Salvador Allende

[Dear Leader]

Salvador Allende was a Marxist who rose to presidency in Chile, but I don't know much about him besides that. What kind of revolution brought him into the leadership role of the state. I know he was overthrown by help of the CIA, but what was the interests of US imperialism in Chile?

[Red Commissar]

This'd be better suited for history but I'll try to answer this to the best of my ability.

Salvador Allende was democratically elected- there was no revolution or such. He had headed an electoral coalition bringing together the left in the broadest sense, which included social democrats and other progressive types. He had been doing so since 1958, and it was only in 1970 that he narrowly won and was confirmed by the legislature since his opponent did not want to form a government.

Allende's policies mostly focused on land reform and a nationalization of the country's copper mines. Between those two he would have had the resources to institute programs to alleviate poverty in the country. The US was concerned by this because land reform would have adversely affected the power of their allies in the country, and nationalization of the mines would have made it harder to control one of the world's most significant copper deposits.

The United States felt Allende would have been too close to Cuba and the Soviet Union, and in effect create a communist beachhead on the continent. To that end the United States employed methods to support existing opposition and astroturf new ones accusing Allende of being a tyrant. They are believed to have employed some economic measures to strain the economy by messing with copper prices and having the opposition stage strikes to cripple the country.

AFAIK the idea behind this was that the legislature would then remove Allende from power, which they attempted but was not successful. To that end it shifted into another stage to do so by force, hence the military coup. The US though in this respect was more of the type ensuring that the country was ripe for a coup, rather than actively directing it.

[La Guaneña]

The US though in this respect was more of the type ensuring that the country was ripe for a coup, rather than actively directing it.

Not to forget the safeguarding and backup sent later. This came mainly in the form of Operation Condor, in 1975, along with different ops in specific countries, such as the training of police and military forces, and the MEC-USAID agreements here in Brazil.


Now, on the issue of Allende, there is a great documentary called The Battle of Chile, divided in 3 parts. It talks about Allende, the Coup and Pinocho.

There is also a new film, called "NO", that even ran for some Academy Awards that talks about the downfall of Pinochet's government.

Other than that, Red Comissar has covered the subject very well.

[Red Commissar]

Not to forget the safeguarding and backup sent later. This came mainly in the form of Operation Condor, in 1975, along with different ops in specific countries, such as the training of police and military forces, and the MEC-USAID agreements here in Brazil.



Yes, that's important to point out. US really helped train DINA (secret police) as part of Operation Condor, as well as its successor organization.

[Durruti's friend]

He didn't get to power through a revolution, but was elected. The election itself was a tie and the victor had to be elected by the Chilean Congress. Allende had the support of the working class as they hoped he will improve their position.

After he was elected president, gradual reforms started. The illiteracy rate fell, more people were enrolled by universities, the student nutrition program helped in crushing child malnutrition and the number of people in poverty fell. Also, the unemployment rate was getting smaller and the copper mines (the most important part of Chile's economy) were nationalized.

Later on, inflation rates grew and export rates fell, what resulted rising unemployment after the great rise during the early years.

Also, it is important to say that there was a large workers' movement that wanted a full-scale social revolution and self-management. Allende hesitated and riots were common, especially after the inflation kicked in. And when Pinochet took over Chile, those workers were the only force that actively opposed him. It's often said that his failure in conducting a real social revolution is the reason of his downfall.

Here's an interesting article on Allende's rule: libcom.org/library/strange-defeat-chilean-revolution-1973-pointblank

All in all, a good figure but not someone the radical left should uncritically endorse.

[Grigori]

How comparable was this guy to Chavez?

[tuwix]

In terms of politics very much. He was elected in free elections as Chavez. Otherwise than Cuban, Chinese, Vietnamese and North Korean leaders.
In terms of ideology they are quite different. Chavez was, firstly, nationalist and socialist and Marxist next. His primary target was independence of Venezuela and he achieved that. The contacts with lefitists convinced him that it can't be achieved in conditions of capitalist imperialism. So he became moderate leftist.

Allende was socialist, firstly. And his aim was to introduce socialism. But both of them failed.

[brigadista]

He didn't get to power through a revolution, but was elected. The election itself was a tie and the victor had to be elected by the Chilean Congress. Allende had the support of the working class as they hoped he will improve their position.

After he was elected president, gradual reforms started. The illiteracy rate fell, more people were enrolled by universities, the student nutrition program helped in crushing child malnutrition and the number of people in poverty fell. Also, the unemployment rate was getting smaller and the copper mines (the most important part of Chile's economy) were nationalized.

Later on, inflation rates grew and export rates fell, what resulted rising unemployment after the great rise during the early years.

Also, it is important to say that there was a large workers' movement that wanted a full-scale social revolution and self-management. Allende hesitated and riots were common, especially after the inflation kicked in. And when Pinochet took over Chile, those workers were the only force that actively opposed him. It's often said that his failure in conducting a real social revolution is the reason of his downfall.

Here's an interesting article on Allende's rule: libcom.org/library/strange-defeat-chilean-revolution-1973-pointblank

All in all, a good figure but not someone the radical left should uncritically endorse.

thanks for posting that article - it answers a lot of questions after i watched the battle of chile last night - much appreciated

[Sentinel]

Allende's downfall carries many important lessons. The most important being; the hard core of the bourgeois state must be dismantled immediately after a leftist seizure of political power.

In practice, the military (and police) leadership must be replaced by workers representatives, and the workers must be armed. Days before the coup, an enormous crowd of workers marched to the presidential palace, begging the president to arm them.

He didn't and the rest is history. I've no doubt he was an honest man, and really believed in his reformist agenda. He was also a brave man who went down with the ship, and sat on his chair into the end instead of fleeing.

But he was theoretically wrong, and that caused enormous suffering for the working class in Chile and a historic defeat for the socialist movement which we must learn from - and never repeat the same mistakes again.