Che Guevara and Capitalism

[ArenaBoy]

For those who don't know, you may have seen this image below on t-shirts. A learning link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg

That is Che Guevara who was one of the people who helped Fidel came to power (He and Fidel were great friends). Che's image can be seen anywhere ranging from murals in Cuba to postcards and bikinis. Now this man was against a lot of things capitalism represented, he was always for the people and was killed 40 years ago at this time. (Captured in Bolivia trying to cause an uprising. )

Now what I am asking is that is it wrong to go and make money off of something ridiculous like a bikini (Which thankfully his daughter finds stupid) even though it goes against the ideals of what it represents? I don't mind the t-shirts (Which can be a great way to educate people on it) but I find that these sort of things are against what he stood for. The only thing I bought that involved Che? The Motorcycle Diaries. I respect the man for what he did.

[Giggle Goose]

:mad: They probably sell those shirts and bikinis at Hot Topic or something...which is owned by the Gap.

Marketing and selling the image of a pro-socialist for a profit is wrong on so many levels, no matter where your political views lean. A lot of people don't even know what the hell they're buying.

I own and adore the Motorcycle Diaries, btw.

[rahmota]

Yeah everytiem i see one of those i think hes got to be up to about 90k rpms by now.

Its generally stupid and nonsensical so of course its done.

[AFPheonix]

No one ever said Capitalism was tactful.

[Rubystars]

I have no respect for communists, period.

[rahmota]

Well I have no respect, like or love for free market capitalists.

Milton Freidman is a servant of satan if not his butt buddy.

And considering that no government on this planet has ever used true communisim theres no way of comparing things.

================
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

[Rubystars]

That's what communists always say, when you point to communist atrocities.

"Oh, that wasn't true communism."

I guess that's sort of like how the ones who ran the Spanish Inquisition weren't "true Catholics" and the ones who committed the terrorist activities of 9/11 weren't "true Muslims".

The only reliable stick I can measure something by is its real-world effects.

[LizaMarie]

That's what communists always say, when you point to communist atrocities.

"Oh, that wasn't true communism."

I guess that's sort of like how the ones who ran the Spanish Inquisition weren't "true Catholics" and the ones who committed the terrorist activities of 9/11 weren't "true Muslims".

The only reliable stick I can measure something by is its real-world effects.

This harks back to Plato and his ideas of the world of Forms (unreachable world of ideas and ideals) vs. the real world. While saying you only see value in real-world effects is an understandable statement, I think the examples you cite are poor ones to support your philosophy. Every society is going to have its fringe groups, like Islam and Christianity, and every form of government looks better on paper than it does in the real world. You mention Communist atrocities, but look at what Capitalism has done to people. No philosophy is perfect, or will ever be lived out exactly by the book.

[rahmota]

That's what communists always say, when you point to communist atrocities.

Actually considering most of the major governments that have called themselves communists where actually socialists yeah.

And what about the capitalist atrocities? Where the greed for money overwhelmed the value of human life? Where the simple easy task of doing the right thing was subverted and pushed down because it would cost too much money?

[rahmota]

That's what communists always say, when you point to communist atrocities.

Actually considering most of the major governments that have called themselves communists where actually socialists yeah.

And what about the capitalist atrocities? Where the greed for money overwhelmed the value of human life? Where the simple easy task of doing the right thing was subverted and pushed down because it would cost too much money?

[rahmota]

Sorry about the double post. I'm not exactly sure what happened. One of the joys of being on dial up is random fun and exciting side trips into the unknown.

[ArenaBoy]

That's what communists always say, when you point to communist atrocities.

"Oh, that wasn't true communism."

I guess that's sort of like how the ones who ran the Spanish Inquisition weren't "true Catholics" and the ones who committed the terrorist activities of 9/11 weren't "true Muslims".


Fringe groups like Liza said. When you refer to the atrocities (In communism) you think of Stalin who I will be the first to admit was a bastard. Hell Lenin didn't even want Stalin in power as he knew that he was bad. I also know plenty of Muslims who are insulted by random people because they're Iraqi or Iranian and they wouldn't even harm a fly.

Che was the exact opposite of Stalin and wanted to bring change for the good in government. Che saw some things that got him thinking (He lived a privileged life) when he went on his trip around South America. He spent most of his life after that trip trying to help other countries change their governments for the better. He actually disagreed with Fidel (IIRC) on the way things were being run in Cuba.

The only reliable stick I can measure something by is its real-world effects.

Bad idea. It tends to bring in many negative stereotypes about a group of people. Those VIPS I bitched about when I worked in the arena didn't mean that all rich and wealthy people are jerks. I know some who keep to themselves and are polite as can be. If anything it's as pointless as judging somebody just because of the way they look.

[Rapscallion]

And what about the capitalist atrocities?

Obviously not real capitalists...

Rapscallion

[Dreamstalker]

No philosophy is perfect, or will ever be lived out exactly by the book.
Precisely. So many things look great on paper/in theory, but fall apart in actual practice because you can't account for everything people will do.

I was talking to a friend a few days ago, we were "debating" (in reality it was more like my being talked at and trying to get a word in edgewise) the merits and flaws of a national health care system. For thinking that might work, I get called a Communist (WTF). Then ensued the following:

Me: "Just curious, have you read anything on communism?"
Him: "Well yeah it [what?] was required reading in [college class that I also took] but school is stupid so I didn't read any of it." (so if you never did any of the reading or research how do you know on what you speak?)

The rest of that conversation went nowhere fast.

[rahmota]

I'll agree that any *ism is going to have problems and issues with those who want to take a more extreme view of things or manipulate the system for personal gain. Especially in any system that rewards greedy and selfish behavior. What would have to be done is change the way people think about greed and wealtha nd resource distribution. Instead of whats in it for me, what can i do to minimize my impact on resources.

Che was a real communist in that he favored a form of power, wealth and resource distribution that left everyone on a level playing field but not the some are more equal than others of lenin/fidel "communism" or the I am the only one with power all other are equally powerless of stalin "communism".

Arena:He actually disagreed with Fidel (IIRC) on the way things were being run in Cuba.

From what i recall from my studies in college (yes I 've read a book;) ) thats true. They had a wee bit of a tiff and thats why che left cuba. But the image fidel wanted since che actually was more popular than him, was that he had inherited che's vision and che went on to do more good bringing his vision to the rest of the world. Or somethign like that. I'd have to go dig the class notes up or use some googlefu to get more info.

Raps:Obviously not real capitalists...

Radical free-market capitalists? Now theres a scary concept...........

Dream:The rest of that conversation went nowhere fast. Yeah i can imagine that. Some of my conversations along similar lines have not gone as well.

[Rubystars]

Unregulated capitalism can also be devastating in its effects, granted.

[Dreamstalker]

Dream: Yeah i can imagine that. Some of my conversations along similar lines have not gone as well.
This guy loves to argue only the flaws, whatever the topic may be. Said flaws are often poorly researched/poorly understood by him...IIRC on this topic alone he wardered into the realm of extreme hypocrisy more than once.

[rahmota]

Dreamstalker: Ahh yes I used to have that problem debating with an exfriend of mine and the ones on the website I got booted from. They would go to extremes to try and get the slightest what if extremist negative example of something they disagreed with but if you pointed out the same for what they believed they would go off the deep end and say you where using strawman or ad hominium or other stuff to try and sandbag the argument away from anythign negative about their sacred cow.

I'll admit that pure communisim at the national level would be very difficult, and dangerous really, to use given human nature. It would have to be modified and people would have to learn to think in a whole different way about greed and rewards and all. I think it could be done. It would take a

Ruby: Now thats an understatement.