Red_Dave

I,ve been searching through some old files today and I came across and essay i wrote for a history project on the overthrow of Salvador Allende when i was 17. I meant to post this at the time as its a topic that gets disscussed very often but decided to wait untill it got marked. Obviously i forgot to do this so here it is 3 years late. I actually lost some large cunks of it shortly before it had to be handed in so i apologise on behalf of my 17 year old self for the speedy retyping. I expect a reincarnation of TOT will post a speedly rebuttal but if anyone else has any comments ild be interested to hear them.

Red_Dave

How credible is the view that general Pinochet overthrew the government Chilean government in a justified bid to save the country from a Marxist Leninist dictatorship.?

On the 11th of September 1973 General Pinochet shocked the world by ending the government of Salvador Allende in a violent coup d’etat. One thing that made the coup particularly shocking was the fact that it ended the worlds longest democracy and the presidency of Salvador Allende, who promised to bring about a “Chilean Road to Socialism” which would be constitutional, gradual and democratic rather than violent revolutionary and dictatorial. Yet during his presidency armed bands with links to the militant left where taking over land and businesses in a very chaotic way without any opposition from the governments, and many claimed to have been arrested without trial. The results of this were economic chaos and a road to socialism that looked increasingly undemocratic. According to Pinochet’s supporters this was justification for a coup d’etat. However the fact that Pinochet’s rule was arguably the most brutal dictatorship in Chile’s history has caused many to take a cynical view of the motivations of Pinochet and his supporters. Many see the coup and the subsequent actions of the regime replacing it as a means to suppress the left [thus working in the interests of the Chilean upper class, American multinationals, and the fanatically McCarthyist Nixon administration] defending its own interests. This has led to a fierce historical debate in which there are two major camps which shall be referred to in this essay as “pro-Allende” and “Pro-Pinochet”

The former sees the coup as an atrocity against democracy and an attempt to suppress the Chilean left and replace the Chilean peoples right to control there own resources with a neo-liberal dictatorship that the vast majority of Chilean people would be opposed to.
Many of the same people would argue that the coup was an example of a long established pattern in post-war U.S foreign policy described by many as neo--colonialist. Experts in this field like Noam Chomsky and Roger Burbach argue that the fundamental goal of U.S intervention in global affairs, particularly in Latin America is the maintenance of a unipolar world in which it controls global economic and poltical affairs by proxy. Roger Burbach argues that far from being an undemocratic Leninist, Allende made Chile more democratic. In “The Pinochet Affair” he argues that under Allende “Democracy was palpable as the working classes took control of their food distribution systems and worked through unions and political organisations to take over and run factories, farms and mines that legitimately belonged to them.” [1] In contrast to this conservative Historian David Horowitz argues “It was Chileans, not Henry Kissinger or Richard Nixon who made the real decision to put Pinochet in power” [2] Supporters of Pinochet see the coup as a popular reaction against authoritarian Leninism and play down the role of the C.I.A in the coup. Many who support Pinochet claim that the argument that Allende was democratically elected and thus had the support of the of the Chilean people holds little weight because neither Allende or the parties in his Popular Unity coalition ever attained more than 50% of the vote. When elected Allende’s 1,070, 000 votes only narrowly defeated his much more conservative rival Allesandri with 1,030, 000 . Therefore the view that Allende had the support of the Chilean people is discredited by this. However Tomic , a candidate almost as left-wing as Allende put forward by the ruling Christian Democrat party came close behind Alessandri with 820,000 votes. This shows that there was a broad support in Chile for radical left wing policies. Allende’s Christian Democrat predecessor had nationalised much of Chiles vital copper industry, taken much of its land from the hands of rich land owners and into the hands of farming cooperatives in an effort to appeal to the left. The Christian Democrat minister of education even claimed Lenin was the “greatest man of the century”. This shows that the 1890000 Chileans that voted for either Allende or Tomic were, at least at the time in favour of far-left wing policies similar to those Allende advocated even if they didn’t vote for Allende himself. Despite the Popular Unity coalitions claim that it represented democratic socialism there is much evidence that the real goal of the coalition or at least many of its members was the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship as advocated and put in into practice by Lenin. There is a lot of evidence of support for Lenin and/or his teachings in each of the major parties within the coalition. The communist party joined the communist international as a result of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and remained obedient to Moscow ever since, even favouring the unpopular pact between Russia and Nazi Germany [3] despite the overwhelming shock on the rest of the left at the decision. It seems unlikely that a party so submissive to the soviet regime would join a coalition advocating a completely peaceful and democratic regime unless their claim to represent this was insincere. The same could be said of the Socialist Party. Although the party was originally quite middle class and moderate, extremist thinking began to creep in as the Radical Party stole the socialists’ thunder causing the socialist party to drift towards extremism. As a result of this the party’s congress voted to openly declare itself Marxist-Leninist in 1948 .[4] During one of its conferences the idea that revolutionary violence was inevitable and beneficial was adopted as an obligatory part of the party line.[5] Although this party line was more moderated and democratic under Allende’s leadership of the Socialist party it is arguable that a Marxist-Leninist faction remained in the party and that the party’s Marxist-Leninist history resurfaced once the popular unity coalition was in power. The former evidence of Marxist-Leninist thinking within the popular unity coalition backs up the consensus of many right wing historians that the coalition campaigned on a democratic socialist platform while its secret intention was the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. Even if the Leninists were only a relatively small faction within the party they still demonstrate that the democratic values the coalition claimed to embrace were not as deep seated within the coalition as it claimed. This is a clear example of its dishonesty. Although not actually part of Allende’s coalition or even officially working with Allende the M.I.R, a leftist paramilitary organisation played an increasing role in the nationalisation of land and industry under the Popular Unity coalition. Nationalisations under Allende would increasingly follow the same pattern. Armed M.I.R bands would increasingly take over land, copper mines and other work places without the government’s permission yet the government would take control of whatever workplace was taken over shortly after the militia had taken over. Historians are divided on whether the government was working in league with the M.I.R, was not in league with the M.I.R but was sympathetic to their ideas so just let them be, or was simply not in control of the situation. The popular unity coalition seems tolerance of this group’s violence could be seen as further evidence of the coalition’s revolutionary thinking. Historians are divided on whether Allende himself was secretly Marxist Leninist, was not Leninist at all or briefly flirted with Leninist ideas during his presidency. Many argue that Allende was converted to Leninism in 1967 at a tri-continental Marxist conference. In her book “Chile: the crime of resistance” Suzanne Labin says “In my view, the most significant event in his inner political life occurred in 1967, when he represented Chile at the Tri-continental conference in Havana, which brought together all the communist parties of the world, and where the decision was reached to launch worldwide all-out terrorist and guerrilla action against democracies. When he returned home, Mr Allende organised action committees to implement the directives of this tri-continental conference, the so called OLAS [Latin American Solidarity Organisation], within which revolutionary enthusiasm was maintained at fever-pitch as each hothead strove to outdo his comrades” [6] This is seen by many as a turning point at which Allende adopted more authoritarian policies. Another alleged turning point was the visit of Fidel Castro to Chile on invitation of a group of P.U senators. Many see this as an attempt of a Leninist faction with the party to bring Allende over to their way of thinking. Allende was an admirer of Castro and was therefore greatly disappointed when, instead of praising communist Chile Castro publicly criticised its lack of revolutionary radicalism. As mentioned earlier one thing that discredits Allende’s claim to represent a democratic road to socialism was the chaotic and authoritarian manner in which nationalisation of industry took place. Allende’s Christian Democrat predecessor had demonstrated how nationalisation through perfectly peaceful, straightforward and democratic means was possible, mainly by legally buying what was nationalised. Nationalisation under Allende however was the complete opposite and in many ways reflective of an authoritarian stance. As already stated many nationalisations where initiated by extremist militias. After this the government would place an “interventor” in charge of whatever had been taken over. Despite the fact Allende claimed to represent the Chilean working people many people actually went on strike against his interventors and once their reputation was so bad one group of lorry drivers even went on strike to avoid being nationalised. The fact that these nationalisations were both undemocratic and, as the striking illustrates completely out of touch with the needs of the working classes falls far short of the democratic socialist ideal Allende claimed to represent.

As a result of these nationalisations production fell dramatically. Production of copper fell by 50% and in 1972 thousands of housewives marched on Santiago in what became known as the “march of pots and pans” in which those marching rattled pot and pans to show that they where supposedly empty as a result of the policies of Allende. By the end of October hundreds of thousands of men were on strike.
Pinochet’s supporters would argue that this shows the government constituted a communist state whether or not the population of Chile agreed. Ignoring the views of hundreds of thousands of workers and the economic chaos this created was a long way from the government the popular unity coalition was claiming to represent. In this sense it runs parallel with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and is another hint towards Leninist thinking in the minds of Allende and his coalition.

Many would argue that in the light of the economic, political and violent chaos of Allende’s government and the disturbing amount of authoriitarian thinking below the surface of the popular unity coalition a military coup was the only way to avoid a greater evil. Allende had shown a disturbing desire to impose his communist vision for Chile exactly as he wanted with no apparent regard for the views of those he was claiming to represent and seemingly oblivious to the fact he was often making the lives of working class Chileans significantly worse. Many would argue that if left to do what he wanted Allende could have brought the country to civil war, complete economic ruin or even a totalitarian Leninist state.

Red_Dave

Pt 2

Although Allende was partially responsible for his own downfall due to his despotic incompetent style of government this neither justifies nor explains the actions of those who plotted his downfall. It is widely inaccurate to portray Pinochet and his supporters heroic patriots who overthrew Allende purely out of a selfless and nationalistic desire to save the Chilean democracy they where so proud of. The most obvious flaw in this stance is that if Pinochet and his followers intervened on humanitarian grounds they would not be known as one of the most brutal dictatorships in history. Indeed it was the atrocities committed by the Pinochet regime that inspired the creation of Amnesty international, an organisation that still condemns him and campaigns for his prosecution.[7] If Pinochet was interested in protecting civil liberties he would not have immediately abolished any form of free speech or civil liberties immediately after the coup and even during it. It is essentially illogical to say Pinochet acted in the name of democracy when Pinochet could hardly have acted in a less democratic way.

Another flaw is that the coup is one of many linked to the C.I.A , most of which have been down to the C.I.A,s perceived need to prevent any spread of the leftist ideas that, as far as they where concerned , threatened to loosen America’s grip over the economy, and increase soviet influence. Similar military coups took place throughout Latin America whenever the governments in question pursued policies that put American investments and influence at risk. For example when Guatemala’s moderate president Jacob Arbenz was ousted due to moderate land reforms that threatened the profit margins of the United Fruit Company. The excuse given by the American authorities was that Guatemala was becoming a soviet satellite. This is a weak argument considering the fact that Arbenz’s labour party was not much further to the left then its British counterpart was at the time, and only carried out a series of fairly mild land reforms and nationalisations. Similar events occurred in many other Latin and central American states whenever multinational profit margins and/or the spread of leftist ideas was perceived as a threat. There is no evidence that Chile was an anomaly, indeed even David Horowitz admits that “The International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT) had big investments, and its influence reached far into the Nixon Administration and the American intelligence community”.[7] Therefore we are seeing a similar pattern in Chile to what happened in Guatemala. There is no major difference between what happened in these two countries other than the fact historians have a far less detailed knowledge of what happened in Chile and are not certain as to the extent of their involvement in the coup itself. However one thing historians do know as a fact is that the Nixon administration was set on the idea of Allende’s overthrow and the C.I.A was active in pursuing this goal. In his memoirs the U.S ambassador to Chile Nathanial Davis recalls a conversation between himself, Henry Kissinger and a clearly enraged Nixon in which Kissinger decided that the American government should not “Let Chile go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people” Having made an overt decision to subvert Chilean democracy the Nixon administration and C.I.A began planning to “save Chile”. [8] This shows that the route of general Pinochet’s coup was not a popular reaction against authoritarianism but the fulfilment of a long standing White House plan and the continuation of an established pattern in American foreign policy If Pinochet’s primary concern was the preservation and stability of Chilean democracy it is likely that he would have overthrown a democratic government only when it was at its most threatening I.E on the verge of consolidating its power as a despotic dictatorship. This was far from the truth considering the fact that the coup came at a time when Allende was at his most democratic and moderate. In 1973 the Popular Unity coalition went through a moderating phase in which Allende arguably began to cut his links with the far left. In August Journalist Timothy Ross wrote in the Guardian that “According to the far left, Allende is betraying the revolution”. Far from being on the verge of consolidating a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship the popular unity coalition was abandoning its extreme wing and cooperating with the moderate Christian democrats. He goes on to say “They [the far left] feel that he is conciliating the enemies of socialism and has chosen a middle of the road alliance that will force him to allow the workers' organizations to be destroyed and the militias to be disarmed, permitting the right to take over when it thinks fit.” [9] This demonstrates a clear move away from militarism and the far left in general. Considering this the claim that the situation in Chile was so desperate that an illegal coup was necessary is a fallacy.
If the coup was a result of popular resistance against Allende the section of the population resisting Allende during his presidency would not contain a disproportionate amount of the rich and powerful. Although there was much working class resistance to Allende’s nationalisations Allende’s largest support base was among poor workers. Indeed Pinochet’s biggest fear during the coup was that those in the slums would rise against him.[10] It was this fear which drove him to blow up radio and tv stations even before the coup was complete and to heavily punish trade unionists once he had consolidated his power. Both these things demonstrate a fear of working class resistance. The fact that Pinochet was so scared of this shows that the claim he acted in the name and interest of the Chilean people is vastly delusional. Considering the neo-liberal nature of Pinochet’s reforms it is important to remember that prior to these reforms the political/economic situation in Chile was very similar to that of the post war consensus in the United Kingdom. That is to say that nationalised industries were both the norm and widely supported. For example Allende’s predecessors and most of his rivals were either almost as Marxist as Allende or at least social democrats. For example Chile’s previous government had nationalised the copper mines.

That said the accusation that Allende was an unsuitable president is certainly an accurate one. Although Allende was not an immediate threat to Chile’s democracy it is inaccurate to portray him as a great democrat. This is due to the overtly Leninist tendencies within the PU coalition which were well illustrated through its members, the methods used to nationalise industry and its often aloof manner towards the working classes it claimed to represent. However military coups should only be considered a last resort and Pinochet’s did not happen at a time when this was necessary. The claim that Pinochet overthrew Allende to save Chile from a Marxist Leninist dictatorship is a fallacy due to the inherent contradictions in his claims. The coup cannot have been purely a result of popular insurrection when the overthrow of Allende had been planned by the White House since his election. It is improbable that Pinochet lead a bloody coup and brutal dictatorship in the name of humanitarian intervention, especially one that suppressed the freedoms Pinochet claimed to be supporting. It is most unlikely that Pinochet acted to save Chile’s democracy by overthrowing a president at his most democratic. Indeed it is absurd to suggest that Pinochet valued democracy in any real sense when he killed thousands in order to suppress free speech and implement reforms that, although popular with the rich and the powerful, the majority of Chileans voted against.

Sources

The Pinochet Affair, Roger Burbach
The Last Two Years Of Salvador Allende , Nathanial Davis
Chile’s Marxist Experiment Robert Moss
Chile: The Crime Of Resistance Suzanne Labin
The guardian/observer archive
Front page magazine.com
References

[1] The Pinochet Affair, Preface
[2] David Horowitz Fidel, Pinochet & Me, FrontPageMagazine.com , November 23, 1998 [http://frontpagemag.org/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=1174]
[3]Chile: the crime of resistance Chapter 2
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7]The Pinochet Affair chapter 4
[8] The Last Two Years of Salvador Allende Chapter 1
[9] Old allies turning against Allende Timothy Ross August 12 1973 available at Old allies turning against Allende | World news | guardian.co.uk

[10] The Pinochet Affair chapter 1

RightOfCenter

I've never seen a bibliography like that. What style is that?

__________________
The Jews killed Jesus and then tried to push blame off on the Romans. I blame the blacks.

New World Order

Thank god Pinochet bumped him off and got rid of 1,000s of his supporters. I would gladly live under "Right Wing" military dictatorshop anyday then under a socialist state. Even if 99% of an electorate vote for their socialist imprisonment it never justifies forcing the remaining 1% having to live their lives under such stupidity.

Red_Dave

What do you belive gives a government legitimacy?

New World Order

In this case a Government never has the right to redistribute wealth in a nation by stealing it from those whom created it. Allende wanted to nationalize industries created by individuals and give to those that least deserve it...the ones that took no risk in creating an enterprise. If they did not like their wages...quit... then go back to living in reed huts and wearing palm leaves if that was so much better.