Why is Pinochet so vilified when his regime was relatively undeadly compared to 95% of Marxist regimes? Is the Left just a propaganda mill or was he actually that bad? And what's this I keep hearing about helicopters?
Pinochet is more significant in the West because he would not have come to power without American help. This is considered a betrayal of the United States' self-declared values.
Pinochet is associated with helicopters because during his rule murdered political dissidents would be thrown from helicopters into the ocean or Chile's lakes and rivers.
However, this is somewhat of a meme; only a small fraction of Pinochet's victims were actually killed in this manner; the Process in Argentina killed significantly more this way.
What a great answer, fully answering the question without addressing the obvious bait. If only you included sources with your post.
But this is the kind of post /his/ should strive for.
I just got back from a trip to Chile recently, and it seems the hate for Pinochet is because of him generally running the kind of corrupt Junta you'd expect from a South American dictator. It doesn't take a high bodycount to drive popular support against you, and Pinochet wasn't exactly doing much to keep the people on his side.
A quick example off the top of my head was some of the stuff I saw in Iquique. As we drove by this one hotel, the local guy I was staying with pointed it out
>hey see that hotel there?
>When Pinochet was in power, he kept the entire place for himself
There also seems to have been the issue of shoving patriotism and militarism down everyone's throats, so much so that any kind of patriotism in today's Chile tends to have a negative association with Pinochet.
That's not to say he's completely vilified like other Fascist dictators (Mussloni or Franco). There's quite a few people in Chile who think Pinochet was great, particularly on the right.
If I were to act like a faggot and introduce my own opinion, I'd say that deposing Salvador Allende was a necessary act, but that he should have pulled a Cincinatus and restored civilian rule after the threat was dealt with.
Few people, and even fewer powerful people, have the discipline to do so.
Those same Marxist regimes with high body counts are still vilified, except where they still hold power.
Pinochet is put in the same sentence as other pseudo-fascist dictators because he was a dictator. People in the West really don't like those. Pinochet in particular also gets shat upon today because he had a body count that he was personally responsible for.
Trying to say he was "justified" is missing the point. The Russian Revolution was "justified" but still resulted in millions of deaths, and the suffering of millions more.
I'm actually not all too familiar with what Pinochet did beyond the basic
>Latin American dictator propped up by the US to the ire of the locals
That seems to be pretty common through the cold war. It could have been a good thing in the long run for Pinochet to take over, but it really seems lucky that he didn't start a cycle of regular revolutions like we see in Argentina.
>he would not have come to power without American help
That's wrong, though. South Americans generally don't need help for coup d'etats and it's not like Chilean society actually wanted it to become a communist shithole.
That doesn't mean much, in most Latin American countries the education system is controlled by communists.
>Mao and Stalin are vilified way more than Pinochet.
I think the difference is that in academia it's still socially acceptable to be a Stalinist or a Maoist, but if you declare open support for Pinochet, you sign your warrant of social death.
Isn't Alain Badiou serious academia, for example? He is an unrepentant Maoist. Eric Hobsbawm was also an unrepentant Stalinist to the day he died and no one ever criticized that. Meanwhile Hayek is purged over his connection to the Pinochet regime.
I think that's the hypocrisy that OP addresses.
No it's not. Have you ever actually been to Chile? Despite having some god-awful income inequality that you'd expect to really facilitate communist sentiment, they're not pro-communist at all. Pinochet seems to have caused an anti-nationalistic backlash more then pro-communist.
What the fuck are you on about? Pinochet's got plenty of support in Chile despite all the hate he gets. Everywhere else, people don't know (or care) much beyond the fact that he was a dictator.
I wasn't implying anything, I was actually asking.
Stalinism and Maoism are complicated, because they are political ideologies, and people claim "it hasn't been tried yet, it can't work." Nobody, since the fall of Communism, can seriously look at Stalin positively.
Conservative regime's tend to not kill as many people as they don't have to strip the nation of it's existing cultural establishments, just tweak them to serve the state.
This does not make either of the regimes any more or less oppressive to it's people though.
>it's still socially acceptable to be a Stalinist or a Maoist
No, it's not.
>if you declare open support for Pinochet, you sign your warrant of social death
If you say you liked Pinochet you will get two responses.
>You're an idiot (continues to interact in the same manner as before with you)
I'm not disagreeing with you that they are communists. Stalinists are generally completely disregarded nowadays though. Maoists are the same way.
I'd blame the Second World War for right-wing extremist ideologies not really being discussable in Europe. In America/Canada, you can support anything. Neoconservativism is a mainstream ideology for christsakes.
Exactly. If you told someone you supported Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, you'd get the same "Wow, you're a fucking idiot" as you would if you said you supported Banana Republic Dictatorships.
Which isn't entirely true, since Kissinger and his ilk are getting a modern revisionist support movement. Academia is a gigantic and fickle beast desu.
>No, it's not.
It is, sorta. If I go to my tomorrow university and declare myself a Maoist, people will find it funny and amusing, even if they don't take me seriously. If I declare my support for the policies of Augusto Pinochet and Jaime Guzman they will organize a lynch mob.
Maybe that's because I'm Latin American so Pinochet has a larger presence here.
What I find really surprising is that there are other evil corrupt dictators of the same ideology that aren't nearly as hated as Pinochet.
Jorge Rafael Videla killed 30,000 people in Argentina, and God knows how many Mayans did Efrain Rios Montt killed in Guatemala, but they have a way lesser presence in the Western imagination.
There's plenty of reasons for the Chilean people to dislike him, but 99% of the reasons your average redditor hates him have absolutely nothing to do with anything related to Chile. The Chileans could sing praises to him before bed each night; it's completely irrelevant to why he's maligned.
Rather, Pinochet is despised because he "ruined" an otherwise perfect revolution. Pinochet's regime combated many of the ills plaguing Chile (unemployment, crime, starvation, lack of infrastructure, etc), all of which were exploited by the Communist government in order to gain power.
Pinochet, with U.S. backing, came in and not only proved Marxist economic theories wrong, but also Marxist whiggism. Pinochet's regime is not only proof that Marxism can be stopped but that Capitalism is not unstable in the slightest, and most importantly, that Communism is not an inevitability.
Pinochet had a habit of throwing Communists out of helicopters as a method of execution, which is where the helicopter meme comes from.