NationStates Jolt Archive

34 years ago, the Chilean democracy was killed by a fascist golpe, led by General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.

Salvador Isabelino Allende Gossens, rightfully and democratically elected President of the Republic of Chile, died, probabily by committing suicide, after desperately fighting the fascist traitors.

The dramatic last speech of Salvador Allende, aired by Radio Magallanes, is a testament to freedom and democracy.

The fascism in Chile lasted 17 years.

Thousands of Chilean citizens were unrightfully arrested, tortured and killed by the fascists. Many other Chileans simply "disappeared" and were never seen again.

The USA, and many other western powers, supported the fascist dictatorship.

REMEMBER SALVADOR ALLENDE.

VIVA CHILE!

To save time on more threads of this nature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11#Events

but just think of all the good it did the economy with Pinochet's lets be a colony free market policy's!!!

In before The atlantean islands posts a rant about how Pinochet and his brutal regime actually saved Chile from Allende and The Dirty Lefties.

Just wanted to add something. Chile's dictatorship is often labeled as representing Friedmanite "capitalist" economics, when that absolutely was not the case. Milton Friedman did give them economic advice, but he did for the same for everybody else who asked and none of them listened to him either (even though his economics are flawed as he used an empirical rather than an a priori method and he claimed that monetary socialism is compatible with capitalism, though he was far more accurate than JM Keynes or Karl Marx).

There was nothing Capitalist about Pinochet or any other Fascist regime. The Nazi Party's full name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (it definitely wasn't the National Capitalist German Businessmen Party). Mussolini said that Fascism should be called Corporatism because it is a government alliance with corporations (whereas Capitalism refers to a society where there is no governmental interference in the economy). Hopefully that myth can be put to rest once, and for all (though, considering the socialists are the majority on this forum and recognizing fascists as fellow socialists would be harmful to socialists, I'm sure they will continue to spread intellectually dishonest myths about fascism being capitalist).

Wait... Chiles a COUNTRY now?

Just wanted to add something. Chile's dictatorship is often labeled as representing Friedmanite "capitalist" economics, when that absolutely was not the case....Hopefully that myth can be put to rest once, and for all.

This is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. No true capitalist system would ever collude with governemnt to oppress the populace, therefore Pinochet's Chile was not capitalist. I call bullshit.

After the military took over the government in 1973, a period of dramatic economic changes began. The Chilean economy was still faltering in the months following the coup. As the military junta itself was not particularly skilled in remedying the persistent economic difficulties, Pinochet appointed a group of economists who had been educated in the United States at the University of Chicago. Given financial and ideological support from Pinochet, the U.S., and international financial institutions, the Chicago Boys advocated laissez-faire, free-market, neoliberal, and fiscally conservative policies, in stark contrast to the extensive nationalization and centrally-planned economic programs supported by Allende.

This is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. No true capitalist system would ever collude with governemnt to oppress the populace, therefore Pinochet's Chile was not capitalist. I call bullshit.

Actually no. He didn't bring up the notion of "true" capitalism, only stated that he objected to it being used as a "representative" of capitalist economics.

I do as well; if you're going to compare capitalism with an ugly oppressive situation in order to emotionally tie the two together, you may as well use Hitler's Germany instead.

Seriously, an argument can easily be made that capitalism requires defense of property rights to work, and Pinochet's government goons kidnapping people, imprisoning and torturing and killing them, doesn't really fit in with that. But it's a moot point since people pin "capitalism" on Pinochet in order to make capitalism seem like a government system in which dictators kill people, not because they are actually analyzing the economic system at all.

Actually no. He didn't bring up the notion of "true" capitalism, only stated that he objected to it being used as a "representative" of capitalist economics.

I do as well; if you're going to compare capitalism with an ugly oppressive situation in order to emotionally tie the two together, you may as well use Hitler's Germany instead.

Seriously, an argument can easily be made that capitalism requires defense of property rights to work, and Pinochet's government goons kidnapping people, imprisoning and torturing and killing them, doesn't really fit in with that. But it's a moot point since people pin "capitalism" on Pinochet in order to make capitalism seem like a government system in which dictators kill people, not because they are actually analyzing the economic system at all.

I may have interpreted his post wrongly, but I think his position is quite clear:

There was nothing Capitalist about Pinochet or any other Fascist regime.

I do not think that capitalism is typified by Pinochet. He was an extreme case, and one that does not describe most capitalist systems. But he was still a capitalist. And his dictatorship definitely targetted those who promoted an alternative economic model.

Let me be clear, though: I do not think dictatorships are caused by capitalism. I think that has more to do with the colonial history of Latin America more than economic models.

Remember also 1982's Septemer 11th, which was pretty rough indeed.

The September 11th of 1970 brought us the horror that is the Ford Pinto, too.

Remember also 1982's Septemer 11th, which was pretty rough indeed.

The September 11th of 1970 brought us the horror that is the Ford Pinto, too.

I am sure that today there is one thing that both US Americans and Chileans agree on:

The events that occured on this day, whether they happened six years ago or 34, should not be used to score meaningless political points.

An act carried out in the dying days of a criminal administration, eventually forced out of office for its crimes. What a shocker that Nixon and Kissinger did underhanded, questionable things. What a shocker.

I may have interpreted his post wrongly, but I think his position is quite clear...
I think the problem is that the OP said Pinochet was fascist, which I don't think he was.

Pinochet was a brutal dictator, but also a committed capitalist (in that he believed in the working free market - though how he could at the same time be that oppressive and anti-freedom escapes me). Which means that he can't have been a fascist.

Fascism and capitalism exclude each other, because fascism pretty explicitly states that it doesn't follow either extreme, rejects the notion of individualism and subordinates the interests and sovereignty of businesses to the interests of the nation.

I think the problem is that the OP said Pinochet was fascist, which I don't think he was.

Pinochet was a brutal dictator, but also a committed capitalist (in that he believed in the working free market - though how he could at the same time be that oppressive and anti-freedom escapes me). Which means that he can't have been a fascist.

Fascism and capitalism exclude each other, because fascism pretty explicitly states that it doesn't follow either extreme, rejects the notion of individualism and subordinates the interests and sovereignty of businesses to the interests of the nation.
What? More no true scotsman? Fascism is about restricting civil liberties. Fascist regimes can be capitlaist or socialist. It matters not

Not to mention with help from "pro-democracy" United States.

Just wanted to add something. Chile's dictatorship is often labeled as representing Friedmanite "capitalist" economics, when that absolutely was not the case. Milton Friedman did give them economic advice, but he did for the same for everybody else who asked and none of them listened to him either (even though his economics are flawed as he used an empirical rather than an a priori method and he claimed that monetary socialism is compatible with capitalism, though he was far more accurate than JM Keynes or Karl Marx).

You're like Andaras Prime... only instead of Marxism-Leninism, your religious orthodoxy is Austrian economics.

Honestly, can't you move beyond the rhetoric?

I mean, do we really need to further confirm Nixon was a douchebag and Kissinger is quite probably a war criminal? Not really, and the overthrow of Allende was their personal project. It was not born of the CIA, FBI, NSA or anyone else for that matter, just Tricky Dick and his German sidekick.

This economic discussion reminds me of a joke current in Chile during the Pinochet regime, recorded in Marc Cooper's Pinochet and Me.

Pinochet gathers together all his top advisors and says, "I want you to get me half a dozen men who can destroy Argentina!"

After an interval, his flunkies go out and find six men perfect the job. Pleased with themselves, they tell Pinochet who at once demands to see them. He walks in and sees six men in Western civilian suits sitting around drinking coffee. He says, "Who in the hell are these people? I told you to bring me six men who could destroy Argentina!"

One of his flunkies speaks up and says, "General, sir, they can: they're economists from the University of Chicago!"

Years ago I remember reading a news story (haven't been able to track down the article yet) about Chile in the early '70's. It included a photo taken from a Chilean newspaper. The photo showed two Andean mountain peaks in the background, and the caption was "Dos Picos de los Andes."

In the foreground were Allende and his buddy Fidel Castro.

The significance of the caption, not readily apparent to English-speaking readers, becomes apparent when one realizes that in Chilean Spanish (at least), "pico" is also slang roughly equivalent to "prick."

Allende got what he asked for, and he got what he deserved. Good riddance, and props to the army for doing what needed to be done.

Oh, and to all you duckspeakers who constantly quack out the "democratically elected" line, I refer you to another "democratic" election about 73 years ago which produced another "democratically elected" leader. Or, I should say, fuehrer.

Allende got what he asked for, and he got what he deserved. Good riddance, and props to the army for doing what needed to be done.

Oh, and to all you duckspeakers who constantly quack out the "democratically elected" line, I refer you to another "democratic" election about 73 years ago which produced another "democratically elected" leader. Or, I should say, fuehrer.

Right.

...right.

Firstly, Godwin. That aside, Hitler was not elected Führer of Germany; that term wasn't used until he illegally merged his legally earned post of Chancellor with the Reichspräsident.

Ye gods. I never actually saw someone go "Yay for military coups over democracy" and thought they were serious until now.

Pinochet wasn't a capitalist, though he did institute many sound capitalist policies.

Pinochet was a pragmatist. He didn't like the direction Chile was heading, so he asked Friedman for advice. Friedman gave him Shock Therapy, which is directly responsible for much of Chile's current wealth.

However, Pinochet also used brutal methods to keep his opponents down and keep his reforms on track. This may have helped Chile in the log run, but it did involve the murder of thousands of otherwise innocent Chileans.

Toward the end of his life, Milton Friedman was asked what his geatest achievment was, and he said it was the elimination of the US Draft. Friedman supported freedom frist and foremost, and as such conscription offended him. So did socialism, for much the same reasons.

Ye gods. I never actually saw someone go "Yay for military coups over democracy" and thought they were serious until now.
I can't imagine its that unusual a position. Democracies are often oppressive toward minorities. Look how the US and Canada have historically treated their indigenous natives. Or the Japanese treatment of the Ainu. Or any nation with a caste system. Or Zimbabwe.

I can't imagine its that unusual a position. Democracies are often oppressive toward minorities. Look how the US and Canada have historically treated their indigenous natives. Or the Japanese treatment of the Ainu. Or any nation with a caste system. Or Zimbabwe.

It's an unusual position because the alternatives are more often than not far worse than the systems they overthrow.

I'm still in rememberance of sept 11th, 1777, when the british massacred brave freedom fighting americans at the battle of brandy wine! Long live those brave men!


:rolleyes:

Right.

...right.

Firstly, Godwin. That aside, Hitler was not elected Führer of Germany; that term wasn't used until he illegally merged his legally earned post of Chancellor with the Reichspräsident.

I didn't say he was elected Fuehrer. I said he was a democratically elected leader. The German word for "leader" happens to be "fuehrer". Perhaps the subtlety of the reference eluded you.


Ye gods. I never actually saw someone go "Yay for military coups over democracy" and thought they were serious until now.

Democratic election does not immunize the actions of those so elected. Allende was clearly heading toward creating another Cuba in Chile. "Democratically elected" leaders who intend to turn their nations into socialist dictatorships should rightly fear military action against them.

Should the German Army have deposed Hitler in 1935, no doubt you would have been at the forefront of those going "Yay for military coups over democracy." Right next to me ;)

Allende was clearly heading toward creating another Cuba in Chile. "Democratically elected" leaders who intend to turn their nations into socialist dictatorships should rightly fear military action against them.
Yes, a Socialist Chile. Such a mortal threat to the United States.

It's an unusual position because the alternatives are more often than not far worse than the systems they overthrow.
But they're usually bad in a different way.

Allende's government was socialist. In being overthrown by free market supporters, the government improved in some ways and got worse in others. Whether you think the government improved overall is based on which categories you value more.

I didn't say he was elected Fuehrer. I said he was a democratically elected leader. The German word for "leader" happens to be "fuehrer". Perhaps the subtlety of the reference eluded you

But he wasn't elected the leader of Germany. The leader of Germany following the 1933 elections was Paul von Hindenburg. Hitler was appointed, not elected, as Chancellor, due to von Papen's fateful mistake that he could control the man. Following the Reichstag Fire and the passage of the Enabling Act, Hindenburg died and when he did Hitler simply declared the post of President vacant and appointed himself Reichsführer. Democracy only got Hitler's foot in the door, but every subsequent act from the appointment of him as Reichskanzler to his seizure of absolute, dictatorial power was, strictly speaking, undemocratic.

But he wasn't elected the leader of Germany. The leader of Germany following the 1933 elections was Paul von Hindenburg. Hitler was appointed, not elected, as Chancellor, due to von Papen's fateful mistake that he could control the man. Following the Reichstag Fire and the passage of the Enabling Act, Hindenburg died and when he did Hitler simply declared the post of President vacant and appointed himself Reichsführer. Democracy only got Hitler's foot in the door, but every subsequent act from the appointment of him as Reichskanzler to his seizure of absolute, dictatorial power was, strictly speaking, undemocratic.
But he gained power through means that were entirely consistent with the laws of democratic Germany, laws approved by the people's representatives.

The Reichstag Fire Decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar constitution, and was perfectly legal. The Enabling Act was passed by the democratically elected government, and ratified by the democratically elected President.

The only extra-legal behaviour was the use of the SA to intimidate voting officials.

Ye gods. I never actually saw someone go "Yay for military coups over democracy" and thought they were serious until now.

Usually it's The Atlantean Islands who posts "Yay Pinochet, Kill and Rape Those Fucking Commies!" rants but he hasn't wrote anything in here yet. I'm truly surprised.

I am sure that today there is one thing that both US Americans and Chileans agree on:

The events that occured on this day, whether they happened six years ago or 34, should not be used to score meaningless political points.

Indeed. They had announcements in school commemorating 9/11. I voiced my opposition. And was not vilified/branded.

What? More no true scotsman? Fascism is about restricting civil liberties. Fascist regimes can be capitlaist or socialist. It matters not
Hehe, don't be so quick to judge. Read up on the definition of fascism: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

What I said was factually correct and has nothing to do with my opinions. Fascism is not about restricting civil liberties (in fact, it finds the notion that such a thing even exists seperately from the nation ridiculous), it is about (if I were to simplify) a pragmatist, nation-based collectivism in which a powerful leader is taken to represent the interest of the nation.

The "pragmatist" part refers to economic policy. It's a "do what works" approach, rather than a focus on rights, freedoms or needs of the individual. Since Pinochet was obviously committed to economic freedom and individual responsibility (at least in the economic arena) and did not look at economic policy from a pragmatist and/or corporatist approach, he was not a fascist.

And if you're going to contest this and say that he was, you're not only insinuating that capitalism is "what works" compared to Allende's socialist measures, but you're also saying that Pinochet was not in fact a committed capitalist, in which case I can wash my hands off him even more easily.

Pinochet saved Chile from the international Communist scum, threw them in jail where they belonged, and restored the economy to one of the best in South America. End of story.

The problem with most discussions of the Chilean Coup of 1973 is that the partisans of Socialism and the partisans of Free Market Capitalism spend so much time shouting at each other that the inherent complexities of the events are lost in the shuffle.

Some thoughts in a possibly futile attempt at balance:

1) Allende was democratically elected under the terms of the Chilean Constitution of the time, but this is not the same as stating that he enjoyed majority support. In fact he won a bare plurality. Here are the results of the 1970 presidential election:

Candidate Party/Coalition Votes %
Salvador Allende Gossens Popular Unity 1,070,334 36.61%
Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez Independent conservative 1,031,159 35.27%
Radomiro Tomic Christian Democratic Party 821,801 28.11%

Because no one candidate received a majority, the election then went to the Chilean Congress (note that this is theoretically what would happen in the US should no one win a majority in the Electoral College), where precedent dating back to the 1930s established that the candidate with the most votes in the popular election would then be confirmed by Congress.

This is what subsequently happened. But again, to state that Allende was elected democractically hides the fact that he won only slightly over a third of the vote in a deeply divided Chilean society.

2) No one can dispute that the Chilean economy suffered somewhat after Allende's election. While there was initially some economic improvement in 1970, by 1972 the policies of Allende's finance minister saw inflation reach 140%. This inflation was the result of the Allende goverment's own policies, not American-led destabilisation.

3) That said, American-funded and CIA-led destabilisation efforts were very real, not a left-wing fantasy. Figures differ, but an upper figure of US$ 8 million spent on destabilisation seems reasonable.

4) By mid 1973, Allende's ability to rule was being torn apart by the increasingly centrifugal forces in Chilean society. Strikes by right wing trade unions (yes, Virginia, there is such a thing) combined with the increasing radicalisation (and possible arming) of the industrial and mining sectors while the moderate Christian Democrats abandoned their informal Congressional alliance with Allende to join the Conservative forces in Congress.

5) While Allende's Popular Unity coalition increased their share of the vote to 43.2 % in the March 1973 election (no mean feat), by August 1973 the equally democratically-elected opposition-led Congress passed a censure measure against Allende's government by 81 to 47. This conflict between the legislative and executive branches led to the paralisation of the Chilean government at a crucial time. Both branches could claim democratic legitimacy, but it's worth noting that Allende's most ardent partisans rarely bring up that only the Congressional opposition could lay claim to a democratic majority.

6) So with Chilean society increasingly polarised and disfunctional, the armed forces initiated a coup. But despite Allende's clear incompentance and the centrifugal forces tearing Chile apart, nothing can forgive the reign of violent terror that followed in the wake of the coup. Allende was unable to respond to forces that he ultimately couldn't control (though it's open to question whether anyone could, especially given the US's involvement), but the military Junta and Pinochet in particular were violent bastards who traumatised Chilean society for decades.

The lessons of which are:

A - Neither Allende nor Pinochet were heroes

B - In multi-party presidential elections, make sure you have a run-off system in order to ensure maximum legitimacy for the winning candidate.

Main thing to remember that it sucked to be a chess piece in the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Both sides played to win, and the consequences for countries caught in the middle could really be tragic.

Just ask the people of Cambodia, Somalia, Ethopia and a host of others that suffered far more heavily then any of the nations of South America. A much larger percentage of people were likely killed in Central American then in South America

Its all tragic, but it was a war. All things considered, it could have been a lot worse. A nuclear exchange or even full scale conventional war would have killed a lot more a lot quicker.

Its sad that Chile suffered, but they weren't alone.

Ha, I've been waiting for someone to do this thread. Seems to happen every year.

Usually it's The Atlantean Islands who posts "Yay Pinochet, Kill and Rape Those Fucking Commies!" rants but he hasn't wrote anything in here yet. I'm truly surprised.

Pinochet saved Chile from the international Communist scum, threw them in jail where they belonged, and restored the economy to one of the best in South America. End of story.

Aww, bless...

Yes that's right 9/11 is also the date on which certain fascist terrorists led by Augusto Pinochet and backed by the USA hijacked the democratically-elected socialist government of Chile, as a result of which some 3,000 innocent South Americans were executed or “disappeared.” Funny old thing, history. If you think this is at all relevant, you are a terrorist.

9/11 is also known to be the date on which a whole bunch of crazy redskins killed all the populace and set the Chilean city of Santiago on fire. And then raped all the women. After killing and burning them. Crazy people.

I didn't say he was elected Fuehrer. I said he was a democratically elected leader. The German word for "leader" happens to be "fuehrer". Perhaps the subtlety of the reference eluded you.

...except he wasn't, which was kinda my point. Perhaps the glaringly obvious point of my post eluded you.

Democratic election does not immunize the actions of those so elected. Allende was clearly heading toward creating another Cuba in Chile. "Democratically elected" leaders who intend to turn their nations into socialist dictatorships should rightly fear military action against them.

No, no, never. A democratically elected leader should fear his people, not his military. If the country is going straight to hell and it's obvious, it's the role of the populace to overthrow their leader. The military shouldn't just decide one sunny morning that they fancy trying their hand at nation-building, since they've got guns an' all.

Should the German Army have deposed Hitler in 1935, no doubt you would have been at the forefront of those going "Yay for military coups over democracy." Right next to me ;)

Should the army have overthrown him in 1935? No. There should've been a revolution in Germany around about 1934, once Hitler had made himself Führer.

Quite finished now? Or are we going to carry on with this line of "Well, gee, democracy elected bad leaders so... let's turn fascist!"?

In his later years, Pinochet wished he hadn't been so tough on the counter-revolutionaries.
I don't support the killings, but for capitalism's worst dictator, he faces up fine with the Left's.
Under the socialist leadership, food prices soared, industries packed up and left, almost everything you were payed was taxed to try and save the dying nationalized corporations, mass protests broke out ect
Why do you think there was a capitalist rebellion?

BTW

Fascism is a mixed economy with high taxes and state intervention in almost every social aspect of your life.
Pinochet was not a fascist, come to your senses, socialism has failed.

i'm glad someone mentioned the '73 "9-11". amy did last year and the year before that. infact that's what she was broadcasting about when the post y2k one happened.

and indeed the fallout from the, at least partially u.s. backed, '73 coup, is far from settled.

justice for the victums of THAT 9-11 is something that SHOULD still concern ALL of us.

=^^=
.../\...

No "get over it posts" in here? Strange. I suppose that sort of thing is reserved for 9/11 threads...

The Chileans should probably have a memorial on that day for the 3 thousand of their people murdered by a US-backed despot, in backdrop to the US memorial for WTC it could serve as a useful reminder of US interventionism and it's collective cost.

There was nothing Capitalist about Pinochet or any other Fascist regime. The Nazi Party's full name was the National Socialist German Workers Party (it definitely wasn't the National Capitalist German Businessmen Party). Mussolini said that Fascism should be called Corporatism because it is a government alliance with corporations (whereas Capitalism refers to a society where there is no governmental interference in the economy). Hopefully that myth can be put to rest once, and for all (though, considering the socialists are the majority on this forum and recognizing fascists as fellow socialists would be harmful to socialists, I'm sure they will continue to spread intellectually dishonest myths about fascism being capitalist).

There's nothing intellectually dishonest about saying that:

1.Under Mussolini, italian major corporations like FIAT, Pirelli, Ansaldo fared quite good: FIAT's Agnelli and Pirelli were among the main supporters (politically and financially) of the Fascism. Remember, Italy had experienced the so-called "red biennium" (1920-1921) - featuring mass-scale strikes and occupation of private-owned factories, and, most unnerving to the capitalists, the factories continued to produce even when occupied by the workers: the workers showed that they didn't NEED the capitalist to produce goods.

2.I don't remember Hitler nationalising Krupp, Thyssen, Messerschmitt or IG Farben, either. I do remember many german capitalists supporting Hitler's rise, though (see wiki).

3.Allende nationalised the copper mines, Pinochet gave them back to their original (foreign, mostly) owners.

True, fascism isn't liberalist capitalism. It's authoritarian capitalism. With social dampers in early fascism (Mussolini, Hitler) or without social dampers in more recent fascism (Pinochet, Videla).

However, I find somewhat intellectually dishonest to claim that "fascism is a sort of socialism because Hitler's party had 'national-socialist' in its name".
Nomina sunt consequentia rerum (names are consequence of facts), not vice-versa. Hitler's claim that the invasion of Poland was a response to Polish attacks on Germany doesn't make it true, you know.

One of the first signs of the fascism's authoritarian character was the killing of the italian Socialist MP Matteotti (q.v.) by a fascist "squadraccia" - and Mussolini, in a famous speech at the Italian Parliament, accepted the "full political responsibility" for the killing. Most of the executions (above 90% of the total) ordered by the "Tribunale Speciale Fascista" were against Communists and Socialists.
Also, one of the first acts of Hitler as Reichskanzler was to outlaw the Socialist party.

I'd say that these are facts, and they clearly point out that fascism is on the capitalists' side, not on the workers' side, and socialist (and communist) parties have always been the strongest menace to fascism and its supporters.

But he gained power through means that were entirely consistent with the laws of democratic Germany, laws approved by the people's representatives.

The Reichstag Fire Decree invoked Article 48 of the Weimar constitution, and was perfectly legal. The Enabling Act was passed by the democratically elected government, and ratified by the democratically elected President.

The only extra-legal behaviour was the use of the SA to intimidate voting officials.

QFT.
Usually democracy dies as soon as the force of violence overbears the force of debate.

As Goedel's theorem of incompleteness states, every set of laws needs a metaset to keep working. Applying that to democracy, you can have a democratic constitution: to remain a democracy, however, simply respecting the constitution isn't enough.

Well the whole fascism and socialism argument does have some merit, but the historical events contradict it. Mussolini of course started out as a socialist, and Hitler used 'socialism' and 'workers party' to capture the left vote (when he wasn't purging the entire communist and social democratic parties that is). But the fact is, despite the ant-capitalist/liberal rhetoric of the fascists, both Italy and Germany became dominated by big corporations with state backing. Also a major difference is class, fascism promoted class collaboration (the antithesis of class struggle), it's ideology is that no object has value outside the state, so classes, business and the rest were all taken into the all encompassing sphere of the totalitarian state. Socialism is objective, while fascism is spiritual and opposes reason, it doesn't believe in materialism, instead it holds that spiritual inspiration (as opposed to a materialistic view of historical forces) is what makes men great.

1) Allende was democratically elected under the terms of the Chilean Constitution of the time, but this is not the same as stating that he enjoyed majority support. In fact he won a bare plurality. Here are the results of the 1970 presidential election:

Candidate Party/Coalition Votes %
Salvador Allende Gossens Popular Unity 1,070,334 36.61%
Jorge Alessandri Rodríguez Independent conservative 1,031,159 35.27%
Radomiro Tomic Christian Democratic Party 821,801 28.11%

Because no one candidate received a majority, the election then went to the Chilean Congress (note that this is theoretically what would happen in the US should no one win a majority in the Electoral College), where precedent dating back to the 1930s established that the candidate with the most votes in the popular election would then be confirmed by Congress.

This is what subsequently happened. But again, to state that Allende was elected democractically hides the fact that he won only slightly over a third of the vote in a deeply divided Chilean society.

In the Italian Republic, the Democrazia Cristiana got to lead all cabinets until the '80s, with about 35% of the votes. That's because it formed alliances with other parties (liberals, post-fascists, social-democrats, republicans, socialist) in the Parliament.
Would you say that DC cabinets weren't enough democratically elected just because they didn't have the absolute majority, but just a relative majority (a plurality) ?
Same goes for Allende, I think.


2) No one can dispute that the Chilean economy suffered somewhat after Allende's election. While there was initially some economic improvement in 1970, by 1972 the policies of Allende's finance minister saw inflation reach 140%. This inflation was the result of the Allende goverment's own policies, not American-led destabilisation.

3) That said, American-funded and CIA-led destabilisation efforts were very real, not a left-wing fantasy. Figures differ, but an upper figure of US$ 8 million spent on destabilisation seems reasonable.

I doubt that the CIA-led destabilisation started just in 1972. So, it remains unclear whether the inflation was a result of Allende's faults, or America was already working to create the boundary conditions for the coup.
It is clear, however, that those military, who committed perjury by assaulting the presidency and setting up a junta, were also traitors of their own country - because they were supported and paid for that by a foreign country.



[...]
Allende was unable to respond to forces that he ultimately couldn't control (though it's open to question whether anyone could, especially given the US's involvement), but the military Junta and Pinochet in particular were violent bastards who traumatised Chilean society for decades.

The lessons of which are:

A - Neither Allende nor Pinochet were heroes
Pinochet clearly wasn't. Mass murderer and traitor.
Allende? We might discuss his lack of competence about ruling Chile, but, at least, when confronted with the choice between resigning in the hands of the golpe leaders and dying with courage and dignity, he chose the latter. He stood by his duty to the last, when he could have fled to his own safety. I think that this means to be a hero.


B - In multi-party presidential elections, make sure you have a run-off system in order to ensure maximum legitimacy for the winning candidate.

A run-off isn't necessary - I could give you the Italian and German examples of rich and democratic countries without a run-off system. I think that the balance of power between different branches is more important than maximum parliamentary legitimacy for a winning candidate: if the cabinet has to fall, let it fall, it is a small price for democracy and freedom of political debate.

911 remembrance,

The day the US gov assassinated Democracy.

http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUGallery/images/DueleChile.gif

P.S. this post -in No way- underscores the assassination of Democracy in Iran, Honduras, Bolivia, Salvador, Guatemala.. or any of the other savages attacks on other poor peoples.

True, fascism isn't liberalist capitalism. It's authoritarian capitalism. With social dampers in early fascism (Mussolini, Hitler) or without social dampers in more recent fascism (Pinochet, Videla).
Just because there are big companies doesn't mean it is capitalism. Mussolini called it corporatism, not in the sense of corporations as defined in modern law, but as the state being made up of various bodies - the firms being some of those. Unions were others.

Neither Mussolini nor Hitler kept companies around because they liked the idea of powerful capitalists or big firms, they kept them around as organs in the body of the nation.

Look, capitalism is by necessity an individualist philosophy. Here is what Mussolini wrote:
For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....

...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
Hence, even if you were to point out the odd similarities in practice, you'd be wrong to call the two equivalent. If someone is fascist, one cannot be a capitalist, if one is a capitalist, one cannot be a fascist.

If you want to complain about fascism, complain about the PRC or the Russia Putin is creating, because those two have a hell of a lot more in common with Mussolini's Italy than Pinochet ever had.

I mean, do we really need to further confirm Nixon was a douchebag and Kissinger is quite probably a war criminal? Not really, and the overthrow of Allende was their personal project. It was not born of the CIA, FBI, NSA or anyone else for that matter, just Tricky Dick and his German sidekick.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/09/19/us.cia.chile.ap/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20001113/701106.pdf

http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp

Covert United States involvement in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973 was extensive and continuous. The Central Intelligence Agency spent three million dollars in an effort to influence the outcome of the 1964 Chilean presidential elections. Eight million dollars was spent, covertly, in the three years between 1970 and the military coup in September 1973, with over three million dollars expended in fiscal year 1972 alone.

It would seem that there was a significant amount of involvement by the CIA and NSC.

Pinochet wasn't a capitalist, though he did institute many sound capitalist policies.

He was a capitalist. He deliberately targetted socialists and leftists. Deal with it.
Allende's government was socialist. In being overthrown by free market supporters, the government improved in some ways and got worse in others. Whether you think the government improved overall is based on which categories you value more.

Allende's government was not socialist. It was, in Allende's own words, a movement towards socialism. One that was supported by the people. It was not overthrown by free market supporters. It was overthrown by a military that wanted to control the economy in favour of large US businesses.

And claiming that Pinochet's government was better in some ways is like pointing out that the Nazis made the trains run on time. Sorry, but short term economic growth through friendly relations with a military superpower is simply not worth the loss of sovereignty, loss of civil rights, countless disappearances and many thousands of exiles.

Main thing to remember that it sucked to be a chess piece in the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Both sides played to win, and the consequences for countries caught in the middle could really be tragic.

Soviet involvement in Chile was almost nonexistent. There is this link:
http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/pinochetsenemies.html
which shows that the USSR helped a small amount of revolutionaries fight against Pinochet after the Chileans specifically requested aid. And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#Soviet_involvement

This contrasts dramatically with the US involvement:

On September 15, 1970 -after Allende finished first in the election but before the Chilean Congress had chosen between him and the runner-up, Alessandri(4), -President Nixon met with Richard Helms, the Director of Central Intelligence, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Henry Kissinger and Attorney General John Mitchell. Helms was directed to prevent Allende from taking power. This effort was to be conducted without the knowledge of the Departments of State and Defense or the Ambassador. Track II was never discussed at a 40 Committee meeting.

A common rationalisation for US involvement in Latin America was to limit Soviet aggression. The truth is that the Soviet role in Latin America was so small as to be negligible, especially when compared to the extent of US involvement.

34 years ago, the Chilean democracy was killed by a fascist golpe, led by General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.

Salvador Isabelino Allende Gossens, rightfully and democratically elected President of the Republic of Chile, died, probabily by committing suicide, after desperately fighting the fascist traitors.

The dramatic last speech of Salvador Allende, aired by Radio Magallanes, is a testament to freedom and democracy.

The fascism in Chile lasted 17 years.

Thousands of Chilean citizens were unrightfully arrested, tortured and killed by the fascists. Many other Chileans simply "disappeared" and were never seen again.

The USA, and many other western powers, supported the fascist dictatorship.

REMEMBER SALVADOR ALLENDE.

VIVA CHILE!

It's no worse than supporting Che Guevara.

But he gained power through means that were entirely consistent with the laws of democratic Germany, laws approved by the people's representatives.

This does nothing to refute my claim that the appointment of Hitler as Reichkanzler on down was undemocratic, it just shows the farcical and hypocritical nature of bourgeois 'representative' government.

In before The atlantean islands posts a rant about how Pinochet and his brutal regime actually saved Chile from Allende and The Dirty Lefties.
Well you certainly got in before I posted a rant on it..but I still stand by what I said before 110%.
Honestly.

This does nothing to refute my claim that the appointment of Hitler as Reichkanzler on down was undemocratic, it just shows the farcical and hypocritical nature of bourgeois 'representative' government.
Given that Hitler's appointment was entirely consistent with the rules of Germany at the time, to claim it was undemocratic is to claim that Germany wasn't a democracy.

And you can claim that, but then you've just declared almost every western nation "not a democracy".

He was a capitalist. He deliberately targetted socialists and leftists. Deal with it.
Because he thought they were bad for Chile and his own power base, not out of any ideological allegiance to capitalism.
Allende's government was not socialist. It was, in Allende's own words, a movement towards socialism.
And Allende should always be believed why?
And claiming that Pinochet's government was better in some ways is like pointing out that the Nazis made the trains run on time.
In that both remarks are true, yes, they are similar.
Sorry, but short term economic growth through friendly relations with a military superpower is simply not worth the loss of sovereignty, loss of civil rights, countless disappearances and many thousands of exiles.
Short term? Chile today is the most economically free nation in all of Latin America, and Pinochet's reforms are the root cause of that.

Because he thought they were bad for Chile and his own power base, not out of any ideological allegiance to capitalism.

1) You don't know why Pinochet did what he did. This is mere supposition.

2) No matter what his motivations, his government actively supported capitalist practices and actively oppressed anyone who tried to bring about economic change. This is fact.

And Allende should always be believed why?

Tell you what: you claimed Allende was socialist, so you back up that claim. Find me a clear definition of socialism and show me how Allende's government fit that definition.

In that both remarks are true, yes, they are similar.

In that both remarks attempt to justify crimes against humanity by mentioning some trivial advantage gained by such crimes, they are also similar.

Short term? Chile today is the most economically free nation in all of Latin America, and Pinochet's reforms are the root cause of that.

I suppose you have some sort of source to back up this claim?

No "get over it posts" in here? Strange. I suppose that sort of thing is reserved for 9/11 threads...

Chile didn't go and piss off most of the world following their September 11th.

The US has kinda used up their reserve of world wide sympathy in recent years - hence the "Get over it" comments. What's the other phrase popular in the United States? Oh right, "Deal with it".

2) No matter what his motivations, his government actively supported capitalist practices and actively oppressed anyone who tried to bring about economic change. This is fact.
Granted.
In that both remarks attempt to justify crimes against humanity by mentioning some trivial advantage gained by such crimes, they are also similar.
I don't see those remarks as attempting to justify anything. They're simply listing positive acheivements of otherwise reprehensible dudes.
I suppose you have some sort of source to back up this claim?
That they're economically free isn't much a secret. There are any number (two immediately spring to mind) of publicly available indices which measure economic freedom.

That Pinochet is partly responsible for that is more of a broad assertion that radical change is hard to do. Pinochet had to go to great lengths to enact radical change in Chile. Everything since then can have only been incremental.

34 years ago, the Chilean democracy was killed by a fascist golpe, led by General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.

Salvador Isabelino Allende Gossens, rightfully and democratically elected President of the Republic of Chile, died, probabily by committing suicide, after desperately fighting the fascist traitors.

The dramatic last speech of Salvador Allende, aired by Radio Magallanes, is a testament to freedom and democracy.

The fascism in Chile lasted 17 years.

Thousands of Chilean citizens were unrightfully arrested, tortured and killed by the fascists. Many other Chileans simply "disappeared" and were never seen again.

The USA, and many other western powers, supported the fascist dictatorship.

REMEMBER SALVADOR ALLENDE.

VIVA CHILE!


Pinochet was a Right Wing Dictator, but Allende elected by a plurality would have turned it into another Dictatorship like Cuba's if he could have, at least Pinochet allowed a Referendum on his rule with some safeguards for himself should he loose, he lost, he accepted it and up to today Chile has had 2 real socialist democratic governments even its first Women President, in the democratic socialist tradition of Europe not so called Socialist Dictatorships like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Fidel & Raul Castro of Cuba for life.

Lets remember that Adolph Hitler and his nazi party also won democratic elections with a plurality like 44 % Percent and became a Dictator.

Pinochet was a Right Wing Dictator, but Allende elected by a plurality would have turned it into another Dictatorship like Cuba's if he could have, at least Pinochet allowed a Referendum on his rule with some safeguards for himself should he loose, he lost, he accepted it and up to today Chile has had 2 real socialist democratic governments even its first Women President, in the democratic socialist tradition of Europe not so called Socialist Dictatorships like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Fidel & Raul Castro of Cuba for life.

Lets remember that Adolph Hitler and his nazi party also won democratic elections with a plurality like 44 % Percent and became a Dictator.
True communist democracy is incompatible with constitutional liberal democracy, which is meant to safeguard upper-class privilege, therefore that is why people like Allende and Chavez must radically transform the country for socialism to be realized.

Pinochet was a Right Wing Dictator, but Allende elected by a plurality would have turned it into another Dictatorship like Cuba's if he could have, at least Pinochet allowed a Referendum on his rule with some safeguards for himself should he loose, he lost, he accepted it and up to today Chile has had 2 real socialist democratic governments even its first Women President, in the democratic socialist tradition of Europe not so called Socialist Dictatorships like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Fidel & Raul Castro of Cuba for life.

Lets remember that Adolph Hitler and his nazi party also won democratic elections with a plurality like 44 % Percent and became a Dictator.

Seeing as how many of Michelle Bachelet Jeria's cabinet and other high posts are made up of people who formed part of the Allende government, I think we can see that Allende's government would probably not have gone the way of Cuba. In fact, many people who have studied Latin American history claim that Allende's government toppled because they were unwilling to use force, while Castro and his regime were willing to do so.

Many of Allende's supporters did not survive. Including Bachelet's father.

True communist democracy is incompatible with constitutional liberal democracy, which is meant to safeguard upper-class privilege

I don't necessarily disagree... but how so?

Just because there are big companies doesn't mean it is capitalism. Mussolini called it corporatism, not in the sense of corporations as defined in modern law, but as the state being made up of various bodies - the firms being some of those. Unions were others.
I know - also Salazar called his dictatorship a "Corporative Republic".
My point is, though, that the capitalists have always supported fascism in the countries where fascism has sprung out. Hence, since capitalists usually aren't stupid, fascism suits the needs of the capitalists quite well.

"Capitalists", as a class, aren't necessarily in favour of "capitalism", as a pro-market, pro-individual ideology. They're in favour of getting richer and more powerful - no matter what it takes. And if the market is controlled by the State in a fashion that is favourable to them, even better - I have yet to find a capitalist who will be displeased by a fat contract with the State: look at industries like Lockheed or FIAT... they're practically subsidized by the State (not a very "capitalistic" stance, in the classical Smith/Ricardo meaning of it).
Capitalism has changed somewhat since the times of Smith and Ricardo.

Hence, even if you were to point out the odd similarities in practice, you'd be wrong to call the two equivalent. If someone is fascist, one cannot be a capitalist, if one is a capitalist, one cannot be a fascist.
If by "capitalist" we mean a libertarian person, who also favours private enterprise and free market, I think you're right. If by "capitalist" we mean a member of the social class that owns the mass production instruments, I think you're wrong.

I guess that most of our debate boils down to these two meanings of "capitalist", don't you think so?

If you want to complain about fascism, complain about the PRC or the Russia Putin is creating, because those two have a hell of a lot more in common with Mussolini's Italy than Pinochet ever had.
Meh. Capitalistic ideas and privately-owned corps are quite strong in China and Russia. So, there we are again...

It's no worse than supporting Che Guevara.

I might insert here a line about earning the second half of your name by the quoted sentence, but I'll have mercy. Let's keep the debate on a high level, instead of making senseless, sensationalistic claims.

If by "capitalist" we mean a libertarian person, who also favours private enterprise and free market, I think you're right. If by "capitalist" we mean a member of the social class that owns the mass production instruments, I think you're wrong.

I guess that most of our debate boils down to these two meanings of "capitalist", don't you think so?
True.

I think I made it clear plenty of times that I think the notion of class as defined by the relationship to productive capacity and as a way of summarising a person is ridiculous. Since Marxism is to some extent based on it, it is ridiculous too, by the way.

Given that Hitler's appointment was entirely consistent with the rules of Germany at the time, to claim it was undemocratic is to claim that Germany wasn't a democracy.

And you can claim that, but then you've just declared almost every western nation "not a democracy".

No, really? And here I thought that by talking about the hypocrisy inherent in bourgeois representative democracy that I was singling out Nazi Germany alone!