Che Guavera

Post Reply New Topic

Why do so many PC idiots act like Che Guevera is another Jon Lenin? Like communism (which always ends up in violent oppression of the people) is some big happy flower child greatful dead concert? The man is a f*****g murderer. In a lot of ways like a hispanic stalin. I assure you if there are any Guevera fans out there that there was no woodstock going on in Cuba, no free love and acid passed around in the gulags.

I have no idea what mistaken ideas about the morals of Che Guevara have to do with political correctness. It's silly to conflate the two as they have no relationship.

I really haven't met that many people that emulate or idolize Che, and those that do tend to be shadowy or angry megalomaniacs, not the PC type that are afraid to say something that might be construed as racist, sexist, ageist, classist, or ableist.

Well I support comminist beliefs without the dictatorship side.
I actually think capitalism is evil, rich getting richer, poorer getting poorer. When that happens that is when revolutions happen.

The original post reflects an unfortunate tendency by rightwingers to try to draw a connection between two things they dislike when in fact there is no connection between them.

Teaching of evolution = abortion
Selling drugs = terrorism
etc.

I'm not a right winger. I graduated high school, I've matured beyond this petty childish right/left clique game you like to play. I know it's hard to squeeze into your brain that some people actually have sentient thought, and can think for ourselves, and do not need a clique or a system to tell us what to think. You know, those of us who are human, who can look at facts and make informed decisions, and who are able to be compassionate for all people. I don't need a "them" to justify my position. Human rights should be universal, unchallenged, not fought over. They should just be understood. Theyr not poker chips in a card game. It shouldn't be a "team sport". I smoke weed, I'm undecided on abortion because I think there are bigger issues, and the abortion thing can go either way. I do not believe in religion or evolution. I've just noticed people glorifying Che Guaevera like he's some sort of MLK Jr or Jon Lenin.
Communism always ends up in dictatorship. The same establishment that gave us "capitalism" also gave us "communism". If I am anything, I am a tribalist, by my beliefs. But if I'm the only one who would do that, there will still be hundreds of thousands of others feeding the machine. So my effort alone won't help very much.

It seemed to be the most likely explanation, since it's mainly right-wingers that complain they can no longer get away with calling minorities by terms the other person finds offensive.

You still haven't explained what political correctness has to do with Che Guevara t-shirts. The explanation is just 'it's a fashion statement' 90% of the time anyway. I doubt most people who wear those shirts could tell you fact 1 about Guevara other than that he was a revolutionary. I wouldn't wear a Che Guevara shirt because I know what his brand of revolution entailed, but damn if the shirts don't look cool and iconic.

Yeah, I don't think that the poor getting poorer is what happens within most developed capitalist nations, especially given that if we take a given 1st world nation, we see the average down to the poverty level person as somewhat richer than the richest man under a feudal system.


snake is just a conspiracy theorist. Frankly though, I can see some arguments to be made on both of the non-connected things. I mean, evolution will tend to a less Christian world view and given the correlation between Christian views and a dislike of abortion, there seems to be a possible connection. As well, certain drugs must be illegally smuggled from other nations and these other nations can include nations with terroristic or criminal elements. Heck, Afghanistan had and still has(US actions have certainly helped *so* much) the major cash crop of opium which is used in heroin. Marijuana though certainly has no connection. Really though, a lot of unorthodox seeming connections *can* occur, but the question is whether or not they do.

That's an impossibility. You can't have communism without a dictatorship because there will be people who will resist having their property stolen for the "greater good" and the only way to seize their property is with the use of force and that's essentially what a dictatorship is.

So communism can only work as a dictatorship which steals people's property and labor like a parasite. It can't function as a free and democratic system, because the moment where it becomes voluntary is the moment when people start refusing to co-operate with it. People want to keep the fruits of their labor and want to have the freedom to decide for themselves what sort of jobs they can have or what kinds of music to listen to. But communism cannot work if people do not support it, so you either force them to support it (dictatorship) or the whole thing collapses like the rotten structure that it is.

That was why the Soviet Union collapsed, btw. It was never a great system, but it was able to hang on through the totalitarianism of dictators like Joseph Stalin. But then Gorbachev began trying to democratize it with glasnost and perestroika and when people started to have a choice, they immediately decided to abandon Communism.

So as I said, a Democratic Communist system is an inherent impossibility because people who live under communism don't enjoy it and they will vote against it if they have the freedom to do so.

I actually agree with you here Psychalone

i dunno, a lot of mindless liberals and pinko wannabe's tend to sport his image on their shirts and associate with his revolution despite being completely ignorant of the majority of what actually happened.

Che was defeated by the Taco Bell dog. Capitalism co-opted Che's image and then destroyed it. It no longer has any meaning.

I think we need a long discussion about how terrible pirates were ... why are so many people glamorizing them when they were such brutal pigs? Jonny Depp is the new Che. Brought to you courtesy of Disney.

heh. they were as terrible as anyone else. people were just terrible people in general and not much has changed over time.

The poor dont get more poor in the western world.

For example, if you considered a "poor" family in 1950, they would not have a tv in their house. Possibly would not have a radio, a telephone, nor a record player. Some might not have a car. The kids likely dont have bicycles.

Consider a "poor family" today. Almost undoubtably they have a telephone, possibly a cell phone or two. Certainly they have a tv, and some sort of device to play music, and I dont mean a radio. Unless they are in a dense urban area such as a big city, they almost likely have a car, and possibly two.

So, the standard of living is going up. It may well be that the income differential is growing between rich and poor, but that doesnt mean quality of life is dropping.

If you want to know poor, consider the British families that used to sew paper coats onto their children each winter. In spring, they cut them off and cleaned the lice off their kids. Do you think any British kids wear paper coats nowadays? Of course not.

Lets consider food. When my dad was a kid, they used to get bread sandwiches smeared with lard for school lunch. You dont have to believe me; there is lots of anecdotal accounts of that.

Do you think that any kids today go to school with lard sandwiches? I certainly dont.

Maybe you want to discuss street people, and i am only speaking of lower class folk? Ok.

And this is tasteless, but unfortunately its true.

How much access to discarded food does a street bum in Toronto, Canada have compared to a homeless person in Maputo, Mozambique? A lot more. Even a street bums standard of living is better. Because the standard of living of the middle class is higher.

The standard of living is driven by the middle class and their consumption habits. The incomes of the rich improve the lives of the middle class, and it trickles down.

Consider this selfish example: Last year I made less than 10 000 dollars. And yet, within arms reach are two power computers that I own, purchased with my income. One is just 1 year old, and the second was purchased second hand and is four.

I am lower class. But I have things that could not have been purchased by a person like me 20 years ago(if they existed). The standard of living continues to improve.

Capitalism has managed to profit off the image Colonel Sanders as well. He was a Confederate colonel from the civil war, but then some actor in the 1960s stole his likeness and used it to promote fried chicken. The greatest irony of this is that black people seem to love KFC chicken, despite the fact the real colonel Sanders was a man who fought against the union in the war to end slavery.

And while we are definitely getting off topic with this, I think I should also point out that KFC is a major perpetrator of cruelty against animals because they keep their chickens in tiny cages and clip their beaks and force grain down their throats to fatten them up. So KFC is an evil restaurant, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they are in some way affiliated with the KKK.

I know this thread is really about Che, but the two are somewhat related. Che is also glorified as a hero and has ironically become a capitalist icon emblazened on T-shirts and mousepads. Why does the world honor mass murderers like this???

so my question to you is: how could he have fought in the civil war if he wasn't even born when it took place?


i mean other than using it to take a jab at black people as a whole....you're also wrong.


by the by, most black people in new orleans prefered church's chicken...but i'm pretty sure that's because they had the cheapest food and most people in new orleans, rather less black people in new orleans, don't make much money.