Un país dividido en torno a la inevitabilidad del Golpe de Estado de Augusto Pinochet es lo que refleja la edición de la Encuesta Cadem emitida en contexto de conmemoración del derrocamiento del presidente Salvador Allende.
The framing of this is... interesting. I don't know what the Chilean positions are, but its my understanding that he absolutely brought this on because he took no measures to actually defend the country from this kind of inevitable counter revolution. This also happened in Guatemala. If you don't fight them off like in Cuba or the USSR or DPRK or Viet Nam, then that's what they do, this is what the imperialists want, and Pinochet or Batista are just the guys to carry it out. Fuck go back to the Paris commune.
If, after the February revolution, Kerensky had control of the government and not Lenin, then the soviets would have been crushed in the counter revolution. And it would have been clear why it happened, he would have done everything by the rules of the imperialists, and they would have committed some sort of counter revolutionary slaughter anyway. And the dream of the people would have been strangled to death in the nursery, as has happened so many times.
I get where people are coming from, and the values of Allende's Chile are very much my values. My heart aches when I listen to Victor Jara. But there is a valid criticism of Allende to be made, that he did not defend the revolution and he should have known better. What no historical materialism does to a MF.
I'm open to a critique of this position because I didn't realize it was even controversial, let alone considered "reactionary" so please excuse any ignorance on my part. This is not apologia for 9/11
Maybe Allende thought that, because his ascent to power was via the ballot box, the same militaristic response would be less justifiable to the US and its allies.
He was wrong, obviously, but I think his only real predecessor in this path would have been someone like Mossadegh.
Arbenz got fucked completely before he could do much. Tried to get weapons secretly from the Soviet Bloc to arm his most loyal supporters before the rest of the military could make a move. The generals found out and ended up getting the weapons. His own military gave up on him as well once they believed the US would get involved if they took action.
It really shouldn’t be controversial. Castro warned Allende, and Mao warned Sukarno that imperialists will never forgive them for simply breathing, and ascending to power via their bourgeois methods is a humiliation that warrants death. In Singapore’s situations, the communists were already armed and ready for his approval to start purging the fascists, but he refused and look at the results.
The framing of this is... interesting. I don't know what the Chilean positions are, but its my understanding that he absolutely brought this on because he took no measures to actually defend the country from this kind of inevitable counter revolution. This also happened in Guatemala. If you don't fight them off like in Cuba or the USSR or DPRK or Viet Nam, then that's what they do, this is what the imperialists want, and Pinochet or Batista are just the guys to carry it out. Fuck go back to the Paris commune.
If, after the February revolution, Kerensky had control of the government and not Lenin, then the soviets would have been crushed in the counter revolution. And it would have been clear why it happened, he would have done everything by the rules of the imperialists, and they would have committed some sort of counter revolutionary slaughter anyway. And the dream of the people would have been strangled to death in the nursery, as has happened so many times.
I get where people are coming from, and the values of Allende's Chile are very much my values. My heart aches when I listen to Victor Jara. But there is a valid criticism of Allende to be made, that he did not defend the revolution and he should have known better. What no historical materialism does to a MF.
I'm open to a critique of this position because I didn't realize it was even controversial, let alone considered "reactionary" so please excuse any ignorance on my part. This is not apologia for 9/11
Maybe Allende thought that, because his ascent to power was via the ballot box, the same militaristic response would be less justifiable to the US and its allies.
He was wrong, obviously, but I think his only real predecessor in this path would have been someone like Mossadegh.
Jacobo Arbenz too
Arbenz got fucked completely before he could do much. Tried to get weapons secretly from the Soviet Bloc to arm his most loyal supporters before the rest of the military could make a move. The generals found out and ended up getting the weapons. His own military gave up on him as well once they believed the US would get involved if they took action.
It really shouldn’t be controversial. Castro warned Allende, and Mao warned Sukarno that imperialists will never forgive them for simply breathing, and ascending to power via their bourgeois methods is a humiliation that warrants death. In Singapore’s situations, the communists were already armed and ready for his approval to start purging the fascists, but he refused and look at the results.