Yes, I've always thought mass murderer's are great. I especially love it when they kill innocent people. They just bring a warm feeling to my heart. What the fuck? I don't think you know who he was or what he did. Let's hope for the sake of humanity that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'll explain for you. First he killed around 560 by firing squad. He then came up with the brilliant idea of "labor camps" where people would be rounded up and eventually would be killed. This included everyone from gays to people with diseases to kids who played music too loudly. I'm not sure of the exact number, but he racked up around a couple hundred thousand deaths. I am positive however that Che and his henchmen killed a much bigger percentage of the Cuban population than the Nazis did with the German population. If you take away the fact that he was Communist, the Nazis would be very proud of him. Yes, Che was very adorable.
Dudez....RAGE FUCKEN RAWKS, MAN!! Fuck ya, che guevara dude.commiez are fucken cool...they know how to rock. FUCK CAPETALIZM!! HUGO CHAVEZ dude!!! End opreseon. i gott to weare tom merellos hat man. RAGE is totalie anti-istablish mint...they are on M-tee-vee sometimeZ. man....i have liek6 che posters dude. i am a rebal ialso have a redstar and a soveeat flage in my room....armbands too. mui dude joine my band ....weregona take over and destroy capetalizm. REVALUSHIN!! AMERICINS R EVALE!!!
Che guevarra did a couple of good things but he was no better than the people he and fidel beat. I agree with Trippymcnugget. Che wasnt that great!
If Che had done all he said he was for, then he would have been a good man. However, his actions didn't follow his words and he became an oppressor rather than the liberator he envisioned himself to be. And Hugo Chavez.. oh don't even get me started. *stomps around in rage*
Do you have any documentation that he killed innocent people? When and where? Why do you say he didn't follow his own words? The most interesting thing about Guevara is that he followed his words to the end. If he urged people to do x, he would do x. If he would say that all people should do y, he would do y. He was both an oppressor and a liberator. He supported the poor peasents and the working class, while trying to supress the capitalist class. A liberator for the many poor. An oppressor for the few rich. "Around 560" war criminals, yes. A couple of hundred thousand deaths? You're out of your mind! :& Geez, this is so pathethic. Go read some history books, son.
He was a doctor and a revolutionist that helped Cubans (and South Americans) break free from American enslavement policies. I respect him. I also appreciate Hugo Chaves...he kicks ass.
You make me feel great shame for being a socialist. So do you. I highly doubt it. Pretty much nobody was an admirer of Joseph Stalin.
I respect what Che and Fidel did, they rose up against America like no one has done in quite sometime.
I don't have a problem with them rising up against the U.S government if they felt that the U.S government's Cuban policies weren't serving the interest of the Cuban population. I disagree with what they replaced Batista with,communism. I think they should have focused on ending government corruption,racial discrimination and expanding economic opportunities to all Cubans with capitalism. Capitalism itself wasn't Cuba's problem,dictatorship and corruption were. So eliminate those two,and not put in place a communist dictatorship.
When they started to rise up, Fidel and Che did not know what they were doing, they just knew what Batista was doing was horrible to the people of Cuba. They took a stand and were improvising and learning along the way. When Fidel passes away and hands the reigns to someone else, I think your going to see a great and proud Cuban nation rise up to be one of the greatest places to live in. Cuba has free education, and free medical care, to all the people of Cuba, what more can you ask for? They have absolutely no illiterate people living there. I think its beautiful. The Cuban people will look back at Che and Fidel like they look up to the faces on Mt. Rushmore.
Well there seems to be a cost with all these free things in Cuba. If what is written below is accurate then the Cubans will need to make many reforms after Castro. " Whilst Cuba's medical achievements are undoubtedly laudable, they come at a price. The high priority that healthcare takes within government policy has meant a diversion of resources away from other sectors which, as a result, have suffered. Put bluntly, advances in biotechnology may not be fully appreciated by a population having to queue for hours to receive food rations. The introduction of emergency measures in 1990 to deal with the economic adversity precipitated by the collapse of the Soviet Union included near-total food-rationing. In part due to a lack of fuel, transport on the island is dire, with many Cubans cycling or walking. Housing stock is also in very bad shape. By the 1980s Cuba had a serious housing shortage and has since built virtually no new residential housing. Consequently, it is believed that some 15% of the country's housing stock is in poor condition, including some 1,000 houses that collapsed in the capital, Havana, in 1994 alone, and a further 4,000 that are still in a precarious state today. Poor nutrition and worsening housing and sanitary conditions have been associated with a rising incidence of tuberculosis - from 5.5 cases per 100,000 population in 1990 to 18.0 per 100,000 in 1997 (latest figure available). Thus, deteriorating standards of living are affecting Cuban health, despite all the positive achievements and efforts made on the medical care front."
From what I have read (although I have not seen any quotes), yes, he was an admirer of Joseph Stalin. But I believe that his admiration was still limited. I believe Guevara used to look more forward than backwards, and thus his focus would not be on Stalin's actions (although his policies could have served as historical examples), the politics of the contemporary would be what he would focus on. At the time there were not many examples of socialist governments in history. I have the feeling that he admired Mao (who ruled at the same time as Che)more than Stalin. Mao Zedong and the other marxist-leninists in China came to power through guerilla warfare with it's base in the rural areas and with the peasants. Class struggle started from there, liberating small villages and cities, growing and growing, taking on bigger cities, until the whole nation was liberated. Ernesto Guevara focused on action in the rural areas, with the jungle and forest as natural defense from the enemy. This strategy would go against the orthodox leninist method of building a revolutionary movement in the party, not by active struggle by a small group, gathering popular support from the peasants. Although my knowledge of Stalin is limited, I believe he too was sceptical, or/and even somewhat opposed to this strategy. It is said that both Raúl and Fidel Castro had to remind Che almost continously that he had to focus more on struggle in the urban areas. I am focusing on this, because Che was first and foremost a revolutionary, not a man who would see himself settle down for decades in an office. Another thing that could be important on his view on Stalin, would be that Stalin used secret agents against the supporters of the bourgeoisie. Mao, on the contrary, relied on mass movements (not just claiming you do something for the people, but actually encouraging the people to do things themselves), just like Che did. Che was much more of a "man of the people", than a "man above the people". I believe that Che's view was that, although Stalin resisted imperialism and managed to change the Soviet Union from a backward nation to one of the most developed nations; sometimes even surpassing that of the United States, he had (a) an improper revolutionary strategy, had (b) too much of a pragmatic outlook, and (c) did not rely on mass movements. Just because Che agreed with the basics of Stalin's policy, does not mean that he agreed with it entirely. Things are not black and white.
I agree. But I believe the "collapse" of Cuba's economy, was mostly due to Cuba's dependency on the Soviet Union. Things are getting better, but there are still serious problems in Cuba. I'm just thankful that the Cuban government decided to do the best of the limited resources after the fall of the USSR. If they wouldn't have handled it the way it did, a lot of people would perhaps have died. Cuba still continue to rely on other nations. It is not self-sufficient. Before, there was the sugar. Now, it's tourism. Things like what we saw in Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union will continue to happen, as long as Cuba does not strive to become independent, economically speaking. I wouldn't paint the picture totally black though. Cuba is the leading nation in the third world, especially in the fields of science, education, and healthcare. It aint perfect, but a lot better than common third world countries. What is amazing is that Cuba has even managed to surpass the U.S. in some areas. That's quite an achievement for a tiny developing nation like Cuba.
Please refer to the American Entomologist Volume 47 Number 4 for the article "Alternative Agriculture in Cuba" by Sara Oppenheimer
Mao was obviously a superior "revolutionary" to Stalin, since he managed to roughly 40 million people, compared to Stalin's mere 20 million victims . . .
