9902. stostosto - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:21 AM PT
Pinochet is a fascist, his regime was fascist, it terrorized opposition, murdered people, murdered the democratically elected president. You can't excuse this on the grounds that his economic policies may have been more in accordance with standard economics textbooks. Nor on the grounds that he may not have been as bad as other fascist dictators, or, communist dictators for that matter. Btw, Pseuder, if most Chileans supported the Pinochet regime, then why didn't he let them vote on it?
9903. marjoribanks - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:55 AM PT
I've danced this particular dance with Pseuder (antidemocratic activity is justified/ no it's not) before.
It should be pointed out that the last time the Chile issue was brought up in particular, Pseuder had the temerity to tell a Chilean poster that he was unjustifiably resentful about the coup, since it was better for his country and him. The man, being polite and reasonable, simply went away.
9904. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:15 AM PT
Marjoribanks, I confess this is the best explication of any topic in this thread in a long, long while, and I admire Pseuder's efforts in sourcing for the truth and arguing his case. The content of this subject is well beyond my abilities to research and defend, and defense is unpopular especially as the coup in Chile is one of the stations of the cross on the way to the moral high ground for many a critic of US foreign policy and aspiring defender of human rights.
9905. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:17 AM PT
Well, soon it will be Friday! And that means a lot of people in many countries enjoying the social life. Oh, parochial Americans, expand your limited horizons, and click here to see how a real New Zealand man treats his lady to a date!
9906. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:22 AM PT
And only a New Zealander could note her fetching qualities. She's probably being escorted on her way to an afternoon's rendezvous with AlistairConnor.
9907. ptboya - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:23 AM PT
PE's wriggling is amusing. The analysis he offers, dressed up in the abstruse jargon of economics, still appears naked. Might is right… if it's capitalist. But, there is a fine line between the apologist and the lickspittle. It's come close to being crossed in this discussion. The take on Chile, with its exclusive focus on endogenous factors, is akin to examining the hyperinflation of the Wiemar years without reference to Versailles. It is disconnected, discombobulated and petty.
I'll now do a dance on why the body's immune system is to blame for systemic damage… see my t-cells twirl and my macrophages lumber like longshoremen in a vain effort to avoid death… without ever once acknowledging the importance of the exongenous pathogen.
9908. marjoribanks - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
Loar,
I agree with you. It is a detailed and spirited argument Pseuder is making, he appears to have done some more research since the last go-around.
I have not very much interest in it though, since the general point has been made before, and I disagree with it, and I have already made my position amply clear on this and similar issues.
9909. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:26 AM PT
I also find it an interesting argument. While there are circumstances where I would have welcomed a coup against a democratically elected government (Germany in 1933 springs to mind), I think the case for a coup has to be quite strong in any country with a democratic tradition.
While Chile was certainly a mess, I don't think a strong case has been made that the mess couldn't have been taken care of shy of coup. And then of course, a case has to be made that the mess wasn't replaced with a different mess that was worse in many ways.
Out of curiousity, Pseudo, do you think the situation in Russia "warrants" a coup?
9910. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:30 AM PT
My dear Loar, -- I have it on good authority that the fellow in the photograph is none other than our friend Connor!
ptb:
I have to agree with your criticism of PE. He seems to have the view that a "nuanced" take on any world event must involve vats of economic statistics, graphs, and the like. He's welcome to all of it. PE sometimes reminds me of nothing so much as the useful idiots from the West who used every complex, high-minded sounding justification to explain away Stalinism. In doing so, of course, they were quite happy to uphold an autocratic style of rule that they would have trembled at were it ever to apply to their own fat lives.
9911. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:34 AM PT
I think outsiders are least competent to judge whether or not a coup is necessary. Those "in media res" are the most concerned and the Chilean military obviously acted out of patriotic duty to save their country from destruction by an organized, leftist minority, or so they believed and so I am led to understand. We can argue whether or not the coup was justified but to my mind at least that seems rather pointless.
9912. ptboya - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:36 AM PT
"I still don't understand how this Spanish magistrate is justified in wanting to prosecute Pinochet. Crimes against humanity? Genocide? Please! He killed a few thousand people, the vast majority of whom were the citizens of his own country. How does merely killing people, let alone a few thousand, constitute a crime against humanity or a genocide?"
Is this benign spin or what? So much for my fantasy.
9913. ptboya - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:39 AM PT
Socko…
Eloquently said. I couldn't agree more with your comparison to those who toed the party line in the face of Stalin's crimes.
9914. Wombat - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:39 AM PT
Proudnerd:
The Chilean military waited three years before stepping in against Allende. Allende's policies as described by PE were an attempt to radically restructure the Chilean economy. They were no secret when he first took power, so your claim that the army immediately intervened is nonsense. The years between 1970-73 saw the polarization and breakdown of the Chilean polity, society, and economy. I am slower to dismiss the role of the US in affecting this than PE, but it would have probably happened anyway.
Allende was in a terrible position: he led a minority government attempting to ram through policies that most of the country was hostile to, forced by coaltion members to the left of him to do this, when even he must have realized what was going to happen.
Incidentally, add the coups in Portugal during the 1970s to the list of comparatively "benign" interventions by the military in politics.
9915. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:40 AM PT
Although Message #9909 was not addressed to me I'll venture the opinion that a coup is not "warranted" unless warranted by those desperate enough to overthrow the government's leadership.
9916. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:41 AM PT
Loar: The Russia example I raised is one reason why I don't think the discussion is pointless. Russia, and other economies currently teetering, are lurking in the back of my mind while reading this discussion. Under what circumstances would a coup in these countries be "warranted", if ever? What should the US do in the event of a coup in a place like Russia? Chile is academic now, but it serves as an interesting case study.
9917. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:44 AM PT
Loar: 9915, so a coup is warranted if a small group of people get desperate enough? Sounds like to low of a hurdle to me.
9918. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:45 AM PT
"too low" that is
9919. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:48 AM PT
A coup in any country is effected by those desperate enough to overthrow the government and has little to do with the rightness or wrongness of their position or political stripe. In the event of a coup in Russia or elsewhere the US should (I believe does) withhold diplomatic recognition until the new leadership proves they have control of the affairs of government and are responsible for the obligations (legal, financial, and military) of their country to the international community.
9920. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:54 AM PT
It is not God or moral authority or any one or any thing else that warrants a coup but that people (no limit to how many or few) move against their leadership in a desperate bid to gain power and control. Failure is death or dismissal, and once gained power must be retained through fear and intimidation or by the support of the most influential and pervasive. Sounds just like corporate politics to me.
9921. Wombat - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:08 AM PT
The point that some of us are trying to make in regard to Chile is that the picture is a lot more complex than has been portrayed in the past. Contrary to what I thought--and some still do--Chile was not ticking along happily under the popularly elected, progressive, Salvador Allende, who was attempting to right societal and economic wrongs, when the bad ol' United States, using the CIA and ITT, contrary to the wishes of the Chilean people, created a revolution and installed the puppet Allende.
9922. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:12 AM PT
It seems clear by now that of my opponents in this thread on the issue of Chile, only Proudnerd knows anything about the subject. Marzipranks, by his own admission, can't interest himself and appears strongly not to have considered my posts at all. His knee has jerked so much that he's got marks on his forehead. Socko, as usual, has monkeys flying out of his ass. Stostosto has woken from a slumber and is bumbling around in his hospital gown, pissing all over the floor. Boya, finally, offers nothing but the hearsay he's amassed at cocktail parties. He repeats every left clerisy cliché and mythology about Chile in 1973 as though he has got no real familiarity with what went on in that country. He doesn't even know how to use the word "endogenous", though he is rather promiscuous in using it.
MrSocko (Message #9910)
"He seems to have the view that a "nuanced" take on any world event must involve vats of economic statistics, graphs, and the like."
ptboya (Message #9907)
"The analysis he offers, dressed up in the abstruse jargon of economics...."
??? Most of what I posted yesterday wasn't economics. The findings of the Church Committee report? the refutation of America's "invisible blockade"? And in the economics part contained NOT ONE word of jargon; not even really any serious economics.
How can you two idiots read such as Message #9873 or Message #9895 or Message #9897 consider them abstruse jargon or "statistics"? Even the triad of posts starting in Message #9883 are more political than strictly economic. You two are apparently so intellectually helpless & stultified that the slightest mention of numbers, or the slightest reference to the economy, constitute "abstruse jargon".
9923. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:13 AM PT
proudnerd (Message #9901)
"I object to the phrasings 'insolvable' and 'beyond repair'."
I will attribute your objections to sensitivity rather than to intellection of any sort. How was the situation soluble?
stostosto (Message #9902)
"Pinochet....murdered the democratically elected president."
Nonsense. Allende killed himself.
"You can't excuse [these atrocities] on the grounds that his economic policies may have been more in accordance with standard economics textbooks."
Idiot!
I have NOT NOT NOT excused ANY of Pinochet's atrocities on ANY grounds, let alone economic. Moreover, Pinochet's policies were hardly in accordance with standard economics textbooks, at least between 1973 and 1982.
"Pseuder, if most Chileans supported the Pinochet regime, then why didn't he let them vote on it?"
I have never argued that "most" Chileans supported the Pinochet regime, although it is well known that most Chileans have not held the unequivocally negative attitude toward him that foreigners in this thread and elsewhere have held. By the way, he did let them vote on it. In 1989.
9924. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:16 AM PT
Marzipranks (Message #9903)
"It should be pointed out that the last time the Chile issue was brought up in particular, Pseuder had the temerity to tell a Chilean poster that he was unjustifiably resentful about the coup..."
What a version of the events! I did no more than argue, like now, that the coup in itself was a good thing. I saved those posts, if you would like to see them. The Chilean fraygrant also didn't have the black-and-white attitude about Pinochet everybody else here does, either.
ptboya (Message #9907)
"The analysis he offers, dressed up in the abstruse jargon of economics...."
"Might is right… if it's capitalist."
Bullshit.
"The take on Chile, with its exclusive focus on endogenous factors, is akin to examining the hyperinflation of the Wiemar years without reference to Versailles. It is disconnected, discombobulated and petty."
Typical incoherence. I have already DEMONSTRATED to you with evidence, facts and logic, that there the "Versailles factor" in Chile's chaos and the Pinochet coup was VERY SLIGHT. So it's not as though I have ignored the "exogenous" factors; I have considered and discarded them. You just don't know what the hell you are talking about.
9925. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:22 AM PT
As usual, I agree with 99% of what Wombat has got to say.
Raskolnikov (Message #9909)
"I don't think a strong case has been made that the mess couldn't have been taken care of shy of coup."
You think very frequently along the same lines as I do. Please tell me what would constitute a strong case. Frankly, I don't see how the country could have continued as was in 1973, much further. All efforts at negotiations between the Unidad Popular and the centre-right parties had broken down. The decline in the economy had become catastrophic. It was a genuine national emergency, in many respects less tractable than the current Russian situation.
"Out of curiousity, Pseudo, do you think the situation in Russia 'warrants' a coup?"
Well, Yeltsin already rules by decree. And there is no reason to believe the Russian military would act more wisely, with respect to political and economic reform, than Yeltsin or his potential "democratic" successors.
But you are right in your implication: I don't hold democratic politics in a basketcase country sacrosanct. Most Americans (and apparently subcons) are childish in this regard.
9926. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:28 AM PT
By the way, Boya exposes his ignorance on yet another front. "The take on Chile, with its exclusive focus on endogenous factors, is akin to examining the hyperinflation of the Wiemar years without reference to Versailles. It is disconnected, discombobulated and petty."
I have posted extensively on this subject as well (visible in the Fray Archives, in the Time Travel thread). Although I personally don't subscribe to the view, there is a whole faction of German historiography which argues cogently that the Versailles-imposed reparations had little to do with the Weimar hyperinflation.
Again, clichés and platitude masking a profound ignorance and temerity to speak ex sphinctero.
9927. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:29 AM PT
Message #9912
Well, how does killing a few thousand constitute genocide?
9928. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:34 AM PT
I have also severely & extensively criticised Pinochet's economic policies between 1973 and 1982/3 in another venue. But, given the squeamishenss and illiteracy about economics in this thread, I won't repeat the criticisms. Jesus, I mention reschedulings of debt servicings by Chile, and boya and socko are all knocked over by "abstruse jargon".
9929. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:36 AM PT
As for this preposterous charge of "Stalinist fellow-travelling", unlike fellow-travellers and the Soviet Union, I have not hidden or even tried to justify Pinochet's atrocities.
9930. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 9:46 AM PT
a strong case for a coup, off the top of my head:
1) Going to political or economic hell in a handbasket. Mob violence, looting, mass breakdown in civil order and rule of law. On the economic front, rapid, sustained, decline in standard of living, with no sign of the decline leveling off. (I think you have demonstrated that this was the case in Chile fairly well)
2) Inability of the current government to solve the problem (I think you have demonstrated this as well)
3) Inability to alter the situation within the framework of the existing constitution (I haven't seen much on this. Were there any provisions for a vote of no confidence, or the like?)
4) A convincing case that decisive leadership by the military would be able to solve the political and economic problems. (I don't think there is doubt that Pinochet restored order and at least stopped further economic collapse)
5) popular support for a coup (I am very uncomfortable making too many judgments on the extent to which Chileans should be willing to trade off X number of disappeareds for a Y increase in standard of living)
6) The likelihood that the long term damage of a coup (human rights abuses, increased likelihood of future coups, etc) will be less than the long term damage of allowing the constitutional regime to try to work things out on their own. (For instance, if the choice was between the thousands killed under Pinochet and 100 thousands dying in street violence or of starvation, a coup would have more merit. I mentioned this same point yesterday, and still think it is valid)
9931. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 10:38 AM PT
Raskolnikov (Message #9930)
Re: your (3)
See Message #9863.
Re: your (4)
While Pinochet did restore fiscal order, the way he did it was to plunge Chile into a savage depression, as you can see in this graph. Pinochet reversed not just Allende's policies, but also the entire trend of Chilean economic policies since the late 1950s. And he did it too fast, too savagely, without any compunction about consequences.
Re: (5)
Almost nobody disputes that the majority of Chileans supported the overthrow of Allende, if not the violence of the coup itself.
Re: (6)
Well, there was no threat of famine in Chile in 1973, but there was a real possibility of civil war, plus the erosion of democratic civil society under Allende. (Cf. the erosion of the free press.)
9932. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 11:01 AM PT
Pseudo: Ok on 3 and 5. 4 indicates that the economic benefits of the coup weren't all that great and may have been negative. I still have a problem with 6. Certainly Pinochet's rule can be said to have eroded democratic civil society, and when some one else brought up the possibility of a Chilean civil war, you responded "A civil war between whom? The Chilean military versus a bunch of ill-armed radicals on the streets? Please, don't tell such silly jokes."
If the argument is that the coup was a good bet that didn't pay off, since Pinochet didn't relinquish power and proved to be a bastard, but that given info available in '73, the coup was the smart decision, I guess I can't disagree. But with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it seems much less clear.
9933. Raskolnikov - Oct. 21, 1998 - 11:18 AM PT
Pseudo: by the way, what are the best histories of the Chilean coup? Most of my admittedly weak knowledge stems from "Weavers of Revolution", a Marxist paean to a "workers utopia" at one of the seized factories, which was assigned in one of my Poli Sci classes.
I am well aware I was not getting anything close to an objective take on the situation.
9934. proudnerd - Oct. 21, 1998 - 11:54 AM PT
wombat, Message #9914
"They were no secret when he first took power, so your claim that the army immediately intervened is nonsense."
Either you've been smokin' something funny or you need to put serious work on your reading comprehension skills. I never made such a claim. In fact, the military rallied behind Allende's ratification by congress in October, 1970.
9935. Wombat - Oct. 21, 1998 - 2:14 PM PT
I'm not sure how you inferred any kind of time constraints from my post concerning the occasional desireability of a military intervention in a democracy that is going off the rails. I don't see any reference to the term "immediately" in my post in question. I did in your response. We both know that the military did support the 1970 election results in Chile. After Allende was forced to drop General Prats (later to die under mysterious circumstances)as head of the military, he replaced him with Pinochet, who had not taken a publically hard line against Allende's policies (shades of Franco!).
9936. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 2:56 PM PT
Raskolnikov (Message #9932)
"If the argument is that the coup was a good bet that didn't pay off, since Pinochet didn't relinquish power and proved to be a bastard, but that given info available in '73, the coup was the smart decision, I guess I can't disagree. But with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it seems much less clear."
As usual, you express my opinions better than I do.
Whether the coup was warranted depends on whether you're evaluating it in hindsight, or with the information available to an observer in 1973. I think, in 1973, I would have argued that it was wholly warranted. In complete hindsight, I have more doubts, but certainly not as much as Boya or Proudnerd.
"when some one else brought up the possibility of a Chilean civil war, you
responded 'A civil war between whom? The Chilean military versus a bunch of ill-armed radicals on the streets? Please, don't tell such silly jokes.' "
Well, I'm certain there would never have been a civil war, because the Chilean military was too formidable for any paramilitary group to take on. And had Allende tried to undermine the armed forces, he would have been overthrown anyway. But there is no doubt that a civil war was widely feared in 1973.
9937. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 2:59 PM PT
*** WARNING ***
(VERY VERY LITTLE) ECONOMICS ALERT
Raskolnikov (Message #9932)
"...the economic benefits of the coup weren't all that great and may
have been negative."
Well, the 1973-1983 period was pretty horrific, because of the draconian disinflation, fiscal retrenchment, the stupid exchange rate regime and other things Pinochet went overboard on. I do believe the Chilean growth rates of the 1980s and 1990s could have been achieved earlier, in the 1970s, with less pain and social cost. (But the 1982 global quasi-depression could not have been avoided.)
But what Pinochet did ultimately was do in 2 years what needed to be done over the long haul, at a lesser intensity. And the retrenchment had to happen. How can a country which had accumulated fiscal and current account deficits equivalent to large chunks of its national income be on a course of sustainable economic growth? (Chile's fiscal deficit -- not debt -- was 30% of GDP. Imagine if the U.S. government ran a $2 trillion budget deficit (NOT debt). Some of the proverbial bitter medicine was necessary to reverse the excesses and I don't see how it could have been otherwise -- no matter who took over from Allende.
The problem is that economic restructuring in countries with a history of severe market distortions seems to require social costs that cannot be fully avoided. In the case of Chile, there is evidence that the effects of some of these costs on the poorest elements of society could have been affordably mitigated with government social programmes, but, alas, this didn't happen.
9938. proudnerd - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:00 PM PT
Wombat, Message #9935
If you are talking about Message #9880, I was merely asking a question - whether far-reaching (and unpopular) policy change by a minority government ought to be stemmed by immediate military intervention preventing unnecessary unrest, not that it happened in Chile. Had you been paying any attention while reading my posts, you would have realized that.
9939. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:10 PM PT
Raskolnikov (Message #9933)
Chile is one of the several non-economics-related scholarly/historical controversies I've immersed myself in (just like the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombings controversy). So, my familiarity with the bibliography on Chile makes it sort of difficult to recommend a single book.
Probably the most middle-of-the-road book is Paul E. Sigmund's "The United States and Democracy in Chile", which covers the coup but is not limited to it. It's published by The Twentieth Century Fund, a well respected, very liberal outfit. Two rather dry political science books which compensate by being mercifully oblivious to polemics of any kind are "The military in Chilean history: essays on civil-military relations, 1810-1973" by Frederick M. Nunn, and "How Allende fell :a study in U.S.-Chilean relations", by James F. Petras. A more readable book, without much political science, is "Crisis in Allende's Chile: New Perspectives" by Edy Kaufman. For sheer comic value, the interview published as "Conversations with Allende: socialism in Chile" by Régis Debray is not to be missed, which leaves no doubt that Allende prided himself in desiring to make Chile a latter-day Czechoslovakia ostensibly through democratic means. Of course, reports of the Senate and House subcommittee investigations on U.S. involvement in the 1973 coup are available in book form. For Chilean economics, 1970-90, there is simply no substitute for "The Chilean Economy", ed. by Barry Bosworth et al., a collection of papers from a conference at the Brookings Institution. Like any such collection, each paper is accompanied by commentary & criticisms by other participants.
9940. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:20 PM PT
Message #9938
Well, perhaps had you been less ambiguous, Wombat might have understood you the first time around.
Just what are you referring to in the phrase "not that it happened in Chile"? What didn't happen?
9941. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:31 PM PT
Let me expand on Proudnerd's remarks in Message #9934. Until the very end, the Chilean armed forces as a whole remained highly professional and aloof from the political goings-on in the country. Proudnerd mentioned how the armed forces rallied behind Allende's ratification by Congress in 1970. It was perceived by Kissinger and others that the principal obstacle to a "constitutional coup" by the outgoing President Eduardo Frei to prevent Allende's accession, was the chief of the armed forces, General René Schneider. (The prodding of Frei and Schneider to prevent Allende's assumption of power was dubbed "Track I". Obviously, it failed.)
Track II was a preposterous blunder. The CIA made contacts with the few fringe officers in the armed forces known to favour a coup to prevent Allende's accession. One was General Robert Viaux, a disgraced & retired military officer; and the other was General Camilo Valenzuela. A plan was hatched by the Valenzuela group to kidnap General Schneider and whisk him outside the country, so that this stumbling block to a putsch might be removed. But the kidnapping attempt resulted in the death of Schneider, and the Chilean armed forces took harsh reprisals against the insurrectionists. In effect, the two separate attempts at a coup before Allende took power were quashed by the very armed forces that overthrew him three years later.
There was also a failed military coup in June 1973 by fringe elements of the armed forces. Guess on whose orders it was decisively crushed? General Augusto Pinochet.
My point is that the Chilean armed forces were not the sort to be easily coaxed into overthrowing the civilian government, unless they thought that the political order was threatened by a national emergency. The last time the military had intervened in politics was 1932, when the army overthrew the short-lived socialist republic.
9942. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:34 PM PT
By the way, earlier, the Boyar accused me of using "economics jargon". Yet it turns out that of all the people who have posted in this thread, he is the only one to have used such jargon! Witness his incompetent & malapropistic & pretentious use of the words "endogenous" and "exogenous". Hahahaha.
9943. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:41 PM PT
By the way, on the question of the U.S. role in the coup, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Operations (aka the "Church Committee"), had this to say:
"The United States sought in 1970 to foment a military coup in Chile; after 1970, it adopted a policy, both overt and covert, of opposition to Allende; and it remained in intelligence contact with the Chilean military, including officers who were participating in coup plotting....But was the United States directly involved, covertly, in the 1973 coup in Chile? This committee has found no evidence that it was."
9944. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:46 PM PT
OK, this is probably my last word on Chile. Whatever its intentions, the United States was ultimately utterly unable to conjure up the fundamental weaknesses of the Allende regime. These were the failure to obtain a decisive mandate at the ballot for its radical agenda; a governing coalition internally inconsistent and often at war with its constituent elements; and an economic policy bound to produce disaster and to polarise its supporters & enemies alike. It was here, in the internal dynamics of Chile -- not in the real or imagined machinations of the CIA or other external forces -- that the seeds of disaster were planted.
9945. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:50 PM PT
Now, I have no problem believing that Marzipranks and the Boyar are fundamentally immune to evidence & logic (especially Marzipranks). I suspect, however, that the dispute between us is not based on logic & evidence, but based on different values & principles. The Boyar and Marzipranks (and possibly Proudnerd) seem to be dogmatically devoted to democratic politics at all costs, as an article of faith. As far as I can tell, they would be deploring the Pinochet coup whether it had been violent or not.
Raskolnikov, whom I consider my closest intellectual kin in the Fray, and I are not like that at all: we are willing to countenance the bypassing of democratic procedure under certain extreme circumstances. For I (and possibly he and Loar as well) don't believe that democracy is written in stone and appropriate to all times and places and circumstances. Nor is it a good in itself all the time. It's one of many possible political arrangements, either more or less suited to a particular situation than to others.
9946. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:53 PM PT
You know, for someone who is labelled a liberal (often even "statist" and "leftist") by conservatives and libertarians in other parts of the Fray, I certainly appear pretty damned conservative in this bloody thread! Just think of the stuff I've argued:
1) The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were justified & necessary;
2) British rule of India produced net benefits for India (Marzipranks disagrees, but he's not really qualified to);
3) the Pinochet coup was justified;
4) Lee Kuan Yew is generally praiseworthy;
5) human rights ought not to be the concern of U.S. foreign policy, for the most part
Does my dismissal of the idea that Reagan contributed substantially to the collapse of the Soviet Union compensate for these distasteful positions?
9947. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 3:55 PM PT
CHANGE OF SUBJECT
Now that FV is back to being Snirv, I want to unload something I had been thinking since the Indonesian riots earlier this year. In short, Snirv has changed his tune on Suharto. In the past, before the economic crisis, he expressed admiration for this Javanese strongman on account of his principal achievement -- the 5-fold increase in Indonesians' standard of living over 20 years.** But now he has joined the Indonesian popular bandwagon in being "disappointed" in Suharto. Although very little new is known now about East Timor, or the political massacre of 200,000+ in 1965, or Suharto's corruption, that wasn't known before the economic crisis, the post-crisis Snirv takes every opportunity to express his distate for the dictator. This is presumably because the economy has turned sour, largely for reasons little to do with Suharto. (Yes, yes, he did mismanage the crisis, but the erasure of 10 years of economic growth cannot be blamed on him.) It strikes me that Snirv and the Indonesians who now revile Suharto are being cry-babies.
9948. spudboy - Oct. 21, 1998 - 4:15 PM PT
Thank you, PE, for a spot-on, factual and enlightening series of posts. As usual.
9949. proudnerd - Oct. 21, 1998 - 4:52 PM PT
pseudoE, Message #9945
"The Boyar and Marzipranks (and possibly Proudnerd) seem to be dogmatically devoted to democratic politics at all costs, as an article of faith."
What makes think that I (possibly) do so ? I merely stated that given Chile's background, the coup was unwarranted. I like raskolnikov's approach to determine justification for a military coup, I just don't agree with any of the six reasons he mentions in Message #9930. Now if the coup were to prevent massive loss lives or a war, I would have had a different opinion. Economic downturn and social unrest in a country with a long history of democracy aren't very palatable to me as justification for a military coup.
9950. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 5:03 PM PT
Proudnerd (Message #9949)
OK, clear up another ambiguity. You don't agree that the criteria themselves that Raskolnikov outlined are sufficient, or you don't believe the circumstances in Chile in 1973 met any of the stated criteria?
9951. proudnerd - Oct. 21, 1998 - 5:14 PM PT
pseudoE,
(1) I don't agree that the criteria rasko described are sufficent.
(2) The situation in Chile in 1973 more or less met rasko's reason 1. I just don't believe that there was no way out of that mess without the coup.
I liked rasko's efforts to crystallize his thoughts on justification of military coups, I just couldn't agree with any of the reasons he listed.
9952. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 5:39 PM PT
Message #9946, pe
"You know, for someone who is labelled a liberal ... by conservatives and libertarians in other parts of the Fray, I certainly appear pretty damned conservative in this bloody thread!"
You have an weird fixation on being neither one nor t'other. You also have a habit of putting people into the same kinds of boxes that you yourself advertise yourself as being beyond. Why bother with either? Just take comments as you find them.
I agree with you about Snodgrass. There has been a significant turnaround over the past year in his views on the old Javanese dalang. Of course, it could be that he is more comfortable saying certain things now than what he was then. Anyhow, it's a good thing to change one's views -- you might do it too if you ever lived in a dramatically unfolding theater like Indonesia.
9953. DaveCook - Oct. 21, 1998 - 5:46 PM PT
The chief difference between the American warrant for Noriega and the Spanish warrant for Pinochet was that everyone accepts American jurisdiction over the former crime (conspiring to smuggle drugs into America) while nobody except the Spanish accepts Spanish jursidition over the latter (killing a Spaniard in Chile). For example, Mexican citizens are killed in Los Angeles every week, but nobody thinks the alleged perpetrators should be tried in Mexico. Nor would Britain extradite a Canadian to Spain, if the Canadian were accused of killing a Spaniard in Toronto. (substitute any developed country and its capital for Canada and Toronto).
I guess its really no surprise that the fellow travellers support this egregious neo-colonialism.
9954. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 5:52 PM PT
PE:
When I likened you to the useful idiots from the West (mainly Britain, not the US) who believed what they wanted to believe about Stalinism, I did not mean to suggest that you're a left winger. What the hell does left wing mean anyway, and who really cares? No, I've increasingly come to see your views as those of a semi-mystic, who, despite his many and varied protests to the contrary, begins much of his world critique in terms of lofty abstractions every bit as inflexible as those of a Vic Kuligin. You search for nuance in ideology when what you really ought to be looking for is nuance in humanity.
Example: You produce a maze of figures to justify the likes of Pinochet, as if economics explains, much less justifies, the dastardliness of his rule. But many countries, in the midst of the Great Depression, say, suffered economic deprivation *without* jack-booted goons appearing on the scene to run the show. So with all respect to your erudition on Chile, I submit that you really haven't explained the situation that unfolded there in any real meaningful sense.
9955. DaveCook - Oct. 21, 1998 - 5:53 PM PT
and yeah, I know the capital of Canada is Juneau.
9956. ScottLoar - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:01 PM PT
DaveCook, I can understand Spain's warrant for the murder of Spanish citizens and Britain's reluctant but obliging service of that warrant, but to invoke Spanish laws allowing prosecution of genocide now matter where it is committed simply boggles me. By what moral or legal authority does Spain take this burden? How can genocide be proved? Can anyone explain that? And if genocide is not proved then does its larger context "crimes against humanity" also drop away?
9957. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:06 PM PT
Socko (Message #9954)
You're an idiot of unfathomable profundity. I can't for the life of me understand how you infer some of the things you infer from my posts. You are a hemi-literate -- able to write as though you could also read, but the ability to read is nowhere evident.
"When I likened you to the useful idiots from the West (mainly Britain, not the US) who believed what they wanted to believe about Stalinism, I did not mean to suggest that you're a left winger."
I did not think you accused me of being a left-winger. Please sort out that rat's maze of a brain you've got.
"No, I've increasingly come to see your views as those of a semi-mystic, who, despite his many and varied protests to the contrary, begins much of his world critique in terms of lofty abstractions every bit as inflexible as those of a Vic Kuligin. You search for nuance in ideology when what you really ought to be looking for is nuance in humanity."
I don't know what you're talking about. What "lofty abstractions"??? I'm rather unideological and undogmatic. I think of myself as an empiricist.
"You produce a maze of figures to justify the likes of Pinochet, as if economics explains, much less justifies, the dastardliness of his rule."
I have NOT NOT NOT used ANYTHING to justify Pinochet's rule. I have not justified Pinochet's rule in the least. You are simply incapable of registering thoughts and comprehending arguments. You are a truly stupid person.
9958. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:07 PM PT
Socko (Message #9952)
"Of course, it could be that he is more comfortable saying certain things now than what he was then."
That's possible, but I doubt it.
"Anyhow, it's a good thing to change one's views -- you might do it too...."
I do it all the time.
9959. Wombat - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:34 PM PT
Socko:
Odd that during the Great Depression, several countries did turn to Fascism, and many experienced considerable social upheaval that weakened their democratic systems of government. The economic downturn played a major role in this. I would have thought that this was obvious.
9960. CoralReef - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:46 PM PT
Thatcher calls for Pinochet's release
9961. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 6:51 PM PT
Wombat, Message #9959:
Oh really? I had been under the impression that liberal democracy continued apace in the 1930s in the countries where it enjoyed roots. Perhaps you could name a few of these democracies which collapsed as a result of the Great Depression.
9962. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 7:13 PM PT
By the way, what the hell does the Great Depression and a collapse of democracy which might accompany it, have to do with ANY FUCKING THING that has been discussed in this thread? Why should the fact that Great Britain and the United States weathered the Great Depression w/o sliding into fascism imply ANYTHING about the Pinochet coup? Why has the Antipodean village idiot Socko made this mystifying connection?
The village idiot also had this mystifying thing to say: "You produce a maze of figures to justify the likes of Pinochet, as if economics explains, much less justifies, the dastardliness of his rule. But many countries, in the midst of the Great Depression, say, suffered economic deprivation *without* jack-booted goons appearing on the scene to run the show. So with all respect to your erudition on Chile, I submit that you really haven't explained the situation that unfolded there in any real meaningful sense."
What the hell does it mean to "explain Pinochet"??? I have argued that the coup was induced by a constitutional crisis resulting in a POLITICAL AND economic chaos which was unprecedented in Chilean history. A truly national emergency. This argument is coherent on its own, Chilean terms, whether you agree with it or not. Why the Great Depression and Fascism have any relevance, I don't understand. I mean, it's not like Pinochet represented a mass movement which symbolised some troublesome Social Conditions. He and the armed forces were pretty much a discrete agent.
9963. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 7:21 PM PT
Socko: Please promptly return to the village of your birth. You are depriving your native community of the standard issue idiot that it can't do without if it is going to remain picturesque.
9964. AdamSelene - Oct. 21, 1998 - 7:43 PM PT
PE,
You've got to be the most insensitive, arrogant asshole that I've ever had the displeasure to debate.
Do you honestly intend your slurs and slanders to educate your opponents? If so, I strongly suggest that you get thee to a Dale Carnegie course ASAP. You might be quite surprised to find that personal attacks generally do not change anyone's mind - they, in fact, generally harden the opinions of those attacked.
Or do you, as I suspect, care more about showing off than actually influencing the debate?
9965. DaveCook - Oct. 21, 1998 - 7:48 PM PT
ScottLoar: Actually, I can't see Spanish jurisdiction over either, but actually, I find the murder charge more bothersome, since the crimes against humanity thing seems like a one-off deal. I think the idea of letting criminal prosecutors drive foreign policy is a bad (and likely) one; it seems especially tendentious for an imperialist to claim it still has sovreignty over its former colony. [For example, I wouldn't at all mind seeing Fidel hanging from the highest yardarm in Havana, but the idea of a Miami prosecutor trying him in Florida for torture, false imprisonment, etc. seems repulsive].
Whats worse is that in the US apparently, you can now sue foreign governments for their actions in their country. Foreign policy operated by ambulance chasers, coming soon!
9966. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 7:56 PM PT
Hahahahahaha! Lighten up, Selene. Quit sounding so anal!
PE:
I will happily return to the village of my birth at such time as you leave school and find a real job -- that's to say, never at all. Until then I can only hope that one of your public schoolmasters sees fit to box your ears ... nothing less will shake you from this toporific haze in which you pass the unworldly time of your wretched life.
9967. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 7:58 PM PT
selene (Message #9964)
I do care about persuading others to my point of view -- but not all people. Some people I am convinced cannot possibly be dissuaded from their beliefs, either because their views are basically theological, or, as in the case of Socko, they can't even understand the argument no matter how elaborately or carefully I present it.
There are people in the Fray I am never rude to (or try never to be rude to), and they are generally the target of my arguments.
9968. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:01 PM PT
Selene:
Evidently you've missed seeing PE's oft-posted lists of those to whom he will or will not be discourteous to. They're even more anal than your objections to his freewheeling style.
9969. AdamSelene - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:06 PM PT
Mr. Socko,
Lighten up? As if I could ever hope to rival PE's verbal butcherings! I'm quite sure he's well innoculated by now.
Anyway - I probably shouldn't get in the middle of your now-obvious love-fest. I'll try to restrain my critiques to his sublimated attacks on my person in the relevent threads.
9970. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:06 PM PT
Message #9964
Plus, there is plain old temper.
9971. MrSocko - Oct. 21, 1998 - 8:06 PM PT
... One pictures PE sitting at his computer, alone and unloved, with a jumbo jet buzzing around in his ear over some wretched fraygrant who has misplaced a number or two in an economic assertion. Alas, consulting his "List Of Those I May Insult," he discovers that the individual in question is a fellow school pupil. Sadly, then, PE must restrain himself from letting fly, and make do with throwing a few more barbs in the direction of poor old marjoribanks and socko.
9972. marjoribanks - Oct. 22, 1998 - 5:40 AM PT
I'm not qualified to comment on the British rule in India? How absurd.
9973. Wombat - Oct. 22, 1998 - 6:42 AM PT
Socko:
"But many countries, in the midst of the Great Depression, say, suffered economic deprivation *without* jack-booted goons appearing on the scene to run the show."
This is your original quote. I note that you have modified it in subsequent messages to countries with well-entrenched democratic traditions.
The following parliamentary democracies or monarchies (most without a deeply entrenched democratic tradition) were either overthrown by "jack-booted thugs" or were seriously weakened by either fascist movements or the elected leader either ruling by decree or turning the country over to a military leader. These all took place in the 1930s, and the economic situation played, at very least, an underlying role in creating the conditions that led to these changes.
Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Poland, Greece, Romania, Hungary. I have left out South America, because I do not know enough about their politics at the time.
These conditions also threatened the United States: it was a good thing that Roosevelt won the 1932 election. Between Hoover's handling of the Bonus Army, and high ranking officers discussing the need to set up detention camps for Communists and other malcontents, demagogues like Huey Long and Father Coughlin, Pelley's "Silver Shirts," a second term of Herbert Hoover might have been interesting in the worst sense of the word.
9974. MrSocko - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:22 AM PT
Wombat:
You give many examples. To take but one: in the case of Romania, it was the *anti-fascist* Carol ll who abolished the fledgling democratic system enjoyed by that country in the 1920s. He was forced to surrender to the fascists in 1940.
In as few words as possible, please tell me how this squares with your assertion that Romania was one of many nations that turned "to Fascism ... experienc[ing] considerable social upheaval that weakened [its] democratic [system] of government."
Perhaps pseudoE. will supply a defense for what appears to be, on the face of it, a ridiculous assertion.
9975. Msivorytower - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:23 AM PT
You know Wombat, I think that the global intercommunication network is probably the single greatest protection against demagoguery, fascism and undemocratic movements in this country today.
I think the threat of these movements creeping into mainstream politics is greatly reduced by the speed at which their activities are now uncovered, analyzed and discussed in the national and international media.
I know this doesn't have much to do with the current conversation, but your comments got me thinking about whether a similar threat could occur in Western democracies today.
9976. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:36 AM PT
PE's claim…
"I have NOT NOT NOT used ANYTHING to justify Pinochet's rule. I have not justified Pinochet's rule in the least."
This is simply untrue. After pooh-poohing Pinochet's alleged crimes as nothing more than killing a few thousand countrymen, and mere leftists at that, he immediately began to backtrack, comparing Pinochet favorably to the Argentine goons of the same era. Was that just more flatulance or was it calculated mitigation. He later, quite rightly, called somebody else for using the same tactic… a comparison to Hitler. Merely stating opinions on what Pinochet was *not* is perhaps interesting but is irrelevant. WHAT CRIMES DID HE COMMIT AND DID THEY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY? That is all that is germane to the original question at hand. Recall? that was, the question of Britain holding Pinochet for extradition to Spain. The diversions raised are comical, namely… 1) Was the coup justified? 2) Did Allende commit offenses which would rise to the level of justification for that coup.
There is some degree of willful naivety in PE's acceptance of truths told to the Church Committee. His exacting enumeration of insignificant amounts of expenditures traced by that committee to participants in Chile just breezily ignores the fact that $10,000,000 flowed to that country, as evidenced by NSC documents. These payments began even before Allende's popular vote was ratified. Did the funds vaporize? That the players involved lied to the committee is strikingly obvious.
The analysis of Chile's economic deterioration, considered in isolation, is simply dishonest. To concentrate solely on the actions of Allende's gov't without reference to the pressures brought to bear by the US is akin to examing the actions taken by US civil rights activists during the same era while disregarding what they were battling against.
In short, the diversionary argument is built of spurious disconnected parts… a Chimera.<
9977. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:43 AM PT
Wombat…
>The following parliamentary democracies or monarchies (most without a >deeply entrenched democratic tradition) were either overthrown by
>"jack-booted thugs" or were seriously weakened by either fascist
>movements or the elected leader either ruling by decree or turning
>the country over to a military leader. These all took place in the
>1930s, and the economic situation played, at very least, an
>underlying role in creating the conditions that led to these changes.
But what is your underlying point here? That these coups were as justified as that in Chile? Economics plays an underlying role in all transitions of power. So what?
9978. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:45 AM PT
ptboya (Message #9976)
"After pooh-poohing Pinochet's alleged crimes as nothing more than killing a few thousand countrymen, and mere leftists at that, he immediately began to backtrack, comparing Pinochet favorably to the Argentine goons of the same era."
IDIOT. IDIOT. IDIOT.
1) I compared the ARGENTINE GOONS favourably with Pinochet. The exact opposite of what you're claiming.
2) So, how does killing a few thousand constitute a crime against humanity or a genocide?
9979. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:45 AM PT
"By the way, what the hell does the Great Depression and a collapse of democracy which might accompany it, have to do with ANY FUCKING THING that has been discussed in this thread?"
Mr Diversion himself speaking here. The pot calling the kettle black.
9980. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:46 AM PT
ptboya (Message #9976)
"Merely stating opinions on what Pinochet was *not* is perhaps interesting but is irrelevant. WHAT CRIMES DID HE COMMIT AND DID THEY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY? That is all that is germane to the original question at hand."
Idiot! And I asked, and nobody answered.
"The diversions raised are comical, namely… 1) Was the coup justified? 2) Did Allende commit offenses which would rise to the
level of justification for that coup."
Idiot! These were not diversions, but interesting issues unto themselves.
9981. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:47 AM PT
Message #9979
You are simply blithering. What the hell are you talking about?
9982. MrSocko - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:53 AM PT
Listen to the schoolkid: "So," he asks, "how does killing a few thousand constitute a crime against humanity?'
IDIOT. IDIOT. IDIOT.
9983. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:56 AM PT
OK. Read (2) of Message #9837. How can a rational person conclude, as PTBoya did, that I compared "Pinochet favorably to the Argentine goons of the same era."
PTBoya has neither the command of the facts, nor the familiarity with the references, nor the grasp of logic to see that most of his contentions -- esp. that U.S. actions are an important cause of the Chilean mess in 1973 -- simply don't hang together.
9984. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 7:59 AM PT
boya (Message #9976)
"His exacting enumeration of insignificant amounts of expenditures traced by that committee to participants in Chile just breezily ignores the fact that $10,000,000 flowed to that country, as evidenced by NSC documents. These payments began even before Allende's popular vote was ratified. Did the funds vaporize?"
Do you know what "enumeration" means? There was no such thing in my posts on the Church Committee report.
The Church Committee report states rather clearly that somewhere between $7 million and $10 million was spent in Chile for covert operations between 1970 and 1973. (And the U.S. had been spending money in the 1960s supporting non-leftist political candidates as well.) It is EXTREMELY well established that these sums were diverted to the opposition media and political candidates.
"The analysis of Chile's economic deterioration, considered in isolation, is simply dishonest."
Yet, you have done NOTHING but bleat assertions to the contrary, when I have surgically devastated them.
"To concentrate solely on the actions of Allende's gov't without reference to the pressures brought to bear by the US...."
Idiot. I DID allude AT LENGTH to the pressures brought to bear by the U.S. And by any stretch of the imagination, they could not possibly have made any difference to the political & economic chaos of 1973.
9985. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:00 AM PT
"I'm not trying to justify the Argentine military's ferocious & lethal reaction, but it's understandable in context."
Is this your version of favorable comparison? Ferocious and lethal, understandable… but your bottom line… not justified? Spain is not concerned about whether or not Pinochet's ferocious and lethal acts were understandble in context. They are trying to determine whether they were justified. The context you propose is yet another chimera.
And stop spitting all over your monitor. Relax your sphincter.
9986. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:06 AM PT
The summary of my comments about the pressures brought to bear on the U.S.
• While U.S. public assistance & private loans to Allende's Chile shrank to a trickle, the country was able to make up for every dime of the shortfall, and more, from other sources. Therefore, there was no credit squeeze to Chile.
• There is simply no evidence that it was U.S. policy to finance strikers. Moreover, the number of those striking during the two great national strikes -- 70,000 or so -- cannot possibly be conjured by U.S. policy fiat. It's a gross fantasy to think otherwise. The alleged popularity of the Unidad Popular with the working classes was an illusion -- falling real wages, hyperinflation and shortages worried the strikers far more.
• There was no trade embargo PERIOD against Chile. No country denied whatever Chile wanted to import. If there were imports it could not import, it was only because Chile's credit was overextended. By August 1973, Chile's public deficit was 30% of GDP. Why would people lend more?
As I said, the "pressures brought to bear" on Chile by the United States were at best an inconvenience.
9987. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:11 AM PT
Message #9985
But I haven't spent much time discussing whether Spain's attempts to prosecute Pinochet have been justified. I raised that issue briefly at the beginning, but my postings on the Pinochet coup in this thread have been entirely in the academic & historical interest -- not meant as commentary on the question of the prosecution at all. So your persistent bullshit about "diversions" and "chimeras" are really the manifestations of your own addled & emotional mind.
Why don't you take up the Spanish prosecution question with DaveCook and ScottLoar, who are discussing the subject?
9988. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:15 AM PT
Boya
I know you must be hostile because I've called you an idiot several times, but really, why are you twisting what I've been saying? You've portrayed my extensive postings on the Pinochet coup as though they were meant to be direct commentary on the Spanish prosecution. They are not. They are merely an airing of a topic I'm interested in, and the arrest of Pinochet is simply the occasion for the airing.
9989. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:27 AM PT
OK, since boya is an emotional delicate of some sort dedicated to his theology and lacking the ability to assess evidence, I will forswear from further insults.
ptboya (Message #9985): "Is this your version of favorable comparison?"
No. Here is my favourable comparison of the Argentine goons with Pinochet in Message #9837: "If there ever were some slight justification and mitigation to be eked out of 'stamping out a country's left-wing intelligentsia', it would be found not in Pinochet's rule but in that of the Argentine junta of the 1970s. Pinochet did wipe out the far left, but the Chilean far left were democratic and peaceful. In Argentina, by contrast, the far left were murderous."
Now, given that you have inferred the very opposite of what was said, perhaps you will realise that you haven't been paying much attention to my remarks.
As for the actions of the Argentine junta in the mid to late 1970s, yes, I think they were, on the whole, justified. After all, they were attempting to eradicate a well-armed, murderous urban guerrilla insurgency. It was a civil war. The hectoring likes of Socko might always bring up murdered infants as some emotional counterpoint, as though in justifying the actions of the legitimate side in a civil war one must also excuse its abuses and transgressions. That is not the case.
9990. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 8:35 AM PT
For the last time, Spain's attempts to prosecute Pinochet DO NOT INTEREST ME as a topic of discussion. So, Boya should not see my postings on Chile as related to this latest current event.
9991. Wombat - Oct. 22, 1998 - 9:17 AM PT
PT:
In an earlier post, Socko claimed that the economic upheavals in the interwar period did not result in the takeover of democratic governments by "jackbooted thugs." I was attempting to prove otherwise. No condoning or criticism of the coups and/or antidemocratic steps involved was stated ot implied.
Socko:
Try reading very carefully what I wrote. Do you deny that Romania did not have a strong Fascist movement? Did King Carol's attempt to rule directly subvert the parliamentary system? Was King Carol not overthrown by a coup? Who then took over? Did the European economic troubles of the 1930s contribute to these conditions? Unless PE has something to say about it, I suspect they did.
9992. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 9:41 AM PT
Well, it's undeniable (and rather conventional) to suppose that "economic troubles" had something to do with the rise of the Nazi party. However, being a minority party, they never would have come to power had Hindenburg not appointed Hitler to the Chancelleorship. So I would say the proximate causes of Hitler's accession were less "economic troubles" than the vagaries of Hindenburg, and the defects of the Weimar political system.
Mussolini seized power in the ferment of the aftermath of WWI in Italy -- a ferment which included industrial unrest; nationalist uproar over being "cheated" by the post-war settlement (even though Italy had switched sides to the Allied cause in 1915); perception that communists were growing in strength; etc. Unemployment immediately after the war was high, but the boom of 1919-22 had restored full employment by the time Mussolini actually came to power, in 1922. No matter what, however, I don't think Mussolini could have forced the King to appoint him, had Italy not instituted a proportional representation system in 1919 and forever precluded the formation of majority governments.
Austria's fascism had nothing to do with any economic conditions -- it was first of all a "domino effect" from the German Nazis, who financed the Austrian Nazis.
I wouldn't attribute the rise of Franco and the Spanish Civil War to economic conditions either.
The other countries Wombat mentioned, I have no idea.
9993. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 22, 1998 - 9:53 AM PT
OK, I would like to apologise to PTBoya for my various incivilities. I was just frustrated because I felt he was persistently misreading or disregarding or misunderstanding what I had been saying. No apologies, however, to anybody else I might have called an idiot this week.
9994. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 12:38 PM PT
Though PE and I have already exchanged apologies privately, in reciprocity I think it right to go public with my apology to you PE since you have been gracious enough to initiate the contact. And I do, to the death, defend your right to continue to call me an idiot .
9995. AzureNW - Oct. 22, 1998 - 12:57 PM PT
He is ruthless. You were right to tell him so.
9996. ptboya - Oct. 22, 1998 - 1:28 PM PT
I'm not sure which one is the ruthless party you refer to.
9997. CoralReef - Oct. 22, 1998 - 1:38 PM PT
Judge Garzon is basing his case of genocide against Pinochet on the basis that Pinochet sought to wipe out his opponents because of their political beliefs, and that that amounts to genocide. That sounds like a bad precedent to set to me.
9998. Jenerator - Oct. 22, 1998 - 1:43 PM PT
I want the big 1*0*!!
9999. Jenerator - Oct. 22, 1998 - 1:44 PM PT
I want the big 1*0*!!
10000. Jenerator - Oct. 22, 1998 - 1:45 PM PT
Did I get it?