The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

[pbrower2a]

I have just reported Classic X'er for a personal attack and vile language inappropriate for a history forum. That is in the category "breaks forum rules".

[Einzige]

(02-23-2021, 04:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

No they aren't. A small handful of people affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America claim to he Marxist but what they advocate for is milquetoast social democracy (Richaed Wolff et al.). This has the effect of channeling left discontent into the Democratic Party, the graveyard of social movements.

Marxism is wage labor abolitionist. Welfare and unions ain't it.

[David Horn]

(02-23-2021, 05:50 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 04:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

No they aren't. A small handful of people affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America claim to he Marxist but what they advocate for is milquetoast social democracy (Richaed Wolff et al.). This has the effect of channeling left discontent into the Democratic Party, the graveyard of social movements.

Marxism is wage labor abolitionist. Welfare and unions ain't it.

It's also a consistent loser.  It has never succeeded in anything approximating its pure form, and is unlikely to in the future.

[pbrower2a]

(02-23-2021, 05:50 AM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 04:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

No they aren't. A small handful of people affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America claim to he Marxist but what they advocate for is milquetoast social democracy (Richaed Wolff et al.). This has the effect of channeling left discontent into the Democratic Party, the graveyard of social movements.

Marxism is wage labor abolitionist. Welfare and unions ain't it.

So how do you pay people to do the nasty work necessary for making the system work? Does the system simply pay people in the rewards of its choosing even down to the sort of victuals that people get to ear and the housing in which they get to live (most likely bleak tenements)? Consumer choice has value.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

[Eric the Green]

(02-23-2021, 04:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

I don't mind being called quasi socialist or half Marxist. I don't agree with a lot of what Marx said, but I do consider his work historically important. The working class, for example, was not taken much into account before Marx. I DO know that oil and water DO mix, as you define it. A mixed public and private economy not only mixes well, but it is by far the best system over total socialism or total capitalism. In fact, a mixed economy is the only workable kind. It has been around long before Marx too; it is civilization itself. You support total capitalism. That makes you a deceived and cruel fanatic.

And economically and literally speaking these days, we need a lot less oil. Your side wants to hang on to your oil profits which are ruining the world, and you don't care.

[pbrower2a]

(02-23-2021, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

Capitalism saved itself by creating a consumer society. It all depends upon people having an incentive to buy the goodies that keep the system going. The Right sought to restore early-capitalist supply side economics, succeeding at their objective from Reagan to Trump through the political system. Clinton and Obama tried to move away, and the plutocrats and executive Nomenklatura got a hold on the political process by buying the political process. That is the neoliberal era... and that is most likely over. 

At some point, creating the material basis for prosperity is completed. There's only so much stuff that people need.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-23-2021, 12:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: At some point, creating the material basis for prosperity is completed. There's only so much stuff that people need.

Yep.  In order to haul in the desired profits, the elite encouraged the production of luxuries.  With the continued increase in automation and productivity, the more scarce resources, the overabundant labor, the more difficult environmental environment, the whole shebang will have to be rethought.

[Eric the Green]

(02-23-2021, 12:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:25 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: At some point, creating the material basis for prosperity is completed. There's only so much stuff that people need.

Yep.  In order to haul in the desired profits, the elite encouraged the production of luxuries.  With the continued increase in automation and productivity, the more scarce resources, the overabundant labor, the more difficult environmental environment, the whole shebang will have to be rethought.

Indeed so, Bob and Paul, and I think this change could be jumped-started in this 4T, IF enough Americans are ready to rev up the engines of change, as is supposed to happen in 4Ts, but hasn't yet. But once a 4T is upon us, as it is now, it could go pretty far, and unexpectedly fast. We'll see.

[David Horn]

(02-23-2021, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

I certainly agree.  We're moving inexorably away from the true labor value of goods and services that Marx leaned on as justification for his theories, because human labor is being displaced by machines.  Project a saeculum into the future.  Is there any doubt that the only human labor needed will be limited to innovation and the arts. The rest will be provided as a form of recreation -- someway to wile away the day and make our progeny feel good about themselves.

[Classic-Xer]

(02-23-2021, 12:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 04:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

I don't mind being called quasi socialist or half Marxist. I don't agree with a lot of what Marx said, but I do consider his work historically important. The working class, for example, was not taken much into account before Marx. I DO know that oil and water DO mix, as you define it. A mixed public and private economy not only mixes well, but it is by far the best system over total socialism or total capitalism. In fact, a mixed economy is the only workable kind. It has been around long before Marx too; it is civilization itself. You support total capitalism. That makes you a deceived and cruel fanatic.

And economically and literally speaking these days, we need a lot less oil. Your side wants to hang on to your oil profits which are ruining the world, and you don't care.

I'm not as picky about energy sources as you these days. Unlike you, I prefer energy diversity and prefer an energy system that produces more than enough energy which keeps the cost down for all and keeps enough energy available to handle whatever mother nature throws at us down the road. If you want to mainly rely on solar and windmills and keep a few  billionaires and millionaires and Chinese regime who are all heavily invested in the two of them happy and supportive, that's fine with me. Why are so many Democrats who are supposed to be so smart, wise and good actually so dumb, gullible and evil/mean spirited/vindictive these days?

[Classic-Xer]

(02-23-2021, 01:10 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

I certainly agree.  We're moving inexorably away from the true labor value of goods and services that Marx leaned on as justification for his theories, because human labor is being displaced by machines.  Project a saeculum into the future.  Is there any doubt that the only human labor needed will be limited to innovation and the arts. The rest will be provided as a form of recreation -- someway to wile away the day and make our progeny feel good about themselves.

Labor is mainly being displaced by foreign trade policies and machines to a lesser extent. Are you getting rich off doing business with China? Are you kicking back and living of a dividend check or stocks associated with Chinese trade or getting a kick back for use of ports or a political kick back to ensure lopsided trade deals remain in place?

[Eric the Green]

(02-23-2021, 06:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 04:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

The Democratic side is about half Marxist (quasi socialist) these days. You're a Democratic supporter, you should know that by now. You should also know that oil and water don't mix.

I don't mind being called quasi socialist or half Marxist. I don't agree with a lot of what Marx said, but I do consider his work historically important. The working class, for example, was not taken much into account before Marx. I DO know that oil and water DO mix, as you define it. A mixed public and private economy not only mixes well, but it is by far the best system over total socialism or total capitalism. In fact, a mixed economy is the only workable kind. It has been around long before Marx too; it is civilization itself. You support total capitalism. That makes you a deceived and cruel fanatic.

And economically and literally speaking these days, we need a lot less oil. Your side wants to hang on to your oil profits which are ruining the world, and you don't care.

I'm not as picky about energy sources as you these days. Unlike you, I prefer energy diversity and prefer an energy system that produces more than enough energy which keeps the cost down for all  and keeps enough energy available to handle whatever mother nature throws at us down the road. If you want to mainly rely on solar and windmills and keep a few  billionaires and millionaires and Chinese regime who are all heavily invested in the two of them happy and supportive, that's fine with me. Why are so many Democrats who are supposed to be so smart, wise and good actually so dumb, gullible and evil/mean spirited/vindictive these days?

What Nature throws at us these days, is a direct result of what we humans, especially Republicans like you, have thrown at Nature these days. I could care less if people like you get cut off from energy because of your stupid ideology.

[pbrower2a]

(02-23-2021, 06:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 01:10 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

I certainly agree.  We're moving inexorably away from the true labor value of goods and services that Marx leaned on as justification for his theories, because human labor is being displaced by machines.  Project a saeculum into the future.  Is there any doubt that the only human labor needed will be limited to innovation and the arts. The rest will be provided as a form of recreation -- someway to wile away the day and make our progeny feel good about themselves.

Labor is mainly being displaced by foreign trade policies and machines to a lesser extent. Are you getting rich off doing business with China? Are you kicking back and living of a dividend check or stocks associated with Chinese trade or getting a kick back for use of ports or a political kick back to ensure lopsided trade deals remain in place?

Note well: China itself is becoming more prosperous, and it is increasingly pushing economic activity that depends upon ultra-cheap labor to poorer countries than itself. 

Because of the size of the Chinese population, the world neatly divides into three groups in economics: countries richer than China, China, and countries poorer than China. 

As is typical, countries leaving the agrarian age typically start their industrialization with labor-intense manufacturing that depends upon the ready availability of super-cheap labor, such as textiles and toys. The American textile industry that once hired so many workers in New York City and New England about 120 years ago moved largely to the American South... and then completely outside the United States. Try finding clothes made in the USA. Much the same pattern applies to the electronics industry, in which almost the only electronics made in the USA are those for defense contractors or for specialized purposes in small numbers. I remember when many televisions were made in the USA. The only ones made in the USA are now strictly those that have some 'final assembly" process here. Of course, that was when many of the televisions were heavy console TV's with CRT tubes and expensive furniture around them. 

At a certain time, the big corporations in America were manufacturers. Now they are more importers. A TV with the "RCA" brand was made in the USA. Now all that is American about that TV is a trademark once owned by a corporate entity that long ago sold out to General Electric, which then sold out to Thomson... the brand name is a ghost.

[Einzige]

(02-23-2021, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

Yes it will be. Representative democracy exists to support capitalist class structures.

[pbrower2a]

(02-23-2021, 11:56 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-23-2021, 12:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:15 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(02-22-2021, 09:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Discussing capitalism with Einzige on the partisan divide page. Does that mean Marxism is one side of the divide now? (I know the Republicans and Classic Xer say so.....)

Communism is - slowly - becoming a power unto itself again, against both capitalist liberalism and conservatism.

The division of wealth is rising to the top of flaws in the culture that must be addressed.  Not yet, but soon, as the turnings turn.  The problem that Marx foresaw will eventually be acted on.  But by that time violent revolution will not be the dominant way that democracies change the culture.  That is so Industrial Age.  When Marx's great problem is finally addressed, it will not be by the method that Marx predicted.

Yes it will be. Representative democracy exists to support capitalist class structures.

Plutocracy works best without any pretense of representative democracy. Just think of Pinochet's Chile, often a favorite of people who care only about the well-being of the super-rich. There were no elections. Decisions were made by the dictator and his coterie without input from any but those that had access to them -- which was the Chilean elite and foreign investors. Although Chile had a fairly high GDP by Latin-American standards, hunger was a reality in Chile. I will show some material on that hideous regime.

When I was in college I got to meet some young people from Chile... and they were glad to be in America. I once asked naively whether things were quite as bad as American media made Chile look under Pinochet. It wasn't that bad, I was told. It was worse,

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-23-2021, 11:56 PM)Einzige Wrote: Yes it will be. Representative democracy exists to support capitalist class structures.

Representative democracy exists because it was the best way the people could put a check on the government given the technology of the time.  Kings had to go.   You have to put something in their place.

The problem with representative democracy is that the representatives are wannabe elites, therefore it is easy to get them to serve the elites rather than the people.  This is a problem in the US.  It is a problem in Russia, China, and most everywhere.  It is perhaps the biggest problem with Marx.  You sort of have to assume the most violent revolutionary folk to ever win a conflict will become saints after the win.  Clue.  They often don’t.  I keep asking for how you will solve this problem, and I keep hearing crickets.

I note that at age boundaries you often change dominant forms of government.  The Agricultural Age featured kings.  The Industrial Age featured representative democracies.  Given computer networks as a defining tool for the Information Age and representatives as a flaw in representative democracies, I suspect the dominant Information Age government is direct vote networked individual democracy.

Now, the security issues have not been solved yet.  They can be.

There are political issues which have not been addressed yet.  If you assume one body of the legislative branch is representative, how big is the quorum for a direct voter veto or referendum.  Can the representatives learn to act within the referendums.  

If you look at the US, the current senate works per state rather than per voter.  This was done as a slave compromise, to give small states control enough to prevent slavery from being abolished.  That issue has been addressed.  Can the senate be replaced.

I suspect it is best done in a constitutional convention rather than through the amendment process.  I suspect it will be done in an awakening or crisis.  The people will have to get disgusted with the division of wealth, disgusted to a point near enough to violence.  I can see it if global warming is made a priority now happening in the next awakening or crisis.  The new prophets will need something to get mad about.

But I don’t see violent people becoming saints.  I don’t see a revolution starting without the people believing they will have a check on the revolutionaries.  I and many other people are of the opinion that Marx saw the problems well, but his solution was bad, really bad.  The problem is finding something better than representative democracy at making sure the government serves the people rather than the elites or the Party.  Do that, and we can talk about how to get there, and recall that violence is the last resort.

[pbrower2a]

from Amnesty International:

Life under Pinochet: “They were taking turns to electrocute us one after the other”

11 September 2013, 00:00 UTC

The first time Lelia Pérez felt the sear of a cattle prod it was at the hands of a Chilean soldier. She was a 16 year old high school student, used as a guinea pig to help Pinochet’s security services hone their skills in torture. They didn't even bother to ask any questions.
“They would teach them how to interrogate, how to apply the electricity, where and for how long. When they were torturing me, I went into my own world - it was as if I was looking down on myself - like it wasn’t happening to me. It was brutal,” she said.
On September 11, 1973, Augusto Pinochet seized power in Chile by force. In the days that followed his military coup, hundreds of people, were rounded up and taken to the two main sport stadiums in the capital, Santiago.
Lelia told Amnesty International how she was arrested along with 10 of her classmates and taken to the Estadio Chile (now called Victor Jara after the singer who was imprisoned there). There detainees were kept in the stands, with their hands tied, with soldiers constantly pointing machine guns at them.

“You would quickly loose sense of time as lights were constantly on. The only way we knew if it was day or night was by the food the guards were eating,” she said.
While they watched, special booths were constructed. It was in these that the worst of the torture took place. Lelia spent five days in Estadio Chile. Finally she was released with no explanation, pushed out onto the streets late at night.
“I was forced to wear the clothes of people we had seen being killed. There was a curfew and the few people around just walked away from us. The street was full of brothels and the sex workers took me in. They bathed me and gave me clothes. I went in the stadium as a 16-year-old and left as a 60-year-old.”
Those days of horror would only be the beginning of a long, incredible story that took Lelia through some of Pinochet’s darkest prisons. She was held in detention on three separate occasions over a two year period; each time abused and tortured by soldiers of the brutal Pinochet regime.
A country of terror When Lelia was released from the Estadio Chile, her country was almost unrecognizable. Pinochet had imposed a number of restrictions on his citizens and thousands of social activists, teachers, lawyers, trade unionists and students were being detained and held in dozens of clandestine centres across the country.

Undeterred by her experience, Lelia enroled in the Universidad Técnica del Estado, noted for its political activism, to study history.
But she paid a heavy price and her freedom was short lived.
One night in late October 1975, Pinochet’s political police knocked on her door once again. She and her boyfriend were arrested.
“They made me leave the house in handcuffs and they put me in a car. They put tape on my eyes and made me wear dark glasses. The tape was so I couldn’t see where they were taking me and the dark glasses, so people on the street wouldn’t know I had been taken.”
Behind closed doors The car drove around 30 minutes outside of downtown Santiago to Villa Grimaldi, an old colonial weekend house. It had been taken over by the DINA - Pinochet’s political police - as a centre of detention and torture.
“They took us to an interrogation room where they had a metal bunk-bed. There was another detainee on the top and my partner was tied to the side. They were interrogating all three of us at the same time, taking turns to electrocute us one after the other. The interrogation session lasted through the night to the next morning.”

In Villa Grimaldi detainees would be electrocuted, water boarded, had their heads forced into buckets of urine and excrement, suffocated with bags, hanged by their feet or hands and beaten. Many women were raped and for some detainees, punishment was death.
For detainees, the dark, damped cell they were held in was the only world that existed and, in time, a sense of community emerged.
“After an interrogation you would be thrown back your cell. They would shut the door and then first thing you would experience is someone coming closer, they would hold you, help you lie down, take the blindfold off, and put some water on your lips. The electric shocks would make you stream with sweat and you’d get extremely dehydrated - so very, very thirsty,”
It is estimated that 4,500 people crossed Villa Grimaldi’s doors. Many never made it out and of those, hundreds are still missing.
Lelia spent the best part of a year in Villa Grimaldi. She was then transferred to a labour camp where she was held for another 12 months before she was forced to leave the country in late 1976.

Over a decade later, when Pinochet was ousted after a general referendum, she returned to Chile and to Villa Grimaldi in an attempt to come to terms with the past. Now the colonial house is now a cultural centre for the local community.
“We have turned this place of destruction into one of construction. This house of torture and death has now become a space that promotes life.”

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/09/life-under-pinochet-they-were-taking-turns-electrocute-us-one-after-other/

All in the name of creating the perfect climate for business. 

[pbrower2a]

Life under Pinochet - Isabel Allende: ‘The day we buried our freedom’


11 September 2013, 00:00 UTC

Chilean author Isabel Allende remembers the military coup on 11 September 1973, and how it changed her own life and her country forever.
How did you get the first signs that Augusto Pinochet was staging a military coup against Salvador Allende?People were talking about the possibility for some time, but it was a vague rumour that nobody quite believed.  Salvador Allende, however, was convinced that there was a real threat and that the American CIA was behind it. Chile had such a long and solid democratic tradition, that the idea of military intervention was almost unthinkable, so Allende’s fears seemed exaggerated. Certainly nobody thought that Augusto Pinochet would become a traitor. The first news that Pinochet was involved in the coup came on 11 September.

Pablo Neruda was a symbol of the opposition, and his funeral marked the first protest against the military coup. How do you remember that day? Pablo Neruda’s death [on 23 September 1973], which deserved a national day of mourning, was ignored by the dictatorship. His house in Isla Negra had been searched by the military and his house in Santiago was broken into by the security forces during his wake. The word of his funeral got around and people gathered to accompany his remains to the cemetery.
We knew that it was dangerous. The military government tried to make sure that there would be no political demonstrations during the ceremony. But short of shooting everybody it was impossible to stop people from reciting Neruda’s most revolutionary poems or chanting slogans and protest songs, like the music by Victor Jara, who had been tortured and killed in the National Stadium a few days before.
We walked several blocks to the tomb where Neruda’s coffin would be temporarily placed. His wish was to be buried in his house in Isla Negra, looking at the Pacific Ocean, the place he loved the most in this world. At the beginning there were a few of us and we were afraid of the soldiers, but as we walked, more and more people joined in and we started feeling stronger. The mood of the crowd shifted.  Somebody began singing, another shouted Neruda’s name, then Allende and Jara… It became very emotional and also scary. The soldiers were anxious, nervous; they didn’t know what to do. I could see their fingers on the triggers, their jaws tense. It was a lovely spring day and as we approached the cemetery people poured in from the adjacent streets, crying, singing, hugging each other.

That day we buried not only the poet, we buried Allende, Jara, and hundreds of other victims, we buried our democracy, and we buried freedom.
What was the atmosphere like in Santiago after the coup?Those who supported the dictatorship celebrated the death of Allende with champagne. They justified everything, including torture. It would take several years for them to realize the extent of the brutality and question the dictatorship, but some supported Pinochet to his very last day.
In l973 and 1974 the atmosphere among the people I knew – students, journalists, intellectuals, artists, workers, etc. – was very sombre. We were scared, almost paralyzed by fear. Most people didn’t want to get in trouble, just go on with their lives in a quiet way, keeping a low profile. There was almost no information, only rumours. We heard about torture centres, concentration camps, assassinations, raids in poor neighbourhoods, how thousands were arrested and many more had fled the country, but there was no way of confirming these rumours. We feared that the phones were tapped and that many people had become informants, so we were cautious when we spoke, even within the extended family. Some of us got involved in helping fugitives, it was impossible to refuse help to those who needed a place to hide. At the beginning we were not aware of how serious the consequences could be.

For a tourist at that time in Chile, this terror was not apparent. The tourist would find himself in a clean city, with almost no urban crime; he would meet polite and meek people; and he would conclude that Chile was a very organized country. Even the children marched to school quietly in their uniforms! The tourist would see police everywhere and soldiers in combat gear and would be a little bored, because of the curfew, but otherwise he would enjoy the country. I could not live in such a place. I didn’t want to live in fear and I didn’t want my children to grow up in a dictatorship.
Were you harassed because of your family ties?I was a journalist and my name made me rather visible. I was a feminist, a leftist and a relative of Salvador Allende, three reasons for the military dictatorship to keep me under surveillance. I was fired from all my jobs but I didn’t think I was in danger until the beginning of 1975.  But I was very unhappy in Chile, and my husband and I made plans to leave. It was very hard because we had no money, no connections and nowhere to go. We waited, hoping that soon the military would go back to their barracks and we would have democracy again.
Did a specific experience convince you to flee?Several things happened in a single week that made me panic. I discovered that a new friend was really an undercover agent of the feared secret police. A relative who worked for the government let us know that I was on a blacklist and could be taken at any moment. A person whom I had hidden in our house was arrested and I knew that if he talked, I was doomed. I needed to get out. My husband and I made the decision together: I would leave immediately.

I had a valid passport. I left the country openly, alone. It was not unusual: thousands were leaving at that time. I went to Venezuela and a month later, when it became obvious that it would be risky for me to return to Chile, my husband left with our two children. We all reunited in Caracas, where we lived for 13 years.

More than 3,000 people were killed in Chile and many more simply disappeared. Were people aware of the horror at the time? I’m sure that most people were aware. I certainly was, and so were all my friends. However, many people managed to, or pretended to, ignore the violence and corruption of the dictatorship.
I was in Chile in 2003, during the 30th anniversary of the military coup. By then all the information about the massacres, the torture, the hidden mass graves, etc, had been published extensively, there were many public ceremonies to honour the victims. And still some people denied the facts.
It is very hard to live in fear. Out of necessity, one adapts rapidly. Denial is a way of protecting oneself. There is a feeling of impotence and loneliness. Terror works by isolating people.
Ideally, every little family is at home watching the official version of the news on TV, there is no interaction, no public discourse, no dialogue or discussion, no exchange of ideas that might stir rebellion.

How did Pinochet hold on to power for 17 years? Fear is a very powerful tool and Pinochet used it successfully. He controlled the military, the judiciary and there was no Congress; there was no freedom of the press, no habeas corpus, no right to dissent. He imposed an economic system that seemed successful at the beginning, although it benefited the capitalists while it maintained the labour force under an iron fist. The gap between the very rich and the poor in Chile is still shameful.
As time went by, Pinochet’s support dwindled and eventually the opposition was able to defeat him in the polls. But I always keep in mind that thousands of people cried for him at his funeral!

The criminal cases against Pinochet never concluded. What is – in your eyes – the explanation?Pinochet was protected by the amnesty that he himself created, by his status as senator-for-life, by his connections and, especially, by the military. I believe that they didn’t really want Pinochet to face trial; they delayed everything to give him time to die in peace, in his bed.

How close was your relation with Salvador Allende and how do you view his political work and ideas looking back?Salvador Allende was my father’s cousin. In Chile, that makes me his niece. My father left my mother when I was so young that I have no memories of him, but Salvador Allende remained close to my mother. Sometimes we had picnics or short trips to the beach, we visited for birthdays and holidays.
Salvador Allende had the dream of transforming Chile into a country where justice and equality would prevail. He wanted profound reforms, a peaceful and democratic revolution. He was way ahead of his time. In the 1970s the world was divided by the Cold War, and the United States was determined not to allow any Latin American country to follow the steps of Cuba. The CIA intervened from the very beginning to topple Allende’s government. The political parties of the Chilean right were willing to destroy the country if that was the price they had to pay to get rid of Allende’s Socialist dream.
Will the wounds ever heal in Chile?Yes, all wounds heal in time. Forty years have gone by since the military coup and soon Pinochet will be just a name to frighten children in bed-time stories.
ons and, especially, by the military. I believe that they didn’t really want Pinochet to face trial; they delayed everything to give him time to die in peace, in his bed.

How close was your relation with Salvador Allende and how do you view his political work and ideas looking back?Salvador Allende was my father’s cousin. In Chile, that makes me his niece. My father left my mother when I was so young that I have no memories of him, but Salvador Allende remained close to my mother. Sometimes we had picnics or short trips to the beach, we visited for birthdays and holidays.

Salvador Allende had the dream of transforming Chile into a country where justice and equality would prevail. He wanted profound reforms, a peaceful and democratic revolution. He was way ahead of his time. In the 1970s the world was divided by the Cold War, and the United States was determined not to allow any Latin American country to follow the steps of Cuba. The CIA intervened from the very beginning to topple Allende’s government. The political parties of the Chilean right were willing to destroy the country if that was the price they had to pay to get rid of Allende’s Socialist dream.

Will the wounds ever heal in Chile? Yes, all wounds heal in time. Forty years have gone by since the military coup and soon Pinochet will be just a name to frighten children in bed-time stories.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2...r-freedom/