Allende vs. Pinochet revisited

[Evie]

Let's use a simple scoring system...

1 point for being a "good" leader.
-1 for being a bad leader
0 for unknown.

Freedoms and rights of the Chileans...

-We don't know much how they would have been treated under Allende (who had, what, three months in power?)
-We know they were set under a brutally oppressive regime under Pinochet.

Score :

Allende : 0
Pinochet : -1

How did they take power?

Allende was rightfully elected according to the system in place. Quite democratic.
Pinochet took power through a coup. Very anti-democratic, and violent to boot.

Score

Allende : 1
Pinochet : -2

Democracy, part 2 - how democratic was their stay in power?

Allende seized some powers for himself. Pinochet was a dictator for 20 years or so.

Scoreboard :

Allende : 0
Pinochet : -3.

Economy

Allende, though we can't know for a fact, would probably have led to some heavy trouble for the Chilean economy.

Pinochet, *IIRC*, kept the economy going withou tmuch else to say.

Allende : -1
Pinochet : -3

Final scoreboard : Allende win by two points (or one point if Pinochet really did a lot for the economy somehow...). Unless you can think of additional categories.

------------------------------

RMSharpe, it's nice to see you can list the communist's "interventions". See, I too can list horrors and errors in terms of supported governments (ie, supporting dictatorships/anti-human-rights governments) or factions or meddling in political situations that were none of a country's business :

Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Chili, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, AFGHANISTAN, South Vietnam, South Korea, Turkey, etc.

There are probably loads of others.

The point being : America think it has the moral high ground to give lessons to others, what with being the "Champion of democracy" and all.

It is not. It's an historical myth to say that America has been a "champion of democracy" in the late (second half of the) 20th century.

Champion of anti-communism and anti-socialism, certainly. But not of democracy ; america's support of several very anti-democratic process shows that (as does the interventions against elected leaders)

 

[Zcylen]

the thread is interesting, not some troll posts



edit: btw Nobunaga, excellent explanation

 

[Kafka2]

Originally posted by John Wayne USA


Pinochet was hardly the "most brutal dictator" in Latin America.

There were little over 3,000 victims during the Pinochet regime.

In the socialist utopia of Cuba, there have been 50,000.

The quoted figure of 3000 refers purely to the September 1973 coup.

 

[amadeus]

NPR reported 3,000 over the period of 17 years.

Amnesty International also reports the figure of 3,197 over the 17 year period.

That's the entire period, not just the coup.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Amnesty International also reports the figure of 3,197 over the 17 year period.

I dare you to quote Amnesty International in regards to the United States.

I do not shy to name human rights violations by so-called Communist and Socialist countries, despite the fact that I am far left-winged. I admit wholeheartedly that the concerning countries did many mistakes, and it is good for those people, whose countries have left this system and went towards democracy.
I still believe in Communism and Socialism, but not as a "government type", but an idea.

Now it's your turn.

And I do not want to hear a single word, from any Bush-supporting American, about democracy. Not from the supporters of a president who became president with 47,87% of the votes, while his opponent got 48,38%. In every sane democracy of the world, he would have lost the elections. Bush must be very grateful for the undemocratic Electoral's College, a system many countries got rid of as soon as they had the possibility.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
NPR reported 3,000 over the period of 17 years.

Amnesty International also reports the figure of 3,197 over the 17 year period.

That's the entire period, not just the coup.

Not even 200 per year. What a great guy!

 

[Richard III]

For once, Chairman Yang has a point, with the question "Who is better, Hitler or Stalin?" Golly, some might say it's a false choice, up there with "Burr or Arnold?" or one you might sympathize with, "Batista or Castro?"

Wayne, the whole point is to create a world where we don't have to choose between two worst options. You would do your country, your pre-tend conservative ideals, and yourself a better service to think long and hard about how you can do THAT instead of just being the kind of jackass who makes it so damn tough for me to defend your country in mine...

R.III

 

[murielwasser]

Chile was not turning into any sort of Communist dictatorship. First of all, as previously stated, he was elected by constitutional means and secondly, unlike Bush there was no candidate which recieved more votes than he did. Since there was no majority the winner was determined by the Chilean Senate, who voted for Allende in line with the tradition of voting for whomever got the most votes. Upon learning of his election the US tried to bribe the congress ("Track I") and get the head of the Armed Forces, Rene Schneider, to stage a coup ("Track II"). Neither worked becuase of respect for democratic traditions.
Nor did they in any way move towards Communist alleigance in the cold war; although they DID have diplomatic and economic relations with the Soviets this had already begun under the Frei regime, as did consolidation of the copper mines. CIA reports - yes, the same CIA that overthrew the government - consistently failed to find any evidence of military or intelligence agreements with the Soviet Union.
On the economic front - the economy actually improved significantly during the first two years of the Allende administration. The economy tanked in the last year of the administration due to deliberate American destabilization efforts ("Make the economy scream" said Nixon") - for instance, ALL areas of foreign aid towards Chile were dropped to almost nil, except for (surprise surprise) military aid. Guess who headed the military?
The Allende regime did not censor the media until they called for outright revolution against the government, as the US-financed El Mercurio did. The same laws would apply in the United States.
And finally, even the (resoundingly pro-Allende) death figures have been modified significantly to make the US' friends look better ("Plan Z" anyone?), and it might take a while before all of the information has surfaced.
So I don't think you can even begin to compare the two.

 

[kharas]

What? Only 3000 killed? This guy really knows nothing! Ask any chilean person that lived the situation. Pinochet had no place else to put so many dead bodies he started to create really large hollow walls to put bodies in it! Some say in the first 21 days, Pinochet killed more than 21 years of dictatorial government in Brazil, and here we had 71000 deaths, not to count missing ones!

Are you crazy? Even Comunist Party of Chile is unnable to say that ... myth.

Allende was ellected in a democratic election, so what if he did not get the majority? He had 34% against 32% of Eduardo Frey (someone correct me if I am wrong, but IIRC this is the name) and in three years boosted chilean internal economy and dropped the number of socially excluded people. What pissed lots of people off is that he nationalized the copper mines, and payed $1 (yes, one dollar) for each mine, since the government was the one to estipulate the price. And I say it is a lot, since these same mines granted hundreds of millions to american companies for more than 40 years, while the chileans couldn't see a nickel from this. Even the ones working on the mines were really poor, almost slaves, since they were used to work 14 hours per day inisde the caves!

And Pinochet DID fled the country.

More false information. Second majority was on Alessandri. Frei even was not, and could not be, candidate. Inmediate Reelection is prohibited by Chilean Constitution, just in the modern Pinochet's Constitution (1980) as in earlier Alessandri's (father) Constitution (1925).
Economically, there are not worst period in Chile that Allende's era. 1000% of inflation in september (according to street meditions, not ofical), pre-coup, or, oficially, 500% in june 1973 in enough to show it.
And about copper nationalization:
It was the second part of an State Policies (not government policies), which first phase was called "Chilenization of Copper", during Frei Montalva's Government (1964-1970).
Nationalization of Copper was supported by every political party, from Radical Left Wing (PC and MIR) to the farest Extreme Right Wing (not an direct party to extreme right, only National Party, that was the union of former Liberal (Centre-Right) and Conservative Party (Right and far Right).

Now on Allende's way to socialism, he said that, in the correct moment, it will be neccesary to "paviment the revolution with Black-Powder and corpses". More over, Carlos Altamirano, President of Socialist Party (Allende's Party) said that the civil war, in the better possibilities will take the life of 10.000 chileans. Leftist Journals of that age even said in first page: "Revolution can not be stopped by anybody"... but left failed.

Pinochet tooks government on a destructed Chile and pass a new country to Aylwin, moreover he designed the instrument that he respect in 1988, the current Constitution and, as he lost election (the plebiscit of Yes and No, 1988), he call elections in 1989 and gave power to elected president in March 11° of 1990.

 

[kharas]

Chile was not turning into any sort of Communist dictatorship.

That's fake, I am chilean and know it. Carlos Altamirano, Pascal Allende and many other leftists dirigents of UP recognized it.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

How many people did Allende kill?

 

[amadeus]

How many people would Mengitsu or Mugabe have killed if they'd been shot in 1970?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

How many people would Mengitsu or Mugabe have killed if they'd been shot in 1970?

I assume by your failure to answer my question you're conceding that Allende had committed no crime even remotely justifying his anti-democratic removal. If you think the economic system under which a country operates is more important than such considerations as whether the government is murdering its own citizens then just say so, stop hauling out strawmen by comparing Allende to murdering scum like Pinochet, Castro or, bizarrely, Mugabe and Mengitsu.

Either that, or you could just answer my question!

 

[amadeus]

You are missing the point entirely; Allende didn't have the chance to consolidate power and thus, like Fidel Castro, routinely execute and torture opponents. Between the two autocrats, I'd sooner have the one that did good things for my country (Chile) as opposed to living in a country where people have deliberately infected themselves with AIDS in order to escape (Cuba).

 

[DAv2003]

as opposed to living in a country where people have deliberately infected themselves with AIDS in order to escape (Cuba).

Sources for such a statement? Plus, you have sod all proof that Chile would have turned out like that.

I'd sooner have the one that did good things for my country

Murdering political opponents is a good thing?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

You are missing the point entirely; Allende didn't have the chance to consolidate power and thus, like Fidel Castro, routinely execute and torture opponents. Between the two autocrats, I'd sooner have the one that did good things for my country (Chile) as opposed to living in a country where people have deliberately infected themselves with AIDS in order to escape (Cuba).

And again with the Allende is Castro thing. Castro is murdering scum (you know, a bit like Pinochet). Allende was in (democratically elected) power for 3 years. How many people did Allende kill?

Oh sure, after 3 years in power Allende was about to somehow morph into an evil clone of Castro.

Just say it - you couldn't care less about the victims of Pinochet or Castro's purges, you only care about the economic system.

 

[kharas]

How many people did Allende kill?

500, that is response to your question...

But that is not it's worst crime, their crime was to lead Chile into a Civil War (failed plan) and in that, kill 10k chileans. That was recognized by the UP's parties president's, mainly by Altamirano. That is what needed to be stopped, and Pinochet (and Merino, Mendoza and Leigh) did that.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

500, that is response to your question...

But that is not it's worst crime, their crime was to lead Chile into a Civil War (failed plan) and in that, kill 10k chileans. That was recognized by the UP's parties president's, mainly by Altamirano. That is what needed to be stopped, and Pinochet (and Merino, Mendoza and Leigh) did that.

Well, thank you for actually attempting an answer. Would you care to back up that 500 in any way? As for the events after his death, Allende didn't lead Chile into a civil war, he was violently overthrown and killed. Blaming him for that while at the same time crediting Pinochet is absurd. If he was doing such terrible things why was he elected? I suppose Pinochet knew better than the people of Chile themselves? More like he was a corrupt power hungry tyrant who cared nothing for the wishes of the people.

 

[Tomas2005]

I really don't want to excuse the terror of Pinochet's government, but please don't take Allende and his Socialist Party and Unidad Popular government as innocent democrats, who in no way wanted to make Chile a second Cuba.

To try to confute such thoughts, let's take a look:

http://www.salvador-allende.cl/
A website dedicated to S. A. (There's a homage to Allende by Sergio Vuskovic Rojo who left Chile after Pinochet got to power, and they put links to a website about torture under Pinochet. Either this S. A. web is a left-wing site, or it is not, but then I'd hardly call it biased against S. A. / Soc. Party.)

http://www.salvador-allende.cl/Part...o Socialista en la lucha Mundial y Contin.pdf

El Partido Socialista en la lucha Mundial y Continental por el Socialismo
Informe básico sobre la situación internacional

[Some excerpts from the Soc. Party 1967 document run through Eng - Sp translator, I believe the message is clear, though; PS - Socialist Party, PC - Communist Party]

The SOCIALIST PARTY IN the WORLD-WIDE and CONTINENTAL FIGHT BY the SOCIALISM
Basic report on the international situation
Thesis of international policy that will discuss the Socialist Party in its Congress of Chillán. It was elaborated by a commission in which Clodomiro Almeyda, Agustín Alvarez Villablanca, Moral Carlos, Julio Benítez and Edmundo Serani Full stop N° 42 of the 22 of November of 1967 participated

"Consequent with its marxist-leninist definition, our party sustains the principle of the proletarian internationalism, that at this moment is expressed in the world-wide fight to defeat to imperialism in all the fronts and the construction of a socialist world integrated internationally."

Marxist-leninist. That's where every genuine communistic country started.


"Our party support with the initiated socialist processes of construction in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Asia and Latin America. It greets each progress in the material or ideological laying of foundations of his development by the ways of the collective property and planning. It defends the conquests obtained by the working class in those countries against the imperialistic aggression. It worries to us that the divergences between the Soviet PC and the Chinese PC, prevent the march towards the necessary unit of action of the towns in their fight against imperialism."

"The PS must reject the application of the policy of pacific coexistence in Latin America, understood by the Soviet diplomacy and the communist parties as conciliation between the classes and as pacification in the fight of the towns of the continent as opposed to imperialism and to the dominant oligarchies."

What is the opposite of pacific coexistence, if not violence.


"The best way to defend the accomplishments of the socialist field is to extend the world-wide revolution, to strike to imperialism everywhere and at all costs possible."

"A true revolution - and the Cuban is it cannot stop in mere tasks of democratization, independence and industrialization, nor can advance while she has a bourgeois conduction. In Cuba, the revolutionary intervention of workers, poor farmers and average layers, under an audacious and consequent marxistaleninista commando, has been fulfilling this program in the measurement in which it advances in the socialist construction. The Cuban Revolution, or became Socialist or perished."

This is a typical revolutionary socialist/communist speech. Why on Earth should exactly SP of Chile not talk like this, when every other radical socialists/communists in the world did - and where they got their countries with such policy in regards to democracy and human rights.


"Cuba it has managed to stay until today like an example of which it can be a socialist republic."

Cuba was an example for Chilean socialists.


"The Socialists we have recognized the principle of which the final confrontation of the towns pressed with imperialism will occur in the field of the armed warfare. While one prepares the towns, ideologically and materially for this fight, it is necessary to adopt all class of concrete actions against imperialism, to open numerous fronts of battle in the fields economic, political, cultural, youthful, labor, farmer, etc., that distracts the imperialistic forces and to its unconditional Creole servants and it is them discrediting and, therefore, debilitating gradually. Only in the practical activity they will be created the subjective human conditions that make of each socialist militant a incorruptible social, anticapitalist and anti-imperialist fighter, that is to say, an authentic revolutionary. Therefore the victory of the socialism will be only obtained sometimes and it denotes it of imperialism."

If someone stands for the principle of the final confrontation on the field of the armed warfare, it hardly means anything less bad than massacres or a civil war.


(And just for case anyone argues this was 1967, there's a quote from 1971 Soc. Party resolution: "Consustancial with this policy of the Front of Workers and as a concrete exigency of the tasks that faces the popular movement, arises the necessity from fortification of the communist socialist unit, whose differences must be surpassed in the action and through the ideological discussion. Also, the relations of the socialist parties and communist with other Marxist movements are due to define in the action, being established the alliances political that are necessary based on the process of the Chilean revolution. [...] [Soc. Party] educates its militancy in her and who rejects all bureaucratic and caudillista tendency emphatically. Only fulfilling these premises, the Socialist Party will be able to prepare to itself and the masses for the decisive confrontation with the bourgeoisie and imperialism." http://www.salvador-allende.cl/Partido Socialista/70-73/Resoluciones de La Serena.pdf)

Somehow I do see the coup itself as justified in the light of what was going on in Chile before 1973. Something had to happen. On the other hand, I recognize Allende vs. Pinochet is comparing two evils. The thing is, communism was the main global danger in the Cold War era.

 

[innonimatu]

"The PS must reject the application of the policy of pacific coexistence in Latin America, understood by the Soviet diplomacy and the communist parties as conciliation between the classes and as pacification in the fight of the towns of the continent as opposed to imperialism and to the dominant oligarchies."

What is the opposite of pacific coexistence, if not violence.

"The best way to defend the accomplishments of the socialist field is to extend the world-wide revolution, to strike to imperialism everywhere and at all costs possible."

That is false. “Peaceful coexistence” (not “pacific coexistence&#8221 was the official policy (proclaimed so by Brezhnev in 1973, but started after Khrushchev’s fall) of the USSR regarding the west. It refers both to the period of détente between the US and the USSR. It also meant that both the USSR and the US would not supporting communist revolutions in each others established areas of influence. The third world, through, was up for grabs…
In the phrase you quote the rejection of this principle does not seem to necessarily refer to any kind of violence.

"A true revolution - and the Cuban is it cannot stop in mere tasks of democratization, independence and industrialization, nor can advance while she has a bourgeois conduction. In Cuba, the revolutionary intervention of workers, poor farmers and average layers, under an audacious and consequent marxistaleninista commando, has been fulfilling this program in the measurement in which it advances in the socialist construction. The Cuban Revolution, or became Socialist or perished."

This is a typical revolutionary socialist/communist speech. Why on Earth should exactly SP of Chile not talk like this, when every other radical socialists/communists in the world did - and where they got their countries with such policy in regards to democracy and human rights.

Indeed. Still, I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Salvador Allende’s government violated any human rights. An excerpt from a thesis presented to a congress of the Chilean socialist party means very little.
It has been alleged here, by this “kharas”, that Allende’s party planned a civil war and that Allende’s government murdered 500 people. As to the second claim, I call it a lie and challenge kharas to back up his claim. As to the first, think a little: how could a party that governed a country for years and allegedly planned a civil war be so easily overthrown by a rebellion of its own military? Moreover, how could such a ruthless (“planned a civil war to kill 10.000 people!&#8221 and bellicose party be totally subdued within a few hours, and kept subdued for two decades by killing only some 3,197 of its alleged militants?

What I gather from this thread is that Pinochet’s apologists are fond of cherry-picking the most inflammatory declarations by a few members of the chilean socialist party, made during years of heated political debate, in a vain hope to somehow justify general Pinochet’s treachery against his own state, in 1973.

If someone stands for the principle of the final confrontation on the field of the armed warfare, it hardly means anything less bad than massacres or a civil war.
(&#8230
Somehow I do see the coup itself as justified in the light of what was going on in Chile before 1973. Something had to happen. On the other hand, I recognize Allende vs. Pinochet is comparing two evils. The thing is, communism was the main global danger in the Cold War era.

Think! If the Chilean socialist party was indeed planning a civil war, why were no military tightly under its control (quite the opposite)? Why was it suppressed so easily? Allende and his government never endorsed any thoughts of a civil war. That’s why they died and Pinochet ruled as autocrat of Chile (I will not even grace him with the title of dictator).