5 ms·
Calling the 1973 CIA-led coup orderdd by Nixon against Salvador Allende in Chile as a "response to marxist economic mismanagement" tells you all you need to kno
by aredox 3y ago
Calling the 1973 CIA-led coup orderdd by Nixon against Salvador Allende in Chile as a "response to marxist economic mismanagement" tells you all you need to know about neoliberalism and its supporters.
Nothing more _liberal_ than a decade of military junta, book burning, widespread torture and assassinations by death squads, heh?
"General Joaquin Lagos [es] explained why he didn't return the bodies of the 14 executed prisoners of Antofagasta to their families:
I was ashamed to see them. They were torn into pieces. So I wanted to put them together, at least leave them in a human form. Yes, their eyes were gouged out with knives, their jaws broken, their legs broken ... At the end they gave them the coup de grace. They were merciless. "[...] "The prisoners were killed so that they would die slowly. In other words, sometimes they [...] shot them [in] parts: first, the legs, then the sexual organs, then the heart. In that order the machine guns were fired"
"many of the victims had voluntarily turned themselves in to the military authorities, were all in secured military custody and posed no immediate threat because they had no history of violence, nor were threatening to commit any such violence."
- ixtli 3y agoCouldn't agree more. How many times do we have to violently overthrow popularly elected governments until you realize that your brand of socialism doesn't work!?
- ren_engineer 3y ago>popularly elected love when people act like the Soviets weren't financing and supporting South American leaders in the exact same way as the US. They were as "popularly elected" as Kim Jong Un and Putin. It was a proxy war in the same way the Middle East is/was, global powers each picking a side to achieve their goals. the only logical thing is to feel bad for the citizens who get caught in the crossfire
- the_af 3y agoNo, Chile had democratic elections. You don't get to cry "fraud" just because you don't like the result. And while the Soviet Union liked Allende, realistically their reach was much weaker than the US'. South America is/was "the backyard" of the US, and their reach here has always been the strongest. Allende won the elections fair and square. We now know, due to declassified documents, how hard the US illegally meddled with its government, and how it helped a bloodthirsty military coup against it. A blot in the history of the US, one that shows how false it is to claim the country is a beacon of light, freedom and democracy.
- shortrounddev2 3y agoI think it's more nuanced. Pinochet was a cruel dictator but he implemented necessary market reforms to fix the Marxist rules of Allende. He goes in the box with other "controversial, but necessary" figures like Lee Kuan Yew and Park Chung Hee. And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency
- kjkjadksj 3y agoWow. You could use this exact argument to justify naziism for space program progress. Pretty appalling to write off such crimes in the name of “economic progress”, gains that are by and large siphoned out of the country to the portfolios of the global elite. You do not need to abuse human rights to make economic progress and those who chose to do so should be vilified forever for making these choices. Not seen as some morally ambiguous figure but a morally decrepit one. Concerned probably much more with enrichment of an inner circle than the overall betterment of the people they might decide to now put to the death penalty.
- novagameco 3y agoNo, this is a false equivalence. If the choice were between pinochet and a liberal democratic government, then the liberal democratic government is the obvious choice. But the choice was between a military Junta and Communism; you've got two bad choices, but one of them has a free market and economic stability. The utilitarian decision is to pick pinochet. If you have to choose between Naziism and Communism, you've got two equally bad, genocidal choices. In such a case, you shouldn't side with either group as it makes no difference which one you pick.
- the_af 3y ago[flagged]
- novagameco 3y ago
- shortrounddev2 3y agoThe United States did not overthrow Allende. The CIA paid for some propaganda posters, but the Whitehouse was surprised to learn that Pinochet had overthrown Allende because they didn't truly grasp just how badly Allende was running the country
- aredox 3y agoThe United states did overthrow Allende. They financed the putchists, organised them, wrote their propaganda, trained them how to torture. We know it as a fact because the whole CIA archives have been declassified. You are a revisionist on the same scale as holocaust deniers.
- ixtli 3y agoYeah it’s amazing what people can confidently comment on the internet :/
- drewcoo 3y ago> Calling the 1973 CIA-led coup ordered by Nixon against Salvador Allende in Chile as a "response to Marxist economic mismanagement" tells you all you need to know about neoliberalism and its supporters Nixon's presidency pre-dates neoliberalism. As does American animosity to Marxism. Arguably, Nixon was the final New Deal president, bringing us the Clean Air Act and attempting to give all Americans socialized medicine. His rise to power was really through his involvement with HUAC (the House Unamerican Activities Committee, seeking to rid the US of communists) as a Congressman.