Nope, Pinochet comes out of history with a net gain -- barely. Pinochet did after all return civil government and did so peacefully. Hitler and the Nazis, however, had no intention of returning to civil government. In fact, they regarded civil government as part of the problem. And hence Hitler was part of the problem. There was very little difference in policies and ideology between Hitler and Stalin. They were virtually political twins.
the neoliberal vision of the future
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
Nope, Pinochet comes out of history with a net gain -- barely. Pinochet did after all return civil government and did so peacefully. Hitler and the Nazis, however, had no intention of returning to civil government. In fact, they regarded civil government as part of the problem. And hence Hitler was part of the problem. There was very little difference in policies and ideology between Hitler and Stalin. They were virtually political twins.
Can you point out any factual errors? Is it not true that Allende signed a treaty with the opposition to let the army be free in case of a constitutional breach and intervention became necessary? Is it not true that Supreme Court deemed Allende to be a criminal? Is it not true that Pinochet spent the first few years of his rule with government intervention in the economy? Is it not true that the civil government, once it was returned, deepened the economic reforms that Pinochet started? Is it not true that Chile today is the richest country in South-America with the least amount of poverty? Exactly which of these factual statements are you claiming to be untrue?
Fascists want control, and in order to have control they need to have a good working economy. Therefore they are willing for purely pragmatic reasons to liberalize the economy in order to tighten their control in other areas, and use the revenues from the economic growth for "great projects." The Chinese regime is an excellent example. I mean, do you really believe that they are liberals? Of course they are not, but economic liberalism is the proven way to lift a country out of poverty and create a strong economy.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
Since economic liberalism can be a great aid to 'fascists' how is it the opposite of fascism? Seems like it's part of the same system to me.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Your narrative is black and white. The Chicago Boys were there, behind the scenes, from the very beginning. In fact, they wanted Pinochet in power because they knew that he would implement their ideas and he didn't let them down. Indeed, many of the Chicago Boys had been students at the Chicago School under Friedman from the early 60's.
The situation in Chile isn't as rosy as you paint it either. Education has been privatised and workers have few, if any, rights to organise and to collectively bargain.
You seem to be attracted to the word "wealth" as though it actually really meant something to everyone. Not everyone in this current capitalist system can be materially wealthy, in spite of what their leaders tell them.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Excellent article debunking the myths of the 'economic miracle' in Chile:
http://libcom.org/library/chile-anatomy-of-an-economic-miracle
http://libcom.org/library/chile-anatomy-of-an-economic-miracle
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Efficiency and progress is ours once more, Now that we have the Neutron bomb
As I mentioned in a previous post, it makes a whole lot more sense to talk about individual fascist laws than some coherent fascist policy. Fascism is defined as forced unity, and a fascist is someone who can't deal with others peacefully disagreeing with them. They want order. THEIR order. Ordnung muss sein. As I mentioned a law against homosexuality is one example of such social order imposed on all, a forced heterosexual unity. No deviants allowed. By viewing fascism in terms of individual laws it makes it far more easier to compartmentalize and isolate fascist components of someone's policy and of law. Fascists don't need to have much in common except for one thing: the will to power, the desire to impose THEIR ideas on society by force.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Liberalism has to be imposed by force. Therefore liberalism = fascism.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
If we look at 19c Britain, we can see a country that had fully embraced classical liberalism. The dominant ideology was this idea of 'liberty' as articulated by Enlightenment philosophers but what they did not or refused to acknowledged was that only the rich were permitted to be free. Liberties were not extend to working class people.
In order for that economic model to survive, the state had to impose restrictions on people's liberties.The state crushed workers movements, shot protesters and locked up or transported many others. I would argue that 19c Britain was a police state in all but name.
That's liberalism for you.
In order for that economic model to survive, the state had to impose restrictions on people's liberties.The state crushed workers movements, shot protesters and locked up or transported many others. I would argue that 19c Britain was a police state in all but name.
That's liberalism for you.
Random
Ethnic nalgocrat
But apparently there are fascist laws that also exist side by side with nice liberal laws. A bit of a curate's egg situation.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
onarchy is clearly a fascist, by his own definition.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Innit
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
The Italian futurists were more than happy to sit beside Mussolini.
rekil
to menny cranks
No answer to this simple question as yet. Not a peep about the vast amount of people mutilated and tortured under the Pinochet regime either.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
onarchy gave his answer in post #241
rekil
to menny cranks
So he did, and what a load of obfuscatory shit it was.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Oh, and Pinochet didn't just hand over power. And he didn't do it peacefully.
On the contrary, I largely agree with the description of what happened under Pinochet. (Except, as a commentator points out in the end of the article, inequality increased, but poverty did not increase in absolute terms.) And as I have stated earlier, the true benefits of the economic reforms did not become apparent until AFTER Pinochet had returned the country to civil rule. It is also true that Pinochet like any pragmatic conservative turned to bailouts for the rich whenever there was an economic crisis of "too big to fail"-proportions. However, it is vital to understand the context in which these reforms occurred. The Chilean economy was absolutely destroyed under Allende. He did more damage to the economy percentagewise than the tsunami did to Japan's economy recently. That's the scale of the destruction of socialism that we're talking about here. So let's put things in proportion, shall we? How long will it take for Japan to recover from the tsunami and get back to the level of prosperity it had BEFORE the tsunami? I'd say that at least 5 years is a pretty good estimate. So even if Pinochet had done everything right (which he didn't) it is absolutely unreasonable to expect Chile to recover from the unnatural disaster of socialism in only 5 years. Look at Russia. Even today, more than 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia is nowhere near recovering. So even at the time Pinochet left office Chile was still plagued by the disaster that Allende had purpotrated on the country. Only then had Chile caught up to the level of wealth BEFORE Allende. So the true Chilean miracle really has taken place since about 1990. Now that the policies of the Chicago Boys have been allowed to do its "magic" in Chile under civil rule for more than 20 years, Chile is reaping the benefits.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
And sometimes liberal laws have to be imposed by fascist means. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. Or without torturing some commies.
This isn't socialism in practice. Don't be fooled. Some of the people you are arguing with are more likely to represent anti-socialism.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
'You are blind like young kittens; what will happen without me? ...'
It is true that Pinochet changed his mind at the very end, and that he failed to muster support to prevent the new civil government from taking over, but eventually it DID transpire peacefully. Also consider the fact that Pinochet was immensely popular in Chile, not just with the elite, but with nearly 50% of the population. He did after all almost win the election. His reason for changing his mind is because he did not trust the civil government lead by a socialist party to continue along a civil path. Pinochet's worries proved to be wrong, because the social democratic party of Chile even deepened the economic reforms started by Pinochet.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
How do you distingish between damage to the economy caused by Allende and damage caused by ideologically motivated economic warfare against his regime?
I think you have to show any economic problems were down to Allende rather than factors outside his control for your argument to have any force.
rekil
to menny cranks
Are you having a laugh?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
rekil
to menny cranks
As I thought.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Here's some workers testifying about the joys of living in the Free State of Saipan:
Similar threads
