Walking by an outdated anti-war poster set up by one of the more obscure Marxist activist groups, it was hard not to notice the stark contrast between the heroes and villains of the socialist cause.

On one side of the picture was the squinting, yelling face of President George W. Bush and opposite him the visionary stare of the revolutionary Che Guevara. Bush¹s picture was undoubtedly chosen carefully for the advertisement, the activists trying to portray the President as being as evil as possible, in accordance with their chosen ideology.

It is a common tactic, not particularly insulting, used by biased newspapers and activist groups. However, it wasn¹t Bush¹s face that was so interesting, but rather Che¹s. But even then, it was interesting not because it somehow provided a revealing glimpse into Che¹s life and revolution, but rather because of its mind numbing repetition.

As should be obvious to even the casual observer of political activists, only one picture of Che is ever shown, despite the numerous pictures taken of him during his short life. A plethora of pictures can be found as close by as the nearest Internet outlet, but oddly enough, activist groups rarely use those photos. For any number of reasons, Marxists refuse to portray Che Guevara in any other way than his one exceptionally well-posed picture.

There is nothing inherently wrong with turning Che into an icon ‹ other than the problem with believing in his repeatedly disproven philosophy. However, the continuous use of this one pose exposes activists¹ hypocrisy. These groups which repeatedly decry the ³government propaganda machine² use their chosen image to portray vision and courage, rather than the brutality that Che often embodied. Their propaganda is just as evident as anything from the government, albeit the activists are much more blatant.

Marxists have argued that his image, dashing and courageous, means more than the actual man. It is more important to display what he stood for in the best possible means, as an image of hope, rather than a true picture of Ernesto Guevara Lynch de la Serna. This must be the only answer, because the man that the contemporary Marxists and socialists so idolize certainly did not propound their idealism as much as the propaganda presumes.

At the time of his rise to power, Che was a much-needed face to the propaganda machine of Communism, particularly in Cuba. Most of the guerrillas were relatively homely and certainly not visionary-looking. Obviously, Fidel Castro did not have eyes to dazzle the proletariat. In the halls of precisely painted portraits of Stalin and Mao, the handsome young Guevara would take his place as a carefully polished image of communism.

As far as his means of obtaining his goals, he was a far cry from the peace that the Marxists now cry. His actions in Cuba as a military commander were universally known as unabashedly lethal, often shooting defectors without pause and conducting mass executions of supporters of the toppled Batista government.

Perhaps contemporary Marxists on university campuses feel that killing those who disagree with them is admirable, but it certainly shouldn¹t be allowed any serious discourse in university thought. On the other hand, that would explain why the same activists preferred to leave Saddam Hussein in power, who was also well-trained in mass executions.

Even more ironically, many historians say that Che¹s brash aggression ruined communism in Cuba for many years, due to its anarchic, violent state. Conveniently, despite economic proof, communists blamed the U.S., as is done with most all other problems in the world. That is, despite his revolutionary vision, he proved by himself that such rapid radical change is foolhardy at best, and tyrannical at worst.

Conveniently for the activists, Che is currently and has always been a trendy icon among anti-establishment groupies. Why he is still trendy in American universities where the establishment is socialist is anyone¹s guess.

However, it should be noted that every t-shirt, poster, banner and commercialization of Che¹s image is vainly attempting to juxtapose his anarchic communism with capitalist materialism. And the more frequent the use of this image, the less potent his symbolism.

Then again, it may work to the Marxists¹ advantage, as the constant use of his face and the generalized statement that he was a revolutionary hides his atrocities from the harsh light of day.

Perhaps the true Marxist activists are consistent and distance themselves from every impressionable teenager who heard that Che was a Œguy who hated the establishment,¹ and decided to idolize him. Then again, that would only put these Marxists into the category of supporting one of the bloodier ideologues of the 20th century.

In any case, it certainly was ironic to study the anti-war poster, so full of pride and condescension at the picture of Bush, ever-sneering in their minds and in their propaganda, always looking for a better, more evil-looking picture of the people they despise. All the while, the same picture of Che, painfully posed, continually reminds us that the government is not the only one who uses propaganda to deceive people.

This Returned Yank can be reached at Chris_in_Cork @yahoo.com.