45 years ago today. - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Sivad
#14946409
Plan Z was doctored from actual plans developed by the Allende government, it wasn't a whole cloth fabrication of the Pinochet regime.

Allende’s Chile and the Inter-American Cold War
Dr Tanya Harmer
https://books.google.com/books?id=2RFHJ ... 22&f=false
#14946410
Sivad wrote:Allende's personal security was made up of MIR militants(Group of Personal Friends).


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.

The Cuban packages scandal. Allende was working with the Cubans to smuggle arms into the country and supplying them to militias like the MIR.


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.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=2RFHJ1 ... ap&f=false

Please see the top of page 136.

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.
By Sivad
#14946411
So you do know the history, that means you're just trying to bullshit everyone.
By Sivad
#14946414
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.


Like I said, close ties to the MIR. And he continued to support the MIR by protecting them from prosecution.

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.


They fired him after he got caught and then pretended like they didn't know anything about it.

Since Cuba had already been supplying the GAP with Cuban arms since Allende’s inauguration, this was merely a continuation of the same policy.


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.

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.


Which article?
By Sivad
#14946415
#14946416
Sivad wrote:Like I said, close ties to the MIR. And he continued to support the MIR by protecting them from prosecution.


No, you said that the GAP was made of MIR personnel. This is an example of you moving the goalposts.

They fired him after he got caught and then pretended like they didn't know anything about it.


And?

This does not change the fact that they were doung 5e exact opposite of what you claimed they were doing.

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.


And?

Is this another fallacy of guilt by association?

Which article?


The “Boltos Cubanos” article:
«Bultos Cubanos». Edicion especial (Revista "Que Pasa"). 1982. p. 21.
By Sivad
#14946431
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you said that the GAP was made of MIR personnel.


It was! How can you possibly deny that?


This does not change the fact that they were doung 5e exact opposite of what you claimed they were doing.


What. the. fuck. r u talking about?


Is this another fallacy of guilt by association?


Guilt by association? He's actively participating in a criminal conspiracy with a gulagist government.

The “Boltos Cubanos” article:
«Bultos Cubanos». Edicion especial (Revista "Que Pasa"). 1982. p. 21.


Link?
#14946436
@Pants-of-dog

You said that;

I think that a threat to capitalism would also be a threat to the rich and powerful in the USA.


Any transition to another socio-economic system would be painful to any Country even the poor and powerless, even if it was a better and more just Socio-Economic system. This is something the theoreticians and idealists of any political persuasion are often blind to, lacking empathy.

I think that a threat to capitalism would be a boon for most people in the USA.


You would be wrong. Even when I was a Socialist, I imagined that the economic dislocation caused by an hypothetical immediate implementation of full Socialism in the United States of America would probably cost 20-25 million human lives.

In this respect, the USA is no different from any other capitalist country.


As I indicated, America is the epicenter of global capitalism. Capitalism could not exist without the cultural and political framework provided by the USA, not for very long anyway.
#14946449
Sivad wrote:It was! How can you possibly deny that?


We discussed this and we discovered that they were part of the GAP for a short time, and were then all kicked out.

What. the. fuck. r u talking about?


You claimed that Allende and Castro were arming the MIR through some sort of illegal clandestine program.

I then provided evidence (i.e. the page after the page you cited in the same book) that Castro and Allende actually opposed this and fired the Cuban GAP trainer because he was doing this.

You then mentioned the Cuban pacakages scandal, and I showed that the arms went to the GAP, not the MIR.

Guilt by association? He's actively participating in a criminal conspiracy with a gulagist government.


So, yes, it is the same fallacy.

Link?


Do you read Spanish?

————————————

@annatar1914

Your beliefs seem contradicted by the fact that many countries have made the transition to socialism without significant problems for the working class.
By Sivad
#14946465
I'm not even gonna bother with the knife smiley, I'm just gonna go shove a real butcher knife through my own skull because I can never unencounter the plunk fucking stupid I've just been exposed to.
#14946466
You always seem to get upset when people disagree with you.

I think it due in part to your idealism and romanticised view of human nature.
#14946485
@Pants-of-dog

You replied to my commentary concerning (at the very least) the impossibility of Socialism without death and hardship to millions, that;


Pants-of-dog wrote:
Your beliefs seem contradicted by the fact that many countries have made the transition to socialism without significant problems for the working class.


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.
#14946497
annatar1914 wrote:@Pants-of-dog

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?


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.

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.


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.
#14946500
@Pants-of-dog


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.


In theory, that's what Socialism would do, help the working class. But it is the assertion of Communists that this is not allowed to happen peacefully in isolation.

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.


Fair enough, POD, my apologies. My target btw was not you' I was thinking more of anticommunists and antisocialists who assume that the ''destruction'' or ''liquidation'' of a socio-economic class means the literal death of the persons within that social construct (''capitalists'', the ''Bourgeoisie'')typical of Anti-Communist propaganda for generations now.

In case you were wondering, my opinions are now such that my rejection of certain things is more related to unchanging human nature than any love for the modern economic system.



Grenada under the PRG.


I was in the area at the time, as an aside... And that attempt was likewise overthrown.

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.


Yes, and every example shows that the struggle costs the laboring classes dearly.

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.


Again, probably too weak and fragile to survive.
#14946508
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.
By B0ycey
#14946595
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 his military. If you don't have that support within your own nation, you are fucked. And that is why America won.

But sure, during the Cold War everything was a East/West proxy war. Even the politics of small nations. Are people actually arguing against this?
#14946617
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.


I agree about the military. That was definitely one of the significant factors in the coup.

And this is one of the reasons why we need to be vigilant about far right involvement in the armed forces.

But sure, during the Cold War everything was a proxy war. Even the politics of small nations. Are people actually arguing against this?


Yes and no.

To look at the coup as solely a proxy war between the USA and the USSR is reductionist.

So, this explanation is correct on many levels. It was an ideological conflict between the two main sides in the ongoing Cold War, and Washington and Moscow (as the two most powerful players) were actively involved.

It was also a class conflict as well. The US corporations and government were able to work with Chilean army officers and corporations because they had aligned economic interests.

This explanation also leaves out the agency of Allende and Chilean actors, seeing each side as merely a pawn of Washington or Moscow. So it misses out on nationalist motives such as stopping the export of resource wealth; copper, in this case.

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.
By B0ycey
#14946618
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.


For sure POD. It was a conflict between Chile and America and should be seen as such. The same way Cuba was a conflict between them and America, and so was Vietnam (with America).

But Russia being an ally to Allende was the reason they backed Pinochet and the Coup. Even though Pinochet is up there as one of the evil bastards to grace our planet, he isn't known as such in the West because he was a US supporter. So the coup was a proxy war - no doubt about it. And the Taliban were freedom fighters until they rebelled against America to become terrorists etc. And today Assad is evil because he is an Ally of Russia but Saudi Arabia are not because they support America. The Cold War may be over but nations and their leaders are still pawns in superpower power games. So surely you must understand the same moves were being played out 45 years ago as they are now for the same reasons too.
#14946619
@Pants-of-dog

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.


I saw none of those examples without which there was not suffering on the part of the working classes from the dislocations involved in a transition, long or short period of time. And they've all been short to me, historically speaking, even the Soviet Union 1917-1991...

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.


Damage is damage, irregardless. If one is Socialist, one has to find the acceptable human cost whether the damage comes from the Socialists in charge or from their external and internal enemies. Is it the struggle itself that makes it worthwhile? I am not entirely sure...
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

The importance of Acosta getting his credentials […]

2018 US Elections

So basically you are saying that Trump has given b[…]

In the 1995 film Clueless, does capitalism tell so[…]

@One Degree No, you did not answer the questio[…]