[Pants-of-dog]

You may not like it Pants, but its salient.

I have already pointed out how it was salient to getting the US populace to accept it.

It is not salient in terms of the causes and context of the coup.

The U.S. could not let communism spring up anywhere in the world, especially in South America where it many vested interests stemming to its victory in the Spanish-American War (a point that seems lost on those discussing the Cuba situation).

Don't forget that the Panama Canal was essential to the U.S. Navy's dominance, any nations going Red in the region that could threaten this vital point and potentially cutoff the Pacific fleet from being quickly relocated to the Caribbean in the event of issues there and so on.

Yes, this is why the Us supported and then deposed Noriega.

Please note that the Panama canal is not in Chile. The argument that Panama would have fallen to anti-US socialists because of Allende’s election seems tenuous.

The U.S. backing a coup in Chile was largely based on cold war considerations, @Heisenberg is right on this, and you are missing the point because you fail to see anything besides a direct threat against the US from the USSR directly as being relevant to that cold war conflict, which is preposterous.

I have asked four ot five times for people to explain exactly what strategic threats could have been posed by a socialist Chile.

Other than the domino effect (which only is only a problem if you find socialism itself threatening), there seems to be none.

So when you say that I “fail to see anything besides a direct threat against the US from the USSR directly as being relevant to that cold war conflict”, this is (a) a strawman, and (b) a way of getting around my question about how Chile may have posed an actual strategic threat.

Allende being a socialist was justification enough according to U.S. policy for whatever action it would need to take. Pinochet was convenient because of his popularity in the armed forces, his favor towards Americans, and his hatred for communists.

No one is discussing justification. That is emotional feels talk.

I am discussing causes and historical context.

If you wish to discuss how youmguys made yourself feel good about this, go ahead. I will not participate in such a discussion.

That American economic interests were likewise served in this was merely the cherry on top of the chocolate sundae, but Heisenberg was also correct to point this out as well. Economic interests are political interests, especially when combating an ideology like socialism which makes EVERYTHING about economics.

The reason why Marxists focus on economic factor and material comditions is methodological.

You can analyse those objectively and empirically.

Claims about ideology and values are subjective, impossible to verify, and usually are based on a particular idea of what is justified according to social norms.

There is duplicity in this too btw; most leftists blame the U.S. for Pearl Harbor because of its economic approach to Japan and act as if Japan were justified in its bombing attack on the grounds that it was a retaliation; however, if this is the case, then the U.S. was justified in preemptively taking out Allende even if economic considerations alone were the basis and for the same reasons. After all, it was largely economic measures that led to the USSR's ultimate collapse in the end anyway. Economic considerations are valid considerations in an ideological total war over the third world.

The hypocrisy of imaginary leftists is not relevant.

NOTE: I am not defending the U.S.'s approach in the cold war, I am not even explicitly endorsing Pinochet, sanctions, etc.,

Thats not the point, I am only saying that the U.S. position is coherent and it was applied consistently, not hypocritically, in the case of Chile.

It depends on what you are using as criteria for hypocrisy.

The USA describes itself as the policeman of the world, defending human rights, freedom, and democracy abroad.

In this particular case, this is obvious hypocrisy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Please note that the Panama canal is not in Chile.

The argument that Panama would have fallen to anti-US socialists because of Allende’s election seems tenuous.

Thats an oversimplification to the point of being a strawman. Any regional power going Red could be a potential threat to U.S. interests, especially if it allied itself with the USSR and sponsored troops and bases. You don't think a soviet pacific fleet stationed on Chile's coast would have been viewed as threat to the U.S. vital possession of the panama canal? Don't be daft.

I have asked four ot five times for people to explain exactly what strategic threats could have been posed by a socialist Chile.

Other than the domino effect (which only is only a problem if you find socialism itself threatening), there seems to be none.

The domino effect was U.S. doctrine yes and so on that grounds alone it would have made the Allende regime a threat.

This concession of yours thus contradicts your remark here:

It is not salient in terms of the causes and context of the coup.

So this is obviously false.

That is emotional feels talk.

Did you read your own OP? What do you call that?

That was nothing but you spilling out your commie fee-fees on the forum for all to see.

It was tender and cute.

I am discussing causes and historical context.

So are we, and the Foreign policy doctrines of the U.S. government are part of that context.

The reason why Marxists focus on economic factor and material comditions is methodological.

You can analyse those objectively and empirically.

Marxism is itself an ideology, so this argument is circular.

Claims about ideology and values are subjective, impossible to verify, and usually are based on a particular idea of what is justified according to social norms.

Unless the ideology or values can be logically demonstrated, as mine can.

The hypocrisy of imaginary leftists is not relevant.

Fine.

It depends on what you are using as criteria for hypocrisy.

The USA describes itself as the policeman of the world, defending human rights, freedom, and democracy abroad.

In this particular case, this is obvious hypocrisy.

Your imaginary delusions of hypocrisy are not relevant.

[Heisenberg]

How did Chile represent a threat that would be comparable to the October Crisis?

Again, it is not as if Chile was a good place to put nuclear missiles or even support revolutionary groups in Latin America.

Please note that this is the third or fourth time I have asked you this.

Do you really need me to explain to you why the potential for the USSR to gain a foothold in the USA's traditional sphere of influence represented a strategic threat to the USA, even after you've acknowledged that the Domino Theory was the basis for US foreign policy in the Cold War? I do not believe for a second that you are that dense.

It's like asking why the USSR felt the need to intervene on the side of the Viet Cong. It's so obvious that to ask the question is to answer it.

On a side note: coming from a Marxist, the suggestion that a threat to a country's economic interests somehow has no bearing whatsoever on its strategic interests is just hilarious. At this point, you're just being contrarian for its own sake.

Did you read your own OP? What do you call that?

That was nothing but you spilling out your commie fee-fees on the forum for all to see.

It was tender and cute.

Tell me about it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thats an oversimplification to the point of being a strawman. Any regional power going Red could be a potential threat to U.S. interests, especially if it allied itself with the USSR and sponsored troops and bases. You don't think a soviet pacific fleet stationed on Chile's coast would have been viewed as threat to the U.S. vital possession of the panama canal? Don't be daft.

The domino effect was U.S. doctrine yes and so on that grounds alone it would have made the Allende regime a threat.

This concession of yours thus contradicts your remark here:

So this is obviously false.

I have asked four or five times for people to explain exactly what strategic threats could have been posed by a socialist Chile.

Other than the domino effect (which only is only a problem if you find socialism itself threatening), there seems to be none.

So when you say that I “fail to see anything besides a direct threat against the US from the USSR directly as being relevant to that cold war conflict”, this is (a) a strawman, and (b) a way of getting around my question about how Chile may have posed an actual strategic threat.

Are you now arguing that the Soviets would have sent a fleet to Valparaiso?

Did you read your own OP? What do you call that?

That was nothing but you spilling out your commie fee-fees on the forum for all to see.

It was tender and cute.

If you want to read that into my OP, I do not care.

It does not change the fact that justifications are not causes, and the former are irrelevant in a discussion of the latter.

So are we, and the Foreign policy doctrines of the U.S. government are part of that context.

Let me know when this tangent is relevant to the discussion.

Marxism is itself an ideology, so this argument is circular.

It is also a form of analysis.

It even says so in the Wikipedia article on Marxism.

Your imaginary delusions of hypocrisy are not relevant.

It is a fact that the US makes these claims about its foreign policy.

It is a fact that US support of rigt wing dictatorships is a contradiction of these claims.

Of you wish to argue that these two facts are “imaginary delusions”, please do so.

——————————

Do you really need me to explain to you why the potential for the USSR to gain a foothold in the USA's traditional sphere of influence represented a strategic threat to the USA, even after you've acknowledged that the Domino Theory was the basis for US foreign policy in the Cold War? I do not believe for a second that you are that dense.

It's like asking why the USSR felt the need to intervene on the side of the Viet Cong. It's so obvious that to ask the question is to answer it.

On a side note: coming from a Marxist, the suggestion that a threat to a country's economic interests somehow has no bearing whatsoever on its strategic interests is just hilarious. At this point, you're just being contrarian for its own sake.

Tell me about it.

I have asked four or five times for people to explain exactly what strategic threats could have been posed by a socialist Chile.

Other than the domino effect (which only is only a problem if you find socialism itself threatening), there seems to be none.

Calling me dense does not change the fact that you have not explained how a socialist Chile would be a threat.

You simply saying “it would be a threat” repeatedly does not supoort the argument that it would actually be a threat. It is just you repeating your claim.

We already discussed how Chile would be useless as a place to station missiles.

You also seem to be agreeing with me that the economic threats were the important ones.

[SolarCross]

Dead commies are a good in itself, no other reasons are needed.

[Heisenberg]

Oh, look!

I have asked four or five times for people to explain exactly what strategic threats could have been posed by a socialist Chile.

Other than the domino effect (which only is only a problem if you find socialism itself threatening), there seems to be none.

Calling me dense does not change the fact that you have not explained how a socialist Chile would be a threat.

You simply saying “it would be a threat” repeatedly does not supoort the argument that it would actually be a threat. It is just you repeating your claim.

You know the US saw socialism as a threat, because of the Domino Theory. Why you are pretending it was not one? You already wrote in lacrimose fashion about how you want to "smash capitalism to its very foundations, and then destroy those foundations". Clearly, you see socialism as a threat to capitalism. Why shouldn't its ideological opponents?

You also seem to be agreeing with me that the economic threats were the important ones.

There's that word "seem" again.

What I have said repeatedly is that the intervention cannot be divorced from its Cold War context. You claimed to misinterpret this as me saying that Allende wanted a nuclear war. You also claim to believe that economic and strategic interests are vastly different things, despite the fact that such a claim is antithetical to everything Marxists believe.

In short, you are wasting everyone's time in this thread, as per usual.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Oh, look!

In short, you are wasting everyone's time in this thread, as per usual.

This case was particular indicative of such. You could literally see where the break-down occurred and mental wall went up.

At this point, any more conversation would be pointless.

He ended the debate when he started repeating phrases via copy-and-paste after being answered several times by several different posters.

[Pants-of-dog]

You know the US saw socialism as a threat, because of the Domino Theory. Why you are pretending it was not one? You already wrote in lacrimose fashion about how you want to "smash capitalism to its very foundations, and then destroy those foundations". Clearly, you see socialism as a threat to capitalism. Why shouldn't its ideological opponents?

If you are now changing your claim to the argument that the only threat that Chile posed was ideological and economic, then we agree.

Please note that this is a threat directed at capitalism, not the USA.

At this point, you have yet to provide an example of how a socialist Chile would have posed a strategic threat.

The only “strategic threat” mentioned is the Domino theory. You ignored my point that this does not appear in the declassified documents, and only appears in an interview with Nixon after the fact. This evidence shows that the domino theory was more of a justification than a cause. Let me know if you address this.

I also pointed out that even if it were an actual worry, the effect would be to have more socialist countries in Latin America. This itself is not necessarily a strategic threat either, unless you believe that socialism is an existential threat to the US. You have not addressed this either.

There's that word "seem" again.

That is because you are being vague again and so I have to address what you seem to be saying as I am not sure about what you are actually saying.

What I have said repeatedly is that the intervention cannot be divorced from its Cold War context. You claimed to misinterpret this as me saying that Allende wanted a nuclear war. You also claim to believe that economic and strategic interests are vastly different things, despite the fact that such a claim is antithetical to everything Marxists believe.

1. I have analysed this in terms of the Cold War. I have also analyzed this from a Marxist perspective. They are not mutually exclusive.

2. I never thought you were claiming that Allende wanted a nuclear war. This is why I never addressed any such argument.

3. I never claimed that economic and strategic interests were vastly different things. That is a strawman. My claim was the causes for intervention were mainly economic. If you are arguing that the only strategic interests that were important factors were economic ones, then you are agreeing with my claim.

[Heisenberg]

If you are now changing your claim to the argument that the only threat that Chile posed was ideological and economic, then we agree.

Please note that this is a threat directed at capitalism, not the USA.

At this point, you have yet to provide an example of how a socialist Chile would have posed a strategic threat.

The Cold War was a global ideological battle. Chile going socialist and making overtures to the USSR would be Chile - a part of the USA's historic sphere of influence - essentially switching sides. Under the Domino Theory, Chile could then export socialism to other countries in Latin America, and then the USA would be at risk of losing the whole continent to a Soviet-aligned bloc. Whether you believe it or not, the prospect of losing almost an entire hemisphere to a hostile ideological bloc does count as a strategic concern.

You ignored my point that this does not appear in the declassified documents, and only appears in an interview with Nixon after the fact.

Why should this have to be explicitly spelled out in memos at the time? It was the central pillar of US strategy in the Cold War! Do you think without the words "domino theory" appearing in that memo, no one in the Nixon administration would implicitly understand this? Just how dull do you think they were?

also pointed out that even if it were an actual worry, the effect would be to have more socialist countries in Latin America. This itself is not necessarily a strategic threat either, unless you believe that socialism is an existential threat to the US. You have not addressed this either.

I have addressed this, repeatedly. You not understanding why the USA wouldn't be too thrilled at the prospect of a Soviet-aligned bloc from Chile to Mexico is not my burden to explain to you.

And yes, the USA, and the western bloc, did see the communists as an existential threat, for very good reason.

1. I have analysed this in terms of the Cold War. I have also analyzed this from a Marxist perspective. They are not mutually exclusive.

You managed to "analyse" a watershed moment of the Cold War and conclude it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Cold War. From where I'm sitting, that's some seriously avant-garde "analysis".

[Pants-of-dog]

The Cold War was a global ideological battle. Chile going socialist and making overtures to the USSR would be Chile - a part of the USA's historic sphere of influence - essentially switching sides. Under the Domino Theory, Chile could then export socialism to other countries in Latin America, and then the USA would be at risk of losing the whole continent to a Soviet-aligned bloc. Whether you believe it or not, the prospect of losing almost an entire hemisphere to a hostile ideological bloc does count as a strategic concern.

In the sense of communism versus capitalism, I agree that Chile becoming socialist was a threat in that it would be part of a larger movement towards communism in Latin America.

But that is a strategic threat to capitalism as a system. And while a socialist Chile would be part of a larger movement that would eventually pose a threat, Chile by itself is not.

So, while it is correct that a socialist Chile posed a threat to capitalism as part of a larger movement, it is also correct that a socialist Chile posed no strategic threat to the US by itself.

Why should this have to be explicitly spelled out in memos at the time? It was the central pillar of US strategy in the Cold War! Do you think without the words "domino theory" appearing in that memo, no one in the Nixon administration would implicitly understand this? Just how dull do you think they were?

I think that the domino theory is itself incorrect and simplistic, and that Nixon and his crew were, in fact, too smart to think it was an actual concern. I think they also understood its mass appeal.

For example, it ignores nationalist motives when examining revolutions against foreign backed dictatorships.

I have addressed this, repeatedly. You not understanding why the USA wouldn't be too thrilled at the prospect of a Soviet-aligned bloc from Chile to Mexico is not my burden to explain to you.

And yes, the USA, and the western bloc, did see the communists as an existential threat, for very good reason.

Again, you seem to be confusing the threat to capiatlism from a unified socialist bloc in Latin America with the threat to the USA from a socualist Chile.

They are not the same thing.

You managed to "analyse" a watershed moment of the Cold War and conclude it had nothing whatsoever to do with the Cold War. From where I'm sitting, that's some seriously avant-garde "analysis".

Again, I have discussed how the Cold War context was important: as a way of justifying interventions despite the fact that these interventions directly contradicted the US’s stance as a supporter of freedom and democracy.

I also examined the extent of Soviet involvement in Chile at the time precisely because of the Cold War context. The Mitrokhin archives, for example, discuss how Moscow was not too keen on Allende because he was too soft on his opponents. I also provided CIA declassified documents to show that the CIA was aware of Allende’s avoidance of any overt alliance with the USSR.

It also stands to reason that Moscow would want Allende to fail because he also represented a threat to the authoritarian model of socialism that was present in Europe at the time. If I can see that, I think Nixon would also see it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, while it is correct that a socialist Chile posed a threat to capitalism as part of a larger movement, it is also correct that a socialist Chile posed no strategic threat to the US by itself.

Yeah, but the U.S. viewed itself as the embodiment and defender of capitalism, which goes to the point of the domino theory as being part of policy doctrine.

The U.S. viewed a threat to capitalism in general as a national security threat in particular, and there is overlap, as has been discussed already.

I think that the domino theory is itself incorrect and simplistic, and that Nixon and his crew were, in fact, too smart to think it was an actual concern. I think they also understood its mass appeal.

For example, it ignores nationalist motives when examining revolutions against foreign backed dictatorships.

This may all be true, but no one is discussing the correctness of the view necessarily, all that is being discussed in this thread is whether or not it was a factor in the U.S.'s action. It clearly was.

Again, you seem to be confusing the threat to capiatlism from a unified socialist bloc in Latin America with the threat to the USA from a socualist Chile.

They are not the same thing.

No one said they were, the point is that a socialist Chile could result, according to the domino theory, in a socialist bloc in Latin America eventually, thus Chile going Red was by definition a threat to capitalism and therefore the U.S. according to the Domino doctrine.

It also stands to reason that Moscow would want Allende to fail because he also represented a threat to the authoritarian model of socialism that was present in Europe at the time. If I can see that, I think Nixon would also see it.

This is a bit of a stretch to say that the USSR wanted them to fail, that is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

That Allende being democratically elected was not particular compatible with USSR political theory may only be true inasmuch as the Soviets would want a guaranteed permanent ally like they had in Cuba and free-elections allow for the possibility of a future flip; however, even if that were conceded, it still does not preclude the fact that Allende being socialist was itself a sufficient concern for the U.S. given the domino doctrine regarding the spread of international socialism.

[Red_Army]

The fact that "the US"(read: Henry Kissinger) felt a certain way doesn't mean that was the reality or that it was the correct response. Schizos are constantly reacting to the way they feel things are and getting sent to jail for it. Kissinger should probably be vivisected for his crimes

[Victoribus Spolia]

The fact that "the US"(read: Henry Kissinger) felt a certain way doesn't mean that was the reality or that it was the correct response.

Correct.

Incidentally, no one is making that argument.

So thanks for showing up and contributing to this thread the grand total of..........*drum roll*.......... Nothing.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

Interesting comments;

Yeah, but the U.S. viewed itself as the embodiment and defender of capitalism, which goes to the point of the domino theory as being part of policy doctrine.

I happen to agree that this is in fact the case regarding the US and Capitalism, so much so that it seems to dovetail nicely with my theory regarding the final phase of Capitalism being Anarcho-Capitalism.

The U.S. viewed a threat to capitalism in general as a national security threat in particular, and there is overlap, as has been discussed already.

Yes, and quite frankly too. The United States was and is in fact an embodiment of Capitalism as the Soviet Union was an embodiment of Communism.

This may all be true, but no one is discussing the correctness of the view necessarily, all that is being discussed in this thread is whether or not it was a factor in the U.S.'s action. It clearly was.

Part of what might be useful here is separating the wheat from the chaff and understanding that only some here are interested in pearl clutching and pretending to be offended at offenses against democracy. Others are more honest. Who here believes in representative democracy? I sure as hell don't, whatever I really am politically.



N

o one said they were, the point is that a socialist Chile could result, according to the domino theory, in a socialist bloc in Latin America eventually, thus Chile going Red was by definition a threat to capitalism and therefore the U.S. according to the Domino doctrine.

Yes, and this is the reason for Fascism.

This is a bit of a stretch to say that the USSR wanted them to fail, that is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

That Allende being democratically elected was not particular compatible with USSR political theory may only be true inasmuch as the Soviets would want a guaranteed permanent ally like they had in Cuba and free-elections allow for the possibility of a future flip; however, even if that were conceded, it still does not preclude the fact that Allende being socialist was itself a sufficient concern for the U.S. given the domino doctrine regarding the spread of international socialism.

The irony being that by the time of Allende's overthrow, the Soviet Union was being run by revisionists who were busy slowly transitioning things back into a Capitalist system, and already Cuba was protecting the Oil Companies property in places like Angola, as I think I recall.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yeah, but the U.S. viewed itself as the embodiment and defender of capitalism, which goes to the point of the domino theory as being part of policy doctrine.

The U.S. viewed a threat to capitalism in general as a national security threat in particular, and there is overlap, as has been discussed already.

I have never heard the US claim it was the defender of capitalism. I mean, it obviously is, but the politicians use rhetoric of democracy and freedom. They rarely come out and explicitly admit to defending capitalism.

Also, no one in this thread has shown how a threat to capitalism is a threat to the US.

This may all be true, but no one is discussing the correctness of the view necessarily, all that is being discussed in this thread is whether or not it was a factor in the U.S.'s action. It clearly was.

...and then I went on to discuss how it was a factor. Specifically, I pointed oit how it was a justification after the fact rather than a significant and immediate cause.

No one said they were, the point is that a socialist Chile could result, according to the domino theory, in a socialist bloc in Latin America eventually, thus Chile going Red was by definition a threat to capitalism and therefore the U.S. according to the Domino doctrine.

Yes, you guys definitely confused the two.

In fact, it seems that your entire argument is that the two are the same.

This is a bit of a stretch to say that the USSR wanted them to fail, that is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.

It is logical.

It is consistent with the evidence.

It is consistent with the self interests of the agents of action.

And it explains the lack of support from the USSR.

That Allende being democratically elected was not particular compatible with USSR political theory may only be true inasmuch as the Soviets would want a guaranteed permanent ally like they had in Cuba and free-elections allow for the possibility of a future flip; however, even if that were conceded, it still does not preclude the fact that Allende being socialist was itself a sufficient concern for the U.S. given the domino doctrine regarding the spread of international socialism.

No, it does not show that the Allende (because of the Domino theory) was actually a real problem, or even that Nixon and his crew thought it was.

Also, @Red_Army was almost certainly alluding to Kissinger’s famous quote about the coup.

“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

I assume that Red Army meant that Kissinger was incorrect when he said this, and that Kissinger is guilty of serious crimes.

[annatar1914]

@Pants-of-dog

POD you said this;

Also, no one in this thread has shown how a threat to capitalism is a threat to the US.

The United States of America has become the very embodiment and and major consumer market of late-stage Capitalism, guarding the seaways and airways for global commerce, and it's money is the world's reserve currency. Communist thinkers have always believed that Capitalism will collapse, and I do not think that the United States would survive such a collapse. On the contrary, it will be more true in the future to say that in the United States Capitalism managed to make the full transition to Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

[Red_Army]

Ok @Victoribus Spolia as long as you help me vivisect H Kiss I'm down.

Obviously there's no argument to be had here and no one will "contribute". There are those of us who think Allende was good and Pinochet was bad and the chuds who think the opposite. What reasoned debate will resolve this ultimate disparity?

[Sivad]

There are those of us who think Allende was good and Pinochet was bad and the chuds who think the opposite.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee agreed to have a battle...

There are also those who have honestly looked at it and found that it's complicated.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is not a complicated situation.

The US saw a threat to its economic interests.

It used its state apparatus to create a coup, protecting its economic interests and enforcing neoliberalism at gunpoint.