Chavez, 2002 vs. Allende, 1973

[Ilyich]

This is a though I had (mind you, I didn't do a lot of intensive research before I came up with this thought):

The coup against Allende succeeded while the coup against Chavez failed in part because the masses of Chile didn't come out actively against the coup in the case of the former but the Venezuelan masses did in the case of the latter. The Chilean masses were more-or-less apathetic to Allende's situation but the Venezuelan masses overwhelmingly supported Chavez. The masses supported Chavez more than they did Allende because Chavez made many significant pro-worker reforms during his time in office, while Allende didn't.

Is this correct? I have a feeling it's not. If it isn't, please tell me why the coup against Allende succeeded but the coup against Chavez failed.

[CynicalIdealist]

This is a though I had (mind you, I didn't do a lot of intensive research before I came up with this thought):

The coup against Allende succeeded while the coup against Chavez failed in part because the masses of Chile didn't come out actively against the coup in the case of the former but the Venezuelan masses did in the case of the latter. The Chilean masses were more-or-less apathetic to Allende's situation but the Venezuelan masses overwhelmingly supported Chavez. The masses supported Chavez more than they did Allende because Chavez made many significant pro-worker reforms during his time in office, while Allende didn't.

Is this correct? I have a feeling it's not. If it isn't, please tell me why the coup against Allende succeeded but the coup against Chavez failed.

I think Allende was less popular as Chile was more of a multiparty state, but more importantly, he lacked the support of the Chilean military. Conversely, Chavez has the support of the Venezuelan military due to his military background, much of which he got from his leadership in the attempted military coup of 1992.

[eyeheartlenin]

The comrade raises an extremely interesting question.

It has been a long time since I did any reading about Allende, but my recollection is that Allende actually went much further in terms of seizing land from large landowners and nationalizing enterprises than Chávez (who once told Venezuelan landowners, "If it is yours, it is yours," and seems to have a lot of respect for capitalist ownership of the means of production).

About the army, Chávez has been quoted in the US press to the effect that he secured and has kept the support of the Venezuelan military, through a system of bribes.

It is probably obvious that the two leaders are not really comparable, since Allende was a real leftist, a left social democrat, and Chávez is a Venezuelan nationalist, but one who has been careful to preserve the connection with US imperialism, to which chavista Venezuela supplies oceans of petroleum every year.

So, on balance, I think Allende was more to the left and a far more substantial figure, which probably explains why he was murdered, why Nixon ordered his operatives to "make the Chilean economy scream," and why Chávez, all his anti-imperialist rhetoric notwithstanding, is making a real contribution, via all that petroleum, to US imperial power.

One other thing I remember is that there is a very good book about Allende and Chile, called (something like) Chile: The Revolution Disarmed.


This is a though I had (mind you, I didn't do a lot of intensive research before I came up with this thought):

The coup against Allende succeeded while the coup against Chavez failed in part because the masses of Chile didn't come out actively against the coup in the case of the former but the Venezuelan masses did in the case of the latter. The Chilean masses were more-or-less apathetic to Allende's situation but the Venezuelan masses overwhelmingly supported Chavez. The masses supported Chavez more than they did Allende because Chavez made many significant pro-worker reforms during his time in office, while Allende didn't.

Is this correct? I have a feeling it's not. If it isn't, please tell me why the coup against Allende succeeded but the coup against Chavez failed.

[Prometeo liberado]

I would argue that with the advent of the Internet, alternative news sources and cell phones the type of coup that toppled Allende could not have happened today. The Allende coup was pre-meditated with the help of Radio Free America, Latin division and stories planted in the local press. Further on the day of the coup the loudspeakers in the American embassy compound blasted the sound of fighter jets and explosions. Without alternative news outlets the populace thought that this was real and took cover in their houses.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think Allende was less popular as Chile was more of a multiparty state, but more importantly, he lacked the support of the Chilean military. Conversely, Chavez has the support of the Venezuelan military due to his military background, much of which he got from his leadership in the attempted military coup of 1992.

The Breakthrough Military Coup attempt of 1992 should have succeeded. :(

[Ilyich]

I know this is an old thread but it's September 11, I've been thinking a lot about Allende, I haven't seen any threads about Allende today, I didn't want to make a new thread about Allende, and so I felt the bump to be appropriate. So, just as a follow-up, the answer to the question I posed in May is either that Chavez had a better relationship with his own military than Allende did or that the U.S. decided to invest itself more in the 1973 coup than in the 2002 coup because Allende was causing real damage to the capitalist-imperialist interests while Chavez was only pretending to do so?

[jookyle]

Actually it's quite simple. When the CIA assassinated General Schnieder in Chilie, they were able to gain the support of the military for their coup. This was mostly done by buying off important military personel before the killing took place. However, with Chavez, because he was once a solider the soldier's who were ordered to kill him would not and thus, he survived and was able to keep his seat. The people of Chilie did fight back, but their military had been bought off and followed orders while those in Venezuela did not follow all the orders they were given.

[Red Banana]

The US actually gave material support and helped organize the 1973 Chilean coup, while to the best of my knowledge, although Washington was sympathetic to Carmona and quickly recognized his government, offered no material support for his coup. That might contribute to why the one was so much more successful than the other.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

after the Cold War, the U.S. has warmed up to many so-called 'socialist' states when it suits their interest. this is the same reason the Bush Administration was doing arms deals with Gaddafi in Libya. there is no Soviet Union to threaten the U.S. anymore.

also, Allende nationalized his country's most sought-after resource (copper) and was a much more legitimate, strong force against imperialism. Chavez, by comparison, is a militarist phony 'socialist'.

[The Idler]

Or maybe its is precisely the reason many abstentionists on here don't like to mention, Chavez enjoyed majority support of the electorate who expressed this and were prepared to back it up. I think a lot of people on here are puzzled over this because of the abstentionist mindset.