Hey, /his/ half brit half chilean fag here. My old man was a revolutionary during Pinochet's time in power and he always claims that it was the American's lone fault that Pinochet took power.
Personally I think this is bullshit, and even without American support Allende fucked up so much that it would've resulted in a coup either way.
Chilean here. Allende arrived to power with only 1/3 of the voters. The votes were divided with 1/3 on the right (national party), 1/3 the left (the unidad popular) and 1/3 the political centre (christian democracy). He was elected by congress after a pact with the centre. He led a very polarizing goverment and he didn't had the support of the majority, not even the left ( the left was divided between communist and socialist). The coup wasn't inevitable, but he was destined to fail in his plans
>>333197
we are talking if the USA was the culprit of the coup, not pinochet
>>333117
Nah, this "he didn't had the majority" is just a excuse. In Brazil, João Goulart was directly elected with the support of the majority, but the military took the power anyway, with american support.
USA really didn't want any leftist government in Latin America, even if it was a moderate government.
>>333197
>revisionism
There's nothing to revise. His regime was overall beneficial to Chile and this has always been recognized.
>>333267
read a little about his economic policies and then talk
>>333267
http://pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/21/the-invisible-blockade-against-allendes-chile/
>>333267
>His regime was overall beneficial to Chile and this has always been recognized.
said no chilean whatsoever
fuccboi
>>333306
You mean those which caused Chile to become so rich his policies are called "The Miracle of Chile"?
>>333349
>miracle of chile
>more than doubled the amount of true poors from 20% in 1971 to 45% in 1986
>increased tenfold the rich-poor gap
>delinquency and crime increased by 1040% by 1986
tiptopkek
>>333349
Pretty sure /pol/graphics constitute shitposting, be careful lad
>>333375
>delinquency and crime increased by 1040% by 1986
And this one came directly from government statistics.
Besides the military-oligarchical regime left Chile without strong societal ties, bringing degeneracy through unrestricted capitalism and military run drug trade.
>>333349
>chile
>a fine country
>no oil reservers
>venezuela
>shithole
>oil reserves
i wonder why :^)
>>333375
>>more than doubled the amount of true poors from 20% in 1971 to 45% in 1986
[citation needed]
>>increased tenfold the rich-poor gap
Income inequality is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as both poor and rich earn more than when they started.
>>delinquency and crime increased by 1040% by 1986
[citation needed]
>>333378
>/pol/graphics
Is wikipedia a /pol/ conspiracy too? God you lefties are fucking retarded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
>>333416
Because Venezuela embraced socialism. Believe it or not, Venezuela in the 1960s had a higher gdp/capita than western europe.
>then socialism happened.
Allende's policies seemed pretty sound tbf
American fear of communism was as insane as Soviet paranoia of counterrevolution
>>333460
>Allende's policies seemed pretty sound tbf
>nationalize all industries
>cause negative economic growth
>food shortages
>imprison journalists
>force marxit curriculum in school
>smuggle weapons from cuba
>train marxist guerillas in cuba
Yeah, a model government.
You're either underage or a retard (or both)
>>333339
Typical. There's always blockades, and then right-wingers wonder why leftism fails. Always ignoring imperialism.
>>333057
Arturo Valenzuela had a book reflecting on the Chilean Coup and the underlining political divisions leading up the the overthrow of Allende. Forgot the name of the book but it was certainly revealing that the divide of Chilean society was a long time coming, even before Allende.
>>333580
The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile
>>333555
Did you read the fucking text you imbecile inbred monkey?
>>333598
Keep in mind that he's a leftist. His tiny brain is unable to process things any more complex than simple slogans.
>>333441
>>333267
>>333348
We cannot forget the suffering caused under Pinochet when he came into power. I think the story of the individual reflected the suffering that occurred just after the coup. One that always gives me chills was the torture and killing of Chilean folk musician Victor Jara. Him along with thousands of others were detained in a large football stadium, many never coming out alive. During his torture, it was reported his hands or fingers were broken and forced to play the guitar. His last poem called the "Estadio Chile" left this haunting statement:
"There are five thousand of us here
in this small part of the city.
We are five thousand.
I wonder how many we are in all
in the cities and in the whole country?
...
How hard it is to sing
when I must sing of horror.
Horror which I am living,
horror which I am dying.
To see myself among so much
and so many moments of infinity
in which silence and screams
are the end of my song."
For those who are curious about his music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSg53srhQyQ
>>333375
>muh peasant rights
Its literally skyscrapers vs dedicated pooping roads
>>333597
Thank you
>>333441
Have you even read the article you posted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile#Performance_on_economic_and_social_indicators
>>333478
[citation needed]
>>333687
Keep in mind that he's a rightist. His tiny brain is unable to process things any more complex than simple slogans.
>>333644
>We cannot forget the suffering caused under Pinochet when he came into power.
But think of all the future suffering he prevented.
>some wah wah story about a chilean wannabe John Lennon
Cry me a river.
>>333687
>Have you even read the article you posted?
Have you?
>Amartya Sen
Funny how the same names always pop up.
Anyways, it's no wonder that Pinochet's regime didn't immediately take off with 15% annual growth rates. You need time to construct a properly functioning economy.
Chile's continuous and stable economic growth is entirely imputable to Pinochet's policies.
>>333707
>being this much of a shill
you are either blind, retarded or both
>>333441
It's not really miraculous when you consider the roller coaster economic performance and the explosion of poverty and unemployment, which are all in the Wiki article you linked. The power of the grupos/conglomerates made it less likely that high value added industries would form domestically and consequently made Chile more heavily dependent on exports than it otherwise would be. Allende managed the Chilean economy poorly, and so did Pinochet. Most of Chile's more widespread prosperity followed the transition back to democracy and the ensuing moderation of economic policy.
You're playing games with Venezuela. Venezuela did not suddenly grow much poorer under Chavez's gross mismanagement. It fell behind relatively in large part because of the collapse of oil prices in the 1980s; it was also briefly a high performing economy under Chavez because of the explosion of oil prices after the invasion of Iraq. The common theme here is low-value-added industry-export-driven economies with very slanted management paradigms struggle to achieve prosperity and stability.
Of course it would, it's not like Chileans would want to live in a socialist shithole.
>>333749
desu not really ive been watching this thread for the past few minutes and that is my impression of your arguement verus theirs.
>>333750
>It's not really miraculous
It's not really miraculous that Chile today has the third highest gdp/capita in the Americas after the USA and Canada despite being on the brink of economic collapse under chairman Allende???
Boy, you lefties sure are demanding when it comes to assessing economic performance.
>You're playing games with Venezuela. Venezuela did not suddenly grow much poorer under Chavez's gross mismanagement
It did actually. I doubt toilet paper shortages where much of a problem during the 1990s...
>>333707
From that article:
According to Ricardo Ffrench-Davis the unnecessary radicalism of the shock therapy in the 1970s caused mass unemployment, purchasing power losses, extreme inequalities in the distribution of income and severe socio-economic damage.[20] According to United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean data the percentage of Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985.[21]
>>333764
>poor spelling
>barely coherent english
Well I'm not surprised, you seem to be rather unintelligent
>>333769
>America and the Caribbean data the percentage of Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985.[21]
>starting from 1969
How convenient.
How about you start from 1973?
>>333644
Don't kid yourself. Victor Jara was a communist. If he ever had the chance, he’d kill you and everyone you care about.
>>333775
>resorting to petty insults
also, I would take care of your past posts, your logic has resorted to moving the goalpost and spiltting hairs. all very weak points tbqh
>>333789
>If he had the chance
Well, I certainly know someone who certainly took the chance.
Anyways, I'm going to bed.
It's kind of pointless to argue with you braindead leftists because of how fucking delusional you are. The history of the 20th century is unanimous : free market capitalism works far better than socialism. There are many examples : Chile vs Venezuela, North Korea vs South Korea, Hong Kong vs Mainland China, etc.
Yet you delusional leftards still cling on to your bankrupt ideologies. My conclusion is that you're all huge fucking morons, because only a huge fucking moron would still refuse to change his mind when confronted with cold, hard facts.
tldr: go kill yourselves.
>>333818
Pinochet killed 3.000 armed guerrillas from the Revolutionary Left Movement, which was funded by Cuba and had 10.000 members read to take power in a revolution.
That's an example of restraint.
>>333832
More like an example of incompetence
Had someone given Pinochet a magic button to kill them all he would have done it without hesitation.
>>333823
>"free" market
>relies on the state murdering trade unionists
Looks like a "free" market in labour.
>>333768
It's not miraculous because Chile was already relatively wealthy and stable. You and your /pol/ friends are playing stupid games with Venezuela. The barrios had been around decades before Chavez came to power, back when Venezuela was "rich." I'm not actually left-wing, but you should probably put down Free to Choose and pick up some material on development and international economics and spend a few minutes looking at the time series data. They don't support your lionization of autocrats and Chicago School economists who were wrong about the Internet, the housing bubble, energy deregulation, and zero interest financial environments.
>>333857
No, he wouldn't.
A lot of people don't understand Pinochet. They think he was just another dictator, but he actually had a philosophical basis in his regime. Well, if not him, his underlings, like Jaime Guzman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gremialismo
He only killed those he had to kill in order to keep an orderly and prosperous society, the revolutionary communists and subversive intellectuals. Nothing more and nothing less.
>>333927
Does this include stomping on musician's fingers in football stadiums, throwing pregnant women out of airplanes, and shielding relatives from the legal consequences of corruption and graft?
>>333960
All the free market at work. Thank god for that economic miracle.
>>333960
Yes, it includes killing communists. I think you underestimate them. As I've said, if they had won, do you think only 3.000 people would have been killed? Cuba had a mild communist regime in a country where there wasn't much opposition as there would be in Chile, and they still killed 100.000 people.
>>333960
And regarding corruption, honestly, I'm tired about this bullshit.
The only reason why we consider corruption bad is because of communist propaganda. It was extremely effective into getting the US into stop supporting Chiang kai-shek, for example, since he was "corrupt". The result was that Mao won and killed dozens of millions with his policies. I'd take corruption over communism a hundred times over. Because in the end it's better to have a crook than a honest communist in charge of a country.
>>333927
>He only killed those he had to kill in order to keep an orderly and prosperous society
>>334032
Corruption is bad idiot.
I have no say in this but if you consider the corruption that fucks up the development and economy in SA, EE, Africa and Asia okay then you are batshit insane.
You have to be stupid to support Allende. He was worse than Chavez in economic policies.
Chile would either become a socialist dictatorship or a capitalist one. Allende had militias, as well.
I can't think of Latin American socialism doing well.
>>334103
>I have no say in this but if you consider the corruption that fucks up the development and economy in SA, EE, Africa and Asia okay then you are batshit insane.
If you think communism is a better option you are the insane one.
Singman Rhee was corrupt, Kim il-Sung was a communist. Which country fared better?
>>334138
Until the 1980s, North Korea.
Why are Americans so retarded with anything related to socialism?
And so blind to all the horros they caused in Latin America.
>>334138
Why does everything have to be about commies?
Singman Rhee pretty much left a mess that the people after him have to clean up on top of the fact that his obsession with his political opponents nearly doomed the country.
Better yet do you even know how bad corruption is?
Read up on the Simandou mines and the shit Guinea had to do to get it back after their previous pres sold it for nickels.
>>334213
Corruption is annoying, but communism is worst.
This has everything to do with commies because communist propaganda is the reason why corruption is seen as so bad. Guinea, for example, had a Soviet-alligned dictator that ruined the country, Ahmed Sekou Toure, but you only know about "muh corruption".
>>334189
Which shows how corruption is better than communism in the long term.
>>334234
>Which shows how corruption is better than communism in the long term.
It is more that South Korea could effectively repress its manufacturing working class in the 1980s.
No it wouldn't have.
>>334248
Whatever excuses you can come up with, bro. If there is something you commies are good at, it's coming up with excuses.
>>334263
Jaysus feck you're an ignorant cunt.
North Korea had standard of living advantages until the 1980s because the structure of capitalism in juche forced them to channel a greater portion of the economy towards proletarian benefits. This meant, of course, that they couldn't destroy their working class and recreate it.
In contrast, South Korea lacked a dependence on an old manufacturing proletariat for state legitimacy.
It isn't "an excuse" it is a comparison of two types of capitalism.
>>334284
Is this Joan Robinson ghost?
>>334234
The proceeding president only up until Conde were no better.
Selling a potentially $140 billion dollar piece of land for literal pennies to an Israeli billionaire and Lansana Conté was a shitty president who was the typical African dictator.
Now Alpha Conde has to fix the shit this guy made and the two military presidents after him did.
>>334008
>Yes, it includes killing communists.
Are you idiots always crying but muh gorillion?
>As I've said, if they had won
>if they had won
>if
Allende didn't massacre anyone to consolidate the government he was elected to head, you dumb cracker. But clearly he should have.
Pinochet was not a benevolent dictator.
he was just not a fucking retard like Allende. He hired top men.
>>333904
>unions
>freedom
unions eventually, willingly or not, destroy market and labor freedom.
>>334103
>>Corruption is bad idiot.
i doubt anyone argues that
corruption is still less destructive than a politically unsound model applied hastly and to an economy that was rigidly stablished on different principles.
