Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Augusto Pinochet, 1915-2006
Former Chilean leader Gen. Augusto Pinochet died today at a hospital in Santiago.
The general entered a Santiago hospital a week ago after a heart attack. He was thought to be recovering when his condition suddenly worsened on Sunday.
...
The hospital said Gen Pinochet passed away at 14:15 local time (1715GMT).
"He died surrounded by his family," the hospital's Dr Juan Ignacio Vergara told reporters.
The next few days are sure to feature some heated debates about Pinochet's reign and his legacy. My contribution is pretty brief: "Finally."
Jesse Walker blogged about Pinochet's influence on KGB thugs back in 2004; Brian Doherty noted his house arrest in 2004.
|12.10.06 @ 3:36PM|#
David; I agree with you commment. I have to add I am notupset he died in bed. All the Communists have also. Except the Rumanians.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 3:42PM|#
I just read the version from the Seattle Times (linked to by Mr.
Goldberg at NRO). What a pathetically partisan piece.
Incredibly, they note that the economy declined under the beginning
of his rule and gloss over that he was still using Socialist (the
National variety, IIRC) measures to run the country. When "the
Chicago Boys" came in 1984, things turned around when he applied
free-market measures and de-nationalized things. They don't toss in
as much verbiage to let their readers know what was what.
I seem to recall that the government subsidized television set
purchases for a while before the election that Pinochet lost.
Something "heralded" as a factor then was the opposition candidates
advertising on television. None of that made it into the Seattle
Times article that refers to Pinochet as 'mustachioed' and reads
like something from a Worker's World Party press release.
If you would like to find out more about what was going on back
then, I suggest you wade through the book "The Black Book of
Communism". The genesis of that book, iirc, was notes and a
scrap-book from Pinochet. More research followed.
The chapter that 'explains' the chapter from Homage to Catalonia
where Orwell explains the political militias fighting in Spain is
about as clear as Orwell's chapter. Probably the only confusing
thing I have every read by the man and one of the hardest things to
follow ever.
Can't wait to see a comparison between this obit and what the
Seattle Times writes about Castro.
|12.10.06 @ 3:58PM|#
Can't say I'm upset at all. If there's anything better than an ex-dictator it's a dead ex-dictator.
Dusty|12.10.06 @ 3:59PM|#
Well, by all means let's do all we can to whitewash a right-wing tyrant lest the comsymps get one up on us.
|12.10.06 @ 4:03PM|#
Poor Maggie Thatcher. Out of respect for her grief, let's not diss Pinochet. She's still alive, isn't she?
|12.10.06 @ 4:05PM|#
Guy
According the IMF, Chiles GDP growth average 4.2% in the 60s, 2.6%
under Pinochet and 6.9% under the current social democrat-type
government.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/aninat.htm
The current government has doubled corporation tax, the minimum
wage and social spending, and also halved tariffs.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/01/how_free_market.html
In the assorted lefty critques of the Pinochet era per capita the
economy shrank slightly overall, extreme poverty and unemployment
both hitting 20%.
I'm not the sort of libertarian who's bothered by failure of
Pinochet era reforms, as I don't think neoliberalism is always the
same thing as yer akshul free market.
|12.10.06 @ 4:15PM|#
Of course his death will not end the controversy.
Is it pronounced Peeno-shay or Peeno-chette?
Since when I hear actual Chileans being interviewed they say the
former (both in English and Spanish) I'm going with that.
NPR can kiss my ass. :)
Handsome Dan|12.10.06 @ 4:37PM|#
So I wake up early on my 31st birthday, turn on the news and find that Pinochet has croaked - what a great birthday present!! Yeah, you could probably dig up a bunch of commie dictators who were as bad or worse, big deal. Dead dictators make me smile, and my grin isn't any wider if they're lefties or righties. Sic semper tyrannis!
|12.10.06 @ 4:47PM|#
"Incredibly, they note that the economy declined under the
beginning of his rule and gloss over that he was still using
Socialist (the National variety, IIRC) measures to run the country.
When "the Chicago Boys" came in 1984, things turned around when he
applied free-market measures and de-nationalized things. "
Guy, this isn't the case AFAIK. By 1981 tariffs had been slashed
from an average of 105% to 10%, the government had liberalised
capital controls, introduced personal accounts for social security
and privatised a bunch of government enterprises.
There was a severe recession around 1982 (after which the
government nationalised banks, raised tariffs to 35% and borrowed
loads of money from the IMF), so catch-up economic growth was
correspondingly high in the recovery period. Economic policy was
overseen IIRC by Hernan Buchi Buch (allegedly not one of the
villainous, moustache twirling Chicago Boyz) from here on and is
generally said to be more interventionist from here on.
Again, the Pinochet era sounds like the usual phoney baloney mix of
cut price privatisation, free markets for the politically well
connected, statism for the people they don't like, and plenty of
taxpayer handouts for businesses that go bust. And no property
rights for dealing with pollution etc (etCarson).
But a prejudiced libertarian would say that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile
|12.10.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Pinochet is/was the Castro of the Right. They all have to squirm and explain how he wasn't all that bad of a guy, after all. But it's a crock. He was a right bastard who flat-out murdered thousands of political opponents of every stripe. He was far worse than the moderate-left government he "saved" Chile from. And when Kissinger gets to Hell Pinochet will be Exhibit A for the prosecution.
Ashish George|12.10.06 @ 5:10PM|#
Anyone who really values freedom will shed no tears for
Pinochet.
The Nation (yes, The Nation, and fuck all of you who ignore good
sources just because they don't mesh with your ideological
preferences) makes the case:
"It's not just the numbers, though they are horrific in themselves.
In a country of barely 11 million at the time of his seizure of
power, 3,000 murdered by the state, more than a thousand
disappeared (some of them thrown into the ocean, others into pits
of lime), tens of thousands tortured and hundreds of thousands sent
into political or economic exile.
Pinochet also embodied a wave of authoritarianism that swept
through all of Latin America during the time of his rule. Similar
dictatorships imposed their own brand of fear as they clamped down
on Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru."
You don't have to be a fan of Allende to think our support of the
coup against him was a profound disgrace.
Josh|12.10.06 @ 5:22PM|#
It's sad that tyrants so often seem to die of natural causes while living a comfortable life, but what can you do?
|12.10.06 @ 5:43PM|#
Who's defending Pinochet? All I see are a bunch of posts saying
that it's good that he's dead, and a bunch of lefties saying that
he's being defended. Talk about projection.
And for the record: yes, I'm glad he's dead, and the fact that he
worked with the Chicago Boys actually does a disservice to those of
us who value the free market because it associates it with a brutal
dictator.
rickm|12.10.06 @ 6:12PM|#
Not just the Chicago Boys, but the recently deceased Freidman
himself. To continue the discussion on this website after Friedmans
death...
from page 170 of A Nation of Enemies: Chile Under Pinochet by
Pamela Constable and Arturo Valenzuela:
"At the University of Chile, [Friedman] told students the economy
needed a 'shock treatment' and deep spending cuts. In a talk wiht
Pinochet, [Friedman] counseled the general to ignore his poor image
abroad, focus on curing the 'disease' of statism, and take sharp
action against inflation."
Friedman actively supported a military dictatorship that stripped
Chile of democracy and consistently and grossly violated basic
human rights.
|12.10.06 @ 6:18PM|#
I think Larry King (of all people) said it best: any government, left wing or right, that squelches freedom of speech loses me...
|12.10.06 @ 6:32PM|#
Glad he's gone. Chile is the best economy in South America, but thats only the case after Pinochet left and social democrats took over. And I'm saying that as a libertarian. As bad as social democracy is, I'd rather live in one than under a brutal dictator like Pino -- this is one black mark on Friedman's legacy and the Chicago boys for sure. The Left overplay it of course, but to deny it is dumb in my book.
|12.10.06 @ 6:35PM|#
On Friedman, I don't see how saying, "you should run your
economy this way," equals "disappear people."
As regards Pinochet, the bad thing about his death is that he was
going to be put on trial. Just like Milosevic he escaped justice.
This is a lost opportunity to create stronger human rights laws
world wide.
Deus ex Machina|12.10.06 @ 6:40PM|#
None of the following should be construed as support for
Pinochet.
I noted that many obituaries about Milton Friedman stated that he
had supported the work his Chicago Boys apprentices did for the
Pinochet regime. This, despite the fact that he was personally
against authoritarianism and only travelled to Chile once.
This tepid endorsement was enough for large swaths of leftists to
condemn him as a supporter of fascism. Yet we hear much less
condemnation of the admirers of Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao, some of
whom continued to defend their support even after the extent of the
aboves' crimes became known. Is this a fair comparison?
Garth|12.10.06 @ 6:43PM|#
Pinochet and company were wicked, but they did set the stage for future propertity. Looking at the economic figures of his era are like looking at the horrible contraction of the Soviet Union, post Communist Poland or any number of "transition" economies. No pain no gain. I am not being an apologist for his evil: it's hard to imagine anyone really thinking well of him and his, but like Mussolini and Hitler, he made the trains run on time.
thoreau|12.10.06 @ 6:57PM|#
"Pinochet and company were wicked, but they did set the stage for future propertity" sure sounds like an apology for evil. I can think of much better ways to make trains run on time.
Deus ex Machina|12.10.06 @ 7:13PM|#
BTW, Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time: http://snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 7:15PM|#
Ashish George,
Along with awaiting the obituary of Castro from the Seattle Times,
I await one from the Nation too.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the University of Chicago will be the only
place left that a 'compare and contrast' graduate study could be
done of Pinochet vs. Castro obits, for credit without making Castro
the hero.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 7:18PM|#
Deus ex Machina,
Perhaps true, but his own cabinet did depose him, his own King had
him jailed and his own citizens executed him.
|12.10.06 @ 7:31PM|#
I join Weigel and most (all?) commenters on this thread in
saying "Lets shed no tears over Pinochet's death".
As for Milton Friedman supporting him, I think FingFangFoom and
Deus ex Machina have it right.
Friedman was not in favor of Pinochet's dictatorship or human
rights abuses but he did give economic advice to the dictator.
There were probably significant benefits from implementation of
alot of that economic advice, even though any such benefits are
overshadowed by the overall barbarism and perfidity of Pinochet's
regime.
Ashish George|12.10.06 @ 7:41PM|#
Guy Montag--
What exactly is your point? Castro is a sick puppy too, yes, no
shit. And no shit, some on the left have--and do--act as apologists
for him.
But Castro hasn't dead yet. We'll piss on that grave we come to it,
'kay?
Ashish George|12.10.06 @ 7:53PM|#
Sorry for the typos in the last post. But here is a Grade A
(Grade F?) Pinochet defense from none other than the insufferable
Bill Buckley...
http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/buckleypinochet.html
"Pinochet took power in September 1973, against a president who was
defiling the Chilean constitution and waving proudly the banner of
his friend and idol, Fidel Castro. Across the Andes there was civil
rage as revolutionaries and leftist activists sought power and
engaged in terrorism. Pinochet fought back. It is charged that
3,000 people lost their lives. It is worth reflecting on the great
cost of civil wars. Our own resulted in 365,000 deaths. In order to
avoid civil war, extreme actions are taken."
|12.10.06 @ 8:00PM|#
Most countries in the world are run by two-bit thugs. Most don't leave office peacefully, nor leave their countries in better shape than they found it. Pinochet did. It is important to remember this.
Deus ex Machina|12.10.06 @ 8:08PM|#
FYI, riots have now broken out in Santiago: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061211/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_pinochet.
|12.10.06 @ 8:10PM|#
JKP,
Pinochet was forced out of power by riots and street
demonstrations. He didn't leave because he wanted to.
Anyway, as is typical of tyrants, Pinochet's regime was financially
corrupt.
Henry|12.10.06 @ 8:16PM|#
Makes me wish I believed in hell--and I'll double down on that wish when Fidel finally croaks.
|12.10.06 @ 8:19PM|#
What's funny is that the plebiscite of 1980 (which was according to many very irregular) is what screwed Pinochet's regime. It required an election in 1988 which Pinochet lost. So much for the love of the people!
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 8:26PM|#
It is amazing that the hysterical Left is speaking about
Pinochet in a better light than they did of Ronald Reagan.
Defeating the Soviet Union was the most horrible act any human has
committed on the world, to some.
|12.10.06 @ 8:37PM|#
This just in ... several hours after his death today, former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, is still dead.
Guy Montag|12.10.06 @ 8:45PM|#
Interesting to see that his opponents are burning down the
country now that he is dead.
Sort of a strange twist on that Arafat funeral.
Phil|12.10.06 @ 9:02PM|#
Chapter 1 of Capitalism and Freedom : The Relation between
Economic Freedom and Political Freedom
Chile pretty much proves Friedman's argument made in 1962.
|12.10.06 @ 9:04PM|#
Phil,
Given that Pinochet was booted from power that doesn't say much for
Pinochet as an advocate of political freedom.
|12.10.06 @ 9:29PM|#
Friedman and the Chicago boys thinking was this: sure, Pinochet's a dictator but there are two way to overthrow or weaken statism and bring more power to the people - one, violent revolution, or two, free up the economy. They believed they could be helpful as regards the latter strategy. Free up the economy and gradually over time civil liberties will slowly follow. That was the hope anyway. It doesn't matter if the dictatorship is Left or Right - the strategy is the same. Had Castro suddenly had a change of heart on economic matters and asked for consultation I'm sure the Chicago Boys would have also obliged.
|12.10.06 @ 11:34PM|#
Issac:
Is it pronounced Peeno-shay or Peeno-chette?
Since when I hear actual Chileans being interviewed they say the
former (both in English and Spanish) I'm going with
that.
I'd understood that it was Peeno-chette from my language expert
uncle, but given your experience with Chileans, I'm switching.
Bill|12.10.06 @ 11:45PM|#
I salute Pinochet with a tip of my hat.
I'll forgive him everything for sparing us any more Victor Jara
songs.
Seriously,all you hysterical lefties, next time you whine about the
USAs "Red Scare" of the 1950s compare it to how other nations
treated their commies.Well except for those where the Commies
actually were in power.They make Pinochet's Chile look like a human
rights paradise.
|12.10.06 @ 11:45PM|#
Pinochet's problem was in his excess. I don't think anyone can fault him for his participation in the coup or the immediate bloodbath that followed. That literally saved Chile. But as time went on, and it should have become apparent to the even the most paranoid opponent of Communism that the threat had been eliminated, Pinochet kept fighting. That is the stain on his legacy.
|12.10.06 @ 11:47PM|#
Isaac Bartram,
I just noticed that I misspelled your first name. Sorry about
that.
|12.10.06 @ 11:54PM|#
Guy Montag:
It is amazing that the hysterical Left is speaking about
Pinochet in a better light than they did of Ronald Reagan.
Defeating the Soviet Union was the most horrible act any human has
committed on the world, to some.
Yeah, and when ya read the Left's old defenses of the Soviet Union,
it's amazing that they're willing to show their faces.
|12.10.06 @ 11:58PM|#
Bill
I'm sure George III would have loved you. After all, he was a much
better king than Louis XVI or Frederick of Prussia. Pity about
those pesky rebels in the colonies.
|12.11.06 @ 12:19AM|#
Russia went as blodlessly to democracy (such as it is) as Pinochet's Chile. Again, Poor Maggie Thatcher. Let's not say anything bad about Augusto out of respect for her grief.
|12.11.06 @ 12:27AM|#
Thatcher rallies Tories in defence of Pinochet at British
Conservative Party conference
By Julie Hyland
9 October 1999
Use this version to print
The highlight of the past week's Conservative Party conference was
a packed meeting on Wednesday evening addressed by former Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher, entitled "General Pinochet: the only
political prisoner in Britain".
In a hall bedecked with Chilean flags, Thatcher was flanked by two
Chilean senators, former chancellor Norman Lamont and Pinochet's
son, Marco Antonio. Met by rapturous applause, she decried the
extradition proceedings against the former dictator as
"international lynch law", "judicial kidnap" and the equivalent of
a "police state".
The case against Pinochet was a "Marxist" plot, Thatcher claimed.
"The left can't forgive" Pinochet for defeating communism and
successfully transforming Chile into a model free market economy,
she continued, and were taking revenge on one of "Britain's
greatest friends".
|12.11.06 @ 12:28AM|#
I think it is a common fantasy among immature libertarians to
hypothesise a benevolent tyranny which will impose free market
practises on an initially reluctant populace, then restore majority
rule after proving the case.
Of course, nothing like this ever happens in real life. Bear it in
mind during the next round of democracy-bashin', when all the
knowing sorts speculate on the advantages of monarchy.
|12.11.06 @ 1:08AM|#
One of the more popular ways that some people (of any
ideological stripe) seem to use to defend dictatorships is to get
into utilitarian calculations where you justify the death, torture,
exile, etc. of X number of people for the benefit of Y number of
people.
Ashish George,
...against a president who was defiling the Chilean
constitution and waving proudly the banner of his friend and idol,
Fidel Castro.
Say that is the case. So what did Pinochet do in relation to the
Chilean Constitution?
|12.11.06 @ 1:08AM|#
Andrew - I think we should have a king with absolute power. That
way, we always know who to blame or praise for everything. If we
like him, we leave him in power. If we don't like him, we cut his
head off and get a new king. Makes everything much simpler. To hell
with this "restore majority rule" stuff - when the majority wants
to rule it just cuts off the king's head and sticks it in front of
the new king to remind him who's really boss, and that's good
enough for me!
Joe - I do agree with Thatcher in one respect: while Pinochet was a
thug who deserved to be put on trial, WTF did Britain or Spain have
to do with it? He didn't commit any crimes in Spain that I'm aware
of. So the message coming across was, "We can grab anybody we don't
like and try him; jurisdiction is for chumps."
|12.11.06 @ 1:18AM|#
JD,
The reason that the Spanish government went after Pinochet, or
rather, a Spanish judge went after him, was due to several
Spaniards who were killed in Chile during Pinochet's period in
power. Indeed, he used Chile's own government records as a basis
for the warrant.
Here are the Comission's findings:
|12.11.06 @ 1:35AM|#
The problem with the grab on Pinochet was that the UK accepted
his arrival on a diplomatic passport.
Kinda wiped out 500 years of international law, which was
Thatcher's point.
|12.11.06 @ 2:25AM|#
"I think it is a common fantasy among immature libertarians to
hypothesise a benevolent tyranny which will impose free market
practises on an initially reluctant populace, then restore majority
rule after proving the case."
Another contingent of the immature are utopians of any stripe, Left
or Right. If something isn't perfectly libertarian or perfectly
socialist then it isn't libertarian or socialist at all according
to them. This way they needn't bother with historical developments
in the country, with on the ground factions, with any other
contextual issues.
Opposed to this worldview is the view that things will never be
perfectly one way or the other. So, a Chile under a right wing
dictator that decides to offer more choices to people in the what,
when, where, and how of buying and selling their goods, services,
and ideas is at least a little better than a Chile that closes off
this side of life. And a China under Deng, with much more freedom
available, is still a whole of a lot better than a China completely
closed off under Mao.
|12.11.06 @ 2:43AM|#
So, a Chile under a right wing dictator that decides to
offer more choices to people in the what, when, where, and how of
buying and selling their goods, services, and ideas is at least a
little better than a Chile that closes off this side of
life.
It is hard for me to figure out how people had more choices re:
"ideas" under Pinochet than under Allende. Pinochet's regime was a
dictatorship, with all the controls over speech, the press, the
promotion of democratic government, etc. that that entails.
|12.11.06 @ 2:51AM|#
Anyway, a lot of these arguments present a false dichotomy - as if the choice were exclusively between Allende and Pinochet. Personally I don't if that is the case.
|12.11.06 @ 3:10AM|#
Zeno,
I was making a general case that it's better to have some parts of
life free than none at all - and it's no betrayal of the whole of
the libertarian movement to work towards liberty in at least one
aspect of life - though some libertarians might see it that
way.
In the case of Chile, I wasn't making a case that there was more
freedom of speech under Pinochet than under Allende. I was trying
to make the case that a Chile under Pinochet, with some measure of
economic freedom, was at least better than a Chile, under Pinochet,
with no economic freedom. I don't know why the Chicago Boys can be
faulted for at least helping to free up one part of life in Chile.
And I certainly wouldn't have thought they were betraying
libertarian principles if they were helping to free up Cuba's
economy under Castro.
|12.11.06 @ 3:54AM|#
moctopouse,
"I was trying to make the case that a Chile under Pinochet, with
some measure of economic freedom, was at least better than a Chile,
under Pinochet [Allende?], with no economic freedom."
That's probably the case, however, I question whether that was
really the choice in 1973. After all, at least some of the claims
that Pinochet made about Allende becoming a "dictator" were
apparently incorrect. I'm not going to defend Allende here, he was
doing some fairly bad things, etc. but the fact remains that
Allende was set to offer up the solution of a plebiscite just days
before the bloody coup in which he died. Which makes me wonder
whether the coup killed off a far more peaceful solution to the
situation.
|12.11.06 @ 9:21AM|#
Rick Barton
My own knowledge of Spanish pronunciation would lead me to favor
"Peeno-chette" (my father spoke Spanish, I do not).
However when usage departs from rules of pronunciation usage should
govern, especially with names. Usage in this case seems to favor
"Peeno-shay".
NPR seems to have followed the pedantic route in this case. As near
as I can tell they are the only media group that does.
|12.11.06 @ 9:25AM|#
Mind you, I suspect that among Pinochet's victims and their friends and families the pronuciation of his name is the last thing to be troubled about.
|12.11.06 @ 9:29AM|#
regargding pronunciation, its pronounced pino-chette.
http://www.slate.com/id/2131164/
this links to many Chilean newscasters clearly pronouncing it that
way.
score one for NPR.
|12.11.06 @ 9:35AM|#
I hate this. I'm experiencing SEVERE cognitive dissonance:
Pinochet was a scumbag, despite the economic reforms. And there
were economic reforms. ARRGH!!!
BTW, can someone more knowledgable than I PLEASE debunk this Greg
Palast piece?
http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2#more-1551
|12.11.06 @ 9:39AM|#
Matt
I'll take your word for it. I don't have a sound card so I can't
get sound.
I am only going by the fact that every Chilean that I have ever
heard interviewed has pronounced it "shay". And that was the case
whether they were speaking English or Spanish.
And, yes, I am perfectly aware that that pronuciation in not in
accordance with standard rules.
|12.11.06 @ 9:43AM|#
Adam W.,
The nitty-gritty question is whether those reforms were worth a
pile of corpses? Or even whether that pile had to be created in
order for those reforms to be undertaken?
|12.11.06 @ 9:52AM|#
Isaac, yes I, and everyone I knew pronounced it the same way for
many years. A couple years ago my International Affairs Professor
father could take it no more and corrected me. I still couldnt
believe it until I heard those newscasts myself sometime last
year.
Seems to be a case of groupthink grammar.
|12.11.06 @ 9:54AM|#
"It required an election in 1988 which Pinochet lost. So much
for the love of the people!"
Whoa, Zeno, I thought you just said he got "kicked out" by riots.
Oops.
|12.11.06 @ 9:54AM|#
Marcvs,
There may not have been comments defending Pinochet when you asked
your question, but they sure did show up, didn't they?
Given the rhetoric of the past five years from the American right,
their sympathy for a "powerful executive" who tortured and murdered
dissidents to his left doesn't come as much of a surprise.
|12.11.06 @ 10:01AM|#
jkp,
Thos street protests, etc. fed into his electoral defeat.
Whatever the explanation, he clearly wasn't popular enough to
garner another term in office in 1988.
|12.11.06 @ 10:15AM|#
Jesse Walker blogged about Pinochet's influence on KGB thugs
back in 2004...
Apparently one of the things that the frustrated the KGB the most
about Allende's regime (at least in their view) was his
unwillingness to "use force" on the opposition.
More here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1786802_1,00.html
|12.11.06 @ 10:44AM|#
"but the fact remains that Allende was set to offer up the
solution of a plebiscite just days before the bloody coup in which
he died. Which makes me wonder whether the coup killed off a far
more peaceful solution to the situation."
Zeno,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Allende offered a
better path for the people than the path Pinochet took. But I think
we are arguing different points. I wasn't trying to suggest that
Pinochet was a better alternative to Allende or that what happened
under him was necessary for the economic reforms to take place or
that the reforms excuse the butchery. Not at all. I'm just saying
that the Chicago boys should not be faulted for trying to help free
up one part of the society. Just as they wouldn't have been faulted
if the coup hadn't happened, Allende remained in power, but due to
economic distress he reached out to them for help as well. A
movement towards liberty in one area is better than no movement at
all. Yet, it seems like there's a contingent out there that somehow
has linked the Chicago Boys, in a causal way, to the crimes of
Pinochet. This is surely a distortion.
|12.11.06 @ 11:33AM|#
You have to wonder: if some country paid off members of Congress
and tried to get the military to overthrow the President in a coup,
if they spent millions to try to undermine and destroy our economy,
suddenly cut off all aid (if we were a country that relied on it),
if they helped organize a kidnapping that ended up killing the
country's commander in chief because he opposed overthrowing the
democratically elected President...
wouldn't we call that international terrorism?
|12.11.06 @ 12:55PM|#
Those South Americans do seem to like their caudillos. None of my business, really.
|12.11.06 @ 2:03PM|#
"Who's defending Pinochet? All I see are a bunch of posts
saying that it's good that he's dead, and a bunch of lefties saying
that he's being defended. Talk about projection."
The tone at the top of the comments is that Pinochet was running a
pseudo-leftist government until 1986, at which time he pulled a 180
degree turn and instituted free market reforms. Then when the free
market reforms started making Chile super awesome, we all knew
communism was bad or something. To be honest, the argument doesn't
hold up.
|12.11.06 @ 2:35PM|#
Guy
Another link you might find interesting:
http://www.cubaarchive.org/downloads/CA03.pdf
|12.11.06 @ 4:14PM|#
Lamar, I hardly think one commenter gets to set the tone in a thread with this many.
|12.11.06 @ 5:47PM|#
Well, it was the second post and the first multiparagraph post. But, I stand corrected. It is one post among many.
Kevin Carson|12.12.06 @ 1:47AM|#
Be nice if Jeffrey Sachs and Boris Yeltsin would kick off within
a few weeks of each other.
The so-called "free market reforms" under Pinochet were nothing of
the kind. First of all, he reversed the land reforms and restored
land to the latifundists, a violation of just about every
libertarian theory of genuine property rights there is. Second, his
"privatization" was nothing but funny auctions to crony
capitalists. State property should have been homesteaded by those
actually using it, with state industry privatized to workers'
syndicates and state services transformed into consumer
cooperatives owned by their clientele.
Rothbard had the right idea about privatizing state-owned
economies: the land to the peasants, the factories to the workers,
etc. Neoliberals like Friedman and Sachs, on the other hand, want
to auction off everything that isn't nailed down to international
financial elites.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245