che as an individua1.doc

7/30/2019 Che as an Individua1.doc

1/4

The Real Che Guevara and His Politics Today

117325271.docChe as an Individual

Che Guevara, a controversial and popular political figure has a legacy based mainly upon

legend and mystique. In order to fully understand any political figure, you must separate myth

from fact (Minogue 1972). More specifically Ches following is based upon a cult of personality

(Fontova 2007). This cult is based upon Ches passion (Minogue 2007). He had the attitude of

a pure revolutionary and lived this life of guerilla without the desire for power and a comfortable

life (Minogue 1972). Harris also supports this argument of Ches personality but uses love rather

passion (1998). He states in his article, It is impossible to think of a true revolutionary without

this quality. . . .Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize their love for the people (Harris

1998). Yet Harris built his argument from several other biographies about Che. This supports a

claim that there is a widespread support and following of Che. The cult of personality is spread

through other writers, not only Ches personal writings.

Besides the legend of Che being the great the guerilla fighter or politician, political

polarity skews his true image as well. Fontova in his 2007 book exemplifies this. With Ches cult

of personality originally coming his books (Motorcycle Diaries, Guerilla Warfare, etc.), they

were released by the propaganda bureau. Might there be some embellishments or omissions in

these Che diaries (Fontova 2007). The purpose of propaganda is to influence a community to a

certain view point. Fontova asserts that the Che there world has come to love is fake, an Uncle

Sam for Cuba in a way. He created a horrible picture of Che. To Fontova he is the epitome of a

totalitarian regime. This image is the exact opposite of what the masses view Che as. The

polarization of writers and analysts skew the political figures image.

From all the sources I have accumulated, analyzing Che revolves around who is truly is.

Some say he was a man of the people, while others say he is the oppressor of the people. But all

1


2/4


sources write of a man of pure character. It is still skewed in the sense that some find him as a

pure loving man, or pure monster. I find that he is a pure monster and the people love him for it.

In the world of politics nothing is certain, but Che was and is. For example, Mitt Romney and his

campaign is overshadow by the fact he is so undecided. He personally refutes his arguments as to

why his presidency would better President Obamas, no one knows where he stands. Che

Guevara stands behind everything he says and does. For example, he executed many at La

Cabana during military tribunals for remaining members of the Batista regime. He replies at the

United Nations, Of course we execute (Fontova 2007). The picture I am creating is also of a

monster, yet the question for Che Guevara is not what the mans true character is, but do the ends

justify the means? He executed in the name of justice for the Batista regime is guilty of

repression and were enemies of the new state. Do the ends justify the means?

Aspects of Che

The most objective analyses of Che are when writers scrutinize specific aspects of Che.

For example, Yaffe whos an economist, examines Ches socialist construction rather his foco

theory (2009). The majority of the legend that clouds Che originates from him being a guerilla

fighter. In Yaffes article, he develops his argument chronologically analyzing Che as a

politician rather a soldier (2009). In his article, Yaffe argues that Che made good policies, but at

the wrong time (2009). Karl Marx believed that capitalism is a requirement for communism,

since capitalism creates a disenfranchised working class. It was Marxs prediction that the most

advanced countries that would have a communist revolution. It is surprising that Russia and

China had a communist revolution. In Cuba at the time there was not much of this new class.

According to Yaffe, Che should have waited for more development and then enacted scoailist

2


3/4


construction (2009). The writer comes to conclusion that Che was an impatient man (Yaffe

2009). Marxs belief on the revolution was that it would occur naturally, it was inevitable. Che

Guevara like Vladimir Lenin believed the revolution was made to happen. True making the

revolution happen works since Batista stepped down, yet economic revolution to communism

failed due to impatience and Cuba is now on its way to becoming more capitalist since 2008

(Yaffe 2009).

McCormick agrees with Yaffe in that Ches personality brought about his own

destruction. Rather looking at his economic policy, he analyzes his acts as a guerilla fighter. True

I did state that most legend is created from Ches guerilla fighting, but McCormick is a military

analyst and teaches at a military postgraduate school. In his article it touches more on Ches

military failures than other writings. According to McCormick Che Guevara is not worth all the

hype when it comes to warfare, at first he brought nothing new the tables, all of actions were

basic military strategy (1997). In Bolivia were he was executed, he brought that upon himself.

He split up his troops, lost communication amongst the supporters and fellow fighters, and didnt

have a strong following as he did in Cuba (1997). Che thought the same tactics in the Cuban

Revolution would work around the world. He did not take into account the culture and different

circumstances each country presented (Congo and Bolivia). It was Ches over passionate

personality that brought himself to his own end. He was over passionate, impatient, and this

blinded him to the most basic military mistakes (McCormick 1997).

Payne is more pro Che yet his article is based on contemporary evidence. The writer is a

political scientist with a PHD in international relations. He asserts that Al-Quaeda has been using

Ches guerilla foco theory (Payne 2011). Ches foco theory is based upon focalism. This is

where a political party and paramilitary groups spread mass discontent against a current regime.

3


4/4


Payne asserts that Al-Quaeda is using this theory to spread their global jihad (2011). Al-Quaeda

is the vanguard that spreads discontent of non Muslims and the western world. His arguments is

not only how the foco theory is being but how Ches legacy is still going today.

When analysts analyze Che Guevara, the analysis tends to be more objective. They at this

certain aspect at face value, as how everything in political science should be looked. These

aspects could have potentially been polarized, the fact that the authors of the articles are experts

in that field, allowed them to truly take the facts at face value. Yaffe showed how Ches policies

are slowly dying out today (2009), McCormick presented how Che is his own worst enemy and

brought about his own downfall (1997), and Payne showed how a modern terrorist organization

is using Ches theories for their insurgency. From the articles I collected I find that Ches

economics are slowly dying out, but his guerilla theory is still used today. In communism with a

classes society and no profit, the problem is innovation. The question is how can a country

innovate without the incentive of profit, which is the basis of communism (2009). In turn Cuba,

Russia, and China have implemented capitalist policies. In todays world with globalization

which puts the world on the same playing field, pure communism is impractical. In turn, some of

Ches policies are impractical for the world needs to innovate. For other countries currently in

revolution, Ches teachings can be applicable, if Al-Quaeda would use the foco theory, who is to

say the Arab Spring wont catch on and use Ches tactics. His economics are becoming useless

while his guerilla fighting may be surviving.

4

che as an individua1.doc

Documents