Salvador Allende vs. Augusto Pinochet

[Peter the Lefty]

Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Pinochet at least has some redeeming qualities.

Being a non-dictator isn't a redeeming quality?

Not really when the only thing stopping you is the military and you support communism in your foreign policy, no. Obviously, Allende was better than Pinochet in the field of human rights, but that's a rather low bar; and Pinochet could at least boast of supporting the right side in the Cold War and improving the state's economy. That doesn't excuse his crimes against human rights -- not at all -- but it is at least something his supporters can point to.

Allende did not intend to make himself dictator.  There is no credible evidence to suggest he did.  He turned his foreign policy toward the Soviets because we ended all trade with him, in spite of his attempts to maintain relations with us, and forced him to turn to the Communist bloc.

[Zioneer]

Pinochet was an awful murderous thug. Allende was not. It doesn't really matter whether one or the other supported the "right side" in the Cold War, Allende was objectively better than Pinochet.

[Vosem]

Not that I'm a particular fan of his, but Pinochet at least has some redeeming qualities.

Being a non-dictator isn't a redeeming quality?

Not really when the only thing stopping you is the military and you support communism in your foreign policy, no. Obviously, Allende was better than Pinochet in the field of human rights, but that's a rather low bar; and Pinochet could at least boast of supporting the right side in the Cold War and improving the state's economy. That doesn't excuse his crimes against human rights -- not at all -- but it is at least something his supporters can point to.

Allende did not intend to make himself dictator.  There is no credible evidence to suggest he did.  He turned his foreign policy toward the Soviets because we ended all trade with him, in spite of his attempts to maintain relations with us, and forced him to turn to the Communist bloc.

Allende was elected through copious Soviet donations, and while we'll never know what his further plans were (and to be honest I doubt he actually intended to do away with democracy), his policies while in government (some examples of which I've given) were not conducive to such. He was like an earlier Chavez, though he was more dangerous because of the chronology.

Pinochet was an awful murderous thug. Allende was not. It doesn't really matter whether one or the other supported the "right side" in the Cold War, Allende was objectively better than Pinochet.

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets, that set about taking apart its worst creations at the end of said conflict; and another side that stood for total worldwide dictatorship, economic ruin, repression, and famine. The fact that Duvalier and Mobutu happened does not mean that America should've followed policy that would've aided Mao or Brezhnev, who were incomparably more dangerous to more people. The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated. Whatever Pinochet did -- and he did a lot -- ultimately he was on the right side of the Cold War.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets

Even if it had to bully, overthrow, murder, or declare war on everyone involved to get there. Three hurrahs for freedom, democracy, and justice.

[TNF]

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy for rich people, free speech for rich people, and free markets for rich people

Translated from libertarian to English

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated.

Yes it can. In fact, you're doing it by saying that.

[Vosem]

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets

Even if it had to bully, overthrow, murder, or declare war on everyone involved to get there. Three hurrahs for freedom, democracy, and justice.

It didn't have to, and that's not the point. The point is that we are better off today because it won, and while, say, Pinochet was terrible, it was still better than allowing Allende and his ideology to take root.

The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated.

Yes it can. In fact, you're doing it by saying that.

No?

[Marokai Backbeat]

It didn't have to, and that's not the point. The point is that we are better off today because it won, and while, say, Pinochet was terrible, it was still better than allowing Allende and his ideology to take root.

My problem with what you're saying is that you're quite blatantly admitting you think, when the chips are down, capitalism is more important than democracy. You're happier with capitalism by the barrel of a gun and the rape of a dictator squad, than marxism by democracy. Your priorities are perverse.

[Peter the Lefty]

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets

Even if it had to bully, overthrow, murder, or declare war on everyone involved to get there. Three hurrahs for freedom, democracy, and justice.

It didn't have to, and that's not the point. The point is that we are better off today because it won, and while, say, Pinochet was terrible, it was still better than allowing Allende and his ideology to take root.


No?

Oh, so it's worth overthrowing a democratically elected leader with no intention of eliminating democracy and to replace him with a brutal, mass murdering dictator if we like his ideology better?  

[© tweed]

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets, that set about taking apart its worst creations at the end of said conflict; and another side that stood for total worldwide dictatorship, economic ruin, repression, and famine

don't you realize how easily this can be turned around?  'despite their faults, on one side you had a commitment to equality, the historical self-realization of the working class, economic liberation, an end to hunger and scarity; on the other, a dedication to exploitation by forced labor, control of the resources necessary for life by the few, false scarcity...'

[Vosem]

It didn't have to, and that's not the point. The point is that we are better off today because it won, and while, say, Pinochet was terrible, it was still better than allowing Allende and his ideology to take root.

My problem with what you're saying is that you're quite blatantly admitting you think, when the chips are down, capitalism is more important than democracy. You're happier with capitalism by the barrel of a gun and the rape of a dictator squad, than marxism by democracy. Your priorities are perverse.

Having reread what I said, I can see how you'd interpret that to be my views, and it's not the case. So let me say it clearly: one system allows for democracy and free speech. Another never, when it fully came to power, ever allowed for democracy or free speech. Which is what makes the triumph of the first important (though, thankfully, this is close to a completed task). In and of themselves, in Chile, Allende was not anywhere close to being as repressive and terrible as Pinochet, but the implications of Allende consolidating power in Chile over the long run were much worse, because the ideology would've spread to Chile's neighbors and the economic devastation it would've wrought, the way it did everywhere else in the world where it came to power, would've been far more deadly and awful than the terrible, and, yes, fascist regimes that governed South America in the 1970s-'80s.

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets

Even if it had to bully, overthrow, murder, or declare war on everyone involved to get there. Three hurrahs for freedom, democracy, and justice.

It didn't have to, and that's not the point. The point is that we are better off today because it won, and while, say, Pinochet was terrible, it was still better than allowing Allende and his ideology to take root.


No?

Oh, so it's worth overthrowing a democratically elected leader with no intention of eliminating democracy and to replace him with a brutal, mass murdering dictator if we like his ideology better? 

No. Pinochet was wrong to seize power for himself, rather than giving it to the Congress and holding fresh elections, which after three years like as disastrous as 1970-1973 would certainly have resulted in a defeat for Allende. Because of the circumstances, it can be argued (and I'm unsure of this point) that the coup itself was justified, but certainly the actions taken later in its name were not. Unfortunately, something similar is going on in Egypt now.

No, in fact it's the single most significant thing. In the Cold War you had one side, which, although supported by some very flawed elements (such as Pinochet), had leadership whose ultimate goal was one that envisioned democracy, free speech, and free markets, that set about taking apart its worst creations at the end of said conflict; and another side that stood for total worldwide dictatorship, economic ruin, repression, and famine

don't you realize how easily this can be turned around?  'despite their faults, on one side you had a commitment to equality, the historical self-realization of the working class, economic liberation, an end to hunger and scarity; on the other, a dedication to exploitation by forced labor, control of the resources necessary for life by the few, false scarcity...'

I would say literally not a single thing inside your quote is the truth, so no.

[Zioneer]

No Vosem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Vosem]

No Vosem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You ever spoken to anyone who lived under a dictatorship? Right- or left-wing, regardless?

[Hash]

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

If you do not believe these are redeeming qualities, regardless of anything else, when being compared to a man like Augusto Pinochet, then you are an horrible inhumane person who is very likely a sociopath.

[Vosem]

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality. Doing something good is a redeeming quality. Pinochet did absolutely awful things -- much worse than Allende -- but at the same time had certain policies that helped his country, and the international community, significantly. Allende did not do things anywhere near as terrible as Pinochet -- not anywhere near -- but it's difficult for me to think of a single thing Allende did (as opposed to, say, things he could've done but didn't) that I could approve of. It's not difficult to grasp.

If you do not believe these are redeeming qualities, regardless of anything else, when being compared to a man like Augusto Pinochet,

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.

[Zioneer]

No Vosem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You ever spoken to anyone who lived under a dictatorship? Right- or left-wing, regardless?

Yes. Have you?

Also, you're equating Allende's policies with Pinochet's dictatorship, with a dash of geopolitical justification. That's just silly to begin with. But I have one further question; if Chile had remained left-leaning, but also remained an ally of the US, would you still think that Pinochet would be the superior option?

[Peter the Lefty]

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality. Doing something good is a redeeming quality. Pinochet did absolutely awful things -- much worse than Allende -- but at the same time had certain policies that helped his country, and the international community, significantly. Allende did not do things anywhere near as terrible as Pinochet -- not anywhere near -- but it's difficult for me to think of a single thing Allende did (as opposed to, say, things he could've done but didn't) that I could approve of. It's not difficult to grasp.

If you do not believe these are redeeming qualities, regardless of anything else, when being compared to a man like Augusto Pinochet,

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.

If you're counting "redeeming qualities," you must also then count negative qualities.  You're effectively equating all levels of negativity if you're only going based on who had what you consider to be "redeeming qualities."  

[Vosem]

No Vosem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You ever spoken to anyone who lived under a dictatorship? Right- or left-wing, regardless?

Yes. Have you?

Yes. I live with, and was raised by, people who lived most of their lives under left-wing dictatorship. Until a few years ago, I also lived with someone who, in addition to that, had spent several years resisting right-wing dictatorship.

Also, you're equating Allende's policies with Pinochet's dictatorship,

Allende's domestic policies, while terrible, were not comparable with the repression of dissidents and speech that occurred under Pinochet.

with a dash of geopolitical justification.

I really do think, in the context of the 1970s-'80s, geopolitics is the key justification for all foreign policy, with only really, really egregious exceptions (I do think supporting the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s, for instance, was a mistake).

But I have one further question; if Chile had remained left-leaning, but also remained an ally of the US, would you still think that Pinochet would be the superior option?

The Pinochet dictatorship? Of course not.

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality. Doing something good is a redeeming quality. Pinochet did absolutely awful things -- much worse than Allende -- but at the same time had certain policies that helped his country, and the international community, significantly. Allende did not do things anywhere near as terrible as Pinochet -- not anywhere near -- but it's difficult for me to think of a single thing Allende did (as opposed to, say, things he could've done but didn't) that I could approve of. It's not difficult to grasp.

If you do not believe these are redeeming qualities, regardless of anything else, when being compared to a man like Augusto Pinochet,

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.

If you're counting "redeeming qualities," you must also then count negative qualities.  You're effectively equating all levels of negativity if you're only going based on who had what you consider to be "redeeming qualities." 

I'm not. I've explained why, in the context of the geopolitics of the 1970s, the superiority of the foreign policy of Pinochet over Allende makes him marginally 'better'. In the 1930s, when right-wing extremism was a greater threat than left-wing extremism, the reverse would've been the case.

[Peter the Lefty]

No Vosem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You ever spoken to anyone who lived under a dictatorship? Right- or left-wing, regardless?

Yes. Have you?

Yes. I live with, and was raised by, people who lived most of their lives under left-wing dictatorship. Until a few years ago, I also lived with someone who, in addition to that, had spent several years resisting right-wing dictatorship.

Also, you're equating Allende's policies with Pinochet's dictatorship,

Allende's domestic policies, while terrible, were not comparable with the repression of dissidents and speech that occurred under Pinochet.

with a dash of geopolitical justification.

I really do think, in the context of the 1970s-'80s, geopolitics is the key justification for all foreign policy, with only really, really egregious exceptions (I do think supporting the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s, for instance, was a mistake).

But I have one further question; if Chile had remained left-leaning, but also remained an ally of the US, would you still think that Pinochet would be the superior option?

The Pinochet dictatorship? Of course not.

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality. Doing something good is a redeeming quality. Pinochet did absolutely awful things -- much worse than Allende -- but at the same time had certain policies that helped his country, and the international community, significantly. Allende did not do things anywhere near as terrible as Pinochet -- not anywhere near -- but it's difficult for me to think of a single thing Allende did (as opposed to, say, things he could've done but didn't) that I could approve of. It's not difficult to grasp.

If you do not believe these are redeeming qualities, regardless of anything else, when being compared to a man like Augusto Pinochet,

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.

If you're counting "redeeming qualities," you must also then count negative qualities.  You're effectively equating all levels of negativity if you're only going based on who had what you consider to be "redeeming qualities." 

I'm not. I've explained why, in the context of the geopolitics of the 1970s, the superiority of the foreign policy of Pinochet over Allende makes him marginally 'better'. In the 1930s, when right-wing extremism was a greater threat than left-wing extremism, the reverse would've been the case.

Do you honestly think that Pinochet's foreign policy makes him better than Allende in spite of all of his atrocities and mass murders?

[Vosem]

No Vosem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

You ever spoken to anyone who lived under a dictatorship? Right- or left-wing, regardless?

Yes. Have you?

Yes. I live with, and was raised by, people who lived most of their lives under left-wing dictatorship. Until a few years ago, I also lived with someone who, in addition to that, had spent several years resisting right-wing dictatorship.

Also, you're equating Allende's policies with Pinochet's dictatorship,

Allende's domestic policies, while terrible, were not comparable with the repression of dissidents and speech that occurred under Pinochet.

with a dash of geopolitical justification.

I really do think, in the context of the 1970s-'80s, geopolitics is the key justification for all foreign policy, with only really, really egregious exceptions (I do think supporting the Khmer Rouge in the 1980s, for instance, was a mistake).

But I have one further question; if Chile had remained left-leaning, but also remained an ally of the US, would you still think that Pinochet would be the superior option?

The Pinochet dictatorship? Of course not.

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality. Doing something good is a redeeming quality. Pinochet did absolutely awful things -- much worse than Allende -- but at the same time had certain policies that helped his country, and the international community, significantly. Allende did not do things anywhere near as terrible as Pinochet -- not anywhere near -- but it's difficult for me to think of a single thing Allende did (as opposed to, say, things he could've done but didn't) that I could approve of. It's not difficult to grasp.

If you do not believe these are redeeming qualities, regardless of anything else, when being compared to a man like Augusto Pinochet,

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.

If you're counting "redeeming qualities," you must also then count negative qualities.  You're effectively equating all levels of negativity if you're only going based on who had what you consider to be "redeeming qualities."  

I'm not. I've explained why, in the context of the geopolitics of the 1970s, the superiority of the foreign policy of Pinochet over Allende makes him marginally 'better'. In the 1930s, when right-wing extremism was a greater threat than left-wing extremism, the reverse would've been the case.

Do you honestly think that Pinochet's foreign policy makes him better than Allende in spite of all of his atrocities and mass murders?

I honestly think that had Allende's foreign policy continued, radical leftist regimes would've been set up in other parts of Latin America (Shining Path, who are truly amazing levels of insane, nearly came to power in Peru as is -- can you imagine if a neighboring country aided them?), that would've caused more deaths and suffering than Pinochet ever did. For this reason, while I wouldn't say his foreign policy absolves him of his other crimes at all, I do think it makes Pinochet nebulously 'better than Allende.' So, yes.

[they don't love you like i love you]

A Greek neo-Nazi party nearly came to power in Peru? What?

[Vosem]

A Greek neo-Nazi party nearly came to power in Peru? What?

Gaah! Confused my nonindicative but cool-sounding extremist group names again. The Peruvian group I was referring to is Shining Path, not Golden Dawn. My mistake.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Oh well that's only slightly less absurd.

1-Shining Path did not exist until 1980 and wasn't a major factor until a few years later, long after Allende's presidency and after it would've peacefully ended if Allende remained in office.
2-George McGovern came closer to being President than Shining Path came to taking power in Peru. They might've controlled some rural areas for awhile but never came anywhere near taking Lima or any major population center, and it's virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where they did.
3-The Shining Path killed trade unionists, leftist politicians and even members of other leftist militant groups and were a Maoist anti-Soviet group, so the idea that Allende would've ever aided them is absurd.
4-Incidentally Peru DID have an authoritarian leftist government at the time Allende was in office and there never was any domino effect...that's about as nonsensical as the crap said during Vietnam.

[Vosem]

Oh well that's only slightly less absurd.

1-Shining Path did not exist until 1980 and wasn't a major factor until a few years later, long after Allende's presidency and after it would've peacefully ended if Allende remained in office.

But it's indicative of the sort of leftist thought that existed in Latin American countries during the Cold War. I don't know what 'it' is you're talking about peacefully ending so I can't say anything to that.

2-George McGovern came closer to being President than Shining Path came to taking power in Peru. They might've controlled some rural areas for awhile but never came anywhere near taking Lima or any major population center, and it's virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where they did.

Shining Path was certainly active in the Lima area around 1990 or so, and it was gaining strength up until Guzman's arrest in 1993. It's perfectly possible to imagine so scenario where Peru is more turbulent in the 1980s than it was in real life leading to a Shining Path takeover.

3-The Shining Path killed trade unionists, leftist politicians and even members of other leftist militant groups and were a Maoist anti-Soviet group, so the idea that Allende would've ever aided them is absurd.

You don't think that Shining Path could've benefited from a weaker leftist Chilean government, elements of which (not Allende himself, I'd agree) could've been sympathetic to it? There definitely couldn't've been more hostile leadership in Chile than Pinochet.

4-Incidentally Peru DID have an authoritarian leftist government at the time Allende was in office and there never was any domino effect...that's about as nonsensical as the crap said during Vietnam.

Yes, from 1968-1975 Peru was an authoritarian leftist state. One could argue the Chilean '73 coup encouraged the '75 Peruvian one to take place in a reverse-domino effect, but I don't think they were directly connected.

The domino effect with Vietnam definitely came to pass -- Laos and Cambodia both became Communist as well, and the Soviets established a naval base in Vietnam from which they could, had they wished, have threatened China or Taiwan or the Philippines.

And, lastly, it being 2:20 in the morning I am signing off for the night. I look forward to resuming the conversation in the morning.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

The extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side' cannot be overstated.

Yes it can. In fact, you're doing it by saying that.

No?

Since it's distinctly possible to overstate the extent of the threat to humanity that existed during the Cold War and the existence of an objective 'good side' and an objective 'bad side', the fact that you are saying that the extent of those things was so vast as to be impossible to overstate is, itself, an overstatement of the extent of those things. I don't understand what it is that you find so confusing about that argument.

Allende's redeeming qualities were not being a mass murderer, not executing political opponents, not organizing the extralegal murder of opponents on foreign soil, not signing off on the murder of thousands of political opponents, not throwing people off of planes, not torturing 30 thousand people and not being a general psychopath.

Not doing something awful isn't a redeeming quality.

It is when compared to somebody who did something awful.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It actually is difficult to grasp, since you're essentially saying that -10,000+1,000>0 (or -10,000+1,000>-1,000, if you're really insistent about Allende himself having been such a bad leader), which is of course absurd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Redeeming qualities are redeeming qualities regardless of circumstance or other qualities.
[/quote]

Life is not lived in a vacuum. Leaders, and people in general, cannot be compared to each other in a vacuum. That is the exact opposite of the point of comparing people to each other.