4 ms·

The article completely ignores the real reasons for US opposition to Castro, Allende, Chavez, Correa, Morales, et al. They were and are autocrats with programs

The article completely ignores the real reasons for US opposition to Castro, Allende, Chavez, Correa, Morales, et al. They were and are autocrats with programs of economic and social destruction. Critics are beaten and thrown in jail, wide swaths of the economy nationalized, wealth destroyed. Their economic programs lead only to empty shelves in supermarkets and widespread destitution and crime. In Venezuela, the murder rate is up 400-500% from when Chavez first took over. They can only find allies in the world among other enemies of human prosperity. I think JFK captured the guiding principles best: Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. [...] Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house. Sometimes it's led to difficult and morally dubious decisions, like US support for Pinochet's coup against Allende in Chile. But we should consider the counterfactual. What if Allende had stayed in power? Chile would not be the beacon of stability and growth that it is today. Based on Allende's relationships with Castro and the Soviet Union, it would probably be a lot like Castro's Cuba, a society totally hollowed out by communism. As an aside, the characterization of the situation in Greece is completely inaccurate too. Membership in the euroclub requires fiscal responsibility; governments can no longer rely on running the print presses to pay their debt. Greece continued to waste money it did not have, and was refusing the demands for budget discipline from the countries that were keeping it afloat.

dragonwriter 11y ago
No, the US supported plenty of Latin American autocrats with programs of economic and social destruction -- Noriega, Pinochet, etc. It opposed the ones it opposed for geopolitical and anti-communist ideological reasons, which are also the reasons it supported the ones it supported. Being autocrats with destructive programs wasn't a factor, except insofar as it was a positive factor in that a=corrupt autocrats are simpler to manage as pawns than leaders genuinely concerned with the interests of their people.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Communism is much more destructive than a regime like Pinochet's. And besides all of the domestic damage Allende was already doing to Chile (the Chilean Congress actually authorized the army to topple Allende), there was also the issue of Allende wanting to turn Chile into a Soviet satellite state just like Cuba. Unfortunately, there's not always morally pure option and you have to practice realpolitik.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    >Communism is much more destructive than a regime like Pinochet's. The people who voted for Allende didn't think so, and they won that election somehow. >The issue of Allende wanting to turn Chile into a Soviet satellite state just like Cuba. How is getting the guy killed going to make people less likely to want to ally with either the actual Soviets or with what the Soviets stood for? Look at Chavez's paranoia for an example. >Unfortunately, there's not always morally pure option and you have to practice realpolitik. How about this piece of realpolitik: Don't fuck up other people's democratic governments if you don't want a huge loss of reputation, moral authority and political capital. Don't just do something! Stand there!
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      > The people who voted for Allende didn't think so, and they won that election somehow. Yes. 36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% voted for candidates from the conservative parties. As President, Allende flat out ignored thousands of court rulings and congressional actions. The Chilean Congress itself passed a resolution calling for his ouster, by military or other means. If it didn't have international consequences, I'd agree with you that people should be allowed to elect politicians that will run their country into the ground. But preventing any further Soviet expansion into the Western hemisphere was imperative for the US at the time.
      - saint_fiasco 11y ago
        >36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% voted for candidates from the conservative parties The choices weren't just between Allende or Not Allende. Every candidate had their fair chance, and if winning with 36.6% of the votes sounds odd to you, it's probably because you are accustomed to the two-party system, which has its own advantages and disadvantages. >If it didn't have international consequences, I'd agree with you that people should be allowed to elect politicians that will run their country into the ground So people are free to choose their own politicians only as long as they live somewhere that is literally inconsequential in the international stage? As soon as their country gets relevant, their choices will have "international consequences" after all and they will have to ally themselves with the biggest super power one way or another. And god forbid they choose the wrong super power.
retrogradeorbit 11y ago
Aside from the fact that you seem quite ignorant of history ("success of liberty", are you kidding me?), what business is it of the US? When will the US stop sticking it's nose in other's business? What would be it's reaction if the reverse were happening, if a foreign global power were constantly meddling in American affairs? Why does America always think it knows what's best for everyone else? And why is what's best always more US corporate intervention? Like ok, we get it, the US is your country, and you can completely fuck up your own republic and turn it into a surveilled and controlled human zoo dedicated to the worship of mammon. But stop going and fucking everyone else's country.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  If not America, then who? The Soviet Union would have turned a lot of Latin America into their imperial possessions, like they did in Cuba and Eastern Europe. Today, the regimes that would fill the void left by an American retreat from leadership are hostile and much less concerned with elections and human rights than the US. On a personal note, I can only wish that the US had intervened more successfully against Castro in Cuba, the home that my family and millions of others have fled to America from.
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    >If not America, then who? How about the people who actually live there? I get that sometimes the people of a country can be helpless against an oppressor and need foreign aid, but people in Chile actually voted for Allende. It's not the same as Cuba.
vinceguidry 11y ago
I don't agree with practically any of Jacobin's analysis, but the idea that the real reason for US opposition to leftist autocrats is that they're evil is laughable. The primary goal of diplomacy is to advance national interests, not to promote the other country's.
asgard1024 11y ago
It's nice that you probably genuinely want to help other nations, however, if you look at what actually happens (and thanks also to Wikileaks we have the sources), it's not so rosy. I suggest maybe better looking into what your government is doing before you're going to praise it. > But we should consider the counterfactual. What if Allende had stayed in power? Chile would not be the beacon of stability and growth that it is today. Excuse me, but this is utter bullshit. We don't know what would happen. I was born in communist country (Czechoslovakia), and in the 1970s and 1980s (and in fact overall), it was much more civilized than Pinochet's regime. Maybe we had slower GDP growth (probably not by much, Pinochet economic policies were no super success either); so what? Higher GDP growth, in my book, doesn't justify killing a single dissident (because, "considering the counter factual", there are plenty examples of having high growth without violence). > Membership in the euroclub requires fiscal responsibility; governments can no longer rely on running the print presses to pay their debt. Weirdly, in the U.S., rules like that apparently do not hold. California didn't have fiscal responsibility and is still a member of the club, and FED not running a printing press?
angersock 11y ago
Castro's Cuba, a society totally hollowed out by communism How's that again?
- pjc50 11y ago
  .. and half a century of US sanctions.
  - rogerthis 11y ago
    However, Cuba could trade with a lot of other countries, including some big ones like Brazil (since mid 70s, when the military government then in power had become anti-US).

dragonwriter 11y ago

No, the US supported plenty of Latin American autocrats with programs of economic and social destruction -- Noriega, Pinochet, etc. It opposed the ones it opposed for geopolitical and anti-communist ideological reasons, which are also the reasons it supported the ones it supported. Being autocrats with destructive programs wasn't a factor, except insofar as it was a positive factor in that a=corrupt autocrats are simpler to manage as pawns than leaders genuinely concerned with the interests of their people.

marcoperaza 11y ago
Communism is much more destructive than a regime like Pinochet's. And besides all of the domestic damage Allende was already doing to Chile (the Chilean Congress actually authorized the army to topple Allende), there was also the issue of Allende wanting to turn Chile into a Soviet satellite state just like Cuba. Unfortunately, there's not always morally pure option and you have to practice realpolitik.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  >Communism is much more destructive than a regime like Pinochet's. The people who voted for Allende didn't think so, and they won that election somehow. >The issue of Allende wanting to turn Chile into a Soviet satellite state just like Cuba. How is getting the guy killed going to make people less likely to want to ally with either the actual Soviets or with what the Soviets stood for? Look at Chavez's paranoia for an example. >Unfortunately, there's not always morally pure option and you have to practice realpolitik. How about this piece of realpolitik: Don't fuck up other people's democratic governments if you don't want a huge loss of reputation, moral authority and political capital. Don't just do something! Stand there!
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    > The people who voted for Allende didn't think so, and they won that election somehow. Yes. 36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% voted for candidates from the conservative parties. As President, Allende flat out ignored thousands of court rulings and congressional actions. The Chilean Congress itself passed a resolution calling for his ouster, by military or other means. If it didn't have international consequences, I'd agree with you that people should be allowed to elect politicians that will run their country into the ground. But preventing any further Soviet expansion into the Western hemisphere was imperative for the US at the time.
    - saint_fiasco 11y ago
      >36.6% of the population voted for him, while a combined 63.4% voted for candidates from the conservative parties The choices weren't just between Allende or Not Allende. Every candidate had their fair chance, and if winning with 36.6% of the votes sounds odd to you, it's probably because you are accustomed to the two-party system, which has its own advantages and disadvantages. >If it didn't have international consequences, I'd agree with you that people should be allowed to elect politicians that will run their country into the ground So people are free to choose their own politicians only as long as they live somewhere that is literally inconsequential in the international stage? As soon as their country gets relevant, their choices will have "international consequences" after all and they will have to ally themselves with the biggest super power one way or another. And god forbid they choose the wrong super power.

retrogradeorbit 11y ago

Aside from the fact that you seem quite ignorant of history ("success of liberty", are you kidding me?), what business is it of the US? When will the US stop sticking it's nose in other's business? What would be it's reaction if the reverse were happening, if a foreign global power were constantly meddling in American affairs? Why does America always think it knows what's best for everyone else? And why is what's best always more US corporate intervention? Like ok, we get it, the US is your country, and you can completely fuck up your own republic and turn it into a surveilled and controlled human zoo dedicated to the worship of mammon. But stop going and fucking everyone else's country.

marcoperaza 11y ago
If not America, then who? The Soviet Union would have turned a lot of Latin America into their imperial possessions, like they did in Cuba and Eastern Europe. Today, the regimes that would fill the void left by an American retreat from leadership are hostile and much less concerned with elections and human rights than the US. On a personal note, I can only wish that the US had intervened more successfully against Castro in Cuba, the home that my family and millions of others have fled to America from.
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  >If not America, then who? How about the people who actually live there? I get that sometimes the people of a country can be helpless against an oppressor and need foreign aid, but people in Chile actually voted for Allende. It's not the same as Cuba.

vinceguidry 11y ago

I don't agree with practically any of Jacobin's analysis, but the idea that the real reason for US opposition to leftist autocrats is that they're evil is laughable. The primary goal of diplomacy is to advance national interests, not to promote the other country's.

asgard1024 11y ago

It's nice that you probably genuinely want to help other nations, however, if you look at what actually happens (and thanks also to Wikileaks we have the sources), it's not so rosy. I suggest maybe better looking into what your government is doing before you're going to praise it. > But we should consider the counterfactual. What if Allende had stayed in power? Chile would not be the beacon of stability and growth that it is today. Excuse me, but this is utter bullshit. We don't know what would happen. I was born in communist country (Czechoslovakia), and in the 1970s and 1980s (and in fact overall), it was much more civilized than Pinochet's regime. Maybe we had slower GDP growth (probably not by much, Pinochet economic policies were no super success either); so what? Higher GDP growth, in my book, doesn't justify killing a single dissident (because, "considering the counter factual", there are plenty examples of having high growth without violence). > Membership in the euroclub requires fiscal responsibility; governments can no longer rely on running the print presses to pay their debt. Weirdly, in the U.S., rules like that apparently do not hold. California didn't have fiscal responsibility and is still a member of the club, and FED not running a printing press?

angersock 11y ago

Castro's Cuba, a society totally hollowed out by communism How's that again?

pjc50 11y ago
.. and half a century of US sanctions.
- rogerthis 11y ago
  However, Cuba could trade with a lot of other countries, including some big ones like Brazil (since mid 70s, when the military government then in power had become anti-US).