I finally saw Missing, a 1982 film about political violence in Chile, staring Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. It won an Oscar, was nominated for many more, and won 8 other awards at various film festivals.
It has to be one of the most effective film attacks on the military state I’ve ever seen–the nightmare of random violence is overwhelming–the effect of which is to make it impossible to ever think a kind thought about General Pinochet and his regime, the rule of which is made out to be the reincarnation of Hitler complete with concentration camps and mass killing.
All very compelling and effective except for one thing: it subtlety portrayed communists as angels and the driving force for right-wing violence as capitalism. It was not overt but there are a enough scenes in which the screenwriters tip their hand.
A youth speaks of the glorious things that the Allende regime was doing: “They were trying something new,” that newness being the very old racket called socialism. The U.S. ambassadors are seen as mouthpieces for American business interests, and in a ridiculously cliché way. Yes, there was a dearth of consumer goods, we are informed, and yes, after the coup there are more products on the shelves to dazzle the disgusting minds of materialists. But otherwise the image you get of the pre-Pinochet regime is that it was creating a heavenly utopia of poetry, art, and universal love – the very enactment of Woodstock in Latin America.
You would swear from the film that some two-headed serpent arrived to the country to destroy the glorious garden: the two heads being U.S. military might plus capitalism. A quick look at Wikipedia confirmed my own suspicions that something is wrong with this picture. This Allende guy nationalized industry, seized land, centralized and nationalized education and health care, gave out welfare to political friends, and inflated the money supply, leading to a crashing of the entire economy, massive debt and default, 140% inflation, empty grocery stores, and a revolt by every property owner and business interest in the country.
Are we supposed to believe that there was no violence involved in all of this? No human suffering? I don’t find that credible. Even if everything in the film is true about Pinochet, one would like to know the fullness of truth here. I don’t know. But the experience of watching prompts me to reflect on how intriguing it is that both left and right see only immorality and criminality in other people’s ideologies.
The dynamic between right-wing and left-wing violence is impossible to untangle to the point that blame can be definitively established. In case after case, the right (whether interwar Italy, Chile in the 1970s, Israel or the U.S. today) says it was protecting the country against a left-wing threat, and there is probably truth in that but to what extent is that real prospect of communist violence used as a cover for a power grab? The left (you fill in the countries) says it was protecting people against a right-wing threat, and there is probably truth here too but to what extent is the prospect of violence used as a cover for another power grab?
When Clinton in the U.S. was running things, we received a long series of press releases on how the FBI was protecting us against gun-totting neo-Nazi skinheads plotting attacks against women and minorities. When Bush was running things, we received a long series of press releases on how the regime was continually involved in stopping violence plotted by Islamic extremists who plotted to bomb subways and airplanes and wreck our way of life.
The upshot of all this propaganda is that we should be grateful and subservient to the regime above all else. By the time you find out the threat was exaggerated or even invented, no one is interested in it anymore, and there were in the meantime 10 other claims of impending violence.
In this way, the left and right work hand in hand to do the thing the state wants most: expansion, regardless of the cultural and political climate. Where should the libertarian stand in this? We should oppose all violence and be skeptical of any claim from anyone in charge of our lives and property. We should be willing to believe the worst of right-wing states or left-wing states. And we should avoid, insofar as it is possible, feeling affection for any regime or fully believing any claim from ideologically blinded partisans of one state or another.
{ 42 comments }
Roderick Long says something similar about the left/right dialectic relating to the “tea parties”.
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/77809.html
I don’t really understand your grouping of Israel with the right.
Isn’t one of the characteristics of the right when it comes to war is to not at all surrender anything to the enemy. Isn’t that kind of the exact opposite of Israel? What about all those times Israel held peace conferences with the PLO and offered them almost everything they wanted (with the exception of dissolving their own state) and then the PLO cuts negotiations and goes on attacking them? I don’t deny that Israel has probably committed what amount to war crimes in a few instances, but let’s do an objective comparison of the two sides.
Israel: Moderately to an extent. Free press with vigorous debate on many issues. Private property rights and an appreciation for free-enterprise. Productively educated (highest concentration of engineers of any country on earth.) With the exception of Lebanon conducting mostly defensive operations against outside aggression.
Arab world: Fascist to the bone. Press entirely controlled by the state (either secular or theocratic tyrants). Citizens regularly educated that Jews are apes, pigs, the scum of the earth. War against them (among the private citizenry anyway) is so highly respected in some quarters that children are named after suicide bombers who blow up school buses. The primary aggressor in all military actions.
I know this is totally off topic from the article but every once in awhile I see somebody talk abut Israel’s military stance and wonder if they even have any conception as to the actual motives that the respective parties have.
Sorry, end rant.
Rush, Sean, and the rest don’t give a fig about a consistent defense of freedom. Their only passion is to reflexively, mindlessly oppose whatever they currently perceive as “the Left.” Call ‘em what they are: the Spite Right.
Keith is a Zionist tool. His rant is 100% agit-prop.
DNA
Wow, you only had to type 3 words before you mindlessly threw out the Zionist moniker. It’s a new record!
Seriously though, great job disproving my argument.
Clearly what I said can’t be verified easily. I can’t just hop onto the Middle East Media Research institute and read the translations of speeches and broadcasts of those tyrants.
Oh….wait a minute.
Thank you, Jeffrey, for the excellent post.
For those who desire further information, I have found that the best short introduction to the evils of the state is Rothbard’s “Anatomy of the State.”
http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
Fanatics like Keith validate themselves by signalling their imperviousness to reason; when others decline to waste their time in debate, this is taken to indicate the soundness of the fanatics’ ideas.
Oh wait a minute, after readin the article again I can kinda see where DNA is coming from.
Let me specify here. I am not at all saying that Israel ( or any government) should get blanket support for its actions for even belief in what it says. Israel is after all a government and just by that fact ought not be trusted.
I do not at all dispute anything that the article is saying.
What I take issue with is the implicit ethical equivocation between the sides in relation to Israel and the Arab world. Jeff, if I am reading the article right, says that we need to take full account of all the facts when we examine both actors. It is my understanding that if we objectively do look at all the facts concerning these two groups we can see that one is objectively ethically superior to the other.
But my saying that IS NOT an endorsement of Israel. Israel is by no means ideal in my opinion and should be changed, which is exactly the position I hold for all other places that must put up with arbitrary omnipresent government authority.
On the other hand,
-To DNA
Your last post makes no sense because you did not actually say anything reasonable. Last I checked, mean spirited name calling =\ reasoned argument. If you were to actually objectively show that the Israels wish to murder Arabs as bad as Arabs want to murder Israels, you’d actually have an argument towards my specific position. You did not and so far have not (and seem to refuse to).
So tell me DNA, which of us in this instance is really more impervious to reason?
Keith:
For what it’s worth, I can tell you (what I think is) a widespread public perception of the Israeli conduct as perceived from here, Spain.
Israelis have to decide whether to recognize a Palestinian state. If they do, they have to give them enough territory for the Palestinian population, withdraw completely from Palestinian land, and then, if Qassam missiles keep coming they may respond proportionally as any nation would (without targeting innocents, but assuming the inherent risk of collateral damage when heavy artillery is used).
But as long as Palestinians don’t have a state, it’s not a military problem, it’s a police problem. Civilized countries don’t bomb their own conflictive neighborhoods.
Careful Martin, pretty soon Keith is going to start making accusations of anti-semitism (never mind that Arabs are also Semitic people, Zealots can’t be bothered with minor details like that).
Perhaps the admonition should be rewritten as “Post an intelligent, relevant and civil comment”?
I really don’t think this is the place to debate whether or not Israel should be grouped on the right. That grouping was hardly the point of Jeffrey’s article.
Martin:
I can see where you are coming from since technically the “palestinians” do not have any sort of formal state and so technically, based off the assumption that those areas are still parts of Israel, would be handled in a law enforcement manner.
For this to be true though Israel would have to actually run the police and courts in those jurisdictions and thus have some apparatus in the area to administer law. It is my understanding that those functions are carried out by Hamas and the Fatah party that actually have most of the governing authority over those regions. I believe this is the case, because if it were not then the Israelis would have no reason to mobilize its army and launch artillery into these areas. I find it hard to believe that Israel would lay artillery on areas it actually controls. Had they control of the police and courts in those areas they would naturally not want to essentially bomb themselves.
I fully appreciate the whole statehood argument and I’m all for it if it could actually lead to peace. I just think this is a naive assertion given the complete unwillingness of the Palestinians to want to be peaceful. I mean have you read the excerpts of the books they use to teach their kids? Or some of the programming they have on their local channels? Do a search for it and tell me my assertion is wrong.
As to the whole “civilized countries not bombing each other”, I would contest that assertion simply in light of the existence of World War 1.
Keith
I basically agree with your description of the situation. My point was that this middle ground between giving and not giving the Palestinians a state proper is what most hurts the international image of Israel.
BTW, notice I did not say that “civilized countries don’t bomb each other” (alas, they do). I just said they don’t bomb their own territories.
Corky is correct. I got a little irritated when I saw Israel in that list and commented without paying to much attention to the actual relevance to the article.
I honestly should have just ended it after the first post despite the inane, childish, and unreasoning comments from DNA
Mea culpa. Entirely mea culpa.
I’ll make this my last post on the topic.
DNA:
Nice straw man argument. I don’t believe I used the word semite until now. UH-OH! I used the word semite, I’ll guess you’ll irrationally call me a zealot again. God forbid you work yer frontal lobe a bit and actually pose an argument.
And as a short history lesson, the modern incorrect coinage for semite (it would relate to all the peoples of the particular language tree it comes from) meaning a Jewish person came from a German journalist from the 1870s who wrote a pamphlet propounding the absurd idea that the Jews were behind whatever perceived problems Germany had at the time.
Matrin:
Oh! My bad I misread that part. I thought I read conflicting “neighbors” not “neighborhoods”.
I also agree with your position. I really wish it would go one way or the other so that their might be some conclusion to their collective idiocy.
ok. THAT was my last post.
No one makes a stronger case against a fanatic than the fanatic himself.
“This Allende guy nationalized industry, seized land, centralized and nationalized education and health care, gave out welfare to political friends, and inflated the money supply, leading to a crashing of the entire economy, massive debt and default, 140% inflation, empty grocery stores, and a revolt by every property owner and business interest in the country.”
Gee, uh, this sounds kinda familiar – we’re living it today!
Anyone else think that the comments have gotten a bit off topic, not to mention mean spirited?
It is interesting to observe how an inclusion of Israel in a list of right-wing countries (which it clearly is) can spiral into a debate about antisemitism (among other tangential matters).
Alas, such is life without the blog police.
“As to the whole ‘civilized countries not bombing each other’, I would contest that assertion simply in light of the existence of World War 1.”
The situation became even worse in World War II, when the bombing of civilians, either deliberately or as “collateral damage,” by all the belligerents became common, and resulted in a great loss of civilian life. The concept “civilized” has little, if any, applicability to war, except in true self-defense.
The kill ratio should also come into account. Pinochet killed 3000 people to establish order and prosperity. Similar socialist regimes tended to kill hundreds of thousands to millions of people to establish order and starvation.
I’m sure the director would have been thrilled if the socialist mass killings had been followed by land reform and redistribution of bank holdings. The resulting famine would be blamed on the capitalists, of course, but all the weaklings would be killed off and the broken starved population would be ready for decades of second world impotent totalitarianism.
Jeff, a good article but you should emphasize more on what’s important: when people say Pinochet’s Chicago Boys regime was a “free market” reform, that’s a different kind of freedom and different kind of market than you have in mind.
Allende is also notable for having commissioned British cybernetic operations theoretician Stafford Beer to build Cybersyn, an experiment in nation-wide computer controlled industrial production. An economic absurdity, but the control room is a wonderful piece of retro futurism, recalling sets from “Space: 1999″.
One of the greatest obstacles that now faces the public is the campaign of disinformation that is widely utilized through the MSM and the internet by various individuals and groups including government organizations. As a result the average person is so confused about the facts surrounding an event or issue that they just grab on to the least disturbing tidy explanation that is presented to them, as long as it has the stamp of legitimacy given by their government. After all, they’ve been well educated that the government only has their best interests at heart. Just initiate a discussion on the 911 event and watch how effective this disinformation approach works. Numerous examples of obvious irregularities are immediately dismissed by victims of state worshipping education systems and disinformation campaigns. While people are endlessly debating what’s a correct fact and what’s not, the power elite of what ever country are quickly grabbing more of the power from the individual. I believe it was Robert McNamara, as Secretary of Defense that stated ” Let them demonstrate all they want as long as they keep paying taxesâ€.
Rounding up and killing Socialists isn’t murder – it’s self-defence.
@Briggs: “It is interesting to observe how an inclusion of Israel in a list of right-wing countries (which it clearly is)”
I thought Israel was a fairly socialist state. Silly me. What makes it right-wing? The fact that it’s not willing to bend over and spread ‘em for the Arabs who want to drown all the Jews in the Mediterranean? Methinks you’re buying into the leftist propaganda that leftism is all sweetness and light.
@Jeffrey Tucker: “In this way, the left and right work hand in hand to do the thing the state wants most: expansion, regardless of the cultural and political climate. Where should the libertarian stand in this? We should oppose all violence and be skeptical of any claim from anyone in charge of our lives and property. We should be willing to believe the worst of right-wing states or left-wing states. And we should avoid, insofar as it is possible, feeling affection for any regime or fully believing any claim from ideologically blinded partisans of one state or another.”
All violence? So now libertarians have to be pacifists?
And we should demonize those who want to at least take the country in the same general direction that we do with regard to some aspects of policy, but not all? We should morally equate those who want a smaller government in the domestic realm at least (the “teabaggers”), with full-blown socialists who like welfare socialism *and* warfare socialism (the far left that’s in charge now)? And here I thought Murray Rothbard was a strategic retard!
Yet more strategically self-defeating “ideologically-purer-than-thou” bulls***. Libertarians could get so much mileage out of the patriotism of the Tea Party movement, but nooo….. It’s much better to keep libertarianism completely pure… and completely marginalized.
DNA, your posts are neither intelligent nor civil. If you want to provide argument, do so. But if you don’t agree with someone and can’t be bothered posting an argument, mere personal snivelling is no substitute.
I really don’t want to be off topic but you guys started a very interesting debate!
Keith- no true libertarian would support Israel’s recent actions or the way it came into existence… Israel is the embodiment of lack of respect to any property rights grabbing land and private property without a thought to whom they belong to – just because they think they are entitled to it!!
2nd) Israel was created by the UN, a body that no true libertarian should approve of, as a libertarian you should believe in small local governments and people ruling themselves- not having rules imposed on them by a international body- but we have to ignore the Arab objection about the way israel was created just for political correctness???
Israel is also against any REAL peace deal with the arabs…no real party to peace negotiations would tell you “i will give you gaza but take away another 1/3 of the west bank”
I am as opposed to arab dictators as you are- but Im not willing to throw away my libertarian ideology just because of my personal feelings towards certain people.
Just because we are for the free markets and small governments, it doesn’t mean we have to agree with FOX news on every view point… on the contrary we should celebrate the local governments that israel calls terror states as people ruling themselves no matter who they may be cuba north korea or the gaza strip. But we all throw away our ideas of people ruling themselves and choosing their local leaders because of personal bias…sad but true!
Until BOTH the arabs and israelis learn the libertarian ideology and start respecting private property and individual liberty they will both forever be at war…and deservedly so.
And to the topic at hand- Pinochet is actually liked to this day by many in Chile who recognise that his economic reforms pulled them out of a vicious cycle of economic failure.Although killing people is obviously the wrong way to go about achieving his goals…
Pinochet!
Justin,
Intelligent and civil debate is only possible with people who value such debate, which clearly excludes people like Keith. Since you do not speak out against Keith’s blatant propagandizing (which would warm the heart of any neo-con), I can only conclude that you are to be excluded from such debate as well.
I think you’re forgetting something. That is that Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to start covert economic warfare against Chili. His words to Richard Helms were “make the economy scream”. It worked you know. Business in fact was a mouthpiece of the CIA. The worsening situation of Chili’s economy was not completely Allende’s fault.
Ivan, even if Allende and Nixon were both a-fixin’ the Chilean economy, it was still 100% socialism that brought it down and encouraged the rise of national socialism (not capitalism) with Pinochet.
I’m sorry to go off topic, but I really think this needs to be addressed.
DNA the problem with you is that you’re one of those people who believe that anyone who says something even remotely positive about Israel, is a militant Zionist neocon shill who spreads propaganda to support the Israeli war effort.
But nobody here said that Israel is blame free. On the contrary, it is a theocratic, fascist, militarized state with an increasingly radicalizing political block. However despite all of its faults and inequities, there’s no denying that it is a highly developed 20th century democratic power, amidst a region perpetually boored in the 12th century. By nature, Islamic faith in its radical interpretation (the only kind of interpretation present in the Middle East) viciously opposes any outside influence. It was not caught up in the currents of time, it did not go through a type of ideological reformation period that the rest of the world went through. No matter what policy approach Israel takes or is forced to take, the Arab world will always act against it, it will always want it driven into the sea. This was, I think primarily Keith’s point. The best policy is to pull out of that area and let them develop by themselves. They can never remain in this perpetual shariat deadlock, because human beings cannot live under such a totalitarian societal conditions by nature unless they are driven to that through fear, hatred and tradition. But tradition’s greatest wrecking balls are free trade, communication and technology. This is why the current state of the Arab world only persists because we make it so through our direct and indirect meddling in its affairs.
This is also why right now however, there can be no peace with the Arabs until the complete dissolution of the Israeli state and the emigration of its citizens into more civilized areas of the world. And in fact as a Jew, yes a Jew, I believe that the creation of a nation state was one of the greatest errors in judgment my race has ever committed. If anything we belong as a minority in developed industrialized countries, where we can easily manipulate the ruling classes and give nightmares every night to people like you.
Sorry to double post, but I have something to add to the above and there’s no edit function in the comments to speak of.
I’ve described Israel in one sentence as “theocratic” and then followed it up by stating that it was “democratic”. I believe this was a poor choice of words.
I meant that Israel is a democracy which favors only one dominant religious class. Since there are varying degrees of Orthodoxy in Judaism (believe me I’m not an expert on these matters) the state will naturally favor the one most popular with the class of people who have the greatest influence on the state. Right now it seems that the “right” Orthodox faction of Judaism appears to be the favored one, as Israel grows less and less secularized. In that case, it leads to something like a theocracy. It’s different however from a shariat type theocracy in that at the very least Israel still has a basic bill of rights and laws which do not involve decapitation, revenge killing and murder for trivial offenses such as blasphemy or apostasy. This difference of mentality forms the basis of my entire argument. In Israel the worst thing that can happen to you for a political crime is deportation or even in most extreme cases (eg Vanunu) imprisonment, in the land around it you, and your entire family is in danger of being murdered by your fellow neighbors on orders of the mullah.
I think that this issue does have a lot to do with the notion of relative evil.
Operating under the fallacy of relative evil, Austro-libertarians would be obligated to support Sharia law — since it demands the gold standard.
Come to think of it, why haven’t the neocons launched attacks from this angle?
“If you support a gold standard, you support creeping Sharia law!!”
Because they didn’t bother to learn anything about Islam before they made it their enemy of choice. Or the gold standard for that matter.
Tim said,
“DNA the problem with you is that you’re one of those people who believe that anyone who says something even remotely positive about Israel, is a militant Zionist neocon shill who spreads propaganda to support the Israeli war effort. ”
And your subsequent comments just serve to support this characterization. Thanks.
DNA, quit posting ad hominems.
“quit posting ad hominems”
OK, tell the Zionists to quit posting agit-prop.
Does it really need to be made clear why non-Jewish libertarians should find Israel repellent?
Does it really need to be made clear why it is offensive for defenders of Israel to rationalize practices and policies that they would stridently oppose if conducted by any other country?
I wouldn’t think so, but clearly it is.
as tehdude says, 3000 dead compares favourably to virtually all other totalitarian regimes in post-war south america. even tiny uruguay had about three times that number in her dirty war (argentina about ten times the number). in addition, most of the deaths occurred in the immediate aftermath of the coup.
pinochet was a reaction against the lawlessness of the country under allende. bands of thugs repossessed rural properties with impunity. the place was full of russian “economic advisors” (sorry to burst your bubble, ivan), to help with the marxist transformation of the economy. the americans only seriously got interested after the expropriations, especially the us copper interests).
inflation, civil unrest, violence – the middle class was relieved when pinochet overthrew allende.
as for his regime, no it wasn’t hong kong on the mapocho, the chicago boys were chicagoites (!), but there was a fair degree of property security, and liberalizations were effected. chile’s probably the only south american nation that may eventually creep into the developed country club, largely because it dodged the marxist bullet.
for those who are interested in chile, here’s a good balanced overview – http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/for/chile-73.html there’s a lot of crap written about pinochet. yes he was as ruthless as his enemies, and yes the torture and murder was evil, but he did offer a plebiscite and stepped down. and the centre-left democratic governments have kept many of his reforms. the left hate him especially because allende was their poster boy, being the only marxist to have been elected democratically (with a minority vote, the opposition vote divided).
jeff, i agree. great film, but costa gavras is a left-wing filmaker, who wears his heart on his sleeve. check out his filmography and you’ll see what i mean. of course, many of allende’s strongest supporters were in the arts, and so when they fled to paris, australia, italy etc. they spent the next twenty years pumping out their version of the truth so that pinochet now ranks above idi amin in the public psyche.
as for the reporter in the film, he was a silly prick. when a country undergoes a coup, you keep you head down. when the “guanaco” (armoured vehicle with water cannon) is in action in the streets you’d better run. just because you’ve got a business suit on doesn’t mean you’re not going to get sprayed with irritant water or raw sewage, along with the students. shit happens.
DNA, I’m curious about one thing. How exactly do you characterize me as a Zionist agitpropper? Where did I for once try to justify Israeli policies, Israeli military actions or even the Israeli presence in the region? Or was it because I seemed to describe the Arab world in un-polit correct terms? Is it really a model of civic virtue and human liberties? Perhaps you’re reading into what you want to read, not what is actually written.
Or is it because I said I was a Jew?
Tim, the unquestioned nastiness of the Arab states or the administrative features of Israel’s government have no bearing on the question of the justness of Israel’s cause, points that are often (willfully) ignored in this debate. I apologize if I attributed this tactic wrongfully to you, but your post was not entirely clear.
Comments on this entry are closed.