Salvador Allende vs. Augusto Pinochet

[Peter the Lefty]

who had better economic policies?  pinochet, obviously.

Even if we grant that that's true, that makes up for being more of a mass-murdering thug?

no.

But you'd still vote for him over somebody who you think had worse economic policies but was also less of a mass-murdering thug?

Less of?

[Peter the Lefty]

who had better economic policies?  pinochet, obviously.

Even if we grant that that's true, that makes up for being more of a mass-murdering thug?

no.

But you'd still vote for him over somebody who you think had worse economic policies but was also less of a mass-murdering thug?

i never said that.

although im certainly no fanboy of allende.

....soooo, you'd still vote for Allende over Pinochet, or are you trying to create some riddle for us to solve?

[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?

[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.

[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?  

[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."  

[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?

[Peter the Lefty]

The one who wasn't a dictator.

so none of the above? good, i agree.

Allende was quite simply not a dictator.  No idea where you're getting that idea from.