Augusto Pinochet Has Died

[Enkidu Warrior]

Pinochet and Castro are both defended by the zealots of their respective ideologies. I don't see why people are claiming that Pinochet is given a harder time. There are plenty of high profile people who would defend him (Kissinger and Thatcher are certainly members of his fan club). The important thing is that the rest of us condemn them both as the scum that they are.

 

[luiz]

I could just as well quote any of the Castro vs Pinochet posts, but since Luiz is as ever the most eloquent person I (partly) disagree with...

Everyone seems to be seeing the Castro/Pinochet thing as Communism vs Capitalism but that seems totally false to me. Neither system encourages murder. You didn't hear Marx or Friedman saying "Thou shalt murder thy political opponents". The real dualism here is Democracy vs Authoritarianism.

Pinochet and Castro are both murderous dictators who deserve worse than the uneventful deaths that they have had/will have. It seems perverse to me to throw Allende in with Castro. What was Allende's death toll exactly? Do his economic policies really justify comparisons with murderers? Pinochet has more in common with Castro than Allende does, at least where it matters. Pinochet and Castro "saved" their respective countries from democracy, and killed a lot of people in the process.

What did Allende do to deserve comparisons with Castro?

I'm not nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize or anything, but it seems pretty harsh, and since Castro was never a contender to lead Chile's government, it's surely a false choice that everyone is debating.

Good post. The dichotomy is indeed Authoritarianism vs Democracy, I should have mentioned that.

But it still worth mentioning that one sort of Authoritarianism is tolerated, even praised, while another is almost universally condemned. I don't know, maybe this is not that much case in the rest of the world, but in South America it is the absolute reality.

 

[Jawz II]

No, I said that everyone condemns Pinochet and so do I. However not everybody condemns Castro, and he is far worse.

It makes me angry that no leader expressed mourning over Pinochet's death, but we all know what Lula, Chávez and co. will say when the Butcher of Havana finally kicks the buckett. Hypocrisy makes me angry.

you did? good for you, i didnt know. i was talking to winner.

youre probably right.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

But it still worth mentioning that one sort of Authoritarianism is tolerated, even praised, while another is almost universally condemned.

This is really a matter of perspective. I know if I was you I'd feel a double standard knowing that my President would excuse similar atrocities in Cuba, but back in the UK I'd have to put up with praise for Pinochet, while Castro is regularly denounced by all but the lunatic fringe. Don't let the lapses of others get in the way of a self-evident truth. There's no excuse for Authoritarianism.

 

[NeoT]

At last the dictator i gone. After torturing more than 27.000 peole, killing more than 3.000, exiling more than 30.000, he is dead. He didn´t paid for what he did, he lived happily in his house, he was never condemned. At least he will never breath again, that´s a relief. Aniway he destroyed my contry, destroyed the great education that my country once had, selling all the good things of my country. He turned it in a little USA. He betrayed the democraticly elected president... he stole millions of dolars. But, even knowing that, hundreds gather to cry because he is gone.

This is a new individualism that has penetrated in a lot of countries... people just want money this days... they dont care abou the deaths and the tortures, they just care about their money. The supporters of Pinochet were dissapointed of him, only when they discovered that he had stolen millions.

Hope other dictator will be condemned for the atrocities that they have commited. The people shouldn´t let people like Pinochet live happily after what they did.

 

[silver 2039]

USSR would have ceased to exist, splitting early into it's seperate republics. Mao would probably have never defeated the Nationalists in China, The Kuril Islands were still be Japanese (probably), Germany would never have been divided and probably wouldn't even have been split into administrative zones either, Korean and Vietnam wars may never have happened....

You're kidding right? Either that or you hopelessly overestimate the military capabality of the Allies, and the willpower and morale of their people. The USSR at the end of World War II had 15,000,000 soldiers and massive amounts of equipment. To defeat the USSR you would have to push them back from Berlin, all the way back to Moscow...something I consider extremeley unlikley considering how much the supply lines would be overextended, how many soldiers would have to be commited, money, equipment, manpower etc...and you are of course assuming that the Allies would suddenly and randomly turn upon one of their allies without provacation and the Japanese yet undefeated, and Europe and Asia still in ruins, and start World War III on a whim. Brilliant, and not only that you expect US victory much the less....jeez.

 

[Winner]

yes, yes you did.

now, who said you have only 2 options? you did.

No, I didn't

Notice that tiny "if" word? I know my English isn't exactly perfect, but I think I have an idea about conditionals

also what you said is a whole other thread altogether. it depends on which right wing dictator youre comparing with which left wing dictator. i could go on and on about how much better than hitler fidel castro is, but there would be no point to it, would it? different time, different countries, different everything.

if youre really trying to do a fair comparison, youd have to compare it to a hypothetic what if scenario; what if some communist guy had seized power in chile at the same time instead of pinochet etc. of course thats an excersize in futility, i mean how would you know if communists would be better or worse? you cant.

yet you do state that you prefer one kind of crazy evil compared to --> ?.
and youre worse off fort it.

I said that I would prefer a right wing dictator, but I didn't say that he is better because I like him more. In fact, it is the other way round - I like him more because he is less evil

 

[Rossiya]

Pinochet is dead???

Woot!

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You're kidding right? Either that or you hopelessly overestimate the military capabality of the Allies, and the willpower and morale of their people. The USSR at the end of World War II had 15,000,000 soldiers and massive amounts of equipment. To defeat the USSR you would have to push them back from Berlin, all the way back to Moscow...something I consider extremeley unlikley considering how much the supply lines would be overextended, how many soldiers would have to be commited, money, equipment, manpower etc...and you are of course assuming that the Allies would suddenly and randomly turn upon one of their allies without provacation and the Japanese yet undefeated, and Europe and Asia still in ruins, and start World War III on a whim. Brilliant, and not only that you expect US victory much the less....jeez.

Much of the Soviet military capacity during WWII came from the United States via the lend-lease program. If the United States had intended to turn on the Soviet Union after defeating Germany, the United States would simply have had to stop sending trucks, fuel, and other war supplies and watch Germany and the Soviet Union kill each other off.

Come to think of it, the United States probably would not succeed in such a war but it would be because of political will and not because of military strength.




Anyway, back to Pinochet. In the wikipedia article, it says that Pinochet justified his coup against Allende because Allende violated the Chilean Constitution. I imaging this was merely a poor excuse but what exactly did Allende do? Was it just his communist policies that were unconstitutional?

 

[cegman]

I had read that Chile's economy is going quite well. I don't know what it was like before the revolution but I don't believe that it was better.

 

[mrtn]

I could just as well quote any of the Castro vs Pinochet posts, but since Luiz is as ever the most eloquent person I (partly) disagree with...

Everyone seems to be seeing the Castro/Pinochet thing as Communism vs Capitalism but that seems totally false to me. Neither system encourages murder. You didn't hear Marx or Friedman saying "Thou shalt murder thy political opponents". The real dualism here is Democracy vs Authoritarianism.

Pinochet and Castro are both murderous dictators who deserve worse than the uneventful deaths that they have had/will have. It seems perverse to me to throw Allende in with Castro. What was Allende's death toll exactly? Do his economic policies really justify comparisons with murderers? Pinochet has more in common with Castro than Allende does, at least where it matters. Pinochet and Castro "saved" their respective countries from democracy, and killed a lot of people in the process.

What did Allende do to deserve comparisons with Castro?

I'm not nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize or anything, but it seems pretty harsh, and since Castro was never a contender to lead Chile's government, it's surely a false choice that everyone is debating.

Very good post!

The only bad thing with Pinochets death is that he wasn't sentenced in court first.

 

[Urederra]

Everyone seems to be seeing the Castro/Pinochet thing as Communism vs Capitalism but that seems totally false to me. Neither system encourages murder. You didn't hear Marx or Friedman saying "Thou shalt murder thy political opponents". The real dualism here is Democracy vs Authoritarianism.

Sorry, but I don't think your post is that good...

As he wrote in his "Critique of the Gotha Program", "between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." [4] Yet he was aware of the possibility that in some countries, with strong democratic institutional structures (e.g. Britain, the US and the Netherlands) this transformation could occur through peaceful means, while in countries with a strong centralized state-oriented traditions, like France and Germany, the upheaval will have to be violent.

Karl Marx encouraged the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and that cannot be possible without removing the ones that opposed the communist ideal.

 

[Richard Cribb]

This board is just a-maz-ing.
And that is necessarily not a good thing.
Just imagine; Pinochet dies. Now one could expect that he would be the topic of the thread, and to a certain extent that happens, but if you think that it is going to stay only like that, you underestimate a certain subgroup which is always ready to strike.
And quite right; pretty soon you have a whole little madrigal choir of the resident regressives whining in falsetto about the evil - Castro! - and that nobody really can't critize uncle Augusto if they not at the same time lambast Fidel a bit. Of course this is not a bad rhetorical strategy, but on the other hand it is pretty much last years collection, to say the least. At least, I for one am not impressed.
So I think I stick to say a few words about the dead general.
From what I know he seems to have been quite an underwhelming person, at least when judging his political abilities and moral qualities. He was chosen by his masters (The US administration had in their wisdom found out that they had to correct the stupidity of the Chilean people, and the domestic elite wasn't too happy with the decision of hoi polloi either.) to owerthrow a democracy, implement a military dictatorship, under which protective wings the Chicago boys could roam freely (no annoying unions, for instance). Result: An economic miracle - that is for the rich and the upper middle class:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm
Just to digress a little; I think people who use the dichotomy Authoritariansm vs Democracy as the Philosopher's Stone typically must have lived a sheltered life. I too would be very happy to se for political reforms on Cuba, but there is a not unimportant difference between a regime that bleeds the poor dry and one that provides good health care and educational possibilities for them.
There is a difference between inheriting a dictatorship and establishing one also, and there certainly is a difference between having the assistance and support from the biggest post-ww2 bully, and being exposed to a low intensity-war from the very same.
Perhaps that offers some food for thoughts as well...
On the thread about uncle Milt; I remarked that he was a splendid illustraton on the saying that the best die young. Pinochet is surely another example on just that.

 

[nonconformist]

And again the impotance of international law is revealed.
We're letting all of these people get away with it-Slobodan Milosevic, and now Augusto Pinochet.
When we have the trial of middle Eastern dictators we've deposed, under what is hardly regarded as a fair trial, yet we allow these ofd duffers, old cronies, and bastards to linger around in a state of "ill heealth" and "diminished" capabilities, it takes away a lot of credence that the West may have to try these people.
How many have been tried, let alone convicted?

I can count dozens who weren't.

 

[Jawz II]

No, I didn't

Notice that tiny "if" word? I know my English isn't exactly perfect, but I think I have an idea about conditionals



I said that I would prefer a right wing dictator, but I didn't say that he is better because I like him more. In fact, it is the other way round - I like him more because he is less evil

so you said IF, what diffrence does that make? i didnt make you say if you had to choose from 2 dictators, you said it, now ask yourself why you said it.


ok the 2nd part of your post? that really is

the fact that you assume the right wing dictator would be better, when in reality the right wing ones have killed many more people, is crazy.

dinky dao.

 

[amadeus]

Pinochet is dead???

Woot!

Says the poster with the avatar of the man who stayed up nights to sign death warrants, worshipped Stalin, and said Guatemala could have prevented an anti-communist coup if they just staged a few public executions.

 

[downtown]

I still don't see what Castro has to do with this thread. Why do we have to keep trying to one-up each other! (Well, the tyrant that I kind of support isnt as bad as the tyrant that you kind of support. Is not! Is too!)

Please. You're missing the point.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Sorry, but I don't think your post is that good...

Karl Marx encouraged the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, and that cannot be possible without removing the ones that opposed the communist ideal.

Dictatorship of the proletariat has as many interpretations as I could care to imagine. It only says "kill the counter-revolutionaries" if you want it to. Castro obviously does. What was Allende's death toll again?

 

[Appassionato]

Dictatorship of the proletariat has as many interpretations as I could care to imagine. It only says "kill the counter-revolutionaries" if you want it to. Castro obviously does. What was Allende's death toll again?

Allende wasn't the leader of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, though. He was the leader of a Democratic Socialist government. The Marxist Dictatorship of the Proletariat does seem to have an inherent tendency towards violence and abuse of power.

 

[innonimatu]

Good riddance. The man was a coward, an incompetent, and a traitor to his own people. Too bad for Chile that Allende was dumb enough to trust him.

How many have been tried, let alone convicted?

I can count dozens who weren't.

And we all know why they won't ever be brought to trial: even with their "diminished" capabilities they might just be capable of recounting how they were brought to power, who supported them...

Still, even if it were possible, putting former dictators to a fair trial is always tricky: new laws can't have (or shouldn't have) retroactive effects and the laws from the time they ruled probably won't allow them to be condemned. Sometimes leaving them free is the price that must be paid to show the difference between their dictatorship and a law-abiding, free political regime.

As for international courts, I was once all for it, but it now seems to me that they are pure hypocrisy, as many of those countries that support them can’t even be bothered to condemn the current dictators... and in some parts of the world they are quite right, the current dictators may be better than any other alternative.