Talk:Salvador Allende/Archive 6

POV wording in lead
The third paragraph of the article currently begins "As President, Allende imposed a controversial Marxist program…" For starters, the word "imposed" is very POV. Do we say that Ronald Reagan "imposed" conservatism on America? But, also, do call his administration's program "Marxist" is a stretch, especially with the connotations of that term. Allende personally was a Marxist, and the lead section should apply that adjective to him, which it does not. But his administration was a "broad left" administration. Its program attempted to move in the direction of socialism, and I wouldn't object to calling it a "socialist" program, but "Marxist" in this context is almost as POV as "imposed". - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed to "carried out". Vints 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Early life"
Has anyone noticed that the "early life" section isn't particularly about his early life? It includes material ranging right into his presidency. I believe that much of the latter portion of this section should be refactored elsewhere in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Soviet aid to Allende
This in the Election section was not correct: "The KGB spent $420,000 in the campaign unbeknownst to Allende". I changed to "an undetermined amout" which the Church Report says. According to this article, $420,000 was the total actual and proposed payments to Allende by KGB both before and after the election: "The KGB documents record actual and proposed payments to Chile's Salvador Allende totaling $420,000 both before and after his election as president in 1970." Vints 14:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

machine gun or assault rifle?
Does anyone have a source backing that supposed machine gun claim? If the weapon in question (I'm not convinced of suicide, the speech definitelly does not back that theory up (I've heard good (neutral) translations in two languages), but thta's not my point here anyhow) was indeed the one gifted by Fidel Castro it would be an AK-47 Kalashnikov which is a rifle (automatic rifle or assault rifle) and by no means a machine gun. This is just the kind of mistake people commonly make, describing any large automatic weapon as a machine gun. So unless there actually is some document that names a specific machine gun I propose this entry in both this article and in the coup of 1973 article be corrected to automatic rifle, assault rifle or AK-47... Or of course a combination.--Caranorn 14:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

R: In Chile all automatic weapons are call "Metralletas" ( mored used ) o "Ametralladoras" (Machine Guns) like a general automatic weapons and in 1973 the term "Asault Rifle" (Fusil de Asalto) are not used yet So the term "Ametralladora" and "metralleta" are refed to a Full Automatic Rifle The correct term in the English ver. must be "AK-47" or Kalashnikov Rifle in spanish chile de term must be "metralleta" : All full automatic wueapon of high caliber, this included Machine Gun, Sub Machineg Gun, Assault Rifles etc "Subamatralladora" Sub Machine Gun "Ametralladora": Machine Gun ( bad used to call any automatic... "Fusil de Asalto" Assault Rifle "Fusil Ametrallador" This term is used by military to refed a AK-47 ( in the Assault to LA MONEDAI) when the term Assault Rifle are not popular... Fusil Ametrallador are a Automatic Rifle

AK-47 must refered by KAlashnikov Rifle o AK-47 to respect the historical context —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.223.9.112 (talk • contribs) 9 October 2006.

"Cuban's Socialist principles"
"The CIA claim that Allende's campaign also received $350,000 from Cuba though the claim is usually dismissed because it would be against Cuban's Socialist principles": huh? Besides this presumably either intending to say "Cuba's socialist principles" or "Cubans' socialist principles", dismissed by whom? And on what basis? That Communist countries have a principled aversion to involving themselves in other countries' internal affairs? I hate to disillusion you (well, actually I don't) but this is not something about which Communist countries have shown themselves to be particularly scrupulous.

Of course, I will remove this. But I figured it was worth a comment, in case there is something substantive and citable that should be restored in its stead. - Jmabel | Talk 19:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Democratic socialism
This is the name of what he advocated. It doesn't matter what "libertarians" think. Democratic socialism is a neutral political science term. —Sesel 23:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. That is just your opinion. And the fact that you put democratic next to socialism put a positive bias onn it. Once again, Allende received money from the KGB, he was a good friend of Fidel Castro, the Supreme Court complanied time and time again of him using the executive branch not to carry out judicial sentences, and the parliament called the armed forces to seize power because of the way he was conducting the government. Many people in Chile had their property taken, their factories. Allende wanted to institute an education program that was denounced by the catholic church because it was clear indoctrination.

Therefore, after all that, I think it is reasonable to say that many people would agreee that saying Allende was a democratic socialist is a biased view. I'm not saying you have to label it authoritarian socialism or anything like that. Just label it socialism, which is exactly what I try to do when I delete democratic. Let people make up their own minds and figure out for themselves if they believe Allende was a democratic figure.

---

One more thing, exactly who says this non-sense about democratic socialism. I read the link and its not very good. It looks more like left-wing people who love their ideology. At the top you can clearly read that it has no citacion, or sources. It looks more like b-s if you ask me.

Oh yeah, another thing. "It doesn't matter what libertarians think". How democratic of you!


 * Actually, most left wingers don't like the term "democratic socialism". The reason is quite simple, any form of socialism is per definition democratic. It's also too easily confused with social-democracy. Otherwise, at least in US political sciences the term democratic-socialism is commonly used, whether it's applicable to Allende is another issue, what's certain is that he favoured democratic means. Collaboration with Castro certainly does not disqualify one in this respect, as Fidel certainly was and still is more democratic then any of his predecessors ever were. Lastly, I cannot see any ties between democracy and private property (or should I say exploitation of the masses), expropriations regularly take place all over the world as commonly in so called democracies as in any other type of state.--Caranorn 22:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but we are not here to promote what right wingers or left wingers believe. Most right wingers think it is not democrtic as socialism does not allow for private property. So my question is, if left wingers don't like it because socialism per se is democratic, and right wingers think socialism per se is not democratic, then why put it in Allende's bio? How about just calling it "socialism".

I truly don't understand why you people insist on this. It is so obviously biased. The article on "democratic socialism" does not have any citations and its pretty close to a joke. Once again I'm deleting it and putting just socialism. It suits both right and left.


 * The fact that Supreme Court complained shows that Chile was a democracy. In a dictatorship it wouldn't be allowed to complain. In addition, there was a Congressional election in early 1973.Vints 07:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Socialist love to attach their very biased ideology to anything to strengthen their position. There is no such thing as democratic socialism, as they are two opposites. Socialism generally does not accept the notion of free will, the right of the individual to determine their own future. For democracy to work, people must have free will, must be free to vote without threat of duress or violence, and must own some degree of property, such as the clothes on their backs and the shoes on their feet, to go and vote. It also must be sustainable in that the democracy is not itself voted away, so some resitrictions must exist ... like not being able to vote into existence an ideology contrary to anything needed to keep democracy going ... otherwise it ceases to remain a democracy. Just because democracy can be used as a tool to advance socialism does not make democracy in itself compatible with socialism. As history has proven time and time again, once a socialist state is established, true democracy vanishes. Allende was a socialist, period, and the deletions of democratic are perfectly valid. Jcchat66 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Balderdash. "Socialism generally does not accept the notion of free will": as far as I can tell, even the most economically determinist Marxist does not reject free will at the individual level, they just believe (as do many right-Hegelians, such as Francis Fukuyama) that the forces of history are so large that no individual dramatically effects its course. "Free to vote without threat of duress or violence": Chile had a parliamentary election early in 1973. I'm not aware of any reports that it was less than "free and fair", but if you have these, then they would be a useful addition to the article Chile under Allende. "Own some degree of property, such as the clothes on their backs and the shoes on their feet": a straw man argument. I don't think even Maoism denies personal property at that level. Certainly, democratic socialism does not. Collective ownership of the means of production (often meaning only the larger industries) should not be confused with collective ownership of your toothbrush. To say that under socialism the government owns your clothes is exactly as much of a straw man as to say that under capitalism there can be no public streets. As for the vanishing of democracy: the Scandinavian countries are usually seen as social democratic. They are all also model democracies. - Jmabel | Talk 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there remains some misunderstanding of what socialism represents. Allow me to enlighten you. Socialism remains defined as: various, social, economic and political theories advocating collective or state ownership and management and distribution of the means of production. Also, a system in which there is no private property. And, let us not forget, Marxist theory. This is a textbook definition of socialism. Your argument is quite regular and un-inventive, as this idea has been limping along for thousands of years now without success with those very same arguments.


 * With absolute certainty socialism does not acknowledge free will in practice, no matter how often it is sophistically argued otherwise. It is painfully simply why. If anyone decides that they do not want to live in a socialist society as a matter of their will ... that are promptly shot in the back of the head "for the greater good." There's the free will, splattered all over the place. Of course there are various degrees of socialism, democracy, capitalism, and all the other beliefs that exist. America has many socialist institutions, such as Marx's progressive income tax and Social Security. As, as you might have noticed, democracy in America has suffered in equal proportion to socialistic implementations ... thus Bush came to power. And taxation is staggering in all socialists countries, as much as 80% or more, which is essential for social programs to work. Do citizens have the free will not to support these social programs? Of course not. Good luck with your theory of social democracy. Social feudalism (since feudalism puts all means of production and distribution in the state anyway) is far more feasible, and essentially no different, yet such a phrase would never be accepted. Balderdash indeed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcchat66 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Racism section bloated
The strength of the evidence for Allende's alleged racism is not enough to justify the length of the section, especially when compared to other, more substantial, sections. Xiner 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The section is, correctly, mostly about the why these charges don't stand up. I think we need this somewhere, perhaps an article of its own, because the charges are out there circulating. - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Allende has been mentioned to be a racist then it should be there.

His name
I haven't checked further down the article if it's mentioned already but if anyone's interested his name I think means: Saviour Isabelino (1) of the Holy Heart of Jesus Allende (2) Gossens (3)
 * 1) Just a name, I think. However it is a form of the masculine form of 'Isabel - Elizabeth.
 * 2) Just a name.
 * 3) Just a name.

POV issue, Legacy and debate -> Opponents' View
The last sentence in this section seems a bit biased:
 * Nevertheless, Allende's own refusal to obey and/or enforce more than 7,000 Chilean Supreme Court and other legistlative rulings (as detailed in the Resolution of August 22, 1973) indicate he had already begun ruling in a dictatorial style in defiance of Chile's democratic government institutions.

The link to Wikisource results in an empty article, so it seems the statement is unsourced (it would appear it was deleted, but there is no talk page to read; there are however some redirects to that page on wikisource, so it is possible it existed). One should also be careful using a source written by Allende's own political enemies (surely relevant, but also unavoidably biased) to state facts about Allende. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.48.60.238 (talk • contribs).

The argument "A common and more severe criticism is that because of his closeness with Fidel Castro and Eastern bloc countries, he was planning to convert Chile into a Cuban-style dictatorship." seems like a fallacy. That is a big claim (planning to convert Chile into a Cuban-style dictatorship) for such a small amount of evidence (his closeness with Fidel Castro and Eastern bloc countries). (72.181.194.88 22:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

High school
Recent anon edit changed where he went to high school. Does someone have a citation for this? - Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The same source used for the year and place of birth: Biography of Allende. Notice that the birthdate given on the official website of the Presidency of Chile differs from the birthdate given in Wikipedia. I don't know what is the correct date. Jespinos 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OAS and diplomatic relations with Cuba
The article mentions the OAS convention that restricted the signatory's diplomatic relations with Cuba. It should be noted that Canada, which is mentioned, was not a member of the OAS at the time of the signing of the convention, nor in 1971. The article could be read to imply that it was. Fishhead64 22:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Socialist / Communist
The lead recently said, I think accurately, "He was the first democratically elected Marxist president in the world." It now, instead, makes the odd claim "He was the second democratically elected Socialist revolutionary president in the world (the first was Guyana's Cheddi Jagan in 1953)." I have no idea what is the basis for claiming that Allende (or Jagan) was a "revolutionary" in a sense that, say, Manuel Azaña of Spain was not. All arrived in power entirely through electoral means; all could have been seen as "revolutionary" in the loose sense of a dramatic break from earlier regimes. I think we have gone from something clear (and accurate) to something muddy. - Jmabel | Talk 08:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Socialist works, but indeed not revolutionary socialist (which is usually used for Trotskyists).--Caranorn 17:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What? What are you talking about? "Trotskyist," "Bolshevik" or "Marxist-Leninist" is usually used for Trotskyists, not "revolutionary socialists." To be clear, Allende was ac communist. He told Debray "The answer is the proletariat. If it wasn't so I wouldn't be here [...] As for the bourgeois state, at the present moment, we are seeking to overcome it. To overthrow it. [...] Our objective is total, scientific, Marxist socialism." Marxist socialism is the first step in the transition to communism. All communists have socialism as their immediate objective. Redflagflying 06:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why I've never understood why some people term themselves socialists. But you are preaching to the converted you know. For the rest, I know of a number of Trotskyst parties and organisations calling themselves revolutionary socialists (or communists), radical socialists (or communists). On the other hand I can't think of a socialist (lets call it democratic socialism to avert confusion) organisation using the term revolutionary. That is to say that inclusion of the term revolutionary makes an organisation distinct from the socialist international. That is not the case for Allende.
 * Your quotes are interesting though as they indeed show a more radical Allende (but that does not change his allignement with the socialist party and socialist international), but it was not without reasons that both local communists and international communists supported him. Of course this might seem bad for anyone who has never seen inside the movement and doesn't know how democratic (chaotic) it actually is.--Caranorn 13:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

neutrality tags
Shouldn't we remove the neutrality tags from the legacy sections? They seem redundant, since the sections are marked to indicate that they reflect POVs anyway. Debivort 22:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like no one objects to this - I'm going to remove them. Debivort 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Took nonsense about racist piece out of "Early Life"
There was a sentence thrown in by an obvious critic of Allende (NPOV anyone?) about Salvador's supposed anti-semitic writing. This is covered later in the article, with a more balanced view. It was also contradictory, as this very article goes on to say "Farías allegations have been challenged by the Spanish President Allende Foundation, which published various relevant materials on the Internet in PDF form, including the dissertation itself[13] and a letter of protest sent by the Chilean Congress (and signed among others by Allende) to Adolf Hitler after Kristallnacht.[14] The Foundation claims[15] that in his thesis Allende was merely quoting Italian-Jewish scientist Cesare Lombroso, whereas he himself was critical of these theories. Farías maintains the affirmations that appear in his book. The President Allende Foundation replied publishing the entire original text of Lombroso[16] and in April 2006 filed an anti-libel claim against Farías and his publisher in the Court of Justice of Madrid (Spain)." Redflagflying 06:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

October 1972, the full history
I want to add some information about the worker support to Allende and the revolutionary process lived during part of 1972 and 1973 (until coup d'état), which is not very documented by official media, but there's direct audiovisual documents registering it and historical evidence about it. They are not letting me do so because they find my sources are dubious or believe I'm trying to propagandize (I'm just trying to neutralize and be objective, skipping institutional prejudices). I find some ideological prejudices, actually. What could I do in order to demonstrate the information about all this is real, instead invented or made up? They talk very much about opposition's strike, but nobody almost talk about how it was answered by workers, nor the social situation being lived among population, among workers, in factories, through popular councils, through demonstrations, social changes, etc., which was a main reason for the strike, for the right, church, employers and bussinesmen opposition, and for the coup d'état, actually, and for CIA's support to opposition and to coup d'état. How could I demonstrate about all this historically documented revolutonary process (that they like to skip, ignore or forget about) so nobody erases my additions beleiving they are simply propaganda, invention, or lie? Why is it so difficult to add something into English wikipedia? Spanish article does talk about these things (though it sort of makes them look like collective histeria, haha, and not a social and revolutionary process, what is some unloyal to historical facts, and biased, by being a bit more loyal to officialist institutional position; typical institutional dogma, where current institutions are "sacred"... "upper", unquestionable, or something like that; that's unneutrality, from an objective unbiased view). DeepQuasar 04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed how the paragraph refering to the October 1972's trucks strike, in the part about the Presidency, makes no mention about reaction from a very wide sector of workers from main cities, and other social movements, as the kind of social and revolutionary process it started. I've tried to make some additions refering to this relevant and often missed or 'forgotten' episode, that was one of the mainest reasons why the strike didn't achieve its purpose of crashing Allende's government or make it regret its policies at economical matter; this information also reflects, excessively briefly, for my opinion, at what degree Allende's popularity had grown up among masses, because nothing is mentioned about all that! And when I did the addition, it was refused by someone as biased, unprooven, and no source! Okay, I do have primary sources in audio-visual media, through a documentary recorded during 1972 that takes comments from many workers and records the situation that was lived those days around the country, the main cities' streets, and the factories, how they got re-opened by workers when the employers decided to stop and close them to support the private transporters and bussinessmen's strike. That documentary is named "Chile's Battle: the struggle of some people with no weapons", and is very known among certain left wing circles. How could I quote it, and with it, other written source, as a way to support my additions and demonstrate they're not biased, nor invented, nor unprooven, but based on facts? I copy and paste here the addition itself, in italics. I also add some extra background, by being more specific about other social sectors that did join the strike. If you keep thinking it's biased, please, tell me what specific parts, and how they could be modified to be actually objective, since the information keep being based on facts, that can be checked on several kind of sources I'll take a while to compile if necessary:

October 1972 saw the first of what were to be a wave of confrontational strikes. One by one, owners of trucks were joined by small bussinessmen, some (mostly professional) unions and some student groups ''related to these sectors, in a strategy to either press government for giving in its economic policies, or forcing its fall, by stopping most of product transport throughout the country, and thus causing a subsequent collapse of the economy - many employers from industrial and urban transport sectors also joined this strike, by stopping main bus lines and closing their factories. This, on the other hand, was responsed by a large number of workers, who organised alternative forms of urban transport, by van or estate cars, and thus reached their jobs, going on factory production in a collective, self-organised way. This was a way to reaffirm support to Allende's government and the many social achievements they had obtained from it, by supplying themselves everything that was required by the economy or population - they eventually received additional support from organised peasants and miners along countriside, as they went on occupying and collectivising unproductive lands and resources, and so making them produce. These popular initiatives often suffered from occassional direct attacks of some medium class student groups and far right sectors, as well as from attemps of sabotage to factories. Other than some inevitable damage to the economy, highly reduced by this popular support,'' the chief effect of the 24-day strike was to induce Allende to bring the head of the army, general Carlos Prats, into the government as Interior Minister.

Here is another source ^_^: "Durante el Paro de Octubre de 1972 se desarrolló un gran movimiento de participación y poder popular, fue una respuesta espectacular, los trabajadores en muchos casos se tomaron las fábricas y las echaron a andar, y lo que parecía imposible, que una fabrica anduviera sin ejecutivos y sin gerentes y sin empresarios, se hizo realidad. Ante la paralización del transporte, la distribución se hace con camiones voluntarios; entonces el producto se produce y llega; y allí donde se cierran los pocos supermercados que existían o los grandes almacenes, se abren los pequeños almacenes y la JAP toma el control de la distribución directa en ese momento. Es decir la respuesta popular, por cierto con el concurso del aparato del gobierno, es extraordinariamente rápida, efectiva y eficiente." http://www.nodo50.org/americalibre/eventos/azocar21.htm "El proceso chileno con Salvador Allende y el contexto histórico", Oscar Azócar, Director ICAL, ENCUENTRO SOBRE EXPERIENCIAS DE PODER POPULAR EN AMERICA LATINA, Sao Paulo BRASIL, 26 AL 30 DE OCTUBRE

DeepQuasar 10:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source other than America libre? You claim there is a video, where can we find it?  My Spanish is rusty but I can read it reasonably well so Spanish language sources are fine.  I have access to a major university library so there is a good chance I can find even Spanish language sources.JoeCarson 11:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Is "Chile's Battle: the struggle of some people with no weapons" a translation of a Spanish title? If so, what is the Spanish name?  If this is a leftist propaganda film as you claim, it cannot serve as a reputable source about the magnitude of the "counter-strike" but it can serve as proof that there was one.JoeCarson 11:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's an improvised translation, original is: "La Batalla de Chile: La lucha de un pueblo sin armas", it's divided in 3 chapters. 3rd one referes to worker movements, to popular scenario, support for Allende, and somehow daily situation lived in factories, streets, unions, "industrial belts" (cordones industriales), collectivized lands or mines, in popular councils, etc., specially after October's transportist strike. It's a documentary, it's not propagandistic. It gives audio-visual information about facts. Sometimes the commentarist gives his own interpretation of things, obviously, but constantly contrasted and illustrated by taking spontaneous testimonies and opinions, of many kinds, from workers and people who were taking part into these "popular actions", so people can freely extract their own interpretations, after watching facts.
 * This has to be further docummented in many other deep sources or serious investigations, but definitely you won't read about this in official or institutionalized mass media, because that would mean questionning current economic system, based on unproportional and hierarchic distribution of richness, work, and PIB. This documentary demonstrates, by registering historical memory, alternative systems are possible, where production is a need, and not a benefit. That would question the basis of capitalism, current Estate and representative democracy's legitimacy, by opposing to it alternative models that can be felt as revolutionary, but would threat current echonomic order. Someone who helds an international bank will never admit another classless society, where richness be equally distributed, is possible, because that would mean renouncing to his lifestyle and privileges. It's very difficult, thus, you encounter direct reference to a revolutionary process (even though shattered) from New York Times, or from any other mainstream media or politicians, because their lifestyle, their bussiness, are based and assured by this economically hierarchic system. It's a question of common sense. Social revolutions (or worker struggles) are not very institutionalized, but G8, IMF and European Constitution are. And wikipedia, rather a propagandistic medium, it's a chance for people to access to a really non-biased, non-limited, complete and objective information, and letting people extract their own interpretations and conclussions, but after knowing the whole part. DeepQuasar 05:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to be the one to puncture this version. The text reads: One by one, owners of trucks were joined by small bussinessmen, some (mostly professional) unions and some student groups related to these sectors, in a strategy to either press government for giving in its economic policies, or forcing its fall, by stopping most of product transport throughout the country, and thus causing a subsequent collapse of the economy. Let's clarify some facts. Yes, the truck-owners were the ones that started the strike. The primary reason was the announcement by the government that they had decided to centralize all domestic transport in the state-owned corporation, the ENT (Empresa Nacional de Transportes - National Transport Company), in fact putting them out of business. The truck-owners' (most of which only owned the truck they themselves drove) were already being squeezed out by the refusal of the government to spend foreign exchange in the import of spare parts for their vehicles (which truck-owners were not allowed to import directly), causing many to be unable to work. They were also effectively joined by the small-business association, again because the government was centralizing all product distribution in just one state-owned corporation, and also because the government had "frozen" all price rises, while inflation was spiraling out of control, in fact forcing them to sell their products at a loss. From there onwards, one by one, all the professional "unions" (meaning, doctor's, lawyer's, architect's, etc) started to join the strike in defense of their independence. Allende himself was expelled from the Doctor's association.  The economy (as can be seen from all statistics available) had already collapsed by that point. The strike, while making the situation worse, was not the cause but rather the result of the failed economic central planning. The writer is also arguing that many employers from industrial and urban transport sectors also joined this strike, by stopping main bus lines and closing their factories''. Again, this is misleading. Let's take the easier part first. There were NO urban transport sectors at this time (if you exclude taxi-drivers, which most workers could not afford anyway). All public transport in the city of Santiago was in the hands of the state-owned ETC (Empresa de Transportes del Estado - State Transport Company). Public transport was not privatized until 1976, by the Pinochet regime. In other words, the drivers who went on strike were "public employees".  Now, as for the "industrial sector", we again can refer to the government statistics. By this time (1972) the government had transferred to state ownership more than half of all "industrial sector" companies (and certainly most of the largest corporations). The remaining ones went on strike mostly on SUPPORT of the Allende policies, so as to help the government transfer them to state control (the strategy worked as following: the company's worker's would strike, the government would then decree an order to "restart production due to public needs", the worker's would refuse, the government would then be authorized by law to decree the removal of management "for reasons of public needs" and name a "provisory" manager, who would then take over the company and transfer it to state control). During this strike, more than 400 companies were thus transferred to state control, and even though in the agreement that ended the strike there was a government's promise to return them to their owner's control, none was ever done so. What we must not forget is that Allende never got more than 43% of popular support in the country (the highest percent of vote he got in the March 1973 elections). In other words 57% of the population was against his policies.Mel Romero 02:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are those percentages from? They look very dubious, specially the fact that remaining 57% had to be directly against, and not partly supportive, or neutral. But I insist, it was a majority of worker class and social sectors who supported, otherwise, it would have been very difficult for him to be able go ahead his plans, and militar strike wouldn't have been needed as elites and bourgeoisie's last attempt to save their interests and politic/economic model. Economic upper classes would have found much easier to unstabilize goveirnment and make it fall. I see it as a matter of common sense, dunno... DeepQuasar13:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can find "the dubious percents" in Chilean parliamentary election, 1973. If you add the results of the Christian Democrat Party and the National Party (which were allied in the CODE - Democratic Confederation) you get 58% plus... those CODE results were considered a failure by both the CODE and the UP, since the stated objective of the CODE to obtain 2/3 (67%) of Congress, in order to impeach Allende. Maybe Allende's support was on the worker classes, no discussion there (I have no idea what social sectors are - rich and poors are both part of society), but anyway, the 42% of the UP in 1973 was as much vote as Allende ever got, clearly indicating that he had not a majority support for carrying his policies. Hence, the coup.Mel Romero 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "votes" with "sympathies" or "deeper analyse". You are not talking about people who agrees or disagrees, who like or don't like Allende, you are talking about electoral results. You can't take number of votes and say "who didn't vote Allende radically opposed his policy", that's not correct. Left wing votes were divided among several left wing forces, that formed Allende's coalition, and voters would have many reasons to rather prefere this party than this other, don't forget left wings are not monolytic, nor parties or programs into it. Besides, the documentary I talked about shows how many pro-Christian-Democrat workers and employees also joined the counter-strike, by keeping working, thus supporting their companions and goveirnment's administration; they could not 100% agree Allende's party, or even prefere Christian-Democracy, because they were more in the middle, or self-identified more with it, but they did eventually join the struggle process that started being generated below, and ended up criticising Christian-Democrat when it turned right, by starting to support right wing forces, because many of them interpreted it as serving interests against workers; many Christian-Democrat supporters or ex supporters (or just voters) eventually condemned this party to have joined right wing parties and purposes, and in words of some of them, "to have betrayed Allende's policy", what was regarded by some as hypocrite.
 * Some most conscious workers even talked about "paternalism" phenomenon, that many traditional right wing forces, that serves elitist or burgeoise's interests, had created with many non-politized or conservative workers. That's a typical procedure of right wing forces, worldwide, which is hard to negade, but many workers started to notice it, in a situation like this, breaking up with these traditional forces, by differencing their speech from their strategy, and identifying this lack of "politization" as a reason of many of their neighbours still voting parties that actually supported interests and politics that just favoured the elite and disfavoured workers. This is an exemple of complexity of situation, and that's the reason why I do not think an quick conclussion from electoral results is a good way to solve it out. That's why I say "they're dubious". Numbers can be objective, yes, but the way they are "interpreted", as a mono-lythic thing, for me, isn't, since a vote doesn't tell you who you like or you don't, but, from all the options they offer you, which is your final decission, and people can have these decisions for many reasons, as this situation I've brievely pictured should give us an idea. Only a deeper demographic study or a full social-politic analyse should be concluding, from my view. Honestly, DeepQuasar 12:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that you have some fundamental flaws in your reasoning: a) If you cannot consider electoral results as a accurate statistical measure of agreement or disagreement with a political postulate, then you're per se denying democracy, because in a democracy is the voting majority's opinion who rules. Also, as any statistician would tell you, in a voting universe as big (in percentage terms) as the one of the Allende years, you can confidently extrapolate the results to get a very accurate picture of the opinion of the whole society, which should have about the same distribution. That's how polls are conducted. You take a representative sample of your universe, poll them and then extrapolate the results. b) You speak of the division of the leftist votes. Again this is a radical misunderstanding of the political system as it existed then. The division of the votes didn't help or hurt Allende's coalition. If anything, it helped them because the more "targeted" the parties were, the more possibilities of getting votes they had. Also, under no stretch of electoral imagination would an Allende supporter vote for a CODE party. c) In the election I refer to (march 1973), if you read a bit about it, the electoral "theme" was very clear: for the CODE (Christian Democrats, National Party and a portion of the Radical Party) it was to get 67% of Congress, so as to be able to impeach Allende. For the UP (all the rest of the parties) it was to prevent the former (they never expected to increase their vote, even though that's what they did.) Even though the CODE got 58 plus percent, both the CODE and the UP claimed defeat of the intent to get rid of Allende via constitutional means. Only then the pressure for a coup started really to build up (as you can see from the published memoirs of most everyone who participated pro or against). d) Last, not to bore you, let me tackle the point of your "documentary". How long it was? 2 hours? 3 hours? That should be an acceptable working length average. So, that should be about 180 minutes. Let's say they spent half the time interviewing people on the streets (that's a stretch), that's 90 minutes of interviews. An average interview lasts what? 2 minutes? So, in fact they interviewed 45 people. Ok, let's compromise... 90 people (1 per minute). You expect to draw conclusions from the opinions of 90 people "selected" by the interviewers, and use those opinions to challenge the results of a vote where about 1.2 MILLION people voted? I don't agree with that... given the resources, I could also produce a "documentary" proving the exact opposite position with even more interviews... Mel Romero 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The same "agree/oppose" discussion comes up with regard to the UNO coalition in the 1990 Nicaraguan elections and is currently of interest because of what is happening in Nicaragua today. For the 1990 election, the U.S. government offered "help" to parties that joined together in a coalition to oust then-president Daniel Ortega. These parties varied all over the political spectrum from the left of Ortega to the right. They had two things in common: wanting to elect someone other than Ortega and wanting to get in on the "help". So, they made up a larger plurality than Ortega supporters in that election but they in no way represented a meaningful political position. I am not an expert on Chile but I think this is the point that DeepQuasar is making--namely that while Allende's position was supported by a minority, there was no mode (in statistical terms) more significant. Nicafyl (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm denying the fact "figurative" or "nominal democracy" actually be real democracy, since democracy means "popular power" (from greek "demos", people, and "kratos", power), and under this system, people doesn't have power, since it's excluded from taking or participating in any relevant political decission or control of echonomy. Political power is took by an elected elite, but an elite, in a hierarchic way, which takes every relevant decission on politics or echonomy, that affects majority of people, and uses police or army according to their own criteria. Laws are or were made by a minoritary, elitist group, as well. And economic planification is decided by competing among upper echonomic classes around big enterprises and markets, which is also elitistic and can' be democratically controlled by majority, so there's no guarantee majority will be benefited, since current echonomic system, "capitalism", is based on competition of accumulative capitals, owned by some, for benefit of some, not for solving needs of mosts. Population can manifest if they doesn't agree current path of politics or echonomy, and if they are not heard (something very usual) they can revolt, but laws (made by some few, a political elite) says there are police and even army (if situation is extreme) in order to neutralize any revolts that can threat current political system and (big) private propriety order (private enterprises, induestries, petrol, private capitls, etc), in order to restablish previous (elitistic) order, based on such hierarchy, that excludes majority from participating in any relevant purpose.
 * People are called once per several years to choose their POLITICAL elites (parties, parliament, goveirnment), not ECONOMICAL elites (bussinesmen, bankers, traders, etc.), but there keep being elites, and these elites keep having political & economical power. So this is not democracy, it is oligarchy, elective oligarchy, because people posseses some chance to switch politic oligarchy's member, at some rate (not at all, into a multi-partisan system), but must depend from those elites, and can't decide not to do so; they need to revolt in order to change that, and if they do they are counter-backed; and they can't switch echonomic oligarchy. Workers from a factory can't choose their bussinessmen, nor democratically control factory's echonomy or distribute welfare. Soldiers can't democratically choose their officials, nor can decide militar code, if there's equality in relations with officials, if you must greet and how, if not obbeying a suicidal or irrational order can be punished, if such orders can be questions, etc. Students can't choose University's directors, most of times, nor can take decissions about University's direction, or teachers can choose a switch in studies planification (which are chosen by politicians, then again). And population can't decide if they want to modify current system, or current constitution, and of course they don't have power to redesign current system and make a more democratic one. Nor they have the chance to acclaim for direct democratic control of factories, universities, banks, latifunds, roads, mines, petrol sources and other resources, echonomy, exportations, trading, foreign political relations, whether we make or don't make a war, and whether we stop. Summing up: what is producted, how it is producted, in what amount it is producted, for what it is producted; what is made, when, how, for what... That'd be democracy.
 * Then I now ask you? Do you think current "democracy" is actually "democracy". Did you ask me if I negade it? Yes, I do. Not every party have same chances to access to power, since the more powerful a party be, the more chances it has to make propaganda, to pay more propaganda, to be more referred by mass media, and be more known, and voted. Parties don't represent people who vote them, because there are millions voting, for many reasons, like "I like less this one than this other", and they are not deciding if we we'll make war or not, and when, or the path of echonomy or politics, which is very hard to predict from a party, when you're voting for it. People can't predict everything their party will do in power. Parties normally uses many ideologic and propaganda methods to influence in voting decission. And that's not democratic. That's oligocratic. Party don't represent people's interests, but their interests.
 * That's why I untrust your interpretation of those statistics. Because people vote for many reasons, they are not homogeneous, they are heterogeneous, you haven't asked every of them to know what they were thinking about to vote this one, and stop voting this other. But you are grouping a lot of them into one attitude or other, you are guessing up their reasons to vote, according to a simplicist reasoning. Is that your democracy?
 * So I negade your democracy, I negade this democracy. And I negade "everyone" who didn't vote Allende should oppose "everything" made by Allende and should agree "everything" made by opposition, and which part of opposition?
 * Would you think most of people would agree CIA for supporting a militar coup and installing fascist totalitarian regime, for erasing from Chilean map everyone related to "popular power", social struggles, activism, syndicalism, revolts, democratic conquests, right conquests, workers' conquests, dis-oligarchization, etc.? I bet they wouldn't if they had really known and understood the whole part of truth.
 * Yes, I negade such FAKE of democracy. And argue many people who were repressed by Pinochet and Opposition's fascism supported more (real) democracy, but couldn't do other thing than revolting, and support a socialist goveirnment that supported them, the same way most people nowadays are doing in Venezuela, supporting (agreeing not everything from) Chávez, and being (more or less) supported by Chávez. And were about to suffer a similar episode in 2002, but thanks goodness they revolted against it.
 * That's the other part of the truth this article doesn't talk about, and this article won't be neutral until this other objective reality, about class struggle, is shown. Until there is some paragraph devoted to analyze "popular power"'s acclaims' episode, historically and audio-visually registered, and proven. DeepQuasar 04:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)