Chile Forum

I have been reading a lot of stuff about Chile's relatively recent past and let me tell you...it's not pretty.

What causes me concern is that much of what happened was not that long ago and that societal forces that caused Allende to be elected and Pinochet to take him out in a coup are still present in Chile. Though perhaps at this time not at the forefront. There is a huge inequality between the poor and the rich in Chile and that is bound to cause problems in the future.

What I find most disturbing is the role of Chile's secret police in the disappearance of apparently thousands of persons who were probably tortured and killed. And the collusion between the right wing governments of Chile and various other South American countries in going after left-wing persons living in exile so as to kill them. Car bombings, kidnappings, threats, outright murder all within the realm of what the Chilean secret police did at one time or another in the recent past.

I am consoled that the current President of Chile is unlikely to support any further secret police killings given that her own father was tortured to the point of having a heart attack by Chilean authorities at the time. But at the same time it is also disconcerting to realize that she is a person of socialist leanings in a country where a great percentage of those in power both politically and economically are right leaning. If she pushes too far to try and better the poor of Chile there will be renewed problems.

I don't know if there is any solution at all to the problem of the rich and poor division of class in Chile and it may be that there will be trouble again in the future. I hope not but if Chile's recent past is any indication all is not so rosy in Chile.

You know a lot of bad things can be said about the US but at least in the US (or Canada where I am) one does not have to be concerned about having the secret police come knocking on your door due to speaking out to expose government corruption, killings, and so forth.

Yes...Chileans can say that there is no concern of that happening now...and that may well be...but the fact is that what I am speaking about only happened within the last 30 years. Not than long ago.

Carlos

There's much cause for worry about the Chilean future: overpopulation of temperate regions; inferior education for the masses; governmental corruption; gross disparities in wealth, especially when coupled with growing acquisitiveness among the poorer classes and their increasingly difficult economic hopes. But I'm not certain that any country of size is much better off or has greatly superior prospects: would we want to live in China?

i think the biggest threat to Chile is its inequality in income distribution. There was an MIT study done sometime in the early 80's that showed a direct correlation between inequality of income distribution and growth-retarding economic policies. It seems that the populace will overreact to extreme unequal distribution by supporting politicians that offer to rectify the situation; unfortunately, said politicians generally implement far too extreme protectivist policies that hurt the overall economy and actually exasperate the situation. Chile needs to implement social programs to reverse the current trend before reactionary policies end up slowing down the economy.

I guess it depends on what one wants from a country they wish to live in. There is something to be said for freedom of expression, association, general lack of corruption (as is so often seen in South American countries - Chile has the least I think), the ability to make a decent living irrespective of family connections and other such considerations, and so forth enjoyed by those living in North America.

I guess the thing that is making me uncomfortable about living in Chile permanently at this point, aside from all the negatives I have heard on this forum, is that in reading Chile's history I have been left with the strong impression that Chile is at it's root a very unstable country (or potentially so in the future) due to it's faulty foundations.

What I mean by that is that it's constitution has changed several times. There have been various anti-democratic movements with popular support. There has been an almost pervasive struggle between the aristocratic/business classes and the peasant poor who serve them. The military has opened the door in the coup overthrowing Allende to getting involved again should it feel a need to do so in the future (despite assurance to the contrary - once you open that door it makes it that much easier for the military to rise up and take control of things again). It's like Chile has not yet settled. It is still in process if you will.

Countries like the U.S. have achieved stability in no small part by having a Constitution that was created and accepted almost from the very beginning. A Constitution which is still accepted. Whatever one may think of the Judeo-Christian tradition many of it's tenants - respect for inaliable rights given to us by a Creator, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - are embodied in that Constitution and form the basis upon which the country's laws are founded. Unlike Chile, the U.S. has a long and unbroken tradition of democracy.

I am not saying the U.S. is all and the end all of the best country. I am just using the U.S. as an example of the kind of country (there are others) that are stable and have been so for a very long time.

It seems to me that the present and relatively short lived stability of Chile notwithstanding, Chile has not shown much political or other stability in the long term. If one looks at it's history overall and does not just focus on the last 10-20 years or so. It has certainly not been as bad as other South American countries but it is cut from the same basic mold as them. And that's not good.

I am not sure that Chile's course in the future will be one of peaceful democracy. There is stuff brewing under the surface that has never really been settled in terms of societal problems. Problems that allowed Allende to be voted into office in the first place. The military came in and took over for a while but the underlying societal problems that led to Allende are still there or at least it seems that this is the case.

And until the conflict between left leaning and right leaning Chileans is resolved satisfactorily it remains a potential powder keg waiting to once again explode in the future. All it would take is a year or two of really bad economic downturn and people would be out in the streets protesting and otherwise causing chaos.

Carlos

i would actually be very surprised to see Chile hit another political crisis of the magnitude of the 11 sept 1973 golpe militar. I'm no expert, however, I have studied the Chilean economy and political system quite a bit during my tenure at my university here in the United States and from what I have read stability in Chile seems quite certain for the indefinite future. There are a few things that could jeopardize this, to my knowledge this would include a world-wide drop in the price of copper (as Chile is quite dependent on this commodity) or some sort of an energy crisis.

jalundberg wrote:i think the biggest threat to Chile is its inequality in income distribution.

I agree but how do you resolve that? My extended family owned a large agricultural property that was expropriated in the time of Allende. Forcefully and without choice.

It would seem that the only way to distribute income more equally is through such forced measures in a country where the relatively wealthy have, over much time, accumulated assets and wealth and the poor have...well...just stayed poor or gotten poorer.

But such forceful measures are not good either. They build resentment and a lack of support against whatever government institutes them. Not to mention that such measures are simply not fair to those who might have worked hard for what they have.

One of the things that surprises me about Chile is that despite the low income levels many things are still priced on par or even more expensively than in North America. An oil change costs around $50 US. A buffet meal $10. And so forth. While the wages of employees serving you those things are so low as to be unable to afford what they are working to give you.

It's almost like things in Chile are set up to maintain the inability of people to make it through their own labor. The well off afford the nicer things. The poor barely get by. And things are set up so that the well off are able to continue to be well off (by owning businesses and such and charging what we in North America would consider to be regular prices) while the poor continue in a state of not being able to afford much and with little hope of ever getting out of their predicament through lack of money available to them to start businesses and the like.

Carlos

jalundberg wrote:i would actually be very surprised to see Chile hit another political crisis of the magnitude of the 11 sept 1973 golpe militar. I'm no expert, however, I have studied the Chilean economy and political system quite a bit during my tenure at my university here in the United States and from what I have read stability in Chile seems quite certain for the indefinite future. There are a few things that could jeopardize this, to my knowledge this would include a world-wide drop in the price of copper (as Chile is quite dependent on this commodity) or some sort of an energy crisis.

That is precisely what I was saying jalundberg. Chile is indeed stable but only on the surface. A crisis would send it reeling into instability and political crisis I think. The essential tenents of socialism are diametrically different than those of democracy and it is not too far fetched I think to believe that a socialist leaning President as Chile has now would, in a time of crises and a possible shortage of many things, resort to socialist measures which might cause the country to slide away from democracy and end up in another period of political and economic upheaval and turmoil.

Carlos

The question of how to re-distribute income is quite a precarious one. Of course Chile does make use of a progressive income tax which does help to some degree, and although I have no knowledge of any social programs I would assume that the poorest of the poor do have some government help to turn to. Personally, questions like this always come back to education, starting in kindergarten. From what I have heard, the Chilean public school system (k-12 type level) offers a very poor education, and surprise surprise, poor families cannot afford to send their children to private school's that offer a decent education. This sort of clasist trap only helps to maintain the status quo and keep the poor on the lower rung of society. Dramatic improvements in education are needed to remedy the situation which must include paying high school teachers higher wages (which currently are piss-poor).

carlos wrote:

jalundberg wrote:i think the biggest threat to Chile is its inequality in income distribution.

I agree but how do you resolve that? . . . .

The usual way is through taxation: progressively confiscatory taxation of income (whether earned through labor or through investment of capital) and of estates, both of the living and of the dead. In a short while (depending upon the degrees of progression in income and wealth, and upon the degrees of confiscation), the rich can be made modestly affluent -- or poor! -- and the poor aided (not by direct payment, but by lack of taxation) to become financially comfortable.

Problems? You bet! Heavy taxation of income discourages the entrepreneur and work-aholic, often the most inventive and beneficial members of an economy. And heavy taxation of accumulated wealth -- the estates of the living and of the dead -- discourages savings and careful management of resources. All taxation can spawn corruption and tax evasion.

So there's no simple, uncluttered solution, though I think that a carefully constructed, continually monitored, honestly administered system of taxation, rather than grants from a mothering government, may promise the surest balance between hope and desperation for both rich and poor.

The causes and consequences of 1973 disaster are far less simple than a simple "unequity of wealthy distribution", this is a kindergarten view, regrettably backed and spreaded by lots of prominent politicians, even from most of international agencies..

Why such silly ideas continue spreading along time? probably because people LOVE silly explanations, It is a powerful political tool to manipulate the public opinion: give oversimplified and false explanations.

tombrad2 wrote:The causes and consequences of 1973 disaster are far less simple than a simple "unequity of wealthy distribution" . . . .

I think, TomBrad, that Carlos saw inequality of wealth as but one factor among (presumably) many. I'm not certain that anyone thoughtful would subscribe to a single-cause theory in the making of any human action.

The "inequity" is a very bad explanation. It is good to see Bolivia now with lot of equity policies and a huge social and political violence. Much better to see other countries where equity policies has been applied for long time: Cuba by example.

I was 18 years old in 1973 and was very involved in politics (I was extreme left!), and I am convinced that precisely those fake explanations, plus personal ambitions of hipocrital politicians and stupidity of people (me included) were the real cause of disaster. That is why is very hard to me stay quiet when I start to hear the same old stuff again.

tombrad2 wrote:. . . . I was 18 years old in 1973 and was very involved in politics (I was extreme left!), and I am convinced that precisely those fake explanations, plus personal ambitions of hipocrital politicians and stupidity of people (me included) were the real cause of disaster. That is why is very hard to me stay quiet when I start to hear the same old stuff again.

Understandable, very understandable, Tomás.

How have your political views changed?

I changed my mind as soon as I had to earn my living
Really it was a slow process, the age I guess

Ahhh . . . you remind me, Tomás, of the remark which a wise Frenchman made a century ago: "the man is not a socialist when he is young, has no heart; the man who is a socialist when he is old, has no brain"!