Chile's Pinochet dead at 91

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but he got much more criticism than he deserved, once you compare him to other dictators.

No, the fact that he still has apologists indicates that he didn't and doesn't.

Just because he wasn't the worst dictator in the latter part of the 20th century doesn't mean that criticism of him and his regime should be limited.

[Storebought]

Poor dazzleman. He must be crying a waterfall now that his hero's gone.

I'm going to have a shot now in celebration.

I went to church today and lit a candle for the soul of Mr. Pinochet.  May he rest in peace.

I think you need to address the matter of your own soul, BRTD.  Please come toward the light of salvation, and away from the wicked and sinful ways that you have been indulging yourself in.

Your Fordham education is showing

And about Pinochet: I find it curious that Latin America's whitest countries, namely Argentina, Chile, and to a lesser extent, Uruguay, have produced the two continents' most odious dictators (outside of Columbia -- that country is a mess).

Pinochet seems like a Latin American version of Portugal's Salazar -- he used unadulturated authoritarianism to introduce modern economics to a backward basket case of a country. He left Chile more stable than when he found it.

Now compare that to Argentina's Peron. Peron took a wealthy, thoroughly Europeanized nation, with a higher standard of living than Canada, and did this ...

Portugal's economics were far from modern, and Salazar's economic polity was way different from Pinochet's. Salazar was a corporativist, Pinochet actually did free market stuff.

Salazar's corporatism was "modern" (as of 1928) in the sense that it attempted to use late 19th century Catholic theology to create a communitarian but non-socialist economy.

I had misgivings about Salazar when I remembered the idiotic lengths he went through to maintain the African colonies, such as spending 40% of GDP and sending upwards of 100,000 troops for swamps like Mozambique, in addition to Angola, which you could argue was worth keeping.

Salazar did attempt to open up Portugal's economy by the early 60s, but by then it was way too late. But even then, the Socialist governments that came after him only increased the poverty rate.

On the whole, he was just a hardhearted version of Peron.

[Democratic Hawk]

I know, the thought of life without Pinochet. My heart bleeds for Margaret

Dave

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Pinochet should be remembered as the guy who basically proved that free market economics is the best tool for causing the downfall of authoritarian regimes. You can have social freedom without economic freedom, but not economic without social. Unfortunately only a few people learned that lesson.

If that was true, how do you explain Singapore or Hong Kong? Both of those places are 'economically free' yet don't have anything really like a liberal democracy.

And that's not to mention that weird experiment going on in China right now.

[Gustaf]

but he got much more criticism than he deserved, once you compare him to other dictators.

No, the fact that he still has apologists indicates that he didn't and doesn't.

Just because he wasn't the worst dictator in the latter part of the 20th century doesn't mean that criticism of him and his regime should be limited.

I guess it's a matter of one's focus. There are now four pages here of people enjoying his death. Now, did/would dictators like Idi Amin, Boukassa, etc get as much attention? I think not, and I believe the reason is that Pinochet's politics made him more despicable to the left. This leads many people on the left to actually believe that there was something extraordinary bad about Pinochet, when it was in fact the other way around (most dictators do not leave their countries stable and prosperous). Pinochet was a rotten human being, but for most of the nineteenth century a majority of the world's nations have been ruled by dictators. Most of them were a lot worse and that is worth to keep in mind, IMHO.

So I don't think criticism of him should be limited, but if one devotes an essay to criticizing Pinochet that person would have to explain to me why he/she doesn't do it for the many dictators who are much worse.

[Gustaf]

Pinochet should be remembered as the guy who basically proved that free market economics is the best tool for causing the downfall of authoritarian regimes. You can have social freedom without economic freedom, but not economic without social. Unfortunately only a few people learned that lesson.

If that was true, how do you explain Singapore or Hong Kong? Both of those places are 'economically free' yet don't have anything really like a liberal democracy.

And that's not to mention that weird experiment going on in China right now.

Depends on your definitions. I can assure you Hongkong is a LOT more democratic than China - and China really isn't economically free. If the state can decide to close down someone's business because they want less competition there isn't really much economic freedom. Just because the left likes to equate robber barons and oligarchies with a free market doesn't really make it so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are now four pages here of people enjoying his death. Now, did/would dictators like Idi Amin, Boukassa, etc get as much attention?

No. But equally you wouldn't see people defending them, whether outright or more, how shall we say, covert?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously. Especially the bit where he overthrew a democratically elected leftwing government in a bloody coup. Suprisingly enough, people with left-leaning symphathies are unlikely to be especially happy about that.

But it's also true that Pinochet's politics are the main reason why so many people with right-leaning views clearly sympathise with him and what he did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, so you think that there was something extraordinarily good about Pinochet?

[Gustaf]

There are now four pages here of people enjoying his death. Now, did/would dictators like Idi Amin, Boukassa, etc get as much attention?

No. But equally you wouldn't see people defending them, whether outright or more, how shall we say, covert?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously. Especially the bit where he overthrew a democratically elected leftwing government in a bloody coup. Suprisingly enough, people with left-leaning symphathies are unlikely to be especially happy about that.

But it's also true that Pinochet's politics are the main reason why so many people with right-leaning views clearly sympathise with him and what he did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, so you think that there was something extraordinarily good about Pinochet?

Now, I get the feeling that you're insinuating that I'm "covertly" supporting Pinochet. I do not think there was anything extraordinarily good about Pinochet. But, as opposed to being a particularly bad dictator, he was an unusually good dictator. Basically, the worse part of his regime was the takeover. Most dictatorships (like Castro's) goes the other way around. If you look at Chile today, they turned out allright. Compare Chile to Russia for instance. That isn't a defence of Pinochet, who, once again, was a brutish, nasty person. I have no sympathies for him at all. But I do get angered when people pretend to be "anti-dictators" when they're actually just being left-winged or "anti-war" when they're actually just being anti-American.

I understand your point about many right-wingers supporting Pinochet because of his free market policies, but if you're fair I think you have to admit that the left usually comes first in these cases, that is right-wingers wouldn't be defending Pinochet as much if it weren't for the left giving it so much attention (as opposed to Israel where both sides are equally to blame in terms of giving undue attention). In the case of Thatcher I get the sense that she is the kind of person who sticks with allies irregardless of who they are (Churchill had the same vice) but I certainly wouldn't be posting all this if Pinochet was getting the limited, balanced coverage he should get.

[WMS]

*marks off check box*

OK, another tyrant down. Back to waiting for Castro to die...

...at which point I expect about half the posters to commit rabid hypocrisy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Now, I get the feeling that you're insinuating that I'm "covertly" supporting Pinochet.

No, there's nothing covert about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so? Seriously? Because he was in favour, some of the time, of the free market?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The torture and killings continued for years after the coup.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't you just say that you don't sympathise with him?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I find it totally amazing that there are STILL some blinkered right-wingers who are defending Pinochet, who of course had he been a Marxist would be dancing on his grave right now.

Had to get that biased rant out of the way.

[Michael Z]

I find it totally amazing that there are STILL some blinkered right-wingers who are defending Pinochet, who of course had he been a Marxist would be dancing on his grave right now.

Well, y'see, Pinochet defended the free market, so that makes everything alright.

Tongue out of cheek, obviously I agree with you.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

[Michael Z]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

No, I think the word you're looking for is "fascism".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

No, I think the word you're looking for is "fascism".

But.. but... I thought Pinochet one of the good guys, defending the freedom of chileans from damn communists(TM) who you know, were interested in those damn wasters, the poor who do sod all and should get on their bikes. The fact that he was little than a glorified thug doesn't mean he was a fascist because he was one of us and cared about freedom, which clearly means 'deregulating everything to make it a paradise for big business parasites'.

[Michael Z]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

No, I think the word you're looking for is "fascism".

But.. but... I thought Pinochet one of the good guys, defending the freedom of chileans from damn communists(TM) who you know, were interested in those damn wasters, the poor who do sod all and should get on their bikes. The fact that he was little than a glorified thug doesn't mean he was a fascist because he was one of us and cared about freedom, which clearly means 'deregulating everything to make it a paradise of big business parasites'.

Remember, he supported the free market, so that makes him alright.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

No, I think the word you're looking for is "fascism".

But.. but... I thought Pinochet one of the good guys, defending the freedom of chileans from damn communists(TM) who you know, were interested in those damn wasters, the poor who do sod all and should get on their bikes. The fact that he was little than a glorified thug doesn't mean he was a fascist because he was one of us and cared about freedom, which clearly means 'deregulating everything to make it a paradise of big business parasites'.

Remember, he supported the free market, so that makes him alright.

Of Course - I mean he did bring the values of choice to Chile, clearly chileans with Pinochet in charge were free to choose between different ice cream flavours, different brands of cola, different post offices, different major corporations partially run by the Pinochet family, different visions of goverment... oh, hang on, we don't want to be too radical here.

[Michael Z]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

No, I think the word you're looking for is "fascism".

But.. but... I thought Pinochet one of the good guys, defending the freedom of chileans from damn communists(TM) who you know, were interested in those damn wasters, the poor who do sod all and should get on their bikes. The fact that he was little than a glorified thug doesn't mean he was a fascist because he was one of us and cared about freedom, which clearly means 'deregulating everything to make it a paradise of big business parasites'.

Remember, he supported the free market, so that makes him alright.

Of Course - I mean he did bring the values of choice to Chile, clearly chileans with Pinochet in charge were free to choose between different ice cream flavours, different brands of cola, different post offices, different major corporations partially run by the Pinochet family, different visions of goverment... oh, hang on, we don't want to be too radical here.

"Different visions of government"?? What are you, some kind of Commie?! Let's take a walk, fella, hope you don't mind them handcuffs. Here, meet my friend Mungo...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A defintion of the 'free market' which includes privitizing industries off to close relatives and friends, non-stop favours to businesses of allied nations (ie. US and the UK) and a thuggish neanderthalic goverment.

Sounds like a corporate plutocracy to me.

No, I think the word you're looking for is "fascism".

But.. but... I thought Pinochet one of the good guys, defending the freedom of chileans from damn communists(TM) who you know, were interested in those damn wasters, the poor who do sod all and should get on their bikes. The fact that he was little than a glorified thug doesn't mean he was a fascist because he was one of us and cared about freedom, which clearly means 'deregulating everything to make it a paradise of big business parasites'.

Remember, he supported the free market, so that makes him alright.

Of Course - I mean he did bring the values of choice to Chile, clearly chileans with Pinochet in charge were free to choose between different ice cream flavours, different brands of cola, different post offices, different major corporations partially run by the Pinochet family, different visions of goverment... oh, hang on, we don't want to be too radical here.

"Different visions of government"?? What are you, some kind of Commie?! Let's take a walk, fella, hope you don't mind them handcuffs. Here, meet my friend Mungo...

Clearly my eventual arrest, torture and murder is all the cause of freedom, being the (')free market(') which will give Chileans unlimited freedom to...

Ah screw it, you know the drill, what the hell are we doing - it's 1:30AM?

(As a Brit, Doesn't my Tony Blair related sig quote taken after the 1987 election make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?)

[Gustaf]

Now, I get the feeling that you're insinuating that I'm "covertly" supporting Pinochet.

No, there's nothing covert about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so? Seriously? Because he was in favour, some of the time, of the free market?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The torture and killings continued for years after the coup.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't you just say that you don't sympathise with him?

I think that is out of line...I do not support Pinochet in any way. I was quite disappointed when he wasn't convicted a few years back and my only disappointment in his death is that they never got to convict him in Chile. But Chile today is a democratic country with a socialist president who almost got to the point of convicting their former dictator. A lot of dictators have been a lot worse.

I should probably point out that being an unusually good dictator isn't a major achievement...but I stand by my point which is that most dictators killed more people, did worse things to their country, and were much harder to get rid of.

I read today that Mengistu just recently was convicted by an Ethiopian court. That's another person who doesn't recieve a lot of attention and who was a great deal worse than Pinochet.

Perhaps terminology is part of the confusion here. When I say Pinochet wasn't that bad, I don't mean in a moral sense, but in a purely instrumental sense. Hitler wasn't so bad for Germany until the late 30s and Lenin wasn't THAT bad for Russia either (or rather wouldn't have been too bad). None of them of course surpasses a democratic government, because dictators never, or at least very, very rarely do, and the fact that they were better than most other dictators does not change the fact that they were moral scum as human beings. I do not have any admiration or warm feelings towards Pinochet. But the effects of his dictatorship were not at all as bad as that of most other dictatorships. Pointing that out is not defending him, either covertly or openly and I'm disappointed that you would suggest that of me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think that is out of line

There should have been a after the first line...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True.

Btw, one reason why Pinochet gets a lot of coverage over in the U.K is the little incident over here in the late '90's.

[Gustaf]

I think that is out of line

There should have been a after the first line...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True.

Btw, one reason why Pinochet gets a lot of coverage over in the U.K is the little incident over here in the late '90's.

Well, in the case of the UK there is the somewhat disturbing history of the Tories and Pinochet which sort of warrants it getting some extra attention. As opposed to say Sweden where it's still big news.