Pinochet Roundup - And Some Mythbusting

Marc Cooper has thoughts here and here that you should not miss. Tomas Dinges (just added to the blogroll) e-mailed about these two posts regarding events in Chile. Marc tips me to this post by a blogger in Chile who embedded himself with some  pro-Pinochet marchers.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings takes down the moral obtuseness of Red State's response to Pinochet's death. Dave Noon takes a look at the wingnut praise for Pinochet, including this nonsensical bit by an obviously butt stupid Harvard physics professor. Scott Lemieux catches Mark Steyn breaking wind bloviating with his typical blissful ignorance and shows that he puts the ass in bombastic.

Now for some mythbusting.

Myth #1:

Pinochet left power gracefully after losing the 1988 plebiscite.

Fact:

In 2003 in an interview on Chilean television, General Matthei, the commander of the air force at the time of the plebiscite, pointed out that when confronted with the results of the plebiscite and that the “no” (on eight more years of Pinochet) vote was winning, Pinochet told the other commanders (navy, caribineros and the air force) that he wanted to send the troops on the streets. They all told him that they would not support him and he backed down.

Earlier that evening, when Matthei arrived at La Moneda, the presidential palace, the press raced towards him because the official government account of the election showed results that were not in keeping with what independent observers and the “no” coalition was showing. Matthei responded that it appears that the “no” vote had won and said “We are calm.”

A few months after the plebiscite, Pinochet, in addressing a women's group commented that there had been another plebiscite once and the people chose Barabbas. Jesus, if I recall correctly, never had people murdered on his orders.

Myth #2:

Pinochet's amnesty was negotiated as part of his retirement.

Fact:

Pinochet's amnesty was written in April 1978 by his cousin, Justice Minister at the time, Monica Madariaga and approved by the other leaders of the armed forces. No one else had any input into it.

Myth #3:

Continued rule by Allende would have been worse.

Fact:

The above sentence was written in the subjunctive case. Anyone who says it is offering an opinion and we all know the old saying about opinions.

But, if in three years in power, Allende did not systematize torture, abolish Congress and political parties, ban opposition media, put the military in charge of universities, burn books, send his secret police around the world to kill his political enemies, all of which Pinochet's regime did, what empirical evidence is there to prove this? It's not a matter of whitewashing Allende as a commenter accused me of in the prior post, it's a matter of making an informed judgment based on the available facts.

I'm sure that there will be more myths to bust in the days to come.

Comments

[Jose Angel]

I perfectly agree with your 1st and 2nd points. I have to disagree on the third however.
First because Allende had engaged in a nationalization process to convert the Chilean economy into a communist state controlled economy.
The one problem with, and what it's happening with Evo Morales today, is that once the state controls all main industries it then becomes the only factual power and the government in turn is able to control all the political process. Just like it happens in Cuba, and it occurred in all communist states, from USSR to China.
Allende and his coalition (representing no more than 35% of the votes)were turning Chile into a communist state, and all the things you mentioned:
"systematize torture, abolish Congress and political parties, ban opposition media, put the military in charge of universities, burn books"
Are all very common in communist dictatorship, like Cuba. The only difference is that while Cuba is a poverty striken country and an insignificant economy with absolutely no influence in the region and no contribution to the latin american gdp, Chile is one of the most important economies in the region today and one that enjoys one of the best living standards. That didn't occured in one decade, it took three to build such a properous economy.

[Akaky]

Like your previous commenter, I agree with your first and second points; Pinochet found, after the coup, that he liked being in charge and thought he should stay in charge. He was not the first military man seduced by power; Caesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon all come immediately to mind; and he certainly won't be the last. But your third point I have to disagree with. Yes, it is written in the subjunctive, but only because the coup prevented the more radical elements of Allende's party from turning the country into a Marxist state.

"Continued rule by Allende would have been worse.

Fact:

The above sentence was written in the subjunctive case. Anyone who says it is offering an opinion and we all know the old saying about opinions."

Yes, I do know what they say about opinions; I also know what they say about failing to learn from history, and what you're asking people to do is ignore the historical and political experience of the late and unlamented twentieth century. You're asking me to believe that Marxists, once in power, would allow anyone to get in their way of imposing an ideologically Marxist state. I'm sorry, Randy, but you're asking me to believe something I know isnt true.

[Randinho]

Dig a little deeper and read Marc Cooper's comment in the previous thread. The facts don't bear out your claim. His economics were marxist, but the society remained free with elections being held on schedule, opposition media remaining unfettered and opposition unharrassed.

There are exceptions to many rules and this was one.

[Akaky]

Randy, the reason Chile is the exception to the rule is that the coup prevented the Marxists from instituting the police state they instituted everywhere else.

[Randinho]

Poppycock. In three years there was absolutely no evidence to indicate that a police state was about to be implemented.

Chile was neither totalitarian nor authoritarian when Allende was in power. I cannot think of another marxist who led a government that allowed opposition to continue in media and congress and that allowed open elections for three years (in this case, its entire existence). As it clearly shows that Allende was sui generis in this regard, what evidence can you muster to show otherwise? Absent any evidence, then you really have no factual basis on which to make that claim.

[Jose Angel]

Allende started a process of nationalizing industries, just like Evo Morales is doing now in Bolivia. The problem that this posses is the following: In a country where one single political party controlls the state, and this in turn controls the economy because all main industries belong to the state. What kind of democracy can you get?
If all the people work for the state, wouldn't they be afraid to lose their jobs if they vote por a different political party that advocates free enterprise?
That is the problem with socialism, it creates a point of no return, while it bring poverty, it also creates a vicious cycle of dependency and fear.
The answer is simple. Once Allende and his socialist party had nationalized the whole industries of the country, they would have been able to control the political process and established a one party rule.
In Mexico, the PRI nationalized the most important industries of the country, the Oil, the Gas, Electricity, Telephone and Communications, Food, etc. This was the reason why the PRI was able to remain in power for more than 50 years, because it was able to control the votes, also because of fraud, but most of the times because the state was the largest employer in the country. Mexico is still paying a very high price for those years plagued with corruption and negligence that occur in such state sponsored economies as in Russia and other marxists experiments.
Let's make no mistake, all marxists experiments have ended the same way. In Communist states, the government is the only power. In free enterprise societies like the USA or Canada, coexists different powers, the state, the business, citizen organizations, several political parties compete and the people get to choose from them.

[Randinho]

Let me repeat myself. In three years of rule, under Allende, people were not tortured, people were not disappeared. They were under Pinochet during the first three years.

With regard to nationalization of industries, yes Allende nationalized some industries, including the copper industry. Pinochet did not privatize CODELCO, but kept it nationalized directing 10% of the earnings to go to the military. The socialists - both Bachelet and Lagos want to privatize CODELCO to gain revenue from the taxes it would generate. Moreover, in Latin America nationailization of industries is often more a sign of nationalism than political ideology. Look at Brazil: the generals supposedly fighting communism created all sorts of nationalized industries and projects: Itaípu Dam, Transamazon highway, the nuclear reactor at Angra dos Reis. Getúlio Vargas, a virulent anti-communist created CVRD and Petrobras.

I understand where you are coming from, but to say that Allende would have been worse than Pinochet is simply not borne out by the facts: elections took place under Allende, not Pinochet. Opposition parties existed under Allende, not Pinochet. Free press existed under Allende, not Pinochet. Torture and disappearances did not take place under Allende, they did under Pinochet.

The facts favor Allende and not Pinochet.

[Jose Angel]

It is true people did not dissappear during Allende's regime, but what kind of people are you talking about? About radical communists who wanted a totalitarian communist regime and supported and alliance with Castro and the USSR? Well of course those people were not protesting, they were all very happy the way the country was going, and specially when Fidel Castro was visiting the country to support Allende.
Nationalism has nothing to do with nationalism and communism are one and the same thing, they both pursue the stablishment of a powerful state to control the citizen's life and communist countries fed and continue feeding their populations with nationalism to keep themselves in power.
I am not saying that Allende would have been worse than Pinochet, far from it, but the desicions he and his party were taken would have rendered worse results that what occurred with Pinochet.
You seem to believe that Chile was in peace and stable when Allende was in power but it was far from being so. There was plenty of civil unrest and many people protesting in the streets every single day.
The very fact that Allende won with only 35% of the people's vote speaks volumes about the support he had for trying to convert the whole country into a communist state (and we shouldn't compare the modern socialists of today like Bachelet and Lagos with a stubborn and dogmatic socialist like Allende, who went to the Soviet Union trying to cut a defense and cooperation deal with the Russians). The newspapers of the times when Allende was president speak of chaos and economic crisis created precisely because of the populist and communist measures he was taking.

One only has to see countries that have taken the road of socialism one way or another. Mexico for example, almost nationalized all main industries and we have a rich state with a very poor population. Our country has suffered poverty, crime, our talents leaving the country, our money too, and many generations of Mexicans, specially those most in need, the indigenous peoples of Mexico, have died of hunger or disease, forgotten by a government too busy milking and mismanaging state owned companies. How many generations of Cuban would have been saved had the USA taken care of Castro years ago? How many Cubans have died in the sea trying to get to Florida? How many Mexicans have died in the Rio Grande trying to make it to the USA to find work and a better life?
And finally, how many Chileans have left their country in search of a better life in the last decades? What percentage of their population has abandoned their country compared to those in Argentina, Brasil, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador or Uruguay?
You will be very surprised by looking at those numbers and then comparing them with the number of those 3 thousand allegedly killed by Pinochet, but we know for a fact they were never that much and that as always the Chilean left establishment exaggerates the facts greatly. And then we must also know that not all those killed or dissapeared were peaceful people.

The incredible exaggerations and noise created by the PRD and AMLO and the Left establishment in Mexico about a non existant election fraud causes me to doubt about some of the allegations of the Chilean left about the crimes committed by Pinochet.

[Randinho]

This is my last word on the subject as we seem to be going in circles here.

Nothing in Allende's rule indicates that he would have been worse than Pinochet. Regarding the unrest, allow me to quote from Marc Cooper who was there at the time:

The primary reason for the disorder, however, was the constant, deliberate and organized probing, testing, and crossing of legal boundaries by the right-wing opposition. Sorry to break it to you, but it was the National Party Youth, the CD Youth, and the truck operators and owners who were in the streets, blocking traffic, smashing store fronts, blowing up oleoducts and shooting at cops.

In other words, those who wanted to throw Allende out were the ones causing the unrest.

The very fact that Allende won with only 35% of the people's vote speaks volumes about the support he had for trying to convert the whole country into a communist state (and we shouldn't compare the modern socialists of today like Bachelet and Lagos with a stubborn and dogmatic socialist like Allende, who went to the Soviet Union trying to cut a defense and cooperation deal with the Russians)

In an election six months prior to the coup, his coalition got 45% of the vote. Richard Nixon, who helped engineer the 1970 got less than a majority when he was elected in 1968.

You will be very surprised by looking at those numbers and then comparing them with the number of those 3 thousand allegedly killed by Pinochet, but we know for a fact they were never that much and that as always the Chilean left establishment exaggerates the facts greatly. And then we must also know that not all those killed or dissapeared were peaceful people.

Nonsense. These numbers came from the Rettig Commission established by the civilian government of Chile and staffed with, among others, Laura Novoa, a center right attorney and Ricardo Martín Díaz, who was the original choice by the junta to be justice minister after the coup.

Moreover, even if there were people who were involved in violent activities, there are methods to deal with this: they're called indictments, trials and prisons. Throwing people in abandoned mines and out of helicopters are crimes against humanity.

The incredible exaggerations and noise created by the PRD and AMLO and the Left establishment in Mexico about a non existant election fraud causes me to doubt about some of the allegations of the Chilean left about the crimes committed by Pinochet.

Oh please. One has nothing to do with the other.

I agree with you 100% regarding Fidel Castro. I hope that Cuba soon is a nation that is free, where people may go where they want, read what they want and say what they want. You are wrong on the facts regarding Chile, however.

[Jose Angel]

Many people will disagree with your statements also. It is because while Pinochet committed crimes and did many bad things, he lived to see a democratic and prosperous Chile, much more prosperous than its neighbours, all of them, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, all of them summitted in eternal economic crisis and devaluations.
The Chile that outperformed all those countries and avoided all those crisis was the Chile Pinochet helped created, he did condem himself in the process, but in the end the balance is far more positive for his countrymen who now enjoy a free, democratic and prosperous nation.
Same cannot be said about Castro, who has killed many oppossitors and has committed many human right violations. After remaining in power for 50 years, twice as much as Pinochet, the Cuba he leaves to his countrymen is far from what Pinochet did for Chile. Cuba is still a dictatorship with Raul, Castro's brother, and a very impoverished state.
But the same historians and intellectuals that today critize and condemn Pinochet will not use the same rule when dealing with Castro, because he was suppossed to be a Communist dictator. Just like they treated all communist dictators, from Lenin and Stalin to Tito.

[Randinho]

Thanks for commenting, although you really didn't respond to any of the points I raised in my previous post.