Registered user login:

Still a messiah?

Isabel Hilton

Published 04 October 2007

Forty years after his death, Che Guevara has little to offer as a guide for making revolution. So why does his image continue to inspire an almost religious following?

In 1968, when the photographer Don Honeyman was experimenting with Alberto Korda's iconic image of Che Guevara, he discovered something curious. Honeyman had been experimenting with a process of solarisation as a way of making fashion images more exciting and had been asked by a poster company to try the same thing with Korda's photograph of Che - said to be the most reproduced photo in the world. But he was having trouble duplicating the look of the image as it had first been published in Europe by the revolutionary press.

"I worked over the image for several days," Honeyman wrote, "but couldn't seem to get the same idealistic gleam in Che's eyes. I finally compared the first Che with the second, and discovered that some canny designer, presumably at [the original Italian printers], had made Che slimmer and his face longer, by about one-sixth. It was so effective that I, too, stretched him, and it worked like a charm. It doesn't really do to have a revolutionary who's too plump."

There is something fitting about the world's most iconic revolutionary image having been manipulated. Che's legacy, 40 years after his death in a failed attempt to ignite revolution in Bolivia, rests heavily on an image so powerful and so plastic that it still serves both as a generalised inspiration to rebel and as a vehicle for the sale of everything from ashtrays to T-shirts.

The photograph was taken in March 1960 at the funeral of the victims of an explosion on board the French freighter La Coubre in Havana harbour, in which 81 people had died. The Cuban leadership suspected sabotage by the CIA and the funeral, attended by Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, among others, became an anti-American rally. Guevara did not speak, and came into view only briefly for Korda, who was recording images of the event from the crowd. Korda had started out as a fashion photographer, but was then Fidel's personal photographer. He managed two shots with his Leica before Guevara disappeared from view.

The pictures were not published in the reports of the event, but Korda pinned them up in his studio in Havana, and in 1967 gave two of them to the Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, who was planning to publish Che's Bolivian Diary. Within six months Che had been assassinated in Bolivia and both Feltrinelli and the Cuban government published the first posters.

Even in death, Che was lucky with his photographers. Freddy Alborta, the only professional photographer allowed to see his body shortly after his execution in Bolivia, wired a haunting photograph of the corpse, lying on a table, surrounded by military men. The image is Christ-like and has been compared both to Andrea Mantegna's Lamentation Over the Dead Christ and to Rembrandt's Anatomy Lecture of Dr Nicolaes Tulp. But it was Korda's lucky shots that ensured Che Guevara was not for gotten. Korda's photograph, suitably doctored, took on a life of its own, creating an irresistible combination of celebrity and rebel glamour that gave Che an influence in a world that had long forgotten the details of his exploits.

Through the image, the complexities of Che's life and thought are reprocessed into an abstraction that can serve any cause. It was later used in a fake Warhol, a fake that Warhol authenticated, on condition that the revenues go to him. Che's transformation from revolutionary martyr to pop celebrity, with all that it implied in ubiquity, was complete. Forty years on, it is still going strong: when the Victoria and Albert Museum in London mounted an exhibition last year of the history of the Korda image, the curators assembled objects from more than 30 countries, used in contexts as diverse as Madonna's album American Life and Ricky Gervais's Politics DVD to Jean-Paul Gaultier's sunglasses campaign. It has been painted as graffiti in Bethlehem, carried in demonstrations from Palestine to Mexico and borrowed by such artists as Pedro Meyer, Vik Muniz, Martin Parr and Annie Leibovitz. It has been used to represent causes as diverse as world trade, anti-Americanism, teenage rebellion and Latin American identity. It has sold dolls, French wine, model cars, cigarette packets, stamps, Swatch watches, Austrian skis, ashtrays, mugs, keyrings and nesting Russian dolls. Nor is it under capitalism only that Che's image stimulates sales: souvenir shops in Cuba are festooned with Che tourist tat, and in Bolivia, where the left-wing president, Evo Morales, has installed Che's image constructed from coca leaves in his presidential suite. Tourist agencies even offer package tours to the spot where he died.

Emotional appeal

Che's durability owes little to his revolutionary achievements, though his revolutionary credentials are authentic. He was radicalised as a young man by the US-backed coup in Guatemala that overthrew the elected government of Jacobo Árbenz and he played a central part in the Cuban revolutionary struggle. After the revolution he served as finance minister, but grew increasingly alienated from the Castro brothers. He went to the Congo to support revolution there before setting out on the fatal Bolivian adventure, hoping to spread revolution across the subcontinent. Ernesto Guevara was certainly a revolutionary, but so were many others whose names have long been forgotten and whose records inspire more critical assessment.

Che's appeal is emotional. His death in Bolivia as a relatively young man created Che as secular Christ, the man who took upon himself the sins of the world and gave his life for the cause of the oppressed. His memory remains available to the oppressed; his image continues to inspire the hope of change and the virtue of rebellion, enhanced rather than diminished by his defeat. Christ, too, was defeated on earth and, again like Christ, Che's death conveys a promise of redemption through inspiration. He is the rock-hero biker revolutionary, the martyr to idealism, a James Dean in fatigues. When Pope John Paul II celebrated mass in Havana's Revolution Square, the giant image of Che that hangs there served as a revolutionary counterpoint.

But beyond his quality of universal icon of rebellion, what survives of Che's life's work? The promotion of Marxism and violent revolution? Forty years after his death, it is hard to imagine what an octogenarian Che would have felt about his younger self or about the world that he did not live to see. Would his personal and political asceticism have survived in an age in which rampant consumerism has captured the mass imagination? Would he have been distressed or gratified that the USSR, embraced by Fidel Castro against his objections, had collapsed? In 1964 he called Russia a "pigsty" because of the conditions in which it kept the workers. Would he have been any more gratified by the conditions of Cuban workers, nearly 50 years after the revolution? Would he have been encouraged by the rise of China, whose revolution he praised, or appalled at China's new character as a state-managed market economy?

In Cuba his image serves the mythology of the revolution that is used to glamorise a sclerotic state structure: old men in freshly laundered fatigues preside over a dollarised economy, heavily dependent on tourism, in which young women turn to prostitution to buy the consumer goods their counterparts in Miami take for granted.

In wider Latin America, his legacy is mixed. The perceived failure of the neoliberal reforms of the 1990s has intensified opposition to the Washington consensus and produced a series of left-wing victories at the ballot box that guarantee his name is honoured - as in 2006, when Daniel Ortega's Sandinista movement, now a party of dubious revolutionary credentials, was elected to power and the party faithful wore Guevara T-shirts to the victory party. Hugo Chávez, the populist leader of Venezuela, who is known for his eagerness to wear the clothes of the Cuban revolution, often dons a Che T-shirt. Some of his ideas, too, are back in vogue with Latin America's new left: pan-Americanism, support for the region's popular movements, nationalisation and centralisation of government. The various "expressions of the popular will" that he favoured over ballot-box democracy - neighbourhood courts and the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution - have found new expression in Venezuela and Bolivia.

But even here, Che might have felt a little unease. He was critical of much of the Latin American left for its rejection of the armed struggle, and grafted his Stalinism on to the tradition of revolutionary petit bourgeois nationalism in Cuba exemplified by José Martí, much as the Sandinistas were to use Sandino as an inspiration in Nicaragua. Yet many of those now most enthusiastic about his memory came to power through the ballot box. Only in Colombia, where he remains an inspirational figure for the dissident Farc, would he recognise true heirs.

Politically, there is no movement that could be called Guevarist. In Peru, Fidelistas and Guevarists are in opposing camps, as they are in Panama and Mexico. For contemporary intellectuals of the left, Che's legacy, with its romanticism and heroisation of the guerrilla, is problematic. For instance, Jorge Castañeda, the Mexican writer and sociologist, wrote in his biography of Che that Che's ideas had nothing to offer present generations. For Castañeda, his "refusal of ambivalence" and his unwillingness to understand life's contradictions were relics of a damaging era in Latin America. In an age in which the absolutes of Marxism and market capitalism were judged to have failed, Che had nothing to say.

Nor has his popularity in the west translated into any coherent politics. Che's image is still carried by the left, but is also adopted by thousands who have only the vaguest idea of his life, beyond the Hollywood version of The Motor cycle Diaries. In London, a small torchlit rally held in Trafalgar Square to commemorate the 35th anniversary of his death gave a flavour of the portmanteau character of Che's image. In the heroic prose of the participants, "banners and placards were held high" and "chants and speeches rang out from the megaphone across Trafalgar Square to the listening ears of the demonstrators and the passing public and readings from Che's writings were read out". Speakers came from Rock Around the Blockade, Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!, Victory to the Intifada, the Colombia Solidarity Campaign, the Africa Liberation Support Campaign and the people's movement of the Philippines.

To this assorted list, as to oppressed peoples elsewhere, Che has little to offer as a guide to making revolution. What he does have is the messianic image of sacrifice for the sins - or sufferings - of others. Regardless of his failures and contradictions, or the obsolescence of his methods and ideology, the potency of that image, with its symbolic, religious quality, continues to inspire.

As the Portuguese writer José Saramago wrote, in characteristically mystical terms: "Because the photo of Che Guevara was, before the eyes of millions of people, the image of the supreme dignity of the human being. Because Che Guevara is only the other name of what is more just and dignified in the human spirit.

"He represents what sometimes is asleep in us. It represents what we have to wake up to know and to learn to know even ourselves, to add the humble step of each one of us to the common road of all of us."

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

43 comments from readers

Sharif
04 October 2007 at 14:31

I agree with your conclusions. When I look back when I was young,Che Guevara did mean somebody who fought for justice and fairness. Fighting against the dictators ready to suck your blood. In retrospect, may be it was just a dream and we did not want to see the bare facts. Once I admired Castro, but half a century on, he is still around and making a mess of things. Makes us aware that we were wrong to look up to him.

oscarf
04 October 2007 at 15:05

Unfortunately a generation got duped into the image of Che as an ideal, the framer of the utopian "new man". Che's legacy does not include his role as assasin at "Las Cabanas" once Fidel's revolution overthrew Batista. Che Guevara's ruthless cruelty did not respect human rights nor democracy. Fidel's continuing autocratic rule for almost half a century reminds us of the true nature of this "revolutionary" leader.

writeon
04 October 2007 at 17:25

Isn't this slightly unfair? Che Guevara has become a mythical figure, a legend. In his life he was a legend. The manner of his death increased the power of his legend. Without doubt the man himself would have been angry, frustrated and appalled at the 'pimping' of his image, rather than the substance of his beliefs.

He was a man living in desparate and violent times. He regarded himself as a soldier in a war. A war directed against a corupt and powerful elite that had a close to monopoly of economic and political power and used it to satisfy their own narror 'class' interests.

One could argue that Guevara was in many respects necessary, like the Cuban revolution, in order to topple fuedalism and modernize Latin America. That Cuba isn't a 'socialist paradise' is a complex subject and not much to do with Guevara.

Is this article a critique of Guevara or his image? Surely there has to be a difference? Guevara the man can hardly be responsible for the way his image was presented, abused and used after his death can he?

I am not a particular fan of Che Guevara and I never have been, not then and not now. I did think it was a good photo though and an intresting and iconic image. But isn't it really a modern face of Jesus Christ more than anything else? That's why the image was stretched to make it look more like a religious icon.

Harry
05 October 2007 at 07:21

^^"That Cuba isn't a 'socialist paradise' is a complex subject and not much to do with Guevara."

Cmon now. It has everything to do with him. His ideology (communism) doesnt work, and never well. Its a crap idea. It doesnt work in practice, or even in theory. Guevara was just as bad as castro, stalin, hitler, or any of the other totalitatian lefties from history.

gnuneo
05 October 2007 at 11:36

i have deep suspicion of anyone over 25 who uses this icon: teenagers may be forgiven for not knowing what this violent anti-democrat stands for, apart from some 'feel-good' notion that he is 'one of them', and 'against The Man', but above that age it is a sign that the wearer is either politically ignorant, or else agrees with che's appalling ideals.

in this sense he is the opposite of jesus, who's actual message was good (sermon on the mount etc), converted into a message of hate and control by the Church (religious/political elite).

it all just goes to show that 'lefties' are just as likely to worship idols as the hierarchically minded 'righties'.

which just goes to show we need a better education system.

ghoulardi
05 October 2007 at 13:39

the specifics of Guevara's political philosophy and his historical record are irrelevant to his role as a symbol of the drive and sacrifice for change, indeed it is the very ambiguity over the details of his life in the popular understanding that has allowed him the space to become and abstract symbol of the movement, unlike other historical leaders of the left whose failings are only too well known

Manuel
05 October 2007 at 18:26

Che is the Patron Saint of Poser Rebels and "Starbucks Revolutionaries." Here in Los Angeles, I see our Mexican youth suckered in by this empty "Andy Warholian" symbol of youthful angst. It is very telling how his "Photoshopped" image so seamlessly merges with the crassest Capitalist consumerism. Equally telling is the fact that Indigenous people of Bolivia rejected Che as "just another White man telling us what to do." And they promptly killed him. He is the quintessential "fast food" revolutionary idol: simply drive to the mall and purchase your Che shirt to obtain your instant revolutionary credentials. No need to earn your credentials through actions. No need to idolize (or translate the political ideals of) real revolutionaries like Emiliano Zapata. Simply buy a Che shirt the same way you can buy a fake college degree for your wall.

Barnaby Lane
05 October 2007 at 18:27

To say that Che Guevara didn't respect human rights is like making the same accusation of Vercingetorix! He was the ultimate freedom fighter, and his actions were justified in the context of the time. Wearing a Che T Shirt in the present is an endorsement of the fight against oppression, rather than association with individual acts of brutality in a climate of desperate struggle.

Manuel
05 October 2007 at 18:28

Che is the Patron Saint of Poser Rebels and "Starbucks Revolutionaries." Here in Los Angeles, I see our Mexican youth suckered in by this empty "Andy Warholian" symbol of youthful angst. It is very telling how his "Photoshopped" image so seamlessly merges with the crassest Capitalist consumerism.

Equally telling is the fact that Indigenous people of Bolivia rejected Che as "just another White man telling us what to do." And they promptly killed him. He is the quintessential "fast food" revolutionary idol: simply drive to the mall and purchase your Che shirt to obtain your instant revolutionary credentials.

No need to earn your credentials through actions. No need to idolize (or translate the political ideals of) real revolutionaries like Emiliano Zapata.

Simply buy a Che shirt the same way you can buy a fake college degree for your wall. Che is the "diploma mill" of poser revolutionaries.

writeon
05 October 2007 at 19:12

Dear Harry,

The logic, sophistication, and subtlety of your comments have convinced me of the error of my ways! I bow, humbly to your obviously superior intellect and education. Guevara should be confined to the dustbin of history along with his chums, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro. Long live the counter-revolution!

Pencils
06 October 2007 at 01:12

Che Guevara, Castro and Stalin ' chums with Hitler' ? I wonder if some of the previous posters were directed here by some Miami Cuban exile website? It's attracted a lot more attention than most NS blogs, and they nearly all seem to have the same right-wing message.

Anyway, it's a good well-researched article with some interesting facts - I'd have to do a lot of reading to argue on any specifics, since none of it is fresh in my mind, but, whatever his failings ( and who doesn't have them) he was on the right side, as Castro was and is. He serves as an icon for those who want a better world, and that's no bad thing.

Harry
06 October 2007 at 08:42

"he was on the right side, as Castro was and is"

Thats what you say eh?? Then why not allow Cubans to say so, and vote? All the communists above really should no better- making a dictatorship is a pretty lousy way to stop oppression and bring equality. And no, Im wasnt "directed here by some Miami Cuban exile website". I just dont like dictators.

I love Barnaby Lane's comment: "He was the ultimate freedom fighter".

Then why did he create a dictatorship?

I have a question for all those pro-che communists here. Can you name a democratic communist regime that lasted? You know, one that actually allowed the people to endorse it with a free and fair election, like capitalist countries often do? I bet no one answers that one...

Pencils
06 October 2007 at 10:18

Capitalist countries don't have free and fair elections; with all sources of information controlled by the rich, and all candidates ultimately chosen by the rich , there is only a choice of options that favour the rich at the expense of the poor. What limited advances were made by the poor in the late 19th and early to mid 20 century were only possible because the workers were not dispensable and it was more cost effective to buy them off with some concessions. Also the example of the Soviet union with its free housing, health-care, education and jobs for life offered the threat of a good example, and there were powerful communist parties in all European countries after the war, and the entire male population was military trained - the capitalists had to buy them off. Now the story is that everything is constrained by 'globalisation' as if this was some natural force rather than a policy and strategy of the rich. You can't have pensions, reasonable working hours, health-care, affordable housing, free education, you name it... because of globalisation. I want it! You can't have it! Why not? Because I say so! That's democracy in the capitalist world.

And that is why the capitalist media devote so much energy to demonising the Soviet Union, and why the USA is so obsessed with Cuba. Noam Chomsky pointed out (and gave sources, but I can't be bothered looking them up) that the USA put hugely more resources into enforcing the blockade on Cuba than into finding Bin Laden, or stopping accounts linked with terrorist funding. Why? The threat of a good example. The Cuban people are involved at every stage in the democratic process in Cuba; just because there is only one party doesn't mean there is no choice - there are factions and tendencies which serve the function of parties in multi-party states. All disagreements can be expressed in that system, even to abandon the system if a majority wish it - to allow foreign capital to buy up the television and newspapers, and land and strip the people of their health-care and education and reduce them to the condition of the people of Haiti! If the people seriously want that they can have it! Do you think Castro could rule without the support of the people with the constant hostility of the most powerful nation on Earth, just next door. The Cuban people have seen what happened to Chile, El Salvador, Guatamala, Argentina, Nicaragua and even the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They know that embracing the capitalist model will not bring democracy, freedom and prosperity, but will bring instead a few new millionaires bit death or slavery to the majority. Tough choice!

hardwire
06 October 2007 at 20:56

Pencils, you seem to be very much mistaken in your belief that the Soviet Union was a pleasant place to live. On the contrary, the millions who starved to death or were sent to the gulags would, I imagine, disagree. One sure sign of a totalitarian government is when it has to force people to remain within the country's borders, the Berlin Wall is a good example. In your honorable drive for social equality, please do not loose sight of the fact that democracy and human decency are equally important to the tenets of socialism. If you are living in Cuba and happen to disagree politically with Castro's government, you are most probably censored or, at worst, put in jail.

Regarding your views on the capitalism, they sound a little too close to a conspiracy theory to merit argument.

Harry
07 October 2007 at 06:55

"Capitalist countries don't have free and fair elections; with all sources of information controlled by the rich..."

What nonsense to write on a free website owned by the new statesman! I didnt realise they were rich here! It makes me wonder why they allow any-capitalist windbags like pilger so much say.

As for all candidates being chosen by the rich- in the west, even the very poor can vote, which is a lot better than in cuba, where no one can (even though theyre all poor). Indeed, sometimes candidates get into power that business doesnt like. Labour before Blair was an example. Of course, they usually lost because they made everyone poor. But they sometimes won. And those were free and fair elections.

"The Cuban people are involved at every stage in the democratic process in Cuba; just because there is only one party doesn't mean there is no choice"

Yes it does. No one wants the same damn leader for... How long is it now? 5 decades?! What a naive thing to say- you think the people of cuba want to have the same old man running the place for their entire lifetimes?! And then, of course, passed onto the next most qualified- his brother, who else?! Think of your favourite politician, and imagine them being in charge for your entire life. You want that? You should know better.

"Do you think Castro could rule without the support of the people with the constant hostility of the most powerful nation on Earth, just next door."

Of course. If North Korea and Burma can, why cant Cuba?

Now, once again. Will a communist here name a communist country which allowed genuine free and fair elections, and survived it. As in, a choice of the leader. Not some silly "participatory" nonsence, which sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to the rest of us. And if they cant manage a real choice of the person at the top, why not? Could it possibly be because theyll lose and the system will collapse?

MarkBin
07 October 2007 at 16:39

Pencils, no one has ever achieved communism. We have two systems in the world - private capitalism and state capitalism. The latter is masqueraded as communism, which is used as an excuse by various governments around the world not to give people the vote, or the chance to vote only for candidates of the same party. As a Green Party member I take offence at the suggestion that it might be owned by big business. In Britain I can stand for election for that party and challenge the ruling party without fear of being locked up. Could I do that in Cuba?

Pencils
07 October 2007 at 22:58

Markbin - where did I mention communism? I agree with you - communism is a hypothetical ideal which has never been achieved; but it is certainly worth striving for as much as is practicable - I've recently been reading " the economics of feasible socialism" by Alex Nove, an expert on the Soviet economy, published in 1983, which (to quote the jacket) " seeks to identify a 'feasible socialism' conceivable in the lifetime of a child already conceived, which avoids (far-fetched or Utopian assumptions and the deformations of ' actually existing socialism' of the Soviet species. " That seems to me to be a worthwhile goal and I agree with you that the Green Party is the best bet for making some progress towards it. I would like to join a socialist party, but there isn't one; the ' actually existing' socialist (Trotskyist) sects are a complete waste of time (if they're not actively run by MI5. But, while the Green Party may not be owned by big business now, at some point the promise of power may induce its leaders to compromise, as has happened to the Greens in the USA, Germany and Ireland. That's not defeatism or anti-Green; it's the 'actually existing' situation - it will take more than a few attempts to get it right, and time is limited by the impending ecological catastrophe. But you're wrong about the Green Party presenting a 'challenge ' to the ruling party: the ruling party is not the political party that is currently in power, but the rich and powerful who allow that party to rule in their name. When the Greens are in a position to challenge that, then you will see the limits of 'democracy' - look at what happened to the communists in Greece and Italy after the war, or even the Wilson government. If you think you can vote into power a government that will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer without a very serious and nasty fight, you are 'making Utopian assumptions'. Just one example - are the media going to give exposure to ideas that threaten the wealth of their owners? Polls in the USA decade after decade have shown massive majorities in favour of socialised healthcare, but can you vote for that? No! Why not? A massive majority in the UK support the NHS, but can you vote for a party that will preserve it? Yes, you can vote Green, but they've no chance of getting elected in enough numbers soon enough to matter. So, effectively no! Why not?

So to Cuba? How does it compare with the rest of Latin America, the countries I mentioned above, Mexico; how does its health-care compare to that of the USA? How did the USA react to free and fair elections in , Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile and Guatamala in the sixties and seventies, or Haiti and Palestine today? If you don't know the answer to that, what are you doing in the Green party? And that, in fact, is a major problem with the Green party.

MarkBin
08 October 2007 at 03:37

I know the answer to your question. The USA reacted extremely undemocratically to the free and fair elections in the countries you listed. I agree with many of your points and the ideology of socialism, that's why I'm in the Green Party. Shame you couldn't answer my question about whether or not I could form a political party in Cuba and challenge the government.

I also think you're being a bit naive in thinking that only in democracies the real power is owned by a few unrepresentative people. This has also happened in all socialist countries - China, Cuba, Burma, Laos, Vietnam. Whichever side you're on, power is always consolidated in the hands of a few people. We are living out Lord of the Rings, sadly.

There are a lot of good things about Cuba, ie they're the only country that doesn't go into ecological debt each year, healthcare, education etc, but they've got to sort out that freedom of speech and association issue. It's just not on in the 21st century.

Tell me, if you were president of a socialist state, what would you do if I wanted to criticise you publicly and organise a rally to get you to change your policies. Beat me? Kill me? Put me in jail?

I will look up that book when I'm back in the UK (I live in China) . As for not belonging to a political party, I think you should do something about that. You can't argue that there is no hope of challenging the ruling classes if you're not prepared to join a party and give it a go. And it's much better for the soul to live in blind optimism than navel-gazing defeatism. ;-)

Harry
08 October 2007 at 04:39

"A massive majority in the UK support the NHS, but can you vote for a party that will preserve it? Yes, you can vote Green, but they've no chance of getting elected in enough numbers soon enough to matter."

What on earth are you talking about?!Labour has thrown money at the NHS for a very long time. The NHS has ballooned in size. Did you forget Labour?

"If you think you can vote into power a government that will stop the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer without a very serious and nasty fight, you are 'making Utopian assumptions'."

Come on! Labour was into that idea until blair, and they had plenty of opportunities to run the place. The problem was that their socialism ruined the economy leading to inflation, unemployment, and a conservative government.

"Just one example - are the media going to give exposure to ideas that threaten the wealth of their owners?"

Again, youre writing on a free website owned by the New Statesman.

To answer your questions:

"So to Cuba? How does it compare with the rest of Latin America, the countries I mentioned above, Mexico; how does its health-care compare to that of the USA?"

If you had studied latin america properly, youd know that its always been wriddled with socialism, corruption, and the constant threat of guerrillas and voters who want communism. The state in those countries has always been far too big, taxed too much, meddled too much, and been too corrupt. So why compare the most stable communist country to the least stable underdeveloped capitalist countries?

Chili is the only exception. And just because America doesnt have a decent health service doesnt mean that capitalism doesnt allow for it. Take a look at Europe if you value health. And, yes, its very simple for a country to give out a health service, cuba style, by putting all the money in the whole country into achieving it. It doesnt make it a good system, because cubans are so poor they have shoes made of spinach. In europe, we have health services, and indeed, real shoes.

"communism is a hypothetical ideal which has never been achieved; but it is certainly worth striving for as much as is practicable"

You know what? Communism not only doesnt work in practice, but it also doesnt work in theory. For example- how can we all be equal when some work harder than others?

How are you going to get people to work who say "well, if I get paid the same regardless of what I produce, why should I produce anything"? Thats what Id do. If I stopped getting paid according to performance, Id stop bothering. Howre you ever going to make people like me work, eh? Oh, let me guess- by setting up a "gulag class" and putting me in it.

In fact, since my last question hasnt been answered, let me ask you another.

Considering that we're supposedly all equal, what can a communist country do about people like me, who would say "I will only work the a minimum amount to avoid the gulag"?

writeon
08 October 2007 at 21:07

Harry,

You really let this stuff get to you, don't you? You need to keep a sense of proportion. Whilst you seem able and willing to see the difference between the 'surface gloss' of the socalled 'communist' regimes, compared to the often grubby, 'reality' underneath; you don't seem to focus your impressive critical faculties on the realities of the 'democratic states'.

Even a superficial examination of most western states reveals an odd system, which is formerly 'democratic', but which when observed closer, is, in reality, something very different. I think, for example, the US exhibits many 'qualities' one normally associates with a one party, socialist state. For example the massive and sustained redistribution of income, but in the US it goes from the poor to the rich. It perfectly feasable to evolve a kind of right-wing, centralized 'socialism' which disproportionally benefits the well-off.

Then there's the whole system of subsidizing inefficient industries by state handouts. This is usually assoiciated with 'socialist' states, but once again in the US one has developed a sytem of massive state subsidies to US industry by the backdoor. It's called the defence budget, and channels hundreds of billions a year into whole range of 'private' companies who could never hope to survive without state intervention in the socalled 'free market' system.

The main point here, is that our 'democratic' system is far from actually being really democratic, it isn't even anti-socialist. Someone once said that the US system was really socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor! Whilst this is a bit symplistic, it has the advantage of helping us to focus on 'substance' rather than merely 'form.'

Harry
09 October 2007 at 04:06

I agree- America has dysfunctional socialist elements thrown in. But Im not saying "I back America and am against Cuba". Im saying "I generally back capitalism and am generally against socialism." Generally- as in, I think we need some social measures, of course- like a police force, schools, and even universal healthcare. I also think America is an amazing mess, when you consider their wars, guns, and moronic presidents, but this has more to do with their culture than capitalism.

Im not defending America- Im defending capitalism (especially the European form), when compared to communism- not left-wing capitalism, but the che guevara "we're all equal" nonsense.

If I "let this stuff get to me", its because Ive spent too much time in South America, especially Venezuala and Colombia. When I hear these middle-class, pampered intellectual Westerners backing this obscene ideology, I really think they should know better.

Pierre
09 October 2007 at 14:52

The answer when it comes to the question of capitalism/democracy for developing nations lies in the comparison between Haiti and Cuba.

The US with their form of democracy cannot provide health care for their people [300 Million], they cannot deal with the devastation of Katrina. China on the other hand is working its way out of poverty for over ONE Billion citizens. It's not an issue of black and white rather is a degree of grey , and adjusting to the circumstances.

Harry
09 October 2007 at 15:56

Cuba/Haiti? Why is that a decent comparison?! Id prefer South Korea and North Korea, or East Germany and West Germany. Picking the poorest country in the west (one which usually doesnt even have a government), and the only communist country (other than North Korea) stable enough to last into this century doesnt really make sense.

And yes, America is the only rich western capitalist country not to have universal healthcare. Its the exception, not the rule. Latin Americans often forget this- the people here should know better.

And yes, America's response to Katrina was sloppy. But at least they can vote for a change of leadership, which is more than Cubans can do. What can a Cuban do to protest at the fact that they can only afford shoes made of spinach?

China is only lifting its huge population out of poverty because it is now a capitalist country. Try this for another comparison: China under communism, and China under capitalism.

Harry
09 October 2007 at 16:11

You know, every time the subject of Cuba comes up, regardless of the ancient dictator and the grinding poverty, Im still told, time and again, that "at least they have a health service!" Well, big deal! Dear oh dear, if thats all communism can bring, whats all the fuss about? Its hardly worth it, considering you have to listen to Castro rambling on for (how long now?) 40 odd years about imperialist greedy America, while you live in total squalor. You know, in England, we have universal healthcare too. I really dont feel all that priviledged, considering every other European country has managed the same feat.

Dolohov
10 October 2007 at 08:36

Rock on Manuel, and give it up to the Bolivian Rangers who took out the racist dirt bag back in '67.

Anyone here ever spent any time in Bolivia and Argentina? If so, they would know that an Argentine trying to "liberate" western Bolivian indigs is about as plausible as Brittney Spears trying to liberate the poor and oppressed of the Niger delta...

In the words of late Bolivian Pres Alfredo Ovando, "He came to kill, and was killed."

As for current Bolivian Pres Evo, a Che t-shirt would definitely be a step up... Maybe he's waiting for the issue of a Che sweater-vest to sport on his next night out with Hugo and Sean Penn in their jacked up red berets...

Dolohov
10 October 2007 at 08:43

Check that--Eastern indigs...What-ever...Where-ever...

Cybertiger
10 October 2007 at 12:57

@Harry

"China is only lifting its huge population out of poverty because it is now a capitalist country. Try this for another comparison: China under communism, and China under capitalism."

In my humble view, there are simply too many Americans: I would like to see America adopt a one child policy - or at least adopt the carbon footprint of one tiny child per breeding pair.

Harry
11 October 2007 at 06:58

Hello Cybertiger. As always, a jolly intellectual arguement. Black and white- One side vs the other. If you insult America, you can neutralise my arguements against communism. Nice one. It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white, my side and your side world.

Did you find the answer to my question I was asking before? You know, "can you name a communist country that survived a free and fair election?"

Cybertiger
11 October 2007 at 11:00

Hi Harry

"Black and white- One side vs the other. If you insult America, you can neutralise my arguements against communism. Nice one. It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white, my side and your side world. "

Hail to the Potus. The Potus told us that we were either 'with them or against them'. Given the stark choice, I chose against those vengeful black and white capitalists from America.

Harry
11 October 2007 at 12:56

Ill take that as a "no" then.

Cybertiger
11 October 2007 at 17:04

@Harry's world

"It must be nice to live in such a simple, black and white, my side and your side world. "

Through my spectacles, I would prefer to look out on a world with many fewer people, beige, green or purple - and certainly fewer Americans. The blacks and whites, florid reds and blues are dazzling - but my preference is to view the world through lenses tinted rose and with silver coloured frames. Right on Che, the Messiah - and some simple justice and fair play.

Harry
12 October 2007 at 10:31

Yes. Youre very poetic, Cybertiger. If only you could defend your opinions.

You know, in Cuba, every child has to repeat each morning, “We will be like Che.”

I would think that you had been educated in Cuba, were it not for the fact that you are allowed to use the internet.

"The Messiah" You say. Dont you value freedom of speech? Or freedom to disagree?

Ah of course, you wont answer this questions in an intelligent manner. Youre a lot more likely to just blabber a load of random nonsense again. Yeah, this should be interesting... Lets hear if you have anything worth saying in that black n white brain of yours. I bet itll either be some purile gibberish, or itll be something anti-American (again, Im anti american too, so there isnt much point. It doesnt stop capitalism from being the least-bad form of government). I wonder if you can break out of your simplistic way of thinking and give me an intelligent answer to one of my questions...

Cybertiger
12 October 2007 at 13:35

@Harry

Johann Hari and Naomi Klein don't seem too enamoured of the disaster that is capitalism.

Naomi Klein "takes the central myth of the right - that, since the fall of Soviet tyranny, free elections and free markets have skipped hand in hand together towards the shimmering sunset of history - and shown that it is, simply, a lie."

http://www.newstatesman.com/200710110047

"Klein's account of this "disaster capitalism" is written with a perfectly distilled anger, channelled through hard fact. She has indeed surpassed No Logo. Today, this brilliant book should stir a tsunami of shame - and of political action by us to finally stop the shock "therapy"."

I take it you'll be buying a copy of the 'Shock Doctrine'.

PS. As a human being interested in 'justice and fairness', I'd vote for a mixed economy - no to communism and no to capitalism in their purest, vilest, most violent forms. Though an atheist, I long for the return of the Messiah. And long live Cuba and the will of the people.

Harry
13 October 2007 at 06:48

Yes, I read that book too. It focused on thousands of tiny, dull stories, and missed the enormous success that capitalism has been. It was over-rated and in need of some serious editing. It could have been cut down to one third the size and have the same impact. I wasnt impressed.

"And long live Cuba and the will of the people.", and yet you still missed the answer to my question. Let me put it differently- how is the will of the people served by denying them the ability to disagree? Or to vote?

I also have another question. Ive always found this notion that "we re all equal" to be complete nonsense. Some of us work hard, and some of us dont. Theres nothing wrong with that- but people who dont produce much should surely be paid less. I asked it before, but no one has tried to answer... Im a very hard worker. The thing which motivates me is that I want money, for things like holidays and music systems. If I moved to your ideal communist society- I would simply say "well, Im going to work the minimum amount possible." because, of course, Im not going to be paid more based on performance. Unfortunately, a society where no one works is always going to end up very poor indeed. Now, considering that according to your ideas "we re all equal", how would you stop the majority from simply saying "Im barely going to work at all"?

Seriously, Im curious.

Cybertiger
13 October 2007 at 09:49

Where did I say that "we're all equal"? As it happens, I experienced a severe spasm of superiority from that nasty complex I suffer from, when reading guff like that above. And didn't I say that I wear rose tinted spectacles with silver frames?

Harry
15 October 2007 at 05:43

Dear oh dear cybertiger, if you dont think that "we re all equal", why on earth would you think che was "the messiah"?! It was pretty central to his beliefs! As a communist, that was the logic behind everything he did!

You dont have any serious beliefs, do you? You say hes the messiah but you havent said why- all youve said is that you disagree with the logic behind his actions. And the rest of your posts are just poetic nonsence about spectacles! Maybe debating isnt for you?

Why dont you tell us all- what exactly is it that you liked about che? Is there anything which would make him qualify as a "messiah"?

And can we skip all this poetic nonsence? You and I both know that all this stuff about spectacles, and other "flowery" language is just abstract tripe to cover up the fact that you dont have any real opinions.

azazel
18 October 2007 at 18:44

I have an even better and innovative approach to Cuba and Castro. Guy's why don't we campaign for a full-fledged sanctions and embargo against Cuba. We starve them to death or else they adopt capitalism. These people of Cuba which we had remorselessly and mercilessly subjected to sanctions for over forty years have not given us what we want. Despite these stringent embargos, all has not changed i.e. Castro is still there, communism is still there, Cuban women we can't have that easily and Cuban beautiful beaches we can't enjoy (mind the humiliating way we've been kicked out by the deranged Cuban people who actually kicked democracy out by doing so). Now we the free world have to act. agianst Castro's Cuba. we have to infiltrate the Cuban society with our democratic values i.e free nudist clubs, legalisation of prostitution, more fornication, abortion, same sex marriage, paedophilism, orgies, free swinging, decrimilisation of drugs, teenage sex and pregnency, free Eastern European sex slave.

In a nutshell we should promote our free and democratic value above in order to get Cuba to our side.

Do not get me wrong, I am waxing laothe Castro for his Extraordinary rendition and his notorius Gauntanamobay.

Harry
19 October 2007 at 02:40

"Guy's why don't we campaign for a full-fledged sanctions and embargo against Cuba. We starve them to death or else they adopt capitalism"

You know what? I love to hear this from communists: Cuba is poor because of trade embargos! How wonderful is that?! Communists spend half their time complaining about how terrible trade/globalisation is for everyone, and how it makes people less equal, promotes exploitation etc etc... And why is Cuba poor? "Because capitalist countries wont trade with them!" I love it!

Azazel, your endless sarcasm doesnt actually contain any new ideas or information to bring the debate forward. Nor does it answer the questions Ive asked time and again in this forum.

"our democratic values i.e free nudist clubs, legalisation of prostitution, more fornication, abortion, same sex marriage, paedophilism, orgies, free swinging, decrimilisation of drugs, teenage sex and pregnency, free Eastern European sex slave."

You think that these are only democratic values? Cmon, idiot- say something serious.

taghioff.info
20 October 2007 at 16:28

Harry

The Indian state of Kerala voted in a very successful communist government that lasted quite a long time and lauded in international development circles for the huge improvements in health and education that it brought about.

Kerala has population larger than many small countries, has its own governmental structure and makes a lot of its own laws, so it is as good as a country, and so answers your question.

I would present a challenge back: Name me a country that has developed successfully without strong interventionism from the state, and a coherent policy for investing in its population (i.e a welfare and public health and education system.)

Harry
21 October 2007 at 15:49

taghioff.info, Im pleased to hear from someone serious...

Kerala cannot, without a great deal of difficulty and time remove its democratic checks and balances, as it still has to work with a lot of delhi's rules. A lot of the system there is still very much capitalist- we still have the market, and we still have private property and private media. A communist party running a state is not the same as a communist system. India's communist-run states are not able to be fully communist-they cant take over the media or private property. In other words, they havent made it to communism.

An example of a country Id give is Britain. Im not arguing against some socialist ideas such as a public health system or education system- Im arguing against this che guevara we're-all-equal type of system.

A question for you- in a full communist system, why should anyone work hard if they wont be paid more for doing so?

Cassandra.says
21 February 2008 at 18:32

None of you appear to have the self-awareness to notice that you don't actually know how the Cuban electoral system works.

Cuba has "no party" elections. The Communist Party is constitutionally barred from nominating or endorsing candidates. All the internationals have parties they support in Cuba -- their candidates are proposed for nomination every election. They just never garner any support.

Cuban candidates for office are nominated in "town hall" meetings in their neighbourhoods which must nominate no less than two nor more than eight candidates. (I would trade my vote for this power any day. I nominate Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky. You get to vote on them.) Proposed names are voted on in a show of hands. No counter-revolutionary parties' candidates manage to pass this initial screening.

The nominees are passed to an electoral commission (do your own homework if you want to know how it is chosen) who selects a slate from them. The slate is then returned to the electorate for ratification. Anyone who fails to get 50% ratification is not elected. Those elected can be recalled.

The virtues of this system are many but the most significant may be the lack of room in it for manipulation by money. This is probably why the U.S. decries it without describing it.

Cassandra.says
21 February 2008 at 20:04

And another thing, why do you say Cuba is poor?

Along with the much-mentioned healthcare and education, Cuba has eliminated abject poverty. There is no hunger, no homelessness. The kids have shoes, the old people have teeth. The GDP grew 7.5% in 2007, marking the 14th straight year of growth, which is unique in the hemisphere. In 2005, minimum wage was more than doubled, minimum pension and social assistance was trebled, the majority of wages were raised at least 50%. In '06 and '07, prices paid to coffee and livestock producers were doubled. All ancient appliances were recalled and replaced with new energy-saving stoves, refrigerators, air conditioners, fans, pressure cookers and water heaters. Over a million dwellings have been built, repaired or renovated in the past couple of years.

Since Chavez broke the oil blockade, hundreds of shut-down factories have reopened.

Name another country that had 80% malnutrition in 1959 that is as rich as Cuba.

Raja Chatterjee
16 June 2008 at 21:08

Whatver said and done ...no one can deny che was one of the greatest revolutionery ....i wont agree with anyone who doubts his integrity.......................but he was also a human being and human being makes mistake .......in my view he should hae never left cuba ....but he a visionery in his own thinking and i dont deny peoplr with such vision and implemet the vision in real life are rarely born ..but he had the courage and guts to have a vision to change the world .......alas i wish he could also anticipate or had a vision that ..after 40 years the most powerful thing in the world is Dollar ...................its dollar dollar every where......................i feel pitty on myself and the entire human kind who is now running after money money and money.........................to conclude i would say ..no matter what end che met ..we must learn that we all should have a vision in life and live with the vision to make it happen that will give a real meaning in life to live ...determination, courage ,never say die are the other things to learn fom him........................Red Salute to che

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Will power sharing work in Zimbabwe?