Chile was a democracy and US helped overthrow the democracy and install a dictatorship. The citizens managed to resist and recover their democracy after 20 years at a great cost to the country's poor and privatization of Chiles public mineral wealth. Also known as Chiles 9/11. What exactly "worked" here?
Also, are you seriously suggesting that no former communist country is a democracy now? How is this completely random false statement relevant to this discussion?
Pinochet also has the mark in his credit that he eventually handed over power to a democratically elected government, and that Chile is now (by South American standards) a stable, democratic and prosperous country. Who knows what Cuba will be like twenty years after its dictatorship eventually ends?
I actually think Chile's current success has more to do with Pinochet's purging of so called "corrupted politicians" by having them killed or exiled from the country. He had so much control he had a new Constitution written which tied things so much, it made politics almost irrelevant.
You don't get to cry "fraud" just because you don't like the result. And while the Soviet Union liked Allende, realistically their reach was much weaker than the US'. South America is/was "the backyard" of the US, and their reach here has always been the strongest.
Allende won the elections fair and square. We now know, due to declassified documents, how hard the US illegally meddled with its government, and how it helped a bloodthirsty military coup against it. A blot in the history of the US, one that shows how false it is to claim the country is a beacon of light, freedom and democracy.
Thanks to social democrats who took over after Pinochet. So whatever Chile is today, a lot of it is thanks to democratic socialism. Still Chile has not gotten rid entirely of its troubled Milton Friedman and the Chicago boys legacy.
Now you guys get to see what Chile would have turned into if it hadn't been for a certain general. Maybe after 50 years of poverty, famine and secret police your country will get back to where it started.
That kind of depends what government is in power and what form it takes. From what I've read it has been reasonably stable and democratic since Pinochet turned it over in 1990.
Total nonsense. The Chilean people are the foundation for Chile's success today and they would have succeeded just as well (or better!) without meddling from the US. And with a lot less death.
Most of the destabilization that happened in Chile was a direct result of US meddling. It's talked about right in the article this thread is about.
That's certainly true of the Soviet case (the fear instilled by the Stalin years left everyone lying constantly just to avoid the bullet), but Chile was very different. The whole project was to build a genuinely inclusive and worker-led democracy. And they got pretty far with it too, considering they were under economic blockade. We don't get to find out how the story would have ended because the Yanks decided to do a fascist coup and kill everyone.
You're right, but whether the dictator was necessary is disputable. Maybe all you need is Chicago economists. Nowadays Chile is ruled by the people who were tortured or at least jailed under the old regime (Ricardo Lagos, Michelle Bachelet) and all of Pinochet's children are in jail because of corruption. [1] Right now, it's very democratic, and not all that corrupt. Apparently, one of the best ways to return to democracy is for the tortured to forgive the torturers and rule the country henceforth. This also happened in the Seychelles.
Because ousting democratically-elected leaders and replacing them with right-wing dictators have been SO successful at making things better for the people of South America in the past, right?
You realize that Hitler was elected, right? Democracy is not the be all and end all. It's great because of all of the wonderful things it has done for us. Self-representation is a good in itself, but not greater than human prosperity and freedom. And loyal opposition only works when everyone agrees on the sanctity of the system. I believe in liberal democracy, where the sovereignty of the people is limited by institutions like a constitutional court and a general separation of powers. An elected dictatorship (especially one like Allende's, elected on a slim plurality) has no legitimacy in my eyes.
Allende had effectively made himself dictator by ignoring the Congress and the Supreme Court. That doesn't justify Pinochet creating a military junta after the coup, and it certainly didn't justify his political death squads. But again, I'd rather live under a traditional dictatorship, that seeks to preserve society's structure and institutions, than a Communist dictatorship that has social and economic upheaval (destruction in practice) as its agenda. It's not a choice I want to ever be in a position to make. But man has lived and prospered under unfree governments throughout history. Man has never prospered under Communism.
It's disappointing that someone who's clearly intelligent can't have an intellectual disagreement without attacking the other person's moral integrity. Personally, I'll take it as badge of honor to be called 'disgusting' by someone who defends Castro and Allende and their ilk.
Not defending Pinochet at all, but the idea that a democratically elected communist government (in full control of a country) stays democratic for long is not borne out by any evidence anywhere on earth. In the middle of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union already shipping weapons in, the economy was struggling, Allende's coalition partners abandoned the communists in favour of a "Confederation of Democracy" (interesting name, huh). An authoritarian slide was not inevitable, but it was the well-trodden path and the default outcome. Soviet-aligned communists don't govern democratic countries for long, full stop.
(Again, is does not excuse overthrowing/murdering him or the US involvement in that).
The president you're talking about was elected by Chileans with free democratic elections, didn't enact a dictatorship, and would likely have been voted out of office in the next elections.
You are arguing in favor of the overthrow of democracy because you don't like the party in power. What's worse, in your attack of Communism you decided to defend a bloodthirsty, murderous dictatorship that tortured thousands of people (some were mutilated so horribly, even the military that captured them are on record as horrified. Read the accounts).
So I thought long and hard about how to reply to you, and my argument boils down to this:
Fuck you.
I want nothing more to do with you. Don't bother replying, I think you're vile.
Depends. A lot of the former colonies attempted more collectivist policies but were prevented from doing so by their former colonizers (or other rich countries).
reply