Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Che

Rate this topic


earwax

Recommended Posts

I am from South America and I know the 'che' to be a brutal, unprincipled killer and demagogue. When I came to the U.S. for college I was very surprised to see that the butcher had suddenly become a sort of messiah...

I've read that CapMag article, but I always take those things with a pinch of salt. They're more of a lead-in to a point of view about a subject, and are rarely educational. Where might be I find a good, non-biographical (that is, it isn't focused on some over-arching theme of 'Heroism' or on trying to capture who he was as a personality), factual account of Che's life?

Kainscalia, do you have any suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tenure and Brian, you could try reading Che's actual diaries. The first one is entitled "The Motorcycle Diaries" in which a young Che takes a trip around South America with a friend and starts to form his radical views. The other one is "Bolivian Diary" which records his final doomed campaign in the jungles of Bolivia. I believe there is also something about his time in Africa as well.

The only one of those I've read is 'The Motorcycle Diaries' and I remember it being an enjoyable read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good topic. I wish an Objectivist would right a book or a really great essay on Che's philosophy and his evil mission. Something like that needs to exist. Consequently, it is on a long to do list of mine. If you've ever gone to South America (I've seen Ecuador and Venezuela) you will soon discover that it is a very beautiful continent, paradise on earth, the climate, the landscapes, the fertile land, the lakes and ocean beaches, the mountains, the food, the people, etc. And yet it is drowning in an orgy of Altruism. In addition to speaking the beautiful Spanish language, the spirit of the people is strong, capable, and passionate--and yet they glorify Marxism. I would like to one day read the history of Latin America, from Bolivar on down, and discover how and why exactly Latin America did not have the opportunity the United States had to be the first nation in history to be completely genial to the life of man, and why they never chose her as their model.

Who led them astray, who was the Ellesworth Toohey, and that ignored the model of America and led them into the mess that it is today?

Well, I'm sure America is much to blame too--for not recognizing and asserting her own moral righeousness--for not doing away with the application of an enemy political philosophy into a position of state power, in the form of Soviet Russia, and actually assisting her in her own survival and industry.

Geesh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good topic. I wish an Objectivist would right a book or a really great essay on Che's philosophy and his evil mission. Something like that needs to exist. Consequently, it is on a long to do list of mine.

I hereby draft Jose to write this book! :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hereby draft Jose to write this book! :dough:

He he he he he ...

First I have to learn more about America and Capitalism.

But I guess I am on my way. I'm in the middle of Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto, which is indispensible. Then accordingly, I have to look into the lives of some of the great industrialists, understand The Enlightenment, which will lead to The Age of Reason and The Renaissance, and of course play closer attention to Economics. It's a mother load!

I like how you used the word "draft" coz it is a war. However, I'm glad I therefore live in Canada coz we don't draft--we're too pacificistic. We're Canadian that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He he he he he ...

First I have to learn more about America and Capitalism.

But I guess I am on my way. I'm in the middle of Andrew Bernstein's The Capitalist Manifesto, which is indispensible. Then accordingly, I have to look into the lives of some of the great industrialists, understand The Enlightenment, which will lead to The Age of Reason and The Renaissance, and of course play closer attention to Economics. It's a mother load!

I like how you used the word "draft" coz it is a war. However, I'm glad I therefore live in Canada coz we don't draft--we're too pacificistic. We're Canadian that way.

Actually, my position isn't clear in the above, in one moment I am not favour of the draft and then with "too pacificistic" I imply that Canada should draft, and drafting is good. What I mean exactly is that Canada hasn't seemed to be against the draft because of reasons pertaining to Individual Rights and Limited Government, but they rather not believe in war, i.e., having to take on the responsibility of fight sworn enemies and threats. I sometimes wonder if Canadian Politicians actually wanted to pass on the burden of self-defense to a stronger state, trying to avoid the burden of fighting for this earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theme of an early essay could be:

Che versus Frisco (Francisco D'Anconia): Who is the greatest Argentinian crusader?

(As an aside, I strongly doubt that Ayn Rand even knew of Che's existence when she was creating Francisco. It's amusing and makes Che seem stillborn).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tenure and Brian, you could try reading Che's actual diaries. The first one is entitled "The Motorcycle Diaries" in which a young Che takes a trip around South America with a friend and starts to form his radical views.

I made it clear that I was not interested in the biography of Che, but what he actually did. I'm not interested in why he thought what he thought or how he acted (I know enough about those premises) or in his delusions of grandeur. I'm interested in the things he actually did in his campaigns, so you're second recommendation may be helpful, but I am highly suspect as to how truthful he would be in that.

Edited by Tenure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean exactly is that Canada hasn't seemed to be against the draft because of reasons pertaining to Individual Rights and Limited Government, but they rather not believe in war, i.e., having to take on the responsibility of fight sworn enemies and threats.

Wrong. In each and every major conflict in the last 100 years Canada has punched well above it's weight. In WW1 almost 10% of Canadians were in uniform. We entered both WW1 and WW2 from the start, granted in WW1 it was as a colony more than as a country but the numbers of volunteers speak loud and clear of how Canadians viewed the war. WW2 was all of our own accord and again we did so in droves, the one exception in both cases was Quebec. We were also involved in Korea, for the duration of that war.

Some people might bring up Viet Nam but that was a proxy war between the US and Russia, little more. While that was going on we were "peacekeeping" which back in the day was much more like peacemaking than most people realize. You can look up the early histories of the Peacekeeping forces in Cyprus and Egypt if you wish.

I sometimes wonder if Canadian Politicians actually wanted to pass on the burden of self-defense to a stronger state, trying to avoid the burden of fighting for this earth.

The US has a population of 303,824,640 and a regular serving military component of 1,447,350

Canada has a population of 33,212,696 and a regular serving military component of 62,000

So since the US has a population roughly ten times that of Canada's 62,000 x 10 = 620,000 or roughly half the size of the US military. Now factor in the relative economic strength of each country and you can understand that Canada isn't as much of a slacker as some might want you to believe.

Do I believe that we should have a more robust military, yes. But we are moving in that direction, if only slowly.

If you want to look at countries that are shirking for political expedience look at France and Germany. With a military ranked 55th in the world in terms of size Canada's contribution to Afghanistan is only surpassed by the USA and the UK. Our troops are fighting in one of the most dangerous provinces in that country (Only the Brits have it worse in Helmund province).

By the way

the burden of fighting for this earth.
is exactly what we don't need our military to do, we need it to fight for our rights and our security not some misguided ideal of what the world should be, dreamed up by some sort of collective in search of the greater good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to fighting for this earth, you need to understand what I mean, and how I mean it: I mean fighting for our rights and security; when a "free" country has to defend itself, or even free another nation sometimes, then it is fighting for the earth. Living on earth can only mean living in a free enough country, otherwise you are not living in the proper sense.

In terms of Canada's military involvment in the world, I refer to its attitude in the last few decades, including the Vietnam War. A free country should fight against Communism. No, we should not have gone into Vietnam, because of the way it was fought, but we should have participated in a type of warfare that promised to be successful. But the Vietnam War is just a bad consequence of not fighting a different type of war, alongside America, in the beginning of the 20th Century. Canada's military should be big enough to potentially participate in many more wars world wide.

The fact that Canada does not have a large and "robust" military, is their default on their responsibility. It should be larger than it has been. In fact, Canada as a country, should resemble the American Ideal more, every nation should--that's part of their default too. Instead Canada has underfunded its military to pay for its large Welfare State, and enshrine the defining characteristic of Canada: Socialized Medicine.

So that is what I mean. But I really don't think that Canada will build their military in the future in any substantial way, at least, I don't think the voters want that, and many politicians. I don't think we will get a majority Conservative government that will last eight years. The Liberals do not want to expand the military, certainly not the New Democrats. We don't want to be like America. The majority of Canadians don't want to be involved in war as if it is unnecessary in this magical modern world.

A more relevant point, Canada should be actively involved in hunting down the Che Guevara's of this world. We should be helping the United States. We should grow in population and wealth and industry. We should create more major cities and exploit our resources. We should change our constitution and be a freer country. Canada is bigger than the United States, and I don't think that climate is the essential reason why Canada has such a comparatively and substantially smaller population. Why hasn't a country so close to America been more like America?

The true history of Canada has not been written. I think it will be a history of evading its responsibility to itself.

And Canada does not do enough to defend the rights of its citizens. Our judicial system and police are way underfunded. The Charter of Rights does not enshrine property rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...