Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
I commend you for your interest in the history of one of my favorite places on Earth. Viva Chile, mierda! For the record, our role in Guatemala is FAR more egregeous in my opinion.
|
That is quite likely true in all honesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
I appreciate your views but Granma is a VERY biased source, especially on an issue like this one. Does that mean they're wrong? No. But it does mean that everything they say should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt, just like anything you read from the US State Dept.
|
They obviously come with an agenda, but i believe every source does, whther knowingly or subconciously. We all take an inherited value system into everything we do. Granma being a communist source will always come from their perspective and that will impact their commentary. The same can be sade for private media, they come with their agenda and will so impact their agenda. However, by and large they will both usually report
facts with accuracy. It tends to be the commentary that is full of bias and opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
I don't want this to sound pretentious, but if you're interested I'll be happy to recommend other sources and books, plenty of books.
|
Reccomend away. I must admit i'm not much of a reader and rarely finish books, but i'm always looking for things to add to my list of things to give a go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
You're right about the US perception. Communism does not equal Socialism. Or vise versa. But Allende NEVER would have been as successful as he was without the support of the Communists and it was the Communists and Radicals in his government who favored the most radical and reactionary actions that caused the greatest problems for Allende once in office. They did not help him once he was in 'la Moneda'.
|
I wouldn't disagree with that, many socialist governments in history have depended on communist support, particularly in fragile coallitions and that is when most concessions have to be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
And that's 'democratic? I wouldn't say so. In my view, especially in a national election, one must win AT LEAST 50% plus one in order to claim a win.
|
I think that depends on the system in place. If it is a presedential system i do agree. Though as far as bourgoise democracies go i prefer a parliamntary proportional representation. Of course that means you could be head of government with only 20% or even less, but it would depend on coallitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
The recent French elections are a good case in point. Let's say that Sarkozy won 36% and Royale won 35% and all the other contenders split the rest. If there was no second round and Sarkozy was declared the winner, do you not think ALL the other parties would have cried foul? Granted this is a problem in the Constitutional make up of Chilean government.
|
They would and in such a system that may be fair to. But we can only work with the systems we have.
I good quote i like on why to accept such results and can be applied to left or right (you may not like the source but i think it rings true)
is this
"Where a government has come into power through some form of popular vote, fraudulent or not, and maintains at least an appearance of constitutional legality, the guerrilla outbreak cannot be promoted, since the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been exhausted"- Che
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
Let me get this straight. Soviet interventionism is OK but US interventionism is bad? Do you not see that as mildly hypocritical?
In my view ALL intervention, unless it is for genuinely humanitarian reasons is wrong. Regardless of the source. Besides, the Soviet aid came not once Allende was in power but was sent to support the campaign. They were not supporting an elected government, nor was the CIA. And now we all have blood on our hands.
|
Well i think it depends on the scenario. A question to be asked would be who gave aid first ?
If it was the US, the Soviet aid seems to have more legitimacy. It may not be "ok" but in context has more justification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
Trust me, I've seen the stats. They're unconvincing. If you look at it only from the early 70s through the 80s, then yes, things went from bad to worse. But take it in its full context, to the present day.
|
Well it didn't just look bad, it looked disastrous. And why should we give praise to Pinochet for what happened after his time ? It would be like praising the consecutive Venezuelan governments who oversaw 25 years of recession for the 18 quarters of economic growth under Chavez. It seems inconsisent to me.
And from the pictures and videos i have seen, unlike you i cant use first hand evidence of course, things are still not so great. Have you saw The War on Democracy ? People living in actual dumps with their new born babies while a super rich exist in the cities.
To me the only way to accuratel evaluate the wealth of a society is by judging the wealth of the poorest citizens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
Chileans are a very pragmatic people who have suffered and learned a lot in the last 35 years. As a direct result of their experience with Allende and then Pinochet they have learned how to make a government that actually works for a majority of Chileans. The economy, for the last dozen years has been growing at a good clip, poverty is being reduced, wages are rising, prices and inflation are stable, trade is up, the economy is more diverse than ever before, etc. I'm not saying the Pinochet years were good, but without that experience as a backdrop, the current state of Chile's economy and society would be very different and I would say worse.
|
Well i don't quite agree. Yes things are improving. But to me they would most likely have improved under Allende had he had the time. He could have been their Chavez and really grow the economy whilst maintaining the dignity of the poorest. On my evaluation of nations wealth, i believe Chile would be a wealthier country now on that basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
I agree with you. I would only add that Communists were also undermining democracy.
|
True, but ultimately not on the same scale. It wasn't communists who overthrew the government, locked people up in a stadium and killed and tortured thousands. That was the fascists alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono tejano
As I think you can see, we agree on a lot of these issues. But like the Ukrainian thing, this is an issue that cuts a little close to the heart for me so I feel the need to add my perspective. Not that I'm an expert, but I guess that within the context of this forum, I am.
Again though, I admire your willingness to think and talk about this stuff.
So few people even know what or where Chile is that even if we totally disagree on every conceivable issue, you get big props in my book just for knowing about it.
|
Cheers man. These two discussions are a rare breath of fresh air to me. It's too unusual to be able to talk about these topics and not end up in a slanging match. What is even more rare is finding someone with the willingness to talk about them at any length. The usual kind of response would be one or two lines that basically amount "you are wrong". I also like that some common ground can be found, even when the fundamental positions clash.
I better stop before that deteriorates into a mutual appreciation club
