To me, Che Guevarra is a hero. The famous 1960 picture of him is a prominent symbol of rebellion. I think, however, that people display the picture simply as a sign of any kind of rebellious attitude without any real reference to the actual man. But I feel more kinship to him than your average teenager who simply wants another role model in simplistic anti-establishmentism.
Che followed his beliefs in freedom, embodying the good that Communism is really supposed to represent. The GNU/Linux community also holds a place in my heart and my personal philosophy. I feel strongly in freedom and the power of the individual, and I hope you get some small satisfaction out of this mash up.
I didn't create all of this from scratch, (And I wasn't the first one to come up with this idea either, but I did everything myself)
It is amazing that anybody would idolize this man or champion communism as having anything to do with freedom. When you say "the good that communism is really supposed to represent"- the key word here is *supposed* . Communism is a utopian vision that sounds good in theory but cannot ever work in reality. All of the failed attempts at this form of government throughout history should be enough evidence to convince us that it doesn't work. Typically those who believe communism is a good idea are simply looking for an alternative to what they believe is the "evil, greed-driven system" known as capitalism. This usually stems from a popular misconception that the current economic situation we face is a result of "the failure of capitalism". I would argue that capitalism hasn't failed us- we have failed capitalism. We have grown the government sufficiently to allow chrony-capitalism to infiltrate every corner of our economy. Use your rebellious spirit to combat the forces chrony-capitalism.
If I may dump a big wad of text that's not really in the same mood as the rest of the comments...
@rixxon: I'd say it's compatible with either model. It blends the competitive side of capitalism with the non-monetary sharing of socialism/communism in a way that neither violates the principles of either (no one's taxes are being sent to another, and no one is "better off" than another) nor carries the conjectured disadvantages of either (no one stops producing because of the availability - in fact it's giving corporations a run for their money - and no one is disadvantaged by another's success). However, I would argue that it requires a larger system, in this case capitalism, in order to be sustainable, and might not work great for things other than software.
Personally I don't think either system is perfect but, with bias from my background, I believe that 1) neither will work the way it should because they both assume rational, responsible people (if that were a solid assumption then either would be fine); and 2) capitalism doesn't go wrong nearly as bad as communism did.
Hey, thanks for releasing this art as creative commons. I'm doing a story for pinkomenace.com about Linux, so that will be great! (Btw, Linux seems pretty cool, but as my site's pretty much total satire, it seemed like a good story.
Communism - Captivity! :@
Typically those who believe communism is a good idea are simply looking for an alternative to what they believe is the "evil, greed-driven system" known as capitalism. This usually stems from a popular misconception that the current economic situation we face is a result of "the failure of capitalism". I would argue that capitalism hasn't failed us- we have failed capitalism. We have grown the government sufficiently to allow chrony-capitalism to infiltrate every corner of our economy. Use your rebellious spirit to combat the forces chrony-capitalism.
All of these Che pictures portraying the good and freedom are either uneducated or are just hypocrites.
Bottom line.
--
Behind enemy lines.
@rixxon: I'd say it's compatible with either model. It blends the competitive side of capitalism with the non-monetary sharing of socialism/communism in a way that neither violates the principles of either (no one's taxes are being sent to another, and no one is "better off" than another) nor carries the conjectured disadvantages of either (no one stops producing because of the availability - in fact it's giving corporations a run for their money - and no one is disadvantaged by another's success). However, I would argue that it requires a larger system, in this case capitalism, in order to be sustainable, and might not work great for things other than software.
Personally I don't think either system is perfect but, with bias from my background, I believe that 1) neither will work the way it should because they both assume rational, responsible people (if that were a solid assumption then either would be fine); and 2) capitalism doesn't go wrong nearly as bad as communism did.
--
I'm Dr. House's bastard little brother.