So what about Chile, Jude?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JudeObscure84
Do NOT get into Chile, that is a very personal issue with me considering my mother is Chilean. You know nothing of Chilean history if you think that Allende was really a Social Democrat.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291886548 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36649&view=findpost&p=1291886548)

So was your momma one of the tortured...or one of the torturers?

Was she one of those "German Chileans" that we've been reading about lately?

I smell a scandal here...so what's the scoop?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Commie Girl]

:angry: Yes, WHAT is the scoop? I have alot of friends that came here in the late seventies from Chile, they were REFUGEES....we went to school together and they all know that Allende was a socilaist...

Perhaps your mum is a revisionist like the Cuban Mafia in Florida ?

[JudeObscure84]

Allende was no socialist, he was a Marxist ready to turn Chile into gulag with Castro and Soviet help.

[Enragé]

a dutch newspaper reported a couple of weeks ago that Allende made an essay about "racial hygiene" in the 30's :blink:

[fernando]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 06:46 AM
Allende was no socialist, he was a Marxist ready to turn Chile into gulag with Castro and Soviet help.
Allende wasnt too fond of the USSR, his party was in conflict with the communist who were pro Soviet :unsure:

But let me guess...you're pro Pinochet right?

[Andy Bowden]

If Allende would have turned Chile into a Gulag, what did Pinochet turn Chile into?

[fernando]

Can you even imagine how Venezuela is like now...it's probably one giant concentration camp...goddamn socialist ideas!!!

[JudeObscure84]

But let me guess...you're pro Pinochet right?

I wouldnt say that I'm pro-Pinochet but mostly anti-Allende.


If Allende would have turned Chile into a Gulag, what did Pinochet turn Chile into?

an econimc recovery.

[fernando]

an econimc recovery.
yah so did Hitler :unsure:

[JudeObscure84]

yah so did Hitler
Pinochet is not Hitler.

[LSD]

I wouldnt say that I'm pro-Pinochet but mostly anti-Allende.

Yes, how dare people democratically elect their leaders. Much better to have a military dictatorship.


an econimc recovery.

"econonmic revovery" is neoliberal code for the rich getting richer, in this case at the cost of thousands of lives. Not to mention the thousands that Pinochet and his thugs brutally tortured.


Pinochet is not Hitler.

Of course not. But the point still remains that progressive economic policies do not make up for brutal human rights abuses.

[redstar2000]

But what's your connection, Jude?

Why is Chile "personal" with you?

Is your mother "wanted" by the present Chilean government? Did she have anything to do with that infamous car-bombing in Washington, D.C.?

Would the FBI like to talk to her?

A common thug like Pinochet always enjoys a curious popularity with capitalist "libertarians"...I expect that and am not surprised by it at all.

But how do you figure into all this?

Has your mother promised to have a private talk with you when you are "old enough"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JudeObscure84]

Yes, how dare people democratically elect their leaders. Much better to have a military dictatorship.

A fraudulent 36 percent of the vote does not really constitute democratically elected. Also needing the support of the Christian Democtats, so the Congress can ratify his victory is hardly a merit.

"Santiago will be painted in blood if I am not ratified as President."
- Salvador Allende, Punto Final, March 16, 1971


"econonmic revovery" is neoliberal code for the rich getting richer, in this case at the cost of thousands of lives. Not to mention the thousands that Pinochet and his thugs brutally tortured.

Have you ever been to Chile?


Of course not. But the point still remains that progressive economic policies do not make up for brutal human rights abuses.

Pinochet's economic policy was not "progressive", it was lassiez-faire. And I find it hypocritical that Castro still stands, yet Pinochet recieves lashes.





But what's your connection, Jude?

Why is Chile "personal" with you?

Is your mother "wanted" by the present Chilean government? Did she have anything to do with that infamous car-bombing in Washington, D.C.?

Would the FBI like to talk to her?

A common thug like Pinochet always enjoys a curious popularity with capitalist "libertarians"...I expect that and am not surprised by it at all.

But how do you figure into all this?

Has your mother promised to have a private talk with you when you are "old enough"?

Grow up and we'll chat.

[LSD]

And I find it hypocritical that Castro still stands, yet Pinochet recieves lashes.

"hypocritical"?

By whom?

Certainly the US agrees with you! They loved Pinochet, hate Castro.

Maybe what you find "hypocritcal" is that the people of Chile voted Pinochet out, whereas you like him.

I guess if it had been your family that he had "disappeared", you wouldn't find it so "hypocritical".


A fraudulent 36 percent of the vote does not really constitute democratically elected.

He won more votes than any other candidate and was named as president by congress, despite heavy protestations by the CIA.

As for "fraudulant", the burden of proof is on you there.


Also needing the support of the Christian Democtats, so the Congress can ratify his victory is hardly a merit.

It's hardly anything. In fact, it's completely irrelevent to this discussion.

[Enragé]

"Santiago will be painted in blood if I am not ratified as President."
- Salvador Allende, Punto Final, March 16, 1971

and what happened after he was taken from power? exactly, a blood bath. That sentence (i dont know the context) could mean anything from "if im not gonna be president, i'll kill everyone" (which is what you are aiming at) to "if the people elect me, and i dont get into office, the people will revolt..and will be wiped out by the military cuz the people aint got the training and equipment"

[xnj]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 10:32 PM
Pinochet's economic policy was not "progressive", it was lassiez-faire.
Hah! Yeah, it was laissez-faire . . . at gunpoint. So much for all the libertarian bullshit.

[Andy Bowden]

Right-wingers always attack Allende for having only 36% of the vote in 1970 - the fact that Blair has a similar result in the UK, is ignored of course - but in the March 1973 elections Allende increased his share of the vote to 44%.
Thats why a coup was used - the CIA and the Chilean elite were terrifed Allende would get a majority and wouldn't need to water down his policies to rely on the Christian Democrats, who passed "democratic guarantees" removing Allende of the constitutional right to remove an officer or civil servant from their job.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 19 2005, 01:01 PM
Right-wingers always attack Allende for having only 36% of the vote in 1970 - the fact that Blair has a similar result in the UK, is ignored of course
The hell it is.

[fernando]

Kennedy once said something interesting; "I'd rather see a thousand Trujillos than one Castro in the region" or something in those lines

[JudeObscure84]

Right-wingers always attack Allende for having only 36% of the vote in 1970 - the fact that Blair has a similar result in the UK, is ignored of course - but in the March 1973 elections Allende increased his share of the vote to 44%.

Tony Blair is not right wing.


Thats why a coup was used - the CIA and the Chilean elite were terrifed Allende would get a majority and wouldn't need to water down his policies to rely on the Christian Democrats, who passed "democratic guarantees" removing Allende of the constitutional right to remove an officer or civil servant from their job.

Nope a coup was used to avoid a civil war between the people, the Congress and the Allende administration. In August of '73 The Chamber of Deputies adopted a resolution charging the Allende administration with attempting to sieze all power and violating the constitution. The CIA's role was simply that it stood by and did nothing.


and what happened after he was taken from power? exactly, a blood bath. That sentence (i dont know the context) could mean anything from "if im not gonna be president, i'll kill everyone" (which is what you are aiming at) to "if the people elect me, and i dont get into office, the people will revolt..and will be wiped out by the military cuz the people aint got the training and equipment"

What would've happened if Allende would've stayed in power? A bigger blood bath. The coup was a must to remove Allende who was posing as a Democratic Socialist to gain power. And I figured as much that you guys would take that quote to mean that. It shows how much you guys love revolts. But even it did mean that, than that would mean the measly 36% of the people would revolt, and that Allende would do nothing to stop it. Why kind of a politician even makes those references in a public newspaper? He was no Social Democrat, he was a full blown Marxist.

[LSD]

Tony Blair is not right wing.

I notice you're not defending your claim that the 36% was "fraudulant".


Nope a coup was used to avoid a civil war between the people, the Congress and the Allende administration.

A plebiscide was scheduled!

Wouldn't it have made more sense to allow the people of Chile to decide rather than have the military overthrow civilian government?!


In August of '73 The Chamber of Deputies adopted a resolution charging the Allende administration with attempting to sieze all power and violating the constitution.

That wasn't a resolution, it was merely an accusation made by prominant members.


What would've happened if Allende would've stayed in power?

We'll never know.


The coup was a must to remove Allende who was posing as a Democratic Socialist to gain power.

It was a "must"?

WHY!?

Is a military coup a "must" anytime a politician "lies" to gain power? How about when Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative"? Should Rumselft overthrow his ass because he lieds "to gain power"?


He was no Social Democrat, he was a full blown Marxist.

Very debatable and entirely irrelevent to this discussion.

Regardless of his political ideology, he was democratically elected and had a plebiscide schedules. Pinochet launched a military coup, overthrew the democratically elected government and established a brutal dictatorship.

...and you support him.

[Andy Bowden]

I can assure everyone here that by any objective standard Tony Blair is right-wing. He has privatised things Thatcher would never touch - prisons for example.
Britains EU commisioner Peter Mandelson is on record as saying, "Were all Thatcherites now" <_<

[fernando]

Tony Blair is not right wing.

Yah..sorry your credibility has just dropped to a level that it doesnt realy matter what you say now

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JudeObscure84+--> (JudeObscure84)Grow up and we&#39;ll chat.[/b]

You just keep trying to evade the implications of your own initial remark.

Must I remind you again?


JudeObscure84
Do NOT get into Chile, that is a very personal issue with me considering my mother is Chilean. You know nothing of Chilean history if you think that Allende was really a Social Democrat.

Why is Chile a "personal issue" with you?

Your mother is Chilean...what kind of "Chilean" was she?

And your father? A wealthy corporate executive in some outfit with "interests" in Chile? A U.S. government employee, perhaps, providing "helpful advice" to the Chilean armed forces?

What&#39;s the real story, Jude?

If you don&#39;t know it, maybe it&#39;s time to confront your parents and make them tell you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Enragé]

And I figured as much that you guys would take that quote to mean that. It shows how much you guys love revolts.

DONT TWIST MY WORDS SO THEY MEAN SOMETHING ELSE.
I said "I dont know the context", and i never made a judgement about what it actually meant, i just wanted to show it could mean lots of things, and not only the explanation YOU were aiming at.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 12:45 PM

Tony Blair is not right wing.

Yah..sorry your credibility has just dropped to a level that it doesnt realy matter what you say now
To a marxist, everything is right-wing.

[Socialistpenguin]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 20 2005, 04:23 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 20 2005, 04:23 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 12:45 PM

Tony Blair is not right wing.

Yah..sorry your credibility has just dropped to a level that it doesnt realy matter what you say now
To a marxist, everything is right-wing. [/b]
Ermmm....no. Blair has even gone, ON RECORD, that he said he admired Thatcher :blink: :blink: Yep, a left-winger if I ever saw one(&#33;) <_< Hmmm....let&#39;s take a look at how left Blair is:

Private Finance Initiatives for schools and everyone else.
Privatisation of railways.
Tuition fees.
Cronyism (why the hell does Peter Mandelson keep popping up?)
Raising of council tax AFTER the election (How strange&#33;)
Curbing of civil liberties for "security"
Favouring of unregulated trade.

And so on and so forth/

[Professor Moneybags]

Give me a thousand of those, and I&#39;ve give you a thousand to contradict them.

At the end of the day, he&#39;s just another statist tax-baron.

[Andy Bowden]

Taxation of the rich under Blair (top level 40%) is lower than the rate of taxation under the majority of Thatcher&#39;s regime (top level 63%) - she reduced it to 40% under lawson in the late 80&#39;s.

Also, please provide these thousand peices of evidence to suggest Blair is a left-winger.

[fernando]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jun 20 2005, 04:23 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jun 20 2005, 04:23 PM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 12:45 PM

Tony Blair is not right wing.

Yah..sorry your credibility has just dropped to a level that it doesnt realy matter what you say now
To a marxist, everything is right-wing. [/b]
Do you call Tony Blair a left wing leader then?

[synthesis]

You can&#39;t really argue "left wing / right wing" with the ilk of Moneybags. By their definition, everyone from Julius Caesar to Machiavelli to Joseph Mobutu was a "statist tax-baron." Pretty much any government-subject relationship of the last 5,000 years counts as "Marxist power-mongering" to them, so you might as well save yourself some time and start banging your head against a rock now.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:17 AM
You can&#39;t really argue "left wing / right wing" with the ilk of Moneybags. By their definition, everyone from Julius Caesar to Machiavelli to Joseph Mobutu was a "statist tax-baron." Pretty much any government-subject relationship of the last
:lol:

Slavery ? That&#39;s capitalism (even thought it violates individual rights, which you err....don&#39;t recognize anyway).
Property rights ? That&#39;s capitalism.
Violation of property rights (by invading another country) ? That&#39;s capitalism too.
The protection of individual rights (i.e. property) ? That&#39;s capitalism.
Violating invididual rights (i.e. stealing) ? That&#39;s capitalism too.
High taxes ? That&#39;s capitalism.
Low taxes ? That&#39;s capitalism too.
Nazi Germany (totalitarian government) ? That&#39;s capitalism.
Somalia (no government) ? That&#39;s capitalism too.

Hell, capitalism is whatever you want it to be. At least my arguments are consistent.


5,000 years counts as "Marxist power-mongering" to them, so you might as well save yourself some time and start banging your head against a rock now.

Why don&#39;t you just follow Che y Marajuana and Non-Sectarian Bastard&#39;s philosophy of "might makes right" and give up all pretence of rationality ?

[Latin America]

JudeObscure84 Posted: Jun 18 2005, 06:46 AM
Allende was no socialist, he was a Marxist ready to turn Chile into gulag with Castro and Soviet help.


Chilenito mijito portate bien amigo&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[LSD]

Slavery ? That&#39;s capitalism

Yup. Buying and selling in a free market.


Property rights ? That&#39;s capitalism.

Don&#39;t tell me you disagree with that&#33;


Violation of property rights (by invading another country) ? That&#39;s capitalism too.

Hey it was you (a capitalist) who said that "dictatorships don&#39;t have sovereignty"&#33;


The protection of individual rights (i.e. property) ? That&#39;s capitalism.

We covered that...


Violating invididual rights (i.e. stealing) ? That&#39;s capitalism too.

Stealing what?


High taxes ? That&#39;s capitalism.

Yup. Mixed economy capitalism.


Low taxes ? That&#39;s capitalism too.

Yup. Mixed economy capitalism.


Nazi Germany (totalitarian government) ? That&#39;s capitalism.

Yup. State capitalism.


Somalia (no government) ? That&#39;s capitalism too.

And your favourite kind too&#33;


Hell, capitalism is whatever you want it to be.

No, it&#39;s just rather flexible. It is able to shape and reshape itself to fit an amazing variety of situations. It&#39;s why it&#39;s survived for so long.


At least my arguments are consistent.

If only, Moneybags, if only... <_<

[Commie Girl]

:D Hey Jude, looks like your favourite dictator is suffering&#33;

Former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet suffered a stroke on Tuesday but he is conscious, said a family spokesperson.

Read more..... (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/21/pinochet-050621.html)

[Professor Moneybags]

I&#39;ll repost this when the quotes start working again.

[synthesis]

Hell, capitalism is whatever you want it to be.

It&#39;s nowhere near as vague as you&#39;d like to paint it.

"Capitalism" is a system wherein the acquisition of capital is facilitated. This is an etymological truism.

More specifically, Marx defined it as the mode of economic production characterized by ownership of the means of production by the industrial ruling class - the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, anything which maintains this status quo - wars to protect capital, raising taxes to provide government subsidies of industry, the Reichstag Fire to smear and ultimately repress the Communists - can also be called "capitalist."

You&#39;re the one with the loony definition, where it&#39;s not capitalism unless the government is totally separated from the economy.

[Professor Moneybags]

Therefore, anything which maintains this status quo

The status quo isn&#39;t capitalism. It&#39;s a mixed economy.


- wars to protect capital,

"Wars to protect capital" presuppose someone trying to violate property rights.


raising taxes to provide government subsidies of industry,

Which contradict property rights. I suppose you&#39;re going to be telling me that property rights have nothing to do with capitalism.


the Reichstag Fire to smear and ultimately repress the Communists - can also be called "capitalist."

Does this mean I can gulags communist ?


You&#39;re the one with the loony definition,

You&#39;re the one with the straw man arguments. Try again.