In remembrance of 9/11

[Ming]

And that's getting personal... discuss the topic... NOT THE POSTERS!

[Ned]

Alright Ming. Let me rephrase.

Communism is a lie.

[DrGerry]

Well, a society without classes may be an utopy, not a lie. A lie is a society where there are people who die for hungry.

If you suggest that Allende was a communist, then you don't know anything about communism (it's not personal, is a matter of fact).

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Ned
Alright Ming. Let me rephrase.

Communism is a lie.

The indoctination is coming through once more.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Chilean President,

I've been surfing a little but have found no consensus - what is the common opinion in Chile and the world of the economic policies of the Chichago Boys? Overall positive, negative, or what?

Also, how did Chile stand in economic comparison with other South American countries before the coup?

The current opinion of the Chicago Boys policies is mostly positive in the country. Although that wasn't the same opinion people had when they just started. I must say that they did profound changes in a very short period of time and most of them created big problems in short term like high levels of unemployment. But after the economy become stabilized (sp?) those numbers and others went down (like the historical 30% poor rate that now is less than 16%). So yes, the free market reforms are considered something positive right now for most of the people. We still have problems with reducing more the poverty but having 14% less is a good step. Besides that 16% of poors right now are gaining 10 times more than the poor people in 1990, I'm not saying that it's something to be proud of but it's something that shows that the current government (and the former democratic administrations) are doing a good job... perhaps a bit slow but come on, at least everything is getting a better.

Before the coup Chile wasn't the economic star of the continent (and I can hardly think of one), but it wasn't all that bad, regarding the regional standards of those years. We do had very high levels of poverty, mostly in rural areas. The economy wasn't a third of strong of what it is today.
Since the crisis of the 30s (the Society of the Nations declared Chile the most affected country of the recession period) we faced several problems to get back on track. In the late 50s and early 60s Chile become a bit stronger with several reforms done under the Alessandri administration. Those reforms reduced the number of poverty. The reforms kept going through the Frei administration and then when Allende gain the presidencial seat most of them were stopped to iniciate social reforms.

For the record, in the begining of the Allende administration the social reforms didn't affected to much the economy and analysts saw them as a good step into a kind of 'social democrat' administration. The problem began when the government decided to expropirate industries in all over the country which scared a lot the investments and created instability. With some State control reforms some important national corporations went to bankruptcy (like Bolocco Electronics, CRAV and Motores Nacional). And if we add to that the irresponsible declarations of ultra leftwing groups that wanted more power to them and rightwing groups that wanted Allende to be overthrow we got ourself a big problem, for the first time in our history we had social fights in the streets... that's sad...

Those were stupid years... when both sides decided to stop talking and forgot that in democracy you have to negotiate and reach agreements not to impose your point of view

[Ned]

Originally posted by Gerar Dean
Well, a society without classes may be an utopy, not a lie. A lie is a society where there are people who die for hungry.

If you suggest that Allende was a communist, then you don't know anything about communism (it's not personal, is a matter of fact).

Communism is not freedom from want. It is want of freedom.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


The indoctination is coming through once more.

I understand that all true communists say that all brutal totalitarian communist regimes of the past are not true communist regimes.

What a load.

[VetLegion]

Thanks for the reply President


My main underlaying question is whether the progress Chile has been expiriencing in the recent decades is attributable more to Pinochet's economic policies or some other relative (compared to other South American countries) strengths of Chilean society. I don't know much about Chilean history so I am not sure which would that be. Democratic tradition? Better education or legal system? Less corruption? I don't know...

You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth. That is because I dislike dictators.

However if facts say that he did, I won't close my eyes on them because of ideology.

So I have more questions

How many of the radical reforms of the Chicago Boys hold on to this day. For example, the abolition of minimum wage? Did they really privatise all public companies, including the utilities (water supply, energy)? Are trade unions and syndicates still forbidden? If it would be too long to explain you can point me to a good web site about it.

Basically I would like to find out more details about Chilean economic history in the later half of 20th century.

I've found some info, like http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/chile.htm , has a good GDP chart but it is too short of text.

By the way, the guy that ran for Christian Democrats against Allende, Tomic, was he perhaps of Croatian origin?

And about Allende:

The problem began when the government decided to expropirate industries in all over the country which scared a lot the investments and created instability.

I read somewhere that Allende did this, but that nationalizations were also approved or supported in the parliament, which was held by the opposition?

[VetLegion]

Not only that, but Frei before him also nationalised some copper mines?

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Thanks for the reply President

No problem

My main underlaying question is whether the progress Chile has been expiriencing in the recent decades is attributable more to Pinochet's economic policies or some other relative (compared to other South American countries) strengths of Chilean society. I don't know much about Chilean history so I am not sure which would that be. Democratic tradition? Better education or legal system? Less corruption? I don't know...

You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth. That is because I dislike dictators.

However if facts say that he did, I won't close my eyes on them because of ideology.

Well the only positive thing that people remember from the Pinochet administration are the economic reforms, although Pinochet was recently elected in a poll the worse president in Chile's XX century (in 2nd place was Allende .. yeah people doesn't have to many good memories of those administrations, but they do remember Allende as a good and honest politician).

Anyway Pinochet's policies were only the first step. The most important ones were done under the Aylwin, Frei Jr. and Lagos administrations. All of our current free trade agreements (with the US, EU and South Korea) were done under Lagos' socialist administration.

I don't have a concrete answer for why the reforms worked in Chile and not in the other countries of America, but most analysts says that is because that the model we use have a lot of local changes, it is not a copy/paste model that other nations used from the US model. I don't know how to explain it in English but most difference are according to monetary exchanges (sp?) or something like that. I will look for it to give you a concrete answer.

We do have a longer democratic tradition than other countries of America. The coup destroyed the 163 years of democracy we had so imagine how hard was for people to accept a military regime (although I must say that the military government had a huge support at least the first couple of years).

Less corruption is in fact a important matter. The institutions are transparent and are working perfectly. We're even ranked above the US and France in transparency (TI Report). That's a plus when investors looks for new places cheaper than the US or Europe to spend money.

Regarding the legal and education system I can't talk in comparisson with other countries of the continent 'cause I have no clue about their systems. But what I can say is that for obvious reasons the legal system was very questionable during the Pinochet administration, but since the return of democracy it shows to be very transparent and works fine. We just had a big reform of the legal system that makes him even more transparent.

In education the government is doing big efforts in transforming all state owned public schools in something similar to private schools. They reached some agreements with Entel and CTC (communication companies) to give free broad band access to all schools in Chile, plus other agreements with Microsoft and HP to give computers to the poorest schools in remote places like the islands of the far south, for example. Anyway there is a lack of money to give them the very same privilege the private schools have.

How many of the radical reforms of the Chicago Boys hold on to this day. For example, the abolition of minimum wage? Did they really privatise all public companies, including the utilities (water supply, energy)? Are trade unions and syndicates still forbidden? If it would be too long to explain you can point me to a good web site about it.

Minimum wage was never abolished IIRC... but if it was it came back long time ago. Anyway is not a big minimum wage, only 400 dollars a month, so from time to time unions protests to gain a increase.
During the Pinochet years no water supply or energy industry was privatised... they were privatized in the 90's (Frei and Lagos administration mostly). But big industries like the copper and oil are still in hands of the State and I'm pretty sure they will stay like that. Codelco (the Copper industry) give just way too many money for the national budget. With the profit the government build hospitals and new schools, plus bought us a group of nice F-16 from the US

By the way, the guy that ran for Christian Democrats against Allende, Tomic, was he perhaps of Croatian origin?

Yup. This is a country of Spanish, Croatian and German descendants mostly. We're a melting pot

And about Allende:

The problem began when the government decided to expropirate industries in all over the country which scared a lot the investments and created instability.

I read somewhere that Allende did this, but that nationalizations were also approved or supported in the parliament, which was held by the opposition?
Not only that, but Frei before him also nationalised some copper mines?

Yup. The reform to nationalise the copper industry was a program of the Frei administration and kept going through Allende's years. But I wasn't talking about this, in fact this proof to be a good choice that Frei took. I was talking about regular companies, like if in the US the government expropriate General Motors, RCA, etc... In Chile we've always been capitalists and have the so called "entrepreneur spirit", so imagine that it was hard for people to understand that companies that didn't used national resources (like the copper industry) were expropriate.


EDIT: Fixed a lot of ortographic mistakes... probably there are more.. sorry

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth. That is because I dislike dictators.

I forgot other thing I wanted o say about this. Believe you me, people do say that the economic reforms were something good about the Pinochet administration, but that doesn't justify at all, all the abuses... Having a good economy doesn't bring back to life the 3,000 deaths

So you're correct to be annoyed when people try to justify Pinochet.

Are trade unions and syndicates still forbidden?

Unions were forbidden only the firsts years of military government. Then they put a puppet as director of the biggests. After the return of democracy unions began to work as usual in democracy.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

A couple of links in English

Chilean Government - Economy

Ministry of Economy

[DrGerry]

Originally posted by Ned

Communism is not freedom from want. It is want of freedom.

Pizza is not tomatoes from want. It is want of tomatoes.

It makes no sense, like your answer. Politics, economy and philosophy are long more than "inteligent" words.

If I say Adam Smith is the creator of the Feudalism, nobody needs to be an economist, philosopher or polytical analyst to tell me I'm saying stupid words.

I don't know why everybody says stupidities about Marx, the marxism or the communism without even have read him.

You can desagree with Marx and it's good. And you can agree with Marx and it's good too. But you can't say marxism is what marxism isn't.

If you judge marxism because of Stalin, I can judge capitalism because of Pinochet (not to say Hitler because it get us to another discussion abot the sex of the angels).

Marx thinks the communist society not as a non-freedom society but as a totally freedom (but freedom with responsability) society. The theory of Marx talks about a society without antagonic classes (it is, without people who lives from the others work in simple terms). "From everybody according with his possibilities, to everybody according with his necessities". This is the concept and this is why he call it communism: becuse of the common goods, the community sense.

If you say: this is not what has happen, I agree. But the existence of the monopolies doesn't makes Adam Smith a lier.

Anyway, even when I am a member of the "Communist Party of Apolyton", it is like a joke. To be a marxist you MUST believe in the human race. Marx was a deep humanist. And I don't give a damn about the fuc*ing human race, so I can't be a marxist. But if you talk about a theme, try to talk with knowledge or close your mouth

[Natalinasmpf]

[q] Allende = Socialist Dictator thug elected by a minority of people in Chile (he wasn't elected by 50+% majority). No more then a criminal. Not that Pinochet was any better. In Latin America, I call it the dictator effect. One dictator after another.[/q

Allende was elected with majority, more than any other party....may I remind you, a candidate does not need more than half of the votes to win, that is merely a "guaranteed vote" because no other party can match up to you. If you have something like 44% of the votes like Allende did, a party could have say, 45% or more....but no other party did, thus Allende won.

However, the only thing "dictatorial" about him is the seizure of land in his land reformations, from the bourgeoisie...but maybe that was his promise in his election campaign, no?

You see, I am quite annoyed when some people justify Pinochet by saying he laid down a healthy foundation for country's economic growth.

You realise, without CIA sabotage operations, Pinochet's reforms and economic plan would have worked quite well. The CIA is now smiling, because their plan had worked: the world would never know that Chile was a successful communist country, democratic, and with a good economic foundation...this contradicted all the anti-communist ideologies in the US, and thus a great threat...guess what the CIA decided to do to stop this from ever happening...

If you don't work, you should be punished.

Punished not by force, but by peer pressure, and the Athenian democratic style "ostracisation"....it was quite a great method.

Secondly, the latter is actually not true. There is a known phenomenon called the resource trap, whereby countries without natural resources of note develop faster than those with it. Generall it is believed this is because countries with resources squander money on trying to realise them, while those without use aid and other money to industrialise and develop, meaning in the long term they do better. Know one knows exactly why it happens, however it is so well documented we know that it does happen. Zambia is a prime example, having copper and other metal resources, but being poorer than many of it's neighbours that don't have such resources. If I can find it I'll put up the article I wrote on it, as development economics is one of my main academic interests.

Compare Singapore.

Compare the countries in the region.

[Ned]

Gerar, the key falacy in your post is that Marxism wants a classless society. While I totally agree that we should not have legally impossed classes ala the Roman Empire, to force economic equality requires, ineluctably, totalitarianism. There have been so many threads on that here on Apolyton that have demonstrated this simple fact as to be beyond question to anyone that does not multiply this simple truism by zero and then add in the answer they want.

What clearly happened in Chile to Allende was a reaction to the extremism that is Marxism. Allende was a nightmare phathom that had decended on Chile. I am not surprise the people of Chile rose up against him.

The glorification of Allende by Marxists across the world is an example of why Marxism is not something simply to be laughed at by people with common sense. Marxists and Marxism remain one of the major threats to liberty and prosperty in this world today despite the collapse of Communism in Europe.