Not defending Pinochet at all, but the idea that a democratically elected communist government (in full control of a country) stays democratic for long is not borne out by any evidence anywhere on earth. In the middle of the Cold War, with the Soviet Union already shipping weapons in, the economy was struggling, Allende's coalition partners abandoned the communists in favour of a "Confederation of Democracy" (interesting name, huh). An authoritarian slide was not inevitable, but it was the well-trodden path and the default outcome. Soviet-aligned communists don't govern democratic countries for long, full stop.

(Again, is does not excuse overthrowing/murdering him or the US involvement in that).

> but the idea that a democratically elected communist government (in full control of a country) stays democratic for long is not borne out by any evidence anywhere on earth

Nor do we have almost any evidence of the opposite, since the US obliterated most experiments in anything other than plunder capitalism.

I also contest that non-communist governments stay democratic for long. The US, for example, is barely a democracy in a meaningful sense, and is increasingly moving in plutocratic, fascist directions.

While the democratic government of Russia is busy bombing innocent civilians any taking away their country. Why is US moving in fascist directions again?!

1. I didn't say anything about Russia

2. Both of those things are common practice for the US

3. The US is moving toward fascism because of fascists. The mask is off at this point, it's not even a question of whether or not there's fascism in American politics. (Honorable mention: We can thank Russia for funding and promoting fascism in the US in order to divide us, though. Russia sure does suck for democracy.)

For heaven's sake is 2023 how are people still living in this Chomsky Khmer-Rouge Genocidal denying state of mind. Why do all of the worst totalitarian ruthless killers have so much lingering support on the Left?

Allende (fyi backed by the Soviets) got 30% of the vote and tried to overthrow the government through constitutional coup (Edit: not really a coup, but a de facto coup by completely ignoring the Judiciary and near super-majority in Congress against him, and by using military and other tactics) and to socialize / take control over vast parts of the economy which completely crashed the system.

And so the result was Pinochet, which is bad, but not nearly as bad as otherwise, but that's what happens as a result.

I don't suggest that what's happening in Chile is the same thing, but it obviously has echoes.

Pinochet was the ruthless killer, bud. You anti communist ideologues are so twisted you view someone who mass murdered people as preferable to nationalization of the economy.

Nationalizing the economy usually leads to lots of dead people anyway. Of starvation, if history is any guide.

It's up to the people of a democratic country to decide if they want to try. Overthrowing the government because it may potentially go that way it's not what the West nominally defend as their values.

Chile of Allende may actually have had a chance to avoid that destiny had not it been for US actively destroying their economy; they were for once trying modern social and economic projects based on scientific models that might have made a difference, but that was thrown away with the dictatorship.

30% of the country to not get to grab the property of everyone, the suggestion is a bit repulsive and anti-democratic.

Democracy exists precisely to protect minorities, not to have aa 50%+1 majority mob rule.

Allende and the other Communist/Anarchists (often Soviet backed) are among the worst people in history, causing mass death and harm on a scale never seen before under the guise of their deluded egos, and it continues to this day.

Allende would have created something akin to Venezuela or Cuba, thankfully he was thwarted, unfortunately, it came at a cost.