[Marxism] Che again

["Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Here it is again. It seems that you are lumping together thow very distinct
phases in Ernesto "Che" Guevara's life

Quite :-)

>He got killed in 1967 after ...trying to start a continental revolutionary
guerilla in Bolivia.

Yes, that's a fact.

>Comparable to the effect which Marx and Engels had, right? What "tangible
effects" had their ventures?

I was referring to Che Guevara's heroic personal attempt to extend the
revolutionary struggle into Africa and Bolivia. In my judgement,  these
ventures did not have the great "tangible effect" there that he himself
hoped for, and I personally do not see them as exemplars to follow. Marx and
Engels had a big intellectual, political and scientific impact through their
writings, and also a big political impact through their involvement in the
first and second Internationals.

>Well, that is a very abundant subject with no shortcomings at all.

No shortcomings ? I hope so, but I don't know that, beyond such impressions
as I have gained over the years, or judgements I have formed on the basis of
reading. I would think though there is no such thing as a "perfect" foreign
policy however. What is possible is to adhere to certain moral norms, a
basic moral framework. In general, I think the internationalist stance of
the Cuban government has been pretty consistent and very admirable too, but
in real life of course, a politician must sometimes also do things that he
would rather not do, confront contradictions, make compromises and so forth.
That is what the opposition then focuses upon.

I think Lenin said about it "After their death, attempts are made to convert
[revolutionaries] into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to
hallow their names to a certain extent for the "consolation" of the
oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the
same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its
revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it." If you want to have a game of
revolutionary one-upmanship, I'm happy to let you have the honours. I'll
stick with what I know. My point about Che is in the nature of a disclaimer.
I think it's fine that movies are made about Che an so on, I am personally
just not in favour of romanticising and mythologising revolutionary
personalities. Romance is something you have in an intersubjective relation
with a lover. Myth is an illustrative, artistic or educative device which
can be used to express a human reality or truth that is difficult to express
in any other way. But myth can be abused, hence the use of the term in a
pejorative sense of hiding the truth, the opposite of its correct use.

Cheers

J.





_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism