I know in many political graphs he's considered a right-wing

>>133845457
The difference is that Hitler wanted to have the work benefit the state, while Pinochet allowed the individual to work for himself and become rich, as well as more property rights.

>>133845457
Pinochet was a libertarian; he's only called an authoritarian because of the helicopter rides. You can't have liberty with commies hanging around.

>>133845457
Pinochet was pro-internationalism and didn't believe in the state interfering with the market to stop/regulate things in the interest of the state/national character and buddied up with pro-internationalist and free trade leaders like Reagan and Thatcher.

>>133846620
>you cant have freedom with people disagreeing yo

>>133847821
Commies' entire purpose is to step on snek. They're literally incompatible with freedom.

>>133845457
Allende wss in league with the Soviets, receiving small arms from them and arming his supporters(commies).

Pinochet shared power with the other heads of the armed forces and spoke on their behalf. He crushed the extremist Marxists in his country. It should also be noted that Pinochet had the support of over 50% of the country at the time and majority in Congress voted for him to act to remove Allende.

The economy actually blossomed under his reign.

Moral of the story. Helicopter ride leftists.

>>133845457
Germany and Italy chose fascism democratically and voluntarily, while Chile had to choose it out of necessity. Pinochet was just a general at the time he came to power, not a politician: no one knew or cared about what he would do as long as he got rid of the commies. He relied almost entirely on the "Chicago Boys" for fixing the economy through the implementation of free market policies, he just overlooked it all.

>>133848524
>I don't know what to do about the economy but fuck marxists
The best attitude for a politician/dictator to take.

File: JaimeG.png (88KB, 220x227px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 220x227px

Check out the political philosophy of Jaime Guzmán, his law and politics advisor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaime_Guzmán

He reconciled reactionary and liberal political philosophy, Juan Vázques de Mella and Friedrich Hayek, and promoted the independence of the intermediary institutions of a society that stand between the individual and the state as protective bodies, such as the family, the Church, guilds (the movement he founded was called "gremialismo" over the Spanish word for guild), municipalities etc

It was more liberal in the strict sense than most modern liberals. Modern liberalism seeks to emancipate the individual by removing him from the constraints of traditional institutions, such as religion, the family and powerful political notables, but doing so only make them more vulnerable to increasing centralizing state power. Guzman wanted the opposite, to emancipate the individual by making him a part of autonomous, apolitical institutions that gave meaning and belonging to his existence.

Guzmán also wrote the Constitution of Chile, which is hated by commies because it stop them from ruining the country with Bolivarianism even though they have ruled for most of the time since Pinochet resigned. He also founded the Independent Democratic Union, Chile largest individual party and probably the greatest right-wing party in Latin America.

He was more responsible for the success of Chile than the Chicago Boys, I think.

File: 1474214090935.jpg (98KB, 825x631px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 825x631px

>>133847821
>commies
>people

choose one

>>133848524
This basically. His biggest contributions to the economy were allowing (((Friedman))) and his acolytes to run everything and giving many jobs to his son-in law.

Jews have higher IQ and an insular religion, therefor they get hired to high positions.

Either way, under capitalism the richest rich get to have everything they could ever want, but the poorest poor don't starve on the streets.

>>133849968
It worked though, Chile became the most prosperous and economically free country in South America. Actually, it has even more freedom than the USA.

He privatised everything except copper and the armament industry.

Created the Minimum Employment Plan to give jobs to the unemployed (very low wages though), most jobs were basically fixing roads, picking up litter, painting houses, etc.

He was authoritarian in the sense that he ruled like, well, basically as an authoritarian. Suppressed the media, killed or exiled the opposition by throwing them out of helicopters, sending communists to concentration camps in Antarctica, creating a giant grill to fry communists alive and opening marxists alive using Scimitars as a way to kill them. It was basically a reign of terror which cost him the election of 1988.

He also kept gun control during his term "everyone who is found with weapons will be executed without trial", after the country was stabilised he legalised weapons though.

Chile was quite prosperous the first ten years, with an economic growth of around 130%, however Argentina, the US and Israel turned our back on us when he took the decision to nationalise the banking system, going against the free market. The US put an embargo, Argentina threatened with invasion and Israel made an international committee to stop selling us weapons, which made us raise our military spending because of the Argentine threat. Israel also attacked us through George Soros who funded the opposition, leading to mass protests and assassination attempts to Pinochet with led to an even harsher regime. (Curfews)

After all of this our economy suffered a great recession, the banking system was privatised again in 1985 IIRC, but unemployment remained high at 20% average and he left office democratically in 1989-1990 with a 44% approval rating.

He was a libertarian in the economic sense, but he also acted Keynesian sometimes (copper and the banks). He declared himself a nationalist in speeches and campaigns.