Allende’s Chile and the Inter-American Cold War
Dr Tanya Harmer
https://books.google.com/books?id=2RFHJ ... 22&f=false
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods
Sivad wrote:Allende's personal security was made up of MIR militants(Group of Personal Friends).
The Cuban packages scandal. Allende was working with the Cubans to smuggle arms into the country and supplying them to militias like the MIR.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not for most of the time that Allende was in power. In 1970, Allende and the MIR had only recently started discussions, and by 1971, all members of MIR in the GAP were kicked out.
It is more complicated than that. Allende and Castro both fired the head of the GAP (a Cuban operative named José Rivero) for helping the MIR steal handguns from the GAP.
Since Cuba had already been supplying the GAP with Cuban arms since Allende’s inauguration, this was merely a continuation of the same policy.
If you were to read the original article in Spanish, you would see it that it does not say the guns were for the MIR, but instead were for the GAP.
Sivad wrote:Like I said, close ties to the MIR. And he continued to support the MIR by protecting them from prosecution.
They fired him after he got caught and then pretended like they didn't know anything about it.
No shit. Not only did Allende have close ties to the MIR, he was also working hand in glove with the Cuban regime. His daughter was married to the Cuban ambassador.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you said that the GAP was made of MIR personnel.
This does not change the fact that they were doung 5e exact opposite of what you claimed they were doing.
Is this another fallacy of guilt by association?
The “Boltos Cubanos” article:
«Bultos Cubanos». Edicion especial (Revista "Que Pasa"). 1982. p. 21.
I think that a threat to capitalism would also be a threat to the rich and powerful in the USA.
I think that a threat to capitalism would be a boon for most people in the USA.
In this respect, the USA is no different from any other capitalist country.
Sivad wrote:It was! How can you possibly deny that?
What. the. fuck. r u talking about?
Guilt by association? He's actively participating in a criminal conspiracy with a gulagist government.
Your beliefs seem contradicted by the fact that many countries have made the transition to socialism without significant problems for the working class.
You replied to my commentary concerning (at the very least) the impossibility of Socialism without death and hardship to millions, that;
I said ''people'', and that includes but by no means excludes anyone outside the working classes. Have you abstracted everyone else out of their humanity?
Not only that, but you claim that ''many'' countries have made the transition to Socialism without significant problems. I find that hard to believe POD, so i'd like to ask you to name even a single one of those countries that have done so, without problems for the working classes.
You incorrectly assume I am treating people other than working class people as non-humans. In the context of socialism helping the US (which is what I was discussing) I already said that socialism would not help the rich and powerful, but would help the working class.
So, rather than assume the worst of me, you should have noticed that I had already discussed what would happen to non-working class people and that I was neither ignoring nor dehumanising them.
Grenada under the PRG.
If we include countries where the problems for the working class have been solely due to the entrenched forces of capitalism oppressing the working class, we can add Cuba, Nicaragua under the FSLN, Chiapas under the Zapatistas, and many more.
And those are just the revolutionary movements.
If we also include democratic socialist movements that have been elected, we have Chile under Allende, Nicaragua under the FSLN (again), Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Uruguay.
I am limiting the discussion here to Latin America, but other examples exist.
B0ycey wrote:I think we can at least all agree that the difference between say Stalin and Pinochet is ideology. The means to reach that ideology is the same. I say that because there are some users on here that consider the ideology wrong rather than the individual who enforces the system. This is evidence that such thinking is complete bollocks.
Allende was a casualty of superpower power games. The solution to protect himself was never gulags. It was the military. If you don't have that, you are fucked. And that is how America won.
But sure, during the Cold War everything was a proxy war. Even the politics of small nations. Are people actually arguing against this?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it makes more sense to see this is a conflict between the USA and Chile, with minimal and tardy involvement from the USSR.
You are shifting the goalposts.
You originally asked for examples of countries transitioning to socialism without significant damage to the working class. I provided examples.
Now you seem to be adding the criteria that these countries have to stay there for a long period of time. Please note that many of the examples I gave have already done so.
You also seem to think that leftists are responsible for the damage done to the working class by capitalists during these periods of transition. At best, you can say that these leftist movements were imperfect and were incapable of immediately protecting every single working class person in the country as soon as the transition started.
And you can't answer it? :lol: I am not privy t[…]
Nonsense. What's nonsense is you saying "[…]
Did any one see the woman alive yet? I have doubts[…]
You do realize that the proponents of the 3/5ths […]