What do you think?
Rate this book
La vida en rojo
La vida en rojo
Todo lo que hay que saber
Jorge G. Castañeda
La vida de Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, el Che, es relatada aquí a la luz de numerosos testimonios y documentos, tan diversos como polémicos, y desde los orígenes hasta nuestros días.
Jorge G. Castañeda interroga a los testigos, a los protagonistas, a los sobrevivientes, para desentrañar facetas recónditas y perfilar la personalidad del hombre que marcó los ideales de varias generaciones, consciente de que incursiona en un territorio que ya es historia y de que el pasado que puebla estas páginas nos pertenece a todos, para bien o para mal.
Todo lo que hay que saber
Jorge G. Castañeda
La vida de Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, el Che, es relatada aquí a la luz de numerosos testimonios y documentos, tan diversos como polémicos, y desde los orígenes hasta nuestros días.
Jorge G. Castañeda interroga a los testigos, a los protagonistas, a los sobrevivientes, para desentrañar facetas recónditas y perfilar la personalidad del hombre que marcó los ideales de varias generaciones, consciente de que incursiona en un territorio que ya es historia y de que el pasado que puebla estas páginas nos pertenece a todos, para bien o para mal.
719 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
94 people are currently reading
1736 people want to read
About the author
Jorge G. Castañeda
55 books41 followersFrom Wikipedia:
Jorge Castañeda Gutman (born May 24, 1953) is a Mexican politician and academic who served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs (2000–2003).
Castañeda was born in Mexico City. He received the French Baccalauréat from the Lycée Franco-Mexicain in Mexico City. Then after receiving his B.A. from Princeton University and a Ph.D. in Economic History from the University of Paris (Panthéon-La Sorbonne) he worked as a professor at several universities, including the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the University of California, Berkeley, Princeton University, New York University, and the University of Cambridge. He was a Bernard Schwartz fellow at The New America Foundation. He also authored more than a dozen books, including a biography of Che Guevara, and he regularly contributes to newspapers such as Reforma (Mexico), El País (Spain), Los Angeles Times (USA) and Newsweek magazine.
His father was Jorge Castañeda y Álvarez de la Rosa who served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1979–1982), during the administration of José López Portillo. He was married to Miriam Morales (a Chilean citizen) and he has one son, Jorge Andrés.
Jorge Castañeda Gutman (born May 24, 1953) is a Mexican politician and academic who served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs (2000–2003).
Castañeda was born in Mexico City. He received the French Baccalauréat from the Lycée Franco-Mexicain in Mexico City. Then after receiving his B.A. from Princeton University and a Ph.D. in Economic History from the University of Paris (Panthéon-La Sorbonne) he worked as a professor at several universities, including the National Autonomous University of Mexico, the University of California, Berkeley, Princeton University, New York University, and the University of Cambridge. He was a Bernard Schwartz fellow at The New America Foundation. He also authored more than a dozen books, including a biography of Che Guevara, and he regularly contributes to newspapers such as Reforma (Mexico), El País (Spain), Los Angeles Times (USA) and Newsweek magazine.
His father was Jorge Castañeda y Álvarez de la Rosa who served as Secretary of Foreign Affairs (1979–1982), during the administration of José López Portillo. He was married to Miriam Morales (a Chilean citizen) and he has one son, Jorge Andrés.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews
January 15, 2021
شخصیت این چریک آنقدر جذاب بوده و هست که نیازی به توضیح و شرح ندارد.
نگاه کنید به میلیون ها تی شرت و ماگ و پوستر و دیوار نگاره و ... در سراسر دنیا یا شاید از آن بهتر تعداد آدم هایی که لااقل اسم گوارا را شنیده اند.
کتاب بسیار جذاب و دردناک است.
تراژدی تمام عیاری ست که در زمان خودش دنیا را تکان داده و هنوز هم زنده است و نسل هایی مثل من هم با او ارتباط داشته ایم.
مثلا خود من. منی که در سال 1986 متولد شده ام آن هم در غرب آسیا ، چریکی آرژانتینی را که در 1968 در بولیوی کشته شده می شناسم. به واسطه ی کتاب هم نه! می شناسم و حتی یادم نیست از چه وقت یا از کجا !
اسطوره ی ارنستو گوارا یا آن طور که نزدیکانش صدایش می زدند «چه» یعنی همین.
پی نوشت اول: جدای از تاریخ ، کتاب بسیار مفیدی است اگر از منظر دیگری یعنی مقایسه با خودمان بخوانیم. در طول مطالعه با خودم مرتب فکر می کردم شاید اینکه جناب چه گوارا اینقدر محبوب است در همین زندگی زیسته ای ست که داشته وگرنه راه و روش اش منظورم مارکسیسم است، امروز در این اندازه رهرو و پیرو ندارد.
پسر جوانی که با آسم شدید دست و پنجه نرم می کند، پزشک می شود، ورزشکار می شود با موتور سیکلت و در نهایت فقر جهانگردی می کند ، در انقلابی دیگر در کشوری دیگر شرکت می کند، می جنگد و پیروز می شود و پس از آن به وزارت می رسد. تا اینجایش را شاید خیلی از آدم های موفق هم داشته باشند.
اما او ارزش ها و از آن مهمتر علاقه مندی هایش را خوب می شناسد.
آدمی که تا دیروز با خروشچف و مائو جلسه داشت و دوبوار و سارتر مفتخر به میزبانی اش در پاریس بودند با خودش یکی تعارف ندارد.
جمع می کند و راه می افتد می رود آفریقا، کنگوی تحت استعمار بلژیک . می خواهد بجنگد و حالا بعد از کوبایی ها آن ها را هم کمک کند.
چه گوارا خوب می دانست در دنیا چه چیز دوست دارد. خواندن، نوشتن و جنگیدن.
همین هم بود که چند تا صندوق کتاب را راه می انداخت دنبالش و می رفت این طرف آن طرف دنیا در یک جنگی طرف ضعیف را می گرفت و در اوقات فراغتش هم دیوانه وار می خواند و گاهی هم می نوشت.
راستی چند تا از ما می دانیم می خواهیم چه کنیم ؟ با این وضوح منظورم است.
اگر می دانیم چندتایمان جراتش را داریم؟
فکر کنم یکی از دلایل محبوبیتش همین باشد.
ما ترسو ها و تسلیم شده ها در برابر جبر اجتماعی و جغرافیایی و سیاسی و ... زیسته های دیگری را می خوانیم بلکه زندگی نکرده ی خودمان را فراموش کنیم.
پی نوشت دوم: اگر دیدید خواندن من خیلی طول کشیده، حمل بر سخت خوانی و خوب نبودن کتاب نکنید. اصلا اینطور نیست. من تا فصل آخر را خوانده بودم و راستش روحیه ام خوب نبود دلم نمی خواست با تراژدی رو به رو شوم. سختم بود.
نگاه کنید به میلیون ها تی شرت و ماگ و پوستر و دیوار نگاره و ... در سراسر دنیا یا شاید از آن بهتر تعداد آدم هایی که لااقل اسم گوارا را شنیده اند.
کتاب بسیار جذاب و دردناک است.
تراژدی تمام عیاری ست که در زمان خودش دنیا را تکان داده و هنوز هم زنده است و نسل هایی مثل من هم با او ارتباط داشته ایم.
مثلا خود من. منی که در سال 1986 متولد شده ام آن هم در غرب آسیا ، چریکی آرژانتینی را که در 1968 در بولیوی کشته شده می شناسم. به واسطه ی کتاب هم نه! می شناسم و حتی یادم نیست از چه وقت یا از کجا !
اسطوره ی ارنستو گوارا یا آن طور که نزدیکانش صدایش می زدند «چه» یعنی همین.
پی نوشت اول: جدای از تاریخ ، کتاب بسیار مفیدی است اگر از منظر دیگری یعنی مقایسه با خودمان بخوانیم. در طول مطالعه با خودم مرتب فکر می کردم شاید اینکه جناب چه گوارا اینقدر محبوب است در همین زندگی زیسته ای ست که داشته وگرنه راه و روش اش منظورم مارکسیسم است، امروز در این اندازه رهرو و پیرو ندارد.
پسر جوانی که با آسم شدید دست و پنجه نرم می کند، پزشک می شود، ورزشکار می شود با موتور سیکلت و در نهایت فقر جهانگردی می کند ، در انقلابی دیگر در کشوری دیگر شرکت می کند، می جنگد و پیروز می شود و پس از آن به وزارت می رسد. تا اینجایش را شاید خیلی از آدم های موفق هم داشته باشند.
اما او ارزش ها و از آن مهمتر علاقه مندی هایش را خوب می شناسد.
آدمی که تا دیروز با خروشچف و مائو جلسه داشت و دوبوار و سارتر مفتخر به میزبانی اش در پاریس بودند با خودش یکی تعارف ندارد.
جمع می کند و راه می افتد می رود آفریقا، کنگوی تحت استعمار بلژیک . می خواهد بجنگد و حالا بعد از کوبایی ها آن ها را هم کمک کند.
چه گوارا خوب می دانست در دنیا چه چیز دوست دارد. خواندن، نوشتن و جنگیدن.
همین هم بود که چند تا صندوق کتاب را راه می انداخت دنبالش و می رفت این طرف آن طرف دنیا در یک جنگی طرف ضعیف را می گرفت و در اوقات فراغتش هم دیوانه وار می خواند و گاهی هم می نوشت.
راستی چند تا از ما می دانیم می خواهیم چه کنیم ؟ با این وضوح منظورم است.
اگر می دانیم چندتایمان جراتش را داریم؟
فکر کنم یکی از دلایل محبوبیتش همین باشد.
ما ترسو ها و تسلیم شده ها در برابر جبر اجتماعی و جغرافیایی و سیاسی و ... زیسته های دیگری را می خوانیم بلکه زندگی نکرده ی خودمان را فراموش کنیم.
پی نوشت دوم: اگر دیدید خواندن من خیلی طول کشیده، حمل بر سخت خوانی و خوب نبودن کتاب نکنید. اصلا اینطور نیست. من تا فصل آخر را خوانده بودم و راستش روحیه ام خوب نبود دلم نمی خواست با تراژدی رو به رو شوم. سختم بود.
February 23, 2021
اگه دنبال داستان هستید، یا میخواید بدونید که مثلا سرگدشت انقلاب کوبا چی شد؟ سراغ این کتاب نیاید، چون ناامید میشید.
اصلا اینجوریه که قهرمان ها رو بدون اشکال و بدون عیب نشون میدن، نقطه ظعف ها و خیلی چیزای دیگه رو نشون نمیدن، اما این کتاب اینجوری نیست، بصورت کاملا مستند و فقط در مورد چه گوارا نوشته (خط به خط کتاب مستند و دارای منبع هست)، نویسنده سعی کرده از تمام جهات مثبت و منفی زندگی، شخصیت و اهداف چه گوارا رو بررسی کنه، و بنظرم کاملا در این زمینه موفق بوده
طی یازده فصل از کودکی با "چه" همراه میشیم تا زمان مرگ اون (و چه مرگ ناراحت کنندهای) ... برای درک بهتر کتاب باید اطلاعات خوبی در مورد کشورهای جهان، رهبران سیاسی، گروه های مبارز و مکاتب سیاسی اون دوره داشته باشید.
ترجمه کتاب واقعا عالی و روان و بی نقص بود
اصلا اینجوریه که قهرمان ها رو بدون اشکال و بدون عیب نشون میدن، نقطه ظعف ها و خیلی چیزای دیگه رو نشون نمیدن، اما این کتاب اینجوری نیست، بصورت کاملا مستند و فقط در مورد چه گوارا نوشته (خط به خط کتاب مستند و دارای منبع هست)، نویسنده سعی کرده از تمام جهات مثبت و منفی زندگی، شخصیت و اهداف چه گوارا رو بررسی کنه، و بنظرم کاملا در این زمینه موفق بوده
طی یازده فصل از کودکی با "چه" همراه میشیم تا زمان مرگ اون (و چه مرگ ناراحت کنندهای) ... برای درک بهتر کتاب باید اطلاعات خوبی در مورد کشورهای جهان، رهبران سیاسی، گروه های مبارز و مکاتب سیاسی اون دوره داشته باشید.
ترجمه کتاب واقعا عالی و روان و بی نقص بود
April 5, 2020
خب. از چند منظر می تونم راجب این کتاب چند کلمه ای رو اینجا ثبت کنم. اول اینکه به نظرم این کتاب حوصله سر بر بود. از نظر ثبت وقایع و کامل و جامع بودن اصلا خودم رو در مقامی نمی دونم ک بخوام نظر بدم صرفا دارم می گم تصاورات دیگه ای راجب زندگی چه گوارا و جنگ چریکی داشتم. نکته دیگه اینکه، از نظر ایده ئولوگ بدن چه گوارا در مقام خیلی خیلی پایین تری نسبت به سایر رهبران انقلاب های سرخ تو تاریخ داره. کلا محرک چه گوارا بیشتر از اینکه یک جمع بندی فکریِ منطقی سیاسی باشه، احساسش بود. خصوصا بعد از سفری ک در جوانی به سرتاسر آمریکای جنوبی داشت و فقر مردم رو دید و کم کم نفرتش از امپریالیست شکل گرفت شاید بخاطر این احساس بود ک جذب شعار های پرولتری جنبش های سوسیالیستی شد. البته همه این جنبش های سرخ واقعا شعار های خوبی دارن ولی در عمل چی؟ می شد بهتر مطالعه کرد سرگذشت جوامع سوسیالیستی رو. شناختی ک چه از حکومت شوروی داشت خیلی دیر به حقیقت نزدیک شد.
چه گوارا در مقایسه با سایر رهبران جنبش های کمونیستی یه فرشته ست. اصول اخلاقی داشت. وجدان داشت. و هیچوقت فرمانده بودنش، عضو حزب کل بودنش، قدرت و مقامش باعث نشد بر پرولتر بشه بلکه به نظرم تا انتها با پرولتر و از همون قشر موند. اتفاقی ک برای استالین نیفتاد، برای لنین نیفتاد، برای تروتسکی، مائو یا بقیه نیفتاد. راجب فیدل کاسترو نظری ندارم. نمی گم دست چه گوارا به خون آلوده نیست اما قطعا نسبت به سایر اسامی ای ک ذکر گرفتم چه گوارا فرشته است.
خب. باید سعی کنم راجب خود کتاب صحبت کنم. ترجیح می دادم بیشتر راجب جنگ سرد، بحران موشکی کوبا، و سرگذشت کوبا بعد از مرگ چه بخونم. نامربوط می زنه به اصل موضوع ولی باز می شد بیشتر پرداخت به این مسائل چون قطعا نمی شه راجب چه گوارا نوشت ولی به کوبا، فیدل کاسترو و بقیه مطالبی ک در زندگی چه گوارا بسیار ثمر بخش بود صحبت نکرد. می خوام بگم ک خب اوکی، چه گوارا اینجوری شد ولی بعد همه این داستان ها کار کوبا به کجا کشید؟ مثلا کتاب زندگی انقلابی سرخ، لنین خیلی به اتفاقاتِ بعد از مرگ لنین پرداخته. در کل کتاب رفیق، زندگی و مرگ چه گوارا برای من به جذابیت زندگی نامه های لنین استالین تروتسکی نیست. ولی فکر می کنم از نظر جامع بودن نویسنده وظیفه خودش رو انجام داده.
چه گوارا در مقایسه با سایر رهبران جنبش های کمونیستی یه فرشته ست. اصول اخلاقی داشت. وجدان داشت. و هیچوقت فرمانده بودنش، عضو حزب کل بودنش، قدرت و مقامش باعث نشد بر پرولتر بشه بلکه به نظرم تا انتها با پرولتر و از همون قشر موند. اتفاقی ک برای استالین نیفتاد، برای لنین نیفتاد، برای تروتسکی، مائو یا بقیه نیفتاد. راجب فیدل کاسترو نظری ندارم. نمی گم دست چه گوارا به خون آلوده نیست اما قطعا نسبت به سایر اسامی ای ک ذکر گرفتم چه گوارا فرشته است.
خب. باید سعی کنم راجب خود کتاب صحبت کنم. ترجیح می دادم بیشتر راجب جنگ سرد، بحران موشکی کوبا، و سرگذشت کوبا بعد از مرگ چه بخونم. نامربوط می زنه به اصل موضوع ولی باز می شد بیشتر پرداخت به این مسائل چون قطعا نمی شه راجب چه گوارا نوشت ولی به کوبا، فیدل کاسترو و بقیه مطالبی ک در زندگی چه گوارا بسیار ثمر بخش بود صحبت نکرد. می خوام بگم ک خب اوکی، چه گوارا اینجوری شد ولی بعد همه این داستان ها کار کوبا به کجا کشید؟ مثلا کتاب زندگی انقلابی سرخ، لنین خیلی به اتفاقاتِ بعد از مرگ لنین پرداخته. در کل کتاب رفیق، زندگی و مرگ چه گوارا برای من به جذابیت زندگی نامه های لنین استالین تروتسکی نیست. ولی فکر می کنم از نظر جامع بودن نویسنده وظیفه خودش رو انجام داده.
September 17, 2023
کتاب خوبی بود اما چون کلا چه گوارا برام خیلی جذاب نبوده فقط خوندم برای دونستن بیشتر
November 10, 2020
This is available in translation of the Spanish-language original biography and may suffer as a result. Anderson's 'Che Guevara' is more readable. Detailed and well-documented, the bulk of the text is arduous going. The concluding chapter describing Guevara's posthumous cultural influence is, however, almost lyrical and, I think, insightful. If there's a better biography available, I don't know of it.
January 23, 2015
"Compañero" (1997) nos acerca a la figura de Ernesto «Che» Guevara, un personaje que, aunque es extremadamente popular, tiene aspectos poco conocidos. Aquí no solamente encontramos al hombre cuya trayectoria revolucionaria arrastra al lector desde La Habana y Argel hasta los campos de batalla del Congo y Bolivia, sino que también nos topamos con el médico, economista, filósofo social, estratega militar y amigo y confidente de Fidel Castro.
Usando documentación de archivos de tres continentes y material surgido de entrevistas con la familia y camaradas del Che, Jorge Castañeda lo sigue desde su niñez en el seno de una familia de clase media acomodada argentina hasta los años de peregrinaje que lo convirtieron en un revolucionario, examina su compleja relación con Fidel y analiza las causas que lo forzaron a irse de Cuba para terminar luchando en el Congo y luego en Bolivia, donde sería ejecutado. Además de describir de forma detallada la vida y la obra del Che, esta biografía nos ofrece un vistazo en la ideología que marcó su vida. De hecho, un aspecto muy interesante de este trabajo es el tenor sociológico que se extiende como una línea a lo largo de sus páginas y que informa sobre el trasfondo social y político en Latinoamérica durante la época en la que vivió el Che.
"Compañero" es un excelente retrato de un ícono que continúa fascinando e inspirando a gente del mundo entero. Es una biografía que pretende esclarecer e informar sobre la figura del Che sin alimentar el mito pero tampoco tratando de destruirlo. A pesar de no ocultar su simpatía por el personaje y por la idea revolucionaria, no son pocas las críticas que hace el autor. Aspectos como la persecución a la prensa libre y a los disidentes luego de la revolución cubana son detalladamente descritos sin buscar atenuantes. Lo mismo sucede con el papel jugado por el Che en los fusilamientos de la Cabaña. Pero, así como no se deja arrastrar por el culto al héroe, Castañeda tampoco se alinea con la caza de brujas anticomunista y, en lugar de ello, logra presentar un retrato crítico del Che y de su vida en el contexto de la historia.
A pesar de que el estilo de crónica que tiene esta obra impide leerla como una novela, a mí me ha resultado fascinante. Asimismo, gracias a la cantidad inmensa de datos que proporciona y de fuentes que cita el libro, esta lectura ha sido extremadamente informativa. Este no es un texto para los que esperan un retrato idealizado de la figura del Che pero, para quienes pueden prescindir de un estilo literario cargado de pathos y elementos románticos, esta es la biografía perfecta.
Usando documentación de archivos de tres continentes y material surgido de entrevistas con la familia y camaradas del Che, Jorge Castañeda lo sigue desde su niñez en el seno de una familia de clase media acomodada argentina hasta los años de peregrinaje que lo convirtieron en un revolucionario, examina su compleja relación con Fidel y analiza las causas que lo forzaron a irse de Cuba para terminar luchando en el Congo y luego en Bolivia, donde sería ejecutado. Además de describir de forma detallada la vida y la obra del Che, esta biografía nos ofrece un vistazo en la ideología que marcó su vida. De hecho, un aspecto muy interesante de este trabajo es el tenor sociológico que se extiende como una línea a lo largo de sus páginas y que informa sobre el trasfondo social y político en Latinoamérica durante la época en la que vivió el Che.
"Compañero" es un excelente retrato de un ícono que continúa fascinando e inspirando a gente del mundo entero. Es una biografía que pretende esclarecer e informar sobre la figura del Che sin alimentar el mito pero tampoco tratando de destruirlo. A pesar de no ocultar su simpatía por el personaje y por la idea revolucionaria, no son pocas las críticas que hace el autor. Aspectos como la persecución a la prensa libre y a los disidentes luego de la revolución cubana son detalladamente descritos sin buscar atenuantes. Lo mismo sucede con el papel jugado por el Che en los fusilamientos de la Cabaña. Pero, así como no se deja arrastrar por el culto al héroe, Castañeda tampoco se alinea con la caza de brujas anticomunista y, en lugar de ello, logra presentar un retrato crítico del Che y de su vida en el contexto de la historia.
A pesar de que el estilo de crónica que tiene esta obra impide leerla como una novela, a mí me ha resultado fascinante. Asimismo, gracias a la cantidad inmensa de datos que proporciona y de fuentes que cita el libro, esta lectura ha sido extremadamente informativa. Este no es un texto para los que esperan un retrato idealizado de la figura del Che pero, para quienes pueden prescindir de un estilo literario cargado de pathos y elementos románticos, esta es la biografía perfecta.
July 28, 2008
I've mentioned before my difficulty regarding biographies. By definition, a biography is going to introduce the bias and opinions of the author, and reflect any limitations in that author's research.
This book is phenomenal and chronicles Che's entire life from a priviledged birth to his world famous execution. It is well researched and it is evident that the author spent years researching and writing this book. He has personally spoken to some of the most central figures in Che's life and as such, this text is valuable simply because that chance may never be seized again by any other biographer.
It was only after I finished the book and began to look up sources on the Internet that I discovered a potential flaw in this biography.
The flaw centres on the author's portrayal of Che as slightly hapless and naive, supported by his constant representation of Che as a "Christlike figure" who was betrayed by his closest aides. Many sources, even those supposedly in support of Che Guevara, will acknowledge that Che was extremely intelligent, calculating and often ruthless in his execution of his ideals. An example can be seen here: "Guevara exhibited great courage, skill in combat, and ruthlessness and soon became one of Castro’s ablest and most trusted aides. Guevara took responsibility for the execution of informers, insubordinates, deserters and spies in the revolutionary army. He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32 (7.65 mm) pistol". The remainder of this article appears to be extremely fair and even reverent with regard to Che's life story.
The author portrays Che as an absolute victim in the Bolivian expedition and in the circumstances leading up to his death. Even in his own Bolivian diary, Che acknowledged the mounting setbacks and failures but he did not present as an innocent victim.
I guess the facts speak for themselves, but knowing of Che's intelligence and ruthlessness doesn't detract from his beliefs or accomplishments and so it wasn't altogether necessary for the author to try coat his image in cotton wool. The one thing the text does do though, is neglect the fragile chess game that Che engaged in during his fight for survival in both the Congo and in Bolivia. He strategised and executed plan upon plan to survive, even though it is evident he made mistakes, relied upon mistaken assumptions, was "betrayed" by desperate and defeated cadres and was quite frankly abandoned by Castro.
Nevertheless, I absolutely recommend this book, but recommend too that it be supplemented with a healthy dose of independent research.
This book is phenomenal and chronicles Che's entire life from a priviledged birth to his world famous execution. It is well researched and it is evident that the author spent years researching and writing this book. He has personally spoken to some of the most central figures in Che's life and as such, this text is valuable simply because that chance may never be seized again by any other biographer.
It was only after I finished the book and began to look up sources on the Internet that I discovered a potential flaw in this biography.
The flaw centres on the author's portrayal of Che as slightly hapless and naive, supported by his constant representation of Che as a "Christlike figure" who was betrayed by his closest aides. Many sources, even those supposedly in support of Che Guevara, will acknowledge that Che was extremely intelligent, calculating and often ruthless in his execution of his ideals. An example can be seen here: "Guevara exhibited great courage, skill in combat, and ruthlessness and soon became one of Castro’s ablest and most trusted aides. Guevara took responsibility for the execution of informers, insubordinates, deserters and spies in the revolutionary army. He personally executed Eutimio Guerra, a suspected Batista informant, with a single shot from his .32 (7.65 mm) pistol". The remainder of this article appears to be extremely fair and even reverent with regard to Che's life story.
The author portrays Che as an absolute victim in the Bolivian expedition and in the circumstances leading up to his death. Even in his own Bolivian diary, Che acknowledged the mounting setbacks and failures but he did not present as an innocent victim.
I guess the facts speak for themselves, but knowing of Che's intelligence and ruthlessness doesn't detract from his beliefs or accomplishments and so it wasn't altogether necessary for the author to try coat his image in cotton wool. The one thing the text does do though, is neglect the fragile chess game that Che engaged in during his fight for survival in both the Congo and in Bolivia. He strategised and executed plan upon plan to survive, even though it is evident he made mistakes, relied upon mistaken assumptions, was "betrayed" by desperate and defeated cadres and was quite frankly abandoned by Castro.
Nevertheless, I absolutely recommend this book, but recommend too that it be supplemented with a healthy dose of independent research.
October 10, 2010
This book is highly detailed and interesting, and clearly the author has done mammoth amounts of research (count the footnotes!!)
Having read this, I feel that my respect for Che Guevara has grown because the portrait Castaneda has painted of him is a very human one - a man with both great strengths and great flaws. I feel that only now that I have read the story of his life can I truly appreciate his legacy, and I can see beyond the famous Korda photograph that has been capitalized so much.
Castaneda's style of writing is good, but at times very dry. I struggled a lot with the middle part of the book because he uses so many quotations, references and footnots that th reader can't help but become lost. I would have rated it higher but for the writing, not the subject.
QUOTATIONS I LIKED:
"If fate and love come into conflict, the former must always win; for love will fade if it rests upon indignity or abdication."
"'I knew you were going to shoot me; I should never have been taken alive. Tell Fidel that this failure does not mean the end of the revolution, that it will triumph elsewhere. Tell Aleida to forget this, remarry and be happy, and keep the children studying. Ask the soldiers to aim well.'"
Having read this, I feel that my respect for Che Guevara has grown because the portrait Castaneda has painted of him is a very human one - a man with both great strengths and great flaws. I feel that only now that I have read the story of his life can I truly appreciate his legacy, and I can see beyond the famous Korda photograph that has been capitalized so much.
Castaneda's style of writing is good, but at times very dry. I struggled a lot with the middle part of the book because he uses so many quotations, references and footnots that th reader can't help but become lost. I would have rated it higher but for the writing, not the subject.
QUOTATIONS I LIKED:
"If fate and love come into conflict, the former must always win; for love will fade if it rests upon indignity or abdication."
"'I knew you were going to shoot me; I should never have been taken alive. Tell Fidel that this failure does not mean the end of the revolution, that it will triumph elsewhere. Tell Aleida to forget this, remarry and be happy, and keep the children studying. Ask the soldiers to aim well.'"
Read
April 15, 2016ﺑﺮﺍﯼ ﺭﻫﺒﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻫﯿﭻ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﺎﻧﯽ ﺍﯼ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﻩ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ . ﻣﺎ ﺭﻫﺒﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻓﺮﺯﻧﺪﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﯾﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺯﺑان
ﺑﺎﺯﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﻫﺎﯾﺸﺎﻥ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﮐﻠﻤﻪ ﭘﺪﺭ ﺭﺍ ﯾﺎﺩ ﻧﮕﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ ...
ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ . ﻣﺎ ﺭﻫﺒﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﻘﻼﺏ ﻓﺮﺯﻧﺪﺍﻧﯽ ﺩﺍﺭﯾﻢ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺯﺑان
ﺑﺎﺯﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﻫﺎﯾﺸﺎﻥ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﮐﻠﻤﻪ ﭘﺪﺭ ﺭﺍ ﯾﺎﺩ ﻧﮕﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﻧﺪ ...
October 6, 2020
.
کتاب رفیق؛زندگی و مرگ ارنستو چهگوارا،بدلیل اینکه زندیگنامه شخصیت انقلابی و البته پرطرفدار چهگوارا و تبلیغات انجام شده برای این کتاب،اون رو تبدیل به یک کتاب پرفروش کرده.
.
اول از مزایای این کتاب بگم؛مهمترین ویژگی این کتاب این هست که نویسنده سعی کرده تاجایی که ممکنه بیطرفانه بنویسه و شخصیت واقعی چهگوارا به خواننده نشون بده و درواقع اسطورهزدایی بکنه.نویسنده تحلیلهای جالبی بر روی نوشتهها و خاطرات چهگوارا زده بود که قابل تأمل و جالب بودند.
.
اما معایب کتاب بزرگتر و بیشتر از مزایای کتاب هست.اولین عیبی که من متوجه شدم اشتباهات نویسنده بود؛من بدلیل علاقهای که به شخصیت چهگوارا دارم،در کنار کتاب به خاطرات و مستندات و همینطور یک کتاب زندگینامهی دیگر از چهگوارا رجوع میکردم و شاهد اشتباهات نویسنده بودم.بعنوان مثال نویسنده در کتاب ذکر کرده بود که چهگوارا در 14 ژوئن بدنیا اومده بود درحالی که طبق منابع دیگه چون مادر چهگوارا قبل از عروسی با پدر چهگوارا،باردار شده بود،برای همین تاریخ تولد چهگوارا رو 1 ماه بعد،یعنی 14 ژوئن ثبت کرده بودن تا آبروی اونها نره.پس درواقع چهگوارا در 14 می بدنیا اومده بود.و یا نویسنده در کتاب نوشته بود که چهگوارا در سفری که بعدها خاطرات آن سفر را با نام خاطرات موتور سیکلت منتشر کرد،8 ماه طول کشید درحالی که طبق خاطرات وی و منابع دیگر، این سفر 6 ماه طول کشید.نویسنده اشتباهات دیگری هم داشت که در اینجا توضیح دادن آن سخت است.از معایب دیگر کتاب میشه به این اشاره کرد که نویسنده بعضی قسمتها اطلاعات ناقصی میده و بعضی قسمتها بسیار گنگ و نامنظم صحبت میکنه.مثلا خوانندهای که در ایران این کتاب را میخونه اطلاعاتی درباره پرون و پرونیسم و یا شرکت یونایتد فروت نداره اما نویسنده به گونهای کتاب رو نوشته که فرض کرده همه خوانندگان کتاب این اطلاعات رو دارن و برای همین شما در قسمتهایی از کتاب گیج میشید.و یا نویسنده در کتاب درمورد بارداری هیلدا،اولین همسر چهگوارا مینویسه اما ناگهان دوباره به بحث در رابطه با براندازی رژیم آربنز در گواتمالا میپردازه که باعث گیج شدن خواننده میشود.عیب دیگری که کتاب داره این هست که وقتی منابع دیگهای رو مطالعه میکنید و بعد به این کتاب رجوع میکنید متوجه میشید که کتاب بعضی مطالب رو نگفته که اگر اون مطالب رو نویسنده در کتاب مینوشت،اون احساس سردرگمی که هنگام خواندن کتاب به سراغ شما میاد رو دیگه احساس نمیکردید.
.
پ.ن:شما تمام این معایبی رو که من در اینجا نوشتم رو فقط درصورتی متوجه میشید که در کنار این کتاب به منابع دیگه هم رجوع کنید.
پ.ن.دوم:آقای بیژن اشتری کتابهای تاریخی خوبی رو ترجمه کردند ولی در کارنامه هر مترجمی،کتاب بد هم وجود دارد.
پ.ن.سوم:متن کتاب هم به دلایلی متن جذابی نداشت.
کتاب رفیق؛زندگی و مرگ ارنستو چهگوارا،بدلیل اینکه زندیگنامه شخصیت انقلابی و البته پرطرفدار چهگوارا و تبلیغات انجام شده برای این کتاب،اون رو تبدیل به یک کتاب پرفروش کرده.
.
اول از مزایای این کتاب بگم؛مهمترین ویژگی این کتاب این هست که نویسنده سعی کرده تاجایی که ممکنه بیطرفانه بنویسه و شخصیت واقعی چهگوارا به خواننده نشون بده و درواقع اسطورهزدایی بکنه.نویسنده تحلیلهای جالبی بر روی نوشتهها و خاطرات چهگوارا زده بود که قابل تأمل و جالب بودند.
.
اما معایب کتاب بزرگتر و بیشتر از مزایای کتاب هست.اولین عیبی که من متوجه شدم اشتباهات نویسنده بود؛من بدلیل علاقهای که به شخصیت چهگوارا دارم،در کنار کتاب به خاطرات و مستندات و همینطور یک کتاب زندگینامهی دیگر از چهگوارا رجوع میکردم و شاهد اشتباهات نویسنده بودم.بعنوان مثال نویسنده در کتاب ذکر کرده بود که چهگوارا در 14 ژوئن بدنیا اومده بود درحالی که طبق منابع دیگه چون مادر چهگوارا قبل از عروسی با پدر چهگوارا،باردار شده بود،برای همین تاریخ تولد چهگوارا رو 1 ماه بعد،یعنی 14 ژوئن ثبت کرده بودن تا آبروی اونها نره.پس درواقع چهگوارا در 14 می بدنیا اومده بود.و یا نویسنده در کتاب نوشته بود که چهگوارا در سفری که بعدها خاطرات آن سفر را با نام خاطرات موتور سیکلت منتشر کرد،8 ماه طول کشید درحالی که طبق خاطرات وی و منابع دیگر، این سفر 6 ماه طول کشید.نویسنده اشتباهات دیگری هم داشت که در اینجا توضیح دادن آن سخت است.از معایب دیگر کتاب میشه به این اشاره کرد که نویسنده بعضی قسمتها اطلاعات ناقصی میده و بعضی قسمتها بسیار گنگ و نامنظم صحبت میکنه.مثلا خوانندهای که در ایران این کتاب را میخونه اطلاعاتی درباره پرون و پرونیسم و یا شرکت یونایتد فروت نداره اما نویسنده به گونهای کتاب رو نوشته که فرض کرده همه خوانندگان کتاب این اطلاعات رو دارن و برای همین شما در قسمتهایی از کتاب گیج میشید.و یا نویسنده در کتاب درمورد بارداری هیلدا،اولین همسر چهگوارا مینویسه اما ناگهان دوباره به بحث در رابطه با براندازی رژیم آربنز در گواتمالا میپردازه که باعث گیج شدن خواننده میشود.عیب دیگری که کتاب داره این هست که وقتی منابع دیگهای رو مطالعه میکنید و بعد به این کتاب رجوع میکنید متوجه میشید که کتاب بعضی مطالب رو نگفته که اگر اون مطالب رو نویسنده در کتاب مینوشت،اون احساس سردرگمی که هنگام خواندن کتاب به سراغ شما میاد رو دیگه احساس نمیکردید.
.
پ.ن:شما تمام این معایبی رو که من در اینجا نوشتم رو فقط درصورتی متوجه میشید که در کنار این کتاب به منابع دیگه هم رجوع کنید.
پ.ن.دوم:آقای بیژن اشتری کتابهای تاریخی خوبی رو ترجمه کردند ولی در کارنامه هر مترجمی،کتاب بد هم وجود دارد.
پ.ن.سوم:متن کتاب هم به دلایلی متن جذابی نداشت.
December 15, 2022
کتاب کاملی بود.
کتاب شرح زندگی چه گوارا از بچگی تا آخر لحظات زندگی اش را به نمایش میکشد. در مورد شخص خود "چه" بسیار منصفانه و از چند دیدگاه نظر داده و بررسی کرده است.
خیلی از ایده های "چه" بسیار کلیشه ای و تکراری به نظر میرسند اما چیزی که او را تاثیر گذار کرد نحوه ی عملکردش بود نه تفکراتش.
کتاب در آخر "چه" را مسیحی برای دنیای نو برای دهه شصتی های آنروزها میداند که خود را فدا کرد تا دانشجویان از سراسر دنیا برای انقلاب سیاسی که نه چپگرایی و سوسیالیسم مد نظر آن است بلکه "آزادی" خود بجنگند.
البته تعریف کتاب از آزادی که دهه شصتی ها برای آن مبارزه میکردند بسیار جالب و مورد توجه است:
1-آزادی در رفتار های جنسی
2-آزادی در نحوه لباس پوشیدن
3-آزادی در سلایق موسیقیایی
4-جسارت و گستاخی در برابر هرگونه اقتداری
و مهم تر از همه
5-به رسمیت شناختن دیگری
کتاب شرح زندگی چه گوارا از بچگی تا آخر لحظات زندگی اش را به نمایش میکشد. در مورد شخص خود "چه" بسیار منصفانه و از چند دیدگاه نظر داده و بررسی کرده است.
خیلی از ایده های "چه" بسیار کلیشه ای و تکراری به نظر میرسند اما چیزی که او را تاثیر گذار کرد نحوه ی عملکردش بود نه تفکراتش.
کتاب در آخر "چه" را مسیحی برای دنیای نو برای دهه شصتی های آنروزها میداند که خود را فدا کرد تا دانشجویان از سراسر دنیا برای انقلاب سیاسی که نه چپگرایی و سوسیالیسم مد نظر آن است بلکه "آزادی" خود بجنگند.
البته تعریف کتاب از آزادی که دهه شصتی ها برای آن مبارزه میکردند بسیار جالب و مورد توجه است:
1-آزادی در رفتار های جنسی
2-آزادی در نحوه لباس پوشیدن
3-آزادی در سلایق موسیقیایی
4-جسارت و گستاخی در برابر هرگونه اقتداری
و مهم تر از همه
5-به رسمیت شناختن دیگری
February 22, 2010
The perfect introduction for a Che neophyte. Academic, yet accessible. What a man of passion, he sacrificed everything for his cause. I learned much about Guevara, but also about Castro, the Soviet-Sino conflict, guerilla warfare, and political intrigue in the 60s. I thought the final chapter was poignant and accurately placed Che Guevara as a man of vision for the radicals of the 60s.
May 12, 2013
Very dry, but very informative. A story of someone who had a strong idealism, but was only good at starting revolutions, never seeing anything through to completion.
March 16, 2024
Interesting, well written but dry in the way that most histoical books are. I learned a lot about his life, the motivations of politics at the time, and what led to his large scale idolization for lack of a better word
March 10, 2008
Thoroughly researched and well-written, this book is a must for anyone interested in the motivations behind one of the most legendary figures of the 20th Century.
Che Guevara always wanted to be on the front lines of any conflict against Yankee imperialism. The spearheaded-ness that ousted the Batista regime in Cuba led him to Russia, China, the Congo and ultimately to Bolivia where he was killed in a botched rebellion. The Bolivian episode occupies the final chapters of the book in great detail and places the blame of this ill-fated mission on several shoulders, not the least of which was a Cuban government which had cut some ties with Guevara for diplomatic reasons. Guevara's own shortsightedness and simplistic views of Communism were balanced by his unwavering determination and unwillingness to just become another bureaucrat. This book is a riveting account of his life from his humble bourgeois upbringing in Argentina through his iconic rebirth as a symbol known across the world for rebellion against oppressiveness.
Che Guevara always wanted to be on the front lines of any conflict against Yankee imperialism. The spearheaded-ness that ousted the Batista regime in Cuba led him to Russia, China, the Congo and ultimately to Bolivia where he was killed in a botched rebellion. The Bolivian episode occupies the final chapters of the book in great detail and places the blame of this ill-fated mission on several shoulders, not the least of which was a Cuban government which had cut some ties with Guevara for diplomatic reasons. Guevara's own shortsightedness and simplistic views of Communism were balanced by his unwavering determination and unwillingness to just become another bureaucrat. This book is a riveting account of his life from his humble bourgeois upbringing in Argentina through his iconic rebirth as a symbol known across the world for rebellion against oppressiveness.
December 31, 2015
I'm notorious for not being able to plow through history books, unless they're extremely engaging. Truth is, I've been working on this one for a few years now--it hasn't left my nightstand in a while.
I find it to be pretty much unbiased, based on letters, documents, and interviews--tough, considering that he was such a controversial figure. But then again, any author willing to take on this task has to be interested in the subject, consider them remarkable in one way or another. However, not the most engaging history book I've ever read-just a lot to wade through.
I find it to be pretty much unbiased, based on letters, documents, and interviews--tough, considering that he was such a controversial figure. But then again, any author willing to take on this task has to be interested in the subject, consider them remarkable in one way or another. However, not the most engaging history book I've ever read-just a lot to wade through.
April 28, 2020
کتاب پر محتوا و تاجایی که تونسته دقیق ... کتاب در اخر چه گوارا را مورد ستایش قرار داده نه از منظر تفکر بلکه روحیه و تشنگی به آزادی و در اخر مرگ “چه” را به مرگ مسیحایی تشبیه کرد که الهام بخش بسیاری از دانشجویان دهه شصتی بود ، و باعث تغییرات فرهنگی بسیاری شد ، هرچند خواسته خود چه ی انقلاب بنیادین و از مبنا در ساختار های سیاسی و اجتماعی بود(سوسیالیسم و کمونیسم )
در اخر این که متن کتاب خیلی جذاب و پرکشش نیست اما ارزش خواندن دارد چون حاصل سال ها تحقیق و اطلاعات دقیق هست
در اخر این که متن کتاب خیلی جذاب و پرکشش نیست اما ارزش خواندن دارد چون حاصل سال ها تحقیق و اطلاعات دقیق هست
August 11, 2014
Companero
by Jorge G. Casteneda
Just finished reading Comanero. This is a biography of Ernesto (Che) Guevara. I was inspired to read a bio of Che after watching the musical Evita earlier this year where he serves as the foil. It dawned on me that I only had the vaguest memories of someone who became a revolutionary hero and died a few months before my fourteenth birthday, so I decided to educate myself.
The book was written in Spanish and translated to English which may account for some of its rougher spots. The author interviewed many of the main participants in Che’s life and I respect his scholarship. Here’s what I learned:
Che was born in Argentina and grew up there. The author covers Che’s childhood in excruciating detail. Ultimately, I found we shared a lot in common – asthmatic, philandering father who was not discreet about his affairs, a charismatic personality, and ultimately a fascination and identification with the political left.
Che studied medicine and became a medical doctor, hoping to find a cure for his own asthma. It plagues him his entire life.
Che and friends took several lengthy road trips through Latin America in his early twenties. It almost reads like Kerouac Does Latin America. Coincidentally, Guevara and Kerouac were doing their road trips in the same time frame – circa 1950. These trips were formative in developing his political consciousness.
He seemed to show up wherever a revolution was happening. Bolivia in the early fifties where agrarian reform was giving land to the majority Indian population. Che was waiting for a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs along with some Indian friends and is astounded when aids walk through spraying the Indians with DDT. The minister didn’t want to get fleas and after Che protested, he was told it was most unfortunate, but the Indians were not acquainted with soap.
Next stop is Guatemala where the Arbenz revolution is going on. Arbenz was peacefully and democratically elected president of Guatemala. Although he is no left-wing firebrand, he manages to get on the wrong side of United Fruit and the US government by proposing extension of workers rights and some internal development projects that would include a road that cuts through United Fruit’s land. Horrors! It doesn’t take long for the CIA to mount an invasion from Honduras and oust Arbenz. Not the first time the CIA pulls this little trick, and Che witnesses it all. Che develops revolutionary fever, but ultimately is uninvolved in the outcome. The new government begins rounding up leftists, and Che seeks refuge in the Argentine embassy for a couple of months until he is given free passage to Mexico.
It is in Mexico City in 1955 that he meets Fidel Castro.
Fidel was a Cuban revolutionary imprisoned and then exiled after leading an attack on some barracks in Cuba. He had a tiny handful of followers with him, and Che is introduced through some Cubans he had met in Guatemala. It’s difficult to put a finger on chemistry, but these two hit it off big time. He became Fidel’s go-to guy, number three after Fidel’s brother Raul. It is probably because he is well-educated and most of Castro’s followers are close to illiterate.
Che is one of a pathetically small group that invades Cuba aboard the leaking ship Granma late in 1956. The landing is botched and most are killed or captured by Batista’s army. Only a dozen or so survive and make it to the Sierra Maestre mountains in southwest Cuba. Che very quickly has to make a decision – is he a doctor or a guerilla. He leaves his medical bag behind and picks up a gun.
Batista is thoroughly hated in Cuba, and after a few minor victories, support for the guerillas swells. Over the next two years, they are able to push their way out of the mountains toward the center of Cuba. Fidel divides his ragtag army into two divisions, one commanded by his brother Raul, the other by Che.
Che leads his division into the biggest battle of the revolution at Santa Clara. First he derails and captures a train Batista has sent that is full of arms. He has developed an odd habit of robbing the banks in the towns he captures, and he is criticized for this. This peculiar practice pays off, however, when he is able to bribe the opposing commander into surrendering a force many times larger than his own. There is nothing between the guerillas and Havana. Batista flees New Years Eve in 1958.
I won’t bore you with the economics of the revolution. I would like to point out that Fidel was NOT a communist at the beginning of the revolution, although Guevara identified with them early on. Persistent US hostility drove the revolution to the communists. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend.)
There is one funny story about how Che became the head of the national bank of Cuba. Fidel has gathered all of his main advisers together in one room. He asks, “Is anyone in this room an economist?” Only the medical doctor Che raises his hand. Later, he tells friends he thought Fidel had asked, “Is anyone in this room a communist?”
Che’s politics evolved over his brief life. Although he was always a communist, anyone familiar with the left knows there are many varieties and he bounced around all of them. Che originally considered himself a Stalinist until he got to know the Russians better. He identified with Maoism, and its emphasis on rural guerrilla warfare. At times and tried to reconcile the Soviet Union and China only to be treated with suspicion by both. He was accused of being Trotskyist because he believed in spreading the revolution to other countries. Ultimately, his political thoughts always seemed to be in flux and he tended to learn the wrong lessons from his mistakes. At heart, he wanted to be a guerilla fighter.
He was in charge of Cuba’s economy for the first five years or so of the revolution, and between his incompetence and the American embargo, drove it into the ground. His heart wasn’t into financial management anyway. He represented Cuba internationally at a smorgasbord of countries including the UN. Finally, in 1965, he goes to the Congo with a few Cubans to help lead their revolution.
He is bitterly disappointed. The Congolese “revolutionaries” cannot maintain disciple and drop their weapons and flee at the first sound of gunfire. Their leaders refuse to go to the front. The Chinese and the Russians are squabbling over how much aid to provide and whether to support the African revolutionaries. Che is racked with asthma and other illnesses. He finally has to admit defeat.
It takes him almost a year to recover his health. Late in 1966, he is busy planning his next adventure: Bolivia. Fidel knew he couldn’t stay in Cuba and Bolivia seemed the best place for him to go – right next to his native Argentina.
The mission is poorly planned and executed. The Bolivian Communist party is opposed to the insertion of dozens of Cubans to foment a guerilla war. Poor intelligence had overlooked the basic patriotism of the Bolivian peasantry which rightly viewed the Cubans as invaders. There had been major agrarian reform in Bolivia fifteen years earlier, and the peasants wanted to hang on to their small parcels and had no interest in collectivization. When the Cubans would capture a village, they would set up a clinic to tend to their medical and dental needs. The minute they left, someone would run off to inform the army where the guerillas were.
After a few initial military successes, the Bolivian army and government panicked, but the US and CIA stiffened their resolve. After escaping an engagement with the army, Che splits his tiny group in two and they approach the rendezvous point from different directions. The second group is machine-gunned as they are crossing a river, and all are killed including Che’s mistress Tania. Weeks later, the handful of survivors are trapped in a ravine. Che is wounded and captured.
Che believes he has too high profile and is worth more alive than dead. The Bolivians disagree and execute him.
Although Che becomes an international icon the following year as student uprisings occur, globally, his actual accomplishments are thin. He did play a major role in securing the victory of the Cuban Revolution, but he failed on the global stage both diplomatically and militarily.
Ultimately, his politics were always changing and confused. He was primarily an adventurer who loved guerilla warfare and died doing what he loved.
by Jorge G. Casteneda
Just finished reading Comanero. This is a biography of Ernesto (Che) Guevara. I was inspired to read a bio of Che after watching the musical Evita earlier this year where he serves as the foil. It dawned on me that I only had the vaguest memories of someone who became a revolutionary hero and died a few months before my fourteenth birthday, so I decided to educate myself.
The book was written in Spanish and translated to English which may account for some of its rougher spots. The author interviewed many of the main participants in Che’s life and I respect his scholarship. Here’s what I learned:
Che was born in Argentina and grew up there. The author covers Che’s childhood in excruciating detail. Ultimately, I found we shared a lot in common – asthmatic, philandering father who was not discreet about his affairs, a charismatic personality, and ultimately a fascination and identification with the political left.
Che studied medicine and became a medical doctor, hoping to find a cure for his own asthma. It plagues him his entire life.
Che and friends took several lengthy road trips through Latin America in his early twenties. It almost reads like Kerouac Does Latin America. Coincidentally, Guevara and Kerouac were doing their road trips in the same time frame – circa 1950. These trips were formative in developing his political consciousness.
He seemed to show up wherever a revolution was happening. Bolivia in the early fifties where agrarian reform was giving land to the majority Indian population. Che was waiting for a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs along with some Indian friends and is astounded when aids walk through spraying the Indians with DDT. The minister didn’t want to get fleas and after Che protested, he was told it was most unfortunate, but the Indians were not acquainted with soap.
Next stop is Guatemala where the Arbenz revolution is going on. Arbenz was peacefully and democratically elected president of Guatemala. Although he is no left-wing firebrand, he manages to get on the wrong side of United Fruit and the US government by proposing extension of workers rights and some internal development projects that would include a road that cuts through United Fruit’s land. Horrors! It doesn’t take long for the CIA to mount an invasion from Honduras and oust Arbenz. Not the first time the CIA pulls this little trick, and Che witnesses it all. Che develops revolutionary fever, but ultimately is uninvolved in the outcome. The new government begins rounding up leftists, and Che seeks refuge in the Argentine embassy for a couple of months until he is given free passage to Mexico.
It is in Mexico City in 1955 that he meets Fidel Castro.
Fidel was a Cuban revolutionary imprisoned and then exiled after leading an attack on some barracks in Cuba. He had a tiny handful of followers with him, and Che is introduced through some Cubans he had met in Guatemala. It’s difficult to put a finger on chemistry, but these two hit it off big time. He became Fidel’s go-to guy, number three after Fidel’s brother Raul. It is probably because he is well-educated and most of Castro’s followers are close to illiterate.
Che is one of a pathetically small group that invades Cuba aboard the leaking ship Granma late in 1956. The landing is botched and most are killed or captured by Batista’s army. Only a dozen or so survive and make it to the Sierra Maestre mountains in southwest Cuba. Che very quickly has to make a decision – is he a doctor or a guerilla. He leaves his medical bag behind and picks up a gun.
Batista is thoroughly hated in Cuba, and after a few minor victories, support for the guerillas swells. Over the next two years, they are able to push their way out of the mountains toward the center of Cuba. Fidel divides his ragtag army into two divisions, one commanded by his brother Raul, the other by Che.
Che leads his division into the biggest battle of the revolution at Santa Clara. First he derails and captures a train Batista has sent that is full of arms. He has developed an odd habit of robbing the banks in the towns he captures, and he is criticized for this. This peculiar practice pays off, however, when he is able to bribe the opposing commander into surrendering a force many times larger than his own. There is nothing between the guerillas and Havana. Batista flees New Years Eve in 1958.
I won’t bore you with the economics of the revolution. I would like to point out that Fidel was NOT a communist at the beginning of the revolution, although Guevara identified with them early on. Persistent US hostility drove the revolution to the communists. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend.)
There is one funny story about how Che became the head of the national bank of Cuba. Fidel has gathered all of his main advisers together in one room. He asks, “Is anyone in this room an economist?” Only the medical doctor Che raises his hand. Later, he tells friends he thought Fidel had asked, “Is anyone in this room a communist?”
Che’s politics evolved over his brief life. Although he was always a communist, anyone familiar with the left knows there are many varieties and he bounced around all of them. Che originally considered himself a Stalinist until he got to know the Russians better. He identified with Maoism, and its emphasis on rural guerrilla warfare. At times and tried to reconcile the Soviet Union and China only to be treated with suspicion by both. He was accused of being Trotskyist because he believed in spreading the revolution to other countries. Ultimately, his political thoughts always seemed to be in flux and he tended to learn the wrong lessons from his mistakes. At heart, he wanted to be a guerilla fighter.
He was in charge of Cuba’s economy for the first five years or so of the revolution, and between his incompetence and the American embargo, drove it into the ground. His heart wasn’t into financial management anyway. He represented Cuba internationally at a smorgasbord of countries including the UN. Finally, in 1965, he goes to the Congo with a few Cubans to help lead their revolution.
He is bitterly disappointed. The Congolese “revolutionaries” cannot maintain disciple and drop their weapons and flee at the first sound of gunfire. Their leaders refuse to go to the front. The Chinese and the Russians are squabbling over how much aid to provide and whether to support the African revolutionaries. Che is racked with asthma and other illnesses. He finally has to admit defeat.
It takes him almost a year to recover his health. Late in 1966, he is busy planning his next adventure: Bolivia. Fidel knew he couldn’t stay in Cuba and Bolivia seemed the best place for him to go – right next to his native Argentina.
The mission is poorly planned and executed. The Bolivian Communist party is opposed to the insertion of dozens of Cubans to foment a guerilla war. Poor intelligence had overlooked the basic patriotism of the Bolivian peasantry which rightly viewed the Cubans as invaders. There had been major agrarian reform in Bolivia fifteen years earlier, and the peasants wanted to hang on to their small parcels and had no interest in collectivization. When the Cubans would capture a village, they would set up a clinic to tend to their medical and dental needs. The minute they left, someone would run off to inform the army where the guerillas were.
After a few initial military successes, the Bolivian army and government panicked, but the US and CIA stiffened their resolve. After escaping an engagement with the army, Che splits his tiny group in two and they approach the rendezvous point from different directions. The second group is machine-gunned as they are crossing a river, and all are killed including Che’s mistress Tania. Weeks later, the handful of survivors are trapped in a ravine. Che is wounded and captured.
Che believes he has too high profile and is worth more alive than dead. The Bolivians disagree and execute him.
Although Che becomes an international icon the following year as student uprisings occur, globally, his actual accomplishments are thin. He did play a major role in securing the victory of the Cuban Revolution, but he failed on the global stage both diplomatically and militarily.
Ultimately, his politics were always changing and confused. He was primarily an adventurer who loved guerilla warfare and died doing what he loved.
December 4, 2023
Habe mir daran fast die Zähne ausgebissen. Hervorragend rercherchiert, die deutsche Übersetzung ist allerdings sehr holprig. Einige Passagen sind mit mehreren Briefzitaten zu detailreich für ihre tatsächliche Wichtigkeit.
March 23, 2018
''Coño Che, nadie sabe qué cojones hacemos aquí''
(Emilio Aragonés a Ernest Guevara, Congo, 1965, pag. 365)
Decidí leer esta biografía porque siempre he tenido una ambivalencia hacia el aprecio que se tiene por el Che. Siempre me pareció un rebelde heroico y al mismo tiempo un comunista radical y fanático. Y el fanatismo político no suele gustarme, a menudo resulta en que ''la libertad de prensa se coarta. Varios periódicos cierran, y las principales estaciones de radio son requisados por el gobierno. La Universidad se ve presionada para alinearse con el gobierno, los profesores de abolengo y criterio independiente abandonan el país'' (pag 224). Así pasa en el Cuba de Fidel Castro, una vez asegurada la alianza con la Unión Soviética.
En varias partes de esta biografía, el Che parece un hombre atrapado en su ideología, reacio a cualquier forma de pragmatismo. Por ejemplo, en temas económicos: En los primeros años después del triunfo de la revolución liderado por Fidel Castro en 1959, el Che se encarga de reorganizar la economía cubana, primero como presidente del Banco Nacional, luego como ministro de Industrias. Su plan consiste en crear una economía planificada, con centralización total de la toma de decisiones, una acelerada industrialización de la isla, menos dependencia del monocultivo de azúcar, y estímulos morales (en vez de estímulos materiales). Ya en 1963, resulta evidente que los planes del Che y rapidez con la que trata de implementarlos no dan resultado. En vez de repensar sus ideas y considerar alternativas (desde introducir ciertos aspectos de una economía de mercado a simplemente reformar la economía en una manera más gradual) y luego ayudar a resolver los problemas económicos del momento, se deja alejar del control de la economía cubana. Las alternativas a sus ideas y teorías no son una opción a considerar para él. El Che comprueba ''que las alternativas viables al rumbo seguido en 1961-1962 (bajo su mando) resultaban odiosas: necesarias, pero amargas. Entre seguir pugnando por lo imposible, o aceptar la coexistencia ambivalente con un curso inevitable pero ingrato y despreciable, prefirió la fuite en avant hacia el África, Bolivia y la historia. Cualquier otra salida se antojaba innoble'' (pag 273-274).
También en temas de opciones políticas, el Che parece un hombre de su tiempo, atrapado en polarización ideológica de la guerra fría. Había cubanos contemporáneos del Che que si logran salir de esa polarización y de la necesidad de escoger entre capitalismo y comunismo. Un ejemplo es René Ramos Latour, quién le escribe al Che: ''la salvación del mundo no se encuentra detrás de la cortina de hierro... En cambio, los que tienen tu preparación ideológica piensan que la solución a nuestros males está en liberarnos del nocivo dominio yanqui por medio del no menos nocivo dominio soviético'' (pag 145).
Otra cosa que me llamó la atención de esta biografía es que bastante pronto Fidel y el Che llegaron a creer en su propio mito y en la leyenda de la revolución Cubana. Al lado de los guerrilleros en la sierra, muchas personas y organizaciones, sindicatos y partidos políticos contribuyeron al triunfo final de la revolución: toda una red urbana que juntaba dinero y compraba armas. Sin embargo, rápidamente toda esa gente y todas esas organizaciones son marginados en el imaginario de la revolución. Con el el triunfo de la revolución, ''se hubiera requerido de un milagro de madurez y modestia para evitar malentendidos, políticos y conceptuales...¿Cómo no iba a convencerse Fidel, vitoreado por cientos de miles de Cubanos, que la victoria le pertenecía a él, y sólo a él? … Era inevitable la deriva hacia la reconstrucción imaginaria de la épica: El 26 de Julio (el movimiento revolucionario de Castro) lo hizo todo, sin aliados trascendentes; la dirección, en su sabiduría e intuición genial, fue el factotum de la victoria; Fidel, el líder máximo, el comandante en jefe, fue el artífice de una conquista del poder de pizarrón … Allí, la saga multidimensional, compleja e idiosincrática de la sierra se transformaría en una proeza magnífica pero simple, plana e infinitamente repetible a condición que hombres justos y valerosos se lo propusieron'' pag 178-179).
Che realmente llega a creer que sólo hace falta un pequeño grupo de hombres para hacer la revolución y para imponerse a un ejército regular. Saca lecciones equivocadas de la revolución cubana y las aplicará más tarde durante sus aventuras en Congo y Bolivia, lecciones equivocadas que contribuirán a su muerte en Bolivia. Como argumenta Jorge Castañeda: El Che ''describe en una manera insuficiente y en parte falsa lo que aconteció en Cuba, extrapola indebidamente a otras latitudes las supuestas enseñanzas cubanas, y elude el punto nodal del tiempo: lo que se pudo en una ocasión, rara vez vuelve a suceder'' (pag 180).
Ciertos aspectos del estilo de liderazgo del Che también me llamaron la atención. Estilos de liderazgo que en el siglo XXI probablemente no funcionarían. En esta biografía se muestra, en sus últimos años, un líder autoritario, distante de sus subalternos directos. El resultado es el predecible aislamiento del líder autoritario, que nunca recibe feedback valioso. Cuando la expedición al Congo está en el umbral del fracaso, el Che mantiene un ''ciego optimismo'' que lo hace tardar en afrontar la realidad. Una de las razones de ese ciego optimismo es que ''nadie se atrevía a hablarle con verdad: 'Nadie lo encaró nunca' '' (pag 381). Lo mismo pasa en Bolivia en 1967, cuando los lazos de abastecimiento de la red urbana con el grupo guerrillero se rompen. ''Si no se sacaba a alguien a hacer contacto con la ciudad, veíamos la cosa muy mal, pero eso lo hablábamos entre nosotros, no éramos capaces de podérselo decir al Che'' (pag 448). Entre las razones de esa incapacidad para afrontarlo destacan el miedo de ser considerado un cobarde y las explosiones de rabia del Che, como explica uno de sus guerrilleros en Congo: ''Nosotros nos fuimos apartando porque cuando él se molestaba dejábamos a la fiera sola, no le hacíamos sombra. Nadie quería estar alrededor porque ya teníamos la experiencia de cuando él se molestaba'' (pag 385). Además, a menudo se aleja de sus compañeros y no hace fácil el contacto personal con sus subordinados en el Congo: ''No quiero decir que (Che) nos tratara mal, no, pero sí lo veíamos siempre solo con su librito, leyendo y no lo veíamos con aquella disposición, no se reunía continuamente con nosotros, como lo hacía en un primer momento'' (pag 383). El mismo Che reconoce todo eso en su libro sobre la expedición en el Congo: ''el hecho de retirarme a leer, huyendo de los problemas cotidianos, tendía a alejarme del contacto con los hombres, sin contar que hay ciertos aspectos de mi carácter que no hacen fácil intimar'' (pag 392). Otro problema con su estilo de liderazgo es que impone una disciplina exagerada y que es demasiado exigente. De nuevo, el mismo lo reconoce: ''Fue duro, pero no creo haberlo sido excesivamente, ni injusto'' (pag 392).
También de la vida privada podemos sacar lecciones de como no hay que tratar a la gente. A finales de 1956, antes de la salida del barco Granma hacia Cuba para empezar la revolución, Che ya sabe que su matrimonio con Hilda Gadea ha terminado. No lo comunica a ella, pero si a terceros: ''Mi vida matrimonial está casi totalmente rota y se rompe definitivamente el mes que viene'' (pag 127). Dos años y medio más tarde, después del triunfo de la revolución, Hilda llega a la Habana, con las esperanzas estar de nuevo con el Che. Sin embargo, Che ya tiene una relación con Aleida March, quien será su segunda esposa, y rompe su primer matrimonio recién en 1959. Se puede decir que le ha robado más de dos años a Hilda.
La parte del libro que más me sorprendió eran los últimos dos capítulos, que tratan de la guerrilla guevarrista en Bolivia en 1967. Es increíble la cantidad de factores que contribuyeron al fracaso de esa guerrilla, tanto durante la preparación como durante los meses deambulando por el sureste de Bolivia. La lista es larga (e incompleta):
1. Ausencia de condiciones políticas internas. En Bolivia hubo una revolución en 1952, con logros reales: Una reforma agraria, los campesinos habían recibido tierras, la creación de sindicatos poderosos, nacionalización de recursos naturales. Además, el presidente de Bolivia, René Barrientos, hablaba quechua y gozaba de una verdadera simpatía entre los campesinos.
2. Ambivalencia de intenciones: ¿Se trataba de organizar un paso por Bolivia hacia Argentina o de crear un foco guerrillero en Bolivia?
3. Zona equivocada: El Che empezó su guerrilla in el sureste de Bolivia: ''Ñancahuazú está en una zona donde no hay población de donde pueda alimentarse la guerrilla, en una provincia, cordillera, que tiene casi la extensión de Cuba, 82.000 km cuadrados, con 40.000 habitantes'' (pag 406), es ''el peor de los sitios posibles para asentar un foco guerrillero. Faltaban comunicaciones, población y campesinos sin tierra. Tampoco abundaban la vegetación, la fauna o el agua, recursos necesarios para la sobrevivencia de una guerrilla'' (pag 424).
4. Falta de guerrilla local: No existía un movimiento de guerrilla en Bolivia. Los cubanos iban a constituir la vanguardia, no una fuerza de apoyo.
5. Falta de conexión con la escasa población local: ''Los habitantes de la región por la que ambuló sin rumbo durante meses nunca lo apoyaron, jamás le dieron la bienvenida, nunca comprendieron el sentido de su gesta. Ni un solo campesino se unirá a la guerrilla'' (pag 447-448).
6. Mala relación con el Partido Comunista Boliviana. El PCB se oponía a la lucha armada interna en Bolivia y sentía que fue engañado por los Cubanos. Los lazos entre Che y el PCB se rompen el 31 de diciembre de 1966, unas pocas semanas después de la llegada del Che a Bolivia.
7. No había un aparato de apoyo complejo y bien organizado. ''La red urbana'' pronto deja de funcionar. Además, tampoco vienen nuevos combatientes vía la red urbana.
8. Fidel Castro oculta información crucial al Che
9. Mala organización en el campamento: Faltan armas, medicinas, comida. Tampoco hay comunistas Bolivianas en el campamento.
10. Reclutamiento apresurado y con poco cuidado de nuevos guerrilleros. El Che quería incorporar combatientes bolivianos a sus tropas lo más antes posible. Varios de los reclutados bolivianos pronto desertaron. Los que quedaron no siempre fueron los mejores combatientes.
11. Incomunicación: Las radios dejan de funcionar bien ya en febrero de 1967. A partir de entonces, Che solo puede recibir mensajes, pero no enviarlos.
12. Enfermedades: El asma, sobre todo, pero también diarrea azotan el Che. La falta de medicamentos provoca incursiones de búsqueda sin resultado en lugares como Samaipata.
13. Amateurismo del propio Che: En vez de organizar bien su campamento y entrenar los pocos nuevos reclutados, a principios de 1967 el Che emprende una expedición sin sentido de casi 7 semanas. Al regresar exhaustos al campamento, los guerrilleros descubren que el ejército Boliviano ya ha descubierto su campamento. Luego comete otro error estratégico: En abril divide sus pocas tropas en 2 grupos. Jamás volverán a verse.
14. Amateurismo de sus colaboradores e ineptitud del aparato Cubano.
15. Ayuda Estadoudinense al gobierno de Bolivia.
Tantas razones que explican el fracaso, muchas de ellas predecibles y obvias. La captura y muerte del Che en octubre de 1967 no son una sorpresa. ¿Por qué se metió el Che en esa ratonera?
Jorge Castañeda logra dejar de lado el mito y nos permita acercarnos al héroe de carne y hueso que era Che Guevarra, ''un hombre cuyas ideas políticas eran convencionales, pero cuya actitud hacia el poder y la política alcanzaron dimensiones épicas y excepcionales'' (pag 486).
(Emilio Aragonés a Ernest Guevara, Congo, 1965, pag. 365)
Decidí leer esta biografía porque siempre he tenido una ambivalencia hacia el aprecio que se tiene por el Che. Siempre me pareció un rebelde heroico y al mismo tiempo un comunista radical y fanático. Y el fanatismo político no suele gustarme, a menudo resulta en que ''la libertad de prensa se coarta. Varios periódicos cierran, y las principales estaciones de radio son requisados por el gobierno. La Universidad se ve presionada para alinearse con el gobierno, los profesores de abolengo y criterio independiente abandonan el país'' (pag 224). Así pasa en el Cuba de Fidel Castro, una vez asegurada la alianza con la Unión Soviética.
En varias partes de esta biografía, el Che parece un hombre atrapado en su ideología, reacio a cualquier forma de pragmatismo. Por ejemplo, en temas económicos: En los primeros años después del triunfo de la revolución liderado por Fidel Castro en 1959, el Che se encarga de reorganizar la economía cubana, primero como presidente del Banco Nacional, luego como ministro de Industrias. Su plan consiste en crear una economía planificada, con centralización total de la toma de decisiones, una acelerada industrialización de la isla, menos dependencia del monocultivo de azúcar, y estímulos morales (en vez de estímulos materiales). Ya en 1963, resulta evidente que los planes del Che y rapidez con la que trata de implementarlos no dan resultado. En vez de repensar sus ideas y considerar alternativas (desde introducir ciertos aspectos de una economía de mercado a simplemente reformar la economía en una manera más gradual) y luego ayudar a resolver los problemas económicos del momento, se deja alejar del control de la economía cubana. Las alternativas a sus ideas y teorías no son una opción a considerar para él. El Che comprueba ''que las alternativas viables al rumbo seguido en 1961-1962 (bajo su mando) resultaban odiosas: necesarias, pero amargas. Entre seguir pugnando por lo imposible, o aceptar la coexistencia ambivalente con un curso inevitable pero ingrato y despreciable, prefirió la fuite en avant hacia el África, Bolivia y la historia. Cualquier otra salida se antojaba innoble'' (pag 273-274).
También en temas de opciones políticas, el Che parece un hombre de su tiempo, atrapado en polarización ideológica de la guerra fría. Había cubanos contemporáneos del Che que si logran salir de esa polarización y de la necesidad de escoger entre capitalismo y comunismo. Un ejemplo es René Ramos Latour, quién le escribe al Che: ''la salvación del mundo no se encuentra detrás de la cortina de hierro... En cambio, los que tienen tu preparación ideológica piensan que la solución a nuestros males está en liberarnos del nocivo dominio yanqui por medio del no menos nocivo dominio soviético'' (pag 145).
Otra cosa que me llamó la atención de esta biografía es que bastante pronto Fidel y el Che llegaron a creer en su propio mito y en la leyenda de la revolución Cubana. Al lado de los guerrilleros en la sierra, muchas personas y organizaciones, sindicatos y partidos políticos contribuyeron al triunfo final de la revolución: toda una red urbana que juntaba dinero y compraba armas. Sin embargo, rápidamente toda esa gente y todas esas organizaciones son marginados en el imaginario de la revolución. Con el el triunfo de la revolución, ''se hubiera requerido de un milagro de madurez y modestia para evitar malentendidos, políticos y conceptuales...¿Cómo no iba a convencerse Fidel, vitoreado por cientos de miles de Cubanos, que la victoria le pertenecía a él, y sólo a él? … Era inevitable la deriva hacia la reconstrucción imaginaria de la épica: El 26 de Julio (el movimiento revolucionario de Castro) lo hizo todo, sin aliados trascendentes; la dirección, en su sabiduría e intuición genial, fue el factotum de la victoria; Fidel, el líder máximo, el comandante en jefe, fue el artífice de una conquista del poder de pizarrón … Allí, la saga multidimensional, compleja e idiosincrática de la sierra se transformaría en una proeza magnífica pero simple, plana e infinitamente repetible a condición que hombres justos y valerosos se lo propusieron'' pag 178-179).
Che realmente llega a creer que sólo hace falta un pequeño grupo de hombres para hacer la revolución y para imponerse a un ejército regular. Saca lecciones equivocadas de la revolución cubana y las aplicará más tarde durante sus aventuras en Congo y Bolivia, lecciones equivocadas que contribuirán a su muerte en Bolivia. Como argumenta Jorge Castañeda: El Che ''describe en una manera insuficiente y en parte falsa lo que aconteció en Cuba, extrapola indebidamente a otras latitudes las supuestas enseñanzas cubanas, y elude el punto nodal del tiempo: lo que se pudo en una ocasión, rara vez vuelve a suceder'' (pag 180).
Ciertos aspectos del estilo de liderazgo del Che también me llamaron la atención. Estilos de liderazgo que en el siglo XXI probablemente no funcionarían. En esta biografía se muestra, en sus últimos años, un líder autoritario, distante de sus subalternos directos. El resultado es el predecible aislamiento del líder autoritario, que nunca recibe feedback valioso. Cuando la expedición al Congo está en el umbral del fracaso, el Che mantiene un ''ciego optimismo'' que lo hace tardar en afrontar la realidad. Una de las razones de ese ciego optimismo es que ''nadie se atrevía a hablarle con verdad: 'Nadie lo encaró nunca' '' (pag 381). Lo mismo pasa en Bolivia en 1967, cuando los lazos de abastecimiento de la red urbana con el grupo guerrillero se rompen. ''Si no se sacaba a alguien a hacer contacto con la ciudad, veíamos la cosa muy mal, pero eso lo hablábamos entre nosotros, no éramos capaces de podérselo decir al Che'' (pag 448). Entre las razones de esa incapacidad para afrontarlo destacan el miedo de ser considerado un cobarde y las explosiones de rabia del Che, como explica uno de sus guerrilleros en Congo: ''Nosotros nos fuimos apartando porque cuando él se molestaba dejábamos a la fiera sola, no le hacíamos sombra. Nadie quería estar alrededor porque ya teníamos la experiencia de cuando él se molestaba'' (pag 385). Además, a menudo se aleja de sus compañeros y no hace fácil el contacto personal con sus subordinados en el Congo: ''No quiero decir que (Che) nos tratara mal, no, pero sí lo veíamos siempre solo con su librito, leyendo y no lo veíamos con aquella disposición, no se reunía continuamente con nosotros, como lo hacía en un primer momento'' (pag 383). El mismo Che reconoce todo eso en su libro sobre la expedición en el Congo: ''el hecho de retirarme a leer, huyendo de los problemas cotidianos, tendía a alejarme del contacto con los hombres, sin contar que hay ciertos aspectos de mi carácter que no hacen fácil intimar'' (pag 392). Otro problema con su estilo de liderazgo es que impone una disciplina exagerada y que es demasiado exigente. De nuevo, el mismo lo reconoce: ''Fue duro, pero no creo haberlo sido excesivamente, ni injusto'' (pag 392).
También de la vida privada podemos sacar lecciones de como no hay que tratar a la gente. A finales de 1956, antes de la salida del barco Granma hacia Cuba para empezar la revolución, Che ya sabe que su matrimonio con Hilda Gadea ha terminado. No lo comunica a ella, pero si a terceros: ''Mi vida matrimonial está casi totalmente rota y se rompe definitivamente el mes que viene'' (pag 127). Dos años y medio más tarde, después del triunfo de la revolución, Hilda llega a la Habana, con las esperanzas estar de nuevo con el Che. Sin embargo, Che ya tiene una relación con Aleida March, quien será su segunda esposa, y rompe su primer matrimonio recién en 1959. Se puede decir que le ha robado más de dos años a Hilda.
La parte del libro que más me sorprendió eran los últimos dos capítulos, que tratan de la guerrilla guevarrista en Bolivia en 1967. Es increíble la cantidad de factores que contribuyeron al fracaso de esa guerrilla, tanto durante la preparación como durante los meses deambulando por el sureste de Bolivia. La lista es larga (e incompleta):
1. Ausencia de condiciones políticas internas. En Bolivia hubo una revolución en 1952, con logros reales: Una reforma agraria, los campesinos habían recibido tierras, la creación de sindicatos poderosos, nacionalización de recursos naturales. Además, el presidente de Bolivia, René Barrientos, hablaba quechua y gozaba de una verdadera simpatía entre los campesinos.
2. Ambivalencia de intenciones: ¿Se trataba de organizar un paso por Bolivia hacia Argentina o de crear un foco guerrillero en Bolivia?
3. Zona equivocada: El Che empezó su guerrilla in el sureste de Bolivia: ''Ñancahuazú está en una zona donde no hay población de donde pueda alimentarse la guerrilla, en una provincia, cordillera, que tiene casi la extensión de Cuba, 82.000 km cuadrados, con 40.000 habitantes'' (pag 406), es ''el peor de los sitios posibles para asentar un foco guerrillero. Faltaban comunicaciones, población y campesinos sin tierra. Tampoco abundaban la vegetación, la fauna o el agua, recursos necesarios para la sobrevivencia de una guerrilla'' (pag 424).
4. Falta de guerrilla local: No existía un movimiento de guerrilla en Bolivia. Los cubanos iban a constituir la vanguardia, no una fuerza de apoyo.
5. Falta de conexión con la escasa población local: ''Los habitantes de la región por la que ambuló sin rumbo durante meses nunca lo apoyaron, jamás le dieron la bienvenida, nunca comprendieron el sentido de su gesta. Ni un solo campesino se unirá a la guerrilla'' (pag 447-448).
6. Mala relación con el Partido Comunista Boliviana. El PCB se oponía a la lucha armada interna en Bolivia y sentía que fue engañado por los Cubanos. Los lazos entre Che y el PCB se rompen el 31 de diciembre de 1966, unas pocas semanas después de la llegada del Che a Bolivia.
7. No había un aparato de apoyo complejo y bien organizado. ''La red urbana'' pronto deja de funcionar. Además, tampoco vienen nuevos combatientes vía la red urbana.
8. Fidel Castro oculta información crucial al Che
9. Mala organización en el campamento: Faltan armas, medicinas, comida. Tampoco hay comunistas Bolivianas en el campamento.
10. Reclutamiento apresurado y con poco cuidado de nuevos guerrilleros. El Che quería incorporar combatientes bolivianos a sus tropas lo más antes posible. Varios de los reclutados bolivianos pronto desertaron. Los que quedaron no siempre fueron los mejores combatientes.
11. Incomunicación: Las radios dejan de funcionar bien ya en febrero de 1967. A partir de entonces, Che solo puede recibir mensajes, pero no enviarlos.
12. Enfermedades: El asma, sobre todo, pero también diarrea azotan el Che. La falta de medicamentos provoca incursiones de búsqueda sin resultado en lugares como Samaipata.
13. Amateurismo del propio Che: En vez de organizar bien su campamento y entrenar los pocos nuevos reclutados, a principios de 1967 el Che emprende una expedición sin sentido de casi 7 semanas. Al regresar exhaustos al campamento, los guerrilleros descubren que el ejército Boliviano ya ha descubierto su campamento. Luego comete otro error estratégico: En abril divide sus pocas tropas en 2 grupos. Jamás volverán a verse.
14. Amateurismo de sus colaboradores e ineptitud del aparato Cubano.
15. Ayuda Estadoudinense al gobierno de Bolivia.
Tantas razones que explican el fracaso, muchas de ellas predecibles y obvias. La captura y muerte del Che en octubre de 1967 no son una sorpresa. ¿Por qué se metió el Che en esa ratonera?
Jorge Castañeda logra dejar de lado el mito y nos permita acercarnos al héroe de carne y hueso que era Che Guevarra, ''un hombre cuyas ideas políticas eran convencionales, pero cuya actitud hacia el poder y la política alcanzaron dimensiones épicas y excepcionales'' (pag 486).
May 16, 2025
Walking away from this book with what I was hoping for - an understanding of who Che Guevara was, what exactly he did, and why he remains such an enduring revolutionary icon.
The portrait Castañeda paints is compassionate yet balanced, exploring his virtues as well as his flaws, examining events that shaped him - from his childhood, to his wandering twenties, to the day he met Fidel Castro which forever changed the trajectory of his life.
Che seems to have been genuinely moved by the plight of the poor and marginalized, and through his early travels grew to resent a geopolitical status quo (ie. colonialist powers) that he considered exploitative and unjust. His chance meeting with Castro and the Cuban revolutionary mission provided him with the opportunity to experience firsthand how action by a small, passionate few can overcome seemingly entrenched structures of power. Their success emboldened him to attempt to take on revolutionary causes around the world, believing that with his experience and pure willpower the results could be repeated.
His greatest strength but also his Achilles heel was his unflagging idealism, which blinded him many times to the true messiness of politics, human nature, and the world. He was therefore inevitably disillusioned time and time again by his failed attempts at creating the social and political utopia he envisaged. The remarkable thing about his character is that, despite everything, and however misguided, to his death he never ceased to believe in and fight for a world that had never existed before, anywhere.
Castañeda credits the strength of Che’s larger than life legacy to a perfect sort of alchemy that was created by the timing of his life and death, and the cultural explosion of the late sixties that directly followed, an era marked by mass upheavals and a young generation rejecting the status quo and seeking radical change around the world. To a discontented generation his death symbolized unrelenting commitment to one's convictions. Self-sacrifice for a higher good. And this resonated deeply. Although neither his vision nor the counter culture movements of the 60s succeeded in achieving their ultimate goals, they left a lasting cultural impact that carries through to this day.
This book did take me quite a while to get through. You can definitely tell Castañeda is a political science professor as it is meticulously researched and exceedingly detailed. This made for a dense read with many dates, names, facts, footnotes etc. Written in the mid-90’s, the book draws on extensive resources (old archives, letters, personal interviews, declassified government records, previously published biographies). Castañeda took care to get to the bottom of, and to correct, previously published misconceptions. And in instances where there was really no way to know for certain the true facts of a particular situation, he made a point to acknowledge conflicting statements from various sources and simply presented the most likely theories for the reader to consider based on the evidence available. He did not seek to glorify Che, but to understand him.
There are probably more approachable biographies out there but I’m glad I read this one.
The portrait Castañeda paints is compassionate yet balanced, exploring his virtues as well as his flaws, examining events that shaped him - from his childhood, to his wandering twenties, to the day he met Fidel Castro which forever changed the trajectory of his life.
Che seems to have been genuinely moved by the plight of the poor and marginalized, and through his early travels grew to resent a geopolitical status quo (ie. colonialist powers) that he considered exploitative and unjust. His chance meeting with Castro and the Cuban revolutionary mission provided him with the opportunity to experience firsthand how action by a small, passionate few can overcome seemingly entrenched structures of power. Their success emboldened him to attempt to take on revolutionary causes around the world, believing that with his experience and pure willpower the results could be repeated.
His greatest strength but also his Achilles heel was his unflagging idealism, which blinded him many times to the true messiness of politics, human nature, and the world. He was therefore inevitably disillusioned time and time again by his failed attempts at creating the social and political utopia he envisaged. The remarkable thing about his character is that, despite everything, and however misguided, to his death he never ceased to believe in and fight for a world that had never existed before, anywhere.
Castañeda credits the strength of Che’s larger than life legacy to a perfect sort of alchemy that was created by the timing of his life and death, and the cultural explosion of the late sixties that directly followed, an era marked by mass upheavals and a young generation rejecting the status quo and seeking radical change around the world. To a discontented generation his death symbolized unrelenting commitment to one's convictions. Self-sacrifice for a higher good. And this resonated deeply. Although neither his vision nor the counter culture movements of the 60s succeeded in achieving their ultimate goals, they left a lasting cultural impact that carries through to this day.
This book did take me quite a while to get through. You can definitely tell Castañeda is a political science professor as it is meticulously researched and exceedingly detailed. This made for a dense read with many dates, names, facts, footnotes etc. Written in the mid-90’s, the book draws on extensive resources (old archives, letters, personal interviews, declassified government records, previously published biographies). Castañeda took care to get to the bottom of, and to correct, previously published misconceptions. And in instances where there was really no way to know for certain the true facts of a particular situation, he made a point to acknowledge conflicting statements from various sources and simply presented the most likely theories for the reader to consider based on the evidence available. He did not seek to glorify Che, but to understand him.
There are probably more approachable biographies out there but I’m glad I read this one.
October 24, 2012
Wow. If you have ever questioned why you see countless kids wearing Che's face - read this book and it will make you still wonder what they are thinking.
Seriously.
Che's history is absolutely a powerful one, however, whether it was for the good, bad or indifferent - well I've formed my opinion at least - thanks to this book.
Ignore the footnotes as they are not helpful and only serve to confuse the reader. This is a great book though, well written and really does a good job in explaining the far reaching effects of Che's actions.
Seriously.
Che's history is absolutely a powerful one, however, whether it was for the good, bad or indifferent - well I've formed my opinion at least - thanks to this book.
Ignore the footnotes as they are not helpful and only serve to confuse the reader. This is a great book though, well written and really does a good job in explaining the far reaching effects of Che's actions.
July 30, 2011
Castaneda does a great job in research and writing. The book allows the reader to try to connect with the times and establish their own views. Politics aside; Che is an interesting and unusual character
March 22, 2009
A good attempt at trying to present a very human portrait of Che using access to letters and people most other authors haven't had. But it's also a very sympathetic view.
July 23, 2009
A serious in-depth view of Che's life events. The footnotes are endless. Great research done on the author's part.
March 14, 2011
Reading about Che is a lot more interesting than reading what he actually said. This is a good book. I don't always agree with Castaneda's analysis, but it is well researched and generally fair.
May 9, 2011
A little heavy and a little difficult to read. Brilliantly researched all the same.
May 17, 2023
"I don't care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting."
V interesting Book ..
V interesting Book ..
April 4, 2020
What a life, and what a fascinatingly paradoxical figure. Che Guevara is obviously one of the most polarizing figures in modern history, and rightfully so, because I think any reasonable analysis of his life should leave one feeling conflicted. It seems undeniable that Che's heart was in the right place. By all accounts his quest for revolution came from an earnest desire for the welfare of all people, and the level of self-sacrifice he dedicated to achieving an egalitarian world was virtually superhuman. If the governments of our world consisted entirely of people cut from the same cloth as Che, perhaps we would live in some measure of the utopia that Che imagined.
But alas, then as now, that is not the type of person who typically populate our political realms. And a lot of Che's story is wrapped up in his attempts to reconcile his ideology with the people playing politics as usual around him. Even amongst his revolutionary government in Cuba, his cadres fell into the rhythm of global political theatre with frustrating ease. This biography does tend to frame this as naivety of Che's part to resist these "practical politics." But I would disagree, and not just because of the small measures of success Che does find in refusing to be a politician. Unrelenting ideologues like Che are crucial to pushing practical politicians to their utmost limits, of challenging their allegiance to the status quo. Even if perhaps Che's methods were not always the most effective in immediate policy measures, his example was immensely more important to the overall cultural zeitgeist supporting his ultimate quest for social equality.
His relentless battle for social justice could also be toxic though, and not only because it led to his downfall. He waged a tireless war against imperialism, oblivious to the fact that his own methods occasionally strayed into making himself something of an imperialist himself. His belief that he could single-handedly manufacture revolution regardless of social environment is practically right out of the CIA handbook. When he stormed his way across Cuba, the people joined in his cause because the social ecosystem was ready for revolution against a tyrannical government. But when he exported the revolution to the Congo or Bolivia, he didn't find similar enthusiasm for his cause among the people. In the Congo in particular, he seemed baffled that the Africans didn't share his western concept of national unity, and that the Congolese found their identity more rooted in tribal ancestry than under the national banner dawned through the imperialist division of Africa. Odd that a man who was there to combat that very imperialism failed to anticipate the problem of carrying out that struggle within the imperialist paradigm. It seems that his ego had grown so large that he believed he could walk into places like Congo and Bolivia and single-handedly craft a revolution, that the people would simply flock to his cause. In this, his naivety is obvious and a shame. Dying as he did may have helped cement his legacy and martyrdom, but I think it very likely that if he had dedicated himself otherwise in his final years, he could have made much greater contributions to his cause. There is a certain level of romance added to his final years being steeped in such violence, but so to does the misguided futility of that violence make it easier for his critics to blithely write him off as a terrorist. It is impossible to weigh the costs and benefits of this on the cultural zeitgeist in totality, but there are certainly both positives and negatives.
As for the biography itself, it is an incredibly well written and well researched book. Perhaps it is a little bit too exhaustive, as least for what I needed to get out of it. There is level of minutia that gets delved into here about both his personal life and political policy that, while contributing to the books overall authenticity and accuracy, aren't particularly important to the overarching narrative of the book. But if that kind of nitty gritty is what you're craving, then this is the book for you.
But alas, then as now, that is not the type of person who typically populate our political realms. And a lot of Che's story is wrapped up in his attempts to reconcile his ideology with the people playing politics as usual around him. Even amongst his revolutionary government in Cuba, his cadres fell into the rhythm of global political theatre with frustrating ease. This biography does tend to frame this as naivety of Che's part to resist these "practical politics." But I would disagree, and not just because of the small measures of success Che does find in refusing to be a politician. Unrelenting ideologues like Che are crucial to pushing practical politicians to their utmost limits, of challenging their allegiance to the status quo. Even if perhaps Che's methods were not always the most effective in immediate policy measures, his example was immensely more important to the overall cultural zeitgeist supporting his ultimate quest for social equality.
His relentless battle for social justice could also be toxic though, and not only because it led to his downfall. He waged a tireless war against imperialism, oblivious to the fact that his own methods occasionally strayed into making himself something of an imperialist himself. His belief that he could single-handedly manufacture revolution regardless of social environment is practically right out of the CIA handbook. When he stormed his way across Cuba, the people joined in his cause because the social ecosystem was ready for revolution against a tyrannical government. But when he exported the revolution to the Congo or Bolivia, he didn't find similar enthusiasm for his cause among the people. In the Congo in particular, he seemed baffled that the Africans didn't share his western concept of national unity, and that the Congolese found their identity more rooted in tribal ancestry than under the national banner dawned through the imperialist division of Africa. Odd that a man who was there to combat that very imperialism failed to anticipate the problem of carrying out that struggle within the imperialist paradigm. It seems that his ego had grown so large that he believed he could walk into places like Congo and Bolivia and single-handedly craft a revolution, that the people would simply flock to his cause. In this, his naivety is obvious and a shame. Dying as he did may have helped cement his legacy and martyrdom, but I think it very likely that if he had dedicated himself otherwise in his final years, he could have made much greater contributions to his cause. There is a certain level of romance added to his final years being steeped in such violence, but so to does the misguided futility of that violence make it easier for his critics to blithely write him off as a terrorist. It is impossible to weigh the costs and benefits of this on the cultural zeitgeist in totality, but there are certainly both positives and negatives.
As for the biography itself, it is an incredibly well written and well researched book. Perhaps it is a little bit too exhaustive, as least for what I needed to get out of it. There is level of minutia that gets delved into here about both his personal life and political policy that, while contributing to the books overall authenticity and accuracy, aren't particularly important to the overarching narrative of the book. But if that kind of nitty gritty is what you're craving, then this is the book for you.
July 5, 2022
I highly recommend this book! It describes the life, political thought and legacy of Ernesto "Che" Guevara in detail, meticulously noting when the sources contradict each other. I knew that Che Guevara was an Argentine physician from a relatively well-to-do middle class family, and I knew he had died in Bolivia. But everything in-between had to be filled out. And this book satisfied my curiosity in spades! From his early meanderings through much of Latin America, to his fateful encounter with Fidel Castro and his joining up with the guerrillas/revolutionaries/freedom fighters. What I had not realized, was how restless he became after the success of the revolution. Being the number 3 in Cuba, in charge of economic policy, was not really satisfying, it seems. Fidel was interested in Cuba; Che was interested in "exporting the Revolution". Fidel was originally more of a liberal and Che was a communist; then later it seems that Fidel moved closer and closer to the Stalinist viewpoint whereas Che was accused of being a Maoist. Clearly, it's time for something new. So what does Che, now in his mid-30s, do? He tries to replicate his glory years in the Sierra Maestra with Fidel, in the middle of Africa. But Laurent Kabila was no Fidel Castro, and the Congolese rebels were not like the Cuban barbudos, and after a couple of months of frustration and dysentery, the Cuban crew is repatriated for rest and recuperation. But now Che wants to start a revolution in his homeland of Argentina, which somehow morphs into starting a revolution in Bolivia. Again Che Guevara falls into the error of trying to cut-and-paste the Cuban experience onto a different country, different socio-political situation, and different geographical terrain. We know the end : capture and execution in 1967.
I found the book fascinating, and the figure of Che Guevara profoundly sad. So much willpower (amongst other things, to overcome the burden of a serious case of asthma), so much energy (to travel around Latin America), so much physical courage, such an inspiration (to his fellow revolutionaries). And yet... what a silly idea to think that what works in a small Caribbean island with one language and a fed-up local population, would work equally well in an African country with porous borders and a legacy of tribal violence. Or in the Andes, where the locals speak indigenous languages and prefer to inform the police rather than help the guerrillas. The hubris to think that small bands of Cubans (a couple of dozen up to 200 or so) would succeed in creating the conditions for a revolution in any country they chose to work in! On the other hand : what a sad ending, our middle-aged revolutionary slinking through the gorges of Bolivia with his much-diminished band, cut off from the urban center, without food or medicines... There is something about this story that is almost... like a Greek tragedy.
I found the book fascinating, and the figure of Che Guevara profoundly sad. So much willpower (amongst other things, to overcome the burden of a serious case of asthma), so much energy (to travel around Latin America), so much physical courage, such an inspiration (to his fellow revolutionaries). And yet... what a silly idea to think that what works in a small Caribbean island with one language and a fed-up local population, would work equally well in an African country with porous borders and a legacy of tribal violence. Or in the Andes, where the locals speak indigenous languages and prefer to inform the police rather than help the guerrillas. The hubris to think that small bands of Cubans (a couple of dozen up to 200 or so) would succeed in creating the conditions for a revolution in any country they chose to work in! On the other hand : what a sad ending, our middle-aged revolutionary slinking through the gorges of Bolivia with his much-diminished band, cut off from the urban center, without food or medicines... There is something about this story that is almost... like a Greek tragedy.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 87 reviews