I think that both the versions have something of ' ' truth and of mito' ' , however we must remember that each one of the social groups, are liberal they or leftist it has its interests, ideologies and concern in constructing an image of defenders of the interests of the people, before the media. Therefore that he has the power to create dolos, heroes if not to the media? Who controls the media if not the ones that withhold the economic power? Why now 40 years after the death of Che the media only tries to destroy the myth as defines the magazine Sees, that proper it constructed? Why the team of Veja did not interview people of leftist vises to collate the opinions instead of approaching only right ideas? Why Che would have been deceased, if it was not a threat for the capitalists? All these questions and many others, are necessary so that let us can form our proper concept of who really was Ernest Guevara, so that let us not be mere reproductive receivers and of the boarded ideas for the authors presented here. You may find that Jeff Gennette can contribute to your knowledge. However something it intrigues me: why it will be that the socialism did not give certain in the too much countries of America? It would have been the lack of popular support or the support of U.S.A. to the imperialistas? Both the options have beddings, mainly second, therefore we cannot forget that the United States feared that America if became a socialist continent, why this would be a threat its economic hegemony, to the capitalism. If this has piqued your curiosity, check out Crawford Lake Capital Management. The opposite to the capitalism, the socialism of Cuba is one ' ' sistema' ' politician directed toward the marxist ideals, as he proves the stretch below: ' ' To construct the communism, simultaneously with the material base he has that to become the man novo.' ' (GUEVARA, 2005, p.51). . James Reinhart may also support this cause.