3 ms·

Allende came to power with only 1/3 of the vote, and during the ensuing congressional negotiations over 'who would take power' - a military general supporting t

by jasmer 3y ago

Allende came to power with only 1/3 of the vote, and during the ensuing congressional negotiations over 'who would take power' - a military general supporting the notion of non-intervention in politics to tilt favour was 'mysteriously killed' paving the way for Allende's ascension. He then went on a rampage to socialize large swaths of the economy (without a mandate mind you aka no real popular support) and then crashed the economy. Limiting emigration, arbitrarily crushing strikes as he saw fit, the usual stuff. He lost congressional support and began to rule by decree, and then began to avoid both congressional and judiciary acts. Just a typical tin pot dictator with socialist/utopian aspirations, assured that his bullshit vision was better for the country - even if they didn't want it. And then they ended him. It has echoes of the socialist/communist takeover in Spain, resulting in Franco. Seems to have happened a few times in the 20th century. Pinochet was authoritarian, not totalitarian.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
shkkmo 3y ago
> Allende came to power with only 1/3 of the vote, and during the ensuing congressional negotiations over 'who would take power' This kind of split vote was actually very typical in Chile at that time. The tradition was that congress would pick whomever had the highest popular vote. While I would agree that this isn't a strong basis for a mandate, it also doesn't indicate that Allende has unusually low popular support. Indeed, his was not the lowest popular vote to result in presidency. > a military general supporting the notion of non-intervention in politics to tilt favour was 'mysteriously killed' paving the way for Allende's ascension Your description of this seems inaccurate. My understanding is that General Schneider was against the military taking a stand in politics by opposing Allende. Schneider was killed resisting a kidnapping attempt (allegedly by those who opposed Allende) which galvanized public disapproval against the military trying to oppose Allende's election in the Congressional runoff. You seem to be suggesting that the kidnapping was a false flag operation by Allende or his supporters to achieve that result? Do you have evidence to support this? > He then went on a rampage to socialize large swaths of the economy (without a mandate mind you aka no real popular support) The nationalization amendment was passed by the Chilean Congress. Some of the nationalization did have some popular support, at least initially. > and then crashed the economy It's hard to give full credit to Allende for this. The US cut off support to Chile, price of Chile's main export, copper, tanked and Chile already had pretty bad levels of inflation. It seems quite likely that Chile was headed for an economic crash without Allende, though he may well have made it worse. > Limiting emigration, arbitrarily crushing strikes as he saw fit, the usual stuff. Yes, he did a number of things I would not support. That doesn't mean that supporting a coup to terminate 4 decades of democratic rule was justified. > Pinochet was authoritarian, not totalitarian. I really struggle to see how you are justifying applying the label to one but not the other. The degree to which opposing parties were suppressed under Pinochet far exceeds the measures taken under Allende. > It has echoes of the socialist/communist takeover in Spain, resulting in Franco. By "takeover" you mean the 1936 election where the left won power? It's similar in that it was a military coup against a democratic leftist government that resulted in decades of authoritarian military rule. There are major differences in that Spain was a pretty young democracy and the coup lead to a civil war before the authoritarian regime began.
- jasmer 3y ago
  Thanks, but none of your points amount to a rebuttal. "The degree to which opposing parties were suppressed under Pinochet far exceeds the measures taken under Allende." That's like saying if Stalin didn't kill people directly, it'd have been 'all good'. The 'widespread interventions' by these Communist tin pots is 'very destructive' to people's lives and they touch everyone. That is the measure of oppression, not the number of 'protesters that got arrested'. Pinochet was about as bad as 'early Putin', and many other turds that we deal with today. It was 'acutely' bad for the socialist usurpers who imprisoned, but it wasn't a horrible state for most others, and that matters a lot. Pinochet was a pendulum swing as a direct result of a clear and unambiguous Soviet-supported takeover, that doesn't justify much of his actions but it certainly explains it. "By "takeover" you mean the 1936 election where the left won power?" I mean the left in 1930's Spain were agitating murderous thugs using every means to take over the country, including rigging elections (including 1936), voter intimidation and suppression, rigging ballots, violence/murder etc. and that Franco was a reaction to that. In that story, the Communists/Anarchists are absolutely the violent instigators (and inspiration for Orwell's writings) and definitely without material popular support for their revolutionary terms (obviously some support but not the kind of supermajority you need to socialize everything). And so, the pendulum swings. And that's not even the only analogy, there are a handful of those in the 20th century.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    What my points do is point out your tendency to bend facts to fit your view of reality. Pinochet wasn't a pendulum swing, he took power via a coup and refused to pass it back to the democratic process. He murdered thousands and tortured even more. > That's like saying if Stalin didn't kill people directly, it'd have been 'all good'. It isn't at all like that, but we've already established your weak relationship with the truth

by jasmer 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

shkkmo 3y ago

> Allende came to power with only 1/3 of the vote, and during the ensuing congressional negotiations over 'who would take power' This kind of split vote was actually very typical in Chile at that time. The tradition was that congress would pick whomever had the highest popular vote. While I would agree that this isn't a strong basis for a mandate, it also doesn't indicate that Allende has unusually low popular support. Indeed, his was not the lowest popular vote to result in presidency. > a military general supporting the notion of non-intervention in politics to tilt favour was 'mysteriously killed' paving the way for Allende's ascension Your description of this seems inaccurate. My understanding is that General Schneider was against the military taking a stand in politics by opposing Allende. Schneider was killed resisting a kidnapping attempt (allegedly by those who opposed Allende) which galvanized public disapproval against the military trying to oppose Allende's election in the Congressional runoff. You seem to be suggesting that the kidnapping was a false flag operation by Allende or his supporters to achieve that result? Do you have evidence to support this? > He then went on a rampage to socialize large swaths of the economy (without a mandate mind you aka no real popular support) The nationalization amendment was passed by the Chilean Congress. Some of the nationalization did have some popular support, at least initially. > and then crashed the economy It's hard to give full credit to Allende for this. The US cut off support to Chile, price of Chile's main export, copper, tanked and Chile already had pretty bad levels of inflation. It seems quite likely that Chile was headed for an economic crash without Allende, though he may well have made it worse. > Limiting emigration, arbitrarily crushing strikes as he saw fit, the usual stuff. Yes, he did a number of things I would not support. That doesn't mean that supporting a coup to terminate 4 decades of democratic rule was justified. > Pinochet was authoritarian, not totalitarian. I really struggle to see how you are justifying applying the label to one but not the other. The degree to which opposing parties were suppressed under Pinochet far exceeds the measures taken under Allende. > It has echoes of the socialist/communist takeover in Spain, resulting in Franco. By "takeover" you mean the 1936 election where the left won power? It's similar in that it was a military coup against a democratic leftist government that resulted in decades of authoritarian military rule. There are major differences in that Spain was a pretty young democracy and the coup lead to a civil war before the authoritarian regime began.

jasmer 3y ago
Thanks, but none of your points amount to a rebuttal. "The degree to which opposing parties were suppressed under Pinochet far exceeds the measures taken under Allende." That's like saying if Stalin didn't kill people directly, it'd have been 'all good'. The 'widespread interventions' by these Communist tin pots is 'very destructive' to people's lives and they touch everyone. That is the measure of oppression, not the number of 'protesters that got arrested'. Pinochet was about as bad as 'early Putin', and many other turds that we deal with today. It was 'acutely' bad for the socialist usurpers who imprisoned, but it wasn't a horrible state for most others, and that matters a lot. Pinochet was a pendulum swing as a direct result of a clear and unambiguous Soviet-supported takeover, that doesn't justify much of his actions but it certainly explains it. "By "takeover" you mean the 1936 election where the left won power?" I mean the left in 1930's Spain were agitating murderous thugs using every means to take over the country, including rigging elections (including 1936), voter intimidation and suppression, rigging ballots, violence/murder etc. and that Franco was a reaction to that. In that story, the Communists/Anarchists are absolutely the violent instigators (and inspiration for Orwell's writings) and definitely without material popular support for their revolutionary terms (obviously some support but not the kind of supermajority you need to socialize everything). And so, the pendulum swings. And that's not even the only analogy, there are a handful of those in the 20th century.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  What my points do is point out your tendency to bend facts to fit your view of reality. Pinochet wasn't a pendulum swing, he took power via a coup and refused to pass it back to the democratic process. He murdered thousands and tortured even more. > That's like saying if Stalin didn't kill people directly, it'd have been 'all good'. It isn't at all like that, but we've already established your weak relationship with the truth