I MET AN OLD MAN
I met an old man two and a half years ago on the corner of Young and Eglinton in Toronto who had on one of those "No Che" shirts. Y'know, the ones with the picture of Che in the middle of a circle and a slash.He was taking a smoke break from visiting friends at a local watering hole. His face was weathered with the experience of life as he basked in the midday sun.
As I walked briskly past, I mentioned to him that I loved his shirt. He looked at me curiously for a second. He thought I was mocking him. I reassured him that I really did love his shirt. When he knew that I was sincere he opened up to me quickly. He had seen his family killed due to communism in Eastern Europe post WWII. He could not understand why he saw so many young Torontonians wearing shirts with Che Guevera's picture on it when Che was a symbol of an ideology that had killed millions including his family. He said that's why he came to Canada, to escape the sorts of horrors and genocide he had witnessed first hand.
I was blunt with him. I told him that my generation and younger were being taught in school that Marxism was good and desirable. That it was about equality. Not a Judeo-Christian definition of equality, but a Marxist definition of equality. We were not being taught of the horrors and atrocities of communism during the 20th century which are far greater than any religion or capitalism combined for 2000 years.
I even mentioned to him there was an upscale store on Yonge St. where communist paraphenelia and propaganda posters were sold to the elite chattering classes at a very high price.
He was dismayed. We talked a little more and I went on my way.
Now much of this goes back to Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who, far from being the 'citizen of the world' and 'complex individual' that he is portrayed as, was actually more of an emotional artist type at heart who had a hard time comprehending the philosophical contradictions inherent within Marxism. Hence, his increased role for state intervention in Canada, his lack of respect for family and the role of the church, his relativist moral world view and lack of acknowledgement of much of the horrors and genocide of the 20th century.
Personally, I do not think history will be kind to his legacy, but that will be for other generations to decide.
Quite frankly, I do not see how some people in the West, largely left-wing 'intellectuals' and media types could be so ignorant as to say this is cool.
How can you say there is no freedom of speech in America but like Hugo Chavez when he shuts down and intimidates TV stations and print media that disagree with him?
How can you oppose the war in Iraq and be ignorant to the violence and genocide inflicted upon people in Cambodia, Russia, China and North Korea n the 20th century?
How can you oppose torture in Guantanamo Bay and not acknowledge the same or worse in Cuba when it is even referenced by Amnesty International?
How can you say you are for the poor and then advocate an academic philosophy that is far more oppressive to the poor than any other philosophy in the history of mankind? Feudal society has a better track record towards the poor than Marxism does.
How can a group of people who fancy themselves so smart and intellectually astute, be so ignorant.
Whenever I see people with communist or Che shirts, I see them in the same vein as someone wearing a swastika or a neo-nazi slogan.
Sad, pathetic people ignorant to the pain and horror their ideology has caused. One group resides in trailer parks while the other resides in the upper echelons of the Academy.
I'm at a loss to guess which one is worse.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 8:08 AM
5 Comments:
One group resides in trailer parks while the other resides in the upper echelons of the Academy.
that kind of class elitism is the very reason why icons like che endure.
but you know, what's really hard for me is the "all or nothing, you're either with us or against" mentality that exists on either end of the spectrum.
no serious individual would overlook the huge failures of communism anymore than they would overlook the failings of pure capitalism.
i can't say i've spent much time in a trailer park, yet i support public health and education. further, i believe the govt needs to get involved in our economy from time to time. does this make me a communist? a leftard? etc..
i believe that we are overtaxed in canada and that the bureaucracy is too large and wasteful. i support entrepeneurialism and generally believe that free and open markets are best. does this make me a rightwing facist? a greedy pig? etc..
the point is, in an imperfect world, clinging to absolutes is foolish. as a photographer, i learned along time ago that too much contrast washes out the subtle details in between. that's where the truth lies.
Well said. The same goes for the complete silence among "intellectuals" about the largest mass murderer in history, Mao Zedong. I was at the house of an acquaintance, a Ph.D., who displayed posters and objects with Mao's likeness, finding them charming mementos of his recent trip to China. Made me sick to my stomach.
Let freedom,
Yes, it is amazing how ignorant the 'intellectual' class is to basic 20th century history. I knew something was amiss in school when they started saying we could no longer believe in 'truth'.
Jeff,
I agree with much of what you say. The absolutes of both ends are wrong. I too agree with public health care etc. The problem is this, when you go to your average conservative household, you do not see the iconography of fascism, Mussolini, skin-heads etc. When you go to the average progressive intellectual house-hold...well see the other post.
Fascism is not the mainstream of right-wing thought. Marxism - is - the mainstream of left-wing thought.
Thank you both for your comments.
JD:
I don't think anyone here is confusing left-leaning politics with full-blown marxism.
I admit some people do try to do just that, just as some on the left refer to conservatives as fascists.
But, I trust, no one in this blog.
I don't agree or disagree with you completely. I think I get why a lot of people idolize Che and overlook what the communist system ended up doing after he helped it gain power. People are mostly admiring the guy for what he was trying to do and I suppose are withholding their blame for what ended up actually happening. To do this you have to assume Che had an ideaological view of the system he was helping take over. That's not a huge stretch really.
You might even be able to say the same thing for Marx, it would be hard to imagine that Marx anticipated the likes of Stalin when he came up with his ideas.
On the other hand you're right about the track record of communism and the free ride it seems to get compared to the villification of capitalism and religion. No matter the intentions of early communists we know what the system produced so how someone can defend it is beyond me.
One question you asked - "How can you oppose the war in Iraq and be ignorant to the violence and genocide inflicted upon people in Cambodia, Russia, China and North Korea n the 20th century?" - I think that an easy question to answer actually. For one thing the reasons for going to Iraq were false and as you've mentioned there are other countries with track records as bad if not worse than Saddam's was so the suspicion surrounding the timing and choice or Iraq as a target is warranted I'd say.
Anyway, good post overall.
Post a Comment
<< Home