Pinochet passes -- what is his legacy?

Democratic socialists are not social democrats. If I’m not mistaken, democratic socialists’ goal is to build a socialist society through democratic means. (Social democrats, of course, work in the context of a market economy.) BrainGlutton claims that Allende was a democratic socialist, which would make sense to me. But democratic socialists are also not communists.

Your quote of Allende’s party’s founding principles says the following:

which would seem to imply that Allende, if he suscribed to these principles, wasn’t in fact really a democratic socialist. Can you tell me where you found this quote, so I can check if it was a tenet of Allende’s party at the time?

Probably the only improvement was to prevent someone like Allende becoming President with only 38% of the popular vote (your link) in a three way contest.

Under the current constitution a run off election will now have to be carried out between the top two contenders if neither gets 50+%.

Big deal.

When the new constitution was drafted it fell into the error adopted by almost every Latin American country. They just can’t let go of the delusion that one “El Presidente” is capable of running a whole country.

There’s simply too much power held by every “El Presidente” in almost every South and Central American country. Chile’s constitution is no exception. For that reason alone, it’s likely that the first mental incompetent who manages to gain the presidency in Chile will transform the country to a political and economic basket case.

Targo

(I posted this on the MSIMS thread, I value your opinion.)

I have been thinking about this. Pinochet and Castro are like evil twins. We can project on them what we like.

Right-wing nut cases praise Pinochet for saving the Chilean economy, while ignoring the Caravan of Death.

Left-wing head cases praise Castro for advances in education and whatnot, but turn a blind eye to his mercenaries in Africa, his prisons, his quarantine of AIDS people.

Perhaps we need to go back to our basic values. The people of Cuba and Chile ought to have been allowed to find their own destinies by themselves, without the guidance of strong men. Imperfect as it is, democracy would have been better for both nations.

Democracy is a strange thing, it takes a long time to grow.

Democratic processes can lead to election of very non-democratic governments.

Expecting that one can transplant Western styles of government into states with no ‘racial memory’ of bloodless change of government (which is what our ‘democracy’ is about) is being rather optimistic. Given a choice of stability and no vote or a vote and chaos, most people would go for stability.

I agree with your whole post. Well said.

Exactly. FYI, Stalinist and Stalinist-derived parties (like Mao’s) have pretty much had a recognized trademark in the label “Communist” ever since Trotsky fled Russia.

Weelllll . . . yes, pretty much, most of the time, but those labels tend to get a bit blurry. The Russian Bolsheviks (Lenin’s group) and Mensheviks were factions of the [The contemporary [url=Democratic Socialists of America - Wikipedia]Democratic Socialists of America](]Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.[/url) actually has goals and policies (as distinct from rhetoric) which would be social-democratic by European standards. The Socialist Party USA is only slightly to the DSA’s left in practice. Neither is doctrinally Marxist although there are plenty of Marxists in the ransk. The Social Democrats, USA look more than anything else like the left wing of the neocons. (They backed the invasion of Iraq, but hoped to establish stronger labor unions there – while the mainstream neocons were determined to wipe out organized labor in Iraq entirely.) Etc. And all of the above would have to be completely reinterpreted in the context of Latin American politics – which, as was noted here by Mapache, who lives in Oaxaca, Mexico, tend to look extremely surreal and baroque from the POV of any outsider. (Actually Mapache was referring to Mexican politics, but I’d be surprised if it’s any different elsewhere in LA.)

BTW, here’s something no one has directly addressed, yet, in this thread: Were Pinochet’s economic policies good or bad for Chile? (See post #14.)

Here’s an article, from a Spanish Marxist magazine from 1979, reflecting on Allende, Chile, and Pinoche’s coup, which includes portions of the statement:

Almost all parties that call themselves “The Communist Party of X” are Stalinist parties, due to the strong influence of the Soviet Union on those parties, but more generally, all Marxist-Leninist parties, whether they’re Stalinist, Trotskyist, or Maoist in orientation can be considered “communist parties”, and members of such parties can be considered communists, rather than democratic socialists.

There is, for instance, a distinction between the Socialist Party USA/DSA/Social Democrats (all socialist parties), and the Socialist Workers (Trotskyist).

WaPo: Good.

Greg Palast: Bad.

Maybe there’s a good rebuttal to Palast, but until it emerges, he’s definitely got the better of the Post.

This is off topic, but if you want something that will make you upchuck, read the WaPo editorial in its entirety. They basically say Pinochet’s reign of terror is justified because (a) he brought a free-market-based boom to Chile, (b) it was all Allende’s fault anyway, and (c) he was better than Fidel. And for the cherry on top, the success of Chile after Pinochet means that Jeane Kirkpatrick was right about everything.

I personally think that this takes the editorial writers of the Washington Post into moral-leper territory.

Interesting choice of time-frame. 1990 is the year Pinochet stepped down.

What’s also interesting is that the WaPo did a piece on Chile’s economic miracle back in 2004, and their writer then saw it completely differently than their editorial writer did the other day.

Under Pinochet:

After Pinochet:

Pinochet, BTW, was denied a state funeral by the government, but was buried with full military honors at Santiago’s Military Academy on Tuesday. President Bachelet did not attend.

A question: how much of Chile’s recent prosperity is due to rising commodity prices? Copper is now about 3 times the price it was 10 years ago-and Chile is a major copper producer. Like wise for tin and potash. Chile also has a pretty small population, so direct comparison with Brazil is not easy.

Dunno, but here’s some figures on its exports: