- 10 Mar 2023 18:05
#15267640
Bachelet is a socialist in the sense Biden is a socialist. That is, not really, purely based on her two administrations.
The post-dictatorship Chilean governments until 2015 or so were very similar to Clinton in the US. This includes the first Bachelet and Piñera administrations, which were not radically different from each other even if Bachelet was center left and Piñera was center right.
Bachelet's second administration is similar to the current Biden administration, Piñera tried to turn the clock back but he never had a majority that would allow him to, and then 2019 happened with its corresponding leftward turn of the political pendulum.
Also, Boric's administration has been in trouble since we rejected their constitutional proposal 62-38 last year. His approval rates have been low since the early part of his administration, currently standing at around 35%.
This was one of the most beautiful moments in Chilean politics I've ever had the pleasure to witness, specially the end of their speech:
One bad thing though is that the pendulum is now swinging right, and might swing too far to the right for my taste. I'm noticing that when talking about immigration, you can find levels of xenophobia I had not seen in Chile by the time I moved out in 2017.
Lol no, not at all. Allende was a self-defined Marxist and took over, without proper compensation, all sorts of businesses, not just foreign copper mines. Furthermore, by the time Allende was elected, the Chilean government had already agreed to buy 51% of the stocks of the foreign copper mines (called at the time "Chilenization of the copper industry", and was secretly brokered by the US ambassador in 1969 during Frei Montalva's administration). It was not a tax hike.
One "trick" they would use to take over the non-mining businesses is that, under the Chilean law of the time, the government could take over a business that was deemed to be "strategic" if its workers went on a strike and stopped its operations. They effectively nationalized all sorts of non-mining businesses using that quirk of Chilean law, by having unions affiliated with the government starting a strike and then applying the law. They would then label this as "the social sector of the economy".
Others were nationalized in friendly terms, as in the government would just buy the stocks at market prices. That's how the Allende government nationalized banks, including American banks, and this was never an issue either domestically or diplomatically.
You can read more about it, in Spanish, here:
http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/602/w3 ... 31433.html
Then, it turned out worker discipline in the social sector of the economy was low and often workers would show up early morning, clock in, to then leave to do whatever they wanted during the day to then go back and clock out
No, it was not OK. I have never defended it either.
Allende was toast by 1973, and would have likely been voted out. He had no military support to just take over and do away with the Constitution like the chavistas did in Venezuela and the sandinistas in Nicaragua. Indeed, their lesson from Allende's experience is that democracy is useful to reach power initially but sooner or later you need to 1) get a new Constitution, 2) get the support from the military if you hope to keep advancing your program. Why else do you think that all the current dictatorships in Latin America, with no exceptions, are leftist?
Tainari88 wrote:The Chilenos also keep voting in socialists like Bachelet and like their current prez. Why? The libertarian socialist man who is in office en el Palacio de la Moneda today. The USA has not voted in a woman ever or a socialist ever. It is not the same. The US also created that issue with Allende. And Pinochet was a dictator that was a result of neoliberals like Nixon and his advisor in Latin America Henry Kissinger who was saying the Chilenos could not be trusted with their own society and their democratic traditions. Had to be intervened for the US government's neoliberal policies to prevail. Even when they were cutting off people's hands and electrocuting men's scrotums and cutting out babies from their mother's wombs in the name of anti-communism. Took a bunch of Leftists off the street to that football stadium for mass torture. It traumatized the Chileans for generations Wat0n. Chile had always been a very stable democracy until DC and the neoliberal Right got involved with their 'intervention' programs.
Those prosperous years were also under Bachelet by the way. The socialist. The one whose father was taken by the Pinochet forces and tortured and killed. She was also taken and tortured and her mother was too. Somehow that is never mentioned by you eh? You don't care? Only about your own ambitions to be an immigrant in the USA in Chicago and praise every damn dumb ass thing the Yankee government carries out in the world? Don't be that blind. But you are....no eres objetivo. Ni lo pienses.
Bachelet is a socialist in the sense Biden is a socialist. That is, not really, purely based on her two administrations.
The post-dictatorship Chilean governments until 2015 or so were very similar to Clinton in the US. This includes the first Bachelet and Piñera administrations, which were not radically different from each other even if Bachelet was center left and Piñera was center right.
Bachelet's second administration is similar to the current Biden administration, Piñera tried to turn the clock back but he never had a majority that would allow him to, and then 2019 happened with its corresponding leftward turn of the political pendulum.
Also, Boric's administration has been in trouble since we rejected their constitutional proposal 62-38 last year. His approval rates have been low since the early part of his administration, currently standing at around 35%.
This was one of the most beautiful moments in Chilean politics I've ever had the pleasure to witness, specially the end of their speech:
One bad thing though is that the pendulum is now swinging right, and might swing too far to the right for my taste. I'm noticing that when talking about immigration, you can find levels of xenophobia I had not seen in Chile by the time I moved out in 2017.
Tainari88 wrote:Allende if you studied his economic policies wanted a mixed economy as they had in the Scandinavian nations at the time. He was not a far leftist in economics. The issue is he believed in taxing foreign corporations like the Chilean copper mining industry. Those had American bankers and shareholders who were going to have to pay taxes and raise wages for Chilean miners. Something they were not willing to do. They would rather do violence on a stable democracy rather than let go of their control on profits for their shareholders.
Lol no, not at all. Allende was a self-defined Marxist and took over, without proper compensation, all sorts of businesses, not just foreign copper mines. Furthermore, by the time Allende was elected, the Chilean government had already agreed to buy 51% of the stocks of the foreign copper mines (called at the time "Chilenization of the copper industry", and was secretly brokered by the US ambassador in 1969 during Frei Montalva's administration). It was not a tax hike.
One "trick" they would use to take over the non-mining businesses is that, under the Chilean law of the time, the government could take over a business that was deemed to be "strategic" if its workers went on a strike and stopped its operations. They effectively nationalized all sorts of non-mining businesses using that quirk of Chilean law, by having unions affiliated with the government starting a strike and then applying the law. They would then label this as "the social sector of the economy".
Others were nationalized in friendly terms, as in the government would just buy the stocks at market prices. That's how the Allende government nationalized banks, including American banks, and this was never an issue either domestically or diplomatically.
You can read more about it, in Spanish, here:
http://www.memoriachilena.gob.cl/602/w3 ... 31433.html
Then, it turned out worker discipline in the social sector of the economy was low and often workers would show up early morning, clock in, to then leave to do whatever they wanted during the day to then go back and clock out
Tainari88 wrote:It is nauseating the torture they did there. All those graduates from the School of the Americas were torturing sadistic freaks. Pinochet had to flee to England. WTF happens with these dictator torturers in history? They are never forgotten for the horrors they commit. How about Victor Jara's widow? La gringa buena gente? Who had to talk about her husband being killed and her last words to him? She protested for years and years to know what happened and who killed him.
It is DISGUSTING if you even try to defend the actions in Chile in any way because the economy did well....fucking corroded mind does that.
is that ok by you @wat0n what that fucking pig did to those innocent people?
Don't you run from the question Wat0n.
No, it was not OK. I have never defended it either.
Allende was toast by 1973, and would have likely been voted out. He had no military support to just take over and do away with the Constitution like the chavistas did in Venezuela and the sandinistas in Nicaragua. Indeed, their lesson from Allende's experience is that democracy is useful to reach power initially but sooner or later you need to 1) get a new Constitution, 2) get the support from the military if you hope to keep advancing your program. Why else do you think that all the current dictatorships in Latin America, with no exceptions, are leftist?
- By Saeko
- By ingliz