According to Wikipedia (accurate? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara ), Rothbard wrote the journal entry at the URL above. (It’s on mises.org, but I see no mention of any author and other scans in that directory link to articles by other authors.)
Did he retain this view or did his views shift at all? (Ok probably a difficult to answer question.) But none of the “revolutionary” aspects of this guy excuse the fact that he was using violence simply to install a different breed of tyranny over people.
So basically–is this really the sort of person we want to associate with a libertarian movement as someone to admire?
Btw side question - do the people who idolize this guy in popular culture generally even have any idea what he was fighting for? Why all the “Che” t-shirts and such?
The PDF doesn’t read like Rothbard, in my opinion. I notice that none of the Editorials in L&R have bylines, perhaps it is attributed to Rothbard since he was the Editor of the publication.
I know this doesn’t answer most of your questions, unfortunately…
You could try emailing Lew Rockwell. Btw, there is no doubt that Che was a revolutionary and a great one. But this does not necessarily mean that Rothbard agreed with Che’s views. It’s like saying that Hitler was a great anti-semite. This doesn’t imply any agreement with anti-semitism, all it does is point out that Hitler was an anti-semite, and a great one at it. You get what I’m saying? Btw, I wonder who put that into the Che’s Wiki.
In my experience, no. They just have the general idea that he was bad ass and looks good in a primary color profile T shirt. So did Hendrix, and to be honest Rothbard’s profile is starting to grow on me. Someone needs to tye die that thing.
“To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.” – Che Guevara
The above is the kind of thing that disappoints when you consider that Rothbard compromised with such criminals. But nobody’s perfect, of course.
Speaking of Wikipedia sucking (which I think it does generally), perhaps we should consider putting this “praise” into context by clarifying that it was fueled by a decision to compromise with “enemies-of-your-enemy”. If good sources can be found to verify this is accurate, of course.
If Ron Paul or Peter Schiff or someone starts really getting into the national spotlight (doubtful) and the name “Rothbard” comes up, and then some media goon goes and discovers this entry on Wikipedia tenuously linking him to a militant thug…