Pinochet Common Misconceptions

[RomanKing]

As a former Chileno (I live in Canada now, immigrated 6 years ago with my family) I wanted to make a post about common misconceptions about General Pinochet that I often hear from Canadians, but more so from Americans and give people the oppritunity to ask some questions. I grew up in Chile and my family is from there and many people in Chile still love Pinochet, so here's a bit about what was going on at the time...

Allende regime in Chile was about to exterminate most people by destruction of private property and free economy and many Chileans were dying of hunger. Many were executed by so-called "friends" of the people (communist guerillas from Cuba). After Allende was charges with 22 constitutional violations General was ordered by the Chilean legislature to bring back order and save our country.

Allende had destroyed the Chilean economy, so General hired Chicago economists to revive it and save his people. Private property was reinstated, market and prices returned and soon the food shortages disappeared. General's free market reforms made Chile the strongest economy in South America. Chile was no longer a nation of slaves and serfs, but of private businessmen.

If you have questions I will try and answer as best I can.

I will also update the OP periodically with any interesting discussion that has taken place and include the post numbers below if anyone wants to see the conversation that lead up to it.

Spoiler September 11, 1973 :

Post #79

Glory to the Savior of our Nation.

Allende left Chile's economy in ruins and trampled the rule of law so badly he brought the country to the brink of civil war. He was stopped only when the legislature charged him with 22 constitutional violations and ordered Chile's military to oust him.

As Chilean jets strafed La Moneda presidential palace Sept. 11, 1973, Allende shot himself with a gold-plated submachine gun given to him by Castro.

Spoiler Hammer of the Right? :

Post #32

Pinochet wasn't a fascist. He was a dictator who reinstated the free market and property rights. He also stabilized the country and put and end to the killings by communist guerillas.

Many people in Chile consider General Pinochet to be a savior.

Post #65, 66

Fun little semantic question: does being authoritarian and right-wing automatically make someone a fascist? Did Pinochet have any special qualities that set him apart from all the other right-wing dictators of his time?

I do not believe he was Fascist. He was certainly an authoritarian dictator, but not Fascist if we take the literal definition of it. He had no popular movement or party backing him (he was military dictator), his regime was not imperialist and not xenophobic/genocidal towards foreigners. This does not make him morally 'good' but it is a distinction that should be noted.

Spoiler Some Of My Responses #1 :

Post #67

Wow. None of you have been very welcoming or accommodating to RomanKing have you? I mean, the guy comes here to discuss his point of view on a subject and you all immediately just start right in with the mockery and attacks without even hearing what he has to say.

RomanKing, first off welcome to CFCOT. Second, let's start over with a more civil discussion. I'll start by asking: What misconceptions of Pinochet are you aiming to clear up?

Thank you for politely asking a civil question and not calling for my death, or the deaths of my family members for having survived a military junta.

The biggest misconception I hear is that General was a blood-thirsty fascist who just wanted to seize power for the sake of power and was a puppet of the CIA. This is an infantile viewpoint that is most often repeated by middle-class university educated Westerners and wanna-be communists while they simultaneously enjoy all of the freedoms and wealth that a free market and representative democracy provides them. They have been taught a fiction about what communism is and it is truly sickening.

Communism is a form totalitarianism. Period. It is also one of the worst forms because it denies people the ability to amass wealth and holds them hostage for all of their basic needs. That is of course if the Communists decide you are worthy enough to live in the hell they have created for you.

The biggest lie that I often hear is that the Communists were peaceful and Allende had created a utopia and because he was elected he had a mandate to implement dogmatic radical far-left reforms. The truth is that Allende was only elected with 36% of the vote and needed to govern in a moderate center-left manner to carry the +60% who had voted for center and right-wing parties. Instead he sided with radical communist agitators and subversives to instigate civil unrest to usurp power. I should really do an entire post later on about exactly how communists subvert nation states in order to instigate violence and revolution.

Your question is actually quite broad, so I will answer some other questions first and come back to this one

Judging from your OP they probably had it coming.

My Aunt, Uncle, and their 4 year old daughter were hauled off of a bus with 15 or so other people and shot in back of the head at close range by communist guerillas. My grandmother had to arrange to have closed caskets for all of them.

Oh, but praising Pinochet and thus implicitly saying his victims had it coming isn't?
At least I'm open and lucid about my opinion here. I'm on the side of the Communist guerrillas. I support armed struggle against figures like Pinochet.

You disgust me.

So how many people actually died as a result of communist repression in Chile before or during Allende's presidency? I've never read anything credible to point to anything serious going on there. Although a disorganized resistance movement did make a few bombings and killed a few people while Pinochet was in power, the vast majority of the left-wing violence in the Southern Cone at the time was in Argentina and Uruguay, where actual left-wing terrorism did happen although the right-wing military response was of course wildly disproportionate.

It's really not well known, as the so-called "scholars" and liberal critics like to sympathize with the communists for political reasons, while ignoring the context of the situation and the covert nature of soviet-style subversion which was going on. The Soviets and Cuba were both directly involved in the internal affairs of the country as well as the USA. Even in terms of how many people disappeared after General Pinochet took power is not well known. We could discuss numbers, but everyone here is going to disagree.

What I can tell you with certainty is the economy was stable before the Allende regime took power. Within months of taking power armed gangs of leftists invaded homes and took over factories and farms, which was actively encouraged by Castro. This lead to food shortages and food strikes. Many of the farms taken over by the communists failed. Allende began confiscating property, seizing business, debasing the currency and at one point Inflation reached 1,000%. He also intimidated his opposition and bankrupted newspapers that criticized him. Allende put tanks into the streets and shoehorned members of his military into civilian cabinet positions.

That is not what I said. My questions still stand. Why are you willing to ignore these crimes simply because your familial circle benefited from the regime?

It is embarrassing how facilely simple-minded and agenda driven Western academia is to presume that functioning democracy is always an option, no matter the conditions prevailing in a country. In Chile it probably wasn't.

If it wasn't for the 3000 deaths caused directly or indirectly by General Pinochet, Chile would be a third world country like its neighbors Peru and Bolivia, where thousands die every year from poverty. 3,000 deaths over 17 years is approximately 200 per year and most of these people were actively fighting against the government. They were really bad people.

Spoiler Some Of My Responses #2 :

Posts #85-92

What a pity he didn't appoint himself a senator for life then.

1988 - General Pinochet's government held a referendum if there should be democratic elections. The country voted yes.
1989-90 - Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin wins the presidential election. General Pinochet peacefully transfers power to the new government and remains commander-in-chief of the army.

When General retired he became a senator-for-life in accordance with the Constitution.

This is quite ideological thing. I would totally love to have Pinochet in my country at 1945. But not after fall of iron curtain. Some countries got right wing dictator and it didnt turn well.

Where are you from, if you don't mind?

Prague, Czech Republic

The communist coup of Czechoslovakia was in 1948.

Prague is beautiful you are fortunate to live in such a place.

For those who may not know. The way communist subversion works, as REDY probably knows having them trample the rule of law in Czechoslovakia as well, is the communists and their subversives actively instigate civil unrest and violence until the society can no longer function. Their goal is civil war/communist coup, or soviet/communist invasion where the communists take control of all branches of government and all means of production. Communist Totalitarianism.

The only way this can be avoided during late stage subversion is if your countrymen are fortunate enough to have a savior like General Pinochet, which in Czechoslovakia's case probably would have been needed in 1945, as REDY said. Earlier on communist revolution can be avoided by denying civil rights of subversive groups until the country is once again stabilized and the communist threat is removed.

After Allende was elected in my country suddenly everything was chaos and every decision the government would make only made things worse. The communists were actively working against the people.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Hahahahaha

 

[RomanKing]

Having relatives who were murdered by communist guerillas and other family members who lived through the junta who witnessed people starving to death and being shot down in the streets I must say, I really don't see what's so funny about it, so unless you have a question I would appreciate it if you stayed clear of this thread.

 

[shadowplay]

Shout out to Victor Jara.

Oh, wait.

 

[RomanKing]

Do you have a question or, would you rather throw out the names of subversive political activists and pretend that you said something of substance?

 

[Bugfatty300]

After all Uncle Sam did for you...you immigrated to stupid ol Canada?

 

[Kozmos]

Critics argue the neoliberal economic policies of the Pinochet regime resulted in widening inequality and deepening poverty as they negatively impacted the wages, benefits and working conditions of Chile's working class.[66][67] According to Chilean economist Alejandro Foxley, by the end of Pinochet's reign around 44% of Chilean families were living below the poverty line.[68] According to The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, by the late 1980s the economy had stabilized and was growing, but around 45% of the population had fallen into poverty while the wealthiest 10% saw their incomes rise by 83%.[69]

Sounds like great success to me.

 

[RomanKing]

After all Uncle Sam did for you...you immigrated to stupid ol Canada?

I attended university in Canada

Sounds like great success to me.

And staving to death under Allende regime was?

General made Chile the strongest economy in South America. Your statistics are quite biased considering much of South America lives below the poverty line. I also don't know what "neoliberal economic polices" are suppose to be, but General reinstated the free market. Your statistics say more about the political views of liberal critics who created them and what they would like you to believe than they do about the state of Chile.

 

[Synobun]

It seems, based on the available evidence, that neither Pinochet or Allende were excellent choices for Chile. It also seems as though your approval of Pinochet is based on your own personal experience and not statistics and through the "bigger picture" which is certainly understandable but it does mean any discussion about this will fall flat. It relies on emotion instead of fact.

 

[RomanKing]

It seems, based on the available evidence, that neither Pinochet or Allende were excellent choices for Chile. It also seems as though your approval of Pinochet is based on your own personal experience and not statistics and through the "bigger picture" which is certainly understandable but it does mean any discussion about this will fall flat. It relies on emotion instead of fact.

It is based on personal experience of myself, friends, and relatives who lived through it. Not emotions. Life was certainly better with General Pinochet. There is no question about it.

It seems that only the liberal "scholars" in the West would prefer to make the emotional argument that Chile wasn't descending into factional violence and starvation under Allende regime for their own political reasons, which is divorced from reality.

 

[Synobun]

It is based on personal experience of myself, friends, and relatives who lived through it. Not emotion.

Wat.

There isn't much of an incentive towards tarnishing Pinochet's reputation without basis. The scholars you dismiss are just as vocal about their resistance to Allende's policies. The facts show that Chilean society did not experience an uptick of economic prosperity as a result of Pinochet's reform until another government took control afterwards.

 

[Kozmos]

And staving to death under Allende regime was?

General made Chile the strongest economy in South America. Your statistics are quite biased considering much of South America lives below the poverty line. I also don't know what "neoliberal economic polices" are suppose to be, but General reinstated the free market. Your statistics say more about the political views of liberal critics who created them and what they would like you to believe than they do about the state of Chile.

First time I hear about poverty statistics being biased. If you don't even know what neoliberal econ policies are how can you talk about things being better? I'm sure they were, for you and your family. I'm no stranger to socialist regimes and the corrupt privatization that follows from them. In any case, the CIA case archives are mostly declassified regarding this period. Feel free to look them up.

 

[RomanKing]

Chile's economy had collapsed and people were staving under a failed Allende regime and the country was descending into factional violence fueled by communist guerillas and subversives. This considered, you're trying to tell me that your statistics from liberal critics and communist fetishists about poverty are relevant?

Do either of you have a question, or are you going to insist on telling everyone that a failed state is preferable to a stable one with a growing economy?

 

[FriendlyFire]

It seems that only the liberal "scholars" in the West would prefer to make the emotional argument that Chile wasn't descending into factional violence and starvation under Allende regime for their own political reasons, which is divorced from reality.

Pretty much when you start seizing farm lands and re-distributing them it usually ends in mass starvation
But the Chile economy was already tanking, the government was in serious trouble whether it would have survived the crisis is another question

You just traded a terrible regime for another terriable regime

 

[Valka D'Ur]

@RomanKing: There is a type of thread on this forum called "Ask a(n)...." in which it's expected that the OP answers other peoples' questions. Otherwise, it's reasonable for posters to expect to be allowed to discuss, refute, agree, or whatever else with the OP and each other.

Since this one wasn't explicitly titled "Ask a (not sure what you're portraying yourself as... a former citizen of Chile?), the situation looks normal to me.

After all Uncle Sam did for you...you immigrated to stupid ol Canada?

Ex-cuse me?

I do hope you're not painting all Canadians, whether born here or immigrated here, as stupid.

 

[Synobun]

Do either of you have a question, or are you going to insist on telling everyone that a failed state is preferable to a stable one with a growing economy?

Okay, I have a question. Why do you consciously choose to ignore the sins of Pinochet's regime because your family personally benefited more from his rule than Allende's? Are you okay with turning a blind eye to ethics and broader theory as long as you rise to the top?

 

[RomanKing]

You just traded a terrible regime for another terriable regime

Many people would disagree with you. American Liberalism isn't a universal value although many Americans on the left would like to believe so.

Okay, I have a question. Why do you consciously choose to ignore the sins of Pinochet's regime because your family personally benefited more from his rule than Allende's? Are you okay with turning a blind eye to ethics and broader theory as long as you rise to the top?

Everyone was better off except for the communists who wanted a fight and didn't care about the collapsing economy, or the suffering of the people. Chile was actively being subverted by foreign communist powers at the time.

I'd like to ask you what you consider ethics to be, because if it's 'American Liberalism' I would have to disagree with you. I believe it is ethical to defend yourself from those attacking you, destroying one's country, seizing their property, and destroying their rights to own property. I also believe it is entirely ethical to defend one's culture and traditions. Violently if necessary.

 

[Kozmos]

Chile's economy had collapsed and people were staving under a failed Allende regime and the country was descending into factional violence fueled by communist guerillas and subversives. This considered, you're trying to tell me that your statistics from liberal critics and communist fetishists about poverty are relevant?

Fueled by CIA ops and destabilizing hostile foreign policy? The same communist fetishists who studied from the Chicago school of economics? Ay lmao. I'm a centrist myself, but I always like to see the mouth foam of extreme left/right.

 

[RomanKing]

I support Chileno values, a free market, property rights, and a stable country. If that makes me an extremist to you perhaps you should examine your own beliefs more closely.

 

[Synobun]

Everyone was better off except...

... except for the several thousand people put into internment camps, tortured, killed, forcibly disappeared, the 23% of people who were unemployed, and the 45% of people who lived in squalor.

All communist fetishists, of course.