Re:Chile to Nationalize Lithium Industry
by shkkmo on Monday May 08, 2023 @12:16PM
(#35863360)
> Allende came to power with only 1/3 of the vote, and during the ensuing congressional negotiations over 'who would take power'
This kind of split vote was actually very typical in Chile at that time. The tradition was that congress would pick whomever had the highest popular vote. While I would agree that this isn't a strong basis for a mandate, it also doesn't indicate that Allende has unusually low popular support.
> a military general supporting the notion of non-intervention in politics to tilt favour was 'mysteriously killed' paving the way for Allende's ascension
Your description of this seems inaccurate. My understanding is that General Schneider was against the military taking a stand in politics by opposing Allende. Schneider was killed resisting a kidnapping attempt (allegedly by those who opposed Allende) which galvanized public disapproval against the military trying to oppose Allende's election in the Congressional runoff.
You seem to be suggesting that the kidnapping was a false flag operation by Allende or his supporters to achieve that result? Do you have evidence to support this?
> He then went on a rampage to socialize large swaths of the economy (without a mandate mind you aka no real popular support)
The nationalization amendment was passed by the Chilean Congress. Some of the nationalization did have some popular support, at least initially.
> and then crashed the economy
It's hard to give full credit to Allende for this. The US cut off support to Chile, price of Chile's main export, copper, tanked and Chile already had pretty bad levels of inflation. It seems quite likely that Chile was headed for an economic crash without Allende, though he may well have made it worse.
> Limiting emigration, arbitrarily crushing strikes as he saw fit, the usual stuff.
Yes, he did a number of things I would not support. That doesn't mean that supporting a coup to terminate 4 decades of democratic rule was justified.
> Pinochet was authoritarian, not totalitarian.
I really struggle to see how you are justifying applying the label to one but not the other. The degree to which opposing parties were suppressed under Pinochet far exceeds the measures taken under Allende.
This kind of split vote was actually very typical in Chile at that time. The tradition was that congress would pick whomever had the highest popular vote. While I would agree that this isn't a strong basis for a mandate, it also doesn't indicate that Allende has unusually low popular support.
> a military general supporting the notion of non-intervention in politics to tilt favour was 'mysteriously killed' paving the way for Allende's ascension
Your description of this seems inaccurate. My understanding is that General Schneider was against the military taking a stand in politics by opposing Allende. Schneider was killed resisting a kidnapping attempt (allegedly by those who opposed Allende) which galvanized public disapproval against the military trying to oppose Allende's election in the Congressional runoff.
You seem to be suggesting that the kidnapping was a false flag operation by Allende or his supporters to achieve that result? Do you have evidence to support this?
> He then went on a rampage to socialize large swaths of the economy (without a mandate mind you aka no real popular support)
The nationalization amendment was passed by the Chilean Congress. Some of the nationalization did have some popular support, at least initially.
> and then crashed the economy
It's hard to give full credit to Allende for this. The US cut off support to Chile, price of Chile's main export, copper, tanked and Chile already had pretty bad levels of inflation. It seems quite likely that Chile was headed for an economic crash without Allende, though he may well have made it worse.
> Limiting emigration, arbitrarily crushing strikes as he saw fit, the usual stuff.
Yes, he did a number of things I would not support. That doesn't mean that supporting a coup to terminate 4 decades of democratic rule was justified.
> Pinochet was authoritarian, not totalitarian.
I really struggle to see how you are justifying applying the label to one but not the other. The degree to which opposing parties were suppressed under Pinochet far exceeds the measures taken under Allende.