Ayn Rand and Che Guevara, polar opposites in regard to morality and the role of the individual in society, stand out as Herculean images or archetypes in the belief that a better world is possible. They were both visionaries who sought a radical change in how individuals live their life, and the role of society in making this change possible. Many years after their death, they both remain as magnetic ideals of a better world, both appealing to the young as uncorrupted examples of what they stood for. In essence, they both acted as they thought, two examples of individuals, whose lives proved that theory and reality are not polar opposites.
For many years, Che Guevara, the warrior philosopher of the Cuban Revolution, stood alone in Latin America as a Herculean archetype of a society based on altruism and collectivism. His image, seen throughout the world in the photo of Alberto Kourda, portrays the burning vision of the New Marxist Man: the serious and burning vision of the warrior of the revolution—unselfish, altruistic and ready to sacrifice at a moment’s notice his personal interest for the good of others.
Guevara is often posed as the moral foundation of the Cuban Revolution, a selfless warrior who wanted nothing for himself. Fidel Castro has praised him many time for his selfless behavior, and talked about him as the moral ideal of the Cuban Revolution. Latin leftists also praise him for his selfless behavior. Guevara lived only for the Cuban Revolution and wanted no material rewards. His highest value was the Cuban Revolution. This was his primary love, his fundamental value. He wanted only an altruistic society where man would live for his fellow man.
Fidel Castro has stressed the unselfishness of Guevara in many speeches and interviews. In his speech after learning of Che Guevara’s death in Bolivia, Castro talked about the importance of Che Guevara to the Cuban Revolution, especially as an example of unselfishness and altruism. Castro described him as the ideal, the model that all revolutionaries must follow. According to Castro, he was a man who never thought of himself and always put the good of the Revolution above his personal wants and needs. After all, it was Che Guevara who was at the forefront of volunteer work for the good of society, in the end, the only high Cuban official who gave up his Sundays to do unselfish manual labor for the Cuban Revolution.In Latin America, and perhaps in other parts of the world, Guevara is the most outstanding archetype of altruism: sacrifice and service to others. He is lauded for his conviction and his willingness to die for what he believed. He was a committed egalitarian communist, not given to compromising his ideals. He thought a better world was possible through the New Marxist Man, making sacrifices for his fellow man and working unselfishly for a new communist society. Most sources cite Che Guevara as having had a great influence on Fidel Castro, the uncompromising moral force of the revolution. Not surprisingly given his legend, a worldwide Gallup Poll, of a few years ago, listed Che Guevara as one of the most admired historical figures of his time.
Che Guevara is an icon for many idealists who still believe in a communist/socialist utopia, and one can see his peering image on t-shirts, drinking glasses and books. A French businessman even inaugurated a perfume with his name, dedicated to those who want to feel and smell like revolutionaries. A slew of biographies have been written about him, two of the best being Jon Lee Anderson's heavyweight portrayal of the revolutionary, and Pacho O'Donnell's biography called, Che: a Life for a Better World.
Now however, with the appearance in Latin America of Ayn Rand's novels in Spanish translation, another warrior philosopher has risen to challenge Che Guevara’s vision of a better world, offering to her readers a very different version of a rational society. In 2002, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged appeared on the scene in Latin America with a new Spanish-language translation from Grito Sagrado Publishers, and shortly after its introduction, it became a best seller in Mexico and a runaway best seller in Argentina. About a year later, The Fountainhead was published and shortly after that The Virtue of Selfishness and Anthem. In this way, and as an ironic twist of history, the famed author and philosopher has now thrown down the gauntlet to a world once dominated by altruism and collectivism of every type, offering up a vision of individualism and rational self-interest for a better and more rational world.
It is ironic that Atlas Shrugged would become a best seller in Argentina. Argentina is the home of one of Ayn Rand's main characters in Atlas Shrugged, Francisco Domingo Carlos Andrés Sebastián d’Anconia. Argentina is also the home and birthplace of Ernesto Che Guevara.
The contrasting images, or archetypes between people of different philosophies of life, presents an interesting study in how ideas and ideology affect people’s lives and cultures. If one thinks in terms of archetypes or fundamental views of the world or society, Ayn Rand and Che Guevara offer a brilliant contrast. Both Ayn Rand and Ernesto Guevara had visions of a new world, strong convictions on how this world should be, and a willingness to fight for their ideals: Rand to live for them, Guevara to die for them. Ayn Rand had a vision of a dollar sign and a society of exchange of both ideas and products founded on the idea of exalting the self; Che Guevara had a vision of a hammer and sickle and a society of abundance based on self-abnegation and the eradication of “egoistic individualism.”
Both Ayn Rand and Che Guevara had a black and white view of life, and both lived out their convictions and ideals in the real world. They were both uncompromising warriors, who despised the destruction of their ideal vision. Guevara despised moderation and saw it as one of the most abominable qualities a human being could have. Ayn Rand also despised moderation, the middle between good and evil. Both were implacable advocates of their values, individuals who would never compromise with a fundamental belief. Moderation to both of them was a crime, once the good and the bad were defined. Guevara disliked the Russians, thought they were false socialists, thought they had given up on the egalitarian society and were bureacrats going through the motions. Rand disliked the conservatives, thought they were terrible representives of America, who always apologized, were all altruists, and who didn't know how to defend capitalism.
Both were astute observers of the world they lived in, as outsiders. Rand's Journals are priceless insights into a great mind and how it came to conclusions. In the same way, Guevara's writings on revolution and society are valuable insights into the world, his writing on the Congo incursion a keen insight into a mind focused on change and revolution. Both came from educated, upper level families. Both were misfits and loners in their youth. Both have followers who use their name but misuse their message and what they advocated.
Criticism towards both most often consists of namecalling, slander and untruth rather than analysis of what they were and said. Rand has been slandered and slimed for being a cruel and mean advocate of a selfishness that leaves no room for others. Few bother to read and understand her concept of rational self-interest, and the consequent benevolence it engenders. They slime her with the "societal view" of selfishness, a Saddam Hussein version of crushing and destroying everyone in order to make it to the top. Of course, they never mention her grandly benevolent Howard Roark, and his love for talent and ability, which was a fundamental of her concept of egoism.Guevara, on the other hand, has continually been slandered as a killer, murderer, racist: a psychotic, blood-thirsty beast without mind or heart. In context, one must remember Guevara was fighting, a kill-or-be-killed war for a revolution. In the mountains, Guevara was reported to be the executioner of traitors to their cause. Later on, he served as an executioner to many of Batista's former political assassins. Reports vary as to what part he had. But the relevant thing here is that he, often, stated that he would kill for the Cuban Revolution. Once victorious, Guevara married again, had children, worked an inhuman schedule, including volunteer work on Sunday, and gave his all to the development of the Cuban State, which he believed would overtake the United States economically within ten years.
According to his two main biographers, Jon Lee Anderson and Pacho O'Donnell, he was a very demanding man, at times ascetic but a far cry from a psychotic killer. His main passions were reading, chess and the analytic component of revolution. He believed that United States and capitalism were the sworn enemy of social change and reform in Latin America, an enemy that had to be defeated through revolution. In contrast, Ayn Rand, after witnessing the Russian Revolution, concluded that the Soviet Union and collectivism were the enemies of all civilization. She, of course, was in love with America. She considered it the most "noblest" country on the face of the earth, and was a great admirer of purely American actors like Gary Cooper, who projected a very strong sense of American independence and individualism.
In regards to philosophical fundamentals, both had radically different views of the world. No doubt Che Guevara was influenced by the corruption and despair of Latin America, and saw at the root of the despair images of egoism and individualism. But then, what did Ayn Rand see in Russia, and why was her vision so diametrically opposed to altruism and collectivism, or the exaltation of the “we?”
Ayn Rand exalted the “I” and her first ideal man, Howard Roark was a personification of the new Objectivist concept of egoism. Roark lived for his values: his love of life, his work and the woman he loved. The essence of his egoism was his love and his loyalty to his values—his love of talent, ability and creation. His individualism stemmed from his independent mind, and his unwavering love of the creative act of architecture—the planting, the nurturing and the harvesting of the ideas gathered from reality.
Like Rand, Roark had no interest in fame, status, glory, image or wealth divorced from his values. The selfishness at his very root was his relentless pursuit of what he loved. Nothing else could substitute for this. Nor would he sacrifice this love for a mansion, a swelled bank account, fame in the eyes of others, or the glory of looking down at the world from the top of the pack. In all of this, he was living his life for his own sake without sacrifice from anyone or thing. It was a world free of chains—free of the binding duties of authority with the power to crush the individual under the Iron Heel of arbitrary power.
In contract to Ayn Rand, Guevara sought to obliterate the “I.” He believed that egoism was a blight on mankind and individualism a crime against the people. In a letter to his mother, he criticizes her for suggesting that “moderate egoism” was responsible for progress and great art. He tells her he has worked hard to eradicate moderate egoism from his personality—“individualism common and cowardly”—and replace it with a concept of “we.”
Guevara was a man of conviction, a committed communist who believed in his visionary new society. He believed in self-sacrifice for the good of the community, and sought to create a New Marxist Man in Cuba —a man who would work unselfishly for the benefit of this fellow man. He was a man who lived his ideals, a man who disliked material comforts and wealth, and sought to live his life as a “revolutionary” denying himself in order to strengthen his character as a leader of the revolution.
To his eyes, selfish capitalism was the enemy of mankind and his dream was to impose an altruistic and collectivist society that would serve as an ideal for the world.
In Latin America, Guevara poses as a model for the far left, the personification of the altruist ideal. In today's world, Guevara serves as the moral foundation for Hugo Chávez, and his campaign against “savage capitalism,” and its foundational links, egoism and individualism. Diego Maradona, the world-famous soccer star, has a tattoo of him on his upper bicep, and claims he was a great man, “who wanted nothing for himself.” Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, has a giant portrait of him in the presidential palace. Many idealistic young people in Latin American look to him as an example of the uncorrupted ideal of unselfishness: a symbol of altruist ideals—a man who died for his convictions.
For young visionaries repulsed by the corruption and arrogance of those in power, Ayn Rand and Che Guevara offer different versions of a better world. They are polar opposites, offering contrasting archetypes of morality, the very base of society. With Che Guevara one is offered a life of sacrifice and altruism in service to the socialist revolution, a life of personal renunciation where one’s ideas and goals are always subordinate to group needs. In reality although perhaps not in utopian theory, one becomes a cog in the state machine, a solitary unit in the mass concept of the “people.”
In a documentary about Che Guevara called, Che Guevara, A Man of this World, there appears on the jacket cover a commentary by Osvaldo Bayer. He speaks about people admiring Che because they believe in a Utopia and says the movie is not for “postmodernists or Freudians,” but features everyday people who accompanied Che on the journey of “altruism, adventure and liberty.” This, of course, includes the enforced altruism of the Cuban State, where individual freedom is non-existent and the individual is at the beck and call of state authorities.
Ayn Rand portrayed another vision of altruism and she never used the words journey, adventure and liberty. She called altruism the “poison of death in the blood of Western Civilization” describing it as the base for totalitarian regimes all over the world. In essence, she described altruism as a system where the individual must sacrifice for others, a method of castrating the individual and rendering him or her incapable of living an autonomous life.
Ayn Rand’s concept of rational self-interest was an enpowering concept—a process of esteeming the self and reaching for the highest plains of life. She said, "The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."
In the famous letter to his children, Che Guevara said, "the revolution is the most important thing and that each one of us, alone, is worth nothing."
In the end, Ayn Rand and Che Guevara are two archetypes of reality open to all who want to see. Idealistically, they both offer a vision of a better world. Ayn Rand offers reason, individualism, rational self-interest and an open market where one can freely exchange ideas and products. Che Guevara offers collectivism, enforced sacrifice under a utopian ideal of everyone working together altruistically and unselfishly, and a state-dominated economy where one is controlled by authority from birth to death. For the individual, it is left to decide who has the better vision of the world: the innovative egoism of Ayn Rand, or the sacrificial altruism for a new world of Che Guevara.
This article is copyright © 2008, by Alan Tucker.
