I still want to talk about him-Ernesto Guevara!
There is one person I always avoid carefully. Even if I talk about it occasionally, it is more talkative. I would like to publicly praise his handsome, brave and romantic ... All these advantages destroyed by the world, including Castro himself, began to talk about his idol-like appearance-"It must be pointed out that he not only has all the virtues, humanity and moral characteristics as an idol, but also has the appearance and image of an idol: his appearance, frank and firm expression and his face all reflect his personality. At the same time, it reveals extraordinary wisdom and rare purity. " But I don't want to discuss his connection with politics with others. There is no doubt that he is most closely related to politics. Of course, the political chapter he wrote with his life is about revolution, which is at least synonymous with justice in his personal dictionary. Talking about him can't avoid politics at all. Talking about his connection with politics is the easiest way to blaspheme him, and the paradox of life makes people have to slow down. However, I still want to talk about him-Ernesto Guevara!
Although he has been dead for a long time (1967, 40 years have passed), his image is still fresh, especially when summer comes, the romantic image of him with long hair and beret will appear on young people's T-shirts again. Old Castro once said with emotion, "Sometimes I dream. Our dreams are all related to life and struggle. I saw him come back. He is still alive. This often happens! " In fact, Guevara will come not only to his dreams, but also to me. However, just like Yu, being criticized by some people in a sharp tone, I don't want to just write sensational words. I prefer to talk about Guevara on serious topics and show off my unparalleled deep understanding of him. Of course, after thinking about such a serious topic, I only think of one thing-politics! Although the revolution has the closest relationship with Guevara, I resolutely avoided it because of its romantic color.
Frankly speaking, I object to some friends' overly idealistic praise of Guevara. Some people say that he is an uncompromising revolutionary and a fighter who is never tired and not afraid of sacrifice. I disagree very much. After the Cuban Revolution, although the United States launched an invasion of Geelong Beach, Castro and Guevara did not continue to promote the revolution and intensified their relationship with the world proletariat-the enemy-American imperialism at that time. Instead, they tried to start a dialogue. According to historical records, Guevara had a secret meeting with Goodwin, the young representative of American President Kennedy at that time, at an American conference he attended, although the two sides did not achieve any substantial gains. In this regard, Guevara, like Mao Zedong, is a politician who is willing to give up something while sticking to his ideals. Castro, who is also an idealist, has repeatedly defended: "But don't think of him as a naive, idealistic or ignorant person. Understand and consider reality. " "If you think this is unrealistic and don't know the social reality and the people just got rid of capitalism, it would be ridiculous." Nixon's visit to China angered his Vietnamese brother, thinking that Comrade China was not revolutionary, but stood on the United front with American imperialism and became "reactionary". In fact, as long as we spread out the map of China at that time, we will know how dangerous our situation is. There is a threat from the Soviet Union in the north and a conflict from India in the south. Imperialism all over the world scolded us, and the production parties all over the world began to scold us. There was a time when we were really lonely. If the hostility with the United States is not eased in time, the relationship with western powers will be further improved; If we hadn't discovered the political middle ground like "African continent" which even Lenin criticized according to the idea of "dividing three worlds", how long would we have supported it with the slogan of "liberating three quarters of the world's mankind"? Although Guevara once said with the spirit of sacrifice: "Our people are prepared to sacrifice themselves under the atomic bomb and use their ashes to lay the foundation for a new society", Mao Zedong once jokingly said: "The atomic bomb is just a paper tiger". In fact, they understand the terrible consequences of the atomic bomb, but they are more aware of the terrible consequences of the atomic bomb. Mao Zedong seems to have said: "The most powerful moment of an atomic bomb is not when it is launched, but when it is about to be launched on the launcher." To write this, you must keep up with a few disgusting words: profound, just so profound! Neither Guevara nor Mao Zedong is stupid. Cuba, a small island country, couldn't help being bombed by several atomic bombs in the United States, so Cuba formed an alliance with the Soviet Union. Although there is a saying that Castro and Guevara complained that Khrushchev was too timid, Guevara even said, "If the button is in the hands of Cubans, the missile will be launched." However, Khrushchev failed to stop Castro and Guevara from landing in Florida. They could have stubbornly left, couldn't they? Guevara himself said that Cuba would not do anything stupid like the US invasion of Geelong Beach. China shouted: "The atomic bomb is just a paper tiger", but at the same time, he also earnestly "dug deep holes, widely accumulated grain, and did not seek hegemony". Although Guevara and Mao Zedong are as hot-tempered, they are not Zhang Fei and Li Kui jy after all, nor will they fight the enemy to the death. While they were full of lofty sentiments, they shouted, "When the Third World War broke out, half of mankind would die and the rest would continue to engage in socialism." At the same time, they honestly admitted that "we people just like to shoot empty guns and shout empty slogans such as overthrowing American imperialism and its lackeys." A netizen who worships Guevara wrote: "He refused to be an' elite', refused to be a' successful person', refused to pretend to be a grandson, refused to live in any place and social status arranged by history, and he has always been a traitor and a fugitive. He has always maintained the right and courage to choose and give up, and he is determined to be on the road forever. " What can I say in the face of such words? I can only say that this netizen is writing a poem, and it is a poorly written poem (no rhyme). Guevara is not what the above sentence describes at all. How can he refuse so many valuable things? Does he have eternal significance only by "denying everything"? Is he a "traitor" or a "runaway"? Is it great to keep the right and courage to choose and give up, and to be determined to be on the road forever? Not at all! This interpretation is only "former Ernesto Guevara", or "Qi" degenerates into "Ernesto". The significance of Guevara's transformation into reality is that he no longer blindly denies and waits and sees. He found something worth fighting for and sacrificing for. In a word, it is worthy of recognition. After roaming Latin America for the first time, he clearly wrote: "The old me is dead", "If there is a great guiding trend that divides mankind into two hostile camps in the future, I will stand on the side of the people!" Describing him as a free man who drifts around and doesn't eat human fireworks can add some light to his original romantic, handsome and charming image, but as a result, Guevara was tragically castrated, and he became a rootless person, a person he hated very much-a careless and irresponsible person. I must say that Guevara was first a Marxist in the orthodox sense of the 20th century, and then a fairy tale fabricator, rebel, vagrant and romantic poet written by a myth advocate. In his view, the answer to social problems is not like the name of Bob Dylan's famous song-"The answer floats in the wind", but "falls to the ground" and has a direction.
Guevara also talked about the importance of economic construction, knowing that the people (a name invented by Marxists) may be most concerned about material interests. Starting from the basic principle that all Marxists believe that the economic base determines the superstructure, it is not difficult for us to understand Guevara's emphasis on economic construction. Judging from the development of socialism from utopia to science, we will firmly believe that Guevara attaches great importance to economic construction. Castro also proved this point: "It is very practical and does not exclude material rewards. He believes that this is necessary in this transitional stage and in the process of building socialism. " But there's always something romantic about him. This romantic element is not unique to him. There are Marxists, which can be traced directly to Marx. When he was young, he loved to drink, duel with others and write poems. Guevara once told a writer frankly that he could read Baudelaire's feelings from Marx's works. It is precisely all Marxists who regard the elimination of money representing material interests as their lofty ideal in life. In this way, it is obviously contradictory to attach importance to economic construction and eliminate money. Marxism pointed out this contradiction and properly handled it with historical dialectics, thus giving itself strong vitality. However, how to properly handle the relationship between them by using historical dialectics in real life has become a challenge that all Marxists cannot solve but must accept. At the same time, Marxism always makes itself have a strong sense of morality when it emphasizes violent revolution. On the one hand, the law revealed by Marxism is the inevitable law of the development of human society, and what all Marxists do is to serve this historical development law; On the other hand, while emphasizing the economic importance, Marxism always exaggerates its strong moral mission, such as Marxism is the theory of workers, and it is necessary to liberate all mankind by liberating the most oppressed and miserable proletariat. When moral Marxism meets economic Marxism, who will prevail? Not only in Guevara, but also in all Marxists, the former must prevail. The scientific nature of Marxism is often concealed by the morality of Marxism, for the simple reason that scientific nature can only convince the enemy through careful and patient debate and show its superiority, while the superiority of morality does not need to be reflected through the process of argumentation and debate (of course, some face-saving work needs to be done as appropriate), but only needs to be announced directly like an Oracle. To be exact, whether the enemy can hear you clearly only needs to be announced directly like an Oracle. Impatient people can't wait for the long historical process, and the publicity of their own morality will inevitably overshadow the slow construction process. Marxists in the orthodox sense of the twentieth century are impatient people, and the orthodox Marxist Guevara, as the most specimen of the twentieth century, is the most impatient person. Therefore, what we hear more is Guevara's words as a moral slogan. In addition, there is a fundamental difference between Marxism and western economics-different views on human nature. In western economics, it is one of the theoretical premises that man is always an economic man (that is, an egoist), which is self-evident. But in Marxism, it is different. Human nature is regarded as a concrete and changing thing, which will change with the change of social system. Altruism, which is not considered in western economics at all, is not only completely possible in Marxism, but also plays an important role-the great change of human nature will in turn affect its social and economic foundation fundamentally. Under the premise of this theory, Engels, Lenin, Mao Zedong and others all put forward the concept of "new person", but Guevara raised the concept of "new person" to an unprecedented height. Having said that, I must defend Mao Zedong and Guevara. Don't they understand the economy? Not really! On the one hand, they really read few economics books. Even during the revolutionary war in Cuba, Guevara never forgot to read Goethe's biography. In Bolivian guerrilla warfare, he paid the price of his life. In his small backpack, a book of Frye's poems has been kept. However, he does read very few books on economics (referring to the proportion of the total number of books he has read), and I doubt whether he has read Das Kapital as a Marxist Bible (hehe, I have only read the first volume carefully, and the second and third volumes and the History of Surplus Value as the fourth volume are all cursory browsing, only looking for the interested parts to read). Reading less economics books narrowed his vision (it is a sin to write such a sentence that does not obey modern grammar, but it also restored traditional grammar, such as "red cherry, green banana", "spring breeze, green Jiang Nanan", and adjectives are used flexibly as verbs), which made him not familiar with the economy; On the other hand, and most importantly, those "great" Marxists (except Marx) all despise the economy (perhaps verbally shouting the slogan of "developing the economy"), such as Ho Chi Minh, Tito, Kim Il Sung, pol pot, and what's more, Joe (who is over 70, the two people I want to visit most are him and Castro, I guess it is unlikely. Although he received a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Paris, his understanding of economic issues was limited by the Marxist perspective (I unconsciously wrote pol pot and Jophanson, so it seems that I can't postpone another article about the Khmer Rouge, alas, "Khmer Rouge"-what a heavy word). The contradiction between attaching importance to economy and neglecting economy in Marxism influenced a large number of Marxists later, but few Marxists can reach the level of Marx when dealing with the contradiction between them. Even Lenin, who wrote that "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalist development" (usually called "imperialism" and regarded as the sequel to Das Kapital), did not know much about the economy (the implementation time of the "new economic policy" was too short, and he wanted to realize it within 50 years), and Marxists despised the economy. In the final analysis, as mentioned above, it is the contradiction of Marxism itself. Why can't Mao Zedong and Guevara see the importance of economy? They saw it, but the theoretical perspective of Marxism made them stubbornly believe that those so-called economic laws can be changed, especially after being polished by the great weapon of "revolution". This is where their success lies. China's * * * production party and Cuba's * * * production party (which did not have this title in revolutionary fashion) finally won, that is, they maximized people's subjective initiative (not so close to material stimulation); However, their tragedy lies in this. In those days, Mao Zedong was crying while eating hard and dry steamed bread collected from the countryside. He said to the staff around him: "You also try. This is a ration for farmers. " That night, he couldn't sleep, and kept talking to himself: "Now that the revolution has won, the people are farming for themselves, and the productive forces will be liberated …" In fact, he should know what to do. It doesn't make sense. But the victory of the revolution is different. Not surprisingly, not only can people live to be tomorrow, next year or ten years later, but there is also an old saying in China, "He who has no foresight will be worried in the near future". Mao Zedong said that these fame-seeking revolutionaries, "Men don't cry lightly because they are not judged". But he doesn't believe in "evil", but he wants to do something that goes against his "Tao" and find a new way to change what western economics takes for granted. Guevara, too, while attaching importance to economic construction, is constantly exploring new ways to change the economic laws advocated by western economics. In their places, such as Castro stressed: "I have confidence in mankind." If we have no confidence in human beings, if we regard people as hopeless humble animals, we can only feed them, lure them with carrots or whip them with sticks, and then we can move forward; Anyone who holds this view, anyone who believes this statement, can never be a revolutionary; Anyone who holds this view, anyone who believes this view, can never be a socialist; Anyone who holds this view, anyone who believes in this statement, will never be a producer of * * *. Our revolution, to some extent, represents confidence in mankind, because our revolution started from scratch and had nothing at the beginning. We don't have guns, we don't have a penny, and even the people who started the struggle don't know, but we fight everything possible. We fought the enemy with countless pesos and soldiers, but the revolution finally won because we had confidence in mankind. "In the end, they all chose the old method to make it a great success-"revolution ",so in China, the vigorous" Cultural Revolution "began, and Guevara embarked on the backbone of southwest Germany. The result is sad. The "Cultural Revolution" brought about a situation that even Mao Zedong did not expect, and Guevara broke the Shiluo Canyon. At this point, my writing began to become heavy. It seems that the legacy of the whole international proletarian movement in the last century is overwhelming me, but it is obvious that I can't inherit this legacy alone, even Lao Cao's helpers are hard to handle, and 69 million party member is hard to count on (it seems that the scope of attack is too wide, hehe). However, this huge legacy can only be inherited after being cleaned up by later generations, otherwise the price paid by human beings will be too high, and it will be completely empty talk to move towards productism.
Apart from economic construction, Guevara, like other great Marxists, is also very realistic. He thinks that "our great people" need to receive "education" (in a broad sense), although he also said in the same tone as all Marxists: "Don't just report possible plots-because we have all the people to help us monitor, but we should always report the people's attention to one." Knowing this is not to write down anyone's name and punish those who make comments, but to correct our work ... people will never make mistakes, and we will make mistakes. "In fact, real Marxists know that' our great people' are sometimes stupid and really need a good education. Castro took this as an answer to Barbara, a famous American program host, who questioned Cuba's failure to implement so-called "freedom" in the United States, pointing out that the lower education level of the Cuban people is the biggest obstacle to promoting democratic politics. " Let me tell you, Barbara, I want to say. You see, in so many countries, is it possible for them to be free? Don't you need education? Don't you need culture? Without culture and knowledge, freedom is impossible. "After Mao Zedong led the China Revolution to victory, he emphasized that China people (mainly farmers) dared to struggle and were not afraid of sacrifice, but at the same time he clearly knew that" our great people "needed to continue political and cultural education. As mentioned above, Guevara is the most typical Marxist in the orthodox sense of the 20th century. Therefore, while continuing to myth the concept of "our great people", it is clear that "our great people" really need good leadership and education, but it must be pointed out that Guevara and Mao Zedong do respect "our great people". Mao Zedong once said that he could not hear the cries of the poor. At first, a mother looked at her dying little daughter lying in her arms and kept crying, while Mao Zedong stood by and couldn't help crying. From the documentary, I can see that Mao Zedong's secretaries always shed tears when talking about his concern for the people. In fact, only when Mao Zedong really did this, would he gain such sincere admiration and nostalgia from people around him. The same is true of Guevara, who famously said, "Let me speak out at the risk of being laughed at. It is great love that guides the true revolutionaries forward. "The key to understanding Mao Zedong's and Guevara's" people's view "is to love the people, but to know their shortcomings, shortcomings and deficiencies very well, and try our best to change them and help them make progress. Simply emphasizing how they love the people will only weaken this "love" and make it more hypocritical and disgusting. See:/soon 4429/blog/item/508fe743163cbc1273f05df7.html for details.