> The success of the Chilean economy has absolutely nothing to do with Pinochet's crimes.
No, but it does have something to do with his economic policies.
The WaPo did not endorse fascism. It did an interesting comparison between two different murderous dictators: Pinochet and Castro. Their track records on human rights are both appalling, yet one of them left behind a much-improved economy and accepted defeat by the democratic process. (Hint: it wasn't Castro.) Yet many lefties will still make excuses for Castro that they won't make for Pinochet. One wonders why. The Post is not out of line to note the hypocrisy.
"yet one of them left behind a much-improved economy and accepted defeat by the democratic process.
We will not find common ground on this. Pinochet was a monster and a mass murderer. He was one of the worst criminals in history. For the WaPo editors to praise that mass murderer, for any reason, is unacceptable.
It wasn't "praise," it was simply acknowledging a reality.
No, it was an indirect praise. It was their interpretation of their facts, given with a positive spin. They, somehow, made the point that there was a positive outcome from this sort of fascism. When it was not. The growth of Chile has nothing to do with Pinochet's economic policies.
> The growth of Chile has nothing to do with Pinochet's economic policies.
You base this on what, exactly?
"You base this on what, exactly?
On the facts. Chile did well, simply because the Nixon administration, with Kissinger's leadership on the issue, decided to support Chile then. There was a lot of investments that helped the economic growth. If the same support and investements had gone to Cuba, the WaPo would be arguing today for the "economic miracle" of Castro. It is as simple as this.
Both Pinochet and Castro were terrible. And both were failures at all levels.
I hope you don't think I'm in the business of defending fascists. You are right, both are terrible men, and I'm glad that one (both?) of them is dead.
What I'm doing is the *opposite* of defending fascism. Think about this for a minute. Pinochet was a fascist and he presided over a fascist government. We agree on that. We also agree that nothing good comes from fascism. So far so good, right?
But paradoxically, Pinochet's economic policies were extremely non- fascist, relying heavily on free market policies. That's a big reason for Chile's GDP growth during Pinochet's years.
It was freedom the brought the economic expansion, not fascism. Let's not only admit that fact, but celebrate it! Don't allow the history books to record that "fascist policies" coincided with the Chilean economic miracle, even if by accident.
Chile's economic health is a victory for freedom. Chile's horrible human rights failures are failures of fascism. Don't let revisionists spin it differently.
"But paradoxically, Pinochet's economic policies were extremely non- fascist, relying heavily on free market policies.
Free market policies are unrelated to fascism. You could have a fascist regime that promotes "socialism" (i.e. the old Soviet Union) or a fascist regime that promotes capitalism (i.e. Pinochet or Franco). But you can not define free-market as "non-fascist". It does not make sense.
I see your point but I disagree. Chile's economic wealth was simply due to the support they got from us then. Dont forget that many poor countries in South America had all along free-market economy (i.e. Mexico). The Kissinger/Nixon administration wanted to support Pinochet then, because of the fear of "socialism". Thats why they invested big under Pincohet and Chile did great. If they had invested in Mexico, Bolivia, or any other country in South America at the same extent, they would have done great as well.
"The success of the Chilean economy has absolutely nothing to do with Pinochet's crimes."
<
<
The success of Chile's economy was due to the GREAT Milton Friedman (Chile's Economics Czar under Pinochet) and their Free Market policies.
You can NEVER have socialist policies without tyranny and mass murder.
It had been thought that you couldn't have Free Market economic policies absent political freedom, but Friedman proved that wrong, while also proving that economic Liberty/freedom is far more vital than mere political freedom.
Milton Friedman remains one of the greatest Americans of the 20th Century!
"You can NEVER have socialist policies without tyranny and mass murder.
You are wrong. Look at the Sacndinavian countries, Sweden, Norway, etc. or Israel that also has an essentially social-democratic system. Last time I checked they had a great democracy. You can have social-democracy that is a free market economy with some socialist policies. That system has been working well in most europe and in Israel.
> But you can not define free-market as "non-fascist". It does not make sense.
Of course it does. I'd refer you to the book "Fascism" by Stanley Payne. He identifies a number of criteria that are necessary to define a fascist government, and one of them is a highly regulated, state-integrated economy. Therefore free market economic policies are inherently non-fascist, as the two are incompatible.
The free markets neither requires encourages any coercion or violence. Socialism (the STate controlling all means of production and divvying up all the available wealth) certainly does.
Sweden, Israel, etc are "Interventionist economies," like ours and the rest of Western Europe's are. There IS private ownership and wide disparities of wealth in all those places.
"Sweden, Israel, etc are "Interventionist economies," like ours and the rest of Western Europe's are."
I will remember that next you call the europeans "socialists". All these countries have free market democracies with some social-democratic influences.
I know I don't often disagree with JMK, but here I don't share his opinion that socialist governments are necessarily murderous tyrranies. I'm familiar with the argument, however, and it seems to rely heavily on semantics (JMK, correct me if I'm wrong.)
Those debates can be interesting, but typically futile. To my mind, it would be a bit like me trying to insist that I'm a "liberal" -- which I am, in the classical sense, but so what? No one uses that term to mean that anymore. The defition of the term has evolved. I can beat my head against a brick wall, but I'm not going to change it.
Barry,
I agree with you. Almost all european goverments call themselves "socialist" but, of course, they are not. They support free-market economies, with some social provisions. They are all great democracies.
By the way, you are in a sense liberal, all libertarians are, they just dont realize it.
Here's what I mean Barry, true socialism (the eradication of private property and government ownership of all commerce and industry requires tyranny...even mass murder.
Stalin had to resort to it, Hitler had to resort to it, as did Mao, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Castro and most others who've tried that path.
None of Western Europe's economies are "socialist." ALL have private ownership of property, private enterprise, etc.
Their economies and ours are Corporatist/Interventionist (and for the record, I've ALWAYS said that Blue), differing only in the degree to which given governments intervene.
In every case, those economies that intervene and redistribute more, do less well (higher inflation, higher unemployment, slower GDP growth, etc).
Our economy has proven that this kind of economy works best when intervened less (Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr) and worst when it intervenes more (LBJ & Carter).
Yes, I'd prefer a more free/open market and far less redistribution of the wealth. I'd really most basiclly prefer a tax system that doesn't punish productivity (work/income) instead taxing consumption, thereby taxing the truly rich (the top 1% of income earners are not among the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans) and those involved in the underground economy.
P.S.
For the record, I believe you are somewhat more socially Liberal than myself (anyone to the Left of Pat Buchanan is)....nothing wrong with that. You put your positions across well.
In this case, I'm merely asking that BW put his own positions across well, that is with actual evidence and not mere feelings.
There is no real argument over "Capitalism or Socialism?" True Socialsim hasn't ever worked, doesn't work and is innately brutal and tyrannical.
I'd even agree that a completely free market would not work well either, at least absent a utopia where everyone was at least pretty competitive with everyone else.
So that leaves us with Corporatism/Interventionism (what BW calls "fascism"). There's no doubt whatsoever that Europe's more interventionist economic model is far less efficient than America's somewhat less interventionist model.
Milton Friedman had preached that since the early 1970s and had to go to South America to prove that even under far less than ideal circumstances (a military Junta no less) a more free market model works best.
There is NOTHING, no evidence whatsoever that bolsters the cause of those who espouse a more "European," more Interventionist model for the U.S.
I'm merely asking BW to defend a more interventionist approach and/or prove that free markets are, in some way...any way "bad."
So though we may disagree on some social issues, I don't believe we disagree on economics all that much.
Commenting by HaloScan
