Log in

View Full Version : Mistakes of Salvador Allende



Psy
27th October 2007, 22:58
After the unsuccessful coup of June 29, 1973 why did Salvador Allende not ask the USSR to send troops (in the UN by asking for USSR military observers to rebuild the Chile Army) to discourage coups and forcing the USA to go to war with the USSR if it wants to try and use force to overthrow Allende (the USSR stood up for Cuba so Allende could have tried to get the USSR to do the same for Chile)

Random Precision
27th October 2007, 23:08
I believe he did, or at least, Soviet observers were sent at some point to see how things were progressing and if the USSR should invest arms, money, etc. in what he was doing. They were unimpressed and reported back that Allende's revolution wasn't worth supporting; their complaints in particular were that Allende refused to use violence to supress his opponents or to take full control of the state apparatus. Furthermore, the USSR just wasn't willing to risk a conflict with the US in Latin America anymore.

Patchd
27th October 2007, 23:10
There was a difference. Remember Allende came to power through bourgeois elections, he was but a mere democratic socialist, if even that. Cuba had gone through a revolution.
But, during that political climate, the USSR was probably willing to support any anti-American regime/force. Take Egypt for example, during her wars with Israel.

But why did Allende not ask for help? I dunno, maybe he didn't trust the Soviets, maybe he didn't like them as much as he didn't like the Americans???

Psy
27th October 2007, 23:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:10 pm
There was a difference. Remember Allende came to power through bourgeois elections, he was but a mere democratic socialist, if even that. Cuba had gone through a revolution.
But, during that political climate, the USSR was probably willing to support any anti-American regime/force. Take Egypt for example, during her wars with Israel.

But why did Allende not ask for help? I dunno, maybe he didn't trust the Soviets, maybe he didn't like them as much as he didn't like the Americans???
Of course USSR forces would be carrying out the interests of the USSR but it is kinda obvious the USSR interests was against a US coup. That if Pinochet still tried a military coup, USSR forces would have engaged Pinochet forces and probably would have totally slaughtered them quickly, as Pinochets tanks would have been no match the then cutting edge Mil Mi-24 helicopters that the USSR could have sent to Chile to test them out in battle as in 1972 there was in limited production test for flaws and what better way to find design flaws in the Mil Mi-24 then put it into a easy battle? Also it would be easily for the USSR to send a prototype Mil Mi-24 with crew to Chile without the USA finding out till after it starts blowing up Pinochet's forces.

OneBrickOneVoice
28th October 2007, 02:36
Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 27, 2007 10:08 pm
I believe he did, or at least, Soviet observers were sent at some point to see how things were progressing and if the USSR should invest arms, money, etc. in what he was doing. They were unimpressed and reported back that Allende's revolution wasn't worth supporting; their complaints in particular were that Allende refused to use violence to supress his opponents or to take full control of the state apparatus. Furthermore, the USSR just wasn't willing to risk a conflict with the US in Latin America anymore.
that's bullshit! That was the whole problem with Allende. He attempted to seize capitalist state machinery and use it for the working class. The army was completely still bourgeoisified. The working class wasn't armed. That's what's different about Chavez. The Bolivarian military has been filled with Cuban military advisors, and revolutionaries old bourgeois generals were booted. A people's paramilitary guerilla reserve is being built

Random Precision
28th October 2007, 06:04
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:36 am
that's bullshit! That was the whole problem with Allende. He attempted to seize capitalist state machinery and use it for the working class. The army was completely still bourgeoisified. The working class wasn't armed. That's what's different about Chavez. The Bolivarian military has been filled with Cuban military advisors, and revolutionaries old bourgeois generals were booted. A people's paramilitary guerilla reserve is being built
I agree that Allende's chosen road of reformism was disastrous. His particular method of reformism was bizarre in itself, he apparently thought that he could use the bourgeois state on the workers' behalf without the bourgeoisie noticing. :lol: But the early seventies was also the era of detente, when the USSR was not willing to challenge the United States in their "sphere of influence".

LuĂ­s Henrique
28th October 2007, 16:26
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:36 am
That's what's different about Chavez. The Bolivarian military has been filled with Cuban military advisors, and revolutionaries (sic; I believe you meant "reactionary") old bourgeois generals were booted.
Yes, it would be fine if such things were happening. But to the extent that I know, only the generals directly involved in the coup were ousted. The military in general remains untouched, though Chávez is obviously bribing them by buying impressive toys.

A people's paramilitary guerilla reserve is being built
This sounds even better, and even less real.

Luís Henrique

Comrade Castro
28th October 2007, 18:06
Originally posted by Luís Henrique+October 28, 2007 10:26 am--> (Luís Henrique @ October 28, 2007 10:26 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 01:36 am
That's what's different about Chavez. The Bolivarian military has been filled with Cuban military advisors, and revolutionaries (sic; I believe you meant "reactionary") old bourgeois generals were booted.
Yes, it would be fine if such things were happening. But to the extent that I know, only the generals directly involved in the coup were ousted. The military in general remains untouched, though Chávez is obviously bribing them by buying impressive toys.

A people's paramilitary guerilla reserve is being built
This sounds even better, and even less real.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Actually, the guerrilla reserve is quite real. My uncle is in it, my dad will be soon. They are trained in guerrilla tactics (specialized for the area in which they live) in case of an invasion by a larger power, and conventional army tactics in case of an attack by, for example, Colombia. They are trained to use all the modern weapons Venezuela has available, such as the new standard assault rifle replacing the FN FAL, the AK-103. 100,000 AK-103's have arrived from Russia, more may be ordered, and two factories, one for the AK-103's and 104's and the other for their 7.62x39 are being built in Venezuela, and will produce something like 50,000 rifles a year. The cornerstone was actually laid just yesterday! Also, seeing their effectiveness against the occupiers of Iraq, 5,000 Dragunov sniper rifles were just bought from Russia and intended for guerrilla warfare if we are invaded. The regular armed forces count with about 100,000 members (including non-combat personnel), but the reserves have almost 2 MILLION soldiers! And though there is still some corruption with some of the military's officers, most are actually loyal to the revolution and to building socialism, and that goes without saying for the common soldiers. And since pretty much all of the traitors who were not jailed or exiled following the coup tried an uprising again in 2003, they pretty much purged themselves. The new Venezuelan military has very little in common with that of 10 years ago.

OneBrickOneVoice
29th October 2007, 01:24
Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 28, 2007 03:26 pm



Yes, it would be fine if such things were happening. But to the extent that I know, only the generals directly involved in the coup were ousted. The military in general remains untouched, though Chávez is obviously bribing them by buying impressive toys.

No doubt more needs to be done but there is a new leadership, there is a people's militia, and new cadets are being trained under the slogan "Patria, Socialismo o Muerte" (Fatherland, Socialism, or Death). I think that's sign that the Venezuelan military is not bourgeoisified like Chile's was under Allende


This sounds even better, and even less real.

Check it Out (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4635187.stm). This article was written in 2005. Here's one from 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/world/americas/11venezuela.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Chavez,%20Hugo). Aside from People's Reserves, Revolutionary Street Gangs (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/world/americas/18venezuela.html?pagewanted=all) are also behind the government and ready to fight an invasion.

jaffe
30th October 2007, 14:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:24 am

Check it Out (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4635187.stm). This article was written in 2005. Here's one from 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/world/americas/11venezuela.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Chavez,%20Hugo). Aside from People's Reserves, Revolutionary Street Gangs (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/18/world/americas/18venezuela.html?pagewanted=all) are also behind the government and ready to fight an invasion.
The ny article is about student collectives :huh: not street gangs

Ramachandra
30th October 2007, 14:44
The problem of allande was in with his approach.As mao said revolution is not something romantic like drawing and art or composing a song.It's related to the class struggle.I don't deny that the working class can use the bourgeise parliment to seize power.Meanwhile you gotta be awake thoroughly on reactionery conspirecies.Disarming the reactionery is essential!The problem with him was he was going to be the latin american Gandhi.Read issabel allande's "house of spirits".The approach of miguel in the novel was the way that was to be followed.

bolshevik butcher
30th October 2007, 16:45
As has already been mentioned Allende made the error of believing he could make half a revolution without digging his own grave and that of thousands of class conscious Chilean workers. By leaving much of the economy in the hands of the Chilean ruling class Allende was unable to fully impliment socialism, and by leaving the Chilean workers unarmed he obviously left the gate open for a military coupe. As already pointed to what we are seeing in Venezuela thankfully appears to be the lessons of Chile learned. If the workers are not armed and the army not purged of reationary elements a coup is always a danger.

I think it's possibly unfair to compare Allende to Ghandi in that even though he made gross mistakes Allende was a class conscious socialists, Ghandi was little more than a pawn of impeiralism.

bootleg42
31st October 2007, 05:19
Salvador Allende was a fucking hero. He may have been mistaken and he died (he didn't let the have the chance to kill him, he killed himself to not let the bourgeoisie have that "honor") but he was a Marxist (not a social democrat even though his party eventually became social democrat).

We should learn from his lessons and mistakes. Remember not to be dogmatic but we see time and time against that COMPLETE non-violent movements do not take down the bourgeoisie completely.