The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale.
I must agree with many of your points. Even Gilles Deleuze argued that the Marxist/Freudian use of the Oedipal complex as a means by configuring the goals of Marxist regimes was flawed. They felt that gaps within language represented gaps within power in which they could pose violent resistance. Capitalism and all other economic machines were viewed as utopias stuck within the "Symbolic Order of the Imaginary" Therefore, they felt that gaps within the Sovereign's control of the discourse in a geopolitical region, IE Cuba, could serve as a gap in power relations in which a violent revolution could break free and start a new communist regime. They did this by mobilizing populations that were slowly beginning to awake and resist the dominant discourse of their Sovereign, and then attempt to implant radical alternative discourses of revolution and resistance. This would be what the Marxists/Freudians called the "Real", a break away from capitalist fantasy.
What they didn't calculate was that the Freudian repression of desire and of capitalism's argument that desire led to social production (physical products) was actually a gateway into a new form of desire. Where capitalism viewed desire as a viable and productive means of attaining a product, the Marxist/Freudian political machines tried to play it into the Oedipal triangle as another gateway back to the Fantasy, another Oedipal partial drive. What they didn't realize was that desire could be productive, and that in fact, their calls to resist power was actually another form of DESIRE, a desire for power and disrupting existing power relations.
This proved problematic for communist regimes, as no one could account for the desire their leaders showed within a ideology that was thought to embrace collectivism, independent radical discourses that were never tied to the state, amd so forth.
Others, such as the political analyst/philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, still argue that the communist revolution has never really taken place yet, that postmodern criticisms and working within the current global order are flawed, and that the only thing holding back the true revolution is the mindset that it can't happen. I won't get into that here.
Anyways, good historical point. It alone isn't enough to discredit an ideology, though I also don't embrace Marxism. One on the other side could make a valid point that capitalism is obviously inherently violent, oppressive, and subversive to those out of the dominant discourse or position, or within the cracks of society.