Did Pinochet come up with the best way to dispose of communists?
Yes he was absolutely based
Installing him was the best thing the US ever did
>Did Pinochet come up with the best way to dispose of communists?
Best is a value judgement and so non-historical.
In terms of actually disposing of communists either the Soviet Union, China, Holland, the United Kingdom or the United States have probably been most effective at repressing them.
gotta remember what kind of people posts at /int/
also they're mostly "democratic christians" (center right)
not me, i'm paraguayan sorry
I'm not they were cool guys
We talked about anime and how based Pinochet was
>i post in lat threads
"hey al menos traté"
and for real, on the contrary of Argentina that went full commie, most chileans are center. the fact that Bachelet didn't go full leftard is proof
If you believe that ideology is more important than progress then sure, Pinochet was great.
Cybersyn would've made the Chilean economy one of the most efficient in the world; Pinochet supporters are nothing better than luddites.
>Chile could be like Venezuela right now
btw in the 70s and 80s Venezuela had the best education ratings of LatAm, great infraestructure and basically all the investments escaped from cocaine-infested Colombia and moved to Venezuela. had the best Miss pageants too. all it needed was some soccer or baseball league championships
....but everything changed when the Nation of Chavez attacked...
If you're the same as people scared of AI because they've 'seen Terminator' then sure.
It worked very well in all instances it was used before it was dismantled. There's no reason to assume it would've been a failure.
i seriously hope you're not talking about HDI, because Cuba, Argentina and fucking Saudi Arabia have it higher than Chile. fucking meme index
no, Chile is best because the only bad thing you hear about them are volcanos and flaites
This is a top-tier shitposting image.
>Implying "revisionism" is always bad
It depends on context. A lot of mainstream historiographical schools have been labelled revisionist or post-revisionist.
>"Ike sucked and didn't get anything done, terrible policymaker"
>"Ike was based as fuck, kept US out of wars and ran things behind the scenes"
>"Ike was okay in some respects but contributed to the arms race and let bureaucrats run things because he was 2beta"
Sorenson, Diana. A Turbulent Decade Remembered: Scenes from the Latin American Sixties. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007.
>Cultural-literary history of Latin America after 1959 that focuses on specific moments—the Cuban Revolution and 1968 Tlatelolco student massacre, for example—and their impact on writers and intellectuals. Argues that the politics of the 1960s were defined by a tension that existed between the desire for utopia (unleashed by the Cuban Revolution) and the recovery of past cultural memory.
Wright, Thomas C. Latin America in the Era of the Cuban Revolution. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1991.
>A broad-ranging study based on secondary sources that traces the history of the Cuban Revolution and its effect on US foreign policy in Latin America and on other revolutionary movements in Latin America, including Peru under the revolutionary military officers, Allende’s Chile, and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. Useful for undergraduate courses on the subject.
Johnson, John J. The Military and Society in Latin America. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964.
>Groundbreaking study that seeks to locate Latin American army officers as distanced from their violent historical past. Focuses on their emerging role as largely middle-class progressive civil engineers committed to social services. This remains an important work, though scholarship and events following its publication undermine his overall argument.
Nunn, Frederick M. Yesterday’s Soldiers: European Military Professionalism in South America, 1890–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.
>Important historiographical examination of foreign influences on Latin American military officers. This work challenges the widely accepted role of the United States as a major factor in the development of Latin American militarism, focusing on the influence of Germany on Argentina and Chile and France on Brazil and Peru.
Lieuwen, Edwin. Arms and Politics in Latin America. New York: Published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Praeger, 1960.
>This is the first systematic analysis of the Latin American military, including Central America and the Caribbean. It links the conservative Creole elite to the officer class in the first decades of independence, while identifying middle-class origins among contemporary officers who are both more liberal and radical and thus more committed to social change. It further examines US military policies in Latin America. This remains essential reading to understand the origins of the modern wave of Latin American military history.
Rouquié, Alain. The Military and the State in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
>Originally published as L’Etat militare en Amérique latine (Paris, 1982)—in Spanish, El estado militar en América Latina (Buenos Aires, 1984)—this overview draws on Rouquié’s experience as French ambassador to El Salvador and masterfully contextualizes Latin America’s struggle between civilian and military leadership throughout both the colonial and modern periods. Highly readable and likely the most approachable narrative for readers of all levels.
Scheina, Robert L. Latin America’s Wars. 2 vols. Washington, DC: Brasseys, 2003.
>Starting with the Haitian Revolution and ending with Colombia’s ongoing drug wars, this exhaustive two-volume examination of armed conflict in Latin America offers a clear narrative and analysis of events throughout the region. An excellent introduction for all readers, offering descriptions of obscure events alongside better-known and documented conflicts.
>the only option for political dissidents are murder or gulags
hardly, you could always, you know, put them in normal prison when they commit crimes
having free and fair democratic elections usually helps too
> My ideology is more important than what actually works in the real world
Instead of just saying it wouldn't work, why wouldn't it work?
It sure didn't work when striking truck drivers tried to block access roads into Santiago and Cybersyn managed to guarantee the transport of food into the city with only 200 trucks compared to the 50,000 truck drivers on strike...
Stepan, Alfred. Rethinking Military Politics, Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.
>Comparative analysis, by a leading theorist on civil-military relations and military government, of military prerogatives and transition toward civilian government in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, with special attention given to the Brazilian case. Keen focus on military autonomy and the system of military intelligence
McSherry, J. Patrice. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005.
>Important investigation of Operation Condor by a political scientist who relates the transnational antisubversive scheme carried out by Latin American military governments with the support of the United States. On the same topic, by a well-known journalist, see John Dinges’s The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continents (New York: New Press 2004).
The Condor Years: How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continents
no really, at least in a gulag they could develop the place ...if they survive the hard conditions at least. creating towns
look, everything bad that happened at Venezuela and Bolivia happened at 2000 with the Samba Effect and the Asian bubble crash. i won't tell you Chavez did it all but he and Evo were consequence of that economical flop
my question stands
>their impact on writers and intellectuals
it studies the impact on these guys. I don't think the book claims to say that Mexico was part of the Cold War, but describes the effects of New Left (Castro's revolution etc.) on certain segments of Mexican society. It's an intellectual/cultural history
yeah its interesting, I need to read up on modern Mexican history more desu. I only know up to Cardenas' land reforms pretty well, but I want to get more into depth on the rule of the PRI, the Porfiriato and the Mexican revolution
How about this guy?
>many peruvians say thet he is an asshole
I don't, i just wished he could have done more
>Even amid his prosecution in 2008 for crimes against humanity relating to his presidency, two-thirds of Peruvians polled voiced approval for his leadership in that period.
I know Cardenas was pinko, but he you have to credit him for trying to redistribute the land fairly in a country were 1% of people owned most of the land. That said, most pinkos fail to learn from history that when you distribute lands, people become better off initially, but this causes them to have more and more kids and the land problem perpetuates itself and the overpopulation leads to urban slums. Thats what happened in mexico i'm pretty sure, which is why the PRI was
I still want to learn more about how they ran the country
Anyone mind posting that "Adios mi general" song
I dont know if it was made in honor of pinochet or not, i have only seen that song alongside a video of his funeral and nowhere else, is it a popular song or was it played anywhere?
you mean the video? or are you referencing some event? I don't think you can blame the PRI for corruption alone though. It existed way before they got into power. It was bad under Porfirio for example, though to be fair, one party states in my readings always tend to devolve into a corrupt state (PRI, bolshevik party, chinese communist party, castro's gov't, list goes on)
American schools? Definitely not, at least for public primary and secondary education. Students might get a brief overview of Mexico and the Caribbean, but SA is treated as "terra incognita".
Do you really believe there was any way of getting out of socialism without a few takedowns?
Pinochet body count is ridiculously low for what it changed in the country. Most efficient massacre ever.
Well, chile wasn't the heaven when pinoshit was the president, it was a shithole filled of oppresion and shit, but since we live under american narrative, the rest of the world will never know that
I've been to Chile. people toady are still afraid of the secret police and being one of 'los desaparecidos'. Regardless of what his leadership did to help the country, that shit is so unacceptable I don't think most westerners can even conceive of that level of fear.
>literally whores every industry in chile to external corporations
he was an american economic slutpuppet
i know this beacause i am chilean and have seen all about milton freidman
it is been fucking disaster for country and only thug psychopaths remember this fucker fondly
>only thug psychopaths
and lapdogs. only thing that made sense from your post, because honestly, psychopaths admired him and the bydlo felt protected (less petty crime, moderate inflation, things got more liberated in the 80s until the break in the 90s..)
btw by any chance are you Isabel Allende's relative or what? why so butthurt?
>starts cleaning it up
i "butthurt" because he destroy my country and was foriegn backed dictator
all dictators need get shit on and die
That was the worst comeback I've read in a long time.
One thing I find about commies is that they absolutely suck at bantz. I don't know whether it's communism appeals to humorless drones or if it's because commies tend to be of low average intelligence.
>some communist wins the elections with only 34% of the vote thanks to a retarded electoral law that doesn't have a run-off
>procceed to completely fuck up the economy of the country, disrespect the constitution daily and uses the presidency to arm revolutionary guerrilla groups that are poised to take control once his term is over
>after hyperinflation and attacks on private property take it's toil, the chilean people decide it's enough and protest against the government
>the commie president seeks an alliance with cuba in order to make chile a communist nation
>the congress see what is happening and call upon the army to depose this shit president
>chief of the army heeds the call of the nation, deposes the commie honcho who kills himself like the little bitch he is
>revolutionary guerrillas who were being armed by the government decide to stage an insurrection against the new government, they are BTFO and their collaborators are throw from helicopters
>the new government liberalizes the economy and country prospers, becoming the richest country in the region
That's why I'm somewhat glad that the 2002 coup in Venezuela failed. If they had managed to depose Chavez then, we would still be hearing how Venezuela was the perfect communist country that evil capitalists didn't allowed to bloom, how Americans prevented another socialist success story etc
Since Venezuela was allowed to continue their socialist experiment, now it has been so discredited that Latin America is actually turning to the right again and even American commies like Noam Chomsky shut up about it for once.
>procceed to completely fuck up the economy of the country, disrespect the constitution daily and uses the presidency to arm revolutionary guerrilla groups that are poised to take control once his term is over
the same thing Pinochet did, do you actually belive he didnt make reforms based on what the Us told him to do?
>the congress see what is happening and call upon the army to depose this shit president
kek, so now the Us goverment is "the army" and "the people"
>Peoples trashing Pinochet because of anti-dictator memes
Dictatorship is a perfectly fine government technology.
Listening to these tards, we would have maintained the Revolution and not welcome based Napoleon.
Venezuela could be one of the richest countries on Earth if it wasn't so chronically mismanaged.
Same with Argentina and Brazil which also have vast untapped natural resources.
Yeah, we really went to shit after the military stopped protecting us from the evil commies. Fucking retard.
Your economy is projected to shrink by 2-3% this year, when you could be growing at like 5%-7% with a competent government
Latin American countries will never escape the middle income trap and reach first world standard of living with leftist governments.
HDI is a measure invented by the communist economist Amartya Sen to make propaganda for the state of Kerala, in India, when it was governed by the Communist Party. It's worthless for anything else.
If you want real measures of well-being, look at crime, or migration. No one except butthurt commies emigrated from Brazil before the 1980s, then, after "democracy", now everyone's dream is to become a dishwater in some McDonalds in New Jersey. How's that improvement?
Let me tell you another secret, not everyone in Latin America is pro US
>people think the US government is omnipotent and can depose governments around the world without local support
the "local support" is as local as coca cola
Dictatorships aka enhanced executive power are for transition governments.
It's a form of early republicanism and reaction of failed democracy.
It's literally institutional medicine, you stop use it once your cured.
You can interpret it as a US backed coup, or for what actually is. Republican defense systems. But it's not a government of the people and for the people, it's a goverment for itself.
It degenerates once the goal is accomplished, good dictators drop the seat faster others not.
he was a cool guy
>HDI doesn't matter
Whatever best suits your ideology.
The fact of the matter is that extreme misery has been all but eradicated in Brazil in the latest 20 years, and it's the first time since Vargas that we're not entirely someone else's bitch.
As for immigration, only the white high-middle class dreams of living in the US or Europe since they've literally read nothing all but a right wing propaganda pamphlet posing as a news magazine and believe first world countries are some kind of utopia.
You know nothing.
In the 1950s we were #4 in GDP per capita in the world. The 70s were a golden age where the high price of oil made us one of the best places in South America, which is why even though we were the #1 priority for a Cuban takeover nobody bought into commie bullshit at the time. Crime was insignificant, everyone I've spoken to from the time recalls not even locking their doors at night. Then of course in the late 80s and 90s things got too neoliberal, the economy collapsed, Chavez showed up promising to fix everything and presenting himself as a centralist military man, denying any connection to Marxism or the like. Then he did his thing, now we're a hellhole worse than most African countries. But do not say Venezuela was always miserable. We were the "Kuwait of South America", and once upon a time refugees from war torn Europe flocked to Venezuela.
Argentina has the same GDP per capita as Chile. Yet one is called a "miracle" while the other is in "financial crisis".
I want this meme to end. Pinochet may have stopped a commie but he achieved no "miracle".
I don't like Friedmanite propaganda.
Call me when Chile becomes an IT and industrial exporter like South Korea and not some backwater that lives off copper prices.
Why the fuck is supporting capitalism instead of your failed Marxist garbage always "sucking US dick" to you stupid commies? Capitalism=/= USA. The natural state of things is not centrally planned socialism that even Soviets, East Germans, or Chinese couldn't sustain because it's such a retarded system.
>Latin American countries will never escape the middle income trap and reach first world standard of living with ANY* government
fixed it for you
they just can't stop stealing, whether they go right or left
This is pretty much true. Im an Argie and I can tell you we (as in Latin America) just dont have strong enough values to succeed. It doesnt matter whether we go left or right, our people will always steal and try to fuck it up for everyone.
Argentina should be a fucking world superpower, we have one of the biggest territories in the world and so many resources its not even funny. But we have been so badly managed since Peron (so, forever basically) that we have never managed to achieve our full potential.
We should. The problem in Latin America will always be the people. If Argentina was full of japs or americans it would be one of the best countries in the world. Our culture is fucking shit and people are too proud of being mediocre for it to ever change
>If Argentina was full of japs or americans it would be one of the best countries in the world
Not him, but that's like saying "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle". That's just a retarded argument.
>you might wanna watch an anime to get your references for real life
I'm not even from the "hurr animay is denegeracy!!" crowd but surely you see how retarded this line of thought?
Just to keep the discussion going, which dictators were successful?
>it's okay that Pinochet massacred people and set up a concentration camp network rivalring that of nazi germany because I agree with his economics
gb2 high school kids, it's possible to do market liberalisation without killing people, fuck look at Thatcher or Reagan. Your decision to fap over Pinochet is pure edge
How is it retarded?. I guess you could argue that no culture is better than another, and its just different. But I do not agree. You can compare what different cultures have done to different place.Japanese people made a great country out of a tiny island. Imagine what that culture couldve done with a place like Argentina.
Our people are taught that getting ahead of others is what matters, it doesnt matter if you hurt people along the way. We idolize cheaters and people who "beat the system". Its not stupid to think that a better culture wouldve made a better country out of this place
La cultura no es estatica... Argentina era el 5to exportador mundial a principios del siglo pasado... y era el mismo pueblo... solo que sin peronistas
Si te gustan tanto los japoneses anda a vivir ahi...
We've been undeveloped colonies for most of our eurocentric history, and most SA countries if not all had troubled transition processes from that to independent, constitutional States. And when we were barely getting the hang of it, we suddenly get decades of dictatorships. We simply never had enough political stability for any significant length of time, so our peoples never developed the necessary respect for institutions like democracy, constitution and the State of Rights.
Here in BR we've literally being trying to take down the president since the day she won the elections. You hear about impeachment in the media every day, despite there being no basis for doing it right now without blatantly trampling the constitution. Shit's getting hysterical, to the point of people associated with her government being harassed in at least one restaurant, one hospital and one funeral. People treat the whole affair as an ideological tug war, institutions be damned. It's really sad coming to terms with the fact you live in a literal Banana Republic.
Because you are saying that Argentina without argentinians would be a good country, but a country is not only the geographical space, but also the inhabitants who live there. Argentina with other people is just another country, not Argentina. Like the Malvinas/Falklands issue, for example.
>y era el mismo pueblo... solo que sin peronistas
O sea que no era el mismo pueblo...Peron cambio todo el paradigma del país. Argentina post-Peron Es un pueblo completamente distinto.
>Si te gustan tanto los japoneses anda a vivir ahi...
Estas probando lo que dije de "estamos muy orgullosos de ser mediocres". No quiero vivir en Japon, quiero vivir en una Argentina mejor. Mirar afuera para aprender no esta mal.
You took my argument too literally. I just meant the georgraphical space, obviously it would be a different country. But also a better one
>despite there being no basis for doing it right now without blatantly trampling the constitution
Fucking retard. Crimes against economic integrity are a pretty good basis for impeachment. Go read the actual Constitution.
Dijiste que querias llenar el pais de japoneses porque con la cultura argentina no sirve. El otro tambien entendio lo mismo que yo.
Si no te sabes expresar en ingles no es mi culpa... seguro que votaste a Cristina y ahora viene el panquecazo tipico de clase media tilinga argentina donde todo lo de afuera es bueno y lo de adentro es malo... ya lo vi con Menem esto... nos va mal porque somos extremistas, vamos de un extremo para el otro todo el tiempo
>Crimes against economic integrity
Are you extrapolating the limits of Tatherrschaft again? Yes, of course you are. Go read a book on criminal law.
>hurr hurr guise she dindu nuffin herself
I've been rused yet again. Fuck you and your german buzzwords.
>I choose to remain willfully ignorant
Unfortunately most intellectuals are communists, you have books saying nice things about Pol Pot, but not about Pinochet. That's how things are, but it doesn't make him wrong.
As a chilean:
1) The reason why Allende's economic policies ended up so badly is because of a SABOTAGE by the CIA. This is not a conspiracy, it is fact proven
2)Pinochet killed thousands of people for the sake of it. You could be walking down the street and get arrested and killed, for no fucking reason. Pinochet killed or sent to foreign countries our best artists, intellectuals, or scientists. Our country's culture DIED during the dictatorship.
3)Pinochet's economy was (and still is) a success only for the rich and the foreign companies. Inequality rose exponentially during Pinochet's government. Now, the average wage is around 600 usd and none of these people can get access to quality education or health
To sum up, Pinochet is the worst thing that has ever happened to our country. If you disagree, you're a retard
3000 dead commies is not repressive.
Mengistu Haile Mariam was repressive, he was a dictator who killed 500.000 people. Francisco Macias Nguema was batshit, he killed 80.000 people in a country of 400.000. But you never heard of them, do you know why? Because they were communist dictators supported by Cuba and the Soviet Union, so Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky never told you about their regime.
>t. card-carrying communist party member
I'm sure the CIA sent plagues of locusts to destroy Chilean agricultural production and make them import wheat from the US.
what part of chile are you from mate? Yes, the CIA and the local right purposely blocked services and hid resources, they intentionally starved the people just because they didn't want a president with a different ideology
Considering how many communists betrayed their country for the USSR during the Cold War, would it be correct to say that any repression of communists by any government during the Cold War was deserved?
That only says the US tried to engage in economic blockade against Chile, it doesn't say how it worked. There is no evidence that the collapse of the Chilean economy during the Allende government can be attributted to American actions.
Regardless of the fact that the true number of people killed will never actually be known and there is likely the possibility it was much higher than 3000. Killing 3000 people is still unacceptable
Killing one person is unacceptable desu
>On May 3, 1977, Congressman Stephen Solarz led a hearing on Cambodia in the United States House of Representatives. The witnesses were Barron and three academics who specialized in Cambodia: David P. Chandler, who would become perhaps the most prominent American scholar of Cambodia, Peter Poole, and Gareth Porter. Chandler and Porter agreed that the tales of Khmer Rouge atrocities were much exaggerated. Porter was the most outspoken of the academics. He had co-authored (with George Hildebrand) Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, a highly positive book about the Khmer Rouge.
>"No fue asistencia económica el único apoyo que prestó la CIA a los huelguistas. Más de 100 miembros de los gremios profesionales y de patrones eran ex alumnos de la "Pequeña Escuela Anti-Rojos" dirigida por el American Institute for Free Labor Development de Front Royal, Virginia, el AIFLD. Este organismo, la principal organización laboral latinoamericana de la CIA, también ayudó a formar un nuevo gremio profesional en Chile, en mayo de 1971: la Confederación de Profesionales Chilenos. Los expertos laborales del AIFLD tenían más de 10 años de experiencia en el arte de fomentar disturbios económicos"
It was brilliant and brutal. It is not for nothing that Chile was the only country that straightened in South America after a military dictatorship. All other dictators were sissies compared to him.
>muh American support
Usually, it goes like this.
>"Hey, CIA, I will perform a coup d'etat tommorrow to depose this fucking communist President, are you ok with that?"
>"whatever man, just do whatever you want with those commies".
The CIA doesn't invent the local opposition to communism, it just doesn't hinder it's victory which would be inevitable anyway.
Oh I forgot, you aren't chilean. The CIA trained people, american and chilean agents, to boycott the economy
Yes, it is an extract of a book written by a guy who worked for the us government and lived in CHile during Allende's govenrment
You mean this guy?
>In 1972-73 Blum worked as a journalist in Chile where he reported on the Allende government's "socialist experiment".
It seens like he wasn't working with the CIA anymore by then, and even when he was, he was already a Soviet spy, I also found some comments from him praising even Stalin.
If you are going to take this source seriously, I'm also going to release the tinfoil and show some sources from KGB defector Vasily Mitrokhin on Allende.
>Regular Soviet contact with Allende after his election was maintained not by the Soviet Ambassador but by his KGB case officer, Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who was instructed by the centre to "exert a favourable influence on Chilean government policy". According to Allende's KGB file, he "was made to understand the necessity of reorganising Chile's army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile's and the USSR's intelligence services". Allende was said to react positively.
>no basis for doing it right now without blatantly trampling the constitution.
Crime of Responsibility, Article 84, Federal Constitution.
The culpability is irrelevant. The intent is irrelevant. The crime of responsibility is by acts (generally speaking) performed in the exercise of the presidential term, that violate the Constitution.
The trial is political. And only political. Fernando Collor was acquitted judicially. That did not stop its process. So, go study, retard.
It's not like you'd need to destroy anything, just bribing the right people into selling the right stuff in the right price to the right other people should be enough starve a frail agricultural developing economy, especially when a lot of the people you'd be bribing also want the coup anyway.
I'm not the Chilean anon though. just speaking hypothetically because it doesn't sound really that far-fetched.
Look at the rapid decline of the west under "democracy"
you think thats good?
One party does something at great cost for years
Then the next election, a new party gets in, and ruins everything just for spite?
>crime of responsability
Also take it to /pol/ or /int/ if you want to discuss that merit. The point was to illustrate how no one here gives a shit about institutions when it doesn't suit their agenda, like how this same "crime of responsibility" was committed both by Lula and FHC and no one gave a shit at the time but now it's politically convenient to make as much noise about it as possible. So whether you think it's actually basis for impeachment or not, it still illustrates my point.
What SA countries desperately needs is a few decades of political stability and proper develop of its national industry beyond primary level.
i don't know what's worse, the shitposters from /pol/ or the unneducated americans who will never admit their scumbagness
>Reinhard will never save us from the corrupting influence of democracy
If only moot was here
Americans watched Narcos, a show where they suck "pinoishé"'s dick and now they believe they own us or some shit.
You will never get them to say anything except
>yeah man he was cool, he killed commies and made chile pro free market. He literally did nothing except that
better than the meme history that is "glorious" gommunism
for shitheads like you, i hate living under american narrative
the delusion of americans never ceases to surprise me
as if USA installs dictatorships, topples leaders to benefit the local populace and not themselves
and now its -b-b-but they also benefit! damage control which is bullshit, wealth flows in one direction.
This one is better, desu
>dictatorship CAN be (Are Not Necessarily) good
here's the problem and i put the pic of the best dictator to ever live on this side of the Earth:
bydlo get lazy
they don't think, the dictator has to think for them
they don't create, the dictator has to tell them what they should create
they get used to the "panem et circenses" while the dictator has to worry to keep the show going on
they get spoiled like little kids, always wanting a sugar daddy to fix their pathetic lives. there's a flood? "help us guvment". caught stealing? "we dindu nuthin', giv us free bred"
they become poodles in other words. dogs
pic related was attributed the phrase "i want a physician or antropologist to come to to this land and tell me if the paraguayan has an extra neck bone that always make him lower his head". and if someone pointed out the irony of him suppressing the people to become like that, he'd make that person be jailed and probably executed. but he would still complain why is there no one to challenge him
so that's the problem with dictatorships, whether they're benevolent or not
>playing bf with chileans
>say "pinochet did nothing wrong" as a joke, thinking it would trigger them
>they respond "He actually did, he didn't throw all the communists into the sea" and start stroking Pinochet's cock
How do modern Chileans actually view Pinochet?
Every chilean playing computer games is very likely to come from a mid-upper class family.
Like every chilean in 4chan.
Fact that I find interesting cause 99% of our population has access to the internet, and we are known meemsters.
he may have ruled for 5 years but he was still a dictator. Also, I know this is a retarded question, but what differentiates a dictator from some other autocratic ruler, kings, emperors, etc? Something to do with seizure of power/not ruling by birthright?
>Something to do with seizure of power/not ruling by birthright?
etymological dictionary says the dictator was a certain magistrate that had no pairs. can be compared with the etymology of "prince" (primus capere), which was a noble that had no pairs
>genderbend of a disgusting old man who was an asshole
I'm the first guy you replied to (name one good dictator) but I actually agree with you, it's very snobbish to lionize monarchs when dictators are universally hated. Was Pinochet really any worse than Henry VIII? Why do we attack Zimbabwe for having a dictator when our own head of state the queen is unelected and has been in power 60 years? The only difference is that monarchs tend to be more docile most of the time because the job was forced upon them whereas the dictator had to do a lot of shit to seize power so he will be hardened by that but other than that they are as bad as each other.
even if you completely ignore the eastern roman empire, who were able to hold constantinople from turks and muslims for hundreds of years, 500 years (roman empire + WRE) is still a pretty decent time for an empire.
He eliminated the maoist terrorist group Sendero Luminos and recovered the economy which had a catastrophic and historical inflation. However it was the most corrupt goverment in the history of Peru and became a dictator when he took down the congress.
>ameturds are pretty brainwashed that they believe that pinochet only killed commies
>No constitutional rights
>No constitutional rights
Yeah... fuck you apologists... once you condone oppression you are fucked... it's a luck of the draw between a dictator that will promote trade or one that will murder your family or both...
The only way you can have true freedom is with sound institutions, democracy and the rule of law... goes to show you Chileans are still stuck in a turd world mentality if you defend this asswipe
Everybody thinking Pinochet was good is retarded, or delusional, or both.
When chileans on the internet say Pinochet did nothing wrong they are just being ironic, they are known to be shitposters.
You know what is the problem with this threads about Pinochet and Chileans talking about the Dictatorship in general?
Is that they argue about it like Black and White,someone is good and did no wrong, the other one is a bastard and ruined the country, there's no middle ground, they don't actually try to investigate what originated the coup, what where the conditions before and after the dictatorship, what both Allende and Pinochet did in their respective governments,good and bad things.
They just say shit their family/friends told to them like "lel it was the CIA the one who told Pinochet to do it you fucking americunts,Salvador got fucked" or "lol commies git out, the country was in ruins literally Africa tier, thanks based Pinochet" and think the history of Chile just began in 1973 with the occasional reminder of the war of the pacific.
Most people from Chile posting on 4chan didn't even lived on those periods and spout whatever shit they got teached by their families or the fucking TV.
If you agree with the coup you're a fascist.
If you disagree you're a commie.
This shit is not different from the monkeys who fight between Colo Colo vs la U.
What the fuck is this shit,25 years of the same fucking bullshit, and with people like Camila Vallejo and whoever right wing fucker appears,it looks like they will keep using it as excuse to get on power.
Sorry for the TLRD, I just wanted to vent my frustrations about this particular subject
You should note that international organizations tend to suck Cuban dick A LOT. The WHO worships Cuba because it's just a bloated political machine.
And Cuba and Arabia were both more advanced than Chile during the first half of the 20th century. They had a 50 year head start. Also SA is filthy rich, and that skews shit. All of Arabia is trash, they all enslave people, and their infrastructure is nonexistent. But they have money so they get a good HDI.
Chile is objectively better than Cuba and Saudi Arabia.
I just wanted to vent my frustration.
I'm not even 30 and I'm already tired of this whole subject, you can't even have a civilized debate about this thing, because of the things I said before, this thread should be enough proof, look at this shit>>80042 this anon saying shit about oppression when Pinochet was literally the only dictator who called for a plebiscite about his continuity, IN A FUCKING DICTATORSHIP,yes pressed by the people,but the fact that he did that instead of staying until he died or someone killed is enough proof of his bullshit, I bet most people who lived on dictatorships would've hoped for a similar thing,imagine if Syria,Egypt or whatever middle east dictatorship did the same
MUH SEE AI AY
The only fucking people who spout the acronym CIA more than Latin American socialists are fucking baneposters.
Holy shit, doesn't it get old? Do you not get tired of believing that somehow the intelligence agency of the US can disrupt every economy in the western hemisphere? Holy shit, the CIA isn't even big or powerful. It's really tiny, and most of the funding and power belongs to the DOD. Jesus Christ, every Latin American socialist is more fucking paranoid about the CIA than Agent Mulder.
And then he became unelected Senator for Life, leader of the military faction and remained unpunished for the thousands he murdered in cold blood.
Sounds like a sweet deal. A lot of dictators would hand over power if they could get guaranteed control of the security apparatus and immunity from prosecution like Pinochet did.
> A lot of dictators would hand over power if they could get guaranteed control of the security apparatus and immunity from prosecution like Pinochet did.
No they wouldn't, It basically happened in the middle east.
Yes he got unpunished for his crimes, but he avoided a civil war,as the anon before you said,and gave the power with no problems, hell he could've rigged the whole shit and stay in power until he died
Whatever benefits he got were nullified years later anyway, and he basically didn't got punished because the excuse that he was old