Good Riddance

[prole]

Pinochet

A dictator who proved without a doubt that free market capitalism and democracy are not inextricably linked is dead. Too bad he was never brought to trial for his crimes, although his case does provide hope that others of his kind will not get off so easy. I hope his last years were painful and humiliating ones.

[Bigtree]

Hmmm...one of many on an increasing growing list of such types that was installed and/or maintained their power with the direct and sustained assistance of the USA. Why do you guys tolerate such behavior from your politicians?

[tvashtarkatena]

We crave excitement.

[prole]

"[Military rule aims] to make Chile not a nation of proletarians, but a nation of entrepreneurs." — Augusto Pinochet

[Bigtree]

You've had it in spades with Shrub...

 

"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."

 

"I'm the master of low expectations."

 

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire." (my favorite by far)

 

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

 

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I have a recurring dream that I'm sitting in the back of a very large, driverless automobile that is careening down a steep hill.

 

It's very exciting.

[Fairweather]

Hmmm. Seized power in a coup. Never elected. 3000 killed or "disappeared" under his rule. I wonder if Prole will be just as happy when Fidel Castro finally goes on to his reward.

 

 

 

[Mr_Phil]

Hmmm. Seized power in a coup. Never elected. 3000 killed or "disappeared" under his rule.

 

Thought you were going to say "George Bush" there.

[catbirdseat]

Hmmm. Seized power in a coup. Never elected. 3000 killed or "disappeared" under his rule.

 

Thought you were going to say "George Bush" there.

[W]

Pinochet and Castro, while miles apart in their political views, are actually very near to one another in their tactics- both spoke to the people in terms that cleverly disguised their blatant grab for consolidated, personal power. Which can be the only way there are so many people in Chile who still think Pinochet was a "hero" who "saved Chile from Communism". And Castro took power under the ruse that he was saving the people from a brutal dictator and creating an "equal society". Both countries exchanged one form of oppression for another in different clothes.

That Pinochet supporters can to this day openly excuse the torture and killings of thousands and the suppression of free speech as "necessary" to "save Chile" prove once again that ideologues and nationalists are the most dangerous individuals in any society. Historically, humans are inherently self-serving enough that they will excuse almost any atrocity committed in the name of their own agenda. End justifies the means, yadda yadda. I wonder if, many generations from now, the collective consciousness of humans will ever embrace the means AS the end.

[prole]

What I find most interesting about the coverage of Pinochet by the media and other commentators is the uncritical acceptance of the "Chilean Miracle", "rescuing Chile from certain economic doom", etc. It seems like what Pinochet did best (following the neoliberal model, of course) was funnel money and resources from the poor majority into the bank accounts of Chilean elites and multinationals.

From Wikipedia:

The economic policies espoused by the Chicago Boys and implemented by the junta initially caused severe damage to the poorest sectors of Chilean society. Between 1970 and 1989, there were large cuts to incomes and social services. Wages decreased by 8%. Family allowances in 1989 were 28% of what they had been in 1970 and the budgets for education, health and housing had dropped by over 20% on average [4]. The massive increases in military spending and cuts in funding to public services coincided with falling wages and steady rises in unemployment, which averaged 26% in the years 1982–1985 [5] and eventually peaked at 30%.

The economy grew rapidly from 1976 to 1981, fueled by the influx of private foreign loans until the debt crisis of the early 1980s. But despite high growth in the late 1970s, income distribution became more regressive. While the upper 5% of the population received 25% of the total national income in 1972, it received 50% in 1975. Wage and salary earners got 64% of the national income in 1972 but only 38% at the beginning of 1977. Malnutrition affected half of the nation's children, and 60% of the population could not afford the minimum protein and food energy per day. Infant mortality increased sharply. Beggars flooded the streets.

The junta's economics also ruined the Chilean small business class. Decreased demand, lack of credit, and monopolies engendered by the regime pushed many small and medium size enterprises into bankruptcy. The curtailment of government expenditures created widespread white-collar and professional unemployment. The middle class began to rue its early support of the junta, but appeared reluctant to join the working class in resistance to the regime.

The junta relied on force, the oligarchy, huge foreign corporations, and foreign loans to maintain itself. Under Pinochet, funding of military and internal defence spending rose 120% from 1974 to 1979. Due to the reduction in public spending, tens of thousands of employees were fired from other state-sector jobs. [6] The oligarchy recovered most of its lost industrial and agricultural holdings, for the junta sold to private buyers most of the industries expropriated by Allende's Popular Unity government. This period saw the expansion of monopolies and widespread speculation.

Financial conglomerates became major beneficiaries of the liberalized economy and the flood of foreign bank loans. Large foreign banks received large sums in repayments of interest and principal from the junta; in return, they lent the government millions more. International lending organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the Inter-American Development Bank lent vast sums. Foreign multinational corporations such as International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), Dow Chemical, and Firestone, all expropriated by Allende, returned to Chile.

 

But as always, "no pain no gain", "a rising tide", "shit tastes good", and the rest.

Edited December 12, 2006 by prole

[Fairweather]

W, I'm not sure I agree with your point entirely, but guys like Prole and Jim are hard-left idealogues through and through and likely don't see the same evils in Castro that they rightly recognize in Pinochet. I'm glad you see the similarities.

 

As wretched a pig as Pinochet was, I can't help but wonder if he was the lesser evil of the time. What if a man like Pinochet had been unleashed in Colombia in 1971? Would we now have 3000 'disappeared' there instead of 70,000 dead? I'll admit to my biases. I would rather live under just about anygovernmental system than communism - including a dictatorial bastard like Pinochet. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't resist his brand of injustice just as fiercely.

[Fairweather]

So tell me Prole, will you be just as full of glee when Castro dies?

[prole]

W, I'm not sure I agree with your point entirely, but guys like Prole and Jim are hard-left idealogues through and through and likely don't see the same evils in Castro that they rightly recognize in Pinochet. I'm glad you see the similarities.

 

As wretched a pig as Pinochet was, I can't help but wonder if he was the lesser evil of the time. What if a man like Pinochet had been unleashed in Colombia in 1971? Would we now have 3000 'disappeared' there instead of 70,000 dead? I'll admit to my biases. I would rather live under just about anygovernmental system than communism - including a dictatorial bastard like Pinochet. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't resist his brand of injustice just as fiercely.

 

Hmmm, Haiti or Cuba? Venezuela or Colombia? Nicaragua under the Sandinistas or Guatemala? Canada (hah!) or the US?

[prole]

So tell me Prole, will you be just as full of glee when Castro dies?

 

Nope.

[Off_White]

Historically, humans are inherently self-serving enough that they will excuse almost any atrocity committed in the name of their own agenda.

 

Sad, but disturbingly accurate. Witness Iran's recent conference full of Holocaust deniers (including our own David Duke) to help support both their President's own denial and support their agenda that Israel doesn't deserve to exist and that the Jews brought it on themselves.

[JayB]

I would venture that while there are some similarities between Castro and Pinochet, one key difference is that on two occaisions subjected his rule to a plebiscite, once in 1980, and a second time in 1989. He won the vote in 1980 and used that as the basis for an extension of his rule, and the results of the second election in 1989 provided the basis for a change to civilian rule. Chile is prosperous, stable, and free. Cuba is a ruined totalitarian state in which the regime has shown no intention of moderating its grip on power, that thousands of people risk their lives to escape from every year.

 

There also seems to be a host of popular fictions that have become articles of faith for the Left. Specifically, that the people of Chile were on the verge of achieving an equalitarian utopia and all but the uppermost echelons of the elite were united in rapturous adulation for Allende, then the CIA and its minions stepped in and robbed them of their golden future. While Allende won a three-way election with 36% of the vote, he hardly had a universal mandate, and upon election increasingly ignored both the constitution and the Chilean congress in an effort to impose his economic program on the country, which required a stifling of dissent and the seizure of property. By 1972-3 these economic policies had brought about hyperinflaction, decimation of the middle class, and widespread shortages of essentials - not to mention rising lawlessness and chaos, within which vocally opposing the regime was often met with violent retribution by the regime's supporters. The social and economic conditions that Allende's rule brought about in Chile are what galvanized widespread opposition to his regime, and what motivated the coup that brought about the end of his administration. While I'm sure that the CIA's assistance didn't diminish the coup's chance of succeeding, I don't honestly see how anyone could look at the conditions in Chile in 72-73 and conclude that the coup was something dreamed up in langely and foisted upon an un-receptive population, much less that the millitary even needed the CIA's support.

 

The other key difference between Pinochet and Castro is that he's never enjoyed the uncritical adulation amongst the Western Right that Castro has enjoyed amongst the Western Left. I have yet to meet anyone who has viewed Pinochet as a regretable character or necessary evil that arose out of a cocktail of cold-war politics and the Allende administration's disastrous reign, and tarnished the sound economics that ultimately delivered his country from disintegration and ruin with violent political repression and murder.

 

There are plenty of good resources out there that deal with this period of Chile's history in a way thats both fair and impartial, in which neither Allende nor Pinochet are spared criticism and scrutiny.

[Fairweather]

So tell me Prole, will you be just as full of glee when Castro dies?

 

Nope.

 

 

You're a sad little man.

[prole]

I would venture that while there are some similarities between Castro and Pinochet, one key difference is that on two occaisions subjected his rule to a plebiscite, once in 1980, and a second time in 1989. He won the vote in 1980 and used that as the basis for an extension of his rule, and the results of the second election in 1989 provided the basis for a change to civilian rule. Chile is prosperous, stable, and free. Cuba is a ruined totalitarian state in which the regime has shown no intention of moderating its grip on power, that thousands of people risk their lives to escape from every year.

 

I would veture that is isn't hard to win an election when you've spent almost ten years dropping your opposition out of helicopters into the Pacific Ocean, terrorizing the population by disappearing teenagers and intellectuals, turning stadiums into concetration camps, and banning all opposition parties.

 

I have yet to meet anyone who has viewed Pinochet as a regretable character or necessary evil that arose out of a cocktail of cold-war politics and the Allende administration's disastrous reign, and tarnished the sound economics that ultimately delivered his country from disintegration and ruin with violent political repression and murder.

 

Jay_B, I'd like to introduce Mr. Nixon, Kissinger, GHWB, Reagan, Thatcher, et al.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Pinochet and Castro, while miles apart in their political views, are actually very near to one another in their tactics- both spoke to the people in terms that cleverly disguised their blatant grab for consolidated, personal power. Which can be the only way there are so many people in Chile who still think Pinochet was a "hero" who "saved Chile from Communism". And Castro took power under the ruse that he was saving the people from a brutal dictator and creating an "equal society". Both countries exchanged one form of oppression for another in different clothes.

That Pinochet supporters can to this day openly excuse the torture and killings of thousands and the suppression of free speech as "necessary" to "save Chile" prove once again that ideologues and nationalists are the most dangerous individuals in any society. Historically, humans are inherently self-serving enough that they will excuse almost any atrocity committed in the name of their own agenda. End justifies the means, yadda yadda. I wonder if, many generations from now, the collective consciousness of humans will ever embrace the means AS the end.

 

Yeah, kind of like those idiots who think Stalin did "good things too" and communists had "good intentions", so it's OK if they left a 100 million body count in the last century.

 

[prole]

Yeah, kind of like those idiots who think Stalin did "good things too" and communists had "good intentions", so it's OK if they left a 100 million body count in the last century.

 

Yeah, kind of like those idiots that justify 600,000 Iraqi dead using the same arguments.

[prole]

Thread officially devolved into another pissing contest. Nothing to see here.

[W]

As wretched a pig as Pinochet was, I can't help but wonder if he was the lesser evil of the time.

 

Allende's government was disastrous, repressive, and very unpopular- but it was still an elected government. I'm not sure that a violent overthrow of the government followed by not just a reciprocal suppression of free speech, but a physical purging and extermination of political opponents and anyone suspected of having an opposing viewpoint can be considered "less evil". If Pinochet's coup was truly meant to "save Chile", then an immediate restoring of the constitution, free speech, and an new election would have certainly been the lesser of two evils and might have served justice. Instead, his aims became immediately clear as we have seen.

 

I'll admit to my biases. I would rather live under just about anygovernmental system than communism - including a dictatorial bastard like Pinochet. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't resist his brand of injustice just as fiercely.

 

What's the difference? Speak up against a communist regime or a right wing military dictator and either way, you'll have the electrodes hooked up to your nuts in no time. I won't pretend to "prefer" one to the other just because the label is different. This is where it starts. Maybe if our biases were more tempered, we would not as a species continue to allow sympathies to develop for the motives behind the Castro's and Pinochets of the world.

 

Maybe the far left has sympathies for Castro and Che and in some ways forgives them for the murders they committed, because, deep down, they actually still think communism might work. Communism seems noble as an ideal, but it is an utter failure for the same reason- it's an ideal, that has no basis in reality as related to human nature, pretending as it does that individualism can be eliminated. Especially when the very propagation of such an agenda is just another form of individualism in itself. The end game is that everyone becomes either "useful" or "expendable" for one's needs.

 

We're doing injustice if we do not promote full and universal condemnation of such leaders and actions regardless of how our political biases want us to explain them away.

 

 

[Fairweather]

 

Hmmm, Haiti or Cuba? Venezuela or Colombia? Nicaragua under the Sandinistas or Guatemala? Canada (hah!) or the US?

 

All are easy answers: Haiti, Colombia, Guatemala, USA. Because despite the fact that poverty exists in all of the choices you present, the human spirit remains most visibly alive in mine.

[Fairweather]

[

 

What's the difference? Speak up against a communist regime or a right wing military dictator and either way, you'll have the electrodes hooked up to your nuts in no time. I won't pretend to "prefer" one to the other just because the label is different. This is where it starts. Maybe if our biases were more tempered, we would not as a species continue to allow sympathies to develop for the motives behind the Castro's and Pinochets of the world.

 

Maybe the far left has sympathies for Castro and Che and in some ways forgives them for the murders they committed, because, deep down, they actually still think communism might work. Communism seems noble as an ideal, but it is an utter failure for the same reason- it's an ideal, that has no basis in reality as related to human nature, pretending as it does that individualism can be eliminated. Especially when the very propagation of such an agenda is just another form of individualism in itself. The end game is that everyone becomes either "useful" or "expendable" for one's needs.

 

We're doing injustice if we do not promote full and universal condemnation of such leaders and actions regardless of how our political biases want us to explain them away.

 

 

The fact that Allende had already usurped Chile's constitution by ignoring over 7000 Supreme court rulings and laws rendered him illigitimate. A leader who is elected and then lets the mob shred the nation's guiding documents is no longer just. (Spare me GWB hyperbolic comparisons please.)

 

That aside, you're leaving out one important distinction re communist totalitarianism versus nationalist/military dicatorships: While the later is usually content suppressing political opposition, communism reaches its tentacles into every aspect of individual freedom - personal, political and economic - and renders its population state-dependent. I stand by my stated preference. While there are many governing systems that humans can chose to live under, communism ranks dead last IMO.