[Sivad]

How Middle-Class Chileans Contributed to the Overthrow of Salvador Allende

The roles of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Chilean elites, the Chicago Boys, and the Chilean military in the coup that overthrew Allende and the neoliberal transformation of Chile under Pinochet have been well-documented and widely studied. There have, however, been few studies of the role of the middle class, which served as the mass base of the counterrevolution. Yet this angry middle-class mob was one of the central features of the Chilean political scene leading up to the coup.

After the coup of September 11, progressive analysis of the event and actions leading up to it focused on the role of the United States, which was seen as directing or working intimately with Pinochet and the leadership of the National and Christian Democratic parties. That a counterrevolutionary mass base had been central in the overthrow tended to be omitted, or if it wasn’t, the tendency was to regard it as largely a force manipulated by the CIA and the elites.

The reality, however, was that, contrary to the prevailing explanations of the coup, which attributed Pinochet’s success to US intervention and the CIA, the counterrevolution was already there prior to the US destabilization efforts; that it was largely determined by internal class dynamics; and that the Chilean elites were able to connect with middle-class sectors terrified by the prospect of poor sectors rising up with their agenda of justice and equality.

In short, the US intervention was successful because it was inserted into an ongoing counterrevolutionary process. CIA destabilization was just one of the factors that contributed to the victory of the right, not the decisive one. This was not something that progressives wanted to hear then, since many wanted a simple black-and-white picture, that is, that the overthrow of Allende was orchestrated from the outside, by the United States. Being of the left, I could understand why politics demanded such a portrayal of events. Being a sociologist, I realized that the situation was much more nuanced.
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-m ... r-allende/

[Pants-of-dog]

You don't.

He attempted to create a gulag state without popular support so it wasn't democratic or socialist.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you. I suggest looking at the Mitrokhin archives.

The US baked the Chilean fascists. The Chilean fascists instituted a capitalist dictatorship.

Yes. Exactly.

It's pretty funny that you have no idea how a major coup in your own country came about.

Evidence for the claim that they suborned the press:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Merc ... oup_d'état

The paper played "a significant role in setting the stage for the military coup" which took place on 11 September 1973, bringing General Augusto Pinochet to power. It mobilised opponents of President Salvador Allende and the gremio movement to be active in destabilisation from the street, while also advocating the neoliberal policies of the yet-to-come Chicago Boys.[1]

CIA funding
El Mercurio received funds from the CIA in the early 1970s to undermine the Socialist government of Salvador Allende, acting as a mouthpiece for anti-Allende propaganda.[2]

Declassified documents that detail US interventions in Chile revealed the paper's role,[3] and the extent of the paper’s cooperation with the CIA:


“Throughout the 1960s, the CIA poured funds into Chile’s largest—and staunchly right-wing—newspaper, El Mercurio, putting reporters and editors on the payroll, writing articles and columns for placement and providing additional funds for operating expenses. After the paper’s owner, Agustín Edwards came to Washington in September 1970 to lobby Nixon for action against Allende, the CIA used El Mercurio as a key outlet for a massive propaganda campaign as part of Track I and Track II. Throughout Allende’s aborted tenure, the paper continued an unyielding campaign, running countless virulent, inflammatory articles and editorials exhorting opposition against—and at times even calling for the overthrow of—the Popular Unity government. " [4] (p. 91-92)


Support reached to the highest levels of the US government. When the paper requested significant funds for covert support in September 1971, “...in a rare example of presidential micromanagement of a covert operation, Nixon personally authorized the $700,000—and more if necessary—in covert funds to El Mercurio.” [4] (p. 93)

Evidence for torture and death camps:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Grimaldi

Villa Grimaldi is considered the most important of DINA’s (Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional, the Chilean secret police) many complexes that were used for the interrogation and torture of political prisoners during the governance of Augusto Pinochet.[1] It is located at Avenida José Arrieta 8200 (now 8401) in Peñalolén, on the outskirts of Santiago, and was in operation from mid-1974 to mid-1978. About 4,500 detainees were brought to Villa Grimaldi during this time, at least 240 of whom "disappeared" or were killed by DINA. It was also the location of the headquarters of the Metropolitan Intelligence Brigade (BIM).[2] The head of Villa Grimaldi during the Pinochet dictatorship, Marcelo Moren Brito, was later convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to more than 300 years in prison.[3][4]

Evidence for increase of wealth for US corporations:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITT_Inc ... p_in_Chile

Involvement in 1973 Pinochet coup in Chile Edit
In 1970, ITT owned 70% of CTC (the Chilean Telephone Company, now Movistar Chile) and funded El Mercurio, a Chilean right-wing newspaper. Declassified documents released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in 2000 reveal that the company financially helped opponents of Salvador Allende's government prepare a military coup.[23][24][25] On September 28, 1973, an ITT building in New York City, was bombed by the Weather Underground for involvement in the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, which overthrew the government in Chile.[26][27]

The hilarious thing is that ITT could have been compensated when they were nationalised by Allende, but then Allende found out about the CIA involvement and just natuonalised it with no recompense because of the whole plotting with a foreign government to overthrow democratically elected leaders.

[Sivad]

He attempted to create a gulag state without popular support so it wasn't democratic or socialist.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Supreme Court's resolution
On 26 May 1973, the Supreme Court of Chile unanimously denounced the Allende government's disruption of the legality of the nation in its failure to uphold judicial decisions, because of its continual refusal to permit police execution of judicial decisions contrary to the government's own measures.

Chamber of Deputies' resolution
On 22 August 1973, the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies joined together to vote 81 to 47 in favor of a resolution that asked the authorities to "put an immediate end" to "breach[es of] the Constitution…with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of law and ensuring the Constitutional order of our Nation, and the essential underpinnings of democratic co-existence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that Allende's government sought "to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State... [with] the goal of establishing... a totalitarian system" and claimed that the government had made "violations of the Constitution... a permanent system of conduct." Essentially, most of the accusations were about disregard by the Socialist government of the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government.

Specifically, the Socialist government of President Allende was accused of:

Ruling by decree, thwarting the normal legislative system
Refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its partisans; not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravened its objectives
Ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
Sundry media offenses; usurping control of the National Television Network and applying economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government
Allowing its Socialist supporters to assemble with arms, and preventing the same by its right-wing opponents
Supporting more than 1,500 illegal takeovers of farms
Illegal repression of the El Teniente miners' strike
Illegally limiting emigration

Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected [socialist] armed groups, which were said to be "headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces". President Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_ ... resolution

[One Degree]

People are oppressed in proportion to centralized control. It makes no difference what the economic or political ideology is. Those are just smokescreens for the different people who want to control you.
On a community level, it makes no difference whether you help the unfortunate through government programs or private charity. The ideological differences are only important to power brokers on which method to use for control on a larger level.
Cuba has proven nothing one way or the other because there are no real differences to prove on a level real people care about.

[Pants-of-dog]

Supreme Court's resolution
On 26 May 1973, the Supreme Court of Chile unanimously denounced the Allende government's disruption of the legality of the nation in its failure to uphold judicial decisions, because of its continual refusal to permit police execution of judicial decisions contrary to the government's own measures.

Chamber of Deputies' resolution
On 22 August 1973, the Christian Democrats and the National Party members of the Chamber of Deputies joined together to vote 81 to 47 in favor of a resolution that asked the authorities to "put an immediate end" to "breach[es of] the Constitution…with the goal of redirecting government activity toward the path of law and ensuring the Constitutional order of our Nation, and the essential underpinnings of democratic co-existence among Chileans."

The resolution declared that Allende's government sought "to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State... [with] the goal of establishing... a totalitarian system" and claimed that the government had made "violations of the Constitution... a permanent system of conduct." Essentially, most of the accusations were about disregard by the Socialist government of the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government.

Specifically, the Socialist government of President Allende was accused of:

Ruling by decree, thwarting the normal legislative system
Refusing to enforce judicial decisions against its partisans; not carrying out sentences and judicial resolutions that contravened its objectives
Ignoring the decrees of the independent General Comptroller's Office
Sundry media offenses; usurping control of the National Television Network and applying economic pressure against those media organizations that are not unconditional supporters of the government
Allowing its Socialist supporters to assemble with arms, and preventing the same by its right-wing opponents
Supporting more than 1,500 illegal takeovers of farms
Illegal repression of the El Teniente miners' strike
Illegally limiting emigration

Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected [socialist] armed groups, which were said to be "headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces". President Allende's efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterized as "notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_ ... resolution

Do you read Spanish?

Because Allende’s formal reply is on Spanish.

Oh wait, it is in the same Wikipedia article you quoted, and you ignored it because it disproves your claims.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvado ... s_response

Two days later, on 24 August 1973, President Allende responded,[99] characterising the Congress's declaration as "destined to damage the country’s prestige abroad and create internal confusion", predicting "It will facilitate the seditious intention of certain sectors." He noted that the declaration (passed 81–47 in the Chamber of Deputies) had not obtained the two-thirds Senate majority "constitutionally required" to convict the president of abuse of power: essentially, the Congress were "invoking the intervention of the armed forces and of Order against a democratically-elected government" and "subordinat[ing] political representation of national sovereignty to the armed institutions, which neither can nor ought to assume either political functions or the representation of the popular will."

Allende argued he had obeyed constitutional means for including military men to the cabinet at the service of civic peace and national security, defending republican institutions against insurrection and terrorism. In contrast, he said that Congress was promoting a coup d’état or a civil war with a declaration full of affirmations that had already been refuted beforehand and which, in substance and process (directly handing it to the ministers rather than directly handing it to the President) violated a dozen articles of the (then-current) Constitution. He further argued that the legislature was usurping the government's executive function.

President Allende wrote: "Chilean democracy is a conquest by all of the people. It is neither the work nor the gift of the exploiting classes, and it will be defended by those who, with sacrifices accumulated over generations, have imposed it...With a tranquil conscience...I sustain that never before has Chile had a more democratic government than that over which I have the honor to preside...I solemnly reiterate my decision to develop democracy and a state of law to their ultimate consequences...Congress has made itself a bastion against the transformations...and has done everything it can to perturb the functioning of the finances and of the institutions, sterilizing all creative initiatives."

Adding that economic and political means would be needed to relieve the country's current crisis, and that the Congress were obstructing said means; having already paralyzed the State, they sought to destroy it. He concluded by calling upon the workers, all democrats and patriots to join him in defending the Chilean Constitution and the revolutionary process.

And he was right.

They did end supporting a coup d’état that destroyed Chilean democracy.

Anyway, if your only evidence of Allende’s totalitarianism is the unsupported accusations of his enemies, then you have hearsay. Now that we have addressed what other people said about Allende, do you have any facts about what Allende actually did that support your accusations?

Also, I see that you have no argument with the CIA using the press against Allnede to support their coup. I assume we then agree that media can be an important ally to foreign governments who want to overthrow your country. Which then makes Cuban suspicion of journalists quite understandable.

[Sivad]

and you ignored it because it disproves your claims.

How do you figure it "disproves" anything? All would-be dictators make excuses and offer bogus justifications for their constitutional violations and power abuses, I wouldn't expect anything less from a gulagist like Allende.

They did end supporting a coup d’état that destroyed Chilean democracy.

I noticed you ignored the article I posted above that explains how the CIA didn't instigate anything, there was already mass opposition to Allende. The middle classes weren't going to allow themselves to be forced into a gulag, they understood exactly what Allende was and where he was trying to take them.

Anyway, if your only evidence of Allende’s totalitarianism is the unsupported accusations of his enemies, then you have hearsay.

He was denounced by his own supreme court and nearly a super majority of parliament(81 to 47 vote).

Also, I see that you have no argument with the CIA using the press against Allnede to support their coup.

The CIA provided financial support to opposition media, but opposition media was already openly repudiating Allende's government long before the CIA got involved.

I assume we then agree that media can be an important ally to foreign governments who want to overthrow your country. Which then makes Cuban suspicion of journalists quite understandable.

Yeah, your brand of gulagism is wildly unpopular with the educated, literate middle classes, it can't compete in the market place of ideas so it has to ruthlessly suppress all criticism and dissent. It can't survive democracy, it can't survive a free press, and it can't survive a free society. We all get why the gulagists do it, but only wacky commie kids think it's a valid excuse.

[Pants-of-dog]

How do you figure it "disproves" anything? All would-be dictators make excuses and offer bogus justifications for their constitutional violations and power abuses, I wouldn't expect anything less from a gulagist like Allende.

Because it shows that what he did was perfectly legal according to the Chilean constitution, while the actions of the congresspeople who opposed him led to the dictatorship and the human rights abuses associated with the dictatorship.

I noticed you ignored the article I posted above that explains how the CIA didn't instigate anything, there was already mass opposition to Allende. The middle classes weren't going to allow themselves to be forced into a gulag, they understood exactly what Allende was and where he was trying to take them.

Actually, the article says:

How Middle-Class Chileans Contributed to the Overthrow of Salvador Allende
American intervention was one factor leading to the Chilean coup—but unrest on the part of middle-class Chileans was another.
By Walden Bello

Orlando Letelier’s essay on the Chicago Boys and their role in the brutal neoliberal transformation of Chile has withstood the test of time. A few weeks before his assassination, Letelier was able to capture in detail the misery to which the Chilean disciples of Milton Friedman had visited on his country and accurately spelled out what they still had in store for it. The irony, he noted, is that Friedman and the Chicago Boys might have been driven by free-market doctrine, but the end result of their policies was to further the monopolization of the economy by the Chilean capitalist class.

Another ironic fact that Letelier pointed to was that among the victims of these doctrinaire policies was the Chilean middle class, which had been played a key role in the overthrow of Salvador Allende.

The roles of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Chilean elites, the Chicago Boys, and the Chilean military in the coup that overthrew Allende and the neoliberal transformation of Chile under Pinochet have been well-documented and widely studied. There have, however, been few studies of the role of the middle class, which served as the mass base of the counterrevolution. Yet this angry middle-class mob was one of the central features of the Chilean political scene leading up to the coup.

.....

In other words, the author of the article you cited assumes that the reader is already well aware of CIA involvement in the coup.

But if you need further evidence of CIA involvement:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... cle03.html

Genesis
So sure were senior US officials that Salvador Allende and his coalition would be defeated in the September 1970 election, as he had been three times previously, that, despite CIA warnings, they were caught off-guard when he won a plurality. Undeterred by the voters’ preference, President Richard Nixon delivered a clear and forceful Directive calling for expanded CIA operations in Chile. In the weeks between Allende’s election and his inauguration planned for 3 November, the CIA actively sought to foment a coup in Chile. Washington was unequivocal about its desire to keep Allende from power.

American actions against the Allende government occurred in what Nixon’s National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, called the “Autumn of Crises.” [3] The Soviet Union was actively threatening American national security in several different arenas. Soviet missiles and technicians had been moved into Egypt. The rest of the Middle East was in chaos—Israeli attacks against its Arab neighbors were increasing daily, and Syria had attacked its supposed ally, Jordan. At the beginning of September, a large Soviet flotilla had arrived in Cienfuegos, Cuba: There was suspicion that the Soviets had designs on this harbor as a new submarine base in the Western Hemisphere. At a more global level, Washington was struggling to maintain momentum in the negotiations for the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty.

It was in this framework of global power plays between the Soviet Union and the United States that the White House had to deal with the election of a Marxist-oriented government in Chile. On 15 September 1970, President Nixon called Kissinger, Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Richard Helms, and Attorney General John Mitchell into the Oval Office to provide executive guidance for US policy toward Chile and Allende. William Colby—then Deputy Director, later Director, of the CIA—noted that “Nixon was furious” and was convinced that an Allende presidency would ensure the spread of Cuban President Fidel Castro’s communist revolution to Chile and the rest of Latin America. [4] He wanted to prevent Allende from being inaugurated. The message he delivered at the meeting reflected his anger. The handwritten minutes taken by DCI Helms are revealing:

One in 10 chance, perhaps, but save Chile:
Worth Spending Not concerned risks involved No involvement of Embassy $10,000,000 available, more if necessary full-time job—best men we have game plan make the economy scream 48 hours plan of action. [5]

Please note that I am citing the CIA website.

He was denounced by his own supreme court and nearly a super majority of parliament(81 to 47 vote).

And since they did not have the required number of votes to pass this resolution, it was not legally binding.

The CIA provided financial support to opposition media, but opposition media was already openly repudiating Allende's government long before the CIA got involved.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Also, how aware are you if the classist nature of Chilean society at the time? It seems that you have no clue.

Yeah, your brand of gulagism is wildly unpopular with the educated, literate middle classes, it can't compete in the market place of ideas so it has to ruthlessly suppress all criticism and dissent. It can't survive democracy, it can't survive a free press, and it can't survive a free society. We all get why the gulagists do it, but only wacky commie kids think it's a valid excuse.

Ignoring my point and going on about how mean the big meanies are is not an argument.

Now, you have accused Allende of running gulags. You have also argued that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Logically, this means you need to prove that Allende was running gulags.

So far, all you have is one failed legislative motion.

[Sivad]

Because it shows that what he did was perfectly legal according to the Chilean constitution, while the actions of the congresspeople who opposed him led to the dictatorship and the human rights abuses associated with the dictatorship.

It shows he claimed what he did was legal, but the Supreme Court and the Legislature strongly disagreed.

In other words, the author of the article you cited assumes that the reader is already well aware of CIA involvement in the coup.

That's not in dispute. Why don't you stop attacking straw men and try honestly addressing the fact that there was an intense and sustained mass opposition to Allende's politics long before the CIA ever got involved.

But if you need further evidence of CIA involvement

And since they did not have the required number of votes to pass this resolution, it was not legally binding.

They were short of a super majority by a few votes.

Now, you have accused Allende of running gulags.

No I haven't. You just made that up.

Logically, this means you need to prove that Allende was running gulags.

So far, all you have is one failed legislative motion.

I have a congressional resolution that passed by an overwhelming margin. I guess it did fail to get a super majority by three votes, but that's still a pretty fucking powerful repudiation of Allende. Oh, and let's not forget the unanimous Supreme Court denunciation, the mass unrest, and the successful coup. If nothing else, Allende was a totally inept and incompetent politician.

[Pants-of-dog]

It shows he claimed what he did was legal, but the Supreme Court and the Legislature strongly disagreed.

And that is perfectly fine. People are alowed to disagree with democratically elected leaders. One could even say it is a duty.

But please note that merely being disagreed with does not make a leader a totalitarian.

That's not in dispute. Why don't you stop attacking straw men and try honestly addressing the fact that there was an intense and sustained mass opposition to Allende's politics long before the CIA ever got involved.

It must have been someone else who claimed “the CIA didn’t instigate anything”.

I never said there was not opposition to Allende. There was a lot, especially from the owners of the latifundios who stood to lose a lot of land. There was also a lot of resistance from the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, since Allende was directly challenging the class system. How does this support your claim that Allende was totalitarian?

They were short of a super majority by a few votes.

Right. The elites and the aristocrats were almost successful. But they failed.

No I haven't. You just made that up.

Then what is your claim? You have made repeated commnets about gulagism in regards to Allende and his followers. You said the attempted to create a gulag state. If this does not mean that you think Allende was a totalitarian, then please clarify your claim.

I have a congressional resolution that passed by an overwhelming margin. I guess it did fail to get a super majority by three votes, but that's still a pretty fucking powerful repudiation of Allende. Oh, and let's not forget the unanimous Supreme Court denunciation, the mass unrest, and the successful coup. If nothing else, Allende was a totally inept and incompetent politician.

Actually, he won the election. He was not capable of protecting his socialist project from foreign intervention. But to do that, he would have had to restrict the freedom of the press, restrict guns to the working class, deport large numbers of people who supported the oppressive capitalist class system, and generally do all the things that make you so upset.

It seems you want a socialist leader who magically never has to do anything to defend socialism. This is, of course, impossible in a world where the US exists.

[Sivad]

And that is perfectly fine. People are alowed to disagree with democratically elected leaders. One could even say it is a duty.

But please note that merely being disagreed with does not make a leader a totalitarian.

The Supreme Court and the Legislature aren't just spouting off opinions, they're the ultimate legal authorities instituted to maintain the rule of law and check executive power. It's pretty dishonest to pretend like the unanimous Supreme Court denunciation and the strong condemnation from a near supermajority of congress were just mere opinions, but then you're not a very honest thinker and you don't have much of case to begin with so this sort of bullshit is to be expected from you.

It must have been someone else who claimed “the CIA didn’t instigate anything”

They didn't. They did back the coup, but they didn't start it.

I never said there was not opposition to Allende. There was a lot, especially from the owners of the latifundios who stood to lose a lot of land. There was also a lot of resistance from the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, since Allende was directly challenging the class system.

There was mass opposition from a large middle class, even his UP party never had more than 46% of the vote.

Right. The elites and the aristocrats were almost successful. But they failed.

They failed? I'd say it was Allende that ultimately failed. Epic fail.

Then what is your claim? You have made repeated commnets about gulagism in regards to Allende and his followers. You said the attempted to create a gulag state. If this does not mean that you think Allende was a totalitarian, then please clarify your claim.

I think he was definitely a gulagist at heart, he was certainly heading in that direction. He kept close council with Castro and the other major gulag powers, and he had total disregard for the rule of law and democratic consent. He had to resort to anti-democratic, extralegal, authoritarian measures because he didn't have the support of the majority or a democratic mandate. It was unfortunate but it seems the Chilean people were going to wind up in a gulag regardless. Whether it was an Allende gulag or a Pinochet gulag there's not much difference.

Actually, he won the election.

Actually nobody won the election, Allende only had a narrow plurality and was only confirmed by a congressional vote. The election was held "using the absolute majority system, under which a candidate had to receive over 50% of the popular vote to be elected. If no candidate received over 50% of the vote, both houses of the National Congress would come together to vote on the two candidates that received the most votes."

He was not capable of protecting his socialist project from foreign intervention. But to do that, he would have had to restrict the freedom of the press, restrict guns to the working class, deport large numbers of people who supported the oppressive capitalist class system, and generally do all the things that make you so upset.

Yeah, gulagism is never justified. But he didn't lose his project to foreign intervention, he lost it to popular dissent that would have turned into mass insurrection had he been allowed to continue.

It seems you want a socialist leader

I don't want a dear leader at all. Civil liberty is nonnegotiable, I wouldn't trade it for anything and certainly not for three hots and a cot in some gulag state.

who magically never has to do anything to defend socialism. This is, of course, impossible in a world where the US exists.

Once you erect a gulag state you've effectively killed socialism anyway. That's what fake socialists like yourself just don't understand.

[Negotiator]

So he's guilty by association, which makes no sense whatsoever, and he's guilty because the dictator that came after him did concentration camps thus it must have been his own wish, too, which also makes no sense.

Allende was in power for three years, between 1970 and 1973. Thats was plenty of time. So if he wanted to do concentration camps, then why didnt he ?

[Pants-of-dog]

The Supreme Court and the Legislature aren't just spouting off opinions, they're the ultimate legal authorities instituted to maintain the rule of law and check executive power. It's pretty dishonest to pretend like the unanimous Supreme Court denunciation and the strong condemnation from a near supermajority of congress were just mere opinions, but then you're not a very honest thinker and you don't have much of case to begin with so this sort of bullshit is to be expected from you.

Okay.

What legally binding power did they have in that instance?

Please refer to the Chilean constitution to back up your claims.

They didn't. They did back the coup, but they didn't start it.

Since they had been working to oust Allende for years before the coup happened, and laid the economic and political groundwork for the coup, they instigated it.

There was mass opposition from a large middle class, even his UP party never had more than 46% of the vote.

I never said there was not opposition to Allende. There was a lot, especially from the owners of the latifundios who stood to lose a lot of land. There was also a lot of resistance from the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy, since Allende was directly challenging the class system.

They failed? I'd say it was Allende that ultimately failed. Epic fail.

They failed to oust Allende through legal means. When that failed, they got in bed with the CIA and Kissinger, and put together a capitalist dictatorship that you are now defending.

I think he was definitely a gulagist at heart, he was certainly heading in that direction. He kept close council with Castro and the other major gulag powers, and he had total disregard for the rule of law and democratic consent. He had to resort to anti-democratic, extralegal, authoritarian measures because he didn't have the support of the majority or a democratic mandate. It was unfortunate but it seems the Chilean people were going to wind up in a gulag regardless. Whether it was an Allende gulag or a Pinochet gulag there's not much difference.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Actually nobody won the election, Allende only had a narrow plurality and was only confirmed by a congressional vote. The election was held "using the absolute majority system, under which a candidate had to receive over 50% of the popular vote to be elected. If no candidate received over 50% of the vote, both houses of the National Congress would come together to vote on the two candidates that received the most votes."

...which Allende won.

Yeah, gulagism is never justified. But he didn't lose his project to foreign intervention, he lost it to popular dissent that would have turned into mass insurrection had he been allowed to continue.

Now, you are ignoring actual CIA declassified papers that show that Allende was overthrown in a coup put together by the CIA and supported by the CIA. Why are you defending how the CIA supports dictatorships abroad?

I don't want a dear leader at all. Civil liberty is nonnegotiable, I wouldn't trade it for anything and certainly not for three hots and a cot in some gulag state.

Once you erect a gulag state you've effectively killed socialism anyway. That's what fake socialists like yourself just don't understand.

According to this logic, there never has been socialism and there never will be. Becuase of your feelings, apparently.

[QatzelOk]

I lived in one.

Then the US capitalists came and destroyed it. They used the free press to undermine democracy. They did not worry about gun control becuase they co-opted the military. They stuck people in gulags.

I am living proof that capitalism is imperialistic.

As is my wife. She is part of a nation that also had the military and police sent after them to kill them all in the name of capitalism. Now they have to pay to live on their own land, those who are lucky enough to still do so. Most has to leave.

You really should read Eduardo Galeano’s trilogy if you think capitalism is not imperialistic. Or read the news about MENA countries. When was the last time that capitalists were not at war?

Virtually all First Nations (and Inuit) were socialist to the point of communist. The most violent of the cultures were the agricultural cultures - and this seems to suggest that ALL TECHNOLOGIES (including agriculture) ruin the natural human trait of sharing and empathy.

Meanwhile, under capitalism, 110 nations in North America were genocided to build railways, and today capitalist countries are killing millions of Arabs to get fuel for cars (having abandoned the railways they genocided the First Nations to build).

More technology. More genocide. Less future for all animals.

Cuba has less technology than capitalist countries, which means that they are happier and free-er to be human beings. Other animals are also safer and free-er to be themselves (dogs sleep on the roads).

First Nations also enjoyed this freedom before capitalism poisoned this continent.

They didn't. They did back the coup, but they didn't start it.

So the CIA didn't start this coup, and you know this, because... you were there? They just "backed it," meaning that the CIA wore cheerleading outfits and yelled "Give us a C! You gotta C" while other, non-CIA performed all the dirty work?

The CIA are the illegal mafia part of the USA elite. Their very existence is a human atrocity.

[skinster]

[One Degree]

https://twitter.com/littlecuckball/status/997296811269345280

Yes, we should shoot them down in the streets instead of our ‘inhuman’ incarceration. Lol.
Oh wait, you object to shooting them too. What do you suggest we do with our sociopaths? Why don’t you adopt one and see what truly fun loving beings they are?

[skinster]

[QatzelOk]

Yes, we should shoot them down in the streets instead of our ‘inhuman’ incarceration. Lol.
Oh wait, you object to shooting them too. What do you suggest we do with our sociopaths? Why don’t you adopt one and see what truly fun loving beings they are?

If that great a number of USA citizens are sociopaths, then you should really ask yourself how competent your governments have been over the last 2 centuries. Were they 'lie, kill and steal' governments, or 'organize and preserve?'

[One Degree]

If that great a number of USA citizens are sociopaths, then you should really ask yourself how competent your governments have been over the last 2 centuries. Were they 'lie, kill and steal' governments, or 'organize and preserve?'

It is estimated there are 12 million sociopaths in the US. There are only 1.5 million people in prison.
Figuring out why they are sociopaths and getting them off the streets should be two separate discussions. Figuring out why and correcting it has no effect on the already damaged. They just need removed.
Especially the ones that are politicians.

[QatzelOk]

It is estimated there are 12 million sociopaths in the US. There are only 1.5 million people in prison.
Figuring out why they are sociopaths and getting them off the streets should be two separate discussions. Figuring out why and correcting it has no effect on the already damaged. They just need removed.
Especially the ones that are politicians.

But the political class are mostly just social-climbers who work FOR sociopaths who are a thousand times richer and more powerful. If you 'remove' the avatars of the rich, they will just find shiny new ones (like Obama).

The biggest sociopaths in the USA are the leaders of its sick society and crass commercial culture. Good luck 'removing' them before they 'remove' you or any hope you might have left.

[Sivad]