Che Guevara, what a loser

[lisztisforkids]

Everywere people in my town wear those Che Guevara shirts, hats and other clothing parallel. Ironically, these people have no idea what Che stood for or was.  A die hard Communist and a revolutionary that even went as far as to support a Nuclear Missle exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. Why did he not try to help the world by peaceful measures instead of outright death and destruction? 

[prometheus]

He helped the people overthrow a dictator. The fact that he was a communist and revolutionary may be considered excellent qualities if you have a different point of view.

Peaceful measures? Those don't always work, according to some. For some the end justifies the means. Not many people blame Churchill and Rosefelt for fire bombing german and japanese cities, which were intended to kill as many as civilians as possible. And then the atomic bombs.

Same with the invasion of Iraq not too long ago. Or if we keep it strictly communism. Why wasn't it tried to stop communism in Korea and Vietnam 'through peaceful measures'?

If you were suppressed by a dictator, would you try to battle him through peaceful means? I know I probably wouldn't.

[pantonality]

Nice post Prometheus.

Hey lisztisforkids,

Don't believe everything you read, in fact question everything. Che doesn't mean much to the current world, I get more distressed at the way our government is trying to paint democratically elected leftist leaders in Latin America as bad guys because they don't want to play lap dog to the USA. Both Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have demonstrated genuine concern for the average person in their respective countries. This makes them unpopular for big American corporations and by extension the Bush government (lap dog to those corporations). Sadly much of our media doesn't do a very good job of reporting because they accept whatever they're told at the White House (they wouldn't lie to us). So my suggestion is question everything, including the Bible.

Steve

[prometheus]

If you are a 'good guy' you will never get in power. I would be pretty pissed if I had voted for Chavez and he sells cheap oil to americans, just to make fun of Bush, while he can't solve poverty in his country.

Yes, the fight against communism, or actually everything left oriented, in latin america also turned to out to be a fight against democracy.

[g_s_223]

Chavez is a great man, definitely, and has set his people on the path of liberation.

More good background on these sorts of movements at https://www.counterpunch.org/ .

[musik_man]

Che was the executioner of Castro.  Wearing a shirt of him is like wearing a shirt of Reinhard Heydrich or Nikolai Yezhov, completely unacceptable.

For that matter any support of communism these days is unacceptable.  Stalin killed tens of millions.  Mao did likewise.  Lesser mass-murders took place in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.  Support for communism is about as defensible as support for fascism.  The only excuse is ignorance.

As far as Chavez, I think he's a petty thug.  I doubt he'll do much harm, but he'll certainly do some.  I only really took this as my opinion of him after 1) he made some public anti-semitic remarks 2) that demagogic offer of oil for the poverty stricken land of Massachussetts.  Admittedly, I'm no expert on Chavez as I think he's far too unimportant to waste time learning about him, so I'm not going to join in any debate about him.(further than this paragraph)

[lisztisforkids]

He helped the people overthrow a dictator. The fact that he was a communist and revolutionary may be considered excellent qualities if you have a different point of view.

Peaceful measures? Those don't always work, according to some. For some the end justifies the means. Not many people blame Churchill and Rosefelt for fire bombing german and japanese cities, which were intended to kill as many as civilians as possible. And then the atomic bombs.

Same with the invasion of Iraq not too long ago. Or if we keep it strictly communism. Why wasn't it tried to stop communism in Korea and Vietnam 'through peaceful measures'?

If you were suppressed by a dictator, would you try to battle him through peaceful means? I know I probably wouldn't.

Overthrow yeah, but who did he put up on power? FIDEL CASTRO.  Communism, besides Religon, has killed more people in this world than anything else. Have you ever heard of Stalin? Mao? Guess not, mabye you should do some homework.

Its a shame we firebombed so many citys and so many people lost thier lives. But surely you will agree that stopping Hitler was a first priority, anything had to be to done to stop him. I dont know if firebombing was a very good strategic measure, thats for the Generals back then to decide. Its even more of a shame that Hitler even got to power in the first place. But back then, Europe dident want to fight another war, so they tried appeasment to Hitler.

I do not beleive that Communism can be stopped through peaceful means, because Communist Goverments have no concern for the individual,  peaceful means cannot prevail in a totalitarian society. I agree that force is neccasary in some situations.

Instead of fighting a oppressive goverment to set up a free goverment for the people. Che fought oppressive Goverments and set Goverments up that were even worse. He dident fight for Democracy, he fought for COMMUNISM.

[pantonality]

For that matter any support of communism these days is unacceptable.  Stalin killed tens of millions.  Mao did likewise.  Lesser mass-murders took place in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.  Support for communism is about as defensible as support for fascism.  The only excuse is ignorance.

Remember that comment about ignorance

As far as Chavez, I think he's a petty thug.  I doubt he'll do much harm, but he'll certainly do some.  I only really took this as my opinion of him after 1) he made some public anti-semitic remarks 2) that demagogic offer of oil for the poverty stricken land of Massachussetts.  Admittedly, I'm no expert on Chavez as I think he's far too unimportant to waste time learning about him, so I'm not going to join in any debate about him.(further than this paragraph)

So let's see if I've got this right you don't know anything about Hugo Chavez by your own admission, but you call him a petty thug. So just what information do you have to inform that opinion? You're the one who sounds ignorant.

Regarding the oil for Massachussetts that wasn't an offer, that's a done deal and just, what makes it demogogic? The guy offers oil to poor people at below market price and that makes him bad? Wouldn't it be ironic if this "thug" ended up providing more actual energy assistance to the poor of Massachussetts than their own Federal government? I think you've been listening to Pat Robertson too long? You would do well to question everything as well.

As regards Hitler and Stalin. Stalin was a brutal dictator, you don't have to be Communist to be one of those. Hitler was actually democratically voted into office. One of the reason that happened was because of the armistice that ended WW I. Oddly enough the reason WW II didn't end similarly was the threat of communism to Europe so we developed the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe in order to thwart communist expansion into Western Europe. There weren't any altruistic motives, but it worked out well. It was the threat of Stalin's Communism that saved most of Germany from a similarly humiliating peace as happened after WW I.

Steve

[arensky]

If you are a 'good guy' you will never get in power. I would be pretty pissed if I had voted for Chavez and he sells cheap oil to americans, just to make fun of Bush, while he can't solve poverty in his country.

Yes, he can rail against the USA when he has bulldozed the slums of La Guaira and Caracras, and put up decent housing. But he hasn't done that; he is spending his time and energy stirring up trouble and playing at being a statesman. He could have sold that oil and used the money for public programs to help eradicate poverty in his own country. The ones who suffer are his own people. They will tire of him and he will be gone, hopefully before his "Communist Scouts" , his people in red t-shirts, establish a reign of terror that eliminates any dissent. This is a standard Communist tactic, and has been very effective in other countries in the past. I agree with musik-man; he is a self-serving thug and a hypocrite. People who are caught up in the rhetoric of these characters are sadly deluded, and often wind up as the victims of the oppresion they bring about.

LOL, the ads! "Che T-shirts" "Che Guevara Babywear"  .... how can communists ever win? They end up being capitalist merchandise for yuppies! 

[prometheus]

Che was the executioner of Castro.  Wearing a shirt of him is like wearing a shirt of Reinhard Heydrich or Nikolai Yezhov, completely unacceptable.

He executed people from the Batista regime. Heydrich was assassinated. Many nazi's were executed. Mao was almost excetuced long before he got into power. Guevarra was later excecuted himself, CIA is suspected. That's just the way it works. Soon Saddam Hussain will also be executed. Ironically isn't it?

For that matter any support of communism these days is unacceptable.  Stalin killed tens of millions.  Mao did likewise.  Lesser mass-murders took place in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.  Support for communism is about as defensible as support for fascism.  The only excuse is ignorance.

There are communist parties in europe. They don't kill people. Marx wrote about revolutions of the people, not about systematic elimination of people. As a non-historian I am actually quite puzzled as to why so many communist dictators and brutal regimes turned out to be that way and why they ended up killing so many people. Maybe those interpretations of communism are much more ideological than capitalism. People just kill for capital. But if you kill for ideology you will have to exterminate their children and dogs too. Capitalism seems to substain itself while communism has to be enforced?

As far as Chavez, I think he's a petty thug.  I doubt he'll do much harm, but he'll certainly do some.  I only really took this as my opinion of him after 1) he made some public anti-semitic remarks 2) that demagogic offer of oil for the poverty stricken land of Massachussetts.  Admittedly, I'm no expert on Chavez as I think he's far too unimportant to waste time learning about him, so I'm not going to join in any debate about him.(further than this paragraph)

Well, he isn't a communist. Seems to me he is just a populist with a socialist image. Or a socialist with populist tendencies. Leaders can be quite bad and he doesn't seem to be that bad. It does take some guts to stand up against the US. Not many leaders do it.

Overthrow yeah, but who did he put up on power? FIDEL CASTRO.  Communism, besides Religon, has killed more people in this world than anything else. Have you ever heard of Stalin? Mao? Guess not, mabye you should do some homework.

Castro and Mao happened after the Cuban revolution. But you don't have a point. I am not justifying what Guevarra did. I don't have to. It is jus the way it works. The americans killed off the english for independence. And later they killed off each other. So Cuba also had their civil war. Stalin? He was worse than Hitler, but doesn't get the credit. He also defeated Hitler but doesn't get any credit there either. Stalin defeated Hitler, not Churchill and Roosefelt. Churchill couldn't and Roosefelt waited till it was sure Hitler was defeated because they had to defeat the Japanese first. They wanted control over the paficic, and that is what they have today. Then they had to be fast and grap as much Europe as possible so Stalin wouldn't get it. They even tried to annex a large part of France. All self interest.

Its a shame we firebombed so many citys and so many people lost thier lives. But surely you will agree that stopping Hitler was a first priority, anything had to be to done to stop him.

It seems that when you think this way it can turn out very badly if you have bad luck.

I dont know if firebombing was a very good strategic measure, thats for the Generals back then to decide. Its even more of a shame that Hitler even got to power in the first place. But back then, Europe dident want to fight another war, so they tried appeasment to Hitler.

See, even democracies aren't safe. Europe had their worst war ever when they were already democratic nations. It seems that even in democracies leaders can force their people to fight their wars.

I do not beleive that Communism can be stopped through peaceful means, because Communist Goverments have no concern for the individual,  peaceful means cannot prevail in a totalitarian society. I agree that force is neccasary in some situations.

Some people think capitalism cannot be stopped through peaceful means.

Instead of fighting a oppressive goverment to set up a free goverment for the people. Che fought oppressive Goverments and set Goverments up that were even worse. He dident fight for Democracy, he fought for COMMUNISM.

Isn't that what the US has done for years? This often happens. Maybe you can't fight for democracy.

[arensky]

There are communist parties in europe. They don't kill people. Marx wrote about revolutions of the people, not about systematic elimination of people. As a non-historian I am actually quite puzzled as to why so many communist dictators and brutal regimes turned out to be that way and why they ended up killing so many people. Maybe those interpretations of communism are much more ideological than capitalism. People just kill for capital. But if you kill for ideology you will have to exterminate their children and dogs too. Capitalism seems to substain itself while communism has to be enforced?

Exactly! Capitalism allows the individual to grow and develop at their own pace, according to their desire. Yeah it's a system and if you don't play you starve, but is it any different under Communism? Under Communism there is enforced equality, which is hypocritical, because the party leaders are far more equal than the actual workers who they claim to glorify. And under Communism, if you don't play you are evantually jailed, or worse. In a capitalist society the individual is left alone, for the most part. Communism demands a "group effort" ; when this can't be obtained peacefully they enforce it. That's why Communism is repressive. Let's face it; most of us just want to be left alone, to do our own thing. This is why communism has and will always fail; it denies the individual the right to be a real individual. It is the most insidious of ideologies; it sucks people in with promises of "equality" and "freedom", and then enslaves them once they are indoctrinated and brainwashed, like other systems, or beliefs; all of them want to usurp the power of the individual to do his/her own thing, and to think for themselves. THIS is the enemy. Enforced conformity. Of any kind.

 Marx was an an idiot. He may have understood society but he neglected to understand people. Who comprise society.

Well, he isn't a communist. Seems to me he is just a populist with a socialist image. Or a socialist with populist tendencies. Leaders can be quite bad and he doesn't seem to be that bad. It does take some guts to stand up against the US. Not many leaders do it.

No, he uses communist trappings because they make a military dictator look cool. He tried to overthrow Venezuela's democratically elected government in 1992. Yeah he was  subsequently "elected", just like Hitler, through fraud and intimidation at the polls. His gangs of "Communist Scouts" are supplanting the police and courts as the legal authority and enforcers. Those who disagree are beaten, have their homes and businesses vandalized, and worse. Get with it; he's that bad. If that's your idea "of not so bad", you should do some reconsidering, because your posts show you to be a person of depth and insight. Try reading more than one newspaer or web page; many people in the world do not have that privelege.

Castro and Mao happened after the Cuban revolution. But you don't have a point. I am not justifying what Guevarra did. I don't have to. It is jus the way it works. The americans killed off the english for independence. And later they killed off each other. So Cuba also had their civil war. Stalin? He was worse than Hitler, but doesn't get the credit. He also defeated Hitler but doesn't get any credit there either. Stalin defeated Hitler, not Churchill and Roosefelt. Churchill couldn't and Roosefelt waited till it was sure Hitler was defeated because they had to defeat the Japanese first. They wanted control over the paficic, and that is what they have today. Then they had to be fast and grap as much Europe as possible so Stalin wouldn't get it. They even tried to annex a large part of France. All self interest.

Get your facts straight ! MAO was a world leader while Castro was womanizing drinking, playing soccer, enjoying college life and appearing as an extra in Hollywood musicals https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004242/. You know, if you're going to discuss this stuff, it's best to have the facts straight . BTW I respect Castro. He is a Cuban patriot, and has given his country real independence, the first Cuban leader to do so. Guevara was a malcontent, who could not fit into society, (aw, he must have had a rotten childhood...poor Che...) and so resolved to destroy it, everywhere. HE did not have the scope to womanize, drink, and appear as an uncredited extra in "Holiday in Mexico", before becoming a Communist icon and hero (wow, what a life!). An interesting pair, the poor boy (Castro)  and the rich kid (Che) .

Back to WWII Stalin does get the credit. What have you been reading? And of course each victorious country is going to say that "we won the war !" The British disparage the American contribution, and vice versa. Here's another misconception you have; Roosevelt felt that Germany should be defeated first, and in fact they were; look at a timeline of the war. Yes there was rivalry and suspicion for decades between Japan and the USA. The USA Britain and the Netherlands (govt. in exile in London, still controlling Indonesia) halted sales of petroleum to Japan in 1941, when they would not withdraw their forces from China? What the "Allies" thought they would acheive by this has always been beyond me. It forced Japan to attack "Netherlands India" and the rest of Southeast Asia, to obtain the oil it needed to continue the war. And the USA was once again sucked into international conflict. After WWI we were able to be aloof again. It has not been possible since WWII. I believe that Roosevelt and Churchill knew very well that the Japanese were going to attack the American Navy and the British forces in Malaysia and Burma. On December 6th 1941, the American public did not support going to war. On December 8th, well, it was a different story, which we know. Now, about controlling the Pacific; if that had been the USA's intent, it seems to me that they would have gone to more trouble to insure the satrapy of China and Indonesia, and worked harder to supress Mao and to eliminate Sukarno after the Dutch withdrew from Indonesia, after fighting  3 or 4 years of Vietnam style warfare against the end of WWII. Why? Because President Truman, Roosevelt's successor was at heart an isolationist and was hoping to return the United States to it's pre-war non-aligned position in the world. However Stalin's aggression circumvented this, IMO... 

See, even democracies aren't safe. Europe had their worst war ever when they were already democratic nations. It seems that even in democracies leaders can force their people to fight their wars.

Some people think capitalism cannot be stopped through peaceful means.

Of course "democracies" aren't safe! They are the prime targets! The people are busy going about their individual lives, and then SWOOP down come the dive bombers, in come the tanks, and then the people are sorry they cut defese spending, and dismissed the dictator or religious fanatic next door as a "wingnut", a passing fad of those weird neighbors...  BTW, why should capitalism be stopped? What would you replace it with? It is not a perfect system. There is no perfect system. What do you suggest?

There is no "democracy". There are republics. The people elect politicians to represent them. They are not the people. It still works better than the alternative, at least from my point of view.

Isn't that what the US has done for years? This often happens. Maybe you can't fight for democracy.

Maybe you can't, and shouldn't, outside of your own country...
 

[prometheus]

The point was that people in my country claim that we should support the US no matter what because they saved us from the nazi's. But that is just historically inaccurate. And if we talk about individual american soldiers that died in Europe WWII then those numbers are quite small.

Guevarra died in 1965. Mao started his 'cultural revolution' in 1966.

[arensky]

The point was that people in my country claim that we should support the US no matter what because they saved us from the nazi's. But that is just historically inaccurate. And if we talk about individual american soldiers that died in Europe WWII then those numbers are quite small.

Guevarra died in 1965. Mao started his 'cultural revolution' in 1966.

Nice dodge, dude...

No one should support anyone unconditionally because of the past. But who did save you from the Nazis? Please elaborate...

What is innacurate is your grasp of history. The cultural revolution was just an excuse for further consolidation of power by Mao. His Red Guards kept killing millions of people, like they had been since the 1940's. No change, just a "new look", if you will... and look at China today. Mao would be horrified. Parts of Shanghai and Guanzho are as trimmed, manicured and yuppiefied as any place in Europe, Japan or the USA. And you can buy all the same stuff in the working class neighborhoods, too. People do not want to live in a grey society, wearing the same suit, listening to the same propaganda broadcasts, day in and day out. I'm sure you don't. If you do, it's time to head to North Korea!

Oh, and Che was killed in 1967. You may feel that that is an unimportant detail, but it reminds me of President Bush ! "Yeah, whenever y'all say, doesn't matter much..."   

[prometheus]

You are right, he left Cuba in 1965.

Do you have the numbers? People killed before and after the cultural revolution? People that died because of famine caused by Mao? Etc? Because I don't. I was under the impression that Mao killed random people during the cultural revolution, when he went totally nuts and paranoid after people tried to put him out of power.

Back to WWII Stalin does get the credit. What have you been reading?

Maybe this is a european thing, I don't know. People here view Hitler as the biggest evil ever while Stalin and Mao both are responsible for more deaths.
I think it is pretty clear who stopped Hitler. I thought you were the expert on history. I admit I am not. But I am not as unaccurate as you claim me to be.

Roosefelt and Churchill promised Stalin the second front. But Stalin didn't get it as promised. Look at the sovjet casualties against the germans. Then just match the status of the eastern front with D-day. The allies applied correct warfare tactics. They joined a war that was already lost for the nazi's.

The stupid thing is that were are just debating facts, which is non-sense. I didn't take any position. If I mix up some numbers, fine. I don't claim to have all the facts down perfectly. Actually, I am pretty poor at history.

[lisztisforkids]

The point was that people in my country claim that we should support the US no matter what because they saved us from the nazi's. But that is just historically inaccurate. And if we talk about individual american soldiers that died in Europe WWII then those numbers are quite small.

What country are you from?

What are you talking about historical inacuracy? Without the United States Hitler would not have been defeated. Before the US entered the war, the only major powers that were standing up to the Nazis were Great Britain, and the USSR. Great Britain alone was unable to launch a seriouse offensive against Germany, and the USSR was nearing complete collapse for much of the time until the Battle of Stalingrad. You fail to mention the Campaigns Great Britain and the US waged in North Africa and Italy, depriving Hitler of sending reinforcements to the Eastern Front. Its true that after Stalingrad the USSR was making gains against Germany, but not decisive gains.  It wasent until D-Day when there was Patton and Montgomerry that it was truly clear that Hitler had lost the war. After that it was a race for Berlin. And if the US and Britain got a theire first, much woe that happened would not have happened. Its clear to me now that you have no concern for what Eastern Europe went through under Stalin and other communist....

about individual american soldiers that died in Europe WWII then those numbers are quite small.

My Grandfather fought in Europe in WWII, my great uncle was killed over Germany while flying a mission, You INSULT them. You insult the other 405, 399 Americans that were killed, the 671,278 Americans that were wounded and the millions of family members that suffered to free Europe from the Nazis. You DISGUST me.

Lets pretend for a moment, the US dose not enter the war, and Stalin despite the incredible odds defeats Hitler. What would have a resulted? A utterly Communist Europe.A Europe without freedom, a Europe under utter control from the government.


Is that what you wish?

[prometheus]

You insult and disgust yourself by not reading my post. I am not even going to try to correct your errors because I don't care. If you want to think of me as a communist of fascist sympathiser, which would be utterly absurd, then fine. I don't care.

[pianohopper]

Without the United States Hitler would not have been defeated.

Who can say?  Hitler would have fallen anyway, with or without the U.S.  A system of that kind will eat its own eventually.  The fatal mistake in communism is that the proponents of the system fail to notice human nature.  That is, it is human nature for a group of people to be "superior" to everyone else in class and wealth.  Although this does not necessarily guarantee them to be more intelligent, they keep knowledge from the common people to maintain their own power. 

One of the reasons communism gains a hold in poor countries is because when you're poor, you want everybody else to be poor with you.  The equality that is ideal in communism will degrade even in the poor because there will be those who will do whatever is necessary to get out of poverty.  Scientists, athletes in communist societies -- look at them. 

Capitalism is superior to communism for this one reason: you will never be able to reach the ceiling if you have nobody to step on.  In a communist society, they try to keep it hidden when they step on people to raise themselves up.  In a capitalist society, it is accepted that there are the poor and there are the rich. 

But, one of the reasons the capitalist society like the U.S. is deteriorating is that we are switching too fast to a technological society instead of an industrial one.  Take, for example, Ford, who is laying off tens of thousands of employees.  Why?  Because now there are machines to do their jobs for them.  The job market will become inundated with workers who have been displaced because the baby boomers can't support themselves on their social security income.  Plus, these days, to get any type of decent job, you need a college degree. 

anybody read "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut? 

By the way,

Chavez is a great man

by what standards do you judge a great man?  The unfortunate thing about society is that only a maniac would want to be a leader.  We probably will never know the dark secrets of all the so-called "great men." 

[contrapunctus]

I would have to say Gandhi gained quite a lot of power in a peaceful manner. Under the guise of Communism, Stalin killed more people than Hitler did. Whatever suppresses the people will always fail. Capitalism does not suppress people.

[lisztisforkids]

You insult and disgust yourself by not reading my post. I am not even going to try to correct your errors because I don't care. If you want to think of me as a communist of fascist sympathiser, which would be utterly absurd, then fine. I don't care.

I apoplogize for my spewage, I took some of your remarks for something else...

[alejo_90]

Don't believe everything you read, in fact question everything. Che doesn't mean much to the current world, I get more distressed at the way our government is trying to paint democratically elected leftist leaders in Latin America as bad guys because they don't want to play lap dog to the USA. Both Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have demonstrated genuine concern for the average person in their respective countries. This makes them unpopular for big American corporations and by extension the Bush government (lap dog to those corporations). Sadly much of our media doesn't do a very good job of reporting because they accept whatever they're told at the White House (they wouldn't lie to us). So my suggestion is question everything, including the Bible.

I totally agree !!!!! and Che Guevara is not a loser.

[lisztisforkids]

I totally agree !!!!! and Che Guevara is not a loser.

One of the best benefits of living in the US is the ability to question and probe everything (for the time being). Other people in other countrys with harsh goverments are not allowed much freedom at all.  I to agree that we should question everything. I question the support for Che.

In my country, Che is a very popular man among many people. People wear t-shirts of him, hats, backpacks, whatever. Ironically, profits made from that merchandise goes to private companys. It seems that capitalism has actually benefited from an actual hard communist.  It also seems that most of the people that wear his apparell have no idea who he is or what he fought for (negative and positive things). Its a fashion trend.

Its all very good he tried to help the little people in the world and those that have  no voice. But when he does by violent revolution (not always a bad thing) preaching Communism. Not many people seem to realize (or want to) that he was responisble for the execution and torture of hundreds of people in Cuba. Truth be told, he just traded one dictatorship for another.

Something that quite disturbs me is that he was one of the most staunchest supporters for a nuclear exchange between the USSR and the US and the rest of the West. I cannot support any person (and I mean any person) at all who beleives such violence is neccasry.

I am not a right-winger what so ever. So please no one take me for one. I just dont like violent and communist revolutionarys.  I dont have the talent of some of the people on this forum of offering brilliant defenses. I can only ask you to research him yourself.

[trunks]

Get your facts straight ! MAO was a world leader while Castro was womanizing drinking, playing soccer, enjoying college life and appearing as an extra in Hollywood musicals https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004242/.

Mao was a world leader?
YIKES!!

He died a very slow death of ALS ("Lou Gehrig's disease").
And that served him right.