Talk:Military dictatorship of Chile

I agree that the wording of this article should be far more negative. Pinochet's economic policy is described in a much too positive way. Checking GDP per capita figures for the time Pinochet was in power reveals that his economic policy in fact didn't generate any growth (I used OECD data from a publication of Angus Maddison). His government caused an econmic crisis, income disparities grew larger -- but overall per capita GDP didn't rise at all. And to those who say it takes time for such drastic policy measures to have effect: go and check GDP per capita data for South Korea after Park Chung-hee took over -- that's what a real economic miracle looks like. Pinochet was a dictator lead by misguided economists whose principles deserve to be rejected by economists today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.80.94.86 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that Chile today has one of the most (if not the most) successful economies in the region, and given the extremely poor economic scenario in Allende's final days, I'd say this article is a tad negative. (And I do acknowledge the "things get worse before they get better" scenario, given the bad numbers on unemployment and wages.) Trey Stone 07:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chile does have a great economy today, but this economy was built mostly after Pinochet left power. In addition, it's questionable whether any economic achievements under Pinochet actually matter as "good stuff", given the fact that his rabid capitalist policies ensured all the benefits would go to the rich. And besides, Joseph Stalin turned the Russian economy from one of the world's poorest into the world's second-largest, which is far more than Pinochet ever did (even according to his greatest supporters). But you don't hear people saying that Stalin's article should be made more positive, do you? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it is still typical for right wing dictators to allow more of economic freedom which usually produces a middle class to build true economic progress on (once true freedom, political and economic, is restored). As a consequence former right wing dictatorships usually outperform ex-communist states in economic terms. Allendes economic policy was a complete joke and bound to create economic disaster with the social unstability that usually follow. This does not in any way outweigh or excuse the terrible crimes committed by the junta. But a lot of people keep a very angel-like image of Allende and that is bizarre and wrong. He was a disaster. An elected disaster, but still a disaster. Johan V 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (GMT+1)

If you think GDP and inflation are the only things that matter in an economy, than you could be right, but what about the wages and disparity between poor and rich? The low and middle class became poorer under Pinochet, and since they represented by far the majority, GDP means nothing in that case. Red Star

I love how all the deaths and disappearances are conveniently left out. Escapeartist 14:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless you actually do love it, feel quite free to add it. There is at least a moderate amount on this in the section Suppression of the Left; I, for one, would welcome more. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was being sarcastic. The thing is that at the time, I was completely unable to find any deathtolls anywhere on the internet. Funny how information hides from you when you need it the most. Escapeartist 17:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"given the fact that his rabid capitalist policies ensured all the benefits would go to the rich."

I guess Milton Friedman would laugh at that statement. The competitive free market policies determined a brake up of the ways of the old chilean society of state dependence and corrupt bureaucracy, with economic freedom and a free entrepreneur system chilean entrepreneurs were forced to become innovative and productive, as example there are the old "latifundios" that Allende attempted to eliminate by expropriated them in the name of the state, with Pinochet they begun to disappear when the non productive land was put to production by new capital according to the new "chilean export model".190.160.124.111 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinochet's persecution of other groups

Did Pinochet 'only' persecute his political opponents or did he deem various social or ethnic groups 'unwanted' as well? If he didn't, he's a milestone among dictators. Joffeloff 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any particular ethnic targets, although I believe his regime was pretty tough on anyone deemed sexually "deviant". But that doesn't particularly make him that unusual among Latin American dictators, especially in countries where there was no large, traditionalist Native American population. - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut: true, but incredibly misleading

"In 1973 GDP was at 1.147 billion, in 1990 it was at 9245.500 billion [1]" This is technically true, but if you check the source it is denominated in "Billions of National Currency (1E-09)", that is, in Chilean pesos. This is not a 6000-fold increase in production, or anything approaching that; it is mostly inflation of the currency. Over the same period, the CPI (consumer price index) goes from 0.01500 to 40.70800 [2]. So if we index to CPI/, the increase is only about a factor of 2.97. Not too shabby, but dwarfed when you multiply it by 2714-fold inflation! - Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes - Explanation

At the request of Jmabel, I will explain a bit the "small" edits I am introducing into this page. The topic to be discussed here should be "Chile under Pinochet", understanding as such, the historical/political (and maybe social) events that took place in Chile between September 11, 1973 - March 11, 1990. This clearly delimitates in time the scope of this article. Any other extemporaneous material should be diverted to its proper place, and not included here. This should be a broad overview of those years, and those years alone. Rehash from articles about the Allende Government, or the 1973 Coup, should be moved to their proper place. This is not the place to bring POV either. So, most of my edits are not to introduce material that will point towards increasing one version of events over other, but rather to pare down the text to bare facts, and let the reader form it's own opinion. Mel Romero 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that cited, attributed opinions from expert scholars or involved parties are perfectly legitimate. NPOV does not mean that there are no opinions expressed. It means that when there are opinions and analysis they are clearly attributed. Also, if you are removing material on the basis that this article isn't where it belongs, and it is not simply a rehash of another article, please make sure that you either move it to the appropriate article or copy it to this talk page so that someone else may do so. Thanks. (This is not to say that you haven't been doing this: I haven't looked closely enough at your edits to know, I'm just responding to your rationale, not your actions.)

Also, one remark of yours worries me a little: it is perfectly OK—I'd say often very useful—to present comparisons that may relate to matters outside of the period in question. For example, it is certainly relevant to this topic that prior to the coup, Chile had a long history as a democracy,and that democracy was restored afterwards. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, and if in my editing I get carried away, and go too far, please feel free to correct me. One thing though, the myth of the long democratic history is just that, a myth. I am trying to put together a list of all the coups, civil wars, revolutions and similar that have happened in Chile, and they just about prove the oppossite. Mel Romero 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV?

An anon has placed at the head of the article {{POV|Marxist head of state?}}. I have no idea what the issue might be. I can't imagine anyone doubting that Allende was head of state before the coup, so I assume that the issue must be with Marxist.

As discussed about a year ago at Talk:Salvador Allende#Allende a marxist?, Allende was a founder in the 1930s of the Chilean Socialist Party, which was always overtly Marxist. He was not a Leninist, if that is the point. But he was a Marxist.

This page from Socialist Outlook has excerpts from an article by Tariq Ali, which gives a citation to Regis Debray (Conversations p118) for the following quotation from Allende:

We consciously entered into a coalition in order to be the left wing of the system – the capitalist system, that is. By contrast, today, as our program shows, we are struggling to change the system … Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism.

The Debray book should not be hard to find, and may have more.

The following all unqualifiedly call Allende Marxist:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• CNN
• Spartacus School Net
• New York Times reporting at the time of the coup
• Isabel Allende's publisher calling him a "Marxist-Leninist" (which I disagree with, and which none of the others say).

Given this, unless someone can explain within a week what is POV about the characterization, I think the tag should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Merging Government Junta of Chile (1973) seems reasonable to me, unless someone thinks that this article will grow enough that we'd just find ourselves spinning it back off. - Jmabel | Talk 21:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't agree. There's a full series of articles just on the Government Juntas of Chile, dealing specifically with the history and conformation of said political structures. This article on Chile under Pinochet on the other hand is here just to deal with the historical versions (both for and against) of the events in the period 1973-1990 in Chile. In fact most of the extraneous information that is being added constantly to the Pinochet biography or the page about the military putsch of 1973 should be included here. Mel Romero 03:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Same. Mel Romero is right. This goes for a lot of articles: National Reorganization Process and Dirty War, Movimiento Nacional and Spain under Franco, etc. "Countries under X" are articles which allow a more general view than simple political history and constitutional matters. It is true that some overlap is inevitable, but that's not really a problem, is it? Tazmaniacs 16:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• It seems to be me that the opposite should happen, move stuff from this article into the Junta article. The current title does seem to suggest that everything that did happen in Chile from 1973-1990 cannot be explained away without some sort of connection with Pinochet. This is just not true, economic results being one of them. What content is left over when the Junta (1973-1990) and Augusto Pinochet articles are complete? We don't have a Germany under Hitler article right now. Should one be created? What is the article supposed to deal with? Intangible2.0 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

poverty (moved from Augusto Pinochet article)

Pinochet's neoliberal economic policies' benefits have been sharply contested. In 1973, unemployment was only 4.3% time when the government employed many of Chile's citizens. Following ten years of junta rule in 1983, unemployment had risen to 22%. Real wages declined by more than 40%. In 1970, 20% of Chile's population lived in poverty. In 1990, in the last year of Pinochet's dictatorship, poverty doubled to 40%. Between 1982 and 1983 during the worldwide economic slump, the GDP dropped 19%, largely as a result of a downturn in the copper market. In 1970, the daily diet of the poorest 40 percent of the population contained 2,019 calories. By 1980 this had fallen to 1,751, and by 1990 it was down to 1,629. Furthermore, the percentage of Chileans without adequate housing increased from 27 to 40 percent between 1972 and 1988, despite the government's boast that the new economy would solve homelessness. In 1970, the richest one-fifth of the population controlled 45% of the wealth, after much of their wealth had been seized by president Montalva. In comparison the poorest one-fifth controlled 7.6%. In 1989, the richest one-fifth controlled 55% of the wealth while the poorest one-fifth controlled 4.4%

I moved this from the Augusto Pinochet article. The results of economic policy should be discussed here (or maybe in a more properly titled article). Intangible2.0 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

needed: how the regime created a new class of ultra rich, and the public and private resources appropriated by the military

many among the ultra-rich people in chile are not related to the traditional rich but were opportunists who took advantage of connections to the gangsterial power to land sweet deals and take over huge portions of the chilean economy. this sociological cataclysm needs to be stressed and there are several books about it.

during the gangster's rule the military "acquired" significant real state and land holdings. this needs to be mentioned since it changed the ownership landscape of chile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.104.218 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chile Junta002.jpg

Image:Chile Junta002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

French support

That section is nonsense. It is the frenzy of just one journalist which is known for repeted lies. I think this section should not be kept in WP, as long as there are no other sources for it. 83.158.13.117 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

President of Chile: really?

Pinochet was never head of state or President of Chile, and therefore never had head-of-state immunity, if there is such a thing. His appointment was illegitimate. Just because you steal something, doesn't make it yours. Grassynoel (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was, after the 1980 plebiscite. His title was President of Chile.