A simple thought experiment is helpful here. Ask yourself, can a free market society tolerate collectivism within its midst? The logical and historical answer is yes. There have always been cooperatives, communes and various kinds of intentional communities within capitalist society. And logically, as long as they don’t interfere with anyone else, there can be no principled objection. Now ask the question the other way around: can a collectivist, command economy, tolerate free entrepreneurs? The logical and historical answer is no. In such societies, these people are called black marketeers, they’re arrested and often severally punished. And logically, this has to be the case. In a free market society people are at liberty to do as they please as long as they do not interfere with others. In the collectivist society, anyone who wants to go their own way is a leak in the dike; they have to be eliminated for fear that the dike burst and the model collectivist society is washed away in the flood. That’s why collectivist, command economy, societies will always need murderous enforcers like Che.

Don’t, though, make the mistake of confusing business operators with free markets. Many of them are free marketers only until they gain a competitive upper hand. Then they want government intervention in the economy that prevents more free entry from potential competitors. Free markets are not for capitalists, but for consumers. They’re the greatest engine of prosperity and liberty humans have ever discovered. They, in fact, are the real proletariat revolution!

M.

“there were about eight hundred prisoners in a space fit for no more than three hundred: former Batista military and police personnel, some journalists, a few businessmen and merchants. The revolutionary tribunal was made of militiamen. Che Guevara presided over the appellate court. He never overturned a sentence. I would visit those on death row at the galera de la muerte. A rumor went around that I hypnotized prisoners because many remained calm, so Che ordered that I be present at the executions. After I left in May, they executed many more, but I personally witnessed fifty-five executions. There was an American, Herman Marks, apparently a former convict. We called him “the butcher” because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot. I pleaded many times with Che on behalf of prisoners. I remember especially the case of Ariel Lima, a young boy. Che did not budge. Nor did Fidel, whom I visited. I became so traumatized that at the end of May 1959 I was ordered to leave the parish of Casa Blanca, where La Cabaña was located and where I had held Mass for three years. I went to Mexico for treatment. The day I left, Che told me we had both tried to bring one another to each other’s side and had failed. His last words were: “When we take our masks off, we will be enemies.”

If you still dont believe that Che was an evil man, ask yourself what proof need be presented to change your mind. The United States isnt responsible for the poor state of the latin america, cant you see how ridiculous that argument is? One one hand you say we ruined Cuba by instituting an embargo, and on the other you say we ruined Latin America because we “screwed” them with our influences. What should we do?

As you sit on your computer supporting communist revolutionaries keep in mind that in the countries where this ideology is followed not a SINGLE non government person from ANY communist country will EVER comment on this or ANY article you will read. Because they cant. The very fact that you disagree with me and are replying on this blog is what makes capitalism great

They are so productive now!

Fulgencio Batista was a ruthless dictator. A disgusting man who reflected what was in his heart by the way flaunted his country to any disgusting lowlife who had money. He was selling his people to the worst of society. I applaud Cuba for taking a stand against a world environment that chokes the life out of Africa and Latin America like a cancer.

Gutierrez writes,

“For someone directly responsible for the death of so many people, it’s ironic his nickname was derived from his calling those around him pal or “che”. But it’s no surprise that others referred to him as ‘The butcher of La Cabaña’.”

No, it’s not at all surprising. However, one always has to keep in mind who’s doing the name-calling. After all, George Washington was, by all accounts in the British press, a base and brutal terrorist.

At any rate, whether the number of executions at La Cabaña was 50 or 400, the figure is miniscule by any historical measure. Those who cite Guevara’s role at La Cabaña as evidence of his monstrous nature seem to forget that he’d just finished ousting a corrupt, violent, brutal, murderous and torturous regime accountable to absolutely no one except the American mafia.

Seen in this light, Guevara’s acts seem a *little* more reasonable.

Further, Gutierrez writes,

“But even more ironic are the amount of financially well to do New Yorkers, particularly hipsters, who proudly wear their Che shirts as if they’re privy to esoteric politics that the average American is too stupid to grasp.”

While this is certainly true of some, it’s a little presumptuous (if not downright arrogant) to generalize this disposition to all (or even most) who’ve adopted Guevara’s image as a cultural icon. In fact, the author might himself be stunned by the ignorance of Guevara critics, many of whom are Cuban expatriates. An example of this are the repeated references to Guevara as a “Communist” (and to the Cuban revolution as a “Communist revolt”): Although the politics of both Guevara and Castro were informed by Marxism, in 1958 neither was a Communist. But another more interesting example of ignorance is offered by Gutierrez himself:

“But the true irony is the fact that many Che supporters are people who find it morally reprehensible that the Bush administration waged a war in Iraq but are completely oblivious to the guerilla warfare Che instigated in Africa’s Congo and Latin America. For those who admire Che’s shunning of material wealth, possibly the ultimate irony is the fact he was wearing a Rolex at the time of his own execution in Bolivia.”

Gutierrez would have us believe that Guevara –- a guy who gave up a cushy life as an upper-crust doctor in Buenos Aires to go battle CIA-backed corporate armies in Guatemala –- is pulling a fast one on us, sneaking around with good-life spoils dangling mockingly from his wrist.

Apparently Gutierrez is unaware that the most critical element in guerilla warfare is coordination and timing. In guerrilla warfare, jungle units often go days or more without communication until a raid –- one requiring accurate, to-the-second timing -– is to be executed. This is why Guevara and other unit commanders used quartz crystal wrist watches: As instruments of warfare, they were the best available. Maybe this information is too esoteric for Gutierrez to be privy to, but I learned it from some teenager wearing a Che tee-shirt.

Regardless of what drove Gutierrez to make this error (be it personal bias, ignorance, or a purposeful intent to mislead), this and other “mistakes” are commonplace among those who see Guevara’s image as a threat. An almost adolescent discomfort with novelty (or their reverence for authority – flip sides of the same coin) leads some to impugn the motives of all who wave Guevara’s banner, and a capacity for seeing the true message of his icon – that the only durable power is one that is just – is obscured.

Thankfully, after eight years of Batista-esque American governance, fewer of us have such blurry vision.

” I would like to straighten out the record. First, the executions you are attributing to him were done in the fervor after a revolution and wartime. War brings the worst in all characters,…”

Readers should remember that Che was a non-Cuban, who, along with Castro, STARTED the war…”that brings the worst in all characters”