Give thanks

First JK and now AP within a few days. So who’s to be the third?

Shouldn’t sully this good news with grammatical whimsy, but… for a while there the BBC News website, absurd overusers of inverted commas, had this as “General Pinochet reported ‘dead'”, as if he’d been caught playing possum.

I strongly urge you all to head on over to the BBC’s website, which as usual is soliciting reader feedback on the death. Here’s my personal favorite so far, from a “Manny” in Oxford:

His economic policies made Chile the success story in South America. He did prevent Chile from the spread of vicious cancer known as Communism. If he weren’t a dictator, the world today would be mourning the death of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. At least now the witch hunt against Pinochet will end with his death.

If he weren’t a dictator. Yeah, shame ’bout that.

now just Pinochet and Thatcher to go…

the difference between Chileans’ responses and those of Westerners is quite striking on that BBC website.

I was struck by the large number of positive/neutral “let’s move on” responses of Chileans relative to non-Chileans. I thought it strange.
Before this gets nasty or anything, lemme say that I think the guy should’ve been hung from a nearest lampost long time ago.
On the other hand I expect a similar post here when Fidel finally croaks.

Er, that should be “kill” thousands of people. My guess is, he did call thousands of people.

Is radek implying, through his/her feigned confusion, that Castro has killed as many people as Allende did? As someone who generally admires Castro and his revolution’s success in bringing education, health care, and the like to Cuba’s people, I freely admit that he’s a dictator, he’s antidemocratic, he’s committed human rights abuses, he’s imprisoned his political opponents, he’s even killed some. But I don’t think even the craziest of the Miami fascists would claim that the Fidelist regime has been anywhere near as brutal or bloodthirsty as Pinochet’s.

I’m sorry but my confusion really wasn’t feigned. I thought this was common knowledge. I mean, yeah, the figures usually cited by the “Miami Fascists” (sic – this is no better then some wingnut refering to the victims of Pinochet as “Communist Scum”) are at the upper end but even the lower bound estimates by reputable and leftist historians put Castro in the same range as Pinochet (around 3K)

Radek –

I don’t think that Pinochet should have been hung, from a lamp post or otherwise and I’m not grateful for his death. I think it is a pity that he will never face justice for his crimes.

Yes, on the BBC thread there were, alongside a larger number of very damning ones about Pinochet, also a number of postive comments, along the lines of this one

Never forget, this was war against Marxism and people die in wars.

or this one

General Pinochet is the Heroe of Latin American because finish the Socialism marxist lenninist , and in your power : Chile was a first country economy in Latin American.

If you think this phenomenon is the one of the most “striking” things to note here, then you ought to be aware that many defenders of Stalin have felt the same way – ie. many brutal, charismatic dictators still continue to exert a remarkable hold over some sections of the popular imagination in the countries where they previously ruled, and you could make your observation about every one of them. I hope you would not, so I have to wonder why you think it is such an important point to note about Pinochet.

(PS. Trying to turn this into a thread about Castro is really very trollish.)

Ok, fine, Radek, I get the point: Pinochet died today… let’s talk about Castro!

My point is that there is every incentive for a dictator, once in power, to hold on to power and no real incentive to do what I think we would all regard as the right thing and relinquish power.

The distinguishing fact about Pinochet is not that he was a bloodsoaked dictator–we have those by the bucketload, unfortunately. The distinguishing fact about Pinochet is that his dictatorship gave way to a democracy.

Let’s all make sure to punish THAT guy. That will lead more dictators to see the light and call elections.

Castro is involved here, BTW, because Pinochet’s justification was that he prevented a Castro-style permanent Communist dictatorship, so morbid body-count scoreboards are relevant here.

From the Black Book of Communism, 7-10,000 shot during the 1960s, 15-17000 total through the 1990s.

For Chile, the Rettig commission and a follow-on commission agreed on 3000 killed.

Is there established reason to doubt the post-1989 Rettig commission?

“The law they swore they’d get him, but the devil got him first!” -Mitchum

It’s tough to be imprisoned, tortured or killed by a dictator. But then it’s pretty tough to be imprisoned, tortured or killed by a republic that bills itself as the world’s most advanced democracy too, eh?

The difference between Pinochet and Castro is that the death of one will mean celebration for some, mourning for others, and probably apathy for most. The death of the other will lead to a fascist reconquista that will probably kill thousands, displace hundreds of thousands and oppress millions.

Pinochet’s opposing predecessor was the democratically elected Allende, if you’ll recall

To be elected democratically is not the same as to govern democratically (avoiding the obvious GL’s violation here). The Chilean Congress did pass a resolution describing Allende’s (not Pinochet’s) actions as being in violation of the constitution, declaring that democracy in Chile was in danger and calling on the military to due something about it – of course they didn’t mean a coup and it maybe even that they were manipulated into it by the plotters (Merino?). Still, this “democratically elected” thing, while true, is really a bunch of irrelevant BS.

Perhaps not, but there’s any number to doubt the Black Book of Communism.

I don’t know about that. But even if, this particular instance can be cross checked with other sources which show that Castro was at least in the same range as Pinochet.

Like I said, I think Pinochet deserved to meet a different, nastier end than he actually did. But I never understood these blind denials (ignorance?) of Castro’s atrocities or the ridiculous benefication of the incompetant would-be dictator Allende.

I was genuinely surprised that ANYONE would have good things to say about the guy

Then you don’t follow libertarian politics very closely, as Lady Thatcher was reported to have been “deeply saddened” by the news.

The Chilean Congress did pass a resolution describing Allende’s (not Pinochet’s) actions as being in violation of the constitution

radek,

That’s because Pinochet dissolved congress when he took power and banned political parties for much of his dictatorship as well as banned opposition media. Rather had to pass resolutions when you don’t exist . . .

Say what one will re: Allende, but political parties existed, democratic elections took place and opposition media flourished when he was president.

Don’t let the facts get in your way.

One thing that has not been talked about enough are the acts if terrorism that Pinochet’s secret police committed:

Murdering General Prats and his wife via car bomb in Buenos Aires in 1974.

Attempted murder of Bernardo Leighton and his wife in Rome in 1975.

Car bomb murder of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffitt in Washington, DC in 1976.

Pinochet croaked on Human Rights Day.

Don’t forget, as well, that many of the problems faced by Allende were a direct result of the US working to undermine the Chillean government and economy, even before they supported the coup.

Or as President Nixon put it: “make the economy scream”.

“They whose hearts are dry as summer dust burn/ Burn to the socket.”

It seems the way of certain really nasty people to live to a ripe old age. But it’s rather satisfying to see the Supreme Leveller catch up with someone like Pinochet at last.

There are times when I wish I believed in a vengeful God, and an evil person being called to account for their sins by said God. Alas, I can’t muster up such a belief. I do, however, believe in Karma.

radek #17 –

“Miami Fascists” (sic – this is no better then some wingnut refering to the victims of Pinochet as “Communist Scum”)

No better as poetry or rhetoric, but substantially different as epithet.
The Cubans in Miami referred to by the phrase are pretty much full-on fascistic, both essentially, hermeneutically, as loose description, and ipso facto in Miami.
Many of Pinochet’s victims were neither Communist nor in any accurate use of the term, scum.
Idealists, many of them noble, many of them selfless and dedicated to the well-being of, not themselves, but those around them and coming after; socialist more accurately, and far from scum.

Radek said: “the difference between Chileans’ responses and those of Westerners is quite striking on that BBC website.”

It’s not suprising. There was and is a cultural chasm between Pinochet’s victims and his supporters (even the cautious ones). The chileans I know (true, they are refugees) certainly don’t stand back from “leftist” westerners in their hatred of Pinochet.

Radek: “So let me just say that no one’s defending Pinochet who was a first rate bastard.”

Then what the f*ck are your posts above, if not attempts to defend Pinochet (by changing the subject, and playing the ‘he’s not as bad as …’ game)?

Radek, a Latin-American non-dictator who doesn’t kill people and is independent (like Allende) was bound to be overthrown by the CIA (here’s a collection of related declassified documents) and replaced by a Yankee imperialist dictator who kills lots of people.

You’re either rooting for the Yanks or for the Home Team, and since the only way for the Home Team to survive was imposing total control – anyone complaining about dictatorship is admitting that they’re rooting for the Yanks. Which is fine, as long as it’s made clear.

I suppose it’s different now, but not much.

Yeah, I don’t know what happened to the link, it worked 30 minutes ago. Yankee imperialists have long arms.

OK, suppose anti-communist Poles (a majority, I presume) in the early 80s started an uprising, shot some communists, jailed and suppress others and organized some sort of nationalist military dictatorship. Then Brezhnev might’ve passed up on a full-scale invasion and opted for some kind of blockade. That’s one scenario. The other scenario is general Yaruzelsky. Is there something in between? I don’t think so. Sometimes you have to take sides. Quite often, in fact.

Radek: “To say that Pinochet and Castro were comparable in their murders is not to defend either one of them nor to say one is “not as bad as…”.”

Yeah, right. It was just so appropriate that you couldn’t restrain your fingers. Both from trying to change the subject to Castro, and for justifying Pinochet’s overthrow of Allended (quite dishonesty, I might add).

As for your not having to choose, you have. Please don’t try to pull false libertarianism on
us; we don’t have to believe that lie.

I was genuinely surprised that ANYONE would have good things to say about the guy

You shouldn’t be:

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/12/here-we-go.html

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2006/12/viva-pinochet.html

Anyone comparing Castro to Pinochet is probably trying to make one of the two look better and should be ignored.

I also don’t think he deserves credit for getting out of the way and allowing democracy to proceed (democracy under his constitution, at a time of his choosing, with his laws still on the books, with a lifetime senate seat allowing him to block reform) rather than just getting mowed down by it. Is the lesson supposed to be, it’s OK to be a violent repressive dictator as long as you leave the place looking nice on your way out?

actually it’s pretty easy pretty easy to position yourself in such debates, that is, if you happen to have a principled stance on the universality of human rights

Radek, don’t even try. It’s clear what you were trying to do. I don’t see that anybody here is fooled. Admit it. You like the guy.

God damn are you a stupid asshole. And I mean both of these; stupid. asshole. See, that’s what’s called a composite thought, saying two things in one sentence or post. As in Castro bad, Pinochet bad. You have trouble comprehending that this is possible for some people and seem unable to get past the first part. I can see you sitting there scratching your head, looking at the computer screen really, really wanting to comprehend ;”Castro? Castro bad?” (Barry makes a confused sad face) “Castro not bad!… then, then….. Pinochet good? Nooooooooooo!” (Bangs table with fist in outrage. Types quickly a creepy Freudian projection response). The End.

Hey, I don’t start these fights. I just accidentally provoke’em.

It’s true, I do dislike Allende. And I do dislike the unwarrented idealization of him by some of the left. But there’s a difference between disliking someone and detesting them. Yeah, for all his faults Allende was much better then Pinochet. Allende wrecked Chile’s economy, polarized the society, had authoriterian tendencies and did much to create the situation which brought about the coup. I dislike him because if hadn’t screwed things up so bad then Pinochet might’ve never happened (despite what abb1 says). But he wasn’t a murderer like Pinochet (partly because he let MRL do the dirty work for him).

Now let’s argue about whether Victor Jara died with his hands on.

No, seriously, a while ago we were talking about Iraq and someone (I think it was Soru) argued that it would be good for Iraq to become a US protectorate. Iraq would accept the US-promoted economic system, guarantee good treatment to the US-based businesses, support US geopolitical interests. In return the US would provide defense, guarantee stability, aid, etc. I think this is a honest argument, backed by some empirical evidence. Sure, there is plenty of evidence against it as well, but nevertheless it’s a reasonable argument (“utilitarian” – you guys call it?).

If you take this side, then Pinochet has to be a good guy – sure, you don’t generally approve the methods, but someone had to do it for the good of the country. Frame it this way and then we can talk; the ‘human rights’ thing is not serious.

radek: “God damn are you a stupid asshole. And I mean both of these; stupid. asshole. See, that’s what’s called a composite thought, saying two things in one sentence or post. As in Castro bad, Pinochet bad.”

But not as in coming into a thread celebrating Pinochet’s death, and threadjacking it, in an attempt to turn it into an anti-Castor thread.

“You have trouble comprehending that this is possible for some people and seem unable to get past the first part.”

Truth and you just don’t hang out much together, right?

“I can see you sitting there scratching your head, looking at the computer screen really, really wanting to comprehend ;”Castro? Castro bad?” (Barry makes a confused sad face) “Castro not bad!… then, then….. Pinochet good? Nooooooooooo!” (Bangs table with fist in outrage. Types quickly a creepy Freudian projection response). The End.”

That gave me a chuckle.

“Hey, I don’t start these fights. I just accidentally provoke’em.”

Again, truth and you don’t get together much, do they?