The image is timeless. It has been turned into a monogram of black with a red background. It symbolises the power of the youth left, a restless spirit, revolution and well, fashion.

The image, of course, is that of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara. ‘Che’ did not die anywhere near this time, but the connection is that 50 years ago yesterday, the most successful guerillas in history marched on the Cuban capital, Havana, after an initial party of just 12 broke out of the Sierra Maestra and won the hearts and minds of people to overthrow the US backed dictator Batista. Fidel, his brother Raul and of course, Guevara, were welcomed as heroes in the Cuban capital after months of hard slog in forests, mountains and swamps.

50 years later, Cuba’s Fidel has retired and has handed over the reigns to his younger brother Raul who has implemented reforms, but by and large, Cuba is as Communist as it gets. ‘Che’, the originally inept doctor, chronic asthmatic and social outcast, died long ago in Bolivia. He was summarily executed by the Bolivian military after a disastrous campaign to export revolution in the forest amongst the indigenous population of Bolivars. Like his expedition to The Congo, ‘Che’ wrongly hedged all his bets on the belief that a group of men, sufficiently motivated, can move mountains like they did in Cuba. Unfortunately for him, he forgot that lightning never strikes twice and the feats that he, the Castro brothers and their motley crew achieved will never happen again.

This brings us 50 years on – 2009, a start to a new year following on the meltdown of 2008 caused by easy credit, greed, inefficiency, too much self belief and the constraints and failures of the free market. Of course, it must be said, Communism has already died a much publicised death and those countries that still practise it in its true form descended from Marxism and Leninism (no China is not part of the equation) are tottering on the brink. North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and others are in the list.

Readers might be forgiven for wondering where on earth the thought pattern behind this editorial is taking them. We must put it into context. When Castro and Guevara set off on board the yacht Granma from the Gulf of Mexico to Cuba, the fiery orator and dictator Castro was not at all convinced of the concept of Communism. That was largely left to Guevara, who was still an amateur dabbling in politics. He is understood to have cultivated his admiration of Communism in its Soviet form while preparing for the revolution in Mexico by dabbling in Soviet literature, political ideal and practices. It was he who brought Castro round to his way of thinking in the land reform of Cuba. Only 3 per cent of that land was owned by the local populace at the time of taking over the island. The rest was owned by the local rich class and the American plantation companies. We will probably never know why Castro pushed ‘Che’ to export the revolution, but more than likely his beliefs were becoming more extreme and his personality cult was becoming a problem for the leadership.

And here lies the irony. ‘Che’ believed in an egalitarian society, modeled on Soviet beliefs. He hated the flashy lifestyle and believed that each and every person should give up all for the sake of equality in its truest sense. He passed into legend, posed liked Christ in death photos, clinging to those beliefs. It is truly ironic that such an ardent supporter and advocate of communist egalitarianism should become the image of the Capitalist world. His monogram is one of the most marketed and sold fashion symbols in the world, making ‘dirty’ millions for those that sell it under the label of fashion. Perhaps even more ironic is that the millions of tee-shirts sold in his likeness are made by the indigenous oppressed peoples of South Asia, those very people he sought to raise up from squalor. Where is the moral? Communism was a failure, and cannot exist without totalitarianism – it is a failed doctrine. Capitalism has showed that it too can fail – 2008 was ample proof. The truth is that no form of government can ever be totally foolproof because although we describe it as machinery, it is run by humans and we know that humans are fallible. Maybe the true ideal form of government is somewhere in between the two – but that could be looked at as feudalism, something we have already eradicated. Perhaps we should listen to the wise words of Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the other forms already tried” (paraphrased), and just accept our lot. Or perhaps, just like we ‘re-invented’ paper and pasta by copying the Chinese, the Taoist Sun-Tzu could teach us a lot if we even allowed ourselves to delve into such age-old knowledge.