[quote=Comrade Joe;129578]
Quote:
|
That is quite likely true in all honesty.
|
A good subject for another thead, eh?
Quote:
|
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.
|
Absolutely. I'm not saying they're 'wrong' in any way. But in a discussion of Allende they will in all likelyhood overstate the 'good' while downplaying the 'bad'. But then you're right. most any media source is likely to do the same. That's why I prefer books...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Nice segue, eh?...
here's a few:
"An Inside View - Allende's Chile" - Edward Boorstein (probably out of print)
"Chile Since Independence" - Leslie Bethell (Cambridge Univ Press)
"A History of Chile - 1808 to 1994" - Collier and Sater (also Cambridge U)
"Fear in Chile - Lives Under Pinochet" - Patricia Politzer (one of the few Chilean journalists who had the stones to speak out while Pinochet was still in power, and survive)
There's tons more I'd love to recommend, but most of them are in Spanish. And, I guess if you're not much of a reader...
Quote:
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.
They would and in such a system that may be fair to. But we can only work with the systems we have.
|
True. Every political system is flawed, some more so than others, but we've got to work with what we've got.
Quote:
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
|
Spot on. Sadly, in the case of Chile, it was the Radicals and Communists within the ruling coalition that advocated armed revolutionary activity especially once they were in power.
Quote:
|
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.
|
That's true and in the context of the Cold War, I guess it's totally relevent. So, I'll get off my moralistic soapbox and stop saying intervention is bad no matter what. it is, in my opinion, but of course neither American nor Soviet policy makers bothered to ask ME what I thought at the time. Of course, I was like three months old so...
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'm not saying praise Pinochet. I'm saying the country learned a lot of hard but useful lessons as a result of his dictatorship, like how to run their country better than it's ever been run before. Neither too far to the left nor too far to the right but right down the center.
Quote:
|
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.
|
yeah, I've seen it and for those who have no idea, it's quite an eye opener, but I've been to the same places he went and it's not as bad as he portrays it. yes, there are dirt poor Chileans, but not to the extent he would have had his viewers believe. And there are fewer poor now than under Allende or Pinochet. Again, the government is learning from the past and making positive strides based on the experience (and mistakes) of previous generations.
Quote:
|
To me the only way to accuratel evaluate the wealth of a society is by judging the wealth of the poorest citizens.
|
Agreed. But by that standard your country and mine are both as poor as any other on Earth.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, as you know, that's an 'if' we'll never know and could argue about forever without coming to any good conclusion. You may be right. But then, maybe not.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You're right about that, but like I said, had some on the left had their way, the same things would undoubtedly have happened. That's not to justify anything, not the actions of the right or the left. But again, we'll never know 'what might've been'. Sadly.
Quote:
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 
|
Stop! I'm gettin all teary-eyed.