|
punk rebel ecks posted:Everything I say about Latin America is completely wrong, but you better believe I will
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:16
|
|
about it. 
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Was Pinochet's rule really that bad? I ran into one of these reactionaries before and they went on about how before Pinochet, Chile was just like Venezuela and everyone was starving because there was no food. Then Pinochet fixed everything only for a brief depression due to him having to switch away from the dollar. How wrong was this? The military dictatorship under Pinochet straight up murdered at least 2000 people, created at least 80,000 political prisoners and tortured at least 30,000 of them. Many more of them simply disappeared and are presumed to have been murdered. Also he wrecked the pension and healthcare and education systems with privatization, wages stagnated, and the "brief depression" was a direct result of all these terrible economic policies. Chile's entire economy and social structure was set back decades by his rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The military dictatorship under Pinochet straight up murdered at least 2000 people, created at least 80,000 political prisoners and tortured at least 30,000 of them. Many more of them simply disappeared and are presumed to have been murdered. While I agree, defenders often point out that Chile is one of the most advanced nation's in South America. What's the best way to counter that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Was Pinochet's rule really that bad? I ran into one of these reactionaries before and they went on about how before Pinochet, Chile was just like Venezuela and everyone was starving because there was no food. Then Pinochet fixed everything only for a brief depression due to him having to switch away from the dollar. How wrong was this? That's pretty much it, yes. It was more of a necessary evil, and the economics reforms ended being a plus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:While I agree, defenders often point out that Chile is one of the most advanced nation's in South America. What's the best way to counter that? It was already one of the most advanced nation's in South America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:While I agree, defenders often point out that Chile is one of the most advanced nation's in South America. What's the best way to counter that? Pinochet had nothing to do with that. It was already among the most advanced for a while beforehand. If anything Pinochet took them back a few decades of progress because the economic/political policies he was behind were total crap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:That's pretty much it, yes. It was more of a necessary evil, and the economics reforms ended being a plus. crimes against humanity aside, pinochet personally embezzled millions of dollars, the economy under his dictatorship crashed 2 times, and poverty rose to 40% of the population by the end of his regime, due to the absolute lack of social spending. but yeah, if you were a rich chilean and no one you knew was thrown out of an airplane, pinochet was all right. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Was Pinochet's rule really that bad? I ran into one of these reactionaries before and they went on about how before Pinochet, Chile was just like Venezuela and everyone was starving because there was no food. Then Pinochet fixed everything only for a brief depression due to him having to switch away from the dollar. How wrong was this? Some amount of privatization/liberalization was probably necessary/at the very least Allende's policies would probably have been bad. But Pinochet was absolutely as brutal a dictator as they come, he probably killed ten thousand political dissenters and imprisoned tens of thousands more, and his rule hosed up a lot more than it fixed Unless you're a libertarian who thinks the Latins need the guiding hand of a brutal dictator to keep them from sloth and collectivism, yes he was very bad icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
I recall seeing somewhere that prior Pinochet, Chile's economy was more or less equal to Argentina. Today, it's pretty much still is. So I guess one could argue against the defenders that Pinochet was at the least as damaging as the Argentine dictatorship?
punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I recall seeing somewhere that prior Pinochet, Chile's economy was more or less equal to Argentina. Today, it's pretty much still is. So I guess one could argue against the defenders that Pinochet was at the least as damaging as the Argentine dictatorship? Why do you have such a hard-on for dictators? Making the trains run on time is never a good excuse for anything. The various dictatorships across the continent at the end of the 20th century hosed things up really hard and probably set the region back decades, in economical and social terms. The fact that there are still fuckwads in every country that look back fondly on those years terrifies me. You really deserve yout title holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Was Pinochet's rule really that bad? I ran into one of these reactionaries before and they went on about how before Pinochet, Chile was just like Venezuela and everyone was starving because there was no food. Then Pinochet fixed everything only for a brief depression due to him having to switch away from the dollar. How wrong was this? Worth noting that, according to declassified transcripts (I'll see if I can dig up the article when I'm not passing out), Nixon and Kissinger did everything in their power to covertly undermine the Chilean economy under Allende, and quietly let it be known that gee, things would surely get so much better if only Allende were to somehow leave office.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
Markovnikov posted:Why do you have such a hard-on for dictators? Making the trains run on time is never a good excuse for anything. The various dictatorships across the continent at the end of the 20th century hosed things up really hard and probably set the region back decades, in economical and social terms. Umm...the post was meant to disprove dictators... Thesaurasaurus posted:Worth noting that, according to declassified transcripts (I'll see if I can dig up the article when I'm not passing out), Nixon and Kissinger did everything in their power to covertly undermine the Chilean economy under Allende, and quietly let it be known that gee, things would surely get so much better if only Allende were to somehow leave office. I recall reading somewhere that Allende was unpopular before the coup. And that he was likely to lose the election anyway. Yet, for some reason, Nixon and Kissinger pushed for a coup to take place. punk rebel ecks fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Markovnikov posted:Why do you have such a hard-on for dictators? Making the trains run on time is never a good excuse for anything. The various dictatorships across the continent at the end of the 20th century hosed things up really hard and probably set the region back decades, in economical and social terms. Actually it is a good excuse, and democracy isn't always the best form of government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Actually it is a good excuse, and democracy isn't always the best form of government. Its preferable to what Pinochet brought. I'll say a dictatorship is only fine if you're exterminating a entrenched oligarchy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its preferable to what Pinochet brought. I'll say a dictatorship is only fine if you're exterminating a entrenched oligarchy. So would have preferred Chile to have become yet another Cuba or Venezuela?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Funny how D&D's endgame is always "kill the rich".
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Funny how D&D's endgame is always "kill the rich". Well, it's better than what actually happened under Pinochet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:So would have preferred Chile to have become yet another Cuba or Venezuela? Didn't know there was a entrenched oligarchy there at the time. I think Allende was an ineffective leader who needed to be removed through an election. Also I would have no problem with an entrenched oligarchy like the Saudis getting purged. But then sociopaths always do like theocratic murderous oligarchs. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Its preferable to what Pinochet brought. I'll say a dictatorship is only fine if you're exterminating a entrenched oligarchy. I don't think dictatorships are fine even in those cases, because they tend to just build another entrenched oligarchy instead. I have an acquaintance who wrote a book on Victor Jara and the repression in Chile during the 70s. Pity it only had a limited release in physical form, otherwise I'd point some of you guys to it - dude's a pretty good writer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks, Pinochet was really bad. Discussing the hypothetical bright side of Chile's military dictatorship is a deeply uncomfortable exercise. I hope this gives you some food for thought about why some people take offense and can't just be beep boop robots on this subject.
Symbolic Butt fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Actually it is a good excuse, and democracy isn't always the best form of government. actually democracy is one honking great idea and we should always strive to have more of it
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
First, Nixon started discussing making the Chilean economy scream before Allende even took office. Second, Allende was elected with a 37% plurality, and in the midterm elections in 1973 his party got 43%. It was still not a majority of the vote, but his support went up, not down. Third, the coup was originally scheduled for the 14th of September. But Allende decided to announce a referendum on the 11th that would decide if he would stay or not. And while it was likely that he would lose the referendum, it was also very clear that the opposition would not have enough support to overturn some of his popular decisions, like nationalizing parts of the copper industry. As a result, the military decided to move up the coup from the 14th to the 11th. Which is a long way of saying that anyone who thinks Chile was on the way of becoming another Cuba or Venezuela or that Pinochet saved the economy is a moron who does not know history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:actually democracy is one honking great idea and we should always strive to have more of it I don't think every dumbass and simpleton should be allowed to take decisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:I don't think every dumbass and simpleton should be allowed to take decisions. If your alternative is to only allow specific dumbasses and simpletons who are also grotesquely immoral to make decisions, that seems even worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If your alternative is to only allow specific dumbasses and simpletons who are also grotesquely immoral to make decisions, that seems even worse. I'm personally fond of meritocracy. Not to say morality is very relative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:punk rebel ecks, Pinochet was really bad. Discussing the hypothetical bright side of Chile's military dictatorship is a deeply uncomfortable exercise. I hope this gives you some food for thought about why some people take offense and can't just be beep boop robots on this subject. Lol grow up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:I don't think every dumbass and simpleton should be allowed to take decisions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Neither should sociopaths, but then you're still here. Do you call "sociopath" anyone with a dissenting opinion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
I have some questions on Allende, but am worried that there will be blowback. [quote="Symbolic Butt"post="464534254"] punk rebel ecks, Pinochet was really bad. Discussing the hypothetical bright side of Chile's military dictatorship is a deeply uncomfortable exercise. I hope this gives you some food for thought about why some people take offense and can't just be beep boop robots on this subject. [/quote] Understandable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:So would have preferred Chile to have become yet another Cuba or Venezuela? That was never on the table, and it's pretty telling that you think it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Was Pinochet's rule really that bad? I ran into one of these reactionaries before and they went on about how before Pinochet, Chile was just like Venezuela and everyone was starving because there was no food. Then Pinochet fixed everything only for a brief depression due to him having to switch away from the dollar. How wrong was this? Pinochet was a completely corrupt, authoritarian dictator who as a vile piece of poo poo human. He was a major participant in Operation Condor, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Chilean citizens; embezzled literally millions of dollars from the country; enacted lovely economic policies that increased inequality and weakened the working class. By the time he left office, almost half the country had fallen into poverty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
SexyBlindfold posted:As a Chilean I only keep updated on Argentina issues by osmosis but the gist of it is that Macri was elected in hopes he'd fix the economic clusterfuck, there are no signs of recovery yet (and arguably things are quite a bit worse due to inflation, stagnating wages, unemployment), and patience is starting to wear thin. There was the usual sacking of public employees with the change of administration and some specific benefits and subsidies were withdrawn early on (I think an energy subsidy was the biggest one? I remember it causing a fuzz earlier this year) but iono if the there's been major cuts after that. This is based entirely on talking to people here in Argentina and very much in the wealthier bubble so take it for what it's worth. Macri has been pretty universally welcomed as an end to insane crony capitalism (mostly referred to as socialism, some of them see the distinction but quite a few just take it that socialists in South America=Sell out the country, enrich yourself) and an honest, technocratic government interested in actually fixing problems. Those in power now are generally wealthy, educated abroad, professionals. Many have had quite a bit of personal success in the private or professional sphere and are seen as immune from gross corruption because they're already well-off. As for the government itself, some consensus and some split opinions. Everyone thinks it's an improvement, they believe they're genuinely working towards improving the economy and creating a successful country that's better for everyone. Ending currency controls and welcoming in foreign investment is high point, bringing Argentina back into the world economy. Likewise prosecuting corruption and actually getting the country's finances straight is seen as a crucial first step. The split opinions come down more on the messaging/spin, ending subsidies is one of those 'people needed to realise we weren't living in the real world', the government can't afford to pay for people's housing and power, etc. This is either good, tough medicine politics or an out-of touch technocratic move that will fix the problem but is too much, too fast. Personally it sounds way too much like some of the austerity bullshit Europe deals with and I'm inclined to say cutting people's subsidies on necessities is a dick move and false economy for government. On the other hand I'm told that most of those subsidies were going to lower and upper-middle class families while the poorer areas were pretty shafted. Most of the aid for the rural poor and areas outside the major cities was being funnelled through cronies and maybe half was getting to those it was meant for. Of course those cronies were also the only source of revenue for many of these communities and so are immensely popular there. The anti-corruption investigations have run into an issue where they are seen as partisan attacks on community leaders regadless of the veracity of those accusations. Two main takes I've gotten come from my girlfriend a cousin of hers. Girlfriend is worryingly right wing (like, someone in their neighbourhood association was recently outed as a torturer for the Junta and her reaction was to be outraged that people are calling for him to give up his position because 'it was 40 years ago and those socialist Peronist animals were even worse. They should just let people get on with their lives'). She loves Macri but basically thinks the government's messaging and spin is a disaster, being honest about inflation and suddenly cutting subsidies is turning people against the government. Basically they're well intentioned but it's too much pain too fast and she's worried they won't be in government long enough to actually get the fruit of economic reforms. She also thinks the Pope is an rear end in a top hat who should either refrain from any involvement with Argentina or should stick to being civil and supporting the democratically elected government. Her cousin has never lived in Argentina but after some issues with spousal visa status after moving to his wife's country has moved there for a while. As essentially an outsider he's a huge fan, thinks the government is competent, is amazed at the difference. He's super supportive and thinks people should wise up to the fact that the previous government basically just made up stuff like official inflation rates. From the description, some people here who weren't earning a huge amount would plan to spend all their earnings because if you had 500-1000 pesos left at the end of the month, by the end of the year they'd be worth about 15% less and have lost maybe 30% vs. the dollar. There was no point trying to save. Which was probably good for the domestic economy short term but seriously fucks any ability to grow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:I'm personally fond of meritocracy. Not to say morality is very relative. Cool! Well that doesn't happen so let's stick with democracy instead I mean I don't know, I don't want to be too controversial but I've always thought that vaginal rats and trained rape dogs are never "a necessary evil" or "preferable to the alternative" Majorian posted:That was never on the table, and it's pretty telling that you think it was. but but but EL PLAN ZETA!!! (for non-chileans: Plan Zeta was a conspiracy "unveiled" by the Junta right after the coup where Allende was totally going to purge the country of notorious right-wing dissidents ANY DAY NOW. Gee can you imagine if the government just went through the country killing notorious dissidents, wouldn't that have been awful? It would have been like a caravan, but instead of trading in goods, it would have traded in... DEATH) punk rebel ecks posted:I have some questions on Allende, but am worried that there will be blowback. Dude most of the thread hates you anyway, how much blowback can you even get at this point Ask away and I promise I won't get mad
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Do you call "sociopath" anyone with a dissenting opinion? If you like Oligarchy, you're a sociopath. Meritocracy is nothing but a word used by those too cowardly to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
tsa posted:Lol grow up. what. I want to believe punk rebel ecks means well and doesn't have a boner for dictators or anything. Am I being childish for trying to push him to not unawarely rile people up itt?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:I'm personally fond of meritocracy. Not to say morality is very relative. Representative democracy is the currently the best known implementation of meritocracy (hardly flawless, but without any flaws other systems don't suffer from but worse), so if that's what you support it's really weird you're advocating pretty non-meritocratic dictators over it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
qnqnx posted:Actually it is a good excuse, and democracy isn't always the best form of government. qnqnx posted:So would have preferred Chile to have become yet another Cuba or Venezuela? qnqnx posted:I don't think every dumbass and simpleton should be allowed to take decisions. qnqnx posted:I'm personally fond of meritocracy. Not to say morality is very relative. Latin american liberal detected. Pro-dictatorship? Yes Smug as gently caress? Yes Superiority complex over "riff-raff"? Yes Meritocracy without any definition of merit besides quantity of money? Heck yeah, that's why private sector latin american businesses constantly develop new technology and are so very competitive worldwide, everyone is so meritous  Hey why don't you defend actual liberal values like the right of the people over their own bodies so as not to be tortured by the (to liberals, oh so evil) state? That's right, because liberalism in south america also means being extremely conservative as a way of resistance to THOSE drat COMMIES, who took over 2 countries with their horrible dictatorships, unlike the rest of the continent which had the good guy dictatorships which functioned quite well and saved their countries (they didn't, the regional economy loving exploded in the eighties thanks to mismanagement and corruption). bagual fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Symbolic Butt posted:what. I want to believe punk rebel ecks means well and doesn't have a boner for dictators or anything. Am I being childish for trying to push him to not unawarely rile people up itt? He's just a bad poster, always check the rap sheet when in doubt. Ignore and move on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:This is based entirely on talking to people here in Argentina and very much in the wealthier bubble so take it for what it's worth. Macri has been pretty universally welcomed as an end to insane crony capitalism (mostly referred to as socialism, some of them see the distinction but quite a few just take it that socialists in South America=Sell out the country, enrich yourself) and an honest, technocratic government interested in actually fixing problems. Those in power now are generally wealthy, educated abroad, professionals. Many have had quite a bit of personal success in the private or professional sphere and are seen as immune from gross corruption because they're already well-off. As for the government itself, some consensus and some split opinions. Everyone thinks it's an improvement, they believe they're genuinely working towards improving the economy and creating a successful country that's better for everyone. Ending currency controls and welcoming in foreign investment is high point, bringing Argentina back into the world economy. Likewise prosecuting corruption and actually getting the country's finances straight is seen as a crucial first step. It's always funny to me how people (not just limited to Latin Americans, but it certainly happens a lot over here) think that because someone's already rich, they're not gonna steal everything not nailed down on the government sphere. Pretty sure historically the opposite tends to happen. MrNemo posted:Two main takes I've gotten come from my girlfriend a cousin of hers. Girlfriend is worryingly right wing (like, someone in their neighbourhood association was recently outed as a torturer for the Junta and her reaction was to be outraged that people are calling for him to give up his position because 'it was 40 years ago and those socialist Peronist animals were even worse. They should just let people get on with their lives'). She loves Macri but basically thinks the government's messaging and spin is a disaster, being honest about inflation and suddenly cutting subsidies is turning people against the government. Basically they're well intentioned but it's too much pain too fast and she's worried they won't be in government long enough to actually get the fruit of economic reforms. She also thinks the Pope is an rear end in a top hat who should either refrain from any involvement with Argentina or should stick to being civil and supporting the democratically elected government. Her cousin has never lived in Argentina but after some issues with spousal visa status after moving to his wife's country has moved there for a while. As essentially an outsider he's a huge fan, thinks the government is competent, is amazed at the difference. He's super supportive and thinks people should wise up to the fact that the previous government basically just made up stuff like official inflation rates. From the description, some people here who weren't earning a huge amount would plan to spend all their earnings because if you had 500-1000 pesos left at the end of the month, by the end of the year they'd be worth about 15% less and have lost maybe 30% vs. the dollar. There was no point trying to save. Which was probably good for the domestic economy short term but seriously fucks any ability to grow. Also not telling you how to live your life, but that would be some  rear end poo poo in my book.Then again I have family members dear to me with roughly the same views, only Brazilian-based (ah, viúvas da ditadura), so I can't criticize too much
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If you like Oligarchy, you're a sociopath. Meritocracy is nothing but a word used by those too cowardly to admit it. Classic D&D and their hatred of successful people. bagual posted:Latin american liberal detected. Mad?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 18:29
|
|