Luv Yr Enemies: Viva Chile y el General Pinochet!

So why is Pinochet hated by socialists? Simply because he restored civilised values to Chile and saved it from the Communist regime of Salvadore Allende. He turned Chile around, improved its economy and wealth, and restored democracy before voluntarily giving up power. These are not the actions of a despot - they are the actions of a man who did what he had to do to rejuvinate his nation. An admirer and close friend of Margeret Thatcher and disciple of Milton Friedman, Pinochet is a reanaissance man, in the tradition of Secular Humanists and liberals such as William Wilberforce. Part of this can be seen in the help he gave to the British during the Falklands War - Chile selflessly allowed Royal Air Force Jets and special operations units to operate from its soil. This was extremely important to the UK's War effort - without it they may have lost the war. And how does Britain repay Pinochet? By kidnapping him and locking him up (despite his dilpomatic passport) for a number of years. It is no wonder that there was civil unrest in Chile, and that the Union Jack burned in the streets of Santiago that year.

And make no mistake, Pinochet's legacy is nothing short of remarkable. The average Chilean can expect to live longer than the average USian, and in addition Chile has better literacy rates and lower crime than the perturbed USA. How can Pinochet possibly be viewed as a dictator? Well, he saved Chile from Salvadore Allende and his Marxist rule. Leftists around the world hate him for that, because the communist threat was nipped in the bud in Chile. Despite the fact that communism in all its stripes has been an unmitigated failure in every country in which it has been attempted, socialists still think that just perhaps the communist regime in Chile may have been the one, the one that proved communism was an option and the one that would have worked and vindicated their aniquated views. Thanks to Pinochet, they will now never know.

Allende's Legacy

To understand Pinochet, we must first understand the circumstances that led him to take his extraordinary steps. Until 1970, Chile had a well developed democracy, but a collapsing and failing economy. In 1958 Anibal Pinto predicted that the rising economic instabilty would result in political breakdown. The spiral into economic chaos that occurred in the 1960's, followed by the power snatch of Salvadore Allende in 1970 proved him quite correct.

These many years of economic deprivation ripped apart Chilean society - wheras in the 1950's Chile showed a normal curve of political views clustered around the centre, by 1970 Chile had become polarised and had lost faith in the moderate centre. There was only the extreme left and extreme right. Further economic deprivations under Allende's disastrous pro-soviet economic reforms (60% inflation, huge unemployment, the appearance of a huge black market) led to a total lack of political compromise, and Chilean society started to fight amongst itself.

Enter General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte

At this stage Chile faced a choice. It could either descend into civil war and chaos, and become a typical South American country teetering from one extreme political regime to the next, or it could get the strong man in to quieten down passions, restore peace and normalcy to public life, and steer Chile back to the comity of civilised nations, away from civil war. Many supported this idea, including the United States, which in its role of world peacekeeper was extremely concerned at Chile's seeming unstoppable path to economic and political suicide.

At 7AM on 1973, September 11th, President Allende recieved a phone call informing him of troop movements in Valparaiso. Ninety minutes later, his brutal Marxist regime was over and Pinochet had risen to power.

Unlike Allende, Pinochet was humble in his new role. He realised he had little experience in running a nation, and unlike so many dictators of the past, he was not arrogant. He solicited the advice of the Chicago Boys, or the Chicago School of Economics, and put Chile on a revolutionary new path - the path towards a free & open market. He also gradually brought the nation towards democracy, and his reign is marked by his meekness and willingness to devolve important policy areas about which he knew little to experts in the field before, finally, in 1990, putting Chile on a sound democratic footing.

The left likes to portray him as a killer and murderer, but they merely belie their own extremism. At the time he came to power there was lots of killing on both sides, as Chilean society was so horribly polarised, At this time Pinochet could not control every action of his supporters, and it is absurd to blame him for some of the events, such as the killing of Allende. It would be like blaming George Bush for the murders in the Bronx on a Saturday night in New York.

Pinochet is one of the best leaders the world has seen, and every day Chileans are glad and thankful for his legacy of economic stability and democracy. Marxists, socialists, communists and all that rag tag parade hate him, because he shows the success, and support of democracy for the people, of the moderate right.

Viva Chile y el General Pinochet!

	A Few Issues (none / 0) (#10)
	by fsh on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 05:02:41 PM PST

	A very interesting article. I must confess that I have never seen Pinochet portrayed in quite such a light. I would be interested in seeing your sources, but, in the meantime, will be happy to provide my own view. It is quite true that the Chilean economy, just before Pinochet's military takeover of the legally elected Allende, was in a sorry shape. However, this had more to do with America's trade policies with socialized countries than any inherent flaw in state socialism (which works quite nicely in many European countries). "Make the economy scream", Richard Helms, the director of the CIA. So, when the CIA backed Pinochet gained the helm, the undermining work of the Americans stopped, and the economy was able to thrive, correct? Not so, for about a decade. During this time (~'75 to ~'82) The Chilean GDP remained at lower levels of growth than it had before the coup, and also lower than most surrounding countries. This is despite the advice of the best free-market economic advice that American money could buy (the Chicago Boys were funded by our government, not Chile). Since it was a free market, tariffs and taxes were dropped, resulting in a rush of multinationals come to capitalize on the cheap labor market, taking advantage of the high levels of unemployment. In addition, and contrary to the proponents of 'trickle-down' economics, the wealth of the nation began to polarize towards the rich. It is also interesting to note that under the current legally elected government, Chile has been implemeting various socialist policies, mainly designed to limit the power of multi-national corporations. The aftermath of Pinochet's Free Market Regime? Santiago is one of the most heavily polluted cities in the world, and the devastation wreaked on the land by greedy multinationals (now leaving for cheaper & greener pastures) is left to the people. -fsh

	Response (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 06:04:50 PM PST

	I very much think that Pinochet has had a raw deal, and is portrayed as a paragon of evil. Whilst he is by no means an upstanding figure of probity, he is not the demon he is made out to be. It is quite true that the Chilean economy, just before Pinochet's military takeover of the legally elected Allende, was in a sorry shape. However, this had more to do with America's trade policies with socialized countries than any inherent flaw in state socialism (which works quite nicely in many European countries). It is true that America had a lot to answer for; however it must be remembered that Allende was not of the moderate left, like the European governments of today. Rather he was a Marxist, far further to the left and indeed the fear in the USA was that Chile would allign with the Soviet Union, not entirely unwarranted. During this time (~'75 to ~'82) The Chilean GDP remained at lower levels of growth than it had before the coup, and also lower than most surrounding countries. This is despite the advice of the best free-market economic advice that American money could buy (the Chicago Boys were funded by our government, not Chile). Since it was a free market, tariffs and taxes were dropped, resulting in a rush of multinationals come to capitalize on the cheap labor market, taking advantage of the high levels of unemployment. It is certainly the case that the Chilean economy remained stagnant for some time, although it could be said that being stagnant is far superior to plummeting (whatever the cause). It also has to be remembered that the global economic picture in those years was not too rosy either - it wasn't until the boom years of the 80's that Chile began to flower, when the global economic picture greatly improved. In addition, and contrary to the proponents of 'trickle-down' economics, the wealth of the nation began to polarize towards the rich. It is also interesting to note that under the current legally elected government, Chile has been implemeting various socialist policies, mainly designed to limit the power of multi-national corporations. It would seem to me that socialism is a province of the wealthier nations - modern socialists mostly respect that the free market is the only reliable means of creating wealth, and so they only seek to limit it in some ways and level the playing field for the poor. This is what the Chilean government is trying to do. Pinochet's legacy may be bad in many respects, but still he is responsible for helping turn the tide in Chile, IMHO.

	Dangers of the Free Market (none / 0) (#12)
	by fsh on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 06:51:52 PM PST

	modern socialists mostly respect that the free market is the only reliable means of creating wealth This is an interesting statement, and I must assume that you meant state socialists rather than just socialists. Not an unreasonable assumption given the context of our discussion so far. But not even America dares to try to move more towards a free market than we are. I suppose it depends on what you call a free market, however, so I will reply with what the term 'free market' means to me, especially in the context of Pinochet and Chile. In the context, the Free Market is the Libertarian Party's dream, a place where government has no say in economic policy. There would be, for instance, no federally mandated interest rates to balance against inflation, no government sponsored welfare (such as social security and medicaid), and, of course, no taxes to fund such policies. There would be no tariffs, either. It would be an open field for any economic interest. Why do I feel this is bad? Mostly because of what happened in Chile, the biggeest experiment with the Free Market ever. The multinational corporations, no longer barred entry by the government (in the form of taxes and tariffs and export regulations etc.) were allowed unfettered access to the economy. They exploited the environment in the form of exporting pollution, and they exploited the labor market, by only offering the lowest paying jobs they could. The presence of the multinationals forced many of the small local businessmen (ie, the middle class) out of business, thus increasing unemployment and reducing wages for the unskilled labor (since unemployment increases competition in the labor market). It also has to be remembered that the global economic picture in those years was not too rosy either - it wasn't until the boom years of the 80's that Chile began to flower, when the global economic picture greatly improved. Which was why I compared the econmy of Chile with the economy of other South American countries. And Chile's economy did not begin to grow until after severe taxes were levied on the entire populace, quite contrary to the principles of the Free Market. I find it terrible that the Free Market in Chile could only be implemented by a military coup and a subsequent totalitarian government. Thousands were killed, and protesting the takeover of the government was one of the easiest ways to meet the death squad. In my mind, the crash of '82 shows just what good a completely Free Market can do. Despite the claims of the economists, the Free Market was subject to the same busts and booms as a regulated economy. As for the question of whether Pinochet is evil? I doubt it. I do not believe in evil, and feel very sure that Pinochet felt he was acting in his own interests and the interests of his country. If you feel that communism is evil, then you are good who fight against it. I personally pity him, as the dupe of Americans who wanted to experiment with the possibility of a truly Free Market, but were afraid to try on their native soil. -fsh

	Pinochet & the Free Market (none / 0) (#13)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 9th, 2001 at 08:37:59 PM PST

	Thank you FSH!