Counting all the up and downs, what was this guy's impact?

SPLAT

Hero of Chile

I think he managed to make multiple things impact ocean surface.

"I think of you"
Allende was pretty gay

Chilean economy recovered from him.

What made that sustained growth possible was the nationalization of copper. That was Allende's reform.

He was an illiterate backstabber, and a bad person, he killed or exiled anyone that could read a book, making us objectively dumber.

Seventeen years of terror and corruption it's not something to be proud of, but hey, he killed commies right, even if Chilean socialists weren't commies and never used guns, and were just educated middle class tired of foreign manipulation of our economy.

We still have the utterly retarded private retirement funds (AFP), he implemented, that makes us lose money every year, at least that kills the elderly.

>he killed or exiled anyone that could read a book

Are you trying to say something other than what you are writing.

>he was an illiterate

Why the fuck was his library so big then.

>Why the fuck was his library so big then.
Maybe he was compensating for something else...

According to your graph, the Hero of Chile was the Concertacion.

>Venezuela

Yes and it was shit, and nueva mayoria is even shittier. This country is shit.

>le Allende was literally Maduro meme

Dictatorship is not a good thing, but it is Allende's fault and the transition back to democracy as the cold war came to a close went smoothly.

>that fucking x-axis

Literally stagnant 1973-1985.

Pinochet wasn't even in effective power after 1985. Furthermore, democratization occurred during the 1985-1990 period alongside a 400% growth in the copper price.

He engendered such butthurt in pinkos that they redefined Neoliberalism whole-cloth and made it the new lefty boogeyman.

>killed thousands of communists and leftist sympathizers
>saved the country from having the leftists murder hundreds of thousands like in Cuba or Venezuela
A fair price to pay to stop the red menace

>there is no lag between policies being implemented and GDP per capita growth
Come on now

it looks like a screenshot from SFM.

>Why the fuck was his library so big then.
coloring books need lots of space.

especially if they are dictator sized.

>they should be the richest country on the continent due to all their dirty oil money
>still in that horrible state they are right now

s-socialism works, r-r-right guys? i-it just never has b-been tried the right way

>i-it just never has b-been tried the right way
>set price controls on toilet paper
>dont control the means of production of toilet paper
It really hasn't. The problem is these governments keep promising the results of socialism without actually implementing socialism. Socialism is first and foremost about the social control of the means of production.

You're both talking like there's Rothbard "don't feed yo kids" capitalism and communism and nothing in between

>capitalism and communism and nothing in between
It's literally not socialism if workers don't control the means of production. You can promise all the free things you want, that makes it a welfare state, not a socialist state.

I mean yeah, but that's utopic and we're incapable of doing that ATM. Whenever someone tries it we get Mao, Ceausescu, Enver "fuck the Zerg" Hoxha and their ilk.

telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Chile-and-the-Economic-Miracle-That-Never-Was-20160911-0004.html

Natural resources are the only reason Chile is relevant.

> Whenever someone tries it we get Mao, Ceausescu, Enver "fuck the Zerg" Hoxha and their ilk.
If you want to achieve socialism through the state controlling the means of production, it helps to start out with a democratic state.

China came out of a civil war emerging from an Imperial past. The Republic of China never got firm footing, and the Communists fought against them, and were not an evolution of them. Romania was a monarchy, and so was Albania, until the Soviets stepped in. And Obviously the Soviets emerged from a Tsardom.

All those failures of communist governments with authoritarian governments can largely be attributed to emerging from authoritarian non-democratic governments. In which case, government control of the means of production isn't socialist. It's just statist.

Natural resources and Claudio Bravo.

Do you think people would vote communists into power tho? The word itself is a curse in many many parts of the world. How do you feel about Nordic SDs?

he was terrible, the only defence against him is alternate history stuff of what might have happened under allende

some of the economic reforms probably did help chile's growth in the 90s but it doesn't excuse all of the terrible shit he did

You missspelled Butterhands.

My gf is Chilean and she almost broke up with me when I tried defending the guy.

>women
>politics
Pick one

>Do you think people would vote communists into power tho?
It's possible that socialists will be voted in within the next 100 years. Robotics are going to cause increasing pressure to socialize the means of production, because there will be a point where a robot can do anything an average person can, better and cheaper. It's hard to have a market based economy when most laborers can't sell their labor. If capitalism stays, it's going to be a very strange and backwards welfare state.

>The word itself is a curse in many many parts of the world.
Yes, but the Cold War generation is dying off.

>How do you feel about Nordic SDs?
Social Democrats very much run the risk of cart before the horse policies, like "socialist" Venezuela setting price controls without controlling production. This is especially the case because they make big promises, but may struggle to even collect enough taxes to pay for those policies. It's possible to make it work, but it's much more difficult. Social Democracy is a light form of socialism for capitalists afraid of socialism. It's a socialist veneer on top of capitalism. Socialism is supposed to fix some of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, social democracy adds to the contradictions even if the end results are intended to be similar.

Thanks for your response user, that was well thought out, a genuine surprise on this board.

On a sidenote I always found people to the left of me to be more civil and willing to talk that those to the right. Since you also don't play into the identity politics that much of the right is into very much, I suppose I'd consider myself more left-leaning than right-leaning, although seizing the means of production is something we need to discuss, as well as the concept of private property.

>what was this guy's impact?
multiple socialist sized craters

Let's also not forget that these so-called Social Democracy paradises only exist because of the continued exploitation of the global south. Cheap goods made from cheap labour are what allow the Scandinavian states to keep their markets in motion. Their "good life"(s) exist because of exploitation on the other side of the globe.

Let's also not forget that these Social democracies, built up over the last 80 years, are able to be peeled back in just a few terms of neo-liberal governments, ala Denmark and Sweden.

Social Democracies suffer the same problems that all Capitalist states do, as they are the products of perpetual class conflict. The only reason the welfare state exists in the first place is to buy off the workers and to stop them rebelling.

>this meme argument again

His '70s and 1982 crisis policies are widely regarded as failures.

Destroyed the life quality of a promising country. Installed a savage neoliberalism system that destroyed middle and lower classes, sold the country to the private groups and foreigners, divided the entire population, dismantled the public organizations.

FUCK YOU PINOSHIT!! THANKS TO YOU, PEOPLE HAVE NO OPTION, BUT TO DESTROY CHILE BY OURSELVES AND REFOUND IT FROM ZERO.

>Why the fuck was his library so big then.
My grandfather had a library of over four thousand books.
Havent seen him read a single one of them in 20 years.

People collect books.

...

Nice unsourced chart.
Did you make it?

Argentina and Uruguay both have a higher GDP per capita than Chile.

imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/index.aspx

This is literally the strategy of leftist academia in the wake of Pinochet.

Chile only got really good after retreating from the policies of the Chicago boys, Allende got turned into a Martyr, and Pinochet is only liked by retarded and foreign Ancaps and Libertarians who think Venezuela and Chile are equivalent and that killing off swaths of skilled and unskilled labor are good for economic productivity.

I wonder how anyone, whether they're from the right or the left, can deny that this guy was good for Chile.

I mean, he took over a collapsing economy, and turned Chile into the richest country in Latin America. His "brutal" rule killed barely 3000 people, and he voluntarily relinquished power. How many dictators do that?

People who hate him must suffer from some sort of brain damage which prevents them from looking at facts objectively.

1. It's not the richest country in Latin America
(Argentina and Uruguay are richer)

2. He didn't relinquish power voluntarily, he was forced to call a referendum by international pressure and increasing activism.

3. He caused a massive economic crisis in 1982, Chile's GDP per capita didn't begin to significantly improve until he left power in the 1990s. Most of the large gains occurred during that decade.

4. As a result of his legacy Chile still has massive income inequality to this day.

>1. It's not the richest country in Latin America
Wrong.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

>2. He didn't relinquish power voluntarily, he was forced to call a referendum by international pressure and increasing activism.
And he bowed to the pressure. Has Castro bowed to international pressure? Has Kim Jong Il bowed to international pressure? You're so dishonest.

>3. He caused a massive economic crisis in 1982,
I'll admit I don't know about it, but if we're starting to talk about economic crisis then Allende will come out in a very, very negative light as he basically tanked the Chilean economy.

>Chile's GDP per capita didn't begin to significantly improve until he left power in the 1990s. Most of the large gains occurred during that decade.
I know your understanding of economics must be severely limited (or you wouldn't be a leftist) but believe it or not, economic policies don't have an effect overnight. It takes time for a new economic policy to lead to renewed growth. The growth that Chile experienced after Pinochet's departure was the direct consequence of him liberalizing the economy. If you want a metaphor, Pinochet created the wave, and the 90s government rode it.

>4. As a result of his legacy Chile still has massive income inequality to this day.
Yeah, we should all strive to be more like Ethiopia and Afghanistan, were income inequality is very low and where people are all rich and happy.

1.
>Using the CIA as a source
>Using PPP and not actual GDP per capita
Try the latest GDP per Capita figures by the IMF. Chile is third in Latin America after Argentina and Uruguay.

imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=90&pr.y=12&sy=2015&ey=2015&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=213,228,298&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a=

2.
>Implying I back Castro or Kim Jong Il
Nice strawman.
Just because he compares favorably to the WORST DICTATORS on Earth at the moment doesn't make him good.

Plus Castro and Kim have ample Soviet/Russian and Chinese backing, while Pinochet by 1990 had no-one left as his neighbours had turned democratic and the US could no longer give him support.

3.
>B-but this guy was worse
If Pinochet had been an honest person he would have handed power to the Supreme Court, not line his pockets for more than a decade.

4.
>Still treating me as a leftist
No fuck off, try again.
You claim to have an understanding of economics and don't even know the massive economic collapse Pinochet caused in 1982, to speak about a subject you need to be educated about it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_1982

4.
>Yeah, we should all strive to be more like Ethiopia and Afghanistan, were income inequality is very low and where people are all rich and happy.
Or Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and all other other Green places on the map that are not dirt poor.

Keep defending your shitty tin pot dictator, it's amusing to watch.

Both sides benefited from this stupid dichotomy.

>I'll admit I don't know about it
>accuses others of not knowing anything yet himself doesn't know basic facts about the dictator he defends

CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP

just another pinot worshipping teenager because of le helicopter meme

/pol/ truly is cancer

Australia and Japan are hardly one standard deviation above the red though.

Income equality is relevant only when your country is developed enough to have wealth to distribute.

>oh vey, it's still the commie fault... I mean, if he followed (((Friednman))) policies, chile would be the next Isra... Germany

>he was forced to call a referendum by international pressure and increasing activism
for a dictatorship that is practically voluntary

>what was this guy's impact?
Like falling a mile out of the sky.

>Try the latest GDP per Capita figures by the IMF.
>NO USE THESE FIGURES INSTEAD
Anyways, your figures show that Chile is in the same ballpark as the two other countries, despite starting out far lower. Ask any investor whether he thinks Chile or Argentina's economy is healthier...

>Nice strawman.
How is it a strawman?

>Just because he compares favorably to the WORST DICTATORS
Average dictators, not worst dictators.

Give me a list of 20th century third world dictators who voluntarily relinquished power due to "external pressure".

>Plus Castro and Kim have ample Soviet/Russian and Chinese backing
In case you didn't know the Soviet Union collapsed 25 years ago. Cuba has been drifting on its own for a while now. Why won't Castro organize a referendum?

> while Pinochet by 1990 had no-one left as his neighbours had turned democratic and the US could no longer give him support.
Oh please Chile was far better international relations than fucking Cuba or fucking North Korea.

>If Pinochet had been an honest person he would have handed power to the Supreme Court, not line his pockets for more than a decade.
Yeah, even better, all of this could've been avoided if we all held hands and sung Kumbaya together.

>No fuck off, try again.
You're quite obviously a leftist. Complaining about "income inequality"

>You claim to have an understanding of economics and don't even know the massive economic collapse Pinochet caused in 1982
Right. Believe it or not Chile is a rather irrelevant country and I don't hold personal knowledge about every single economic crisis which happened in irrelevant places.

>you need to be educated
>posts a wikipedia link

I'm gonna guess your "education" about the subject amounts to a few reddit posts, hmmm

>Or Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and all other other Green places on the map that are not dirt poor.
And do you know how these countries achieved prosperity?

Centralized planning?

No, free market capitalism.

Well, why don't you help me and give me a detailed analysis of the causes and consequences of the 1982 Chilean crisis? Since you're so knowledgeable and all.

>Allende crashed the economy and ruled like a dictator.
>Thank god Pinochet saved Chile by crashing the economy and being a literal dictator.

Yeah he crashed the economy so hard the period is called "the miracle of Chile"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

>literally all the years Pinochet was in power Chile had a lower GDP per capita than the Latin American average

It's hard to recover from a shitty marxist faggot who ruins everything.

There's a delay before economic policies take effect. This is why Chile didn't obviously immediately recover from Allende's faggotry.

It also works in the other way. Disastrous economic policies often take time to show the extent of the disaster they cause. A good example being modern day Venezuela. I remember when all the braindead leftists were praising Chavez based off the immediate results of his policies, ignoring the fact that he was destroying the economy on the long term.

The funny thing is that if a junta topples the current Venezuela government, instates free market policies, and eventually pulls Venezuela out of the cesspit it's fallen into in a decade or two, you whiners will point your finger at them and say "HEY WHY WAS THERE STILL POVERTY UNDER THEIR RULE"

You're an idiot

>ur stoopid
Riveting argument. Now go back to plebbit.

>b-b-but it wasn't real fascism

It wasn't fascism, period. Fascists were leftists, economically speaking.

You should probably look up the definition of words before you use them.

He was worse. Bolivarianism needed 15 years to ruin Venezuela. Allende ruined Chile in 3 years.

>globalist neoliberal foreign puppet
>fascist
OK lad.

You could say the same to anyone that says
>b-b-but it wasn't real socialism

Except that Pinochet never claimed to be a fascist. The fact that you can't see the difference speaks volumes about your intellectual capabilities.

>the CIA ruined chile in 3 years

ftfy

>cant handle memeing when its about their sacred cow fascism

>Allende's government wasn't sabotaged, Nixon dindu nothing

Sure, the CIA smuggled printing machines with mules through the Andes and got them to print money, that's how they went to hyperinflation.

It couldn't possibly be a result of socialist policies. We know, as a historical fact, that these always work.

It sabotaged itself.

>muh land reform
>muh nationalization
>agriculture and industry becomes inefficient
>has to import food and materials, print money to do so
>hyperinflation
>THE CIA IS SABOTAGING ME

Countless leftist neckbeards and numales are to this day whining about "neoliberalism" and muh persecution

3000 priests were brutally murdered in Madrid alone during the Spanish civil war by the hudeo masonic socialists but you can't make leftcucks shut up about Pinochet

But that's not really his fault it is the state of the modern (((intelligentsia)))

Read your own link you dumbfuck

>Some economists (such as Nobel laureate Amartya Sen) have argued that the experience of Chile in this period indicates a failure of the economic liberalism posited by thinkers such as Friedman, claiming that there was little net economic growth from 1975 to 1982 (during the so-called “pure Monetarist experiment”). After the catastrophic banking crisis of 1982 the state controlled more of the economy than it had under the previous so-called "socialist" regime, and sustained economic growth only came after the later reforms that privatized the economy, while social indicators remained poor.[5] Pinochet’s dictatorship made the unpopular economic reorientation possible by repressing opposition to it. Rather than a triumph of the free market, the OECD economist Javier Santiso described this reorientation as “combining neo-liberal sutures and interventionist cures”.[6] By the time of sustained growth, the Chilean government had “cooled its neo-liberal ideological fever” and “controlled its exposure to world financial markets and maintained its efficient copper company in public hands”.[5]

>da joos

This is the kind of mental defective that supports pinoshit

Autistic commie neckbeard back to your containment board

>AFP
>bad
You're poor because you want to be poor you masive faggot

Workers did control the means of production in real life

>3000 priests were brutally murdered in Madrid alone during the Spanish civil war by the hudeo masonic socialists but you can't make leftcucks shut up about Pinochet

Didn't the clergy collaborate extensively with the previously existing regime, the Francoists, and the fascists? It doesn't justify their killing, but it does make them enemies.

Counter-memes are never, ever as good as the originals. They always ooze butthurt and wind up missing the mark due to the format of the original meme (consider the presence of the stahlhelm in the first image or the fact literally no Marxist-Leninst would object being called a communist the way some neo-nazis object to being called nazis).

That's not an excuse. The murder of clergy was ideologically driven. When jews-communists say they want to eliminate "superstition" from society what do you think they mean?

Indiscriminate killings are much worse than the targeted political repression Pinochet did. But you can't get underage commie neckbeards shut up about Pinochet he is like totally literally worse than Hitler or whatever

>That's not an excuse.

Of course it isn't. I said outright it doesn't justify it. But it was a primary driving factor behind it. It would have been pretty fucking hard to get popular support for that shit if the clergy wasn't collaborating with people out to fuck them over at every turn.

>Indiscriminate killings are much worse than the targeted political repression Pinochet did.

Who gives a shit? You act like someone doing something awful makes Pinochet into something other than a piece of shit.

But leftcucks and autists on reddit and 8gag are the ones that appropriate fascist memes and turn them into shit. Not only that but they are terrible at it because they are afraid they will offend anyone who isn't a White male

>There's a delay before economic policies take effect.

Always the same shit excuse, kek

The economists that have actually studied this period point out that Chile grew thanks to getting rid of the policies implemented by Pinochet in the '70s.

It's also universally agreed his handling of the 1982 crisis was disastrous.

>But you can't get underage commie neckbeards shut up about Pinochet he is like totally literally worse than Hitler or whatever

Also, while we're at it, the only fucking people that refuse to shut up about him are the fucking /pol/acks with their nonstop "HURR HURR, FREE HELICOPTER RIDES" memery. Aside from those idiots, literally no one gives a shit about him.

Which ones did they appropriate? Both of those meme images there were originally mocking the alt-right. They aren't even leftist, unless your definition of a leftist is "everyone left of Hitler."

I am just pointing out the double standard. Around 4000 victims all political activists over a 17 year period compared to 3000 priests murdered in a single city over a couple of months. The former is making marxist neckbeards chimp out to this day (just the other day the state TV in my country showed a "documentary" about Chile for the 6th millionth time) while the latter is barely known.

Who the fuck cares about a few thousand commies getting killed?

There is no fucking double-standard, you goddamn stupid cunt. Ordinary people tend to find the idea of mass political repression distasteful, it's not a Marxist conspiracy.

God fucking shut the fuck up until you grow up a bit.

>literally no one gives a shit about him

False. Interact with any "intellectual" type leftcuck or marxist and they can't shut up about him. They have even created an entire conspiracy theory about Chile being the guinea pig where all the "neoliberal" economic policies were first imposed as a staging ground to later implement them in the West. Add some muh murican imperialism and muh White male capitalist conspiracy to that mix. This entire crap is very popular and mainstream in Southern Europe and Latin America among leftists I have listened to the same story so many times.

>HURR HURR, FREE HELICOPTER RIDES

Pinochet causes immense butthurt to leftist neckbeards which is why it is such a great meme

>I go out of my way to look or people to be annoyed at.

Fuck off. Chomsky and Zizek bitching about the man still qualifies as "no one gives a shit about him" because both of these men are no one. You'll never see someone on Veeky Forums starting shit about him if it weren't for you fucking idiots memeing non-stop, and I for one am sick of seeing his face constantly because you goddamn idiots like to jack off to depraved power fantasies.

Pls stop sperging out so hard.

>Ordinary people tend to find the idea of mass political repression distasteful

Then why is the Spanish Republic celebrated despite the Red Terror while Pinochet is constantly demonised? There is a clear double standard at least among the intelligentia and anyone who is not a total retard can immediately understand why.

Also the scale and reach of political repression matters. There is a huge difference between killing enemy combatants or hardline activists and the random indiscriminate killings of innocent people. Most people would find (if they were allowed to know about it) the systematic targeted extermination of clergy by the commies in Republican Spain much more repugnant.than some partisan getting killed.