che and ayn rand

The utopia of Che Guevara and Ayn Rand i guess technically in weirdo Russian, its pronounced 'Ain' Rand. But fuck that. in my heart she'll always be Ann.
Che Guevara was not a true communist. (he had a break with Russian Communism because he disagreed with the Stalin method of mass extermination) And Ayn Rand would not say that any capitalist system that exists in the world today is true capitalism. Perhaps i am putting words in their mouth and making my own interpretation. But thats what happens when you die. And there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Capitalism is based on the idea of productivity and exchange. Money is simply a material form to facilitate that exchange. In Atlas Shrugged she creates a utopia that is made up of only people who excel in their creative ability, and therefore all live in harmony. There are no looters. nobody who lives for free. Gold is the standard of exchange, thus the product being sold is creativity, and expertise. What a perfect little world.
Che also imagined such a world as did many 'communists' aka community living. The making of the "new man" that in order to achieve this magical new community, the consciousness for it must be created first. A revolution of ideas must occur first before the community can be enabled. and then in this communist community people would choose their work, and that work would help sustain the community. Not because they had to, but out of love. ability is being exchanged for the ability of others. Nobody is living for free, but elderly, and sick people are allowed to live. People who cannot care for themselves, but can offer non productive things to the community, such as conversation, wisdom, advice, family honor, etc..
essentially they are the same. The flaw i see with Ayn Rand is that not all ability is productive work. what about a monk? or what if the musician Dagny loved to listen to only played for his own enjoyment? Perhaps the satisfaction many people gain from their own accomplishments are personal and do not need any recognition regardless of the type of person who could recognize it. all of the people in the Utopia withdrew their genius from society because ordinary people could not acknowledge it. But they all still wanted it to be acknowledged by someone. someone of equal caliber. For some form of exchange. is personal satisfaction a form of exchange? how do you put a price on pleasure? This is why money is only an idea. and why it is not important that in communism there is no material medium of exchange. The exchange is actions. And everybody acts. This is the making of the new man. To become self actualized. Che called for education among all the guerrillas, to read, to learn new languages, to practice the morals that you preach. To be the best person you can be. The Utopia is only as good as the people in it. And this is the fundamental difference. We exist in a world of people. And we certainly don't live in a utopia. ( i do, but only occaisonlly in my head)

Thoughts on the looney toon spectacle of Presidential debates: first off. Hugo Chavez is not Chave`z. its Cha`vez. Get it straight.
Missed half the of Republican debate, but of course illegal immigration comes up again. if it hadn't already at least five times already. The evils of illegal immigration: Huckabee says that illegals should leave, and come back legally that way they can live with their head held high. why do people come to America. overwhelming economic reasons, as well as safety and security as undeclared refugees. Build the fence! increase border patrol! deny amnesty! What are the bigger issues here? how about how other countries are dealing with immigration? Ecuador, Syria, Chad, Canada.... How did immigrants become the source of attack (again). Its called the old fear and distract tactic. Make Americans scared of an issue of little relevance using an appropriate scape goat. currently its Latin American immigrants. before it was Irish, the Itaialian, the Chinese (especially during the gold rush). which immigrants shall we fear in ten years. Canadians? other scapegoat possiblilities: Muslims, Communists, anti americans, terrorists (this one is a perfect one. just change the definition!) So now we can blame someone for the problems of the economy, and not look at the real reasons why people want to attack us. Bring on the fence.
Democrats: nuclear proliferation: Obama, i am increasingly disappointed in you. first question asked was about invading Pakistan if their was credible intelligence of al qaeda's whereabouts. after much chatter of diplomacy his and comment was, yes. he would attack pakistan if pakistan would not cooperate in the elimination of terrorists groups. because this would make america safe from the threat of pakistan's nuclear arsenal (i suppose). NO! there is never any excuse to wage war on any country. even if the 'terrorists' were residing there. Economic sanctions! Today's world is a global economy. Economic sanctions would be more effective than war. Some of the biggest reasons why international interventions (in the real name of peace - not just pretend) were because some powerfull country was supplying a group with money and weapons. For real solutions, and real peace the countries must work together to stop the flow of money and weapons to a country and... za zing! And of course not examined to any extent was the military package the u.s gave Pakistan. One of the largest arms deals in the history of America. And we wonder why pakistan is unstable and full of weapons? little trinket toys are made in china. Weapons are made in the u.s. Also of concern. Nonproliferation. I was impressed by John Edwards tonight. i have usually discarded him. Bringing up the fact that we would be safer as a disarmed world. Go John. The idea that we fear being destroyed so we create more and more weapons in order to prevent our destruction? i like this quote.... " In a perfected nuclear deterrence, the knowledge in a disarmed world that rearmament potentially means extinction would become the deterrent" There is no need for nuclear weapons.
Obama and Edwards, you constantly claim ' i am the candidate of change!' but i got distracted how many times the word ' change' was said and possibly simply didn't hear anything of substance that was said during my counting. or possibly its because nothing was said. But what are President debates really for anyways. building up those catchy one liners. And John Edwards sumed America up nicely. This Presidential race is a fight for the middle class. of course it is. Because the buffer class is most important towards keeping the war machine up and running. If nobody fights for the middle class, there will be no buffer class. They will have joined the poor classes and others around the world and have started a revolution!