Sivad wrote:The one follows from the other.
Hmm. You seem to have forgotten that you are discussing
three things.
If the veto was in violation of the constitution then the nationalization was illegal,
No, as the veto was for an amendment to the nationalisation law that would regulate said law. The nationalisation would still be legal. It would just be regulated.
as was the disregard of court rulings.
Whether or not the refusal to carry out court orders was illegal or unconstitutional, this has nothing to do with the veto.
So it doesn't really matter if the final resolution was shy of a supermajority by three votes,
And finally, the motion was also not related to the veto or the refusal to carry out judicial orders, except insofar as all three were attacks against his presidency and his attempts to democratically institute socialism, and that each previous attack became a justification for the next one.
To be honest, Dorta is a little unclear here, but hey, English is not his first language and he is not a scholar.
Allende was clearly abusing his executive power. His presidency was lawless and undemocratic and his countrymen did what all good citizens should do with a tyrant.
Actually, he was attempting to give control of the means of the production to the working class while simultaneously following a legal system designed by the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats. This is, unfortunately, the burden of democratic socialism: to use the system against itself.
The vast majority of what he did was legal and constitutional.
His use of Decrees of Insistence were no different from any POTUS’s use of executive orders.
In fact, the only thing that he did that is arguably illegal was to selectively enforce court penalties. The correct response, in that situation, is to impeach the head of state and preserve government continuity, not get a foreign government to conspire with the military to install an authoritarian regime.
Apparently, you believe that “what all good citizens should do with a tyrant“ is sell out to a foreign government and get an even worse tyrant.
Everything else you wrote is just crap. You're being deliberately obtuse and there's no sense arguing with that.
Another personal attack. One point for me!
So you have no rebuttal for the following:
The Christian Democratic party (CD) changed its support from Allende to Pinochet between 1970 and 1973. Did you know they expected Pinochet to hand power to them after the coup?
Allende did not create parallel bureaucratic and military structures. In fact, he only started to
try to do so when it became apparent that the military and bureaucracy were literally conspiring to impose an authoritarian state.
And this is, in fact, the exact opposite of trying to create an authoritarian state.
He did not illegally seize private property. What he should have also done, though, is change the constitution so that nationalization of the means of production would not have required the convoluted use of legal loopholes, decrees, vetoes, etc. that he did use. But this goes back to the problem of trying to institute socialism in a capitalist legal paradigm.
His moves towards arming the working class and using violence were too little too late and stemmed mostly from the fact that he was reacting to foreign and capitalist violence, illegalities, and intervention instead of relying on the capitalists being hindered by the same democratic principles that were slowing him down.
And while Castro supported him, this does not mean that Allende is guilty by association, even if we accept the incorrect notion that Castro is evil.
Sivad wrote:You've never read your own country's constitution or the congressional resolution that deposed your hero? The resolutions cites all the articles Allende had violated, maybe you should go read it.
Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste the argument into here, like you did with Dorta’s argument.
Sivad wrote:“The [official] political strategy of the Popular Unity stemmed from a central assumption, that the transition to socialism proceeded by a series of stages, the first of which was winning an electoral majority.” The second stage in the transition was to repeat that majority in a plebiscite that was key to the transformation because it would destroy the fundamental balance of the three government powers: it would have approved a single-chamber Congress and Supreme Court based on the East German model, who would be a rubber-stamp for the executive, plus neighborhood popular tribunals modeled after Cuba’s. The plebiscite, however, was never called by Allende because he knew the Popular Unity could not win it."
(Roxborough, pp. 71-73; Moss, pp. 101-103, 107)
Instead Allende just ignored congress and the courts and went right ahead with establishing parallel structures.
I have no idea why you copy pasted this paragraph of Dorta’s.
Are we supposed to pretend that Dorta’s speculations are somehow facts?
Let me ask you a simple question: were there any actual gulags in Allende’s regime?
We already established that Pinochet did.
We know the US does, the most famous of which is (amusingly enough) in Cuba.
Are these gulag states? If not, why not? How do you define a gulag state?