Tiffant Towers Shower

" I want the masses of humanity is truly emancipated from all authority and all present and future heroes." (Mikhail Bakunin).

The left should escape from the myths and exceptional leaders. The people must understand that he, alone and in an organized manner, is capable of reaching all those goals you wish without leaders, or heroes vanguard.

also need to reflect on the heroism itself, especially understanding that most of the time a hero is not just a ordinary person, located in a socio-political context favorable for eventual heroism. From this point of view, the hero is not just for himself but for the circumstances that surround him, push him to act in a certain direction.

is true that, despite everything, there are heroes. People who are willing to sacrifice everything for others. Very few people, but they are there. Let's face it. But can be a hero in every sense and facets of human beings? A hero has no weaknesses or flaws? Can a hero defects invalidate the heroism of this in any other way? The answer

to such questions, new questions arise: should the people take example of heroes? Should they really be a role model? Can we demand the heroic posture people or else we must accept that heroism is a phenomenon so rare that is exceptional? Do I need it to achieve the great objectives that we intend to or just enough strategy and organization? Is it fair to demoralize the people about their capabilities to legendary heroes mythical infinite, without which nothing would presumably be?

The latest film by Steven Soderbergh ("Che, el argentino") is even very indirectly the whole issue by exposing the life of revolutionary Ernesto Guevara in the first stage in Cuba. Shows us a brave and charismatic leader, endowed with large doses of humanism and sense of justice, and not hesitate to sacrifice his life in pursuit of a political ideal. But the film also shows us how confident the death penalty, how mercilessly shot them who felt that he deserved it, and how he recognized even in the same UN General Assembly that the shootings were absolutely necessary for the survival of the Cuban revolution. We also see at all times the authoritarianism of Fidel, Che and the other "bearded" and its armed struggle in a country like Cuba that also shows continuous as it was then: dictatorial, illiterate and miserly.

can be said, therefore, that the objectivity of the Soderbergh film breaks a myth that so far has been too installed between the left, or at least require a great deal in this regard. This is not to destroy the example that Che gave the rest of the world, but rather to humanize it. Che had strengths and weaknesses, and they need to clearly see its true value in those. Regarding the final balance, the balance is in my opinion clearly positive for Che, but you must always keep in mind their shadows to not forget the necessary objectivity and avoid falling into the easy myth.

At the end of the case with respect to all the Cuban revolution as a whole: the balance clearly in favor of it should not blind us to its many shortcomings, in order to avoid positioning fanatical or mythologizing.