Pinochet: savior of Chile or useless fascist?

[Hygro]

I was discussing Austrian economics with one of my profs and his answer for its value today was that it lead to Chicago economics. He then pointed out Chicago economics' big success in Chile, human rights abuses aside. I was checking the GDP/capita graph on wikipedia and it didn't look like any success to me. In fact, their economy didn't really take off until the fiercest elements of Chicago doctrine were let go.

Given that Pinochet stopped socialism and instituted an economic policy that eventually lead to some fantastic growth way after he took power, was he over all a good force? Did he save Chile from the stagnation and economic decay that comes with communism and Allende's well intentioned but broken economic policies? Or was he simply a junta goon who should only be remembered for overthrowing the peoples' choice while torturing and disappearing (which is worse than murdering) his citizens, and then could later credit growth unrelated to his policies?

 

[Karalysia]

Or was he simply a junta goon who should only be remembered for overthrowing the peoples' choice while torturing and disappearing (which is worse than murdering) his citizens, and then could later credit growth unrelated to his policies

/thread

 

[warpus]

I was discussing Austrian economics with one of my profs and his answer for its value today was that it lead to Chicago economics. He then pointed out Chicago economics' big success in Chile, human rights abuses aside. I was checking the GDP/capita graph on wikipedia and it didn't look like any success to me. In fact, their economy didn't really take off until the fiercest elements of Chicago doctrine were let go.

Given that Pinochet stopped socialism and instituted an economic policy that eventually lead to some fantastic growth way after he took power, was he over all a good force? Did he save Chile from the stagnation and economic decay that comes with communism and Allende's well intentioned but broken economic policies? Or was he simply a junta goon who should only be remembered for overthrowing the peoples' choice while torturing and disappearing (which is worse than murdering) his citizens, and then could later credit growth unrelated to his policies?

I was in Chile two years ago and talked to some locals about this very thing. Let me see what I can remember from those discussions..

Chile under Pinochet suffered in the sense that the arts were suppressed.. The country's artists, musicians, painters, etc. did not have many venues to perform their craft - it was just not emphasized and/or encouraged. Right now Chile is still attempting to get past that - the country is undergoing a funding of the arts, building of parks, museums, etc. That is one aspect that one particular tour guide went into - so I'm not sure if that's just something that was important to him or the country as a whole.. but Pinochet is not really remembered fondly... to put it mildly. He was a dictator installed by the U.S., for American and not Chilean interests. The Pinochet part of Chilean history is viewed as a bit of a dark age.

The reason why Chile is doing so well economically (and it is, if you look at South America as a whole and compare Chile to the other countries there) is mostly due to the fact that copper and other natural resources were nationalized, before Pinochet came to power.

Mind you this is only based on what I've heard from 2 or 3 locals and should not be taken as gospel. It seemed to be a fairly accurate portrayal of how the locals feel about it though.

 

[Masada]

I was discussing Austrian economics with one of my profs and his answer for its value today was that it lead to Chicago economics.

That line of transmission is outright strange.

In fact, their economy didn't really take off until the fiercest elements of Chicago doctrine were let go.

Just remeber that policy doesn't operate in a vacuum. This applies to economic arguements for both sides. One should always watch they don't argue that X policy happened, therefore Y result eventuated. It might be that X policy happened, I international event happened, therefore Y result eventuated. X policy might have far less influence than I event in Y result eventuating. Both sides engage in this.

then could later credit growth unrelated to his policies?

Possibly, but when dealing with recent political figures I tend to discount against historians testimony and move towards economics. As I'm far more familiar with the arguements about Suharto, I'll use him an as illustration. It bears some not insignificant similarities to Pinocets case. In general, historians are less willing to accept that any given figure or policy had an effect than economists are. I suppose this might have to do with the different horizons that we operate over. Historians might examine data over a decade and derive conclusions from that, and other primarily non-economic sources. Economics, on the other hand, tend to look at short periods of time, which, I think, gives us a better understanding of the context that a policy might have evolved in. Since we tend to have a better understanding of contemporary economics as practiced rather than preached we also tend to have a much better understanding of the practical aims of the policy. Historians seldom have that basis in actual policy-making. So while historians might look at Suharto's mid-70s economic policies and heap scorn on them as being insufficient, contradictory and generally poor, economists look at it in slightly different terms. We might explain that the mid-70s policies arose out of a certain economic context, that is directly comparable to other regional level intiatives, that it helped spur growth but that that was offset by a fall in oil revenue. So while the policies were a success, this success was offset substantially by other international factors. In other words, avoid blanket statements and take a look at more nuanced appraisals of Pincoet's economic policies. I think you'll find that there's a whole group of Chilean economists who heap rubbish on Pincoet's policies, without the expedient of having an ideological axe to grind. (Some of them are neo-classicists themselves; Indonesia, for instance, has Kwik Kian Gie who is anything but charitable to Suharto.)

 

[Silurian]

The killing and torture that followed the coup on 911 must have had some break on the economy.

From Wiki

After Gen. Pinochet lost the election in the 1988 plebiscite, the Rettig Commission, a multi-partisan truth commission, in 1991 reported the location of torture and detention centers — Colonia Dignidad, Esmeralda ship and Víctor Jara Stadium — and that some 2,700 people were killed or disappeared by the military régime for seventeen years, from 1973 to 1990. Later, in November 2004, the Valech Report confirmed the number as less than 3,000 killed and reduced the number of cases of forced disappearance; some 28,000 people were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured.

Critics of the Valech Report claim that families are falsely claiming that their relatives went missing during the 1973-1990 military regime, following recent reports that four people listed as killed or missing, were in fact alive or had died in unrelated circumstances.[58] The cases have raised questions about the system of verification of dictatorship victims.[59] The Age newspaper has reported that the real number of people killed or reported missing and presumed dead are 1,183 people and that their names appear on a special memorial at the General Cemetery of Santiago.[60] Clive Foss, in The Tyrants: 2500 years of Absolute Power and Corruption, estimates that 1,500 Chileans were killed or disappeared during the Pinochet regime. Nearly 700 civilians disappeared in the 1974-1977 period, after being detained by the Chilean military and police.[61] In October 1979 the New York Times reported that Amnesty International had documented the disappearance of approximately 1,500 Chileans since 1973.[62]

 

[Formaldehyde]

I was in Chile two years ago and talked to some locals about this very thing. Let me see what I can remember from those discussions..

Chile under Pinochet suffered in the sense that the arts were suppressed.. The country's artists, musicians, painters, etc. did not have many venues to perform their craft - it was just not emphasized and/or encouraged. Right now Chile is still attempting to get past that - the country is undergoing a funding of the arts, building of parks, museums, etc. That is one aspect that one particular tour guide went into - so I'm not sure if that's just something that was important to him or the country as a whole.. but Pinochet is not really remembered fondly... to put it mildly. He was a dictator installed by the U.S., for American and not Chilean interests. The Pinochet part of Chilean history is viewed as a bit of a dark age.

Dwelling on how a near complete lack of freedom and liberty affected the arts? I guess it is may be considered appropriate if you are touring art museums with local guides who are trying to explain why there isn't much art generated during that periond other than propaganda. Or it is the rationalization by ultraconservatives who didn't really find all that much wrong with toppling democratically elected "socialists".

And cailling it "a bit of a dark age" seems like a huge understatement given the circumstances. I can't even imagine how it would feel if the military staged a coup and turned the US into a fascist regime for 17 years because the "socialists" were so dangerous.

I don't blame countries for nationalizing foreign ownership of key resources and industries in the least. I think this is what actually leads to great economic growth potential in their countries, instead of continuing to be exploited by foreigners.

 

[innonimatu]

Given that Pinochet stopped socialism and instituted an economic policy that eventually lead to some fantastic growth way after he took power, was he over all a good force? Did he save Chile from the stagnation and economic decay that comes with communism and Allende's well intentioned but broken economic policies?

Allende's policies were not "broken". Isn't it interesting that several of those government leaders who got overthrown by foreign-sponsored military coups never had their most important policies (nationalization of natural resources, which got them targeted by the foreigners) reversed by those who followed?

 

[Cutlass]

There's a term from pharmacology that I think should be imported into economics to help describe the phenomena I think. Baselining is to remove all drugs from the patient who is on a bunch of them to see how they respond. And then add them back one by one. They may have interfered with each other or interacted in unintended ways.

Similarly the removal of bad policies in economics may free the system to return to a healthier normal. That is not to say that the now unregulated system is the best, but only that the previous system was that much worse.

 

[Azale]

Possibly, but when dealing with recent political figures I tend to discount against historians testimony and move towards economics. As I'm far more familiar with the arguements about Suharto, I'll use him an as illustration. It bears some not insignificant similarities to Pinocets case. In general, historians are less willing to accept that any given figure or policy had an effect than economists are. I suppose this might have to do with the different horizons that we operate over. Historians might examine data over a decade and derive conclusions from that, and other primarily non-economic sources. Economics, on the other hand, tend to look at short periods of time, which, I think, gives us a better understanding of the context that a policy might have evolved in. Since we tend to have a better understanding of contemporary economics as practiced rather than preached we also tend to have a much better understanding of the practical aims of the policy. Historians seldom have that basis in actual policy-making. So while historians might look at Suharto's mid-70s economic policies and heap scorn on them as being insufficient, contradictory and generally poor, economists look at it in slightly different terms. We might explain that the mid-70s policies arose out of a certain economic context, that is directly comparable to other regional level intiatives, that it helped spur growth but that that was offset by a fall in oil revenue. So while the policies were a success, this success was offset substantially by other international factors. In other words, avoid blanket statements and take a look at more nuanced appraisals of Pincoet's economic policies. I think you'll find that there's a whole group of Chilean economists who heap rubbish on Pincoet's policies, without the expedient of having an ideological axe to grind. (Some of them are neo-classicists themselves; Indonesia, for instance, has Kwik Kian Gie who is anything but charitable to Suharto.)

Correct me where I am wrong, but some of the economic policies instituted under Pinochet were also the ones the IMF and World Bank used in developing countries, correct? If that is the case, couldn't we empirically state that there seems to be a trend of failure and that Pinochet's policies were likely more harmful than helpful? It seems like that should be the starting point, and any defense of Pinochet has a more difficult burden of proof. Show me where I'm wrong though, I don't know how close Chicago economics mimics IMF/World Bank economics.

Paired with the whole roaming death squads and police state stuff, I'll take useless fascist for $500 Hygro.

 

[RedRalph]

There's a term from pharmacology that I think should be imported into economics to help describe the phenomena I think. Baselining is to remove all drugs from the patient who is on a bunch of them to see how they respond. And then add them back one by one. They may have interfered with each other or interacted in unintended ways.

Similarly the removal of bad policies in economics may free the system to return to a healthier normal. That is not to say that the now unregulated system is the best, but only that the previous system was that much worse.

Are you saying Chile was better under Pinochet than Allande?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Useless fascist.

Although if I lived there I'd probably be taking a jump out of a helicopter without a parachute.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sometimes momma grizzly bear capitalists need to protect their offshore investments?

 

[Virote_Considon]

fascist

fascist

fascist

fascist.

I agree with all of the above.

The striking giveaway that Pinochet was a fascist is that, as a free-market capitalist (as absolutely all fascists are), he believed in the political significance of the individual. Furthermore, he restricted the individual rights of the individual, whilst otherwise keeping true to the individual-based government system created in the Enlightenment; truly the hallmark of any fascist. Strict adherence to Sergio Panunzio's view that there is no need for any distinction between licit violence (use of force only for specific revolutionary ends) and illicit violence (indiscriminate violence, terrorism) was implicit - after all, who the hell has heard of a fascist who is revolutionary anyway, let alone one who would distinguish between specific-revolutionary and other violence? The final giveaway is that Pinochet was a dictator. Never has any fascist, neofascist or protofascist movement ever been democratic ever. Ever. Not ever.

Thus, I can say with full 113% accuracy, that yes, Pinochet was a fascist.


And now I've moved up to almost everybody else on this forums professional level of understanding of these topics, right guys?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Thus, I can say with full 113% accuracy, that yes, Pinochet was a fascist.

It wasn't his "capitalistic" policies of continuing to allow foreign investors to exploit his own people which made Pinochet an obvious fascist. It was all those other piddling little details, like militarily overthrowing a democratic government and installing a brutal authoritarian government in its place, which frequently tortured and murdered its own citizens and repressed the freedom and liberty of nearly everybody.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Given that Pinochet stopped socialism and instituted an economic policy that eventually lead to some fantastic growth way after he took power, was he over all a good force? Did he save Chile from the stagnation and economic decay that comes with communism and Allende's well intentioned but broken economic policies? Or was he simply a junta goon who should only be remembered for overthrowing the peoples' choice while torturing and disappearing (which is worse than murdering) his citizens, and then could later credit growth unrelated to his policies?

No. No. Yes.
I recommend the following article, by a non-marxist:http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm

That line of transmission is outright strange.



Just remeber that policy doesn't operate in a vacuum. This applies to economic arguements for both sides. One should always watch they don't argue that X policy happened, therefore Y result eventuated. It might be that X policy happened, I international event happened, therefore Y result eventuated. X policy might have far less influence than I event in Y result eventuating. Both sides engage in this.



Possibly, but when dealing with recent political figures I tend to discount against historians testimony and move towards economics. As I'm far more familiar with the arguements about Suharto, I'll use him an as illustration. It bears some not insignificant similarities to Pinocets case. In general, historians are less willing to accept that any given figure or policy had an effect than economists are. I suppose this might have to do with the different horizons that we operate over. Historians might examine data over a decade and derive conclusions from that, and other primarily non-economic sources. Economics, on the other hand, tend to look at short periods of time, which, I think, gives us a better understanding of the context that a policy might have evolved in. Since we tend to have a better understanding of contemporary economics as practiced rather than preached we also tend to have a much better understanding of the practical aims of the policy. Historians seldom have that basis in actual policy-making. So while historians might look at Suharto's mid-70s economic policies and heap scorn on them as being insufficient, contradictory and generally poor, economists look at it in slightly different terms. We might explain that the mid-70s policies arose out of a certain economic context, that is directly comparable to other regional level intiatives, that it helped spur growth but that that was offset by a fall in oil revenue. So while the policies were a success, this success was offset substantially by other international factors. In other words, avoid blanket statements and take a look at more nuanced appraisals of Pincoet's economic policies. I think you'll find that there's a whole group of Chilean economists who heap rubbish on Pincoet's policies, without the expedient of having an ideological axe to grind. (Some of them are neo-classicists themselves; Indonesia, for instance, has Kwik Kian Gie who is anything but charitable to Suharto.)

Poor me then who is both a historian and with "an ideological axe to grind".
I can only pray for coming up to the elevated level of the economists, I understand.

Are you saying Chile was better under Pinochet than Allande?

I think he is rather saying that Chile is better off now and that Pinochet can't take any honour for that.

I agree with all of the above.

The striking giveaway that Pinochet was a fascist is that, as a free-market capitalist (as absolutely all fascists are), he believed in the political significance of the individual. Furthermore, he restricted the individual rights of the individual, whilst otherwise keeping true to the individual-based government system created in the Enlightenment; truly the hallmark of any fascist. Strict adherence to Sergio Panunzio's view that there is no need for any distinction between licit violence (use of force only for specific revolutionary ends) and illicit violence (indiscriminate violence, terrorism) was implicit - after all, who the hell has heard of a fascist who is revolutionary anyway, let alone one who would distinguish between specific-revolutionary and other violence? The final giveaway is that Pinochet was a dictator. Never has any fascist, neofascist or protofascist movement ever been democratic ever. Ever. Not ever.

Thus, I can say with full 113% accuracy, that yes, Pinochet was a fascist.


And now I've moved up to almost everybody else on this forums professional level of understanding of these topics, right guys?

That is actually a good point. There seems to be little justification for calling Pinochet a fascist.

 

[Richard Cribb]

It wasn't his "capitalistic" policies which made Pinochet an obvious fascist. It was those piddling little details like militarily overthrowing a democratic government and install a brutal authoritarian government which frequently tortured and murdered in its place.

That is a correct description of Pinochet's politics for sure, but I don't think that you are getting his point.
It is also not easy to understand your use of quotation marks.

 

[amadeus]

I'm still waiting for more pro-Cuba people to come out and condemn Pinochet.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm still waiting for more people who claim to support and defend the Constitution, and who claim to fimly believe that freedom and liberty are inherent rights, to come foward to rationalize supporting and even aiding brutal fascist regimes like this in the past, including Cuba's own past government which provoked such a drastic response.

 

[amadeus]

I'm still waiting for more people who claim to support and defend the Constitution, and who claim to fimly believe that freedom and liberty are inherent rights, to come foward to apologize for deliberately backing brutal fascist regimes like this in the past.

You're going to be waiting a long time. As far as I remember, the Constitution of the United States is applicable only in the United States. If Allende wanted to follow our Constitution and not violate the Fifth Amendment, then maybe he'd still be around.

 

[Formaldehyde]

YoAs far as I remember, the Constitution of the United States is applicable only in the United States.

Which means the people who used the US goverment to illegally overthrow a sovereign democratically-elected one were hypocritical traitors to their own country?