Guevara was a petty-bourgeois nationalist of the pabloist variety, he was not a marxist or a communist. The productive forces have already reached a point where there is enough products and goods for everyone. With the technology that exists today, we could provide food and housing for a population of over 18 billion. Capitalism has credit for that feeding and providing capacity, yet, there is still poverty, still starvation, still famine, and still inequality. That is because of the contradictions within capitalism itself. Under socialism, the needs and wants for everyone will be freely provided to them. What ever someone needs, be that a cell phone, computer, house, vehicle, heck, even marijuana, society will provide them. It's all you can eat all the time. What ever you need to go about your daily business, to pursuit your dreams and fantasies, to discover cures for diseases, or explore, travel, write poetry, create art and music, what ever. What ever work society needs done, society will take care of it, communally and democratically. Public debates with everyone participating will make the decisions, in the interests of everyone.
What the hell are you talking about? I'm not debating capitalism vs. socialism, I'm discussing the sociological origins of crime. Talk about an absolute non-sequitur. So much for exchanging ideas, when you obviously don't even bother to read my post. I guess you just saw the words "Marxism" and "Guevara" and jumped for your conclusion.
I forgot to put the point.. Under socialism, with nothing but abundance, a high standard of living, and leisure for everyone, especially everyone actually being in control over their own lives, crime would be dramatically reduced to just the most extreme cases.
Okay, you could have just said you were a fiction writer to begin with. It would have made this so much easier. But I mean seriously, you really don't seem to understand what I'm saying. You pretty much ignored my commentary, recited your worldview with a little more elaboration, in no way relating it to my original response and concluded by asserting your marginally clarified perspective. You have to relate the substance, because from what I read, you don't seem to understand how the concept of Malthusian equilibrium factors into it.