I've got to say, I drew some different lessons. When I first started looking into the coup, I was in college and much further to the left, reading about the coup made me much more skeptical. First, Mr. Allende wasn't really threatening democratic socialism, this probably would have been accepted. Mr. Allende was realigning Chile with the Soviet Union, which was definitely not democratic and, according to adherents, wasn't really socialist. He received 36% of the vote and then was selected by the congress after agreeing to take a limited approach to his planned reforms. He then sidelined congress and the courts and embarked in the kind of reforms someone who just received 36% of the vote really shouldn't have.
He did engage in agrarian reforms (by 1972, he had appropriated all of the larger farms for example) and nationalizing large sectors of the economy. The economic results were disastrous. The US did what they could to cause this, but the things that really stood out to me weren't caused by the US. The price of copper, which was Chile's major export, dropped. Productivity in nationalized industries fell. The thing that the US did which had the biggest impact, was to reduce foreign aid from about $300 million to about $4 million. As Mr. Allende was actively courting the Soviet Union, this was understandable. The Soviets promised about $400 million in aid but didn't really come through, basically saying they'd reduce the outrageous markup on substandard Soviet stuff that Chile could buy and calling that aid.
The other actions of the US are pretty well documented and not really that impressive. The State department prevented a $25 million loan to the Chilean cattle industry, the CIA funded some strikers, Kissinger said "make the economy scream", and a few other things, none of which are that impressive. It was really the end of US aid and the fall in the price of copper.
Also, hearing about the coup, it sounded like the CIA was out there front and center. It's usually presented as a CIA coup, but there really isn't much to back this up. There was a kidnapping attempt that ended with an assassination a few years before, but I've never really seen anyone try to explain what that really had to do with the coup. It is pretty clear that Kissinger and Nixon were both pleasantly surprised by the coup. However, this was due to the Chilean military, not the CIA. Pinochet was installed by Allende as the commander in chief about three weeks before the coup, it was really Allende's miscalculation that put Pinochet in power.
Most of the descriptions also ignore Chilean politics in favor of saying the CIA was behind the coup. Allende had a habit of ignoring congress and failing to implement laws he didn't like. Just before the coup, 63% of the congress had voted to have Allende removed from power, if another three percent had supported this, he could have been legally removed. The Chilean supreme court had unanimously denounced Allende's government for failing to implement their rulings. The Chilean police were being used to suppress the opposition. Of course Pinochet was far worse on all accounts, but this doesn't erase the real possibility that Allende was following a model more like Cuba than Sweden, which is usually what is presented.
None of this is to justify the CIA's involvement in Chile, which is was involved, nor Pinochet's repression, which "seventeen years of a fascist dictatorship" accurately describes. However, the narrative of a democratically elected president who was implementing social democratic reforms and was overthrown by the CIA falls way short of what really happened. Realizing this had a profound and formative effect on my political thought.
no subject
He did engage in agrarian reforms (by 1972, he had appropriated all of the larger farms for example) and nationalizing large sectors of the economy. The economic results were disastrous. The US did what they could to cause this, but the things that really stood out to me weren't caused by the US. The price of copper, which was Chile's major export, dropped. Productivity in nationalized industries fell. The thing that the US did which had the biggest impact, was to reduce foreign aid from about $300 million to about $4 million. As Mr. Allende was actively courting the Soviet Union, this was understandable. The Soviets promised about $400 million in aid but didn't really come through, basically saying they'd reduce the outrageous markup on substandard Soviet stuff that Chile could buy and calling that aid.
The other actions of the US are pretty well documented and not really that impressive. The State department prevented a $25 million loan to the Chilean cattle industry, the CIA funded some strikers, Kissinger said "make the economy scream", and a few other things, none of which are that impressive. It was really the end of US aid and the fall in the price of copper.
Also, hearing about the coup, it sounded like the CIA was out there front and center. It's usually presented as a CIA coup, but there really isn't much to back this up. There was a kidnapping attempt that ended with an assassination a few years before, but I've never really seen anyone try to explain what that really had to do with the coup. It is pretty clear that Kissinger and Nixon were both pleasantly surprised by the coup. However, this was due to the Chilean military, not the CIA. Pinochet was installed by Allende as the commander in chief about three weeks before the coup, it was really Allende's miscalculation that put Pinochet in power.
Most of the descriptions also ignore Chilean politics in favor of saying the CIA was behind the coup. Allende had a habit of ignoring congress and failing to implement laws he didn't like. Just before the coup, 63% of the congress had voted to have Allende removed from power, if another three percent had supported this, he could have been legally removed. The Chilean supreme court had unanimously denounced Allende's government for failing to implement their rulings. The Chilean police were being used to suppress the opposition. Of course Pinochet was far worse on all accounts, but this doesn't erase the real possibility that Allende was following a model more like Cuba than Sweden, which is usually what is presented.
None of this is to justify the CIA's involvement in Chile, which is was involved, nor Pinochet's repression, which "seventeen years of a fascist dictatorship" accurately describes. However, the narrative of a democratically elected president who was implementing social democratic reforms and was overthrown by the CIA falls way short of what really happened. Realizing this had a profound and formative effect on my political thought.