what capitalism has to do with this."

I'm really going to have to explain this step by step aren't I?

Step 1. Power hungry people take power.
Step 2. Power hungry people use power to starve their people and control all the wealth.
Net Result: The rich are rich, and the poor are poor. The reason things stay like this is because one group of people (the rich) have a gun and the poor do not.

What does this have to do with capitalism? Well, if it was communism then the wealth that is concentrated SO MUCH in the hands of the rich would be dispersed, and people would not starve. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make myself.

When people ARE NOT equal, it is not communism. When people starve while others get fat, that is wrong. In communism, they would not starve. They would all get equal food. Keep in mind, however, this is only in theory. I understand that it would be very difficult to implement in Africa. I am simply remarking that had Africa turned communist 50 years ago, instead of being capitalist, it would probably be in better shape.

"I didn't compare anyone to anything. And those small boys (you should have gone with girls) seem to know a lot about how an AK-47 works, so SOMEONE must think they have the capacity to change things, yes? Of course, it's the same bullies who created their situation in the first place. "

I guess I didn't make myself clear again. I said "You compare a 10 year old boy in Darfur to America, and in America he will be fed." I meant to put "if" in front of that. I guess you must have missed that.

But I guess all the child soldiers in Africa are bullies who are the cause of African genocide, war, famine, right? It cant possibly be because they are drugged, brainwashed, forced to at gunpoint, or anything like that, right? I'm sure you are dead positive that they CHOOSE to be child soldiers. Are you really this blind?

"And once again, it's not MERE GEOGRAPHY that causes this misery."

Ok then. When a 2 year old boy, or a 5 year old girl, or whoever you choose to pick is born and lives his whole life in hunger its because of something he did. In the big picture, its more than geography. But on a more personal level, like when these people are alive for 2 years and know nothing but hunger, it is because they were born in a completely poor country compared to a rich one.

Do you honestly want to tell me that these little kids shouldn't be fed?

"Anything that is anti-free enterprise is not capitalism. The second half of your sentence defeats the first. Congratulations."

Then the US isn't capitalist because the government does involve itself in the economy? Because then I guess all taxes levied against the big corporations are making businesses LESS free, so Hong Kong is capitalist but the US isn't. Congrats.

"Exactly, because we have capitalism. You're welcome."

Thats the whole theory of capitalism. Some people are rich, have everything (US) and some people starve to death (some parts of Latin America, Africa, etc).

"I think you're having rouble doing a lot of things."

I guess I better check the dictionary on that word. Oh, no. Wait. It isn't in there. Apparently one of the things I DON'T have TROUBLE with is spelling. Must have been passing the 5th grade that did that to me.

"So, because I have no food and you do makes you greedy and lacking social conscience? What if my fate was determined by my refusal to work, or that I ate it all wastefully, or any number of reasons that are due to my own actions/inactions. Do you think it's fair that you are forced to share with me."

Yes, if I allow you to starve to death that does make me greedy. I do think it's fair that I share with you. Its up to you how you want to use the food. What right do I have to tell you how to eat? But it is my responsibility as a human being to be sure you have the food to live. If you choose to eat it like a pig, or starve yourself to death, thats up to you. Its my obligation to let you have it though.

""things are not black and white"

And they're kinda fuzzy from the cheap seats too."

I guess the US has never done any wrong then, Che has never done any right, communism doesn't have ONE good element to it, Lenin never did a good thing in his life, and even though Chavez keeps getting re-elected he still can't do a good thing to save his life.

Look at life buddy. Things aren't like that. They are shades of gray. There is a bigger story than people are good and people are bad. The Nazis were bad. Yes. But they did do some good things. I'm able to say that. Does it mean I support Hitler? Of course not, but it means I know the whole story.

Or I can just be some ignorant fool and just repeat everything everyone says: "Hitler was bad, communism is bad, communism doesn't work, America has always been free, etc etc"

I guess you are the latter. I am able to understand the good and bad thing about capitalism, and the good and bad things about communism. I see good and bad things in Che, and in the world. But you see everything in black and white, and I guess thats why its so hard to discuss with you. Since I agree with a "bad" form of government I am a fool, idiot, etc. But if I agreed with you then POOF, I'm smart again.

Right.

"Isreal is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Don't even get me started. Yeah, it's great that I might get blown up here in DC because we support Isreal. Just peachy. I'd love to know why you think it's such a great idea."

What in the world are you talking about? Isreal is the only stable democracy in the entire Middle East. I guess because people hate Isreal, and are willing to fight against it, we should just abandon it. Last I checked, when Bush went to Latin America they rioted in the streets. Whats to say that some crazy guy from Chile blows himself up in some marketplace just because we supported Pinochet? But I guess that would be fine because we "defeated communism".

However, lets drop that. Leave the debate to communism/Che. If you feel you must rant and rave about the horrible evil Isreal, PM me.

"Not only is it possible, it happens, and far more than in capitalist countries. "

But in theory, what happens? And even in Cuba. If Cuba had half of American wealth/natural resources, not one person would starve (unless you count Guantanamo Bay). Yea, people starve in N Korea. They certainly do. But can you honestly say that N Korea is communist, or do you just love to cite them as a "communist" country because thats what they call themselves?

"Not what I said, and I think you know that. I said that, here in the US, our leaders argue about HOW to EXECUTE our SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY. At no time does Congress debate whether we should switch to fascism, dictatorship or anarchy. There are SOME people who argue these things, but they AREN'T gonna win any Congressional seats anytime soon. You said that communists disagree about which of the above named modes of government to implement, and I derided that fact. Do YOU understand what I have been saying? "

Wow, I'm really really getting tired of repeating myself. You said, and I quote, "Sounds like the world will be a whole lot more organized with you bickering idiots in charge." Weren't Batista and Pinochet capitalist? And isn't Hong Kong the model of no government interference? So there you go. From dictator to moderate to no government. To me that sounds like a worldwide differing of opinions. But when you have 3 capitalist countries with very different forms of government, thats fine. But when there is a debate if communism should be dictatorship, democracy, or anarchy its different. Instead of 3 different communist countries, its all "bickering idiots". You are incredibly inconsistent.

And a separate point, in the US they certainly do debate these things. In Congress they don't talk about anarchy vs dictatorship, but they talk about other things like taxes, universal health care, the war, etc. Are they not "bickering"? The US has a very stable economic plan. They do not argue about things as radical as dictatorship vs anarchy, but they are still bickering. I guarantee in Venezuela they aren't talking about anarchy vs. dictatorship. They are talking about how to manage communes, how to stop violence in Caracas, how to manage the oil, etc. But since it's Chavez in charge, I guess he is a bickering idiot too.

How can you honestly sit there with a straight face and say such hypocrisies. Do you come straight home from school, sit down, power up the computer and type whatever pops into your head? Thats not actually a bad idea either, since everything is black and white so theres really no reason for discussion.

"Einstein was referring to doing something THAT DOES NOT WORK, watching it fail and trying it again."

OK, so let me get this straight. Capitalism government is overthrown, but thats OK because it "works". Communist government is overthrown, but thats bad because it "doesn't work". The proportion of communist countries to capitalist ones is immensely in favor of capitalist. And the majority of the communist ones use a Leninist model, which I agree is bad. So, please please please, tell me how many countries have used a socialist government that was also a democracy lasted more than 4 years without being overthrown. Honest, tell me. Think you can actually "think" of that?

"If that were true, you would have said that earlier, but you keep using the word "communism." "

Thats because we are using a much more general usage, and also because we are dealing in theory. Again, what historical countries can I cite for democratic socialism? I'm sure you'd love for me to refer to N Korea as "social democracy" so you can just put that in your "bad" category too.

"Sure, except if you have a bad dictator, you're screwed. "

Whoa. Really? Of course. Doesn't take a rocket scientist.

"Tell that to the Sox after they have had the *beep* kicked out of them by the Yankees. Or Michigan the other day. I'm sure they all sat around the locker room saying "Wow, wasn't it fun how we just got our a$$es handed to us by Oregon. Sure, we were humiliated and our own fans boo-ed us off the field, but fun it sure was. Good times."

Then why do you watch the games, and why do people play? You know that there are people who play for NO money, they play for fun. And I'm sure that all the people who watch sports don't just watch because they bet on the games. They watch because they are fun. Honestly, you think sports aren't fun?

"What really aggravates me are your repeated condescending remarks that I have not read your posts or don't understand them. Let me make myself very clear. I have read and understood every little word that has flowed from your little mind through your little fingers onto your little keyboard. I simply think that your intelligence level is FAR below what you imply it is, and that you use logical fallacies and other flawed argumentative devices to try and convince me that your position is correct. "

Remember this:

""And the next post had a better answer to the starvation point."

Or what? You'll spout more intellectual pablum at me? "

The first line is what I said. I said it because there were two posts. There was yours, and someone else also responded. Do you see that response? Let me tell you: it makes no sense. So clearly your "little brain" couldn't tell your "little fingers" to type the right thing on the "little keyboard" and make something that resembles sense. So that is why I ask if you read my posts, because it seems like you just skim it. I end up repeating myself over, and over, and over, and over....

"Once again, you presume things about me, as though if I had read up on the subject, I would "see the light" of your wisdom. "

And no, thats not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that maybe you would understand the argument you are trying to make. Maybe instead of capitalism being "all good" and communism being "all bad", you can see the good and bad points of both. I respect everyone's opinion of communism as long as they know what they are talking about. If they understand good and bad things then they will be able to make an accurate decision. If they only see the "bad", then they are blind to one side of the argument and it is worthless to argue with them.

And I can also find some great Kissinger quotes to say communism sucks. Or maybe I can go to Lenin and Marx and see all the reasons why communism is the greatest system on Earth. Has it crossed your mind that:

Regan: President of US, US is fighting war against Communism, the McCarthy era wasn't too long before him, and if he said one favorable thing about communism he would be attacked by both parties. Does he seem like an objective, level-headed source to you?

And about the whole intelligence thing, are you saying you dismiss that book because it wasn't an original thought? Well I guess I could live in a cave and make opinions that way. Personally, though, and I'm sure this is all new to you, I read as much as I can about both sides of the argument, and THEN form my opinion. I don't just learn about one side of the argument then not even give the other side a chance. So, anyways here is what I do. I'll make it step by step just for you:

Step 1: Become interested in a subject
Step 2: Read about one side of the argument
Step 3: Read about the other side of the argument
Step 4: Form my own opinions
Step 5: Have good, healthy debates with people. I'm able to do this because I understand the entire issue, not just one side.

I'm sure you stop at step 2. But I guess the other steps just come with that whole intelligence thing.

PS. Don't wait for my response like an obedient dog. I'm busy. Believe it or not, my life does not revolve around sitting in front of a computer debating politics with all the intellectuals who can make an IMDB account.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Yeah, I didn't really care how long that took. So long as it's not a month.

But right off the bat, you call me out for a typo. The most classic hack message board response. Mark Twain used to say that spelling and grammar have nothing to do with writing, but what did he know. Personally, I don't take the easy shots, but that's me.

"Step 1. Power hungry people take power.
Step 2. Power hungry people use power to starve their people and control all the wealth.
Net Result: The rich are rich, and the poor are poor. The reason things stay like this is because one group of people (the rich) have a gun and the poor do not.

What does this have to do with capitalism? Well, if it was communism then the wealth that is concentrated SO MUCH in the hands of the rich would be dispersed, and people would not starve. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make myself."

You really call the economic system they have in those African countries "capitalism?" If so, that pretty much blows away your assertion that you like to "learn both sides." Taking something by force and then using it as a tool to control others is not capitalism. Maybe it is in the context of you and your friends sitting around the campfire talking about how us "gredy capitalists" are, but it doesn't make it a reality.

And your constant assertion that I would "see the light, oh but if only I could comprehend your brilliant opinion" kind of reminds me of the annoying Baptists crusaders I used to run into. The conversations used to go something like:

Me: "Well, I have listened to your argument, but I disagree."
Them: "No. You just don't understand what we're saying.
Me: "No. I understand perfectly. Do you, in fact, understand what I'M saying?"
Them: "No, you don't. Don't you see, man?"

And so on, so forth. This is no different.

"When people ARE NOT equal, it is not communism."

People aren't equal. They never will be. I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you. It should be your parents. Some have more talent, better looks, higher intelligence. That's just the way it is.

"But I guess all the child soldiers in Africa are bullies who are the cause of African genocide, war, famine, right? It cant possibly be because they are drugged, brainwashed, forced to at gunpoint, or anything like that, right? I'm sure you are dead positive that they CHOOSE to be child soldiers. Are you really this blind?"

Um, no again. You said that these kids have no ability to change their surroundings. I pointed out that there are those who believe they DO have the power. Did I say they weren't coerced? Did I say they chose to join militias? No, I refuted your assertion that they are helpless.

"Do you honestly want to tell me that these little kids shouldn't be fed?"

Have I not exposed your cheap, argumentative tricks enough? You're really desperate, aren't you? Yes, I want little kids to die. You pegged me.

"Thats the whole theory of capitalism. Some people are rich, have everything (US) and some people starve to death (some parts of Latin America, Africa, etc)."

I have heard that line before. "The evil, rich capitalists have victimized all of us poor, honorable peasants." But wait, I thought you said we should have both.

"Since I agree with a "bad" form of government I am a fool, idiot, etc. But if I agreed with you then POOF, I'm smart again."

LOL. That's exactly what you've been saying to me. Outstanding.

"Then why do you watch the games, and why do people play?"

Because I enjoy watching competition and because they want to win. Yes, playing is fun, but those playing want to win, whether there is money involved or not. I'm sure people who suck at sports wish that they would stop keeping score, but it's not going to happen. If it did, the dropoff in viewership would prove my point for me.

"Regan: President of US, US is fighting war against Communism, the McCarthy era wasn't too long before him, and if he said one favorable thing about communism he would be attacked by both parties."

Yeah, because I'm sure he would have had wonderful things to say about communism.

And don't emasculate yourself with the sheepish "I'm just arguing the good and bad points of both." retreat. You're a communist. Be a man. Admit it. You think it's a better system. I disagree. Live with it.

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

During the Cuban missile crisis on October 1962, Che demanded that nuclear war be unleashed on the United States. He told British reporter Sam Russell that “if the nuclear missiles had been under Cuban control (during the Cuban missile crisis), they would have fired them off.” Reportedly, he was disappointed when Khrushchev decided to draw back his weapons in the missile crisis. "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, in our defense against aggression." And a couple of years later, at the United Nations, he was true to form: “As Marxists we have maintained that peaceful coexistence among nations does not include coexistence between exploiters and the exploited.”

On December 11, 1964, during a debate in the United Nations General Assembly where Guevara represented de Cuban government, this was severely attacked because of the firing squad executions without any judicial process and evidence as required by the rule of law. Guevara, on his own voiced, responded:

“Shooting people yes, we have shoot people and will continuo to do so until it will be required.” This show that he was a person convinced of what he was doing, and could care less and has not any prejudice to send to the firing squad a lot of people, on condition that his points of view will prevail.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

"But right off the bat, you call me out for a typo. The most classic hack message board response. Mark Twain used to say that spelling and grammar have nothing to do with writing, but what did he know. Personally, I don't take the easy shots, but that's me"

It's not the typo I was pointing out. I'm sure you can spell correctly. I was just trying to point out the effort that you put into these. It's pretty apparent you rush through them, and that could be why I keep repeating myself and getting simple sentences interpreted incorrectly.

"You really call the economic system they have in those African countries "capitalism?" If so, that pretty much blows away your assertion that you like to "learn both sides." Taking something by force and then using it as a tool to control others is not capitalism. Maybe it is in the context of you and your friends sitting around the campfire talking about how us "gredy capitalists" are, but it doesn't make it a reality."

Yes. I consider it capitalism when Nigeria has corporations come in and take oil, has McDonalds, American corporations, their own business, etc. But, since there is some discrepancy (I agree that Africa isn't exactly free market capitalism, but it still is capitalism), lets look at Mexico. Richest person in the world is living in the country, and the rest of the country starves to death and a good deal make their living off of drugs. Ask them how they feel about their living conditions under capitalism.

"And your constant assertion that I would "see the light, oh but if only I could comprehend your brilliant opinion" kind of reminds me of the annoying Baptists crusaders I used to run into."

What? Have you even been reading what I'm saying. I'm saying that you MUST understand BOTH sides of the argument. I'm not saying that you should become a communist. I'm saying you should simply understand it. You cite North Korea as a communist country, when in reality it is almost a complete 180 degree turn from Marx's theory. You seem to me like you've read up on all the anti-communist and capitalist viewpoints, but failed to see the other side. Believe it or not, it is possible to understand an argument and STILL disagree with it. I read a lot about capitalism. Does that make me a capitalist? No, but it makes me smarter because I know both sides of the argument.

And with Frankca, it is simply a discussion between two people who understand both sides. He acknowledges that communism has strengths and weaknesses, along with capitalism, and he chooses capitalism. I have no problem with that.

Let me make it clear what I do have a problem with.

I have a problem with:
People who read up only on one side
People who say that one side is "all good" or "all bad".

I have NO problem with:
People who know about both sides of the argument and still have an opinion
Debating with those people
People feeling one side is "good" or "bad", as long as they recognize both elements exist.

I dislike fascism. But I understand it has some very good qualities. See how that works?

"People aren't equal. They never will be. I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you. It should be your parents. Some have more talent, better looks, higher intelligence. That's just the way it is. "

I understand that. But does that mean its not worth fighting for? True freedom will never be attained, because complete freedom means chaos. However, does that mean people shouldn't fight to be "more free"? The blacks should have stayed slaves because since they will never be completely free they should just give up? That makes no sense whatsoever.

"Um, no again. You said that these kids have no ability to change their surroundings. I pointed out that there are those who believe they DO have the power. Did I say they weren't coerced? Did I say they chose to join militias? No, I refuted your assertion that they are helpless. "

What!?!?!?!?!? The child soldiers ARE helpless. You go up to a 10 year old kid who has almost no education, point a gun in his face, and tell him to join your army, and see what happens. I consider that helpless. When you cannot change anything, because you are BRAINWASHED, DRUGGED, and COERCED, I consider that being helpless.

"I have heard that line before. "The evil, rich capitalists have victimized all of us poor, honorable peasants." But wait, I thought you said we should have both."

What in the world are you talking about? I am against a capitalist world, just like I would be against a communist world. There has to be a choice. I understand some people would love to be a capitalist and work their way up in life, and I understand that some people want to work for the benefit of everyone.

Let me make this simple: I don't believe that Kissinger and Che should only have one choice of government. THEORETICALLY (That means not in reality), half the world would be communist and half the world would be capitalist, and people would be free to choose which society to live in. That theory is much more complex than that, but that is just a general outline.

""Since I agree with a "bad" form of government I am a fool, idiot, etc. But if I agreed with you then POOF, I'm smart again."

LOL. That's exactly what you've been saying to me. Outstanding. "

No. No it isn't. Are you BLIND? HAVEN'T I SAID THAT I RESPECT FRANKCA'S POSTS? HAVEN'T I SAID THAT I DON'T MIND HIS OPINION, SINCE HE CLEARLY KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT? HAVE I EVER SAID THAT FRANKCA WAS STUPID? Honestly, do you READ these things? I never said I hate capitalists. I respect their opinions as long as they know what they are talking about!

What really grinds my gears is that you keep posting in this self-rightous manner when I keep have to repeating my answers.

"And don't emasculate yourself with the sheepish "I'm just arguing the good and bad points of both." retreat. You're a communist. Be a man. Admit it. You think it's a better system. I disagree. Live with it. "

I'm a communist. I'm a communist. I'm a communist. I'm a communist.

Have I ever said I wasn't? Or am I STILL repeating myself again and again? Honestly, READ what I'm SAYING.

And, for about the millionth time, since I guess you must have a reading disorder, I have no problem with people disagreeing. I have a problem with people who don't know both sides. You say there is nothing good in communism. That's just ignorant. You think that all the people who believe in communism are ignorant and uneducated. That's wrong. I don't think all capitalists are greedy.

But yes, I am arguing the good and bad points. People's opinions differ. But people MUST know the good and bad sides of both sides. So when I say both sides, then go "I agree with communism", there is nothing wrong with that BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW BOTH SIDES, and are free to make their own opinion.

I'm just curious. Tell me one pro-communist or pro-anarchist or pro-socialist book you've read. I can tell you a pro-capitalist book I've read. Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Noziak.

I'm arguing for communism, yes, but more important to me than convincing people of my opinions is that people know all the facts. You seem like you'd rather have everyone agree that capitalism is great and communism sucks. I disagree, and feel that both sides are necessary to preserve human freedom.

Thats what I'm talking about.

Now, just so I'm clear about what I'm saying, I suggest you should read this Blueboy77:

"But right off the bat, you call me out for a typo. The most classic hack message board response. Mark Twain used to say that spelling and grammar have nothing to do with writing, but what did he know. Personally, I don't take the easy shots, but that's me"

It's not the typo I was pointing out. I'm sure you can spell correctly. I was just trying to point out the effort that you put into these. It's pretty apparent you rush through them, and that could be why I keep repeating myself and getting simple sentences interpreted incorrectly.

"You really call the economic system they have in those African countries "capitalism?" If so, that pretty much blows away your assertion that you like to "learn both sides." Taking something by force and then using it as a tool to control others is not capitalism. Maybe it is in the context of you and your friends sitting around the campfire talking about how us "gredy capitalists" are, but it doesn't make it a reality."

Yes. I consider it capitalism when Nigeria has corporations come in and take oil, has McDonalds, American corporations, their own business, etc. But, since there is some discrepancy (I agree that Africa isn't exactly free market capitalism, but it still is capitalism), lets look at Mexico. Richest person in the world is living in the country, and the rest of the country starves to death and a good deal make their living off of drugs. Ask them how they feel about their living conditions under capitalism.

"And your constant assertion that I would "see the light, oh but if only I could comprehend your brilliant opinion" kind of reminds me of the annoying Baptists crusaders I used to run into."

What? Have you even been reading what I'm saying. I'm saying that you MUST understand BOTH sides of the argument. I'm not saying that you should become a communist. I'm saying you should simply understand it. You cite North Korea as a communist country, when in reality it is almost a complete 180 degree turn from Marx's theory. You seem to me like you've read up on all the anti-communist and capitalist viewpoints, but failed to see the other side. Believe it or not, it is possible to understand an argument and STILL disagree with it. I read a lot about capitalism. Does that make me a capitalist? No, but it makes me smarter because I know both sides of the argument.

And with Frankca, it is simply a discussion between two people who understand both sides. He acknowledges that communism has strengths and weaknesses, along with capitalism, and he chooses capitalism. I have no problem with that.

Let me make it clear what I do have a problem with.

I have a problem with:
People who read up only on one side
People who say that one side is "all good" or "all bad".

I have NO problem with:
People who know about both sides of the argument and still have an opinion
Debating with those people
People feeling one side is "good" or "bad", as long as they recognize both elements exist.

I dislike fascism. But I understand it has some very good qualities. See how that works?

"People aren't equal. They never will be. I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you. It should be your parents. Some have more talent, better looks, higher intelligence. That's just the way it is. "

I understand that. But does that mean its not worth fighting for? True freedom will never be attained, because complete freedom means chaos. However, does that mean people shouldn't fight to be "more free"? The blacks should have stayed slaves because since they will never be completely free they should just give up? That makes no sense whatsoever.

"Um, no again. You said that these kids have no ability to change their surroundings. I pointed out that there are those who believe they DO have the power. Did I say they weren't coerced? Did I say they chose to join militias? No, I refuted your assertion that they are helpless. "

What!?!?!?!?!? The child soldiers ARE helpless. You go up to a 10 year old kid who has almost no education, point a gun in his face, and tell him to join your army, and see what happens. I consider that helpless. When you cannot change anything, because you are BRAINWASHED, DRUGGED, and COERCED, I consider that being helpless.

"I have heard that line before. "The evil, rich capitalists have victimized all of us poor, honorable peasants." But wait, I thought you said we should have both."

What in the world are you talking about? I am against a capitalist world, just like I would be against a communist world. There has to be a choice. I understand some people would love to be a capitalist and work their way up in life, and I understand that some people want to work for the benefit of everyone.

Let me make this simple: I don't believe that Kissinger and Che should only have one choice of government. THEORETICALLY (That means not in reality), half the world would be communist and half the world would be capitalist, and people would be free to choose which society to live in. That theory is much more complex than that, but that is just a general outline.

""Since I agree with a "bad" form of government I am a fool, idiot, etc. But if I agreed with you then POOF, I'm smart again."

LOL. That's exactly what you've been saying to me. Outstanding. "

No. No it isn't. Are you BLIND? HAVEN'T I SAID THAT I RESPECT FRANKCA'S POSTS? HAVEN'T I SAID THAT I DON'T MIND HIS OPINION, SINCE HE CLEARLY KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT? HAVE I EVER SAID THAT FRANKCA WAS STUPID? Honestly, do you READ these things? I never said I hate capitalists. I respect their opinions as long as they know what they are talking about!

What really grinds my gears is that you keep posting in this self-rightous manner when I keep have to repeating my answers.

"And don't emasculate yourself with the sheepish "I'm just arguing the good and bad points of both." retreat. You're a communist. Be a man. Admit it. You think it's a better system. I disagree. Live with it. "

I'm a communist. I'm a communist. I'm a communist. I'm a communist.

Have I ever said I wasn't? Or am I STILL repeating myself again and again? Honestly, READ what I'm SAYING.

And, for about the millionth time, since I guess you must have a reading disorder, I have no problem with people disagreeing. I have a problem with people who don't know both sides. You say there is nothing good in communism. That's just ignorant. You think that all the people who believe in communism are ignorant and uneducated. That's wrong. I don't think all capitalists are greedy.

But yes, I am arguing the good and bad points. People's opinions differ. But people MUST know the good and bad sides of both sides. So when I say both sides, then go "I agree with communism", there is nothing wrong with that BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW BOTH SIDES, and are free to make their own opinion.

I'm just curious. Tell me one pro-communist or pro-anarchist or pro-socialist book you've read. I can tell you a pro-capitalist book I've read. Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Noziak.

I'm arguing for communism, yes, but more important to me than convincing people of my opinions is that people know all the facts. You seem like you'd rather have everyone agree that capitalism is great and communism sucks. I disagree, and feel that both sides are necessary to preserve human freedom.

Thats what I'm talking about.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

See that response I respect. Lets try to make more responses like that, Blueboy77, where you can see BOTH sides of the argument.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

In April 1967, speaking from experience, he summed up his homicidal idea of justice in his “Message to the Tricontinental”: “hatred is an element of struggle; relentless hatred of the enemy that impels us over and beyond the natural limitations of man and transforms us into effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machines. Our soldiers must be thus; a people without hatred cannot vanquish a brutal enemy.” This use of hatred to encourage the dehumanization of ones enemy is but another manifestation of the doctrine found throughout the centuries to justify mass murder and torture.

Che shout to his captors in Bolivia, “Don't shoot – I'm Che! I'm worth more to you alive than dead!”. Then why didn't he save his last bullet for himself? He could only beg for his life. The murderous, cowardly and epically stupid little weasel named Che Guevara in Bolivia, got a major dose of his own medicine. Justice has never been better served.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

It's OK for Che to be killed without a trial, but its bad if he kills Batista's men without a trial?

Victorin, I really wish your raft had a hole. You don't even bother to read the stuff people post. Honestly, are you this stupid, or just doing this for kicks?

And its necessary to hate someone when you have to kill them in a war. There can be no hesitation when you have a gun in your hand, and you have to shoot without fear, and in order to do that you have to hate them.

But yes, that has been used to justify genocide. Did Che commit genocide? NO!

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blueboy777 17 years ago

Hey, it lives!

That was so cute - posting your message twice. I think it was the climax of your condescension on this thread. But, that's really the classic lefty MO, isn't it - claiming superior intelligence and education and treating those who disagree with you as though they are simply ignorant or stupid? And, I really don't think your handle helps to avoid this stigma, your holiness.

Actually, you remind me of John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid. Every time someone questioned his platforms, he would assert that they were "just not listening" or that they "didn't get it." His inability to defeat the most unpopular president of the 20th century is the cornerstone of modern lefty ineptitude - in my opinion.

And I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but accusing someone of having "reading comprehension issues" is one of the most hackneyed message board responses I have encountered in my e-travels. But then, hackneyed responses and logical fallacies seem to be the old standards of your repertiore.

ALSO regarding the book "The real Che Guevara and the idiots who idolize him". I skimmed through the book the other day, but I didn't have the time to buy it. But I'm sure some of you have. Tell me: How many good things does it say about Che?? Whether or not you support him, you have to realize he did SOME good things.

Look at life buddy. Things aren't like that. They are shades of gray. There is a bigger story than people are good and people are bad. The Nazis were bad. Yes. But they did do some good things. I'm able to say that. Does it mean I support Hitler? Of course not, but it means I know the whole story.

So - Che's "good things" would seem to outweigh the bad in your eyes, but Hitler's don't? How does that work, and what is the line of demarcation that shifts one from basically good to basically bad? If Che's victims were Jewish and nothing else about him changed, would he still be good in your eyes. Is there a magic number of victims that has to be reached?

By the way, my favorite part was when you admitted to having not read the material. Try to imagine the worst person you can think of, standing over you and grinning as you lay prostrate on the ground. That's me.

Is it possible that the people who disagree with you are aware of Che's "good" deeds and still find him despicable. Nah. Of course not. That would mean that we aren't just ignorant fools who don't know the whole story. It would mean that we know the whole story, but for some unimaginable reason, we still indict him. Couldn't be.

Victorin, I really wish your raft had a hole. You don't even bother to read the stuff people post. Honestly, are you this stupid, or just doing this for kicks?

Wow. Just wow. First you say that you wish the guy would have drowned and then you call him stupid even though he did not address you at all. I don't think I've ever seen anyone completely undo himself in so few words. I will notify the Message Board Hall of Fame selection committee immediately. Personally, I think you should be happy. Dude reads.

Edited to Add: By the way, in regard to the death of El Che the Magnificent, the evil, imperialistic US of A was staunchly in favor of due process. It was the Bolivians who refused, and ordered his death. Guess they didn't want to be "saved" after all.

[–] Your-God 17 years ago

Holy crap. I post a huge response and all you can comment on is my rhetoric? Honestly, you felt the need to pull the "I'm wrong so therefore I'll criticize how he says it" card?

"Actually, you remind me of John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid. Every time someone questioned his platforms, he would assert that they were "just not listening" or that they "didn't get it." "

Can you read? Can you honestly read? Here is my response to drgonzo, WHO DISAGREED WITH ME:

"See that response I respect. Lets try to make more responses like that, Blueboy77, where you can see BOTH sides of the argument. "

I've also posted, in response to Frankc, WHO DISAGREED WITH ME:

"I understand everything you're saying. It doesn't bother me that we disagree, and I respect your opinion. I say this to contrast it to blueboy77 or whatever, who apparently is unable to express his opinion in such a clear and intellectual manner. I can honestly say I hope he reads your messages and learns something, not your way of thought, but your way of expressing it. "

Do you see what I did there? I basically said that I respect his opinion, and its clear he respects mine, and I do not mind debating. I'm very aware that I'm probably not going to change his opinion, but I still have no problem debating politics. Thats how you expand your mind. You hear what other people have to say.

"So - Che's "good things" would seem to outweigh the bad in your eyes, but Hitler's don't? How does that work, and what is the line of demarcation that shifts one from basically good to basically bad? If Che's victims were Jewish and nothing else about him changed, would he still be good in your eyes. Is there a magic number of victims that has to be reached? "

If someone gives a homeless man a nickel, then shoots up a restaurant, then he has done both good and bad things. However, the bad thing very much overshadows the good thing. See how that works?

If all of Batista's henchmen had been Jewish, then I would have no problem with Che executing them. But since they were just war criminals, and none of them were innocent of horrible crimes to the Cuban people, I feel their executions were justified.

"By the way, my favorite part was when you admitted to having not read the material. "

Congrats. You were able to find a book I HAVEN'T read. I can give you a whole list. I never read Angels and Demons. I never read the Koran. I never read the Chronicles of Narnia. I didn't read the last Harry Potter book. I can go on. Would that make you feel better?

"Is it possible that the people who disagree with you are aware of Che's "good" deeds and still find him despicable. Nah. Of course not. That would mean that we aren't just ignorant fools who don't know the whole story. It would mean that we know the whole story, but for some unimaginable reason, we still indict him. Couldn't be. "

No its possible. I wish Che had made Cuba a democracy, but I know that was VERY difficult/impossible. I understand why he didn't. I also understand how people would HATE that about him. I understand that pacifists would hate Che. I understand how every rich Cuban would hate Che. I understand how people can hate him. I understand that. What I don't like is when people say he was "all bad", "all good", "a mass murderer who killed without reason", etc. Because those things just are not true. They are one sided.

Again, for what I believe is the billionth time, I have no problem saying "I understand Che killed people, and also helped improve the lives of a lot of Cubans, but I dislike him because he didn't do a great job with Cuba's economy". Thats fine with me. I don't mind that. But its possible to debate that.

"you call him stupid even though he did not address you at all. "

He doesn't read any responses. He just posts random things about Che that are ALL bad. When someone is so blind to NOT read responses and keep saying the same things, that person is pretty stupid to me.

"The Earth is flat"

"No, it really isn't. It's round. There's proof."

"The Earth is flat"

^^^ The person saying the Earth is flat is pretty stupid, if you ask me. Isn't that exactly what he's doing? Ignoring everyone and repeating himself.

"By the way, in regard to the death of El Che the Magnificent, the evil, imperialistic US of A was staunchly in favor of due process. It was the Bolivians who refused, and ordered his death. Guess they didn't want to be "saved" after all."

No, we weren't. Cite your source.

My film -Comments welcome:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5414259461393457386

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] victorin1 17 years ago

Che Guevara, who did so much to destroy capitalism, is now a quintessential capitalist brand. His likeness adorns mugs, lighters, key chains, wallets, baseball caps, toques, bandannas, tank tops, club shirts, couture bags, denim jeans, herbal tea, and of course those omnipresent T-shirts with the photograph, taken by Alberto Korda. His contemporary followers delude themselves by clinging to a myth, except the young Argentines who have come up with an expression: “I have a Che T-shirt and I don't know why.”

Thanks to Che's own testimonials, his thoughts and his deeds, we now know exactly how deluded so many of our contemporaries are about him.

Those who worship Che aren’t rebels or peace activists. They are dupes furthering the destructive legacy of collectivism and the mayhem it has wrought the world over.

Che's legacy in Cuba is one neighbor spying on another, high suicide rates, and a generation of young Cubans risking their lives on rafts in the Florida Straits rather than continue to live under a despotic government. Che's true legacy is simply one of terror and murder.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]