I know I'm all over the map with so many issues coming to light all at once but I wanted to comment on a new movie out in two parts about the life of Che Guevara. Now it's hard not to watch the movie and feel an admiration for the guy which might explain his rock star popularity with some. Yet one is forced to wonder how real that movie was. Many see him as a murderer and terrorist. Now just because many see him as that doesn't mean he was that. I'm just skeptical of both sides of the story because both are biased.
The movie showed many noble qualities. Difficult to know if any of these really existed or if it was just fiction. Letting the enemy surrender and go free after giving up their arms. Not participating in rape or torture. Paying for supplies from the pheasants not stealing them. A Communist buying supplies. That in itself seems to be an oxymoron but I will concede that if that is what he was like, then one must admire and respect him even if one does not agree with his revolution.
I want to emphasize that with all my rhetoric about American corruption I am not anti American. On the contrary, I admire the U.S. Constitution and hold it up as a sacred inspired document. The difference between American corruption and Communist corruption is that we hear about American corruption and are allowed to talk about it. In Communist dictatorships, one is not allowed to talk about their corruption. In all fairness, one is not allowed to talk about corruption in a Capitalist dictatorship either. The key word here is dictatorship. A left wing dictator is no better or worse than a right wing dictator.
I will concede that corruption within the Batista government made the climate for a revolution in Cuba ideal. People rebel against oppression. Please note that Fulgencio Batista is referred to as the U.S. backed dictator before the Cuban revolution. I again emphasize the term dictator. If the U.S. constitution provides for the common defense, promotes the general welfare and secures the blessings of liberty, then it should not be backing any dictator period. That violates liberty.
Funny how in practice the U.S. secret services seems to obsess over providing for the common defense yet turns a blind eye to liberty when it repeatedly supports dictators who are friendly to the U.S. and oppose dictators who are not friendly to the U.S. The CIA needs to be mandated to protect the Constitution not profits.
I am told Che was part Irish. It reminds me of being in Belfast when a friend gave me a James Connolly pin. I was genuinely touched and asked who he was. The mother responded with a twinkle in her eye, "He was a rebel. He was a Communist." Interesting to note that James Connolly was of Scottish origin and came to Ireland to help with their struggle. He was one of the brave men that signed the Irish Proclamation and took the Post Office in Dublin from the British by force and was executed along with the others who signed the Proclamation.
I contend and submit that the Irish Proclamation is also a sacred inspired document. I was surprised to see a Communist sign a declaration protecting democracy, religious liberty and free speech. It reminded me of working at the post office with a friend who thought I was a Communist for the same reason I thought he wasn't - we both believed in democracy and free speech. I found that somewhat ironic.
My understanding of Communism was that it was the direct opposite of democracy and free speech. Most concede that Stalin, China and East Berlin are bad examples of Communism. They are in essence dictatorships. It is my understanding that the Communist Manifesto is framed with the intent of building those types of empires. Yet I have met many others who call themselves communists who aspire to other things.
Suffice it to say that tyranny rises and falls as people rally against ignorance and fear to claim their unalienable rights to liberty and human rights. While those who aspire to something higher, those who have a social conscience are to be admired. Yet we must be vigilant in recognizing that the end does not justify the means and the minute we apostatize from those higher ideals and dishonour it with cowardice, inhumanity or rapine, we have lost the dream and fall subject to the very corruption we set out to oppose.
Che put all his faith in Fidel and turned all the power over to him. George Washington had his faith in the constitution and turned his power over to the people like Russel Crow in the Gladiator. Many of my friends at the Post Office claim Cuba is the best model of socialism we have. I disagree. The best model for socialism we have is the Kibbutz movement in Israel. People are free to go or stay and they are free to be a religious kibbutz or nonreligious. Socialist principles must be voluntary. As soon as we force them and remove individual rights, we walk the path of dictatorship and become exactly what the revolution was created to oppose.
Fidel's Cuba fell in some ways since it held so many political prisoners. As soon as he gained power he created a Marxist Leninist atheist state. Now we can all argue until the cows come home about the extremists in religion. Yet there are extremists in every walk of life including politics, trade unions and corporations. We can't ban free speech and the freedom of association. That is wrong. Yet it's hard to keep people when a lawyer makes more money opening a bed and breakfast than practicing law. Nevertheless, throwing people in prison for disagreeing or for speaking out is wrong.
I remember reading in a book Fidel on Religion where Fidel was asked if he had Christian Marxists helping him in the revolution. He said certainly we didn't ask people what religion they were. Yet he admitted that after benefiting from their assistance he knowingly created an atheist state when he got power. Unlike in Russia or China people were allowed to have a religion, they just weren't allowed to hold office if they did. A watered down form of dictatorial Communism but wrong nonetheless.
BTW it was Alexander Solzhenitsyn who exposed that Lenin was not the founder of the Russian Revolution. He was a politician who seized power once the revolution took hold and ended up ordering machine guns to fire on striking trade unionists once he gained power. Eliminating once again the very people he exploited to get power. A common occurrence with many revolutions. Political opportunists.
