Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Feb 5, 2011.
plenty in 1989-1990
Do you actually have any data to back this up, or are you just pulling it all out of your arse? (Let's remember, aside from anything else, that "Marxist" is a far wider category than "Marxist-Leninist"- a camp to which Allende did not actually belong.)
And sometimes came back later, as in Belarus and Ukraine.
Marxists come in but they don't go out? I think you should contact Bill O'Reilly with this quite interesting theory of yours.
Regular elections. Most free election cycles aren't every 40 to 50 years.
...that would be some country if they were, though.
And are the Communists back?
Problem solved. The voting out of the Communists would have happened earlier of Moscow hadn't been quite so trigger happy with the Red Army.
And with that one simple change you have described Pinochet perfectly. Stop trying to ascribe the failures of the brutal dictator you seem to have a hard-on for to his predecessor.
In some countries, yes, masquerading as social democrats.
Yes, Pinochet is obviously responsible for the things that happened before the coup.
Also, Pinochet wasn't on the CIA's payroll. Allende was.
I would say that, in most cases, they are better described as social democratic parties masquerading as communists.
Why would the CIA fund both Allende and Patria y Libertad?
That's like claiming that Al-Qaeda were never on the CIA payroll, an obvious falsehood. Can you get any more desperate?
Please describe how dull Scandinavian Social Democracy, concieved as a middle way between Capitalism and Communism, is a facade for an ideology that preaches the abolition of private property and the Bourgeoisie as a class?
Yes, ideally Pinochet should have allowed free elections some 15 years earlier. I would never say otherwise.
As for your first statement, did you even read my post? The congress clearly asked the military and armed forces to consider the Allende government illegitimate. The coup was entirely justified; the dictatorship afterwards sadly weren't. As for the "right wing parliamentary factions", they were 81 vs 47, a clear majority.
First, I would recommend that you actually read the statement by the Chilean congress; it is not particularly long, and it is an important historical document that is central to this issue that we are discussing. If you ever get around to actually read it you'll see that Allende had already confiscated the property of private channels that disagreed with him, violated the freedom of speech, and armed a group of thugs to beat up people he disagreed with. That is definitely signs of being something other than democratic, to me. Although I realize this is pretty tame compared with average communist fapping material.
Also, compare the 3000 dead in the Chilean coup with the amount of dead from famines and political repression in Cuba, which was Allende's ideal. Yeah, this was pretty clearly the lesser evil.
There's less than a day since your main argument was that Chile needed to have it's main industry nationalized because of revenue isssues; now you turn 180 degrees and say that your main argument for nationalization is things other than profit... Although you are vague enough not to leave any argument of actual substance. That way you might even have had to to defend your statements
By "paternal socialism" I refer to an economy with heavy involvement in the market motivated by nationalism and national unity rather than by leftist ideology. It is a form of government intervention that is less heavy on outright nationalization and has more to do with regulations, quotas and "putting the right man in charge", meaning cronyism. This kind of government intervention is often favoured by the military, since they themselves come from an environment where everything and everyone can be commanded and controlled, and they try to transfer this model to the economy. You might argue that this has little to do with doctrinaire socialism, but this was why I put it all in quotes; if you have a better name, feel free to share with us.
Say what? I have posted charts, historical documents and very clear argumentation, and you do not even bother to acknowledge its existence but rather pretend it isn't there... Not only that, but when I ask you to cite some sort of sources for a claim that is "indisputable" you simply refuse without even acknowledging it... No wonder you're a leftie when you are able to shut your eyes and put your hands in your ears yelling "NANANANANA I DONT WANT TO HEAR" in the face of contrary facts.
I am starting to suspect it is a requirement for the job...
Well, right-wing opinion, it would seem, is divided on that point.
Granted, the the declaration in question was indeed passed by a majority, but it fell short of the two-thirds majority required by the constitution to impeach the president. Therefore, the coup was therefore unconstitutional, illegal, and, having been launched before legal means had been exhausted, unethical.
I read it, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to take it as gospel. Allende re-appropriated private property in a manner which betrayed a certain lack of impartiality, governed in the face of congress, and he was rather soft- arguably too soft- on the Left Revolutionary Movement and their militias. These are all valid criticisms: I am not trying to act as an apologist for the Allende government. However, none of those add up, even in the obviously rather biased form presented in the declaration, to the prototypical Stalinist dictatorship claimed by the Right, nor provided sufficient basis for the by-passing of democratic measures, which was, as I noted, what the Right did.
Can we please avoid sinking to personal slurs? It does nobody any favours.
Why are so sure that this was, in fact, Allende's intention? I've honestly not seen any argument for this particular point that amounted to much more than "He were a Commie, like".
Pardon me? I don't recall ever debating the economic side of things. You must really have me confused with somebody else.
...Although I do wonder why you're conflating private profit with public revenue. The two seem fairly clearly distinct.
"State capitalism" would be the obvious one, although "crony capitalism" makes a fitting if somewhat biased alternative. "Socialism" barely applies to the Soviet Bloc, let alone to Pinochet's regime, of all things.
To be fair, Marx did give us the idea of Bourgeois Socialism. Also known as "Free trade, in the intrest of the working class." As Marx put it: "The Bourgeoisie is a Bourgeoisie, in the intrest of the working class."
Allende was on the CIA payroll, yet Nixon spent a good part of 1970 trying to ruin the guy's election campaign and then sabotaged his regime?
A cable to CIA ops in Chile:
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to October 24  but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG and American hand be well hidden..."
True, but that was an ironic reference to the philanthropic capitalism of his era, rather than anything resembling Pinochet or Stalin.
Allende was on the KGB's payroll, sorry.
Not the Scandinavian ones, the ones in Eastern Europe/former communist countries.
It wouldn't be the first time our country had such a ridiculous policy of supporting anti-U.S. communists, but no; I meant to say that Allende was on the KGB's payroll.
Sounds like the PDPA
How exactly have they endorsed the ideology that calls for the abolition of the state, private property, and the abolition of the bourgoeisie as a class?
Ah, so he was more or less on a level with most of the right-wing parties in the region. Worthy of criticism, perhaps, but a military coup?
The ones that constantly extol the virtues of Stalin-era communism ()? There's certainly a description that could be constructed about them involving the words "wolf", "sheep" and "clothing", but I really doubt it's the one you suggest.
Hardly a surprise, really, since we supported the opposition in an election that would define which sphere Chile fell into. Anyway, I thought it was merely that his party received aid from them, not that he was "on their payroll."
I've never heard that the PDPA was funded or ever aided by the Americans.
Separate names with a comma.