Skip to main content

View Diary: Che Guevara Smacks Bush! (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sure, (4.00)
    but he wouldn't be the first to pinpoint violent revolution as a means to an end...others have been in far better conditions and launched into all-out revolution...there's one country I can think of in particular where the social elites didn't like taxation without representation and ended up in a bloody war...

    Don't get me wrong- I don't advocate murdering those who disagree. In the end, though, he fell to the same fate of those he murdered- and at the hands of our goverment, no less.

    I wonder (out loud) if there's really much of a difference in the ways socialist/communist revolutionaries affected change in the 20th Century and say, our forefathers. Either way, they both left the door open for gross abuses of power.  

    •  A valid point (none)
      But worth noting that all successful revolution comes by popular movement, it is not imposed upon a country from the outside or from a fringe group within.  In the case of Che, there was a strong desire to fight the outside powers with no real concern about who represented the people he wished to liberate.  He seemed more pre-occupied with revolution then with any changed created by his revoution.  He essentially liked to join with anyone with a gun that can give him what he wanted.

      No different then his American counterparts.  His idea of revolution was to remove an imposed oppressive regime with another imposed oppressive regime.

      Which, to me, makes him a simple warmonger rather than an idealist struggling for real change.  His tactics and public statements also re-enforce my view of him.

      Fight AIDS and other Infectious diseases from your PC and make a real difference. Click Here

      by Closet VB Coder on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 08:39:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site