Sometime during the last couple of weeks, a big fuss was made in Hungary about the fact that the youth organization of the Socialist Party presented Che Guevara as a role model to its members. Not long ago, I got an e-mail from a friend, with obvious reference to the fact that I wore a T-shirt with Alberto Korda's famous photograph of El Che at one time, with a link to an article containing quotes from the man, which place him in a light that is obviously much different from that, which the above mentioned leftist youth society would propagate. At first, my gut reaction was to shoot back with some cynical remark, but I found myself questioning my own ideas. Was I wrong to display the image of man who, apart from being driven by compassion for the oppressed people of Latin America, also had a reputation of being violent and ruthless with his enemies? Is his status as the pop cultural icon of hope for the underprivileged cancelled out by the legacy of the totalitarian regime he participated in establishing? I clearly remember this same friend confronting me at the time, claiming that my wearing this T-shirt was analogous to wearing one with a stencil of non other than Adolf Hitler. Is Guevara a leftist equivalent of the Führer?Of course, my choice of casual clothing had less to do with political inclination than with a certain sense of “cool”. Nobody can deny the appeal that Korda's fortunate shot of the iconic revolutionary has. I'm quite sure that Guevara's cultural impact would have been much more muted if it wasn't for this photo of him seemingly gazing into the future with determination. It also bears an element of provocation against the capitalist establishment, a liberating “fuck you all” by which one may feel the sensation of having asserted his/her individuality. Granted, much the same appeal and effect can be attributed to, say, the Swastika. Both images are tools of propaganda, weapons in the battle for our hearts and minds… Yet I still feel a marked difference between the two.
Is this down to my upbringing? I was born into a leftist family, my grandfather held high office in the socialist Kádár regime. My leftist leanings were also certainly reinforced by the official line of education in Hungary. However, I was also heavily exposed to Western indoctrination, especially during the years spent in a New York public school. I remember a social studies class when the teacher portrayed communism as a sort of oppressive utilitarian ideal, a far cry from the utopia that was presented by the official Marxist curriculum. Nevertheless, to avoid getting into events and issues that would steer me further away from the theme of this post, although I never felt a conviction for communism, I can't deny that I do sympathize with some of its elements. Undeniably, my suspicion towards nationalism and utter rejection radical forms of the same are rooted in leftist doctrine.
I am strongly determined that Nazism is wrong, and thus find offensive any representation thereof. This moral judgment is easily justified by the events of World War II and the holocaust. Ironically, even some present day fascists acknowledge it by their denial of the latter. After all, what need would there be for them to deny the reality of the Ha-Shoah if they were convinced that it was “right”? However, a similar justification exists against communism. The Siberian labor camps mirror the Endlösung of the Third Reich, and Guevara was allegedly involved in setting up the first such “establishments” in Cuba. Why is it, then that I'm not outraged at the use of his likeness on fashion items? Am I guilty of applying double standards? After all, the violent oppression of dissent is a sine qua non element of all totalitarian regimes, whether rooted in ideology or religion. However, there is a pronounced difference, which makes it impossible to regard these two ideologies as opposite sides of the same coin, though it is often overlooked by many these days. Nazi or fascist ideology is based on the idea of the supremacy of a race (be it German, "white" in general or, for that matter, any other group defined along national, ethnic, religious or other lines), which is destined to assert its rule by all available means, not to mention the fact that it draws heavily on traditional European anti-Semitic sentiments. Fascism presents the ideal of a hierarchic society, in which each creed has its place as servants of the supreme race and designates those groups, which have no place in this utopia and should therefore be “dealt with”. This, if anything, is synonymous with outright oppression. On the other hand, even though Marxism admits that the so called dictatorship of the proletariat, in which dissent (ie. the "counterrevolution" of the bourgeoisie) may be suppressed by force, is a necessary transition towards a communist society, it does not call for the extermination of any group of society, be it economic, ethnic or religious. The purpose of this “dictatorship” (actually closer to a certain form of direct democracy) is in essence to prepare the ground through the indoctrination of a new generation, which is free of preconceptions such as possession. It is seen as a station in the progress of history, which inescapably leads to the establishment of a stateless and classless society, in which all men and women are equal. The aim is to free all from oppression, eventually.
In this light, while Hitler is a symbol of oppression based on a false sense of supremacy and delusions of grandeur, Guevara stands for revolt against oppression and the illusion of egalitarianism. It is the hope of such equality that is embodied in the popular image of El Che, the hope of a better world, free of all that which divides us, be it wealth, race, nationality or religion (and, lest we forget, the will to fight for it).
However, is it possible to separate this aspect from communism’s dark legacy? As a totalitarian ideology, communism is inherently intolerant of competing views of the world. Where Marxism has prevailed, this has inevitably meant the suppression of checks and balances, which could have avoided its falling victim to the perversions of power (look no further than Stalin’s Soviet Union). Moreover, the fact that the ideal of socialist society openly clashed with prevailing perceptions and economic realities also increased the damage toll. A classic case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions… Speaking of hell, there exists a comparable totalitarian and egalitarian ideology, actually a religion, the same shortcomings and perversions of which are effortlessly forgiven by many. The crusades, the inquisition, the conquest of the American continent or the burning of Giordano Bruno at the stake come to mind. And similarly to communism and its Che Guevara, Christianity has its fair share of warriors (ie. men whose hands are stained with blood) revered as ideals, even saints. As a Hungarian, St. Stephen I is an obvious example for me. Stephen established the Christian Kingdom of Hungary and is therefore credited for assuring our survival to this day as a European nation. Yet it is difficult to assume that the Magyars willingly gave up their own brand of shamanistic religion, customs and freedom to join the flock of Jesus and become serfs of the king’s vassals. Moreover, Stephen’s decision to mutilate his defeated pagan adversary’s body, although often presented as having been taken under pressure from his (foreign) supporters, is hardly a deed of Christian forgiveness worthy of a saint. Thus, by analogy, it seems that the answer to the above question is yes, to the extent that it is possible and morally justifiable to the masses.
We like to view our icons as being faultless and pure, which is seldom the case in reality. Therefore, when raised into this realm, it is inevitable that certain elements of the personality in question are magnified and others are discarded. In fact, it is no longer the person which is venerated but rather our own perceptions of it. To the chagrin of his detractors, the Che on T-shirts and posters is no longer Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, the erring, reportedly often violent guerilla warrior, but an icon, a trademark, if you will, of the struggle for the emancipation of the oppressed. Look at it this way: stating that your role model is John F. Kennedy does not imply that you feel compelled to commit adultery. By contrast, having the image of Hitler tattooed on your biceps rarely implies that you merely like dogs and Bavarian mountain resorts.
This, of course, does not exculpate Guevara from any of his wrongs, but the display of his likeness does not indict anyone of identifying with such elements of his personality. For the rest: "El conocimiento nos hace responsables".
