8 ms·

>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 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 ago
No, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Wow. 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 ago
      No, 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
        > I guess you don't like democracy all that much! Democracy is a useful tool for building consensus, it is not the end goal of politics. Marxism is a catastrophic political cult which has never resulted in anything other than the deaths of millions, either through deliberate genocide or incompetent adherence to its pseudoscientific economic divinations. It should be removed from government through any means necessary. If a Nazi was elected president and vowed to use his political authority to achieve his goals, the military would be justified in overthrowing him and violently suppressing his supporters Consensus can be achieved through other means. All forms of government rule by a monopoly on the use of violence, including democratic ones.
        the_af 3y ago
        Your passionate attack of Marxism and defense of military coups is negated by the fact these coups torture and kill thousands of people in the name of the Free Market. Your whole analogy is moot: if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. Which paradoxically, is precisely what you seem to be advocating: that it's ok to abandon democracy when it doesn't go your way. I appreciate your honesty and candor: you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
  - ZeroGravitas 3y ago
    Pinochet effectively just took control of exporting Chile's resources and underperformed similar economies. The whole Miracle of Chile is propaganda. And even if it wasn't, it's still on the level of "at least the fascists got the trains running on time". Since, like the trains cliche, it's not even true, it's just cheerleading for pointless death and torture.
  - the_af 3y ago
    > I 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. No. Pinochet "fixed" nothing, his government was one of cronyism and his "miracle" deepened injustice and inequality in Chile. > And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency The US absolutely abetted and prepared the coup, as part of Cold War thinking. This has been declassified and is well known. I guess you want to live in a post-truth world. It's unfortunate that reality doesn't agree with what your spouting.

the_af 3y ago

No, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Wow. 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 ago
    No, 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
        > I guess you don't like democracy all that much! Democracy is a useful tool for building consensus, it is not the end goal of politics. Marxism is a catastrophic political cult which has never resulted in anything other than the deaths of millions, either through deliberate genocide or incompetent adherence to its pseudoscientific economic divinations. It should be removed from government through any means necessary. If a Nazi was elected president and vowed to use his political authority to achieve his goals, the military would be justified in overthrowing him and violently suppressing his supporters Consensus can be achieved through other means. All forms of government rule by a monopoly on the use of violence, including democratic ones.
        the_af 3y ago
        Your passionate attack of Marxism and defense of military coups is negated by the fact these coups torture and kill thousands of people in the name of the Free Market. Your whole analogy is moot: if a Nazi achieves power via democratic means, and stays there via democratic means, he wouldn't be a Nazi: Nazism is the rule of antidemocratic Might Makes Right; he wouldn't remain democratic if things didn't go his way. Which paradoxically, is precisely what you seem to be advocating: that it's ok to abandon democracy when it doesn't go your way. I appreciate your honesty and candor: you dislike democracy, and your worldview is despicable and vile. Still, your honesty is something!
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  Pinochet effectively just took control of exporting Chile's resources and underperformed similar economies. The whole Miracle of Chile is propaganda. And even if it wasn't, it's still on the level of "at least the fascists got the trains running on time". Since, like the trains cliche, it's not even true, it's just cheerleading for pointless death and torture.
- the_af 3y ago
  > I 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. No. Pinochet "fixed" nothing, his government was one of cronyism and his "miracle" deepened injustice and inequality in Chile. > And the US did not overthrow Allende. To allege so is to deprive Chileans of any kind of political agency The US absolutely abetted and prepared the coup, as part of Cold War thinking. This has been declassified and is well known. I guess you want to live in a post-truth world. It's unfortunate that reality doesn't agree with what your spouting.