Che Guevara was, at least in his later days, strongly influenced by Marxist reasoning. And so it seems fitting to apply dialectics to the hero of the Cuban revolution. Why? Well, for me, I see the legacy of Che in three contradicting phases. The first, the thesis, was Che the legend, Che the hero, the Che that was revered for his revolutionary struggles in Latin America. Following his death, his popularity soared. He became the Che that everyone has on t-shirts, coffee cups, matchboxes and the like. The Che for whom lefties go out and buy hats and smoke cigars. But the more that this image became popularised, the stronger the backlash against it from purists. The antithesis that has emerged, amongst liberal lefties as much as anyone else, is that this is the image of Che sold out. That sticking Che on t-shirts reduces him, ironically, to the economics of the capitalist market. Such is the backlash against the image of Che that people have tried to distance themselves from him, even going so far as ridiculing the image of Che as nothing but a cheap marketing ploy. I rember Fleassy once constructed his image from pound notes. But this, I think, is missing the point. It has become so popular to immediately denounce anyone taking up the image of Che as shallow and uncritical of his true legacy that a counter revolution of sorts emerges. From these two competing views of Guevara emerges a synthesis. Yes, the image of Che is popular again, as it was in the 60s, but I don't think it has been cheapened in the way that the purists suppose it has been. Che would not sell simply for a pretty face. Instead he remains, more than ever a symbol of resistance, and the adoption of his image by the market simply reinforces that. People do not take up his image in a vacuum. Even kids who will wear his t-shirt, know that his image means something. And as a powerful symbol of resistance, he lives on. This view, naturally, ignores the details of Che's life, his shortcomings and his failures. But that doesn't matter. Che is not a man anymore. He is an icon. And that, I would argue, is no bad thing.... Hasta la victoria siempre!
Never owned a copy of the symbol myself, I think I equated it to middle class angst when I was a youth.
Nor do I, but that's not for any particular reaction against the image. A friend of mine is a committed communist and wears the t-shirts for all the right reasons. To popularise a revolutionary icon is to popularise the idea of revolution. And who would want an unpopular revolution?
You know, Sal, your take on Che's reinvention reminds me of Mark Steel's. But may I ask, do you have any proof that the kids who wear his t shirt know who the guy on the shirt is? I remember Fleassy's project, and that she talked to random people who wore the shirt. Some of them didn't even know he was a real person. The point of people wearing his image because it means something, even if they don't know what, seems flawed. Hell, do you remember when the Caterpillar brand was popular? A brand name based on a heavy plant machine company. Does this mean that kids wanted to become heavy plant operators when they grew up? No, the original meaning of the logo and the logo adapted as a trend's trademark are so far apart that they're unrecognisable.
As I said, people don't wear it for a pretty face. I'd say the majority of people who wear his image do so because they feel it is some sort of symbol of rebellion or resistance. That's not to say they know anything about Marxist politics, or the life of the man in question and his many shortcomings. I'd say it's different to caterpillar as people don't simply wear Che because they see everyone else wearing Che. At the very least they might do it because they identify it with something alternative. But from that little spark, knowledge grows. It is the popular face of a popularised idea....
How many peope do you know who wear the t shirt as a symbol of revolution? Just the Communist dude, or any more? I've not seen anyone wearing the t-shirt in ages. The trend seems to have passed now, at least in the North, but I'll ask anyone who I see with the shirt who that "dude on your shirt is", to see how many people recognise him. I've been looking for Fleassy's thread where she posted all her research before doing that picture. Can't seem to find it or the thread with the picture itself, though. Maybe if she comes back around here herself...
I think the boy Michael has a point, this seems to be little more than assertion. For all those who may wear it as a metonymic symbol of resistance, it's equally plausible that there are an opposite number who wear it just because it looks cool, without knowing what it stands for. I'd be interested to see a survey looking into how many people off the top of their heads know who Che Guevara was and what he stood for.
I agree with sal - it's the beginnings of the 'right' road, and we, or whoever wants to, can talk to these kids and get them really interested in politics. Obviously not always, but it's an easy route to a lot of middle class kids who have the choice of becoming bankers or trying to save the world.
Indeed that may be true jay, but that's a very different thing from saying that most people who wear it already know that it stands for revolutionary idealism. When you have something as ubiquitous as the Che image, it's a very safe bet that vast numbers of those who purchase it respond to it in pretty much the same way they respond to any fashionable symbol, more as a "brand" than a political icon.
I'm 95% sure that Fleassy did research into this very subject when she did the picture that Sal mentioned. I've tried to contact her, but I think she's between places at the moment so it might be a while
Asking a few people isn't really empirical research. In essence, I suppose, we've both based arguments upon experience. Fleassy's experience and the few people she spoke to suggested the opposite to the few people to whom I've spoken. And context is important. In Cambridge, any student wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt would almost certainly be wearing it because they know exactly who he is and for what he stands. In Staines the reverse is quite possibly true. However, my contention is not that everyone who wears Che is a paid up member of the party, only that the image of Che Guevara is far from reducible, ironically, to economics and that it has become far too popular to simply denounce it as such. My hypothesis, and I open it up to future falsification, is that the majority of people wearing Che wear it not because it is fashionable but, even if they know little about the man himself, they know what he symbolises and wear it as a statement of rebellion....
Actually I think Jacob has a point. Yes, you can talk politics to any kid. Chances are they will ignore you, tell you to fuck off or, if you're really lucky, punch you in the face. But an idea is a powerful thing. A lot of people have blind ideas of resistance and rebellion. But you can condition raw ideas, you can water the seeds and help them grow. The amount of kids I've met who might blindly say 'fuck capitalism' without really knowing what they wanted to replace it with, or really why they should be fucking it in the first place - this, more than any apathetic youth you might meet, is fertile ground for dialogue....
I am not going to say that this man was always good but he was certainly great and inspiring in the long run. His image is everywhere and should have a place in everyones house. I used to get his t shirts. Didn't always wear them but kept them as spares. I currently have a poster up on the wall. It is the one with the blue, white and red triangle with star and ofcourse Che himself. Underneath it says Revolucion. I have put his poster on the wall next to the 28 inch widescreen non plasma tv.
When it comes to in depth political thinking, he was a bit of a nut. Advocated first strike against the States, that doesnt strike me as too clever... Had most of the right beliefs though
