Pinochet as political litmus

I'm confused about this whole Pinochet thing.  There seems to be no question that he was a vicious bastard, but was he, on the realpolitikal whole, better for Chile than the alternative?  Christopher Hitchens, brilliant writer but erratic thinker that he is, has no doubts, as he writes in a Slate article:

His overthrow of civilian democracy, in the South American country in which it was most historically implanted, will always be remembered as one of the more shocking crimes of the 20^th century.

Waiiiit a minute, Chris...that's a pretty tall order.  In a  century rife with genocides, wars causing the deaths of millions, amoral megalomaniacs like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the Kims of North Korea playing god with the fates of their nations, who's Pinochet to rate so highly? 

On the other hand, James Whelan thinks that in the final tally, Pinochet did more good than evil.

Six months before Salvador Allende was overthrown on September 11, 1973, Volodia Teitelboim told an interviewer for the Communist Party daily newspaper in Santiago that if civil war were to come, then 500,000 to one million Chileans would die.

Teitelboim knew whereof he spoke. He was then the No.2 man in the Chilean Communist Party, the third largest in the Western world (after France and Italy), and a senior partner in Allende's Marxist-Leninist government.

The Communists were then planning to seize total power in the country, though they were not in as much a hurry to do so as the Socialists, the principal party in the Allende coalition and one passionately committed to revolutionary violence. So the Communists and the Socialists shared the same goal - ending once and for all the bourgeois democratic state - but differed on methods. Allende, a Socialist, was somewhere in between, wavering between his own bourgeois tastes and the totalitarian temptation.

Allende had come to power in September 1970 with not enough votes to win outright election - only 40,000 more than the conservative runner-up - and so had to be voted in by Congress in exchange for a statute of guarantees drawn up by the Christian Democrat majority. A few months later, Allende told fellow leftist Regis Debray that he never actually intended to abide by those commitments but signed just to finally become president, having failed in three previous runs for the office.

In those first 2 1/2 years, Allende had plunged Chile into hell-on-earth chaos. Former president Eduardo Frei Montalva - the man more responsible than any other for Allende's ascent to the presidency - called it "this carnival of madness". Violence, strikes, shortages and lawlessness stalked the land.

The Supreme Court declared Allende outside the law. So, too, did the Chamber of Deputies in August 1973 in a resolution that all but demanded the armed forces seize power to rescue Chile from the inferno.

So, when the armed forces finally did act on September 3, they did so in response to the clamour of an overwhelming majority of Chileans and not as the jackboot power bandits of typical Latin American revolts. News stories about what happened on that Tuesday in September routinely speak of the bloody coup. It was no such thing. About 200 people died in the shooting on September 13 and a little more than 1000 in the first three months of virtual civil war.

But not the civil war the Communists were perfectly prepared to accept as their price for power: 500,000 to one million. Indeed, in all 17 years of military rule, the total of dead and missing - according to the only serious study - was 2279. The Chilean Revolution thus was, by far, the least bloody of any significant Latin American revolution of the 20th century, though you would never guess that from reading or watching news reports.

The Chilean revolution was different from other Latin American revolutions in another respect: it left the country far better off than the one it found. Indeed, Chile is the envy of the entire region for its spectacular economic progress and for the solidity of the institutions the military government created. Consider: Inflation was slashed from 600per cent to 6per cent; infant mortality rates came down from 66per 1000 to 13 per 1000; urban access to drinking water increased from 67 per cent to 98per cent; and living standards more than doubled.

Among others featured in an NRO Symposium on Pinochet (overwhelmingly favorable), my ideel Theodore Dalrymple, here under his real name of Anthony Daniels, uses his skills as a prison shrink to get to the real reasons that the strong man of Chile is so vilified.

The reason Augusto Pinochet was universally hated by leftists and many academics worldwide was not because he was so brutal or killed so many people (he hardly figured among the 20th century’s most prolific political killers, admittedly a difficult company to get into) but because he was so successful. There is no doubt that there was indeed much brutality and hardship in the wake of his coup, but unlike the much less reviled military dictators of Argentina and Uruguay, he actually achieved something worthwhile, namely the prosperity of his country.

Worse still, he did so by adopting the very reverse of the policies for so long advocated by third worldists and academic development economists, who were certain that the cause of the third world’s poverty was the first world’s wealth, and that everything would have to change before anything could change. His demonstration that a country could draw itself up by its bootstraps, by embracing trade, was most unwelcome. It forced a change of world outlook, never welcome to those who live by ideas.

That a hick general from a humble background should so obviously have done much more for his country than a suave, educated, aristocratic Marxist was a terrible blow to the self-esteem of the Left in every Western country. As for holding a referendum on own his rule and abiding by the result when he lost, that was quite unforgivable, setting as it did a shocking precedent for left-wing dictators.

I am pleased to admit that I found Daniel's comment after I had already commented on Hitchen's point of view. 

It seems that for both left and right, Pinochet  is an embarrassment.  For the left, his example shows that making omelets "for the good of the people" is a lie.  Pinochet actually did what Lenin and Stalin were claiming to do, as the USSR fell farther and farther behind the west.  To raise the standards of living and create a better society, Pinochet was more than willing to be brutal to some.  On the other hand, for those who champion market reforms and criticize socialists who overlook Castro's police state, Pinochet proves that Chicago Boys style economics doesn't always go together with democracy and rule of law.  The "Yes, they have little freedom, but look at the infant mortality rate" argument can cut both ways.

Niall Ferguson reminds us not to forget global politics.  In a world where there are going to be sonsofbitches no matter what we do, we might as well make sure that a few of them are ours.  Ferguson marks the passing of another 70s-80s icon, Reagan's ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, to make this point.

Kirkpatrick did not claim that these men were good. She simply argued that they were preferable to the alternatives, just as Chiang Kai-shek had been preferable to Mao in China, and Fulgencio Batista had been preferable to Fidel Castro in Cuba. South Korea was no democracy in the 1970s, but it was better than North Korea. Taiwan was still a one-party state, but one that was much preferable to the People's Republic of China, to say nothing of Pol Pot's Cambodia.

The reason our sonsofbitches were better than theirs, she argued, was that while conservative dictatorships undeniably preserved "existing allocations of wealth, power [and] status", they also "worshipped traditional gods and observed traditional taboos". Communist regimes, by contrast, tended to "create refugees by the millions" because their ideological demands "so violated internalised values and habits that inhabitants fled".

Moreover, conservative dictatorships were much more likely than Communist ones to make the transition to democracy, because they permitted "limited contestation and participation".

Very Burkean, that part about traditional gods and taboos. 

Pinochet also brings to light another uncomfortable point for both left and right.  If we say that his strong arm tactics were necessary to prevent chaos and the deaths of far more people, then can we conclude that Saddam Hussein, a sonofabitch's sunofabitch, should have been left in power?  I would say no on several counts.  First, he wasn't our SOB--at least for the last fifteen years or so.  Second, Pinochet's Chile was more prosperous than oil-rich Iraq.  Third, millions of lives were lost anyways in his futile war against Iran. 

But how strange it is to encounter the argument that Iraq was better off with Saddam in the same political neighborhood as that which holds the Pinochet condemners.  Give Hitchens credit in that he is consistent in his argument against both.

Comments

[andrew]

Pinochet crushed the Left by using their own tactics against them. That's why they hate him so much. It's that simple.

[kb]

Tanuki ponders: "but was he, on the realpolitikal whole, better for Chile than the alternative?"

Who knows? As usual, the democratically elected government was overthown by anti-democratic murdering terrorists. And this is the important thing. If there's choice between allowing a left-leaning government to potentially succeed, or supporting a brutal murderer who makes sure this doesn't happen, even if the vast majority of the population supported the Allende government, you chose the murderer. Anyone who is unaware of this knows ZERO about Latin American issues. So, to answer your question, we'll never know. Personally, I'm FOR democratically elected governments, especially ones who at least decide and try to help the population. May have worked. May have not. Nnt really much of our business. However, if it would have been decided by the Chilean people to have the U.S. come in for support, and this would have meant supporting Allende as he was the favorite, by far, then an argument could have been made for going in to help support the correct group. Unfortunately, but predictably, the U.S. favored the criminal.kb

I'll assume that this IS the Andrew of past days. It's good to see that he hasn't picked up a book since the last time he was trying to make "comments".

[kb]

Tanuki pontificated further:

"If we say that his strong arm tactics were necessary to prevent chaos and the deaths of far more people"

"We" would just be guessing. This is an old red herring as well. Anything left of neo-conartistry is always viewed with suspicion by those who go to the extremes and the worst case scenarios. Perhaps you've heard about this tendency? And there is no sign at all that Allende was anywhere near as extreme, nor did any sane person ever think he was, to surmise such nonsense. I mean, outside the usual few right-wing anti-communist fanatics.kb

"then can we conclude that Saddam Hussein, a sonofabitch's sunofabitch, should have been left it power?"

First of all, it sounds as though you're inferring that "WE" have some right to determine whether he should or shouldn't. Secondly, the U.S. supported him for 20+ years, during the time he was committing his worst crimes, so the U.S. should have no say so whatsoever. They should feel lucky not to be found guilty and charged for supporting the criminal, as much of the rest of the world is keenly aware of. Fortunately, for U.S. "leaders" much of the U.S. population, especially the right, is so faithfully indoctrinated that their cognitive dissonance disallows for the most basic questions, assumptions, etc...to even be considered. But to follow the implied priviledge further, do other countries have a right to support anti-Bush folks with chemical weapons, wmd, etc....in order to remove him? If not, why not?

"I would say no on several counts."

Good! Then you agree with Chomsky's position from 20 years ago when he was supporting anti-Saddam resistance movements only to be called by the ignorant as "anti-American" for doing so. So, were you supporting the anti-Saddam folks back then, you know, when his crimes were at their worst, even against U.S. laws to prohibit such moral acts of decency? If not, why not? And don't give me any "realpolitik" (((Nice sounding code word for those wishing to sound as though they have special insight into reality which most others do not. There are even a few who call themselves "realists" who take a similar stance, or are the same folks. Should be viewed with great suspicion. The actual meaning has to do with shunning ethics, or what the rest of the planet thinks in pursuing one's own selfish goals i.e., the very last sort of folks one would want to live anywhere near, or have anything to do with. Also, this hostility to the world can often be seen by those who despise the U.N. and other such attempts at making the world civil. These poor depraved souls don't want to be civil. They are little more than the big kid in the playground saying that he doesn't need to play with everyone else and that he wilol make the rules whether anyone else likes them or not-"realpolitik".)))kb

"First, he wasn't ours SOB--at least for the last fifteen years or so."

Yes, the day he invaded Kuwait, actually a part of Iraq, I mean, realpolitikly speaking, another topic which is rarely heard from the managers and producers of doctrinal purity, he changed roles from being on the U.S. payroll, having received 1 billion dollars the day before the invasion, to another Hitler overnight. Had Saddam changed much? Nope. The indoctrination os so great though that obvious observation that the U.S. had just supported him for 20+ years, during his worst crimes, could simply be flushed, and now we could present ourselves as saviours of the world. This was a most disgusting display of hypocricy in recent times.kb

"Second, Pinochet's Chile was more prosperous than oil-rich Iraq."

Really? In what ways? There are many who look to the World Bank, WTO, etc...for telling us who is and who is not prosperous. There's a VERY long history of this which has no relation to reality at all. In fact, most of these countries move to the left precisely because this supposed prosperity is NOT reaching most of the population. On paper it often looks good. There are always stats which "demonstrate" how wonderful everything is. And for a few percentage of the population this is very true. The number of millionaires, and even billionaires sometimes, goes up while the number in poverty goes up even faster. Hence the reason for the majority of the populations trying against the odds to move things to the left where they may see the benefits of their own work, and not simply supporting another criminal making money off of their backs. These folks aren't stupid. They know exactly who is screwing them, how, with the support of whom, etc...Anyway, the U.S. put both Pinchet AND Saddam into power in the first place, so they ARE accomplices, and should be held responsible for the crimes committed by the criminals they installed. The LAST thing they should do is have any say at all in what happens to either.kb

"Third, millions of lives were lost anyways in his futile war against Iran."

With the support of the U.S. via, tecnical assistance, wmd, chemical weapons (war crime remember), and on and on...not to mention leading to the resulting Iranian regime, which, I'm pretty sure, wasn't the result being looked for. Just as it may happen in Iraq next. And if it does, the lone cowboy WILL be responsible. I've never seen so much refusal to accept responsibility for ones own actions in my life.kb

"But how strange it is to encounter the argument that Iraq was better off with Saddam in the same political neighborhood as that which holds the Pinochet condemners."

It's not strange at all. Even the U.S.'s official positon was that they were both there to supposedly "maintain stability". And they are two separate cases. There ARE no two cases exactly the same. (Of course the black and white thinking of the right has difficulty understanding this concept: "You're a Republican or are a communist". That's about the spectrum of thought)And they both could have been gotten rid of without just going in and starving the population, or supporting their torturer. (500,000 childred dead in Iraq as a direct result. FAR more than Saddam ever killed. More now from the lingering affacts) or shooting everyone.(Notice how INFREQUENTLY the media talks of the civilian deaths in Iraq. This is NO accidental oversight. There is a specific reason for it, and it IS probably planned, as has often happened in the past) I'm in favor of a really radical solution, or at least gesture: That we should support the population instead of the few percentage which create a supposedly "nice climate for investment" from which several businesses
may profit instead of the people who live there. This may help. The U.S. should have been supporting Castro from the outset, Allende, the anti-Saddam democratic resistance (as Chomksy was doing), etc...at a time when it was beneficial, in the long term, to do so. Unfortunately, the nature of business often doesn't look more than 24 hours ahead as to what their actions may help to cause. I think they used to call it "looting and running". Perhaps this phenomena might have something to do with some of the features of capitalism?kb

"Give Hitchens credit in that he is consistent in his argument against both."

And one should be against both. Unfortunately, the U.S. supported both, and like any drug supplier who gives assistance and support to the street dealers, should be held accountable and are responsible for what has happened. I've never seen anyone in my life try and not accept direct responsibility for actions as the right in the U.S., outside, perhaps, a few of the Japanese.kb

[andrew]

1. Repeat Baath Party propaganda about number of dead children.

2. Blame US for actions of dictator.

3. Whine when the US opposes/removes dictator.

4. Insinuate that Saddam wasn't so bad.

5. Defend Castro.

6. Project own unnuanced worldview onto the "right."

7. Claim that the UN tries to make the world more civil. (Of course, how an "anarchist" such as yourself defends a gigantic bureaucracy that's pretty much unaccountable to anyone doesn't make much sense)

8. Oppose capitalism.

Yup, Classic KB.

[kb]

Andrew STILL demonstrating he has never read a book says:

"1. Repeat Baath Party propaganda about number of dead children."

Really? I was unaware that UNICEF was made up of Baath Party members.kb

"2. Blame US for actions of dictator."

Exactly! And even more so given that he was supported before, during, and after his worst crimes. This was brought to the attention of the leaders many times, but was downplayed as usual because he was "maintaining stability". Saddam wouldn't take a dump unless the U.S. said something about it, and the ONE time he did, Kuwait, which, in fact, he thought he had received the greem light from the U.S. to go ahead and do anyway, he was booted for not following orders. This demonstrates exactly who had the power and where it lie. Take responsibility for your actions.kb

"3. Whine when the US opposes/removes dictator."

The U.S. had exactly zero busniess removing the man they created precisely for that reason. When a mafia dons underling drug dealer gets out of control and starts killing everyone, it hardly makes it legal or right for the don to enforce the actual law. The entire episode resulted from his assistance in the first place. His involvement at all is criminal by definition since he helped create the situation. In the real world, the killing drug dealer, along with his boss, the person who most law enforcement really want to get given his bad influence, would both be taken to jail, if they're not shot first. And even mafia dons do some good for the neighborhoods, right? Still trying to evade responsibility. Grow up.kb

"4. Insinuate that Saddam wasn't so bad."

Really? Who does this? The left never has. The left has been supporting efforts to remove him for 20+ years, when your type was supporting him and calling the anti-Saddam folks "anti-American" for doing so. I thought I had taught you this basic lesson about 3oo times now. And, if one actually looks at the numbers, he wasn't that bad in many ways. He was bad, but he could have killed many more, say, the number of civilians who have died now that the U.S. has invaded. Of course they'll be excused from taking responsibility for these deaths as well, as if the invasion had nothing to do with the resulting deaths, in another display of refusing to take resonsibility. Just ask most any Iraqi if they felt this threatened under Saddam. I'd say that the answer would be hoovering around 98%. And, just to let you know, this isn't an apologetic for Saddam in any way, shape, or form, another concept you folks from the right have difficulty with.kb

"5. Defend Castro."

Exactly. We should defend the population of a country if we're going to be involved at all. Don't you think it's a good idea to defend the population and remove the murdering thugs who keep them down? And this should ONLY happen if it is loud and clear that the majority of the popoulation wants the help. Castro wanted the U.S. to support the people of the country. Unfortunately, there were a few idiots who preferred supporting big business interests, the real friends. So, for the most part, yes, the U.S. should have absolutely helped Castro, and should also take responsibility for much of the Cuban peoples lives since then. And this isn't even getting into all of the terrorism perpetrated against Cuba, one of the most heavily terrorized countries around. Once again, trying not to accpet responsibility. I thought you right-wingers were brought up to accept responsibility for your actions. It obviously didn't work. You seem to have an almost built in 'Refuse to Accpet Responsibility' chip in place at all times. It's NEVER your responsibility. You're like those children who blame everything in the universe on "the others", always. Grow up!kb

"6. Project own unnuanced worldview onto the "right.""

Now that's clear. Where's the evidence? And this is another thing. All you folks from the right do is spout off indoctrinated opinion. Let's see some evidence, for once.kb

"7. Claim that the UN tries to make the world more civil. (Of course, how an "anarchist" such as yourself defends a gigantic bureaucracy that's pretty much unaccountable to anyone doesn't make much sense)"

Of course that's what they're there for. And if the U.S. would quit blocking them most of the time, perhaps steps could be taken. However, usually when the teacher starts telling the bully in the playground that he needs to follow the rules the same as all the other kids he starts going into convulsions. Some teachers slap him upside the head. Others try and make his dumb ass realize how much harm he is doing and try to teach him the lesson in a less confrontative way. The U.N., unfortunately, is pretty much a case of the bully telling the teacher what the rules are going to be. In THIS sense it's not working too well.kb

"8. Oppose capitalism."

I pontificated as to whether the afore mentioned could possibly be a result of capitalism. Actually, I was being sarcastic because it obviously IS one of the typical and predictable occurances. And what form of capitalism are you talking about? There are many forms. Most countries, even North Korea, have always had forms of capitalism. China and the Soviet Union surely always have had. Once again, your right-wing black and white mentality tries to say 'You're either like US, or you're against us'.kb

"Yup, Classic KB."

You're exactly right. This IS classic kb. There's nothing really classic about it. I mean, the facts aren't probably going to change that much over time unless new evidence is revealed. In the cases mentioned above nothing really new has been discovered, so what's there to change? I mean, it's possible that someone discover that the world is square instead of round, and when they do I'll have to adjust my thinking to it. What I DON'T do, is to continue with the old incorrect information. Until now you haven't demonstrated anything to be incorrect about what I've said. But if you think you have evidence, bring it on.kb

Yep! Classic old Andrew. Saying some words, and not proving anything.