For a combination of reasons too obscure to recount, Catallaxy’s last open thread finished up debating (largely) the merits (or otherwise) of deposed Chilean leader Dr Salvadore Allende, alongside the merits (or otherwise) of General Augusto Pinochet, the military impresario who deposed him in a bloody coup in 1973.
Allende was a socialist, and I think it’s fair to say his economic policies were ruinous. He expropriated much of the country’s wealth without compensation, behaved like a robber baron with respect to agrarian reform, and sought advice of all kinds from Fidel Castro. He was, however, democratically elected. Pinochet, by contrast, was a strongman in the classic junta mould; he killed and tortured many of his political opponents during his accession to power and rule. Although it is fair to say that his regime was by no means as bloody as comparable leftist regimes during the same period (Cambodia, anyone?), he was not a nice guy, sponsoring terrorism outside Chile’s borders (including in the US) to serve his own ends. That said, his economic advisors were largely taught by Milton Friedman. Known as The Chicago Boys, they laid the foundation for a spectacular economic recovery. Chile now has the highest standard of living in Latin America; subsequent Chilean governments - of all political stripes - have disavowed Pinochet, but they haven’t changed his economic policies.
Pinochet occupied the centre of a cause celebre in Britain over his detention while in the UK for medical treatment, on alleged torture charges. He has since been stripped of his immunity in his home country, and (presuming he doesn’t die soon) may yet come to trial.
Jason and I were firmly on the side of the angels, pointing out that while Allende was a twit, he was a democratically elected twit, and that for all the economic good Pinochet did later, he had no right to conduct a military coup against a democratically elected leader. Graeme Bird then (as is his wont) pointed us to this article.
Victor Farias, best known for blowing Martin Heidegger’s Nazi cover, has now done a similar job on Allende. Among other things, he went and read Allende’s thesis. In it, Allende advocated sterilizing the disabled and mentally ill and described Jews in the following terms:
The Hebrews are well-known committers of certain types of crimes including: fraud, deceit, defamation, but most notably usury.
Of course, he likely changed - lots of people supported eugenics in the 1930s, not just Hitler. There were eugenics programs in Sweden, Brazil, the USSR and the US - countries representing all shades along the political spectrum.
However, Farias maintains that Allende’s anti-semitism did not wane in quite the same way:
the new revelations about Allende give more meaning to Allende’s refusal to turn Nazi criminal Walter Rauff over to Germany in 1972, after Rauff had found refuge in Chile. Even attempts by the Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal to intervene with the president failed at the time. In a letter, Allende responded that the president was not allowed to get involved in judicial matters. Formally speaking, Allende was right. Chile’s Supreme Court had previously ruled that Rauff - who had been a senior official in the SS and headed the development of portable gas chambers - could not be handed over because the statute of limitations on his case had expired.
Now that may be a reasonable refusal - lots of other countries have refused to hand over alleged Nazi war criminals when asked by Israel or the Simon Weisenthal Centre. However, Allende was busily behaving in a most unconstitutional manner when it came to his corporate expropriation and land distribution program. How did Walter Rauff suddenly earn due process and constitutional respect?
Allende has become something of an icon to the left, much as Pinochet is uncritically admired by the likes of Margaret Thatcher on the right for his economic reforms. Is it time - in light of Farias’ research - to reconsider both?
138 Comments
Bring your Allende thoughts up here, folks.
i think the coup was justified. look at what the lower house was thinking before the coup happened:
“Allende has become something of an icon to the left, much as Pinochet is uncritically admired by the likes of Margaret Thatcher on the right for his economic reforms.”
I think the former is right but the latter is rather inaccurate. I would say that the right’s relationship with Pinochet is very uneasy, since on one hand, they admire his economic legacy, but on the other hand, cannot ignore the brutality of his regime (not so much the coup itself).
It is inteesting however, that lately Pinochet has become sort of an ikon in Russia for those proponents of President Putin who argue that a strong hand is needed to promote economic liberalisation. I do not agree with this argument. While many believe that Pinochet did promote some sound economic policies, this is almost unique experience in history. I can’t think of many other examples where authoritarian rulers promoted sound economics. Putin certainly does n’t.
Pinochet also probably succeeded more through good luck than good judgment. One article I read pointed out that he knew nothing of economics, and basically let the Chicago Boys have their heads.
I singled out Thatcher for that reason, and if enough righties complain I’ll rewrite that part of the post. I was very uncomfortable writing the whole thing, actually, partly because immoral equivalency and libertarianism generally don’t go well together.
SL
“Pinochet also probably succeeded more through good luck than good judgment. One article I read pointed out that he knew nothing of economics, and basically let the Chicago Boys have their heads.”
You make your own luck, SL.
Pinochet probably knew diddly squat about economics but he knew where to go to get live action players like Milt that would turn the place into he wealthiest nation in the sink hole that is sth america. He had the good sense at least and for that he ought to be thanked.
As I said, never ever trust the left to saint someone in an honest way. There’s always a fucking angle to everything with the left.
Pinochet was a better man that Allende. He also killed far less people than the nunber Allende would have once he’d turned the place into a socialist sinkhole.
Sl
“I was very uncomfortable writing the whole thing, actually, partly because immoral equivalency and libertarianism generally don’t go well together. ”
Very true, SL. but not all leaders around the world show respect to the laws and customs of the country they lead.
Whitlam to his credit resigned. Keating says he would have tried to place the GG under house arrrest, possiblly setting off a major revolution here if he was leader… or least tried.
Libertarism desn’t mean one is a patsy by letting thugs steal one’s property and liberty. In fact a real libertarian would be the first to prevent anyone attempting to steal their property and possessions in an illegitimate way.
Let’s face it. Tax is confiscation of the worst order. But we roll over and get raped because the altnerative is either to fight it out on the street or pay up. If one fights it is a high proability you’re going to lose becasue there aren’t enough people supporting that action. However there is a tipping point.
What tips people over can be very interesting, too. The Boston Tea Party was (largely) about tax, although lots of nasties had gone on before.
Great point SL.
The boston tea party is great example of libertarians finally taking matters in their own hands. What a bunch of friggin heroes those guys were. A wonderful example of the human spirit at its best. And the final result was the greatest living documents known to man- the declaration of independence and the the US constitution.
They managed to raise a citizen army that through out the world power.
Never ever let ourselves become patsies to tyranny.
The tipping point……
Intersting question…. you never know. i think it’s a look back thing. you only know it’s the tipping point once you’ve gone past it.
“The boston tea party is great example of libertarians finally taking matters in their own hands. What a bunch of friggin heroes those guys were.”
And that’s where the analogy ends, JC. Those guys didn’t ‘disappear’ their political opponents and rule America under a military dictatorship for years …
Mexico has a higher GDP per capita than Chile (as of 2005) but this is likely due to Mexico having a privileged position next to the US. I do grant you that today Chile does much better than the rest of Latin America. How much is due to Pinochet’s policies is debatable, and to say they haven’t been changed by subsequent governments is false, although they haven’t been changed much. This has led to some problems, which aren’t under discussion here, so let’s ignore them for the present.
Allende’s nationalisation and land reform programs weren’t new - Frei of the Christian Democratic Party (conservative) had been the latest to try them. Even the complete nationalisation of the copper industry in 1971 was by unanimous Congress vote.
Allende’s extension of the land reform was done very badly and output fell, that is true. Also, economic stupidity like printing money meant bad inflation, but Chile had always had a problem with inflation - it was 35% when Allende took power. To be fair though, economic sniping by Nixon like blocking loans from multilateral organisations wouldn’t have helped (here we should take note of the spectacular increase in aid and loans from the US when Pinochet took over). His unconstitutional policies like appropriation, pushed by the hard left in his coalition, were downright moronic. I didn’t know about his anti-Semitism, and I despise him for that.
The problems Chile experienced after a good first year under Allende could not be countered because Popular Unity (his party) was in a tenuous political position - austerity measures could not be imposed on the unions, new taxes couldn’t be imposed due to blocking by Congress, and the deficit couldn’t be covered by borrowing abroad. Foreign opposition had increased as well. The descent into economic chaos through strikes, lock-outs, forced takeovers of land and businesses (not all the government’s actions - a lot was just opportunism by workers) brought the country almost to civil war and ushered in triple-digit inflation.
So much for Allende. Let us turn to the supposed “economic good that Pinochet did later”, stopping our look at 1990, when Pinochet was no longer in charge. Special mention is needed here of the lack of privatisation of the biggest part of Chile’s economy, copper; the government bail-out of private banks in 1982; the economically pretty successful policies of CORFO and later Fundacion Chile; and the forced backtrack by the Chicago Boys on capital controls and tariffs in the 1980s.
CHILE GDP GROWTH 1941-1989
1941 - 1956 74.14%
1957 - 1972 74.57%
1974 - 1989 61.35%
For 1974-1989, the growth of GDP was 8.7% for South Korea, 3.9% for Brazil and Colombia, 3.4% for Mexico, 3.2% for Chile.
For the same period, the growth of exports was 15.5% for South Korea, 11.5% for Mexico, 8.8% for Brazil, 6.3% for Chile, 5.4% for Colombia and 2.9% for Argentina.
CHILE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND WAGE INDEX 1970=100)
1971 3.8 125.4
1973 4.8 86.0
1975 13.5 88.7
1977 14.2 96.6
1979 13.8 98.7
1981 10.9 115.7
1983 18.6 100.3
1985 16.3 96.6
1987 12.8 97.9
1989 10.0 106.1
CONCLUSION: Economic miracle under Pinochet? What miracle?
“I singled out Thatcher for that reason, and if enough righties complain I’ll rewrite that part of the post.”
Given the opinions of most the regulars including Steve Edwards who contributes to the CIS journal and who has Pinochet as his moniker I don’t think there are any grounds for complaint.
You’ve got yourself involved in one very wierd sect, SL.
melaleuca, are you suggesting that contributing to CIS journal is weird?
“Mexico has a higher GDP per capita than Chile (as of 2005) but this is likely due to Mexico having a privileged position next to the US.”
not sure.
i’d say they are close by Cia estimates even if Chile is higher.
Mexico is US$10,000
Chile is US 11,300.
On PPP basis.
Mexico is strictly speaking a north American nation. Mexico has also been helped by large oil reservesand has been partner to Nafta longer than Chile. ( I think Chile has become part of Nafta recently). it also helps to share a border with the with the richest nation on earth and haveingabout 10% of you low skilled labor force jumping the border into the US and then remitting proceeds back home.
“How much is due to Pinochet’s policies is debatable, and to say they haven’t been changed by subsequent governments is false, although they haven’t been changed much. This has led to some problems, which aren’t under discussion here, so let’s ignore them for the present.”
How much? i’d say a lot seeing it is the richest country in south America. Stop trying to dice this one as it won’t work, as the numbers speak for themselves.
“Allende’s nationalisation and land reform programs weren’t new - Frei of the Christian Democratic Party (conservative) had been the latest to try them. Even the complete nationalisation of the copper industry in 1971 was by unanimous Congress vote. ‘
Fatso. So stop bullshittting us. he didn’t just try land reforms, he attemtped wholesale confiscation of businesses. ITT being one example which is why the US was pissed off.
“To be fair though, economic sniping by Nixon like blocking loans from multilateral organisations wouldn’t have helped (here we should take note of the spectacular increase in aid and loans from the US when Pinochet took over). His unconstitutional policies like appropriation, pushed by the hard left in his coalition, were downright moronic. ”
Oh. FFS. He tries to expropriate the property of US firms, suck up to Moscow and Castro and then you criticise Nixon for not offering him loans when he’s fucked it up. The US does silly things sometimes but Americans are not morons. Are you fucking crazy? What leader would ever try that shit on. As a matter of fact ITT could have just as easily gone to a US court and claimed compensation for the the stolen property if they tried to lend him money.
“His unconstitutional policies like appropriation, pushed by the hard left in his coalition, were downright moronic.”
not just moronic, but downright evil and he deserved to get thrown out the friggin window.
“So much for Allende. Let us turn to the supposed “economic good that Pinochet did laterâ€, stopping our look at 1990, when Pinochet was no longer in charge. Special mention is needed here of the lack of privatisation of the biggest part of Chile’s economy, copper; the government bail-out of private banks in 1982; the economically pretty successful policies of CORFO and later Fundacion Chile; and the forced backtrack by the Chicago Boys on capital controls and tariffs in the 1980′”.
We know that. And your point is what exactly? that South americans are god awful at running economies? We know that.
Your comparisons are worth shit. A better example is Cuba. Cuba was the richest country in latin America before Castro aand his goons took over. It can now lay cliam to being the poorest although Chavez is doing his best to take that honor sometime unless he gets a bullet.
So you need to compare like with like. Chile is the richest country in South America now. If it had followed dick weed ( allende) it would have been vying with the poorest - Cuba- by now.
Try again fats.
Nope. I think its weird that open Pinochet worshipers contribute to the CIS journal. Or at least I thought it was weird until I picked up the “libertarian vibe” by perusing the comments on this site.
Munn, you can be such a twit. Contribution to the CIS journal Policy is open to anyone who can write something of interest which expresses an opinion towards the liberal end of the spectrum (which doesn’t mean the contributor has to be liberal on EVERY issue) and whose article passes peer review. Even Mark Latham has written for Policy
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summ9899/summ989905.htm
It is only in left-wing lemming land that articles are rejected on the basis of the contributor, as opposed to the content of the article itself.
Really, your attempt at smearing is pathetic.
“You’ve got yourself involved in one very weird sect, SL. ”
Coming from Munn the racist.
Munn, I guess you’re partial to Allende because it is alleged he was a Jew hater and Nazi sympathizer. Seeing you have written many times about me in a vile racist way, it somehow proves your attraction to other racists and people haters. Pigs of a feather somehow flop together.
It couldn’t have been because he was a tree hugger, as Allende was never accused of tree hugging.
Now, I would caution the use of the word “weird” when it comes from a person who supports anti- Semites and publicly makes racist comments himself.
Take it from me, don’t even try and defend Allende, Mr. Racist.
Munn, you fat fraudster, is there anything in the CONTENT of Steve Edwards’ actual ARTICLES that you actually object to, as opposed to the fact that Steve Edwards THE PERSON writes for Policy?
We know you lefties are obsessed with ‘who you know’ rather than ‘what you know’ (hence the general bitchiness of latte left and literati circles) but that doesn’t mean we have to copy you, twit.
“Really, your attempt at smearing is pathetic.”
Pathetic???
How about insincere, counterfeit, dishonest disingenuous, false, commie fawning, hollow, smarmy, oily (not racist), toadyish, unctous, sycophnatic.
“…..but that doesn’t mean we have to copy you, twit. ”
If I did I get myself a sharp razor and head for the bathroom.
Of course there isn’t, Jase - he’s just looking for a convenient means of smearing the CIS without having to cite any actual issues. I don’t really care if he wants to slander me personally; it only highlights how incredibly weak his position is from the start.
PS - Franklin Delano Roosevelt was responsible for sending millions of people to Stalin’s gulags under “Operation Keelhaul” - they either died, or lived out the rest of their pitiful lives in abject misery. He killed far more people than Pinochet could have ever dreamed of - for some reason nobody objects to FDR gravatars.
Is that because genocide becomes acceptable so long as it’s done in the name of “free health care”?
munn
do you hate libertarians more than italians or is it just you hate libertarians with an Italian background…
“you fat fraudster”….. that’s funny.
As for banning from your site….. you really are a pathetic,insincere, dishonmest………. wimp.
You attempt all sorts of abuse at this site you, fat fuck, but won’t allow the same standards of practice on your site….. you squealer.
“Is that because genocide becomes acceptable so long as it’s done in the name of “free health careâ€?”
What is it with free health care and the commie loving left? You had weather tyrant trying that shit on about supporting the Hez and their wonerful Iranian sponsored health clinics. Munn will try that shoit on about Allende pretty soon.
What is that Steve, i can’t see it?
BTW - Along with cheerleading for Pinochet (who proportionally killed far less people than FDR), I also advocate the abolition of the universal franchise, and the distribution of voting rights by private subscription. I’ll stick to that until something even MORE right-wing pops into my mind.
No bullshitting here, jc. Simple facts only.
“it is the richest country in south America”
Yeah, 15 years after Pinochet stopped being in charge. With huge state-owned enterprises.
“you criticise Nixon for not offering him loans”
Try again, jc. I didn’t criticise, merely pointed out that the fiscal situation wasn’t helped by MULTILATERAL loans being denied by US machinations.
“And your point is what exactly?”
That maybe, just maybe, Chile wasn’t the neoliberal paradise it is made out to be, and that socialistic policies weren’t all bad. This also goes some way to answering your “how much?”
My comparisons with other developing countries are in no way shit, and you do me an injustice by saying so. Take it back.
Cuba is not comparing like with like. And don’t forget the embargo. You seem to be insinuating that Cuba is poor because it tried to be socialist, when clearly the embargo has had a very large effect. And somehow, despite being very poor, Cuba has very good educational and health outcomes.
But we digress. My main points remain - Allende was an idiot, but not all bad, and largely an apex of a long-term trend in Chilean political economy. Pinochet did not preside over an economic miracle (the supporting facts for which I notice you totally ignore, despite your claim “the numbers speak for themselves”).
“If it had followed dick weed ( allende) it would have been vying with the poorest - Cuba- by now.”
All hail jc, receiver of divine wisdom from his all-seeing eye and all-encompassing intellect. I put to you that Allende was on the way out through peaceful means that the military pre-empted, and that it is far more likely that Chile’s flirtation with incompetent socialism would have been rejected by the people, with a return to centrist democracy. Thing is, we will never know, and your unequivocal statement is bullshit.
And I would like to mention that no-one with libertarian sympathies could possibly support Pinochet’s actions even if he had engendered an economic revival. For libertarians, something should never be done for others’ “own good”. But some are saying the equivalent of “military coups and dictatorships who kill and torture thousands are for a country’s own good in the economic long-term if they also adopt laissez-faire policies.”
“Cuba has very good educational and health outcomes. ”
Here we go, another lefty talking about clinics. This is truly getting to be fascinating.
“For libertarians, something should never be done for others’ “own goodâ€. But some are saying the equivalent of “military coups and dictatorships who kill and torture thousands are for a country’s own good in the economic long-term if they also adopt laissez-faire policies.†‘
No not at all. you missed the point entirely, Fats. The point was that expropriation of property and elimination of property rights deserves the perp to get thrown out of office and in jail.
I have no problem reconcling libertarian principles and seeing the end of someone like allende who was trampling all over the law and peoples rights to their own property.
it’s clear you can’t see it from becasue as a lefty you have little regard for peoperty rights, so i can see why you wouldn’t unerstand.
The fact that he was out anyway has nothing to do with it.
” And that’s where the analogy ends, JC. Those guys didn’t ‘disappear’ their political opponents and rule America under a military dictatorship for years …”
Nnot quite accurate jase. They practiced a form of ehtnic cleansing…. better call it political cleansing by persuading those who were supportive of the the crown to high tail it to Canada where they would be happier campers.
Pinochet didn’t do that. Hence why there wasn’t a lot of killing in Americaafter the war of indep.
I would also suggest that being a small nation at the time people knew who were the loyalists anyway and they were giving time to get the frig out.
You also fail to count the number of loyalists that died fighting with the Brits or supporting them behind the scenes. it was a bloody mess too, you know.
‘Here we go, another lefty talking about clinics. ”
Here we go, jc ignoring the substance and going for the throw-away digression. Sorry I brought up the fact that poverty is not only measured in GDP.
“The point was that expropriation of property and elimination of property rights deserves the perp to get thrown out of office and in jail.”
Funny, no-one said that was the point. skepticlawyer’s post says the point was the pros and cons of Allende and Pinochet, which I tried to address.
For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Not with the erroneous proposition that Allende eliminated property rights, but that he broke Chilean law and should have been impeached and jailed.
Just to have you on record, what would you do to someone who reinstated property rights and eliminated other human rights?
“Just to have you on record, what would you do to someone who reinstated property rights and eliminated other human rights? ”
How do you separate the two in a free nation? You’re suggesting an impossible hypothetical. Where have you seen say full property rights and the elimination of freedom of speech?
“Here we go, jc ignoring the substance and going for the throw-away digression. Sorry I brought up the fact that poverty is not only measured in GDP.”
GDP is about the best index measure we have
for national well being . It must be good seeing it was the first thing you brought up. You incorrectly suggested that mexico was wealthier than Chile.
I just find it amusing that lefties always seem to bring up clinics. It’s becoming amusing.
Where did I say it was the point of the post. “The point” was my point.
“For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Not with the erroneous proposition that Allende eliminated property rights, but that he broke Chilean law and should have been impeached and jailed.”
He was doing both. Both are bad things. Both are inseparable and intimately linked., but you wouldn’t see it.
How do you separate them?? How do you separate numbers into integers and fractions? How do you separate dairy products and milk? By defining them correctly.
Pinochet was a bastard dictator torturer murderer. But he didn’t steal, so he’s fine by you. Is this correct?
Your premise is incorrect and therefore your conclusion is wrong.
Pinochet was a military guy who had little ideology other than trying to stop his nation going to the commie wolves.
Both sides are responsible for doing bad things.
It’s easy for you isn’t it, to imply only Pinoceht was the bad guy. The commies were the victims as always.Not.
Bad things happened because bad people were trying to turn the place into a commie hellhole. On balnace Pinochet was the better outcome.
If you weren’t attempting to insurrection you would have been safe under Pinochet. If you had owned a business or owned property under Allende you would have been threatened if Allende had gained full control in the same way as Castro’s opponents were thrown in jail or killed. Don’t kid yourself. Allende didn’t have time to get his killing machine up and going. It’;s the only way marxism can operate.
Pinochet’s regime is responsbile for about 2100 disappearances. Count the other sides toll around the world and you would get a better feeling how many would would have died under marxism.
“GDP is about the best index measure we have
for national well being”
No, it isn’t. But that has been covered before on this blog, a pity you missed it. And you are confusing things. SL said “standard of living”, I said “GDP per capita” (not incorrectly as I did not say PPP. My source - link), and now you say “wellbeing”.
You find the references to Cuba’s clinics amusing (and presumably also their doctors, mortality rates and other health statistics). Why? Let me guess - you view such references as distracting from the main game, which is how many TVs per household or some other putative measure of standard of living?
“Where did I say it was the point of the post. ?The point? was my point.”
Right. So I make a NEW point about people not being libertarian if they support Pinochet, and you disagree by saying I “missed the point”.
“He was doing both.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Property ‘rights’ are bestowed by the state. The state changed them for some entities. This was stupid, of course. But he didn’t “eliminate property rights” as private property continued to exist. You have been called on this, but you persist in denying the obvious - your hyperbole was wrong and contributes nothing.
Face it, jc - I’m smarter than you are.
D’oh, can an admin fix my hopeless attempt at HTML? I guess I’m not smart enough to master a simple link!
Fats
The last thing I would worry about is if you were smarter than i am. I don’t give a shit.
What I care about is if i’m right and therefore you’re wrong. You are, becasue you’re being a dick.
Property rights are not bestowed by the state because this assumes they can be taken legitimately taken away, which of course they can’t
Do i support Pinochet? If you’re comparing him to Allende, i would in a heart beat..
If Mark Gallagher ever reads this thread his head will explode.
Admin went to bed and now has to go to work (and has court all day today). I’ll try to fix your links up later on, ff, so your comment reads okay.
All the sites I read were pretty emphatic about Chile enjoying the ‘highest standard of living’. I suspect Mexico wasn’t included because it’s not in South America, although the CIA World Factbook has Chile ahead on per capita income.
All the sites were also emphatic about Chile going through a rough patch as Pinochet’s policies bedded in during the early 80s (bearing in mind Pinochet was in power until 1990). If you remember rightly, so did Australia after Hawkeating introduced similar economic reforms here.
At the end of the day, very little has been done to alter Pinochet’s economics by subsequent Chilean leaders of all political stripes. Pinochet may well stand trial for human rights abuses in his own country. By contrast Allende has been canonized, (to the extent that Farias’ revelations about Allende knocked me completely sideways - I had no idea).
I don’t think projecting how many people Allende would have killed given the chance is fair. I do think questions about his ’saintliness’ should be asked, in light of his uncompensated expropriations and protection of Walter Rauff.
Allende was elected by the people.
He was hopelessly incompetent ( tautology?) but nevertheless if you want to get rid of him do so by legal means.
The Coup was illegal as the present President would attest.
Every politician of the ‘left’ in Chile tries at all costs to avoid any whiff of doing what Allende did.
No bad thing
Homer
He wasn’t just incompetent. he was also beginning to practice thievery. Once he crossed that line he deserved to get thrown out of office. Maybe he realized what a thief he was and felt th only way to stop it was to end his own life by using the AK47 Castro had given him as a gift. i think it wasn’t a bad choice.
I agree he deserved to get thrown out of office but by legal means.
That means either he is voted out or is thrown out legally because he has done something illegal.
Homer
you’re applying Anglo standards to a place in the world which is far removed from that. Don’t get carried away, dude. This is Sth Am after all where things are quite done the peaceful way.
JC,
All you are encouraging is to overthrow a Government when you disagree with it.
Homer
stop being stupid. I have big problems with a left of centre democratic party, but if they win an election fair and square they have a turn in office, which I hope is very short lived and they don’t manage to fuck things up in that time.
However if a government came in that never received a mandate to go into wholesle thieving, I would have no qualms in seeing the end of it happier still if the leader put a bullet in his head like Allende.
Lefties could raise the tax rate to 70% and they would not deserve to get thrown out of office before time. However if they began to steal assets without compensation that would be the end of it. I would be the first out there with any available means.
JC,
It is very easy. If a person does something illegal then take them to court.
Much as I can work out Allende merely put into operation what he campaigned on.
Hence his lousy economic record.
Seems to me you would get on like a house on fire in politics in Bangladesh
Homer
Stop it with the stupid pills. i told you it has an effect.
JC,
Whether you realise it or not all you are doing is rationalising reasons for a violent coup against governments you do not like.
One of the problems of democracy is that people get voted in that shouldn’t. Tough
sometimes people implement policies they said they wouldn’t like Howard on IR. tough
Its called winning the most votes in a democracy.
If you don’t like it organise a party that will win votes.
Advocating violent coups merely because the Governments were incompetent or idiots does not behove you.
Homer
FFS Homer, he wasn’t just unpopular, he as into mass thieving. Once you’ve understood the difference come back.
Futhermore, I couldn’t give shit how many votes a party receives. if a government official told me they we going to take my house or business etc. one of us would be dead. That rule applied in Chile during you hero’s time.
testing
“Property rights are not bestowed by the state because this assumes they can be taken legitimately taken away, which of course they can’t”
What? Do you think property rights are something that exist independent of society, like gold or apples? They are a form of social agreement, their limits set by the government. This is indisputable. You may argue that they are indispensable, inalienable, your birthright, venerable, useful, the basis of other human rights, whatever, but you can’t say they are not bestowed by the state!
“Do i support Pinochet? If you’re comparing him to Allende, i would in a heart beat.”
Then you are a disgusting human being. And definitely not a libertarian.
JC put up some evidence suggesting that what Allende did was unconstitutional and he was rigging the judiciary, etc. Now, if that is true, then what he did went beyond simply acting on a mandate. As I suggested to JC in the Open Forum, if indeed there was a constitutional crisis then after all available legal and constitutional challenges had been exhausted, a coup that kept casualties to a minimum might be justified but not the sort of bloodletting that actually followed.
Now if Pinochet had done what the military in Thailand recently did, would anyone be seeing him in as bad a light as they do now (assuming the Thai army does hand back power to democratic processes as it promised)?
So I think this issue is more subtle than it appears. All that blood letting certainly wasn’t justified but the coup could have been just as most outside observers agree that the recent coup in Thailand was a necessary evil.
Bullhsit Fats. The state is funded to protect my property. The state has no rights to anything I own. They can take it by force, but they have no right to it.
And yes
“They are a form of social agreement, their limits set by the government. This is indisputable. You may argue that they are indispensable, inalienable, your birthright, venerable, useful, the basis of other human rights:
that right fats. I would stop right there.
Now let’s edit the moralizing sermone you just gave about me.
This is what you believe in.
Do i support Allende? If you’re comparing him to Pinochet, i would in a heart beat.â€
Then you are a disgusting human being. And definitely a slimey lefty.
See context is important.
Pinochet was a Marxist, he was stealing peoples property and lives. Marxism cannot operate in a democratic environment because eventually the jackboot has to appear.
he finally did the right thing and put a bullet in his head after he realized what he had done. Good for him.
.
Even the Wiki entry is fair for a site dominated by lefty prop. Go take a read of it. He was basically governing through prez edicts as the congress wasn’t with him.
The deaths occurred because the left was about to start a guerrilla offensive in the city streets and were about to use several communist dominated fronts to help his effort.
Yes we saw how the left of centre Russian government handled the soviets. that was a raving success wasn’t it.
All roads had been exhausted. The prick finally put a bullet in his own head because he realized Castros goons and Moscow’s support couldn’t get there in time and he was finished.
If they had followed the path you suggest, it could have been too late.
I am not painting Pinochet as a saint, but neither is he the devil.
JC Sez:
“The boston tea party is great example of libertarians finally taking matters in their own hands. What a bunch of friggin heroes those guys were.â€
Well yes I agree. But they had far less justification then the non-commie Chileans.
1. They were the lowest taxed and most free people in the world even under the British boot.
2. Their savings hadn’t been trashed by 500% inflation and no-one was stealing their farms.
3. They were rebelling against new taxes that violated certain principles of taxation that they had come to expect. It wasn’t the amount as such but the principle of thing…….. This is good behaviour but they were rebelling against LAWFUL TAXES LAWFULLY LEVELLED.
4. They faced a government that really did not wish to enslave them. But the British Crown had just been in a global war and wished to replenish its treasury. Which was not unreasonable.
But the thing was the Brits had decisively ousted the French from the continent. So your average North American British Subject, no longer fearing French domination….. Had the right to think …. “Why Do We Need To Listen To These Clowns For? Who Are They Protecting Us From?”
Now consider the Chilean situation in contrast to my aforementioned 4 numbered points.
1. The Chileans were not the lowest-taxed and freest people in the world just before the lawful ousting of the repulsive Allende regime. Far from it. They could lose everything EVERYTHING at a moments notice.
2. Their savings had been trashed and their farms were being stolen by armed commie-thugs.
3. Many of the depredations visited upon them were not lawful. Even the lawful depredations were unacceptable.
4. The Chileans faced a government whose purpose was TO ENSLAVE THEM ALL. Of this there can be no question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
JASON SOON SEZ:
“And that’s where the analogy ends, JC. Those guys didn’t ‘disappear’ their political opponents and rule America under a military dictatorship for years …”
Only because THEY WON.
Had the American Colonists LOST every one who signed those documents would have been hung for treason.
And there were no British to kill after the war. Because once the war was won the British went away.
But were the commies in Chile going to likewise dissapear?
What we have to sort out is if the General pre-empted and saved his people from a civil war.
Because we ought not look at our precedents.
What were the precedents for a Spanish Speaker at that time?
The Mexican Civil war?
The Spanish Civil War?
If you can win a war so fast it never even starts you can save a lot of peoples lives.
So we ought to be trying to sort out if it was a situation where civil war loomed in a clear-and-present way.
skeptic, you are probably right re standard of living. If there is a difference ‘tween Mexico and Chile, it is likely minor. Let’s just go with “Chile does much better than any other South American country” (which I acknowledged in my very first response).
So the question is, was it the Chicago Boys’ policies that have brought this about? For 16 years after 1973, Chile’s economic performance was not very good. In fact, it was worse than comparable developing countries, including its neighbours. Not just in the early 80s either - all the way to the 90s. Was 16 years not enough time for the benefits to be felt? During the ’90s it improved, except for problems due to the Asian crisis, so that now, 33 years after the coup, Chile is richer than its neighbours. How many years after implemented policies can economic performance be accredited to them? I say that their effect becomes more and more dilute the further from their implementation you get. Three decades later, can we really say that Chile is richer than Argentina just because Chile’s military dictators were better than Argentina’s military dictators?
And let’s no forget - copper, copper, copper. It accounts for half of Chile’s export income. And what was it that remained in government hands? Copper. And oil.
“As I suggested to JC in the Open Forum, if indeed there was a constitutional crisis then after all available legal and constitutional challenges had been exhausted, a coup that kept casualties to a minimum might be justified but not the sort of bloodletting that actually followed.”
Well for starters look at Allendes own actions.
We ought not call it a coup. If the guy doesn’t just break the constiution but is OPERATING RUTHLESSLY OUTSIDE IT. Then its not a coup if the Congress are calling on the military to oust these bastards.
But look at Allendes own EXTREMIST actions.
He comes out with a weapon. He could have resigned. But instead he comes out like he’s attempting to become MARK BANICHES’ SUBSTITUTE JESUS.
So important is the revolution to him he’s going to ensure more bloodshed by matyring himself to the cause.
“As I suggested to JC in the Open Forum, if indeed there was a constitutional crisis then after all available legal and constitutional challenges had been exhausted, a coup that kept casualties to a minimum might be justified but not the sort of bloodletting that actually followed.”
Well that might be OK for Australia. Because we can cut off the commies from outside supply.
But how can you expect to win a war against the commies when you have a long skinny country like Chile?
You simply cannot beat an insurgency if it has outside supply and if it can easily make it past the borders… And you aren’t willing to fight all the border countries.
Better to win flat out.
If Allendes communist goons had confiscated 1500 farms and this was not part of the budget it means that they were likely financed from the outside. Financed and armed.
If you murdered every one of the farm thieves and imprisoned (lets say) 30 000 people in about two weeks you might stop the further and total destruction of your nation….. and avoid the templates of the Mexican and Spanish civil wars….
To resolve this we have to know who it was they killed.
If they were the farm thieves… And if the farm thieves were networked out to Cuba and other places….
Then that was a good move.
“Was 16 years not enough time for the benefits to be felt? ”
Try and get Hernando De Soto on video to help uncover this mystery.
But you should know that neither the General or the monetarists are running that country.
But when they were it managed to acheive the lowest inflation rate in South America and thats something.
Graeme
OT but why don’t you replace your gravatar with Ronald Reagan or someone more appropriate? That Chairman Mao gravatar on you looks hilarious.
“The deaths occurred because the left was about to start a guerrilla offensive in the city streets and were about to use several communist dominated fronts to help his effort.”
Just on what we’ve seen so far this appears to be right.
Now if it IS right this is done and dusted.
Because we have seen how hard it is to defeat a guerilla force if it has outside enabling and can quickly get to the border.
And anyone who is in Chile can quickly get to a border.
Why begin a civil war by letting the other guys get a head-start if you have a pretty good idea who the other guys are?
This is not Australia. We could hold off a little bit longer in Australia….
(But we won’t. Because we know what you leftists are like so don’t try it on ever and don’t even daydream about it.)
So far Pinochet is looking good. But then we don’t have a good idea yet of who got killed.
“Graeme
OT but why don’t you replace your gravatar with Ronald Reagan or someone more appropriate? That Chairman Mao gravatar on you looks hilarious.”
Laziness.
And I don’t remember how to get rid of it.
So Temptress Anna tricked you into carrying a commie gravatar around?
I don’t think she tricked me. I think it was my idea. But I do know that we tossed the idea around.
And the fact is it did seem to work?
“(But we won’t. Because we know what you leftists are like so don’t try it on ever and don’t even daydream about it.)”
Read that again, Laime, and then report it back to the collective.
“The state is funded to protect my property. The state has no rights to anything I own. They can take it by force, but they have no right to it.”
You seem to have little grasp of what proprety rights are or what my argument is. In essence, there are no rights but what we give ourselves and can defend. The government has no rights but what we allow it. It’s all a mutual illusion, but preferable to a world where your ‘property’ is just what you can keep away from others - that is called barbarism, or anarchy.
Luckily we live in a time where we have very inclusive type of mafia called government that will only take a little of our property in return for keeping other mafia-types away and other services. Our government also sets limits on what our property constitutes, how it can be used and traded, by consensus through representation. These parameters change all the time, with property rights getting stronger or weaker, but this just underscores how they are a mere figment of our collective imagination.
GMB, lower inflation was great. Highest poverty level since 1964 was not so great.
“You seem to have little grasp of what proprety rights are or what my argument is. In essence, there are no rights but what we give ourselves and can defend.”
Well if you believe that then might makes right and you have to BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION side with the General.
After all he did win. And that scumbag Allende is dead. He had no rights as well by your own estimation.
“GMB, lower inflation was great. Highest poverty level since 1964 was not so great.”
What year was that?
1990. 5 million Chileans in poverty.
No, I don’t side with Pinoshit because he was illegitimate and a torturing murderer. Legitimate government is a different kettle of mafia. People tolerate a small level of thievery in exchange for avoiding barbarism. If the level gets too high, you have big problems - American Revolution, French Revolution, Chile coup d’etat, etc etc.
And jc, if you have to put words into my mouth to try to discredit me, then you are worse off in the brains department than I thought.
When did the General Quit?
Was there a minimum wage?
What was the savings rate like?
Did they run consistent surpluses?
You see we can diagnose what went ‘wrong’ with the economy if we have enough detail.
But what’s the point?
The Chileans would have NOTHING if the communists had succeeded.
Because communism is the theft of everything. And an attempt to practice it faithfully leads to total collapse and famine.
Everything the Chileans have they have because they defeated the communists.
Hmm… rich (especially A.P. and his cadre) get richer, poor get poorer. Dissenters get locked up, tortured and murdered. No freedom of speech, press or association. Oh, but you’ve got PROPERTY RIGHTS. Fantastic for those with property, as long as they toe the line.
Pinochet - you’ve gotta admire him in a Kurtz sort of way, but get real… he was a scumbag thug mass murderer.
My ex’s family were establishment Chileans - didn’t like Allende one little bit, cheered at the coup, then spent 10 years wondering what the fuck had happened to their society. They were rich, and getting richer, but left PURELY OUT OF GUILT at what was going on under their fascist junta.
GMB, I don’t deny that communism would have been terrible for Chile, and they were heading in that direction (but I believe wouldn’t have kept going as the theft had gotten too large and people were hurting).
But that isn’t the point. In comparison to other mixed economies, Chile didn’t do so great until after the Chicago Boys left. So all the killing and torturing to keep a right-wing dictatorship in place was kind of pointless, wasn’t it?
“They were rich, and getting richer, but left PURELY OUT OF GUILT at what was going on under their fascist junta.”
What was going on. We here are only going on the information we have so far. And it so far only relates to the lead-up to the lawful ousting.
“So all the killing and torturing to keep a right-wing dictatorship in place was kind of pointless, wasn’t it?”
Tell us what went on? And was that all to keep a dictator in or keep the communists out or both?
I think in your head you have a normal country as default. But a dictatorship is your best default if the communists have already run rampant.
A non-communist dictatorship is about the best you can hope for when the communists have gone through with the wrecking-ball.
“…….they were heading in that direction (but I believe wouldn’t have kept going as the theft had gotten too large and people were hurting).”
But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen. It couldn’t go on much further and it didn’t.
You know that punk Allende has to take some responsibility for the dictatorship that followed. They did everything they could to make that happen.
How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?
Once the communist threat has died down the General stands down?
Should we really be hounding him after all these years?
“But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen.”
No, Pinochet stopped the process (plebiscites, etc) by overthrowing the government.
“I think in your head you have a normal country as default. But a dictatorship is your best default if the communists have already run rampant.”
Fair enough, I guess I do. But the communists hadn’t run rampant yet. And I dislike your “anything goes to prevent communism” sentiment.
“And was that all to keep a dictator in or keep the communists out or both?”
Both. If you expand ‘communists’ to ‘anyone who dissented to dictatorship’.
“How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?”
Oh, please. Pinochet was getting old and wanted to retire. He doesn’t have the work ethic of Castro
“But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen.â€
No, Pinochet stopped the process (plebiscites, etc) by overthrowing the government.”"
No no. You are being an idiot.
You said it couldn’t go on much longer. And it didn’t go on much longer. Why are you assuming a communist takeover is followed by a plebiscite.
Do you have a precedent for that?
You are really pissing me off with this idiocy Fatfingers.
Now lets go again. Because you were such an assholde the first time.
“How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?”
This time not a STUPID answer.
And don’t fucking be comparing the General to that cocksucker Castro.
How about a bit less flippancy.
“But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen.â€
No, Pinochet stopped the process (plebiscites, etc) by overthrowing the government.—
No no. You are being an idiot.
You said it couldn’t go on much longer. And it didn’t go on much longer.
Why are you assuming a communist takeover is followed by a plebiscite?
Do you have a precedent for that?
You are really pissing me off with this idiocy Fatfingers.
Now lets go again. Because you were such an assholde the first time.
“How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?â€
How many fatfingers?
How many?
This time not a STUPID answer you commie idiot
.
And don’t be comparing the General to that Castro. Because you are really giving your act away.
How about a bit less flippancy.
I do think we need to be a bit careful throwing poverty stats around. I was very careful on the economics stuff because many of the sites were lefty, and yes - I hate to say this - they were prepared to forgive Allende through the roof inflation for his free health care.
Yes I know that figures don’t lie and that liars don’t figure - all that stuff - but it’s pretty clear that Pinochet was right on the free market economics, and the lefties were right on the human rights abuses.
Now, leaving that issue to one side, where does that leave a (canonized) Allende and a (still dubious) Pinochet now that we know that Allende thought homosexuality could be cured by implanting testicle tissue in the abdomen? Or that Chile would be a better place without the mentally ill? Or that having a gas-chamber designer as a guest in your country was, you know, okay?
“You said it couldn’t go on much longer. And it didn’t go on much longer.”
I meant that it could have been resolved without recourse to a coup.
“Why are you assuming a communist takeover is followed by a plebiscite?”
First of all, you were doing well with keeping the vitriol down, don’t lose it now. I am not being an idiot. A plebiscite was scheduled but never got to go ahead.
I think you are way too easily pissed off. Take a chill pill, mate.
I was flippant because I thought it was a rhetorical question (it was certainly framed as one). My answer - I don’t know. A couple in Africa maybe? Who cares? It’s hardly the central point.
I think we need to know who got killed.
Maybe it was just a civil war that got won so quick for a change that the General made it look to easy.
But we need more information.
A map of Chile to show how vulnerable it would be to a commie inurgency would be a good thing.
I might go looking.
“Or that having a gas-chamber designer as a guest in your country was, you know, okay?”
At the risk of cementing my anti-American position, the US has a long and undistinguished record of harbouring war criminals, not always their own.
I thank you, SL, for showing me some unpleasant things about Allende I did not know about. It makes me like him even less than I did already.
I think the ‘canonisation’ might have something to do with his early demise. Like a rockstar who has one good album, some shit ones, then dies ala Morrison. Their possible future actions if they had lived can be idealised. Or demonised, like jc and GMB attempt to do.
“I meant that it could have been resolved without recourse to a coup.”
It did get resolved without recourse to a coup. His ousting was lawful. The crackdown was another thing.
“I meant that it could have been resolved without recourse to a coup.”
HOW??????
And don’t tell me what to do. You just stop being a callous fuckwit.
You can’t demonise Allende.
Are you fucking mad?
There is nothing good that he did.
He’s the one responsible for all that happened here.
Whats the good album you are talking about.
There is nothing good that his marxist nazi did.
You are a fucking commie pal. Time to come out of the closet.
How is it POSSIBLE to demonise Allende you fucking tool?
He was a marxist. A fucking nazi. And he did great harm.
He destroyed a democracy, almost kicked off a civil war and made a dictatorship virtually inevitable.
What’s the fucking matter with you you idiot.
To my understanding, the worst Nazi the Yanks recruited was Von Braun (rocketman), who was indirectly responsible for a fair number of deaths at the V2 facility in Peenemunde.
To be fair the South American states were notorious - Eichmann, Mengele, Stangl, Rauff etc. High-ups with huge amounts of blood on their hands. However, Allende’s sheltering of Rauff strikes me as odd, and to be fair I still haven’t formed a final view on it. I was actually hoping this thread would head in that rather more exploratory direction, but it hasn’t.
Canonization is one thing that concerns me, as it seems dubious in the extreme. Is there a need among some on the left for a secular sainthood? I really don’t know, and it intrigues me.
“You can’t demonise Allende”
I meant (perhaps I wasn’t clear) that you and jc were demonising his POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONS if Allende hadn’t been deposed. Just like his POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONS seem to have been idealised by some leftists.
I have hung around people that think he could have done great things for Chile if only he had been able to get on with it. You guys think he could have done terrible things to Chile if he had been allowed to get on with it. All of you are just talking what-ifs that really don’t have any bearing on the subject.
“He destroyed a democracy”
No, that’s what Pinochet did. Allende mostly worked within his democratic role, although obviously overstepped legal and constitutional bounds a lot.
“almost kicked off a civil war”
Hey, I agree with that. He was a stupid fucker, OK?
“and made a dictatorship virtually inevitable.”
So now you’re a historical determinist like Marx?
GMB, I am not an idiot. But at least you are keeping it to minor deprecations like ‘idiot’ and ‘asshole’ (which I also am not) - this is a good effort. Have a silver star.
SL, people of all political affiliations have role-models and heroes. It’s not just a lefty thing - think Thatcher and Reagan. Or Churchill, Lincoln, Washington, el Che, and many others. Thing is, to be enamored of any of them you have to be wilfully blind in some areas. People in power typically can’t stay squeaky clean getting there, and certainly don’t get any cleaner once in power.
“He destroyed a democracyâ€
No, that’s what Pinochet did.
No you fucking idiot.
Thats what Allende did.
If you have 500% inflation, goons running around stealing farms…… Thieving of businesses.’
No you are fucking wrong.
Allende destroyed the democracy.
There is no doubt about that.
It looks like he almost started a civil war.
GMB must be cursing JC under his breath for making him promise to refrain from using certain words
A tanking economy does not a democracy destroy, Bird-brain.
Hey, there’s plenty of invective available to GMB without getting crude or ridiculous. I might even appreciate it if it had some thought and originality.
I read recently that Pinochet accounted for around 3000 by death or disappearance. Too many, but against 70m for Mao, 20m for Stalin and 2-3m for Pol Pot it’s pretty small beer.
“I have hung around people that think he could have done great things for Chile if only he had been able to get on with it. ”
What the fuck are you talking about shit-for-brains?
He was stealing everything.
Marxism is the SLAVERY OF EVERYONE via the THEFT OF EVERYTHING.
What do you mean he could have done good things if he had been able to get on with it?
Was he not trying to set up a communist state you fucking idiot?
Is it not VERY clear that he was trying to steal everything?
On the one hand he STOLE everyones savings with his 500% inflation. And his goons stole 1500 farms.
And he stole all these businessess.
“”I have hung around people that think he could have done great things for Chile if only he had been able to get on with it. ”
You fucking moron. If you steal everything you’ve enslaved everyone.
Was he not a communist?
Was he not trying to set up a communist state?
So is it not clear and obvious that had he succeeded it would have been universal slavery, total breakdown, famine or some combination of the above…
This is fucking obvious.
What do you think dummy?
That you are going to STEAL EVERYTHING…… and thereby ENSLAVE EVERYONE…….
And that somehow that will lead to all these great acheivements???
Just how stupid are you?
Rob, it’s tiny in comparison. No doubt. Of course, he didn’t have the population of China or Russia to work w