Augusto Pinochet, 1915-2006

Former Chilean leader Gen. Augusto Pinochet died today at a hospital in Santiago.

The general entered a Santiago hospital a week ago after a heart attack. He was thought to be recovering when his condition suddenly worsened on Sunday.
...
The hospital said Gen Pinochet passed away at 14:15 local time (1715GMT).
"He died surrounded by his family," the hospital's Dr Juan Ignacio Vergara told reporters.

The next few days are sure to feature some heated debates about Pinochet's reign and his legacy. My contribution is pretty brief: "Finally."

Jesse Walker blogged about Pinochet's influence on KGB thugs back in 2004; Brian Doherty noted his house arrest in 2004.

Comments

Chris Grieb | December 10, 2006, 3:36pm | #

David; I agree with you commment. I have to add I am notupset he died in bed. All the Communists have also. Except the Rumanians.

Guy Montag | December 10, 2006, 3:42pm | #

I just read the version from the Seattle Times (linked to by Mr. Goldberg at NRO). What a pathetically partisan piece.

Incredibly, they note that the economy declined under the beginning of his rule and gloss over that he was still using Socialist (the National variety, IIRC) measures to run the country. When "the Chicago Boys" came in 1984, things turned around when he applied free-market measures and de-nationalized things. They don't toss in as much verbiage to let their readers know what was what.

I seem to recall that the government subsidized television set purchases for a while before the election that Pinochet lost. Something "heralded" as a factor then was the opposition candidates advertising on television. None of that made it into the Seattle Times article that refers to Pinochet as 'mustachioed' and reads like something from a Worker's World Party press release.

If you would like to find out more about what was going on back then, I suggest you wade through the book "The Black Book of Communism". The genesis of that book, iirc, was notes and a scrap-book from Pinochet. More research followed.

The chapter that 'explains' the chapter from Homage to Catalonia where Orwell explains the political militias fighting in Spain is about as clear as Orwell's chapter. Probably the only confusing thing I have every read by the man and one of the hardest things to follow ever.

Can't wait to see a comparison between this obit and what the Seattle Times writes about Castro.

Isaac Bartram | December 10, 2006, 3:58pm | #

Can't say I'm upset at all. If there's anything better than an ex-dictator it's a dead ex-dictator.

Dusty | December 10, 2006, 3:59pm | #

Well, by all means let's do all we can to whitewash a right-wing tyrant lest the comsymps get one up on us.

Joe | December 10, 2006, 4:03pm | #

Poor Maggie Thatcher. Out of respect for her grief, let's not diss Pinochet. She's still alive, isn't she?

Kit | December 10, 2006, 4:05pm | #

Guy

According the IMF, Chiles GDP growth average 4.2% in the 60s, 2.6% under Pinochet and 6.9% under the current social democrat-type government.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/aninat.htm


The current government has doubled corporation tax, the minimum wage and social spending, and also halved tariffs.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/01/how_free_market.html

In the assorted lefty critques of the Pinochet era per capita the economy shrank slightly overall, extreme poverty and unemployment both hitting 20%.

I'm not the sort of libertarian who's bothered by failure of Pinochet era reforms, as I don't think neoliberalism is always the same thing as yer akshul free market.

Isaac Bartram | December 10, 2006, 4:15pm | #

Of course his death will not end the controversy.

Is it pronounced Peeno-shay or Peeno-chette?


Since when I hear actual Chileans being interviewed they say the former (both in English and Spanish) I'm going with that.

NPR can kiss my ass. :)

Handsome Dan | December 10, 2006, 4:37pm | #

So I wake up early on my 31st birthday, turn on the news and find that Pinochet has croaked - what a great birthday present!! Yeah, you could probably dig up a bunch of commie dictators who were as bad or worse, big deal. Dead dictators make me smile, and my grin isn't any wider if they're lefties or righties. Sic semper tyrannis!

Eryk Boston | December 10, 2006, 4:43pm | #

Ding, Dong, The witch is dead.

Kit | December 10, 2006, 4:47pm | #

"Incredibly, they note that the economy declined under the beginning of his rule and gloss over that he was still using Socialist (the National variety, IIRC) measures to run the country. When "the Chicago Boys" came in 1984, things turned around when he applied free-market measures and de-nationalized things. "

Guy, this isn't the case AFAIK. By 1981 tariffs had been slashed from an average of 105% to 10%, the government had liberalised capital controls, introduced personal accounts for social security and privatised a bunch of government enterprises.

There was a severe recession around 1982 (after which the government nationalised banks, raised tariffs to 35% and borrowed loads of money from the IMF), so catch-up economic growth was correspondingly high in the recovery period. Economic policy was overseen IIRC by Hernan Buchi Buch (allegedly not one of the villainous, moustache twirling Chicago Boyz) from here on and is generally said to be more interventionist from here on.

Again, the Pinochet era sounds like the usual phoney baloney mix of cut price privatisation, free markets for the politically well connected, statism for the people they don't like, and plenty of taxpayer handouts for businesses that go bust. And no property rights for dealing with pollution etc (etCarson).

But a prejudiced libertarian would say that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile

James | December 10, 2006, 4:55pm | #

Pinochet is/was the Castro of the Right. They all have to squirm and explain how he wasn't all that bad of a guy, after all. But it's a crock. He was a right bastard who flat-out murdered thousands of political opponents of every stripe. He was far worse than the moderate-left government he "saved" Chile from. And when Kissinger gets to Hell Pinochet will be Exhibit A for the prosecution.

Ashish George | December 10, 2006, 5:10pm | #

Anyone who really values freedom will shed no tears for Pinochet.

The Nation (yes, The Nation, and fuck all of you who ignore good sources just because they don't mesh with your ideological preferences) makes the case:

"It's not just the numbers, though they are horrific in themselves. In a country of barely 11 million at the time of his seizure of power, 3,000 murdered by the state, more than a thousand disappeared (some of them thrown into the ocean, others into pits of lime), tens of thousands tortured and hundreds of thousands sent into political or economic exile.

Pinochet also embodied a wave of authoritarianism that swept through all of Latin America during the time of his rule. Similar dictatorships imposed their own brand of fear as they clamped down on Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru."

You don't have to be a fan of Allende to think our support of the coup against him was a profound disgrace.

thoreau | December 10, 2006, 5:11pm | #

I think James makes a good point.

Josh | December 10, 2006, 5:22pm | #

It's sad that tyrants so often seem to die of natural causes while living a comfortable life, but what can you do?

c | December 10, 2006, 5:27pm | #

Ashish George hit it on the head.

peachy | December 10, 2006, 5:38pm | #

Didn't the last Somoza get greased in exile?

Marcvs | December 10, 2006, 5:43pm | #

Who's defending Pinochet? All I see are a bunch of posts saying that it's good that he's dead, and a bunch of lefties saying that he's being defended. Talk about projection.

And for the record: yes, I'm glad he's dead, and the fact that he worked with the Chicago Boys actually does a disservice to those of us who value the free market because it associates it with a brutal dictator.

rickm | December 10, 2006, 6:12pm | #

Not just the Chicago Boys, but the recently deceased Freidman himself. To continue the discussion on this website after Friedmans death...

from page 170 of A Nation of Enemies: Chile Under Pinochet by Pamela Constable and Arturo Valenzuela:

"At the University of Chile, [Friedman] told students the economy needed a 'shock treatment' and deep spending cuts. In a talk wiht Pinochet, [Friedman] counseled the general to ignore his poor image abroad, focus on curing the 'disease' of statism, and take sharp action against inflation."

Friedman actively supported a military dictatorship that stripped Chile of democracy and consistently and grossly violated basic human rights.

Jim Walsh | December 10, 2006, 6:18pm | #

I think Larry King (of all people) said it best: any government, left wing or right, that squelches freedom of speech loses me...

spur | December 10, 2006, 6:32pm | #

Glad he's gone. Chile is the best economy in South America, but thats only the case after Pinochet left and social democrats took over. And I'm saying that as a libertarian. As bad as social democracy is, I'd rather live in one than under a brutal dictator like Pino -- this is one black mark on Friedman's legacy and the Chicago boys for sure. The Left overplay it of course, but to deny it is dumb in my book.

FinFangFoom | December 10, 2006, 6:35pm | #

On Friedman, I don't see how saying, "you should run your economy this way," equals "disappear people."

As regards Pinochet, the bad thing about his death is that he was going to be put on trial. Just like Milosevic he escaped justice. This is a lost opportunity to create stronger human rights laws world wide.

Deus ex Machina | December 10, 2006, 6:40pm | #

None of the following should be construed as support for Pinochet.

I noted that many obituaries about Milton Friedman stated that he had supported the work his Chicago Boys apprentices did for the Pinochet regime. This, despite the fact that he was personally against authoritarianism and only travelled to Chile once.
This tepid endorsement was enough for large swaths of leftists to condemn him as a supporter of fascism. Yet we hear much less condemnation of the admirers of Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao, some of whom continued to defend their support even after the extent of the aboves' crimes became known. Is this a fair comparison?

Garth | December 10, 2006, 6:43pm | #

Pinochet and company were wicked, but they did set the stage for future propertity. Looking at the economic figures of his era are like looking at the horrible contraction of the Soviet Union, post Communist Poland or any number of "transition" economies. No pain no gain. I am not being an apologist for his evil: it's hard to imagine anyone really thinking well of him and his, but like Mussolini and Hitler, he made the trains run on time.

thoreau | December 10, 2006, 6:57pm | #

"Pinochet and company were wicked, but they did set the stage for future propertity" sure sounds like an apology for evil. I can think of much better ways to make trains run on time.

Deus ex Machina | December 10, 2006, 7:13pm | #

BTW, Mussolini didn't make the trains run on time: http://snopes.com/history/govern/trains.htm.

Guy Montag | December 10, 2006, 7:15pm | #

Ashish George,

Along with awaiting the obituary of Castro from the Seattle Times, I await one from the Nation too.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the University of Chicago will be the only place left that a 'compare and contrast' graduate study could be done of Pinochet vs. Castro obits, for credit without making Castro the hero.

Guy Montag | December 10, 2006, 7:18pm | #

Deus ex Machina,

Perhaps true, but his own cabinet did depose him, his own King had him jailed and his own citizens executed him.

BG | December 10, 2006, 7:31pm | #

I join Weigel and most (all?) commenters on this thread in saying "Lets shed no tears over Pinochet's death".

As for Milton Friedman supporting him, I think FingFangFoom and Deus ex Machina have it right.

Friedman was not in favor of Pinochet's dictatorship or human rights abuses but he did give economic advice to the dictator. There were probably significant benefits from implementation of alot of that economic advice, even though any such benefits are overshadowed by the overall barbarism and perfidity of Pinochet's regime.

Ashish George | December 10, 2006, 7:41pm | #

Guy Montag--
What exactly is your point? Castro is a sick puppy too, yes, no shit. And no shit, some on the left have--and do--act as apologists for him.

But Castro hasn't dead yet. We'll piss on that grave we come to it, 'kay?

Ashish George | December 10, 2006, 7:53pm | #

Sorry for the typos in the last post. But here is a Grade A (Grade F?) Pinochet defense from none other than the insufferable Bill Buckley...

http://www.fiu.edu/~yaf/buckleypinochet.html

"Pinochet took power in September 1973, against a president who was defiling the Chilean constitution and waving proudly the banner of his friend and idol, Fidel Castro. Across the Andes there was civil rage as revolutionaries and leftist activists sought power and engaged in terrorism. Pinochet fought back. It is charged that 3,000 people lost their lives. It is worth reflecting on the great cost of civil wars. Our own resulted in 365,000 deaths. In order to avoid civil war, extreme actions are taken."

JKP | December 10, 2006, 8:00pm | #

Most countries in the world are run by two-bit thugs. Most don't leave office peacefully, nor leave their countries in better shape than they found it. Pinochet did. It is important to remember this.

Guy Montag | December 10, 2006, 8:05pm | #

Buckley rocks!

Deus ex Machina | December 10, 2006, 8:08pm | #

FYI, riots have now broken out in Santiago: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061211/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/chile_pinochet.

Zeno | December 10, 2006, 8:10pm | #

JKP,

Pinochet was forced out of power by riots and street demonstrations. He didn't leave because he wanted to.

Anyway, as is typical of tyrants, Pinochet's regime was financially corrupt.

Henry | December 10, 2006, 8:16pm | #

Makes me wish I believed in hell--and I'll double down on that wish when Fidel finally croaks.

Zeno | December 10, 2006, 8:19pm | #

What's funny is that the plebiscite of 1980 (which was according to many very irregular) is what screwed Pinochet's regime. It required an election in 1988 which Pinochet lost. So much for the love of the people!

Guy Montag | December 10, 2006, 8:26pm | #

It is amazing that the hysterical Left is speaking about Pinochet in a better light than they did of Ronald Reagan.

Defeating the Soviet Union was the most horrible act any human has committed on the world, to some.

Chevy Chase | December 10, 2006, 8:37pm | #

This just in ... several hours after his death today, former Chilean dictator, Augusto Pinochet, is still dead.

Guy Montag | December 10, 2006, 8:45pm | #

Interesting to see that his opponents are burning down the country now that he is dead.

Sort of a strange twist on that Arafat funeral.

Phil | December 10, 2006, 9:02pm | #

Chapter 1 of Capitalism and Freedom : The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

Chile pretty much proves Friedman's argument made in 1962.

Zeno | December 10, 2006, 9:04pm | #

Phil,

Given that Pinochet was booted from power that doesn't say much for Pinochet as an advocate of political freedom.

Aresen | December 10, 2006, 9:17pm | #

I like EX-dictators.

The more EX the better.

Dead is the best EX you can get.

moctopouse | December 10, 2006, 9:29pm | #

Friedman and the Chicago boys thinking was this: sure, Pinochet's a dictator but there are two way to overthrow or weaken statism and bring more power to the people - one, violent revolution, or two, free up the economy. They believed they could be helpful as regards the latter strategy. Free up the economy and gradually over time civil liberties will slowly follow. That was the hope anyway. It doesn't matter if the dictatorship is Left or Right - the strategy is the same. Had Castro suddenly had a change of heart on economic matters and asked for consultation I'm sure the Chicago Boys would have also obliged.

Rick Barton | December 10, 2006, 11:34pm | #

Issac:

Is it pronounced Peeno-shay or Peeno-chette?
Since when I hear actual Chileans being interviewed they say the former (both in English and Spanish) I'm going with that.

I'd understood that it was Peeno-chette from my language expert uncle, but given your experience with Chileans, I'm switching.

Bill | December 10, 2006, 11:45pm | #

I salute Pinochet with a tip of my hat.
I'll forgive him everything for sparing us any more Victor Jara songs.
Seriously,all you hysterical lefties, next time you whine about the USAs "Red Scare" of the 1950s compare it to how other nations treated their commies.Well except for those where the Commies actually were in power.They make Pinochet's Chile look like a human rights paradise.

FatDrunkAndStupid | December 10, 2006, 11:45pm | #

Pinochet's problem was in his excess. I don't think anyone can fault him for his participation in the coup or the immediate bloodbath that followed. That literally saved Chile. But as time went on, and it should have become apparent to the even the most paranoid opponent of Communism that the threat had been eliminated, Pinochet kept fighting. That is the stain on his legacy.

Rick Barton | December 10, 2006, 11:47pm | #

Isaac Bartram,

I just noticed that I misspelled your first name. Sorry about that.

Rick Barton | December 10, 2006, 11:54pm | #

Guy Montag:

It is amazing that the hysterical Left is speaking about Pinochet in a better light than they did of Ronald Reagan. Defeating the Soviet Union was the most horrible act any human has committed on the world, to some.

Yeah, and when ya read the Left's old defenses of the Soviet Union, it's amazing that they're willing to show their faces.

Aresen | December 10, 2006, 11:58pm | #

Bill

I'm sure George III would have loved you. After all, he was a much better king than Louis XVI or Frederick of Prussia. Pity about those pesky rebels in the colonies.

Joe | December 11, 2006, 12:19am | #

Russia went as blodlessly to democracy (such as it is) as Pinochet's Chile. Again, Poor Maggie Thatcher. Let's not say anything bad about Augusto out of respect for her grief.

Joe | December 11, 2006, 12:27am | #

Thatcher rallies Tories in defence of Pinochet at British Conservative Party conference
By Julie Hyland
9 October 1999
Use this version to print

The highlight of the past week's Conservative Party conference was a packed meeting on Wednesday evening addressed by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, entitled "General Pinochet: the only political prisoner in Britain".

In a hall bedecked with Chilean flags, Thatcher was flanked by two Chilean senators, former chancellor Norman Lamont and Pinochet's son, Marco Antonio. Met by rapturous applause, she decried the extradition proceedings against the former dictator as "international lynch law", "judicial kidnap" and the equivalent of a "police state".

The case against Pinochet was a "Marxist" plot, Thatcher claimed. "The left can't forgive" Pinochet for defeating communism and successfully transforming Chile into a model free market economy, she continued, and were taking revenge on one of “Britain's greatest friends”.

Andrew | December 11, 2006, 12:28am | #

I think it is a common fantasy among immature libertarians to hypothesise a benevolent tyranny which will impose free market practises on an initially reluctant populace, then restore majority rule after proving the case.

Of course, nothing like this ever happens in real life. Bear it in mind during the next round of democracy-bashin', when all the knowing sorts speculate on the advantages of monarchy.

Joe | December 11, 2006, 12:30am | #

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/oct1999/tory-o09.shtml

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 1:08am | #

One of the more popular ways that some people (of any ideological stripe) seem to use to defend dictatorships is to get into utilitarian calculations where you justify the death, torture, exile, etc. of X number of people for the benefit of Y number of people.

Ashish George,

...against a president who was defiling the Chilean constitution and waving proudly the banner of his friend and idol, Fidel Castro.

Say that is the case. So what did Pinochet do in relation to the Chilean Constitution?

JD | December 11, 2006, 1:08am | #

Andrew - I think we should have a king with absolute power. That way, we always know who to blame or praise for everything. If we like him, we leave him in power. If we don't like him, we cut his head off and get a new king. Makes everything much simpler. To hell with this "restore majority rule" stuff - when the majority wants to rule it just cuts off the king's head and sticks it in front of the new king to remind him who's really boss, and that's good enough for me!

Joe - I do agree with Thatcher in one respect: while Pinochet was a thug who deserved to be put on trial, WTF did Britain or Spain have to do with it? He didn't commit any crimes in Spain that I'm aware of. So the message coming across was, "We can grab anybody we don't like and try him; jurisdiction is for chumps."

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 1:18am | #

JD,

The reason that the Spanish government went after Pinochet, or rather, a Spanish judge went after him, was due to several Spaniards who were killed in Chile during Pinochet's period in power. Indeed, he used Chile's own government records as a basis for the warrant.

Here are the Comission's findings:

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 1:18am | #

http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/chile/chile_1993_toc.html

Aresen | December 11, 2006, 1:35am | #

The problem with the grab on Pinochet was that the UK accepted his arrival on a diplomatic passport.

Kinda wiped out 500 years of international law, which was Thatcher's point.

moctopouse | December 11, 2006, 2:25am | #

"I think it is a common fantasy among immature libertarians to hypothesise a benevolent tyranny which will impose free market practises on an initially reluctant populace, then restore majority rule after proving the case."

Another contingent of the immature are utopians of any stripe, Left or Right. If something isn't perfectly libertarian or perfectly socialist then it isn't libertarian or socialist at all according to them. This way they needn't bother with historical developments in the country, with on the ground factions, with any other contextual issues.

Opposed to this worldview is the view that things will never be perfectly one way or the other. So, a Chile under a right wing dictator that decides to offer more choices to people in the what, when, where, and how of buying and selling their goods, services, and ideas is at least a little better than a Chile that closes off this side of life. And a China under Deng, with much more freedom available, is still a whole of a lot better than a China completely closed off under Mao.

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 2:43am | #

So, a Chile under a right wing dictator that decides to offer more choices to people in the what, when, where, and how of buying and selling their goods, services, and ideas is at least a little better than a Chile that closes off this side of life.

It is hard for me to figure out how people had more choices re: "ideas" under Pinochet than under Allende. Pinochet's regime was a dictatorship, with all the controls over speech, the press, the promotion of democratic government, etc. that that entails.

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 2:51am | #

Anyway, a lot of these arguments present a false dichotomy - as if the choice were exclusively between Allende and Pinochet. Personally I don't if that is the case.

moctopouse | December 11, 2006, 3:10am | #

Zeno,
I was making a general case that it's better to have some parts of life free than none at all - and it's no betrayal of the whole of the libertarian movement to work towards liberty in at least one aspect of life - though some libertarians might see it that way.

In the case of Chile, I wasn't making a case that there was more freedom of speech under Pinochet than under Allende. I was trying to make the case that a Chile under Pinochet, with some measure of economic freedom, was at least better than a Chile, under Pinochet, with no economic freedom. I don't know why the Chicago Boys can be faulted for at least helping to free up one part of life in Chile. And I certainly wouldn't have thought they were betraying libertarian principles if they were helping to free up Cuba's economy under Castro.

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 3:54am | #

moctopouse,

"I was trying to make the case that a Chile under Pinochet, with some measure of economic freedom, was at least better than a Chile, under Pinochet [Allende?], with no economic freedom."

That's probably the case, however, I question whether that was really the choice in 1973. After all, at least some of the claims that Pinochet made about Allende becoming a "dictator" were apparently incorrect. I'm not going to defend Allende here, he was doing some fairly bad things, etc. but the fact remains that Allende was set to offer up the solution of a plebiscite just days before the bloody coup in which he died. Which makes me wonder whether the coup killed off a far more peaceful solution to the situation.

Isaac Bartram | December 11, 2006, 9:21am | #

Rick Barton

My own knowledge of Spanish pronunciation would lead me to favor "Peeno-chette" (my father spoke Spanish, I do not).

However when usage departs from rules of pronunciation usage should govern, especially with names. Usage in this case seems to favor "Peeno-shay".

NPR seems to have followed the pedantic route in this case. As near as I can tell they are the only media group that does.

Isaac Bartram | December 11, 2006, 9:25am | #

Mind you, I suspect that among Pinochet's victims and their friends and families the pronuciation of his name is the last thing to be troubled about.

Matt | December 11, 2006, 9:29am | #

regargding pronunciation, its pronounced pino-chette.

http://www.slate.com/id/2131164/

this links to many Chilean newscasters clearly pronouncing it that way.

score one for NPR.

Adam W. | December 11, 2006, 9:35am | #

I hate this. I'm experiencing SEVERE cognitive dissonance: Pinochet was a scumbag, despite the economic reforms. And there were economic reforms. ARRGH!!!

BTW, can someone more knowledgable than I PLEASE debunk this Greg Palast piece? http://www.gregpalast.com/tinker-bell-pinochet-and-the-fairy-tale-miracle-of-chile-2#more-1551

Joe | December 11, 2006, 9:39am | #

Where can one send condolences to Maggie Thatcher?

Isaac Bartram | December 11, 2006, 9:39am | #

Matt

I'll take your word for it. I don't have a sound card so I can't get sound.

I am only going by the fact that every Chilean that I have ever heard interviewed has pronounced it "shay". And that was the case whether they were speaking English or Spanish.

And, yes, I am perfectly aware that that pronuciation in not in accordance with standard rules.

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 9:43am | #

Adam W.,

The nitty-gritty question is whether those reforms were worth a pile of corpses? Or even whether that pile had to be created in order for those reforms to be undertaken?

Matt | December 11, 2006, 9:52am | #

Isaac, yes I, and everyone I knew pronounced it the same way for many years. A couple years ago my International Affairs Professor father could take it no more and corrected me. I still couldnt believe it until I heard those newscasts myself sometime last year.

Seems to be a case of groupthink grammar.

jkp | December 11, 2006, 9:54am | #

"It required an election in 1988 which Pinochet lost. So much for the love of the people!"

Whoa, Zeno, I thought you just said he got "kicked out" by riots. Oops.

joe | December 11, 2006, 9:54am | #

Marcvs,

There may not have been comments defending Pinochet when you asked your question, but they sure did show up, didn't they?

Given the rhetoric of the past five years from the American right, their sympathy for a "powerful executive" who tortured and murdered dissidents to his left doesn't come as much of a surprise.

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 10:01am | #

jkp,

Thos street protests, etc. fed into his electoral defeat.

Whatever the explanation, he clearly wasn't popular enough to garner another term in office in 1988.

Zeno | December 11, 2006, 10:15am | #

Jesse Walker blogged about Pinochet's influence on KGB thugs back in 2004...

Apparently one of the things that the frustrated the KGB the most about Allende's regime (at least in their view) was his unwillingness to "use force" on the opposition.

More here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1786802_1,00.html

moctopouse | December 11, 2006, 10:44am | #

"but the fact remains that Allende was set to offer up the solution of a plebiscite just days before the bloody coup in which he died. Which makes me wonder whether the coup killed off a far more peaceful solution to the situation."

Zeno,
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that Allende offered a better path for the people than the path Pinochet took. But I think we are arguing different points. I wasn't trying to suggest that Pinochet was a better alternative to Allende or that what happened under him was necessary for the economic reforms to take place or that the reforms excuse the butchery. Not at all. I'm just saying that the Chicago boys should not be faulted for trying to help free up one part of the society. Just as they wouldn't have been faulted if the coup hadn't happened, Allende remained in power, but due to economic distress he reached out to them for help as well. A movement towards liberty in one area is better than no movement at all. Yet, it seems like there's a contingent out there that somehow has linked the Chicago Boys, in a causal way, to the crimes of Pinochet. This is surely a distortion.

plunge | December 11, 2006, 11:33am | #

You have to wonder: if some country paid off members of Congress and tried to get the military to overthrow the President in a coup, if they spent millions to try to undermine and destroy our economy, suddenly cut off all aid (if we were a country that relied on it), if they helped organize a kidnapping that ended up killing the country's commander in chief because he opposed overthrowing the democratically elected President...

wouldn't we call that international terrorism?

ChrisO | December 11, 2006, 12:55pm | #

Those South Americans do seem to like their caudillos. None of my business, really.

Guy Montag | December 11, 2006, 1:15pm | #

Jonah Goldberg should have a great article on this tomorrow.

joe | December 11, 2006, 1:22pm | #

I think Atrios has the best take on this news:

"Only the Good Die Young"

Lamar | December 11, 2006, 2:03pm | #

"Who's defending Pinochet? All I see are a bunch of posts saying that it's good that he's dead, and a bunch of lefties saying that he's being defended. Talk about projection."

The tone at the top of the comments is that Pinochet was running a pseudo-leftist government until 1986, at which time he pulled a 180 degree turn and instituted free market reforms. Then when the free market reforms started making Chile super awesome, we all knew communism was bad or something. To be honest, the argument doesn't hold up.

Aresen | December 11, 2006, 2:35pm | #

Guy

Another link you might find interesting:

http://www.cubaarchive.org/downloads/CA03.pdf

Isaac Bartram | December 11, 2006, 4:14pm | #

Lamar, I hardly think one commenter gets to set the tone in a thread with this many.

Lamar | December 11, 2006, 5:47pm | #

Well, it was the second post and the first multiparagraph post. But, I stand corrected. It is one post among many.

Etzel | December 11, 2006, 6:58pm | #

He was an anti democrat.

Enough said.

Kevin Carson | December 12, 2006, 1:47am | #

Be nice if Jeffrey Sachs and Boris Yeltsin would kick off within a few weeks of each other.

The so-called "free market reforms" under Pinochet were nothing of the kind. First of all, he reversed the land reforms and restored land to the latifundists, a violation of just about every libertarian theory of genuine property rights there is. Second, his "privatization" was nothing but funny auctions to crony capitalists. State property should have been homesteaded by those actually using it, with state industry privatized to workers' syndicates and state services transformed into consumer cooperatives owned by their clientele.

Rothbard had the right idea about privatizing state-owned economies: the land to the peasants, the factories to the workers, etc. Neoliberals like Friedman and Sachs, on the other hand, want to auction off everything that isn't nailed down to international financial elites.