The Americas The - "Why Should I have to State Pinochet was terrible?" - Thread

[Deleted member 1]

What I find remarkable is that two decades ago serious, scholarly historians of the Cold War willingly defended Pinochet in mainstream historical works. Now even the people on this forum can’t. The Overton window on foreign policy has shifted to the left, even if it hasn’t on domestic policy.

 

[Largo]

What I find remarkable is that two decades ago serious, scholarly historians of the Cold War willingly defended Pinochet in mainstream historical works. Now even the people on this forum can’t. The Overton window on foreign policy has shifted to the left, even if it hasn’t on domestic policy.

I would think that we have a better idea of the shit Pinochet did pull today compared to two decades ago, which might end up changing the dialogue.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I would think that we have a better idea of the shit Pinochet did pull today compared to two decades ago, which might end up changing the dialogue.

Most of the sources I read then, that were written around that time, frankly admitted that his regime executed three thousand people. Most of the testimony of various alleged crimes (of which very few are proved--the left-wing tendency to treat allegations against their enemy as fact while dismissing objective fact from their enemies seems to be similar to the left-wing tendency toward guilt, i.e., "but comrade, if you are not guilty, why have you been charged?") predates that period.

Philosophically, I see war and civil strife as akin to natural disasters. They are responses of the social-geographic biome to negative stimuli, threats to the integrity of the land or to the moral and social fabric of the people. They are very chaotic events, more or less impossible to control. They are always bad, but not necessarily wrong. Still, when you walk down that course, you must be very clear-headed about the fact that wrongs will inevitably accrue from the decision to do so. That is why preserving the strength of institutions to make those acts unnecessary also means that when they are necessary, they are not as terrible as they might be. Allende tore down all the laws in Chile, and then as many leftists before him, was surprised when the devil came down to Chile. And Pinochet's action, while the right call, called down the devil. That is the situation you get in when you assault a constitutional order, and it's why at the end of the day I regard the constitution as the greatest gift to the United States. I never want to see us experience these attendant horrors again. We ignored the horrors of the Civil War precisely to allow our country to heal from it; it might have been a disaster to the fate of the United States otherwise.

 

[GoldRanger]

To be honest, even if the figure of 3000 executed is accurate, while really bad, it's not anywhere near the top 10 (probably not the top 30) regimes in terms of numbers of executions. We don't have to even go as far as Hitler or Stalin, plain old Assad or Saddam would surpass Pinochet handily.

So while we can acknowledge that Pinochet was a tyrant, I think we need to put his regime into much needed perspective. I wouldn't wish anyone a life under his regime, but there are frankly a HUGE selection of even shittier dictators to choose from. Compared to them, I think we can have a frank discussion about what Pinochet did right (and he DID do SOME things right, no regime does EVERYTHING wrong) without smearing people as "sympathizers".

 

[Realm]

Choosing between communism and a right wing dictatorship is like being given a choice between eating disease ridden feces and garbage. Sure the garbage is less likely to kill you but its still garbage.

They democratically decided on the communism.

Or are we just not allowed to pick that, and the nice ol' right wing death squads come and give us our harsh medicine?

 

[Deleted member 1]

They democratically decided on the communism.

Or are we just not allowed to pick that, and the nice ol' right wing death squads come and give us our harsh medicine?

Destroying the entire economic, legal, and social fabric of a country and intentionally and consciously laying the groundwork for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat run by foreign activists after you take advantage of a divided electorate to win with 36pct of the vote and then run roughshod over the constitutional prerogatives of Congress and the Courts to the point where they actually asked Pinochet to conduct his coup is not “democracy “.

To be honest, even if the figure of 3000 executed is accurate, while really bad, it's not anywhere near the top 10 (probably not the top 30) regimes in terms of numbers of executions. We don't have to even go as far as Hitler or Stalin, plain old Assad or Saddam would surpass Pinochet handily.

So while we can acknowledge that Pinochet was a tyrant, I think we need to put his regime into much needed perspective. I wouldn't wish anyone a life under his regime, but there are frankly a HUGE selection of even shittier dictators to choose from. Compared to them, I think we can have a frank discussion about what Pinochet did right (and he DID do SOME things right, no regime does EVERYTHING wrong) without smearing people as "sympathizers".

Try “outside of the top one hundred”.... within the 20th century alone. And of course that assumes that foreign saboteurs and people committing treason, which collectively form a substantial portion of those executed, would not have been convicted in any sane nation of the globe. The number of undeserved executions is much, much lower.

 

[GoldRanger]

They democratically decided on the communism.

Or are we just not allowed to pick that, and the nice ol' right wing death squads come and give us our harsh medicine?

Hitler also democratically elected at first. So what?

 

[Realm]

Hitler also democratically elected at first. So what?

So what did Allende do that was improved on by military dictatorship, comparable to hitler I suppose, given your implication?

 

[GoldRanger]

Try “outside of the top one hundred”.... within the 20th century alone. And of course that assumes that foreign saboteurs and people committing treason, which collectively form a substantial portion of those executed, would not have been convicted in any sane nation of the globe. The number of undeserved executions is much, much lower.

This is interesting.

Capital punishment by country - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

According to this, Iran executed over 253 people in 2018 alone. Assuming a fairly constant rate of executions over the years (unless someone can prove that 2018 has seen a huge spike in executions out of proportion compared to their average?) it takes Iran about 14 years to match Pinochet (that's probably being generous. Periods like the 2009 protest are bound to have higher rates of capital punishment than the average. But for the sake of generosity we'll assume 2018 is overall an average year).

Ali Khamenei - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ali Khamenei has been acting as supreme leader of Iran for just over 30 years now. That means that the Iranian regime under his rule has executed more people than Pinochet.

Yet there is a huge overlap (from my anecdotal experience, admittedly) of people who treat Pinochet as if he was on the level of Hitler and people who want the US to coddle up to Iran or even think that Iran is the morally superior of the two countries, thus explicitly supporting the Iranian regime, and not even trying to hide it.

I think the people who have more problem with Pinochet than with any random run-of-the-mill dictator in the 20th century (and there are plenty of less prominent ones to choose from) hate him solely for resisting Communism, not because he was evil or that he killed people.

 

[commanderkai]

They democratically decided on the communism.

Or are we just not allowed to pick that, and the nice ol' right wing death squads come and give us our harsh medicine?

He "won" his election with 36.61% of the vote, with the other two candidates winning 35.27% and 28.11%. Even with opposition from the Chilean Congress, he goes full steam ahead anyway, thinking he has a mandate to basically change the country wholesale.

When, you know, the Chilean Congress sees Allende trying to create his private little army to do such nice things as strikebreaking and a desire to enforce the 'law' (while, you know, bypassing Congress, which makes laws) with said private army, people opposing you see the writing on the wall.

Amusingly enough, the Nazis gained significant political power in the German election in July 1932 with just 37.3% of the vote, with a year later being able to squirm their way into full control. I suppose you also view this as how the democratic process should function.

Or does democracy only work when your side takes a slim purality and uses it as a mandate to try to seize political power?

 

[Deleted member 1]

@GoldRanger , your example of Iran doesn't even begin to count the number of people executed during the Iranian Revolution and its immediate aftermath. That was actually around a relatively modest 9,000 people, or only three times Pinochet's death toll. Conservatives rarely kill as many people as communists.

@commanderkai , it always makes me giggle darkly to think that, of course, there were strikes against the communists. Plenty of the Labour Unionists knew how this song and dance went in countless other countries by then.

 

[Realm]

Or does democracy only work when your side takes a slim purality and uses it as a mandate to try to seize political power?

So wait, we're arguing that democracy is only valid when you have a majority of the population on your side regardless of electoral structure?

Good to know Trump is not democratically elected, if that's your actual point there.

Actually, I'll concede the entire point on allende to see you directly say Trump is illegitimate and doesn't have democratic support.

 

[Deleted member 1]

So wait, we're arguing that democracy is only valid when you have a majority of the population on your side regardless of electoral structure?

Good to know Trump is not democratically elected, if that's your actual point there.

Actually, I'll concede the entire point on allende to see you directly say Trump is illegitimate and doesn't have democratic support.

Nobody was disputing that Allende was legally elected in Chile; they are disputing that his election gave him any kind of legal or democratic mandate to blatantly violate Chile's constitution, which is more or less tautological and it's absurd for someone to argue against, Sir. Perhaps you will claim Trump is doing the same, but I suspect most of the people here will strongly disagree.

 

[commanderkai]

So wait, we're arguing that democracy is only valid when you have a majority of the population on your side regardless of electoral structure?

Good to know Trump is not democratically elected, if that's your actual point there.

Actually, I'll concede the entire point on allende to see you directly say Trump is illegitimate and doesn't have democratic support.

The US doesn't use popular vote to choose it's head of state, nor has it. Judging Trump's legitimacy based on a system that the United States doesn't use is amusing. Trump gained legitimate power using the system in place to legally select a head of state. Hilariously, American leftists still haven't figured this out even though the system has been around for quite a while now.

However, I'd agree if President Trump started trying to organize his own private militia to enforce 'laws' that he himself creates without approval of Congress, far overstepping the separation of powers between the three branches of US government, then the US military should intervene, as they are sworn to protect the US Constitution. I have seen zero evidence of President Trump conducting any such action that would come close to the actions of Allende during his few short years in power.

Trump has come nowhere close to Allende's actions in his desire to change Chile.

 

[Realm]

The US doesn't use popular vote to choose it's head of state, nor has it. Judging Trump's legitimacy based on a system that the United States doesn't use is amusing.

Cool, then why were you judging Allendes legitimacy based on a system they didn't use?

Nobody was disputing that Allende was legally elected in Chile; they are disputing that his election gave him any kind of legal or democratic mandate to blatantly violate Chile's constitution, which is more or less tautological and it's absurd for someone to argue against, Sir. Perhaps you will claim Trump is doing the same, but I suspect most of the people here will strongly disagree.

So wait, democratic election doesn't give you the legal or democratic mandate to act, but a coup in order to for right wing death squads does?

Cool, sounds solidly logical, rather than a ad hoc justification of atrocities in order to explain why you are valid in murdering people who disagree with you

 

[Deleted member 1]

So wait, democratic election doesn't give you the legal or democratic mandate to act, but a coup in order to for right wing death squads does?

Cool, sounds solidly logical, rather than a ad hoc justification of atrocities in order to explain why you are valid in murdering people who disagree with you

That is an intentional misrepresentation of my statement, which was very clear, which is that no form of democratic mandate whatsoever gives you the ability to form a private Army and violate the constitution, of any State, anywhere.

 

[Realm]

That is an intentional misrepresentation of my statement, which was very clear, which is that no form of democratic mandate whatsoever gives you the ability to form a private Army and violate the constitution, of any State, anywhere.

But killing communists does?

Seeing as those are the actions you're defending here

 

[Deleted member 1]

But killing communists does?

Seeing as those are the actions you're defending here

Pinochet was invited to conduct his coup by the other branches of government because Allende had so completely perverted the Chilean system of governance that they had no legal recourse to force him out of power.

 

[Realm]

Pinochet was invited to conduct his coup by the other branches of government because Allende had so completely perverted the Chilean system of governance that they had no legal recourse to force him out of power.

So, murdering people and engaging in a coups is more legitimate than being democratically elected and overstepping the bounds of your office.

Well, sounds like Allende should have just killed more people to fit in your definition of legitimate, I can see the issue now

 

[Emperor Tippy]

But killing communists does?

Seeing as those are the actions you're defending here

Power is all the mandate that one actually needs.

Saying that Pinochet had a democratic mandate for his actions is farcical, but that doesn't mean that he didn't have a mandate. He did, it was the mandate of having the power to do what he wanted.

The commie didn't have a democratic mandate for his antics either, but unlike Pinochet he also lacked the power to do what he wanted (if he had said power then Pinochet wouldn't have been able to replace him).