OK, explain to me the case for Pinochet...

[Jacobtm]

I had never thought there was a case to be made for Pinochet. However, I've seen a few people singing his praises on this forum. So, what'd the guy do that was good?

[Virginian87]

He wasn't a Communist, so we supported him.  That's pretty much it. 

I suggest you read Thank God They're on Our Side by David Schmitz.  It contains a good account of our efforts to support such people.  Schmitz argues that American policymakers supported fascist or pseudo-fascist dictators around the world because they were anti-communist and bereft of any leftist elements. 

[Jacobtm]

He wasn't a Communist, so we supported him.  That's pretty much it. 

Yeah, I know that's why we supported him, and I kinda thought that by this time everyone realized that people like Pinochet and Somoza and all those guys were bastards. I just supposed that some people thought they were slightly less bastardous than possible Communist bastards. I never thought that people actually thought they were good leaders. But that seems to be the case.

I haven't seen much evidence of positive things Pinochet did, but then, that doesn't mean there isn't any.

[opebo]

The case for Pinochet is an extremely good one, if you are a right-winger.  If you want a fairly laissez-faire economic system, you will need a very powerful and oppressive State to keep the lower classes subjugated in their position at the bottom of the heirarchy.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

a laissez-faire economic system implies a lack of state control. A system like your straw man ideas of how capitalism supposedly works would be a feudal system not laissez-faire.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The thing is though, Pinochet did take take power from the communists, but rather a democratically-elected government.

[opebo]

a laissez-faire economic system implies a lack of state control.

That is completely absurd Straha.  The State always creates the economic system.  In the case of laissez-faire it simply uses force to create property 'rights' for certain privileged classes in society, and thereby enslaves the remainder of the population.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

a laissez-faire economic system implies a lack of state control.

That is completely absurd Straha.  The State always creates the economic system.  In the case of laissez-faire it simply uses force to create property 'rights' for certain privileged classes in society, and thereby enslaves the remainder of the population.

Wrong. You're confusing laissez fair economics(if you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire for information ) with something more like fascism or feudalism.

[DanielX]

a laissez-faire economic system implies a lack of state control.

That is completely absurd Straha.  The State always creates the economic system.  In the case of laissez-faire it simply uses force to create property 'rights' for certain privileged classes in society, and thereby enslaves the remainder of the population.

Wrong. You're confusing laissez fair economics(if you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire for information ) with something more like fascism or feudalism.

Straha, opebo does not believe in the idea of a lack of government control. It's sort of like his 'religion'; both the 'god' of a welfare state and the fascist 'devil'; neither allow for a limited government. To him, it's either socialism or fascism, no other choice. He's almost like a cardboard cutout villain from an Ayn Rand novel.

EDIT: Except that those villains are usually either prudes or semi-prudes who violate their 'standards' anyway.

[YoMartin]

I had never thought there was a case to be made for Pinochet. However, I've seen a few people singing his praises on this forum. So, what'd the guy do that was good?

Pinochet is a completely marginal figure nowadays in Chile. Even right wing candidate Sebastián Piñera is (and was back then) against Pinochet. But those who praise Pinochet usually claim that:

- he "saved" the country from communism. That may be true, yet Salvador Allende´s government was democratically elected, and (my personal opinion) was ruling within the Constitution (there was a controversy with Congress about that, controversy that provided part of the rationale for the coup).
- his economic legacy was far better than those left by other military dictatorships in the continent.
- he stepped down after losing a referendum, showing he was a "democratic" guy.

Maybe those people in this forum that have his picture as a banner think that these accomplishments allow someone to be a dictator for 17 years (long after the communist threat had ceased to exist) and to torture and kill 3.000 people.

[jokerman]

If you remove government power there is still not a free market....power has simply been moved to the control of the corporate leaders.  And now economic wealth will be distributed down through heredity and the benevolency between various aristocrats, causing meritocracy to fall and overall economic progress to halt.

There is no choice of promoting economic freedom.  The lassez-faire dogma of equity of opportunity and maximization of prosperity in such a system is false.  There is only economic control by the owning class or economic control by the will of the majority.  In fact, there is a good argument that government is really only an extention of a natural economic system.  The government could be said to represent the collective market power of the people that is too small to ever be manifested individually.

[opebo]

You're confusing laissez fair economics(if you don't believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez_faire for information ) with something more like fascism or feudalism.

No, simpleton.  I have explained to you several times that the power of the State is what creates 'laissez-faire' capitalism, by establishing property rights for a small elite, and then enforcing these property rights and the inevitable servitude of those excluded from property to those privileged with it.  You think without the State and its guns looming over them all those workers would let the 1% own everything and toil happily for them?  No, they would not.

Straha, opebo does not believe in the idea of a lack of government control. It's sort of like his 'religion'; both the 'god' of a welfare state and the fascist 'devil'; neither allow for a limited government. To him, it's either socialism or fascism, no other choice. He's almost like a cardboard cutout villain from an Ayn Rand novel.

No, Daniel X, I did not refer to either socialism or fascism, I was referring to capitalism.  All economic systems are predicated on the exersize of power by the State.  It is incredibly naive of you not to recognize a heiarchy supported by force in 'laissez faire', a system in which a tiny elite 'own' most of the 'property', and everyone else works for them under threat of imprisonment if they do anything that interferes with this system (i.e. 'theft').

If you remove government power there is still not a free market....power has simply been moved to the control of the corporate leaders.

Actually the situation under capitalism is that government power (ultimately coercion is the only real 'power') serves the 'corporate leaders', or as I prefer to call them the owning class. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure 'progress' means different things to different people, but in any case the situation you describe above is the status quo in most of the world.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are generally correct here, although I believe that the economic system grows out of the State - politics are where things are decided, and economics is just the execution.

[The Dowager Mod]

Well he had all of those commie nuns and children murdered by his death squads, that was an acomplishment.

[Jacobtm]

Can the people arguing about laissez-faire Capitalism please stop? I wanted to talk about Pinochet, not argue about Economic theory. I realize his economics is part of the case for/against him, but arguing about whether or not Capitalism is "free" or whatever else will go nowhere.

[Citizen James]

Can the people arguing about laissez-faire Capitalism please stop? I wanted to talk about Pinochet, not argue about Economic theory. I realize his economics is part of the case for/against him, but arguing about whether or not Capitalism is "free" or whatever else will go nowhere.

That may be a problem, as that is probably the specific reasons that some posters here support him - he favored extreme lassez-faire capitalism, coupled with brutal repression of dissent.

I suspect many of them want America to follow a similar path - in which those who disagree with their leader are 'traitors', and companies lack regulation which allows much larger profit (though at the expense of the health and safety of others - though they probably imagine themselves as being appointed to one of the 'wealthy elite' in such a situation; just as young socialists often imagine themselves one of the party elite in the comperable scenerio)

To the rest of us, he is a demonstration as to why free markets do not automatically make for a free nation.  (socialized markets don't either - the two are independent).

[J. J.]

Some of the case is that he was arguably better than Allende and that Allende was acting extra-legally.  Parliament, before the coup, passed a resolution calling for his removal by the military.  I would not accuse Allende of having stage a "presidential coup," ala Louis Bonaparte, but he was drifting in that general direction.

Second, most, but not all, of the killing occurred within the first months of the coup, which was violent.  It was something less than the long term violence than you would see in Nazi Germany.  Arguably the human rights situation improved from 1973 post coup period under Pinochet.

Third, the economy did improve under Pinochet's reforms.  His free market policies survived him and have not been altered by Socialist governnments.

Fourth,  while thought at the time thought rigged, a referendum kept him in power in the 1980's.  In the second referendum, in 1988, a proposition to keep him received 42% of the vote.  It is quite possible that in 1980, he had enough popular support to rule.

Fifth, Pinochet served as a vital counter weight, not just against Communism, but against Argentine military aggression.  Because the West was willing to arm him, the counterweight was successful.

Sixth, Pinochet left office after the voters had spoken.

It's not a particularly good defence,  bit arguably Chileans were probably better under Pinochet than under allendi

[Bono]

If you remove government power there is still not a free market....power has simply been moved to the control of the corporate leaders.  And now economic wealth will be distributed down through heredity and the benevolency between various aristocrats, causing meritocracy to fall and overall economic progress to halt.

There is no choice of promoting economic freedom.  The lassez-faire dogma of equity of opportunity and maximization of prosperity in such a system is false.  There is only economic control by the owning class or economic control by the will of the majority.  In fact, there is a good argument that government is really only an extention of a natural economic system.  The government could be said to represent the collective market power of the people that is too small to ever be manifested individually.

There would be no corporations without state power, since it is the state itself who forces limited liability upon the market. So kiss that corporate leaders theory goodbye.

[Bono]

a laissez-faire economic system implies a lack of state control.

That is completely absurd Straha.  The State always creates the economic system.  In the case of laissez-faire it simply uses force to create property 'rights' for certain privileged classes in society, and thereby enslaves the remainder of the population.

In the several stateless societies that existed along history, property and wealthy people always existed.

[YoMartin]

Parliament, before the coup, passed a resolution calling for his removal by the military. 

Well, no, the opposition (a majority in Congress) claimed he was acting outside the Constitution, but they didn´t openly call for a coup. The Supreme Court also claimed he was breaking the law, for accepting the intrusion of homeless people in private properties. Still, if that was the case for the coup, I would say every Latin American president should be removed. In countries with housing problems, most presidents know it´s impossible to send the police everywhere to throw this people out. Of course, you could say that the difference is that Allende (or some in his party, actually) was actively promoting this intrusions...

[quoteJ Second, most, but not all, of the killing occurred within the first months of the coup, which was violent. 
 [/quote]

After a couple of years of such regime, with the dead, the exiled and those too afraid to do anything, there´s almost no one else to kill actually.

[quoteJ  Arguably the human rights situation improved from 1973 post coup period under Pinochet.
 [/quote]

The situation of those missing hasn´t improved one bit since 1973. Except for those already found dead, the others have technically been kidnapped, so the crime against them is still being commited.

[quoteJ Third, the economy did improve under Pinochet's reforms.  His free market policies survived him and have not been altered by Socialist governnments.
 [/quote]

Mostly true. Yet in 1982, after a decade of his policies, unemployment was above 30%. When he left office, poverty was around 40% (more than in 1973). The administrations of Concertación (christian democrats + socialists) have taken that number below 20%.

[quoteJ Fourth, while thought at the time thought rigged, a referendum kept him in power in the 1980's.
 [/quote]

It was rigged, no doubt about that. The opposition barely had access to the media. And they weren´t allowed to control the vote counting. Anyway, I admit his 43% of 1989 was very impressive.

[quoteJ It's not a particularly good defence,  bit arguably Chileans were probably better under Pinochet than under allendi
[/quote]

Some were, some weren´t. The dead were chileans too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom House scores:

1972 (under Allende) - 1, 2 Free
1973 (after the coup) - 7, 5 Not Free

No, Chile was not better off under Pinochet.

Oh, and it's pretty funny that someone who loves Pinochet claims to be a moderate. But hey, it's the same person who can't argue with jfern without resorting to childish name calling.

[??????????]

Freedom House scores:

1972 (under Allende) - 1, 2 Free
1973 (after the coup) - 7, 5 Not Free

No, Chile was not better off under Pinochet.

Oh, and it's pretty funny that someone who loves Pinochet claims to be a moderate. But hey, it's the same person who can't argue with jfern without resorting to childish name calling.

So says a left wing "think" tank.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Freedom House left wing? AHAHAAHAHHAHAHA

[Jake]

Um, Freedom House measures political freedoms. They hardly measure how "good" a country is, merely how "free" it is.

[??????????]

Freedom House left wing? AHAHAAHAHHAHAHA

Go read who founded them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House#History

Eleanor Roosevelt. Ok, now tell me it isn't left wing.

[J. J.]

Parliament, before the coup, passed a resolution calling for his removal by the military.

Well, no, the opposition (a majority in Congress) claimed he was acting outside the Constitution, but they didn´t openly call for a coup. The Supreme Court also claimed he was breaking the law, for accepting the intrusion of homeless people in private properties. Still, if that was the case for the coup, I would say every Latin American president should be removed. In countries with housing problems, most presidents know it´s impossible to send the police everywhere to throw this people out. Of course, you could say that the difference is that Allende (or some in his party, actually) was actively promoting this intrusions...

I am noting that the situation under Allende was heading the direction of extra-constitutional power and that the majority of representatives, elected in free elections, saw this as a danger.  As I said, Allende was not at the Louis Napoleon point, but he was heading in that direction.  They did, according Wiki, call for military intervention
[

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That was not the case in Nazi Germany, nor with his contemporaries, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, and his neighbor to the east, Argentina, nor in current dictatorships such as Zimbagwe or North Korea. 

I'm suggesting the situation, long term, did improve, not that the country became free under Pinochet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was rigged, no doubt about that. The opposition barely had access to the media. And they were not´t allowed to control the vote counting. Anyway, I admit his 43% of 1989 was very impressive.

[/quote]

My point is that Pinochet might have actually won a free election at that point.

I'm not arguing that Pinochet was a good man, but I am arguing that he was far from the worst bad man out there and that his government did not lend itself to the same level of abuses that existed in other contemporary dictatorships of both the right and the left.