Pinochet

[Ruso]

Pinochet, after a coup against the democratically elected, socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, became one of Latin America's bloodiest tyrants. Helped by the CIA, Pinochet ruled Chile with a radical right wing ideology, klling any oposser who got in his way. He, a dictator, had full support from the democratic, fair and free USA. What do you think about him? Was his rule necessary for the continent to be "safe" from communism? Was it right for the USA to promote his regime?

[TheBostonian]

Pinochet, after a coup against the democratically elected, socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, became one of Latin America's bloodiest tyrants. Helped by the CIA, Pinochet ruled Chile with a radical right wing ideology, klling any oposser who got in his way. He, a dictator, had full support from the democratic, fair and free USA. What do you think about him? Was his rule necessary for the continent to be "safe" from communism? Was it right for the USA to promote his regime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The odd thing was how he allowed an open election, which he lost, and turned Chile over to a democratically elected government. Quite an unusual way for a dictator to retire, eh?

[Captain Obvious]

I see no need to speak kindly about Pinochet ... however I find it ironic that you use such harsh language to describe his regime - without using similarly harsh language to denounce all the socialist tyrants of Latin America. Regimes that were far more bloodthirsty and economically destructive than Pinochet, you seem to speak of in kind terms!!! (or at least ignore).

More people have already "dissapeared" under Castro and Chavez than did under Pinochet. The restrictions on freedom have been far more severe. Where's your outrage there? And, as Bostonian mentioned, Pinochet at least finally saw the error of his ways and stepped down. Castro and Chavez don't seem to have that plan. Nevermind that Chile has shown some of the strongest economic growth in South America, while being one of the most right-wing economically both during and after Pinochet.... co-incidence?

Ruso ... I guess you're just a well-intentioned communist/socialist who's desperately trying to justify the bloody past and economic failures of leftism. But the sad truth is, socialism doesn't help the people ... least of all the truly poor people it claims to care about. Even democratically socialist governments (as opposed to the one-party "democratic people's" dictatorships) have left nothing but a path of economic stagnation and poverty in their wake.

I strongly encourage you to read any works of comparative politics written by actual economists. It would provide a nice balance to any left-wings works that probably domiante the Latin American classrooms.

[TheBostonian]

I see no need to speak kindly about Pinochet ... however I find it ironic that you use such harsh language to describe his regime - without using similarly harsh language to denounce all the socialist tyrants of Latin America.  Regimes that were far more bloodthirsty and economically destructive than Pinochet, you seem to speak of in kind terms!!! (or at least ignore).

More people have already "dissapeared" under Castro and Chavez than did under Pinochet. The restrictions on freedom have been far more severe. Where's your outrage there? And, as Bostonian mentioned, Pinochet at least finally saw the error of his ways and stepped down. Castro and Chavez don't seem to have that plan. Nevermind that Chile has shown some of the strongest economic growth in South America, while being one of the most right-wing economically both during and after Pinochet.... co-incidence?

Ruso ... I guess you're just a well-intentioned communist/socialist who's desperately trying to justify the bloody past and economic failures of leftism. But the sad truth is, socialism doesn't help the people ... least of all the truly poor people it claims to care about. Even democratically socialist governments (as opposed to the one-party "democratic people's" dictatorships) have left nothing but a path of economic stagnation and poverty in their wake.

I strongly encourage you to read any works of comparative politics written by actual economists. It would provide a nice balance to any left-wings works that probably domiante the Latin American classrooms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the argument goes that we stress Pinochet's evils because we--the United States--are responsible for his rise to power. Or at least that is the kind of defense Chomsky offers when asked why he is so obsessed with the wrongs of the United States when so many other states are doing such evil. We can most effectively bring about change by influencing our own country's policy, says he.

[Ruso]

I see no need to speak kindly about Pinochet ... however I find it ironic that you use such harsh language to describe his regime - without using similarly harsh language to denounce all the socialist tyrants of Latin America.

[Ruso]

We cannot go back to referring as "communists" to anyone who tries to be less biased about certain myths.

[daniel18]

Extrememly overrated. I think Chile's rapid economic growth rate as of late has to do more with 50 years of a stuck economy than with Pinochet's government. I believe Chile would have done much better under Allende.

[daniel18]

I see no need to speak kindly about Pinochet ... however I find it ironic that you use such harsh language to describe his regime - without using similarly harsh language to denounce all the socialist tyrants of Latin America.  Regimes that were far more bloodthirsty and economically destructive than Pinochet, you seem to speak of in kind terms!!! (or at least ignore).

I don't think there has been any other Latin American dictator that has done more damage to their country's economies than what Pinochet did in his first three quarters of time in power

More people have already "dissapeared" under Castro and Chavez than did under Pinochet.

Source?

The restrictions on freedom have been far more severe.

Source?

Where's your outrage there? And, as Bostonian mentioned, Pinochet at least finally saw the error of his ways and stepped down. Castro and Chavez don't seem to have that plan.

Ch

[Ruso]

CaptainObvious, after reading daniel18's posts, with most of which I do not agree, I noticed one very good point of his, that I had forgotten. Chavez is not a dictator. Maybe you should check what you read, and look for less biased info. He is, of course, hated by Bush, but that does not mean that he is a communist tyrant.

[Captain Obvious]

Ruso, based on the content of your previous posts, I think it was reasonable of me to assume that you were a leftist. I'm not going to apologize for being wrong ... because then I'd be implying that there's something wrong with being leftist! ... and that's not fair either.

Furthermore, I don't intend to use the word communist lightly. I was a political theory major ... I'm sure I've read the communist manifesto more times than most actual communists. But when someone calls Che an idealist corrupted by Castro - amid a string of similar posts concerning left wing political figures - it's a fair leap of logic to think he might be a communist. But anyway, please don't take offense. Take it as a compliment that you are playing devils advocate with extreme conviction.

I also think it's fair to call Chavez a dictator. He appears to exercise power by decree. Press that disagree with him are pulled off the air or imprisoned. And there isn't even a pretense anymore about the eventual transition of power. How exactly isn't he a dictator? Because he doesn't call himself one? Neither does Kim Jong Il, or the military junta in Myannmar. You can certainly disagree with me, but I think bulk of information actually supports the notion that he is - or is rapidly becoming - a what could be called a "communist tyrant."

[Ruso]

Ruso, based on the content of your previous posts, I think it was reasonable of me to assume that you were a leftist. I'm not going to apologize for being wrong ... because then I'd be implying that there's something wrong with being leftist! ... and that's not fair either.

Furthermore, I don't intend to use the word communist lightly. I was a political theory major ... I'm sure I've read the communist manifesto more times than most actual communists.  But when someone calls Che an idealist corrupted by Castro - amid a string of similar posts concerning left wing political figures - it's a fair leap of logic to think he might be a communist. But anyway, please don't take offense. Take it as a compliment that you are playing devils advocate with extreme conviction.

I also think it's fair to call Chavez a dictator. He appears to exercise power by decree. Press that disagree with him are pulled off the air or imprisoned. And there isn't even a pretense anymore about the eventual transition of power. How exactly isn't he a dictator? Because he doesn't call himself one? Neither does Kim Jong Il, or the military junta in Myannmar. You can certainly disagree with me, but I think bulk of information actually supports the notion that he is - or is rapidly becoming - a what could be called a "communist tyrant."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am glad you have no prejudice against leftists. (Although, you should know that a leftist, in its original form, means progressive, liberal, not socialist inclined). However, I do believe that there are certain ideologies, like communism, that can not be applied anymore, and that to consider them is, currently, a depiction of nothing but pure idealism. Now, before, it was as valuable as any other political theory. And, although I disagree with their ideas, now, after seeing what they were not able to see, I do admire those who dared to dream about a better world. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Guevarra, were not mere evil people who wanted to destroy the world. They were actual thinkers or leaders looking for a solution. My idea of Guevarra, as you did notice, is rather hopeful. I do believe he was more than mere "evil", I do believe that he did what he did for what he considered a good cause. I do believe he was concerned about the world. Maybe am wrong, and we'll never know. I even give that credit to Castro, who, in my opinion, was corrupted and blinded by power. (He was not a communist, until the Soviets offered help. he asked America first)

Chavez's does not call himself a dictator, because he has not broken any laws that might imply that. He was democratically elected, and he has a definite popular acceptance. There is also a bunch of information that clarify the "myth" about his dictatorship. What he is doing is challenging the powerful "feudal" classes of venezuela, making them lose the radical power they had over evry institution in the nation. They fear that, so they call him a commie. It is all about interests. That is , as Michael Moore would say, The Awful Truth.

[MAntoniazzi]

As Venezuelan, I find myself agreeing with the fact that yes Chavez was democratically elected by defrauding the Venezuelan Community, he is challenging the feudal classes of the country, however, the country did not need that. Venezuela is now one of the poorest country with the most money.

Chavez is in fact a dictator under cover, people have gone missing, people are scared to go back, people are not free there. What Chavez is doing is setting himself up to be there for the next 20 years. SAD SAD SAD SITUATION.

I can only hope for a true leader to come and lead such a wealthy country into this new era of techonology. With its oil, Venezuela has the potential to be the most powerful country in S. America.

P.S. It's sad that I feel that I can't speak freely here b/c i still have family there, and I am worried about them and their safety.

[Dale]

I do get tired of the ready assumption that authoritarian leaders are 'right wing'. I tend to associate authoritarianism with leftism. and in point of fact, most of the bad guys of the last century were leftists.

[Dale]

Oh no please!!. I am a well intentioned liberal. Am not trying to justify anything, am just trying to figure out what you think about certain people. Among americans, I know the most hated dictator is Castro, so I find it necessary to balance that hate by exposing Pinochet. I am nothing but a moderate guy, trying to challenge the most ignorant preconceptions most of you have about Latin America. In Cuba, I would expose Castro, and "defend" Pinochet. That is my whole ideology, "The Devil's advocate Ideology". I think that is the only way to find something close to truth. Maybe you should learn more about the different sides of the political spectrums of the world.

You dont need to recommend me anything. I have read many books written by actual economists. I have read reallatin american history. I, in no way, agree with communism, nor socialism. I am just smart enough to look for objectivity in history from all over the world. And no, being educated in an latinamerican classroom, among the richest students in the whole country, I can assure you that my education is far more objective and informed than most people in Latin, and North America.

Read what I say, I do not defend Castro, nor Chavez.

[Sundodger]

Great Editorial from the Washington Post:

Pinochet vs. Castro

It's hard not to notice, however, that the evil dictator leaves behind the most successful country in Latin America. In the past 15 years, Chile's economy has grown at twice the regional average, and its poverty rate has been halved. It's leaving behind the developing world, where all of its neighbors remain mired. It also has a vibrant democracy. Earlier this year it elected another socialist president, Michelle Bachelet, who suffered persecution during the Pinochet years.

Like it or not, Mr. Pinochet had something to do with this success. To the dismay of every economic minister in Latin America, he introduced the free-market policies that produced the Chilean economic miracle -- and that not even Allende's socialist successors have dared reverse. He also accepted a transition to democracy, stepping down peacefully in 1990 after losing a referendum.

By way of contrast, Fidel Castro -- Mr. Pinochet's nemesis and a hero to many in Latin America and beyond -- will leave behind an economically ruined and freedomless country with his approaching death. Mr. Castro also killed and exiled thousands. But even when it became obvious that his communist economic system had impoverished his country, he refused to abandon that system: He spent the last years of his rule reversing a partial liberalization. To the end he also imprisoned or persecuted anyone who suggested Cubans could benefit from freedom of speech or the right to vote.

Be sure to read the whole thing.

Hugo Chavez is from the Castro camp. I feel bad for the people of Venezuela.