catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Through the retrospectoscope: Salvadore Allende

with 138 comments

For a combination of reasons too obscure to recount, Catallaxy’s last open thread finished up debating (largely) the merits (or otherwise) of deposed Chilean leader Dr Salvadore Allende, alongside the merits (or otherwise) of General Augusto Pinochet, the military impresario who deposed him in a bloody coup in 1973.

Allende was a socialist, and I think it’s fair to say his economic policies were ruinous. He expropriated much of the country’s wealth without compensation, behaved like a robber baron with respect to agrarian reform, and sought advice of all kinds from Fidel Castro. He was, however, democratically elected. Pinochet, by contrast, was a strongman in the classic junta mould; he killed and tortured many of his political opponents during his accession to power and rule. Although it is fair to say that his regime was by no means as bloody as comparable leftist regimes during the same period (Cambodia, anyone?), he was not a nice guy, sponsoring terrorism outside Chile’s borders (including in the US) to serve his own ends. That said, his economic advisors were largely taught by Milton Friedman. Known as The Chicago Boys, they laid the foundation for a spectacular economic recovery. Chile now has the highest standard of living in Latin America; subsequent Chilean governments – of all political stripes – have disavowed Pinochet, but they haven’t changed his economic policies.

Pinochet occupied the centre of a cause celebre in Britain over his detention while in the UK for medical treatment, on alleged torture charges. He has since been stripped of his immunity in his home country, and (presuming he doesn’t die soon) may yet come to trial.

Jason and I were firmly on the side of the angels, pointing out that while Allende was a twit, he was a democratically elected twit, and that for all the economic good Pinochet did later, he had no right to conduct a military coup against a democratically elected leader. Graeme Bird then (as is his wont) pointed us to this article.

Victor Farias, best known for blowing Martin Heidegger’s Nazi cover, has now done a similar job on Allende. Among other things, he went and read Allende’s thesis. In it, Allende advocated sterilizing the disabled and mentally ill and described Jews in the following terms:

The Hebrews are well-known committers of certain types of crimes including: fraud, deceit, defamation, but most notably usury.

Of course, he likely changed – lots of people supported eugenics in the 1930s, not just Hitler. There were eugenics programs in Sweden, Brazil, the USSR and the US – countries representing all shades along the political spectrum.

However, Farias maintains that Allende’s anti-semitism did not wane in quite the same way:

the new revelations about Allende give more meaning to Allende’s refusal to turn Nazi criminal Walter Rauff over to Germany in 1972, after Rauff had found refuge in Chile. Even attempts by the Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal to intervene with the president failed at the time. In a letter, Allende responded that the president was not allowed to get involved in judicial matters. Formally speaking, Allende was right. Chile’s Supreme Court had previously ruled that Rauff – who had been a senior official in the SS and headed the development of portable gas chambers – could not be handed over because the statute of limitations on his case had expired.

Now that may be a reasonable refusal – lots of other countries have refused to hand over alleged Nazi war criminals when asked by Israel or the Simon Weisenthal Centre. However, Allende was busily behaving in a most unconstitutional manner when it came to his corporate expropriation and land distribution program. How did Walter Rauff suddenly earn due process and constitutional respect?

Allende has become something of an icon to the left, much as Pinochet is uncritically admired by the likes of Margaret Thatcher on the right for his economic reforms. Is it time – in light of Farias’ research – to reconsider both?

Advertisements

Written by Admin

October 29, 2006 at 8:46 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

138 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Bring your Allende thoughts up here, folks.

    skepticlawyer

    October 29, 2006 at 8:50 pm

  2. i think the coup was justified. look at what the lower house was thinking before the coup happened:

    First: To present the President of the Republic, Ministers of State, and members of the Armed and Police Forces with the grave breakdown of the legal and constitutional order of the Republic, the facts and circumstances of which are detailed in sections 5 to 12 above;

    Second: To likewise point out that by virtue of their responsibilities, their pledge of allegiance to the Constitution and to the laws they have served, and in the case of the ministers, by virtue of the nature of the institutions of which they are high-ranking officials and of Him whose name they invoked upon taking office, it is their duty to put an immediate end to all situations herein referred to that breach the Constitution and the laws of the land with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of Law and ensuring the constitutional order of our Nation and the essential underpinnings of democratic coexistence among Chileans;

    drscroogemcduck

    October 29, 2006 at 9:21 pm

  3. “Allende has become something of an icon to the left, much as Pinochet is uncritically admired by the likes of Margaret Thatcher on the right for his economic reforms.”

    I think the former is right but the latter is rather inaccurate. I would say that the right’s relationship with Pinochet is very uneasy, since on one hand, they admire his economic legacy, but on the other hand, cannot ignore the brutality of his regime (not so much the coup itself).

    It is inteesting however, that lately Pinochet has become sort of an ikon in Russia for those proponents of President Putin who argue that a strong hand is needed to promote economic liberalisation. I do not agree with this argument. While many believe that Pinochet did promote some sound economic policies, this is almost unique experience in history. I can’t think of many other examples where authoritarian rulers promoted sound economics. Putin certainly does n’t.

    Boris

    October 29, 2006 at 9:39 pm

  4. Pinochet also probably succeeded more through good luck than good judgment. One article I read pointed out that he knew nothing of economics, and basically let the Chicago Boys have their heads.

    I singled out Thatcher for that reason, and if enough righties complain I’ll rewrite that part of the post. I was very uncomfortable writing the whole thing, actually, partly because immoral equivalency and libertarianism generally don’t go well together.

    skepticlawyer

    October 29, 2006 at 9:42 pm

  5. SL
    “Pinochet also probably succeeded more through good luck than good judgment. One article I read pointed out that he knew nothing of economics, and basically let the Chicago Boys have their heads.”

    You make your own luck, SL.

    Pinochet probably knew diddly squat about economics but he knew where to go to get live action players like Milt that would turn the place into he wealthiest nation in the sink hole that is sth america. He had the good sense at least and for that he ought to be thanked.

    As I said, never ever trust the left to saint someone in an honest way. There’s always a fucking angle to everything with the left.

    Pinochet was a better man that Allende. He also killed far less people than the nunber Allende would have once he’d turned the place into a socialist sinkhole.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 10:13 pm

  6. Sl

    “I was very uncomfortable writing the whole thing, actually, partly because immoral equivalency and libertarianism generally don’t go well together. ”

    Very true, SL. but not all leaders around the world show respect to the laws and customs of the country they lead.

    Whitlam to his credit resigned. Keating says he would have tried to place the GG under house arrrest, possiblly setting off a major revolution here if he was leader… or least tried.

    Libertarism desn’t mean one is a patsy by letting thugs steal one’s property and liberty. In fact a real libertarian would be the first to prevent anyone attempting to steal their property and possessions in an illegitimate way.

    Let’s face it. Tax is confiscation of the worst order. But we roll over and get raped because the altnerative is either to fight it out on the street or pay up. If one fights it is a high proability you’re going to lose becasue there aren’t enough people supporting that action. However there is a tipping point.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 10:24 pm

  7. What tips people over can be very interesting, too. The Boston Tea Party was (largely) about tax, although lots of nasties had gone on before.

    skepticlawyer

    October 29, 2006 at 10:29 pm

  8. Great point SL.
    The boston tea party is great example of libertarians finally taking matters in their own hands. What a bunch of friggin heroes those guys were. A wonderful example of the human spirit at its best. And the final result was the greatest living documents known to man- the declaration of independence and the the US constitution.

    They managed to raise a citizen army that through out the world power.

    Never ever let ourselves become patsies to tyranny.

    The tipping point……
    Intersting question…. you never know. i think it’s a look back thing. you only know it’s the tipping point once you’ve gone past it.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 10:39 pm

  9. “The boston tea party is great example of libertarians finally taking matters in their own hands. What a bunch of friggin heroes those guys were.”

    And that’s where the analogy ends, JC. Those guys didn’t ‘disappear’ their political opponents and rule America under a military dictatorship for years …

    Jason Soon

    October 29, 2006 at 10:43 pm

  10. Mexico has a higher GDP per capita than Chile (as of 2005) but this is likely due to Mexico having a privileged position next to the US. I do grant you that today Chile does much better than the rest of Latin America. How much is due to Pinochet’s policies is debatable, and to say they haven’t been changed by subsequent governments is false, although they haven’t been changed much. This has led to some problems, which aren’t under discussion here, so let’s ignore them for the present.

    Allende’s nationalisation and land reform programs weren’t new – Frei of the Christian Democratic Party (conservative) had been the latest to try them. Even the complete nationalisation of the copper industry in 1971 was by unanimous Congress vote.

    Allende’s extension of the land reform was done very badly and output fell, that is true. Also, economic stupidity like printing money meant bad inflation, but Chile had always had a problem with inflation – it was 35% when Allende took power. To be fair though, economic sniping by Nixon like blocking loans from multilateral organisations wouldn’t have helped (here we should take note of the spectacular increase in aid and loans from the US when Pinochet took over). His unconstitutional policies like appropriation, pushed by the hard left in his coalition, were downright moronic. I didn’t know about his anti-Semitism, and I despise him for that.

    The problems Chile experienced after a good first year under Allende could not be countered because Popular Unity (his party) was in a tenuous political position – austerity measures could not be imposed on the unions, new taxes couldn’t be imposed due to blocking by Congress, and the deficit couldn’t be covered by borrowing abroad. Foreign opposition had increased as well. The descent into economic chaos through strikes, lock-outs, forced takeovers of land and businesses (not all the government’s actions – a lot was just opportunism by workers) brought the country almost to civil war and ushered in triple-digit inflation.

    So much for Allende. Let us turn to the supposed “economic good that Pinochet did later”, stopping our look at 1990, when Pinochet was no longer in charge. Special mention is needed here of the lack of privatisation of the biggest part of Chile’s economy, copper; the government bail-out of private banks in 1982; the economically pretty successful policies of CORFO and later Fundacion Chile; and the forced backtrack by the Chicago Boys on capital controls and tariffs in the 1980s.

    CHILE GDP GROWTH 1941-1989

    1941 – 1956 74.14%
    1957 – 1972 74.57%
    1974 – 1989 61.35%

    For 1974-1989, the growth of GDP was 8.7% for South Korea, 3.9% for Brazil and Colombia, 3.4% for Mexico, 3.2% for Chile.

    For the same period, the growth of exports was 15.5% for South Korea, 11.5% for Mexico, 8.8% for Brazil, 6.3% for Chile, 5.4% for Colombia and 2.9% for Argentina.

    CHILE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND WAGE INDEX 1970=100)

    1971 3.8 125.4
    1973 4.8 86.0
    1975 13.5 88.7
    1977 14.2 96.6
    1979 13.8 98.7
    1981 10.9 115.7
    1983 18.6 100.3
    1985 16.3 96.6
    1987 12.8 97.9
    1989 10.0 106.1

    CONCLUSION: Economic miracle under Pinochet? What miracle?

    fatfingers

    October 29, 2006 at 10:50 pm

  11. “I singled out Thatcher for that reason, and if enough righties complain I’ll rewrite that part of the post.”

    Given the opinions of most the regulars including Steve Edwards who contributes to the CIS journal and who has Pinochet as his moniker I don’t think there are any grounds for complaint.

    You’ve got yourself involved in one very wierd sect, SL.

    melaleuca

    October 29, 2006 at 11:11 pm

  12. melaleuca, are you suggesting that contributing to CIS journal is weird?

    Boris

    October 29, 2006 at 11:16 pm

  13. “Mexico has a higher GDP per capita than Chile (as of 2005) but this is likely due to Mexico having a privileged position next to the US.”

    not sure.

    i’d say they are close by Cia estimates even if Chile is higher.

    Mexico is US$10,000
    Chile is US 11,300.

    On PPP basis.

    Mexico is strictly speaking a north American nation. Mexico has also been helped by large oil reservesand has been partner to Nafta longer than Chile. ( I think Chile has become part of Nafta recently). it also helps to share a border with the with the richest nation on earth and haveingabout 10% of you low skilled labor force jumping the border into the US and then remitting proceeds back home.

    “How much is due to Pinochet’s policies is debatable, and to say they haven’t been changed by subsequent governments is false, although they haven’t been changed much. This has led to some problems, which aren’t under discussion here, so let’s ignore them for the present.”

    How much? i’d say a lot seeing it is the richest country in south America. Stop trying to dice this one as it won’t work, as the numbers speak for themselves.

    “Allende’s nationalisation and land reform programs weren’t new – Frei of the Christian Democratic Party (conservative) had been the latest to try them. Even the complete nationalisation of the copper industry in 1971 was by unanimous Congress vote. ‘

    Fatso. So stop bullshittting us. he didn’t just try land reforms, he attemtped wholesale confiscation of businesses. ITT being one example which is why the US was pissed off.

    “To be fair though, economic sniping by Nixon like blocking loans from multilateral organisations wouldn’t have helped (here we should take note of the spectacular increase in aid and loans from the US when Pinochet took over). His unconstitutional policies like appropriation, pushed by the hard left in his coalition, were downright moronic. ”

    Oh. FFS. He tries to expropriate the property of US firms, suck up to Moscow and Castro and then you criticise Nixon for not offering him loans when he’s fucked it up. The US does silly things sometimes but Americans are not morons. Are you fucking crazy? What leader would ever try that shit on. As a matter of fact ITT could have just as easily gone to a US court and claimed compensation for the the stolen property if they tried to lend him money.

    “His unconstitutional policies like appropriation, pushed by the hard left in his coalition, were downright moronic.”

    not just moronic, but downright evil and he deserved to get thrown out the friggin window.

    “So much for Allende. Let us turn to the supposed “economic good that Pinochet did later”, stopping our look at 1990, when Pinochet was no longer in charge. Special mention is needed here of the lack of privatisation of the biggest part of Chile’s economy, copper; the government bail-out of private banks in 1982; the economically pretty successful policies of CORFO and later Fundacion Chile; and the forced backtrack by the Chicago Boys on capital controls and tariffs in the 1980′”.

    We know that. And your point is what exactly? that South americans are god awful at running economies? We know that.

    Your comparisons are worth shit. A better example is Cuba. Cuba was the richest country in latin America before Castro aand his goons took over. It can now lay cliam to being the poorest although Chavez is doing his best to take that honor sometime unless he gets a bullet.

    So you need to compare like with like. Chile is the richest country in South America now. If it had followed dick weed ( allende) it would have been vying with the poorest – Cuba- by now.

    Try again fats.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:21 pm

  14. Nope. I think its weird that open Pinochet worshipers contribute to the CIS journal. Or at least I thought it was weird until I picked up the “libertarian vibe” by perusing the comments on this site.

    melaleuca

    October 29, 2006 at 11:24 pm

  15. Munn, you can be such a twit. Contribution to the CIS journal Policy is open to anyone who can write something of interest which expresses an opinion towards the liberal end of the spectrum (which doesn’t mean the contributor has to be liberal on EVERY issue) and whose article passes peer review. Even Mark Latham has written for Policy
    http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summ9899/summ989905.htm

    It is only in left-wing lemming land that articles are rejected on the basis of the contributor, as opposed to the content of the article itself.

    Really, your attempt at smearing is pathetic.

    Jason Soon

    October 29, 2006 at 11:24 pm

  16. “You’ve got yourself involved in one very weird sect, SL. ”

    Coming from Munn the racist.
    Munn, I guess you’re partial to Allende because it is alleged he was a Jew hater and Nazi sympathizer. Seeing you have written many times about me in a vile racist way, it somehow proves your attraction to other racists and people haters. Pigs of a feather somehow flop together.

    It couldn’t have been because he was a tree hugger, as Allende was never accused of tree hugging.

    Now, I would caution the use of the word “weird” when it comes from a person who supports anti- Semites and publicly makes racist comments himself.

    Take it from me, don’t even try and defend Allende, Mr. Racist.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:29 pm

  17. Munn, you fat fraudster, is there anything in the CONTENT of Steve Edwards’ actual ARTICLES that you actually object to, as opposed to the fact that Steve Edwards THE PERSON writes for Policy?

    We know you lefties are obsessed with ‘who you know’ rather than ‘what you know’ (hence the general bitchiness of latte left and literati circles) but that doesn’t mean we have to copy you, twit.

    Jason Soon

    October 29, 2006 at 11:29 pm

  18. “Really, your attempt at smearing is pathetic.”

    Pathetic???

    How about insincere, counterfeit, dishonest disingenuous, false, commie fawning, hollow, smarmy, oily (not racist), toadyish, unctous, sycophnatic.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  19. “…..but that doesn’t mean we have to copy you, twit. ”

    If I did I get myself a sharp razor and head for the bathroom.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:35 pm

  20. Of course there isn’t, Jase – he’s just looking for a convenient means of smearing the CIS without having to cite any actual issues. I don’t really care if he wants to slander me personally; it only highlights how incredibly weak his position is from the start.

    PS – Franklin Delano Roosevelt was responsible for sending millions of people to Stalin’s gulags under “Operation Keelhaul” – they either died, or lived out the rest of their pitiful lives in abject misery. He killed far more people than Pinochet could have ever dreamed of – for some reason nobody objects to FDR gravatars.

    Is that because genocide becomes acceptable so long as it’s done in the name of “free health care”?

    Steve Edwards

    October 29, 2006 at 11:40 pm

  21. munn

    do you hate libertarians more than italians or is it just you hate libertarians with an Italian background…

    “you fat fraudster”….. that’s funny.

    As for banning from your site….. you really are a pathetic,insincere, dishonmest………. wimp.

    You attempt all sorts of abuse at this site you, fat fuck, but won’t allow the same standards of practice on your site….. you squealer.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:40 pm

  22. “Is that because genocide becomes acceptable so long as it’s done in the name of “free health care”?”

    What is it with free health care and the commie loving left? You had weather tyrant trying that shit on about supporting the Hez and their wonerful Iranian sponsored health clinics. Munn will try that shoit on about Allende pretty soon.

    What is that Steve, i can’t see it?

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:44 pm

  23. BTW – Along with cheerleading for Pinochet (who proportionally killed far less people than FDR), I also advocate the abolition of the universal franchise, and the distribution of voting rights by private subscription. I’ll stick to that until something even MORE right-wing pops into my mind.

    Steve Edwards

    October 29, 2006 at 11:44 pm

  24. No bullshitting here, jc. Simple facts only.

    “it is the richest country in south America”

    Yeah, 15 years after Pinochet stopped being in charge. With huge state-owned enterprises.

    “you criticise Nixon for not offering him loans”

    Try again, jc. I didn’t criticise, merely pointed out that the fiscal situation wasn’t helped by MULTILATERAL loans being denied by US machinations.

    “And your point is what exactly?”

    That maybe, just maybe, Chile wasn’t the neoliberal paradise it is made out to be, and that socialistic policies weren’t all bad. This also goes some way to answering your “how much?”

    My comparisons with other developing countries are in no way shit, and you do me an injustice by saying so. Take it back.

    Cuba is not comparing like with like. And don’t forget the embargo. You seem to be insinuating that Cuba is poor because it tried to be socialist, when clearly the embargo has had a very large effect. And somehow, despite being very poor, Cuba has very good educational and health outcomes.

    But we digress. My main points remain – Allende was an idiot, but not all bad, and largely an apex of a long-term trend in Chilean political economy. Pinochet did not preside over an economic miracle (the supporting facts for which I notice you totally ignore, despite your claim “the numbers speak for themselves”).

    “If it had followed dick weed ( allende) it would have been vying with the poorest – Cuba- by now.”

    All hail jc, receiver of divine wisdom from his all-seeing eye and all-encompassing intellect. I put to you that Allende was on the way out through peaceful means that the military pre-empted, and that it is far more likely that Chile’s flirtation with incompetent socialism would have been rejected by the people, with a return to centrist democracy. Thing is, we will never know, and your unequivocal statement is bullshit.

    And I would like to mention that no-one with libertarian sympathies could possibly support Pinochet’s actions even if he had engendered an economic revival. For libertarians, something should never be done for others’ “own good”. But some are saying the equivalent of “military coups and dictatorships who kill and torture thousands are for a country’s own good in the economic long-term if they also adopt laissez-faire policies.”

    fatfingers

    October 29, 2006 at 11:50 pm

  25. “Cuba has very good educational and health outcomes. ”

    Here we go, another lefty talking about clinics. This is truly getting to be fascinating.

    “For libertarians, something should never be done for others’ “own good”. But some are saying the equivalent of “military coups and dictatorships who kill and torture thousands are for a country’s own good in the economic long-term if they also adopt laissez-faire policies.” ‘

    No not at all. you missed the point entirely, Fats. The point was that expropriation of property and elimination of property rights deserves the perp to get thrown out of office and in jail.

    I have no problem reconcling libertarian principles and seeing the end of someone like allende who was trampling all over the law and peoples rights to their own property.

    it’s clear you can’t see it from becasue as a lefty you have little regard for peoperty rights, so i can see why you wouldn’t unerstand.

    The fact that he was out anyway has nothing to do with it.

    jc

    October 29, 2006 at 11:59 pm

  26. ” And that’s where the analogy ends, JC. Those guys didn’t ‘disappear’ their political opponents and rule America under a military dictatorship for years …”

    Nnot quite accurate jase. They practiced a form of ehtnic cleansing…. better call it political cleansing by persuading those who were supportive of the the crown to high tail it to Canada where they would be happier campers.

    Pinochet didn’t do that. Hence why there wasn’t a lot of killing in Americaafter the war of indep.

    I would also suggest that being a small nation at the time people knew who were the loyalists anyway and they were giving time to get the frig out.

    You also fail to count the number of loyalists that died fighting with the Brits or supporting them behind the scenes. it was a bloody mess too, you know.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 12:18 am

  27. ‘Here we go, another lefty talking about clinics. ”

    Here we go, jc ignoring the substance and going for the throw-away digression. Sorry I brought up the fact that poverty is not only measured in GDP.

    “The point was that expropriation of property and elimination of property rights deserves the perp to get thrown out of office and in jail.”

    Funny, no-one said that was the point. skepticlawyer’s post says the point was the pros and cons of Allende and Pinochet, which I tried to address.

    For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Not with the erroneous proposition that Allende eliminated property rights, but that he broke Chilean law and should have been impeached and jailed.

    Just to have you on record, what would you do to someone who reinstated property rights and eliminated other human rights?

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 12:29 am

  28. “Just to have you on record, what would you do to someone who reinstated property rights and eliminated other human rights? ”

    How do you separate the two in a free nation? You’re suggesting an impossible hypothetical. Where have you seen say full property rights and the elimination of freedom of speech?

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 12:40 am

  29. “Here we go, jc ignoring the substance and going for the throw-away digression. Sorry I brought up the fact that poverty is not only measured in GDP.”

    GDP is about the best index measure we have
    for national well being . It must be good seeing it was the first thing you brought up. You incorrectly suggested that mexico was wealthier than Chile.

    I just find it amusing that lefties always seem to bring up clinics. It’s becoming amusing.

    Where did I say it was the point of the post. “The point” was my point.

    “For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Not with the erroneous proposition that Allende eliminated property rights, but that he broke Chilean law and should have been impeached and jailed.”

    He was doing both. Both are bad things. Both are inseparable and intimately linked., but you wouldn’t see it.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 12:49 am

  30. How do you separate them?? How do you separate numbers into integers and fractions? How do you separate dairy products and milk? By defining them correctly.

    Pinochet was a bastard dictator torturer murderer. But he didn’t steal, so he’s fine by you. Is this correct?

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 12:51 am

  31. Your premise is incorrect and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

    Pinochet was a military guy who had little ideology other than trying to stop his nation going to the commie wolves.

    Both sides are responsible for doing bad things.

    It’s easy for you isn’t it, to imply only Pinoceht was the bad guy. The commies were the victims as always.Not.

    Bad things happened because bad people were trying to turn the place into a commie hellhole. On balnace Pinochet was the better outcome.

    If you weren’t attempting to insurrection you would have been safe under Pinochet. If you had owned a business or owned property under Allende you would have been threatened if Allende had gained full control in the same way as Castro’s opponents were thrown in jail or killed. Don’t kid yourself. Allende didn’t have time to get his killing machine up and going. It’;s the only way marxism can operate.

    Pinochet’s regime is responsbile for about 2100 disappearances. Count the other sides toll around the world and you would get a better feeling how many would would have died under marxism.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 1:04 am

  32. “GDP is about the best index measure we have
    for national well being”

    No, it isn’t. But that has been covered before on this blog, a pity you missed it. And you are confusing things. SL said “standard of living”, I said “GDP per capita” (not incorrectly as I did not say PPP. My source – link), and now you say “wellbeing”.

    You find the references to Cuba’s clinics amusing (and presumably also their doctors, mortality rates and other health statistics). Why? Let me guess – you view such references as distracting from the main game, which is how many TVs per household or some other putative measure of standard of living?

    “Where did I say it was the point of the post. ?The point? was my point.”

    Right. So I make a NEW point about people not being libertarian if they support Pinochet, and you disagree by saying I “missed the point”.

    “He was doing both.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Property ‘rights’ are bestowed by the state. The state changed them for some entities. This was stupid, of course. But he didn’t “eliminate property rights” as private property continued to exist. You have been called on this, but you persist in denying the obvious – your hyperbole was wrong and contributes nothing.

    Face it, jc – I’m smarter than you are. 🙂

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 1:18 am

  33. D’oh, can an admin fix my hopeless attempt at HTML? I guess I’m not smart enough to master a simple link!

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 1:19 am

  34. Fats

    The last thing I would worry about is if you were smarter than i am. I don’t give a shit.

    What I care about is if i’m right and therefore you’re wrong. You are, becasue you’re being a dick.

    Property rights are not bestowed by the state because this assumes they can be taken legitimately taken away, which of course they can’t

    Do i support Pinochet? If you’re comparing him to Allende, i would in a heart beat..

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 1:27 am

  35. If Mark Gallagher ever reads this thread his head will explode.

    yobbo

    October 30, 2006 at 1:57 am

  36. Admin went to bed and now has to go to work (and has court all day today). I’ll try to fix your links up later on, ff, so your comment reads okay.

    All the sites I read were pretty emphatic about Chile enjoying the ‘highest standard of living’. I suspect Mexico wasn’t included because it’s not in South America, although the CIA World Factbook has Chile ahead on per capita income.

    All the sites were also emphatic about Chile going through a rough patch as Pinochet’s policies bedded in during the early 80s (bearing in mind Pinochet was in power until 1990). If you remember rightly, so did Australia after Hawkeating introduced similar economic reforms here.

    At the end of the day, very little has been done to alter Pinochet’s economics by subsequent Chilean leaders of all political stripes. Pinochet may well stand trial for human rights abuses in his own country. By contrast Allende has been canonized, (to the extent that Farias’ revelations about Allende knocked me completely sideways – I had no idea).

    I don’t think projecting how many people Allende would have killed given the chance is fair. I do think questions about his ‘saintliness’ should be asked, in light of his uncompensated expropriations and protection of Walter Rauff.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 8:05 am

  37. Allende was elected by the people.
    He was hopelessly incompetent ( tautology?) but nevertheless if you want to get rid of him do so by legal means.
    The Coup was illegal as the present President would attest.
    Every politician of the ‘left’ in Chile tries at all costs to avoid any whiff of doing what Allende did.
    No bad thing

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 9:04 am

  38. Homer
    He wasn’t just incompetent. he was also beginning to practice thievery. Once he crossed that line he deserved to get thrown out of office. Maybe he realized what a thief he was and felt th only way to stop it was to end his own life by using the AK47 Castro had given him as a gift. i think it wasn’t a bad choice.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 10:53 am

  39. I agree he deserved to get thrown out of office but by legal means.

    That means either he is voted out or is thrown out legally because he has done something illegal.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 11:36 am

  40. Homer

    you’re applying Anglo standards to a place in the world which is far removed from that. Don’t get carried away, dude. This is Sth Am after all where things are quite done the peaceful way.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 11:43 am

  41. JC,

    All you are encouraging is to overthrow a Government when you disagree with it.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 11:53 am

  42. Homer
    stop being stupid. I have big problems with a left of centre democratic party, but if they win an election fair and square they have a turn in office, which I hope is very short lived and they don’t manage to fuck things up in that time.

    However if a government came in that never received a mandate to go into wholesle thieving, I would have no qualms in seeing the end of it happier still if the leader put a bullet in his head like Allende.

    Lefties could raise the tax rate to 70% and they would not deserve to get thrown out of office before time. However if they began to steal assets without compensation that would be the end of it. I would be the first out there with any available means.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 12:02 pm

  43. JC,

    It is very easy. If a person does something illegal then take them to court.

    Much as I can work out Allende merely put into operation what he campaigned on.
    Hence his lousy economic record.

    Seems to me you would get on like a house on fire in politics in Bangladesh

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 1:13 pm

  44. Homer
    Stop it with the stupid pills. i told you it has an effect.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 1:15 pm

  45. JC,

    Whether you realise it or not all you are doing is rationalising reasons for a violent coup against governments you do not like.

    One of the problems of democracy is that people get voted in that shouldn’t. Tough

    sometimes people implement policies they said they wouldn’t like Howard on IR. tough

    Its called winning the most votes in a democracy.
    If you don’t like it organise a party that will win votes.
    Advocating violent coups merely because the Governments were incompetent or idiots does not behove you.

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 1:47 pm

  46. Homer

    FFS Homer, he wasn’t just unpopular, he as into mass thieving. Once you’ve understood the difference come back.

    Futhermore, I couldn’t give shit how many votes a party receives. if a government official told me they we going to take my house or business etc. one of us would be dead. That rule applied in Chile during you hero’s time.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 2:19 pm

  47. testing

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 2:42 pm

  48. “Property rights are not bestowed by the state because this assumes they can be taken legitimately taken away, which of course they can’t”

    What? Do you think property rights are something that exist independent of society, like gold or apples? They are a form of social agreement, their limits set by the government. This is indisputable. You may argue that they are indispensable, inalienable, your birthright, venerable, useful, the basis of other human rights, whatever, but you can’t say they are not bestowed by the state!

    “Do i support Pinochet? If you’re comparing him to Allende, i would in a heart beat.”

    Then you are a disgusting human being. And definitely not a libertarian.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 3:05 pm

  49. JC put up some evidence suggesting that what Allende did was unconstitutional and he was rigging the judiciary, etc. Now, if that is true, then what he did went beyond simply acting on a mandate. As I suggested to JC in the Open Forum, if indeed there was a constitutional crisis then after all available legal and constitutional challenges had been exhausted, a coup that kept casualties to a minimum might be justified but not the sort of bloodletting that actually followed.

    Now if Pinochet had done what the military in Thailand recently did, would anyone be seeing him in as bad a light as they do now (assuming the Thai army does hand back power to democratic processes as it promised)?

    So I think this issue is more subtle than it appears. All that blood letting certainly wasn’t justified but the coup could have been just as most outside observers agree that the recent coup in Thailand was a necessary evil.

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 3:14 pm

  50. Bullhsit Fats. The state is funded to protect my property. The state has no rights to anything I own. They can take it by force, but they have no right to it.

    And yes

    “They are a form of social agreement, their limits set by the government. This is indisputable. You may argue that they are indispensable, inalienable, your birthright, venerable, useful, the basis of other human rights:

    that right fats. I would stop right there.

    Now let’s edit the moralizing sermone you just gave about me.

    This is what you believe in.

    Do i support Allende? If you’re comparing him to Pinochet, i would in a heart beat.”

    Then you are a disgusting human being. And definitely a slimey lefty.

    See context is important.

    Pinochet was a Marxist, he was stealing peoples property and lives. Marxism cannot operate in a democratic environment because eventually the jackboot has to appear.

    he finally did the right thing and put a bullet in his head after he realized what he had done. Good for him.
    .

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 3:17 pm

  51. Even the Wiki entry is fair for a site dominated by lefty prop. Go take a read of it. He was basically governing through prez edicts as the congress wasn’t with him.

    The deaths occurred because the left was about to start a guerrilla offensive in the city streets and were about to use several communist dominated fronts to help his effort.

    Yes we saw how the left of centre Russian government handled the soviets. that was a raving success wasn’t it.

    All roads had been exhausted. The prick finally put a bullet in his own head because he realized Castros goons and Moscow’s support couldn’t get there in time and he was finished.

    If they had followed the path you suggest, it could have been too late.

    I am not painting Pinochet as a saint, but neither is he the devil.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 3:27 pm

  52. JC Sez:

    “The boston tea party is great example of libertarians finally taking matters in their own hands. What a bunch of friggin heroes those guys were.”

    Well yes I agree. But they had far less justification then the non-commie Chileans.

    1. They were the lowest taxed and most free people in the world even under the British boot.

    2. Their savings hadn’t been trashed by 500% inflation and no-one was stealing their farms.

    3. They were rebelling against new taxes that violated certain principles of taxation that they had come to expect. It wasn’t the amount as such but the principle of thing…….. This is good behaviour but they were rebelling against LAWFUL TAXES LAWFULLY LEVELLED.

    4. They faced a government that really did not wish to enslave them. But the British Crown had just been in a global war and wished to replenish its treasury. Which was not unreasonable.

    But the thing was the Brits had decisively ousted the French from the continent. So your average North American British Subject, no longer fearing French domination….. Had the right to think …. “Why Do We Need To Listen To These Clowns For? Who Are They Protecting Us From?”

    Now consider the Chilean situation in contrast to my aforementioned 4 numbered points.

    1. The Chileans were not the lowest-taxed and freest people in the world just before the lawful ousting of the repulsive Allende regime. Far from it. They could lose everything EVERYTHING at a moments notice.

    2. Their savings had been trashed and their farms were being stolen by armed commie-thugs.

    3. Many of the depredations visited upon them were not lawful. Even the lawful depredations were unacceptable.

    4. The Chileans faced a government whose purpose was TO ENSLAVE THEM ALL. Of this there can be no question.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    JASON SOON SEZ:

    “And that’s where the analogy ends, JC. Those guys didn’t ‘disappear’ their political opponents and rule America under a military dictatorship for years …”

    Only because THEY WON.

    Had the American Colonists LOST every one who signed those documents would have been hung for treason.

    And there were no British to kill after the war. Because once the war was won the British went away.

    But were the commies in Chile going to likewise dissapear?

    What we have to sort out is if the General pre-empted and saved his people from a civil war.

    Because we ought not look at our precedents.

    What were the precedents for a Spanish Speaker at that time?

    The Mexican Civil war?

    The Spanish Civil War?

    If you can win a war so fast it never even starts you can save a lot of peoples lives.

    So we ought to be trying to sort out if it was a situation where civil war loomed in a clear-and-present way.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 3:29 pm

  53. skeptic, you are probably right re standard of living. If there is a difference ‘tween Mexico and Chile, it is likely minor. Let’s just go with “Chile does much better than any other South American country” (which I acknowledged in my very first response).

    So the question is, was it the Chicago Boys’ policies that have brought this about? For 16 years after 1973, Chile’s economic performance was not very good. In fact, it was worse than comparable developing countries, including its neighbours. Not just in the early 80s either – all the way to the 90s. Was 16 years not enough time for the benefits to be felt? During the ’90s it improved, except for problems due to the Asian crisis, so that now, 33 years after the coup, Chile is richer than its neighbours. How many years after implemented policies can economic performance be accredited to them? I say that their effect becomes more and more dilute the further from their implementation you get. Three decades later, can we really say that Chile is richer than Argentina just because Chile’s military dictators were better than Argentina’s military dictators?

    And let’s no forget – copper, copper, copper. It accounts for half of Chile’s export income. And what was it that remained in government hands? Copper. And oil.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  54. “As I suggested to JC in the Open Forum, if indeed there was a constitutional crisis then after all available legal and constitutional challenges had been exhausted, a coup that kept casualties to a minimum might be justified but not the sort of bloodletting that actually followed.”

    Well for starters look at Allendes own actions.

    We ought not call it a coup. If the guy doesn’t just break the constiution but is OPERATING RUTHLESSLY OUTSIDE IT. Then its not a coup if the Congress are calling on the military to oust these bastards.

    But look at Allendes own EXTREMIST actions.

    He comes out with a weapon. He could have resigned. But instead he comes out like he’s attempting to become MARK BANICHES’ SUBSTITUTE JESUS.

    So important is the revolution to him he’s going to ensure more bloodshed by matyring himself to the cause.

    “As I suggested to JC in the Open Forum, if indeed there was a constitutional crisis then after all available legal and constitutional challenges had been exhausted, a coup that kept casualties to a minimum might be justified but not the sort of bloodletting that actually followed.”

    Well that might be OK for Australia. Because we can cut off the commies from outside supply.

    But how can you expect to win a war against the commies when you have a long skinny country like Chile?

    You simply cannot beat an insurgency if it has outside supply and if it can easily make it past the borders… And you aren’t willing to fight all the border countries.

    Better to win flat out.

    If Allendes communist goons had confiscated 1500 farms and this was not part of the budget it means that they were likely financed from the outside. Financed and armed.

    If you murdered every one of the farm thieves and imprisoned (lets say) 30 000 people in about two weeks you might stop the further and total destruction of your nation….. and avoid the templates of the Mexican and Spanish civil wars….

    To resolve this we have to know who it was they killed.

    If they were the farm thieves… And if the farm thieves were networked out to Cuba and other places….

    Then that was a good move.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 3:47 pm

  55. “Was 16 years not enough time for the benefits to be felt? ”

    Try and get Hernando De Soto on video to help uncover this mystery.

    But you should know that neither the General or the monetarists are running that country.

    But when they were it managed to acheive the lowest inflation rate in South America and thats something.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 3:50 pm

  56. Graeme
    OT but why don’t you replace your gravatar with Ronald Reagan or someone more appropriate? That Chairman Mao gravatar on you looks hilarious.

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 3:52 pm

  57. “The deaths occurred because the left was about to start a guerrilla offensive in the city streets and were about to use several communist dominated fronts to help his effort.”

    Just on what we’ve seen so far this appears to be right.

    Now if it IS right this is done and dusted.

    Because we have seen how hard it is to defeat a guerilla force if it has outside enabling and can quickly get to the border.

    And anyone who is in Chile can quickly get to a border.

    Why begin a civil war by letting the other guys get a head-start if you have a pretty good idea who the other guys are?

    This is not Australia. We could hold off a little bit longer in Australia….
    (But we won’t. Because we know what you leftists are like so don’t try it on ever and don’t even daydream about it.)

    So far Pinochet is looking good. But then we don’t have a good idea yet of who got killed.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 3:55 pm

  58. “Graeme
    OT but why don’t you replace your gravatar with Ronald Reagan or someone more appropriate? That Chairman Mao gravatar on you looks hilarious.”

    Laziness.

    And I don’t remember how to get rid of it.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 3:56 pm

  59. So Temptress Anna tricked you into carrying a commie gravatar around?

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 3:58 pm

  60. I don’t think she tricked me. I think it was my idea. But I do know that we tossed the idea around.

    And the fact is it did seem to work?

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 4:01 pm

  61. “(But we won’t. Because we know what you leftists are like so don’t try it on ever and don’t even daydream about it.)”

    Read that again, Laime, and then report it back to the collective.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 4:02 pm

  62. “The state is funded to protect my property. The state has no rights to anything I own. They can take it by force, but they have no right to it.”

    You seem to have little grasp of what proprety rights are or what my argument is. In essence, there are no rights but what we give ourselves and can defend. The government has no rights but what we allow it. It’s all a mutual illusion, but preferable to a world where your ‘property’ is just what you can keep away from others – that is called barbarism, or anarchy.

    Luckily we live in a time where we have very inclusive type of mafia called government that will only take a little of our property in return for keeping other mafia-types away and other services. Our government also sets limits on what our property constitutes, how it can be used and traded, by consensus through representation. These parameters change all the time, with property rights getting stronger or weaker, but this just underscores how they are a mere figment of our collective imagination.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 4:07 pm

  63. GMB, lower inflation was great. Highest poverty level since 1964 was not so great.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 4:11 pm

  64. “You seem to have little grasp of what proprety rights are or what my argument is. In essence, there are no rights but what we give ourselves and can defend.”

    Well if you believe that then might makes right and you have to BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION side with the General.

    After all he did win. And that scumbag Allende is dead. He had no rights as well by your own estimation.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 4:22 pm

  65. “GMB, lower inflation was great. Highest poverty level since 1964 was not so great.”

    What year was that?

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 4:24 pm

  66. 1990. 5 million Chileans in poverty.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 4:25 pm

  67. No, I don’t side with Pinoshit because he was illegitimate and a torturing murderer. Legitimate government is a different kettle of mafia. People tolerate a small level of thievery in exchange for avoiding barbarism. If the level gets too high, you have big problems – American Revolution, French Revolution, Chile coup d’etat, etc etc.

    And jc, if you have to put words into my mouth to try to discredit me, then you are worse off in the brains department than I thought.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 4:29 pm

  68. When did the General Quit?

    Was there a minimum wage?

    What was the savings rate like?

    Did they run consistent surpluses?

    You see we can diagnose what went ‘wrong’ with the economy if we have enough detail.

    But what’s the point?

    The Chileans would have NOTHING if the communists had succeeded.

    Because communism is the theft of everything. And an attempt to practice it faithfully leads to total collapse and famine.

    Everything the Chileans have they have because they defeated the communists.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 4:30 pm

  69. Hmm… rich (especially A.P. and his cadre) get richer, poor get poorer. Dissenters get locked up, tortured and murdered. No freedom of speech, press or association. Oh, but you’ve got PROPERTY RIGHTS. Fantastic for those with property, as long as they toe the line.

    Pinochet – you’ve gotta admire him in a Kurtz sort of way, but get real… he was a scumbag thug mass murderer.

    My ex’s family were establishment Chileans – didn’t like Allende one little bit, cheered at the coup, then spent 10 years wondering what the fuck had happened to their society. They were rich, and getting richer, but left PURELY OUT OF GUILT at what was going on under their fascist junta.

    FDB

    October 30, 2006 at 4:35 pm

  70. GMB, I don’t deny that communism would have been terrible for Chile, and they were heading in that direction (but I believe wouldn’t have kept going as the theft had gotten too large and people were hurting).

    But that isn’t the point. In comparison to other mixed economies, Chile didn’t do so great until after the Chicago Boys left. So all the killing and torturing to keep a right-wing dictatorship in place was kind of pointless, wasn’t it?

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 4:37 pm

  71. “They were rich, and getting richer, but left PURELY OUT OF GUILT at what was going on under their fascist junta.”

    What was going on. We here are only going on the information we have so far. And it so far only relates to the lead-up to the lawful ousting.

    “So all the killing and torturing to keep a right-wing dictatorship in place was kind of pointless, wasn’t it?”

    Tell us what went on? And was that all to keep a dictator in or keep the communists out or both?

    I think in your head you have a normal country as default. But a dictatorship is your best default if the communists have already run rampant.

    A non-communist dictatorship is about the best you can hope for when the communists have gone through with the wrecking-ball.

    “…….they were heading in that direction (but I believe wouldn’t have kept going as the theft had gotten too large and people were hurting).”

    But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen. It couldn’t go on much further and it didn’t.

    You know that punk Allende has to take some responsibility for the dictatorship that followed. They did everything they could to make that happen.

    How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?

    Once the communist threat has died down the General stands down?

    Should we really be hounding him after all these years?

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 4:47 pm

  72. “But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen.”

    No, Pinochet stopped the process (plebiscites, etc) by overthrowing the government.

    “I think in your head you have a normal country as default. But a dictatorship is your best default if the communists have already run rampant.”

    Fair enough, I guess I do. But the communists hadn’t run rampant yet. And I dislike your “anything goes to prevent communism” sentiment.

    “And was that all to keep a dictator in or keep the communists out or both?”

    Both. If you expand ‘communists’ to ‘anyone who dissented to dictatorship’.

    “How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?”

    Oh, please. Pinochet was getting old and wanted to retire. He doesn’t have the work ethic of Castro 🙂

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 5:07 pm

  73. “But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen.”
    No, Pinochet stopped the process (plebiscites, etc) by overthrowing the government.””

    No no. You are being an idiot.

    You said it couldn’t go on much longer. And it didn’t go on much longer. Why are you assuming a communist takeover is followed by a plebiscite.

    Do you have a precedent for that?

    You are really pissing me off with this idiocy Fatfingers.

    Now lets go again. Because you were such an assholde the first time.

    “How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?”

    This time not a STUPID answer.

    And don’t fucking be comparing the General to that cocksucker Castro.

    How about a bit less flippancy.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 5:18 pm

  74. “But Jeepers. Thats what DID happen.”
    No, Pinochet stopped the process (plebiscites, etc) by overthrowing the government.””

    No no. You are being an idiot.
    You said it couldn’t go on much longer. And it didn’t go on much longer.

    Why are you assuming a communist takeover is followed by a plebiscite?

    Do you have a precedent for that?

    You are really pissing me off with this idiocy Fatfingers.

    Now lets go again. Because you were such an assholde the first time.

    “How many dictators have stepped down recently? Are we not to give the General even a little bit of credit for that?”

    How many fatfingers?

    How many?

    This time not a STUPID answer you commie idiot
    .
    And don’t be comparing the General to that Castro. Because you are really giving your act away.

    How about a bit less flippancy.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 5:20 pm

  75. I do think we need to be a bit careful throwing poverty stats around. I was very careful on the economics stuff because many of the sites were lefty, and yes – I hate to say this – they were prepared to forgive Allende through the roof inflation for his free health care.

    Yes I know that figures don’t lie and that liars don’t figure – all that stuff – but it’s pretty clear that Pinochet was right on the free market economics, and the lefties were right on the human rights abuses.

    Now, leaving that issue to one side, where does that leave a (canonized) Allende and a (still dubious) Pinochet now that we know that Allende thought homosexuality could be cured by implanting testicle tissue in the abdomen? Or that Chile would be a better place without the mentally ill? Or that having a gas-chamber designer as a guest in your country was, you know, okay?

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 5:50 pm

  76. “You said it couldn’t go on much longer. And it didn’t go on much longer.”

    I meant that it could have been resolved without recourse to a coup.

    “Why are you assuming a communist takeover is followed by a plebiscite?”

    First of all, you were doing well with keeping the vitriol down, don’t lose it now. I am not being an idiot. A plebiscite was scheduled but never got to go ahead.

    I think you are way too easily pissed off. Take a chill pill, mate.

    I was flippant because I thought it was a rhetorical question (it was certainly framed as one). My answer – I don’t know. A couple in Africa maybe? Who cares? It’s hardly the central point.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 5:50 pm

  77. I think we need to know who got killed.

    Maybe it was just a civil war that got won so quick for a change that the General made it look to easy.

    But we need more information.

    A map of Chile to show how vulnerable it would be to a commie inurgency would be a good thing.

    I might go looking.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 5:53 pm

  78. “Or that having a gas-chamber designer as a guest in your country was, you know, okay?”

    At the risk of cementing my anti-American position, the US has a long and undistinguished record of harbouring war criminals, not always their own.

    I thank you, SL, for showing me some unpleasant things about Allende I did not know about. It makes me like him even less than I did already.

    I think the ‘canonisation’ might have something to do with his early demise. Like a rockstar who has one good album, some shit ones, then dies ala Morrison. Their possible future actions if they had lived can be idealised. Or demonised, like jc and GMB attempt to do.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 5:55 pm

  79. “I meant that it could have been resolved without recourse to a coup.”

    It did get resolved without recourse to a coup. His ousting was lawful. The crackdown was another thing.

    “I meant that it could have been resolved without recourse to a coup.”

    HOW??????

    And don’t tell me what to do. You just stop being a callous fuckwit.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 5:55 pm

  80. You can’t demonise Allende.

    Are you fucking mad?

    There is nothing good that he did.

    He’s the one responsible for all that happened here.

    Whats the good album you are talking about.

    There is nothing good that his marxist nazi did.

    You are a fucking commie pal. Time to come out of the closet.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 5:58 pm

  81. How is it POSSIBLE to demonise Allende you fucking tool?

    He was a marxist. A fucking nazi. And he did great harm.

    He destroyed a democracy, almost kicked off a civil war and made a dictatorship virtually inevitable.

    What’s the fucking matter with you you idiot.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  82. To my understanding, the worst Nazi the Yanks recruited was Von Braun (rocketman), who was indirectly responsible for a fair number of deaths at the V2 facility in Peenemunde.

    To be fair the South American states were notorious – Eichmann, Mengele, Stangl, Rauff etc. High-ups with huge amounts of blood on their hands. However, Allende’s sheltering of Rauff strikes me as odd, and to be fair I still haven’t formed a final view on it. I was actually hoping this thread would head in that rather more exploratory direction, but it hasn’t.

    Canonization is one thing that concerns me, as it seems dubious in the extreme. Is there a need among some on the left for a secular sainthood? I really don’t know, and it intrigues me.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 6:09 pm

  83. “You can’t demonise Allende”

    I meant (perhaps I wasn’t clear) that you and jc were demonising his POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONS if Allende hadn’t been deposed. Just like his POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTIONS seem to have been idealised by some leftists.

    I have hung around people that think he could have done great things for Chile if only he had been able to get on with it. You guys think he could have done terrible things to Chile if he had been allowed to get on with it. All of you are just talking what-ifs that really don’t have any bearing on the subject.

    “He destroyed a democracy”

    No, that’s what Pinochet did. Allende mostly worked within his democratic role, although obviously overstepped legal and constitutional bounds a lot.

    “almost kicked off a civil war”

    Hey, I agree with that. He was a stupid fucker, OK?

    “and made a dictatorship virtually inevitable.”

    So now you’re a historical determinist like Marx? 🙂

    GMB, I am not an idiot. But at least you are keeping it to minor deprecations like ‘idiot’ and ‘asshole’ (which I also am not) – this is a good effort. Have a silver star.

    SL, people of all political affiliations have role-models and heroes. It’s not just a lefty thing – think Thatcher and Reagan. Or Churchill, Lincoln, Washington, el Che, and many others. Thing is, to be enamored of any of them you have to be wilfully blind in some areas. People in power typically can’t stay squeaky clean getting there, and certainly don’t get any cleaner once in power.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 6:31 pm

  84. “He destroyed a democracy”
    No, that’s what Pinochet did.

    No you fucking idiot.

    Thats what Allende did.

    If you have 500% inflation, goons running around stealing farms…… Thieving of businesses.’

    No you are fucking wrong.

    Allende destroyed the democracy.

    There is no doubt about that.

    It looks like he almost started a civil war.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 6:34 pm

  85. But at least you are keeping it to minor deprecations like ‘idiot’ and ‘asshole’ (which I also am not) – this is a good effort. Have a silver star.

    GMB must be cursing JC under his breath for making him promise to refrain from using certain words 🙂

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 6:35 pm

  86. A tanking economy does not a democracy destroy, Bird-brain.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 6:37 pm

  87. Hey, there’s plenty of invective available to GMB without getting crude or ridiculous. I might even appreciate it if it had some thought and originality.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 6:38 pm

  88. I read recently that Pinochet accounted for around 3000 by death or disappearance. Too many, but against 70m for Mao, 20m for Stalin and 2-3m for Pol Pot it’s pretty small beer.

    Rob

    October 30, 2006 at 6:39 pm

  89. “I have hung around people that think he could have done great things for Chile if only he had been able to get on with it. ”

    What the fuck are you talking about shit-for-brains?

    He was stealing everything.

    Marxism is the SLAVERY OF EVERYONE via the THEFT OF EVERYTHING.

    What do you mean he could have done good things if he had been able to get on with it?

    Was he not trying to set up a communist state you fucking idiot?

    Is it not VERY clear that he was trying to steal everything?

    On the one hand he STOLE everyones savings with his 500% inflation. And his goons stole 1500 farms.

    And he stole all these businessess.

    “”I have hung around people that think he could have done great things for Chile if only he had been able to get on with it. ”

    You fucking moron. If you steal everything you’ve enslaved everyone.

    Was he not a communist?

    Was he not trying to set up a communist state?

    So is it not clear and obvious that had he succeeded it would have been universal slavery, total breakdown, famine or some combination of the above…

    This is fucking obvious.

    What do you think dummy?

    That you are going to STEAL EVERYTHING…… and thereby ENSLAVE EVERYONE…….

    And that somehow that will lead to all these great acheivements???

    Just how stupid are you?

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 6:41 pm

  90. Rob, it’s tiny in comparison. No doubt. Of course, he didn’t have the population of China or Russia to work with. I wonder what the percentages look like? Nor did he have the single-minded bloody-minded genocidal tendencies of Pol Pot.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 6:42 pm

  91. GMB, those weren’t my views. You’re getting all het up about nothing here. I was just saying that the people who say he was going to be good for Chile are talking out their arses just as much as you and jc when you say he would have destroyed Chile.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 6:46 pm

  92. Well Pinochet wasn’t a fucking marxist.

    Thats what it is………. (shit-for-brains)

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 6:46 pm

  93. Yeah, Pol Pot was pretty full-on. Let’s declare the year zero and start again.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 6:49 pm

  94. Well why did you say it?

    Why did you bring it into the debate along with your stupid idea that Allende didn’t destroy the democracy.

    I start goons stealing 100’s of farms and setup militias to do so….. I run inflation at 500%…….. I matyr myself to the revolution on the steps of the Presidential Palace instead of stepping down and trying to help hold the country again…..

    If I did all these poxy things don’t you thing it would be MY blame mostly if the democracy didn’t survive?

    Of course it would.

    Now you fucking tool.

    The General Stepped Down.

    How many people do that.

    Are you not even going to give him credit for that you peice of communist filth.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 6:50 pm

  95. Whooo, people, easy on the abuse. I’ve flicked people on other threads for abuse; I’ll do it again if I have to… although I’ll try some ‘sooning’ first (refer the ‘about’ page).

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 6:52 pm

  96. People? It’s just GMB. But you’re right. He produces enough for 10 people 🙂

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 6:57 pm

  97. ff, maybe the thing is that he never had the chance to get started. Perhaps he wouldn’t have been so bad but all the precedents are against it. Communism always represented a more ‘total’ version of totalitarianism – the example of Hitler apart. Fascist dictators usually want to preserve the power and wealth of oligarchies, where the communist variants want to change the world, or their bit of it, and don’t care what it takes to do it.

    Rob

    October 30, 2006 at 6:58 pm

  98. They deserve the abuse skeptic.

    Supposing someone came up with the plan of enslaving everyone…….. via the method of stealing everything…… in the context of an obsession with human blood sacrifice.

    Well thats what communism is. Allende appears to have wanted to do it without the blood sacrifice up front.

    Or at least that was the only opportunity democratic Chile afforded his Marxism.

    But if someone tells you they are going to do this we ought to be able to recognise that this is a bad thing. And that these are bad goals.

    But if you call yourself a marxist somehow that gives you a pass for this universal-slavery-via-gargantuan-theft.

    Why?

    And look at fatfingers. Putting the murders of Pol Pot down to his personality. Not allowing Marxism itself to take any of the blame.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  99. “Well why did you say it?”

    If you bothered to read the thread carefully, you would know that it was in response to SL’s attempt to steer the debate towards the canonisation by the left of obvious duds.

    “your stupid idea that Allende didn’t destroy the democracy.”

    Why is that stupid? He was helping to destroy the economy, true. But he wasn’t taking over ultimate executive power like a certain dictator I could mention. He worked with Congress, tried to work around them, but didn’t abolish democracy.

    “The General Stepped Down.

    How many people do that.”

    I already answered this – I don’t know. I suspect some of the African despots could be said to have stepped down, but couldn’t be bothered checking.

    “If I did all these poxy things don’t you thing it would be MY blame mostly if the democracy didn’t survive?”

    Sounds like al-Hilaly type words to me. Blaming the victim.

    Look, if Pinochet was acting for the ‘people’ or in defence of democracy, he would have held free elections immediately instead of seizing and consolidating power. Instead, he destroyed democracy in Chile.

    PS I’m not a communist, and I bathe every day. I keep a fairly clean mind and language as well, which is better than you are doing.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm

  100. I agree Rob. There is a qualitative difference between a military dictatorship and a utopian communist dictatorship that translates into numbers they can possibly kill.

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm

  101. They deserve the abuse skeptic.

    Its good for them.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 7:01 pm

  102. “PS I’m not a communist, and I bathe every day.”

    Marxists lie all the time.

    Go take a bath.

    Don’t just talk about it.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 7:02 pm

  103. “Look, if Pinochet was acting for the ‘people’ or in defence of democracy, he would have held free elections immediately instead of seizing and consolidating power. Instead, he destroyed democracy in Chile.”

    No thats bullshit.

    Its not cut and dried (at least from where we sit) that he didn’t have to contain a civil war.

    Find some more data.

    You don’t just have people running 500% inflation and freelance commie thugs stealing 1500 farms and then you oust the marxist and everything comes right.

    Don’t be ludicrous.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 7:06 pm

  104. I’m not a Marxist either. You do know about this thing called naunce? Subtlety? Grey areas? Political spectrum? Centrism? Mixed economies? Social democracy?

    Obviously not. You are either Bird-brained or Marxist/communist in your funny little world.

    You make me giggle. 🙂 Come back anytime, I might have more silver stars for you.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 7:10 pm

  105. Your as subtle as a crap on silk sheets.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 7:13 pm

  106. Fats
    You are truly being an idiot; Bird is right on that score. You’re all over he fucking place, dude. One minute your telling us what a wonderful cook Allende was, next you are telling us how awful he was and then you have a shot at the Americans. The last one seems to be par for the course for any leftist twat for brains to somehow demonstrate his credentials to the rest of the useless fucking gaggle.

    Look you nimrod; we were in the middle of a cold war. In the early 70”s it really did look like we were on the back foot and losing to a Sovs. Things looked awful for the good side. There was Vietnam, Watergate, and inflation edging up. Most markers looked like shit for the west.

    The one area that looked safe for the US was South America and then Allende started to get cozy with Moscow and their little buttfuck stooge, Castro.

    Allende was also a KGB stooge as we have found out from various books detailing what was in the KGB files. So was his son in law. Pino acted because he knew what was coming if these worms ever got a leg in. All he had to do was count the dead as a result of Castro’s handiwork. Recent count is about 100,000 dead as a result of Castro and Che. Pino knew and he had to stop it before it engulfed Chile. So as I said at the beginning it was swapping less evil for greater evil.

    Jason
    I thought about your Thailand analogy. No comparison. The Thais aren’t dealing with communist insurrections the way they were 30 years ago. When they did it was bloody and the only reason the good Thais won was because the Thai military had the support of the King to go after those pricks and destroy them. These present coups are essentially political machinations with the king always in firm moral control. If the coup was a commie led thing the level of violence would be horrendous.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 7:17 pm

  107. FDB
    you’re essentially telling us that your family would have preferred allende to Pino. Well that’s a choice, but there are millions of other Chilians who may not have supported what he did, but they certainly don’t dwell on it as they knew what was in store for them if the other side won. Sometimes you just hold your nose.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 7:19 pm

  108. “I’m not a Marxist either. You do know about this thing called naunce? Subtlety? Grey areas? Political spectrum? Centrism? Mixed economies? Social democracy?”

    He we go, the leftist rule that the other side needs to meet them on their terms. Fats, go away.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 7:21 pm

  109. JC,

    stop inventing fiction.
    Allende was elected.
    He was allowed decrees. It wasn’t illegal.
    There wasn’t any red army inspired militia about to take over Chile.

    If there was Pinochet would have blurted it to the hills.

    you are merely putting a very poor rationalisation of changing a government you do not like by a coup.

    didn’t your parents ever tell you swearing is the mark of the uneducated?

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 7:34 pm

  110. Well I didn’t get to do my sooning because my glorious DSL connection decided to shit itself.

    But sooning is a definite possibility.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 7:45 pm

  111. Homer,
    When do you think it is worth a fight? When do you think it is time to take a prick out of government?

    I am not making stuff up, you are. He was issuing edicts without asking congress to vote. He was doing a mini Castro.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  112. What are you talking about EP?

    You have merely worded things so that you are saying non-relevant JIVE and staying a tiny bit clear of not lying.

    We aren’t interested in what ALLENDE didn’t do. What he did do was unforgiveable.

    And it was lawful to oust him.

    We are beyond that.

    We just don’t have the information to see if the killing was basically pre-empting a civil war.

    Or was it totally gratuitous?

    Now I don’t know that. But what I do know is that the first part THE FIRST STEP the ousting of Allende from the government….. Well that was good and necessary and legal.

    If Thaksan wants to go out shooting to try and inspire a revolution…… or if Mr Whitlam had rigged things in that way…..

    Well thats not helpful.

    But it doesn’t make their ousting more or less legal or more or less unjust then what it was in real life.

    Now I think we are beyond that stuff and onto the relative prudence and justice of the crackdown.

    But then I could be wrong. But if you can prove that I’d like to hear it.

    Otherwise lets focus on the crackdown.

    Who got killed and why?

    If it was the farm-stealers then thats all good and according to Hoyles.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  113. JC,

    was it legal.

    I am afraid it was. It was done before thus no court battle on which sat no ‘friends’.

    you are simply into hyperbole because you are defending the indefensible

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 8:01 pm

  114. GMB: “Your as subtle as a crap on silk sheets.”

    That’s rich coming from you, OH WONDERFUL PARAGON OF INTELLECT. And you spell it “you’re”.

    JC: “One minute your telling us what a wonderful cook Allende was”

    ??? That line was so bizarre, I just had to go back and check I wasn’t sleep-typing at some point and did actually write that. Of course, I didn’t.

    “next you are telling us how awful he was and then you have a shot at the Americans.”

    My gosh, can’t I hate everyone?

    “The one area that looked safe for the US was South America and then Allende started to get cozy with Moscow”

    That’s right, I forgot. Countries other than the US are not allowed to determine how they live their lives. They are to be vassal states or enemies, nothing less.

    “Pino acted because he knew what was coming if these worms ever got a leg in”

    There’s your all-seeing eye again. Are you a Mason? So how come Pinoshit only acted after three years if “he knew what was coming”? And they had more than a leg in – they were in government!

    “Fats, go away.”

    Why, do I make you uncomfortable? Do I niggle at your conscience? Do I undermine your assumptions about the world? Do I negate your clumsy arguments with facts and figures and reasoning? My apologies.

    SOONED BY ADMIN

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 8:04 pm

  115. “you are simply into hyperbole because you are defending the indefensible”

    Are you A GENIUS???

    What was indefensible about legally ousting a marxist.

    Come on GENIUS. Walk the walk.

    You’ve come up with this idiocy.

    Now defend it.

    SOONED BY ADMIN

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:08 pm

  116. birdy there is an idiot roaming this blog but this time it isn’t me

    Bring Back EP at LP

    October 30, 2006 at 8:15 pm

  117. Have now started sooning.

    Graeme, watch the immoral equivalency. Fatfingers, how deep was Allende in with Castro and the Soviets?

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 8:16 pm

  118. Just FTR, that wasn’t me doing the Sooning 🙂

    Jason Soon

    October 30, 2006 at 8:16 pm

  119. Oh, no, I’ve been Sooned! And my language was so tame compared to you-know-who, too.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 8:18 pm

  120. This blog now has Vice-Soons? 😉

    C.L.

    October 30, 2006 at 8:18 pm

  121. Yep, that was me doing the sooning. I’m not as good at it as Jason, but have decided it works much better than deleting (what I did last time people got narky).

    As you were (minus the language, pls).

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 8:23 pm

  122. ““you are simply into hyperbole because you are defending the indefensible”

    I aint letting you give this one the slip EP.

    How can you say it was indefensible to legally oust Allende after his committed theiving spree and 500% inflation?

    What on earth are you talking about.

    Don’t pussy out now EP. Surely you must have an excuse for this sort of talk.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:24 pm

  123. SL, Allende was cultivated by the Soviets and he provided them with information. He wasn’t an agent. He received aid and advice, but he condemned the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia too. Allende wasn’t an arm of the Soviet empire – he was a nationalist who though socialism would work in Chile.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 8:27 pm

  124. I suppose it might be worth considering the reasonable limits to fermenting revolution. That only deals with the coup itself, though. Pinochet stayed in power until 1990, and for at least the first part of his reign was extremely oppressive – even if the killing and torture was fairly small beans by contemporary lefty standards.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 8:29 pm

  125. He did what and he got what and you say he ISN’T AN AGENT?

    You are a communist bud.

    You just can’t help yourself can you?

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:29 pm

  126. SL – that opens up the key moral question doesn’t it? To wit, allowing that the General rightly felt he had to crush the heathen communist society-wreckers, could he have marginalised and defeated them by less brutal means?

    C.L.

    October 30, 2006 at 8:32 pm

  127. How much was he in bed with Castro?

    I don’t usually buy ‘saved from future nasties’ arguments (why I didn’t like commenters projecting how many people they thought Allende would kill were it not for Pinochet). However, I am glad the Yanks got rid of Che while he was still young enough to look good on a t-shirt.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 8:33 pm

  128. Yep, that’s the big one, CL. And Pinochet crucially undermined himself by holding onto power for so long.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 8:36 pm

  129. Well thats the point CL.

    But dudes are shying away from it.

    What was the likelihood of a communist Guerilla movement breaking out.

    If you have farm-stealing goons and relationships with both Castro and the Soviets it looks pretty likely.

    How could you stop and insurgency with a country shaped like that.

    And what was their template. The Spanish and Mexican civil wars?

    Thats what we have to figure out. Whether its a case of the General beating the insurgency before it really got a head of steam.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:36 pm

  130. GMB, just because you have high inflation and the government stealing more than it normally does, doesn’t mean any random thug evicting the government is doing so legitimately.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 8:38 pm

  131. It might be that the country wasn’t safe to go back to democracy until after the cold war was won.

    Look at the make-up before and after Reagan.

    And explosion of democracy he leaves in his wake.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:38 pm

  132. Castro? Not very much. Fidel didn’t like Allende’s “go-slow” tactics, although he thought Allende was heading in the right direction.

    fatfingers

    October 30, 2006 at 8:42 pm

  133. In the right direction to WHERE commie.

    Its still the enslavement of everyone via the theft of everything.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:51 pm

  134. “GMB, just because you have high inflation and the government stealing more than it normally does, doesn’t mean any random thug evicting the government is doing so legitimately.”

    Yes it does. And we would thank that random thug and his faithful Indian side-kick.

    But it was no random thug. It was the head of the armed forces acting on a request from the Congress……

    Thats right isn’t it?

    When a thief is trying to enslave everyone via making their savings worthless and stealing all their property……. Well thats one thing…But if he’s going to operate ruthlessly outside constitutional norms to do it I wouldn’t care which wondering gunman made him stop.

    GMB

    October 30, 2006 at 8:55 pm

  135. Is Castro finally dead again? There are reports the old bastard may have dropped it and little brother is consolidating power before Castro is officially pronounced dead. That’s good. That’s a good thing.

    jc

    October 30, 2006 at 11:33 pm

  136. Can’t find anything on the main news-sites, but there have been rumours flying about.

    skepticlawyer

    October 30, 2006 at 11:46 pm

  137. Just some comments on this thread.

    The whole “Allende is a Jew hater and racist” charge is false. While Farias may have read Allende’s thesis (and deliberately misrepresented what he read), the person who wrote this article (skepticlawer?), clearly did not. The first rule of any research, especially when a charge so serious is leveled at a figure that for many of his countrymen represents the very meaning of dignity, is to go to the source itself. Allende quotes, and dismisses the Italian criminologist’s ideas. Only Farias knows why he would attribute those ideas to Allende, when the text of the thesis is quite clear, especially to a native spanish speaker. Allende was never a “Jew hater” anymore than he was a racist, or a proponent of euthenasia for the disabled. The true nature of his correspondence with Wiesenthal is clear to anyone who cares to take the time to read all of it.
    Second, I don’t know who jc is, but I do know that his/her grasp of the situation in Chile, both in the early ’70s and after Pinochet left the Presidency, bears little relation to reality. That Chile is a little better off than her neighbours is hardly something to trumpet as some sort of economic miracle, and Chile has always been one of the more stable economies in that continent anyway. To go and credit the ruinous policies of the Chicago Boys for Chile’s “prosperity” in relation to her neighbours is silly. Chile survived despite the Chicago Boys and Pinochet, not because of them. I might also point out that these policies were attempted in a good chunk of Latin America. What happened to those “miracles”?
    Allende was a humanitarian, whose sense of dignity and personal honor were confirmed at a critical point. His eternal optimism refused to let him see, perhaps, that the forces arrayed against him were overwhelming. The military, trained, armed, and most importantly, indoctrinated by the US, as most Latin American armies are. The rich landowners and businessmen, the same ones who occupied the opposition seats in the house, desperate to hang on to their villas and privileges as children died of poverty in slums that were breeding grounds for disease. The US, fighting the Cold War and viewing Latin America and its resources as its own vast colony. And even within his own UP movement, the extreme left, which never really believed in what he was trying to do and who undermined and provoked Allende at every turn. The juggling act he carried out for three years was remarkable, given the circumstances, but was doomed to fail. Of course, it’s always easy to look at everything after the fact and say “He should have done this or that”. I admire the man. For what he tried to do, and for the way he conducted himself to the very end. How many right-wing dictators in Latin America, to a man puppets of US policy, have run like the cowardly rats that they were when faced with similar situations, usually pausing only to rob the national treasury on their way out?
    Allende was not an economist, and certainly economic policy during that time was haphazard, but he was no moron. He was a medical doctor, an orator that was the equal or better of any the US has ever produced, and far more sophisticated and well educated than the person here who so flippantly uses the term “moron”. And to say, as another person here does, that a thieving (see recent charges), murdering (see human rights record), cowardly (see extradition saga and self granted immunity), torturer such as Pinochet is a better man than Allende is laughable. Allende proved what kind of man he was on Sep. 11, 1973. Pinochet proved what kind of man he was by murdering, stealing from the nation’s coffers, and faking infirmity in order not to face the music in a Spanish court. The sight of him bounding down the stairs from the plane to the tarmac in Santiago’s International Airport, sans the wheelchair that was apparently the only thing holding him up just hours before, and the very picture of vigor compared to the drooling, semi cognizant figure he presented to the world while in London, was particularly disgusting.
    Economics can be debated. Politics can be debated. But let there be no doubt who Pinochet and Allende were in deed and in thought. It is strange, ultimately, that the very people who denounce Allende’s alleged violations against the constitution, and can only hypothesize about how he would have curtailed freedoms and killed his opponents, have no problem defending a known murderer whose regime outlawed political parties for well over a decade, censored and controlled the media for 15 years, tortured thousands, exiled close to a million people, carried out political assisanations in foreign countries, and who even to this day, resorts to intimidation and threats in an effort to cover up his crimes.

    cosmo

    November 17, 2006 at 7:18 pm

  138. Not sure if my comment made it in, as I cannot see it. What’s the process here consist of when I submit a comment?

    cosmo

    November 17, 2006 at 7:27 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: