Ernesto Guevara: Savior or Menace?

[Christopher Hill]

The current court of opinion places Che on a continuum that teeters between viewing him as a misguided rebel, a coruscatingly brilliant guerrilla philosopher, a poet-warrior jousting at windmills, a brazen warrior who threw down the gauntlet to the bourgeoisie, the object of fervent paeans to his sainthood, or a mass murderer clothed in the guise of an avenging angel whose every action is imbricated in violence – the archetypal fanatical terrorist.
– Dr. Peter McLaren, author of Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the Pedagogy of Revolution 

There are people that will defend Che to the end as well as those who will condemn him as nothing but a terrorist, but I think that there is more to him than people realize. He was undoubtedly misguided and naive in some of his endevours but does this really make him a terrorist? What of the many people which he helped change life for the better? What of the noble ideas which he believed in and died for? Does it mean nothing that he wished for nothing more than for man to be completely free from tyranny and to be united in a moral cause rather than divided for material want? I live by the idea that a man should be judged by what he does over his whole life and not what he does at one time, If a man were to make mistakes but having made them in pursuit of a better life for others, then should they not be judged in regards to their whole life rather than just the "gritty" parts? I myself believe Che to have been a great man, but I also understand that in todays society no man can be perfect. I think that rather than blindy love or hate Che, We should instead seek to understand Che, without understanding his triumphs as well as his mistakes how can we ever hope to succeed at Che's vision?
Regardless of any of people's views of his life, it is certain his legacy will continue on and Cuban school children will continue to begin the day by pledging "We will be like Che."

[P.O.U.M]

Che wasn't a terrorist. Guerrilla warfare can not succeed if they employ terrorist tactics. On that note, I'm not a big fan of guerrilla warfare. Although I'm not opposed to using a guerrilla force that is linked to a mass movement in the cities. This force would also have to subject itself to the movement in the cities. Not the guerrillas being the leading force behind the revolution.

Other than that, I believe Che was an honest revolutionary. Which can be seen in his last years of life in which he openly criticized the Soviet bureaucracy.

[Christopher Hill]

I know that he was not a terrorist, but did his good outweigh the bad, or vice versa?

[P.O.U.M]

Well, which good and bad are you referring to?

[Christopher Hill]

Well I believe that the good outweighs any bad he has done, Yet those on the right wing always point to this or that atrocity which has little or no proof to back it up as a reason he was a "Gay-hating, Racist, Fascist, Authoritarian, Stalinist, Murderer, Rapist, and pillager" what do you think of all these claims?

[MalcolmX]

"Gay-hating, Racist, Fascist, Authoritarian, Stalinist, Murderer, Rapist, and pillager"

unless the accuser offers evidence there's nothing really that you can do - if there is no evidence they're just a right wing crank, if there is evidence why do they not present it?

so far as fascist and authoritarian go you could call Guevara those things, but only if you fundamentally changed the meaning of both words.
Stalinist? No, nor could I say he was a Trotskyist - at best Guevarism seems to occupy a middle ground between Trotskyism and Maoism (for Perm Rev of the former and Guerilla warfare in 2nd/3rd world of the latter)
Murderer? This is often put forward with regard to his commanding the fortress wherein most of the executions of Batista people were carried out - usually a liberal complaint who a) forget their own violent past (without Robespierre they wouldn't have the political space to be liberal) b)have no concept of what a revolution actually is c) seem not to understand the nature of both the Batista regime and of US imperialism in central and s/america - Guevara had witnessed Guatemala after all.
rapist/pillager? well, no. there were a couple of men in Guevara's column in the Cuban campaign who deserted the column and went around local villages and farmers posing as Guevara and one or two of his lieutenants in order to extort money and raped at least one woman - Guevara eventually caught up with them and they were executed. So unless the accuser also thinks Guevara died in Cuba then there's not much to that one.

[Jimi4444]

Well I believe that the good outweighs any bad he has done, Yet those on the right wing always point to this or that atrocity which has little or no proof to back it up as a reason he was a "Gay-hating, Racist, Fascist, Authoritarian, Stalinist, Murderer, Rapist, and pillager" what do you think of all these claims?

Hey comrade! Che is always an interesting point, glad you brought it up. Really the right wing hate Che for what he stands for. As Lenin explained in the state and revolution, revolutionaries have always been vilified by the ruling class throughout history. What you have from the ruling class with regards to Che, is the wing that hate him for what he stood for (the emancipation of the third world masses from imperialism and building a genuine socialist society) and the other wing (left liberals) who try and hollow his name and make it look like he was just some utopian dreamer. I personally have always had a lot of respect for Ernesto. I may disagree with some of the tactics he used, I think he was an amazing revolutionary. I was lucky enough to go to La Higuera when I was in Bolivia to see where he was killed, and most people in Bolivia and all of over Latin America have nothing but respect for him. He might have been part of some form of Stalinism in his early days, but he became really critical of the Soviet Unions policies (as comrade P.O.U.M stated). Actually one of the books he brought with him to Bolivia was a book by Trotsky!

As far as the lies from the right go, I'll try to answer some of them. Che did execute some people during the Cuban revolution, but you have to take it into context. There was a revolution going on and sometimes they get a little bloody. Mostly they criticize him for the executions after the revolution, where a few thousand or so were killed. Remember though that these were not ordinary citzens, they were thugs for Batista. Who helped kill many themselves and I'm not aware of any who were innocent. Also the right have NO room to talk, look at the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows how many hundreds of thousands have die there. Fascist has absolutely no basis for Che, if they say it they know nothing about politics. I've heard the Rapist one before, probably just some gossip started by Cuban exiles. Pillager is also another ridiculous one, ask them where he pillaged? They won't have an answer because the argument is pathetic.

Alright hopefully this helps a bit, marxist.com has a two part article on Che awhile back, which I thought was really good. I just wanted to add one final things. Seems like a lot of other groups seem to somewhat worship Che and always focus on the good things that he did. Though I think it's important and he did plenty of them, he really just does a disservice not only to the education of our comrades but to Che himself. Revolutions that have failed or have gone wrong, we as Marxists need to observe what happened and why it happened. We need to realize what Che did so that we can learn from his mistakes and help build a socialist world (which would be the greatest tribute for Che).