Salvador Allende

[__ca va?]

I know some data about his life and presidency. But was his model a good alternative or was it doomed to fail? I've read exactly two descriptions of his regime: one stated that he had never defied the Chilean constitution, the other declared he he had taken away the people's liberty and started the creation of an authoritarian Stalinist government. So I have no idea which of the two opposing opinions is true (though I think neither is fully correct). So could someone help me and tell what was his system like?

[NyChe21]

I'm not very familiar with Chilean history, but I do know that in no way was Allende a Stalinist or a radical leftist. He was a democratic socialist who valued protectionism and some wage and price controls. He instituted high tariffs and nationalized health care. Although people state that price controls were the reason for the collapsing economy in Chile at the time, the American-backed Pinochet did no better until the Chicago Boys, a group of American educated economists, came in and liberalized the economy leading it out of crisis........well, for some people like the capitalists. Allende was democratically elected and still had a very large amount of support when the coup occured (which 'disappeared' after Pinochet lead about 3000 disidents into a stadium, I wonder what happened to them?). Latin America is still recovering from the shockwave of that right-wing rebellion.

[Paradox]

He was democratically elected, though it wasn't til his fourth run that he won the election, if I remember correctly. I'm not sure if it was Ford, but some auto manufacturer stopped operating after he was elected and the amerikans started planning against him. Also, Allende didn't weed out disloyal members in the armed forces, Pinochet for example. I think Fidel warned him about that.


Allende was democratically elected and still had a very large amount of support when the coup occured (which 'disappeared' after Pinochet lead about 3000 disidents into a stadium, I wonder what happened to them?).

3,000? :huh: I remember reading that it was something like 5,000 dead, and 10,000 who were apprehended and held in the stadium. I don't know, maybe I'm getting mixed up here. Do you have any links with regards to this subject?

[Salvador Allende]

Actually, 3000 are confirmed dead, but 130000 disappeared within the first 3 years of Pinochet's rule. I grew up loving Allende, but I also recognize his grave errors. Reformism is doomed to fail just as Lenin said. By not taking the revolutionary route as had been highlighted by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin, Allende set himself up to fail. He was a good man and his attempts at Democratic Socialism can be learned from as proof that the bourgeois will never voluntarily give up power.

[__ca va?]

Also, Allende didn't weed out disloyal members in the armed forces, Pinochet for example.

In fact he did weed them out: Pinochet had been given the rank of a general only days before the coup! Allende trusted him...

NyChe21, could you give me a link about these Chicago Boys?

Does anyone know how Allende put the companies in state ownership? I've heard a lot of versions about this too... And was he really democratic? Was there free speech? I've also heard that he had defied the judicial power.


Reformism is doomed to fail just as Lenin said.
I disagree with you! I'd rather say that reformism is doomed to fail in the power range of America.


He was a good man and his attempts at Democratic Socialism can be learned from as proof that the bourgeois will never voluntarily give up power.
That's true, they will never voluntarily give up power... unless international political conditions are good. For example in Ukraine we could see that Russia and the US and EU had cross purposes. What I say is that in Central and Eastern Europe a reformist party would be opposed by the US but IMO the EU would consider this an intervention into its affairs, so the US couldn't enforce its policies. And I think none of the C/E-European bourgeoises are as strong as the Americans.

[NyChe21]

Here's a little information about the Chicago Boys:

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publication.../974/bckr3.html (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/974/bckr3.html)



And I like _ca va's notion about the possiblity of reform within the shadow of the U.S. I think that is a very valid notion. Eastern Europe and even Germany have supported socialist ideals, and the European Union has no quarrel with socialism. They even require very high standards for inclusion in the EU, such as nationalized health care and a generous welfare system (very much contrasting to the real Evil Empire, the IMF, their demands made on developing countries include almost zero government spending on social issues). A very interesting realist theory about the Cold War is that there was actually less real threat of a world war because the two superpowers were equal in power (although the U.S. would use propaganda to emphasize the threat of the USSR so they could do whatever they wanted within their spheres of influence, similar to now) and agreed on mutually assured destruction. We have to note that although other countries had vested interest in Korea, the Vietnam War was outside the realm of the Western powers and the U.S. could never triumph outside that power zone. Today however, South America is beginning to pull away from the U.S., they have fought some of the reforms of the Free Trade Area of the Americas, seeing that some effects of free trade hurt their national interests, Chavez is one of the leaders who fought hard against the deal, and I commend him. The same cannot be said about Central America however. But the EU seems to present the U.S. with an equally powerful union, whether or not the Latin American countries can do the same is something that is interesting to keep an eye on.