This rather belongs in the Utterly Sickening Posts Sh*tmine, but for the lack of such thread I got to post it there.
The first two were positive events.
Click for context.
While nothing will cause lefties to spaz out more than suggesting Allende/the Spanish Republicans/Sandinistas were worse than their opposition (why only things happening in Spanish-speaking countries cause spaz-out reactions I don't know), the fact remains that the Latin left, especially of the Commie variety, especially of the pro-Soviet Commie variety at the height of the Cold War, were and are not very nice people. If you don't believe that, I'll invite you to move to Cuba. Since they'll put you up in the relative luxury accomodations reserved for Useful Idiots, you should subsequently renounce your European citizenships and get yourself arrested for a real representative taste. I'm sure you'll love it. They have nice weather and excellent cigars!
Edit: Addendum: Latin politics is not good guys and bad guys, it's generally bad guys and worse guys. Pinochet was very bad but far better than what would have happened otherwise. Perhaps saying the coup was a "positive event" was a bit too breezy, more like a non-negative event.
This only demonstrates your utterly ignorance about Latin-American politics. And that you're nothing but an imbecile. Who else was a commie, Goulart? Well, If those 'commies' had won, there would be the rising of a rural middle-class, which would avoid heavy rural flight at the 70's (probably the most important influence on southern-american underdevelopment on the following decades) and foment national industry, making an inner force for autonomous development. That was the whole matter. There, here or in Argentina, the Andes, anywhere in the region. Lula's success is only and entirely based on a new version of this reading. We would all have achieved 4 decades earlier what Brazil is achieving now, alone.
Let me tell you something, that being an imbecile you surely have no clue. These countries were not a Caribbean island run by US controlled mobsters. Even if TEH KOMMIUNIEESTZ had reached power and installed a soviet regime (something that only someone completely ignorant about what was the Latin-american 60's and 70's left or even the hardcore left would imagine. And don't come with Cuba, Castro wasn't even a commie before the USA positioned itself against him neither Cuba was a mess before the eastern block debacle - It was actually the Latin-american country with the best achievements, around that time) China would be the comparison. The soviets were less interested in such a development than the USA.
The struggle wasn't between 'commies' and 'non-commies'. It was between autonomists who assumed this position based on emancipation leanings (the main 'commie' speech was that we were never really independent / free) and an ancient elite whose power was based on being the foremen of great powers interests. It wasn't about central planning. It was about anti-imperialism.
We're talking here about people whose economical interest (poor people interested physicians, inner market oriented farmers, urban middle class professionals) was the existence of autochtonous populations with consumer's power. There are few things more imbecilic than the double-standard a-historical a-geographical bullsh**t you'd written.
Sure, if you believe that the sake of international capital based economy (which is conceptually linked to imperialist control, always - and I don't really care about what you think about the term 'imperialism', It is a historically based and valid geopolitical concept) is above anything else, than I must agree that a good guys/bad guys debate is pointless here. But to anyone who believes on humanism, people's empowerment and emancipation, democratic control of your own future and other political concepts which are important to non-imbecils, than, pal, It was a good guys / bad guys opposition. And those 'commies' were the good guys. They were the ones making the defence of freedom around.
The most amusing thing here is the undying tentative of putting the blame on those who were taken from democratically chosen positions. Even after debate over debate (on academical conditions, surely - I really don't care about what hacks have to say) demonstrates It's pure feces. This only sickens me. "Allende would make a self-coup! Goulart would make a self-coup!". F**k!!! How people are imbeciloid enough to not laugh on this!
What if Allende nationalized the whole freaking economy?? He was elected to do It, imbecile. Presidentialism is not parliamentarism. Any impeachment based on opposition to these policies are just grotesquely antidemocratic. Once democratic institutions are preserved and people can overturn what was done (which is something, alas, that our neoliberal fake-democracies are unable to provide, vide Greece), I'm sorry to inform, this is democracy. The rule from the people, by the people and to the people.
The second most amusing thing (and It always tells a lot to me) is that every time I read/listen to this specific bullsh**t - Chilean 73's coup - the round's coup defender is always a self proclaimed 'libertarian'. This only demonstrates how fake are the great share of these 'freedomers'. It's clearly not about freedom, It's about economics. That same brand of imbeciles defends another islander dictatorship as the quintessential model for society's organization.
Anyway, don't bother answering this. Any imbecile defender of Pinochet's coup is automatically on my ignore list. And, to the other guys, sorry about the rant. I just cannot stay calm on the whole matter of the XXth century's second half Latin-american dictatorship cycle. Personal matter.
