45 years ago today. - Page 7 - 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.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14946623
B0ycey wrote: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.


This basically sums it up. It's not really about loyalties or patriotism or principles of any kind. It's mostly about those that hold power vying and fighting to maintain or grow their power.
#14946655
B0ycey wrote: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.


I would say that Russia being an ally to Allende was only one of the reasons why the US backed Pinochet.

The fact that other reasons existed and were more important is seen in the fact that Nixon and his people moved against Allende before there were any signs of support between Allende and the USSR.

Allende only approached the USSR after dealing with US economic warfare for several years. It was like a postive feedback loop. The more the US intervened, the more Allende was pushed towards the USSR, and this in turn caused the US to intervene further, which pished Allende towards the USSR, etc...

So, again, while it is true that the coup was one battle in the ideological conflict known as the Cold War, it is a simplification to say that this was the only factor, or even the most important one.

——————————

@annatar1914

Please present evidence that the working classes suffered significantly in each of the cited examples.

Also note if the suffering targeted at the working class was a result of an ongoing class conflict and perpetrated by capitalists.

Thank you.
#14946669
@Pants-of-dog

POD, you asked me to;

Please present evidence that the working classes suffered significantly in each of the cited examples.


Look at the whole effort in it's totality, of course the working classes suffered as they struggled under the leadership of Socialists to build a Socialist society, look at the collapse of Socialist society too, the aftermath. Collectivization and Industrialization, the Purges all had their cost and impact.

Also note if the suffering targeted at the working class was a result of an ongoing class conflict and perpetrated by capitalists.


Can't all be blamed on the Capitalists; was the persecution of religion and religious folk, most among the laboring classes, a factor in the ongoing class conflict? No, it was an stupid alienation and division which impeded the very thing which Socialists were aiming to build.
#14946671
By evidence, I mean a link to a study or an article from a resected news source.

The best would if you quoted the study or article, and bolded thse phrases that directly supported your claim.
#14946679
Pants-of-dog wrote:By evidence, I mean a link to a study or an article from a resected news source.

The best would if you quoted the study or article, and bolded thse phrases that directly supported your claim.


Here's a pretty good article on suffering of the working classes within a Socialist society that cannot be blamed on external factors so much from MROnline;

https://mronline.org/2018/01/24/the-str ... t-society/
#14946684
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please quote the relevant text. Thanks.


Just one quote for an example;

It had become apparent by 1956 that new bureaucrats, people in the leadership were trying to ride roughshod over the people. So Mao started the Hundred Flowers Campaign to criticize the people in the leadership and to rectify the Party. And that’s how, to borrow an English phrase, “the shit hit the fan.” The people who opposed the old oppressors rather than the system of oppression itself during the Revolution, the people who wanted to become new rulers felt very threatened by this rectification campaign. What they wanted was instead to redirect the attack at anybody criticizing them.
#14946686
The quoted text seems to say that some people were trying to oppress the former rulers (not the ruling class) and the socialists trued to put a stop to that.

So, the quoted text does not support your claim.

Also, the historical and material context of China is very different from the historical and material context of Latin America. Does your text say anything about Latin American socialism?
#14946687
Pants-of-dog wrote:The quoted text seems to say that some people were trying to oppress the former rulers (not the ruling class) and the socialists trued to put a stop to that.

So, the quoted text does not support your claim.

Also, the historical and material context of China is very different from the historical and material context of Latin America. Does your text say anything about Latin American socialism?


Now there's a moving of the goalposts, POD. I was under the impression that we were discussing Socialism in a universal sense.

And no, the quoted text says that the managerial elite of the communist party were behaving like rulers towards the workers. Nothing new under the sun, really.
#14946694
annatar1914 wrote:Now there's a moving of the goalposts, POD. I was under the impression that we were discussing Socialism in a universal sense.


There has been no moving of the goalposts. I have not changed any claims.

Instead, I explained why the Chinese experience may not be relevant to other socialist experiences.

You cannot arbitrarily assume that the Chinese experiment is universal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

    A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, we may generalize about all people, or all members of a group, based on what we know about just one or just a few people. If we meet an angry person from a given country X, we may suspect that most people in country X are often angry. If we see only white swans, we may suspect that all swans are white. Faulty generalizations may lead to further incorrect conclusions. We may, for example, conclude that citizens of country X are genetically inferior, or that poverty is generally the fault of the poor.

Moreover, I have clearly been focusing on Latin America in this thread, and Chile in particular.

Do you have any examples of the Chilean working class being significantly harmed during the democratic transition to socialism of 1970 to 1973?

And no, the quoted text says that the managerial elite of the communist party were behaving like rulers towards the workers. Nothing new under the sun, really.


No. You misread.

It clearly says that Mao opposed these “managerial elite”, as you call them.
By B0ycey
#14946726
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would say that Russia being an ally to Allende was only one of the reasons why the US backed Pinochet.

The fact that other reasons existed and were more important is seen in the fact that Nixon and his people moved against Allende before there were any signs of support between Allende and the USSR.

Allende only approached the USSR after dealing with US economic warfare for several years. It was like a postive feedback loop. The more the US intervened, the more Allende was pushed towards the USSR, and this in turn caused the US to intervene further, which pished Allende towards the USSR, etc...

So, again, while it is true that the coup was one battle in the ideological conflict known as the Cold War, it is a simplification to say that this was the only factor, or even the most important one.


I believe this is a fair assessment, but ultimately I think you are wrong in believing the whole affair wasn't due to a Cold War mindset or that this mindset wasn't the most important factor. Before Allende was even in power, the US was against him and promoted against his agenda because history had taught them the lesson of Lenin with Russia and the outcome that could result from this. Allende also tried to maintain relations with the US before turning to the Soviet Union for assistance - meaning the Cold War mentality must have been a factor as why would any nation push the hand of friendship away unless there was a national interest to do so?

So the real question is why was America against Allende? It is Simple really. In the 70s there were the only two sides. The West (Capitalists) or the East (Socialists). If you declared you were on one side, you weren't going to be dealing with the other. Which is why America broke ties with Allende. This caused the economic meltdown and for him to default on Chile's debts to their creditors. In turn this then created the conditions for a coup and like any proxy war, America was going to choose the opposing side to Russia in a civil conflict. That was in the form of Pinochet, who was an evil bastard in his own rite. The rest is history.
#14946727
Rancid wrote:It's regardless, or irrespective. Not irregardless.



I think we should make that a word.

Irregardless = not without regard

That is: the opposite of regardless.

‘....with regard to...’. might be the appropriate grammar but Racid, try to think about the feelings of all those non-English speakers who have paid lots of money for English language courses. The harder we make the English language to learn, the more these people will feel they are getting their money’s worth in class.

:excited:
User avatar
By Ter
#14946729
I am against the country Chile since I learnt that they stole Bolivia's access to the sea.
So whatever government they have doesn't matter to me.
Chile is a shit country.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14946765
Ter wrote:I am against the country Chile since I learnt that they stole Bolivia's access to the sea.
So whatever government they have doesn't matter to me.
Chile is a shit country.


True, one of the big reasons Bolivia is so poor is due to their lack of access to the sea. Image, if they had a port city, they could probably make higher profits off all that lithium they have.
#14946799
B0ycey wrote:I believe this is a fair assessment, but ultimately I think you are wrong in believing the whole affair wasn't due to a Cold War mindset or that this mindset wasn't the most important factor. Before Allende was even in power, the US was against him and promoted against his agenda because history had taught them the lesson of Lenin with Russia and the outcome that could result from this. Allende also tried to maintain relations with the US before turning to the Soviet Union for assistance - meaning the Cold War mentality must have been a factor as why would any nation push the hand of friendship away unless there was a national interest to do so?


I doubt that the US thought that Chile would become a superpower and threaten them as the USSR did.

And the reason why the US rejected Allende was not because it was “in the national interest”but because Allende directly threatened the profits of US corporations in Chile.

So the real question is why was America against Allende? It is Simple really. In the 70s there were the only two sides. The West (Capitalists) or the East (Socialists). If you declared you were on one side, you weren't going to be dealing with the other. Which is why America broke ties with Allende. This caused the economic meltdown and for him to default on Chile's debts to their creditors. In turn this then created the conditions for a coup and like any proxy war, America was going to choose the opposing side to Russia in a civil conflict. That was in the form of Pinochet, who was an evil bastard in his own rite. The rest is history.


This analysis leaves out nationais interest in Chile, class conflict, the economic interests of US corporations, Nixon’s deliberate efforts to destroy the Chilean economy, and the order of events in terms of Allende’s relationships with the two superpowers.
By B0ycey
#14946813
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt that the US thought that Chile would become a superpower and threaten them as the USSR did.


Chile didn't need to become the next USSR to be a threat to America. They only needed to ally with Russia and perhaps hold a nuclear weapons or two to do this. The same reason Russia today objects to Poland having a US missile defence system btw. Regional territory in opposing nations domain. And this is why Nixon was against Allende from the start. He was a socialist and as such on the wrong side. It didn't matter what his attentions were. So yes, again Cold War mentality.

And the reason why the US rejected Allende was not because it was “in the national interest”but because Allende directly threatened the profits of US corporations in Chile.


True, America is run by the Cartel. This no doubt was an issue when Allende privatised national assets such as copper. But America were working against Allende before he was elected might I add. This can only be because they thought the rise of Socialism in the Americas was a factor to their security. There was no way of knowing that Allende was going to be a threat to their geopolitics/financial institutions until he was btw. It might even be possible to suggest that had America continued to invest in Chile to the same extent when Allende was elected, Allende may not have asked Russia for assistance in investment and actually become a US stooge to some extent. An assumption of course, but a possibility nonetheless.

This analysis leaves out nationais interest in Chile, class conflict, the economic interests of US corporations, Nixon’s deliberate efforts to destroy the Chilean economy, and the order of events in terms of Allende’s relationships with the two superpowers.


My analysis doesn't miss these points out. These points you highlight were naturally factors in why America supported Pinochet in the coup. My analysis was the basis for the conflict between US and Allende's relationship from the offset. The basis started with Cold War mentality and your points were aligning factors to cement their thirst to rid of him when he got into power.
#14946821
B0ycey wrote:Chile didn't need to become the next USSR to be a threat to America. They only needed to ally with Russia and perhaps hold a nuclear weapons or two to do this. The same reason Russia today objects to Poland having a US missile defence system btw. Regional territory in opposing nations domain. And this is why Nixon was against Allende from the start. He was a socialist and as such on the wrong side. It didn't matter what his attentions were. So yes, again Cold War mentality.


I already addressed this in this thread.

Since Moscow is actually closer to Washington than Santiago, there is no geo-strategic threat to the USA from nuclear missilies in Chile. Or any advantage to be gained by the USSR.

Also, the implied claim that Chile is part of the Us’s domain is incorrect. I agree that the US saw it that way, but Chile did not.

True, America is run by the Cartel. This no doubt was an issue when Allende privatised national assets such as copper. But America were working against Allende before he was elected might I add. This can only be because they thought the rise of Socialism in the Americas was a factor to their security. There was no way of knowing that Allende was going to be a threat to their geopolitics until he was btw. It might even be possible to suggest that had America continued to invest in Chile to the same extent when Allende was elected, Allende may not have asked Russia for assistance in investment and actually become a US stooge to some extent. An assumption of course, but a possibility nonetheless.


They moved on Allende before he was elected because they already knew Allende planned to nationalise key industires if he was elected. Nixon and his crew were even approached by ITT and others because these corporations knew about this threat.

My analysis doesn't miss these points out. These points you highlight were naturally factors in why America supported Pinochet in the coup. My analysis was the basis for the conflict between US and Allende's relationship from the offset. The basis started with Cold War mentality and your points were aligning factors to cement their thirst to rid of him when he got into power.


If you want to look at the initial causes of the conflict, it would be helpful to look at it chronologically. What was the first thing that happened?

As far as I can tell, the first things that happened were the talks between US corporations and the US government concerning Allende’s possible nationalisations.

This suggests that the basis for the conflict was profit, and Cold War considerations were secondary.
#14946971
Do those videos have useful information, or are they simply arguments or propaganda poeces made by others that you happen to agree with?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

Blah blah. If Russia uses nukes, the rest of the […]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]