How was Pinochet different from Castro?

[Rod1]

Just wondering, both tortured people to death, both killed political opposition, both implemented a reign of terror.

And yet you see people from liberal democracies saying that they were "good" rulers because they stood in opposition to a different political view of the world.

Castro saved Cuba from capitalism.

Pinochet saved Chile from communism.

Fact is that both were subservient and puppets of a larger conflict between the USA and the USSR and both were pieces of shit.

Points to be made.

Pinochet was an economic failure, peaking in the 1982 the economy of Chile was certainly moving forward but at an sluggish pace with a lot of societal cost.

Cuba is a hellhole, no matter how much people want to claim it isnt, people dont throw themselves to the ocean on tires because Cuba is nice, Cuba doesnt forbids their citizens from travelling abroad because its nice, and a lot of their stats are outright fabrications.

In the end the greatest advances of Latin American societies have always been during periods of political freedom.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Pinochet was a real boy

 

[irish_thug]

Helicopter rides?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

From the little I know of each, both were detestable men.

But saving people from capitalism ultimately saves people from prosperity, while saving people from communism is saving people from destitution.

So while Pinochet can rot in hell, Chile is the wealthiest nation in South America in terms of GDP per capita.

 

[AlexDB9]

Helicopter rides?

Fuck late by 14 minutes

They are both the same side of shit as far their people are concerned, I’m sure

Chile is doing way better than Cuba though

 

[Rod1]

Fuck late by 14 minutes

They are both the same side of shit as far their people are concerned, I’m sure

Chile is doing way better than Cuba though

Chile is doing way better because Pinochet left power.

Castro never did.

 

[Rod1]

From the little I know of each, both were detestable men.

But saving people from capitalism ultimately saves people from prosperity, while saving people from communism is saving people from destitution.

So while Pinochet can rot in hell, Chile is the wealthiest nation in South America in terms of GDP per capita.

Chile is the wealthiest nation in South America indeed, but all of that growth was made during the democratic era, not the Pinochet era.

Ultimately the reason why Pinochet was "less evil" in my mind is because his term was quite short.

 

[AlexDB9]

Just wondering, both tortured people to death, both killed political opposition, both implemented a reign of terror.

And yet you see people from liberal democracies saying that they were "good" rulers because they stood in opposition to a different political view of the world.

Castro saved Cuba from capitalism.

Pinochet saved Chile from communism.

Fact is that both were subservient and puppets of a larger conflict between the USA and the USSR and both were pieces of shit.

Points to be made.

Pinochet was an economic failure, peaking in the 1982 the economy of Chile was certainly moving forward but at an sluggish pace with a lot of societal cost.

Cuba is a hellhole, no matter how much people want to claim it isnt, people dont throw themselves to the ocean on tires because Cuba is nice, Cuba doesnt forbids their citizens from travelling abroad because its nice, and a lot of their stats are outright fabrications.

In the end the greatest advances of Latin American societies have always been during periods of political freedom.

My people are ingenious when it comes to escaping Cuba

My favorite though is this 1948 Mercury

If things would have gone different we could of had a Cubano smoking a cohiba in space by now

 

[AlexDB9]

Chile is doing way better because Pinochet left power.

Castro never did.

Truth. Cuba now has its own Maduro

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Pinochet is the wealthiest nation in South America indeed, but all of that growth was made during the democratic era, not the Pinochet era.

Ultimately the reason why Pinochet was "less evil" in my mind is because his term was quite short.

Right, but the democratic era in Chile would not have happened had Chile gone communist. When will we see Cuba's democratic era?

 

[manlyseaeagle]

Castro but Cuban Music backhand got rid of Pro Boxing the fucker

 

[TheGreatA]

Pinochet is the wealthiest nation in South America indeed, but all of that growth was made during the democratic era, not the Pinochet era.

Ultimately the reason why Pinochet was "less evil" in my mind is because his term was quite short.

Atleast he fucked off when the Cold War was largely over. The Communist battalion should have done the same once the USSR fell.

 

[Rod1]

Right, but the democratic era in Chile would not have happened had Chile gone communist. When will we see Cuba's democratic era?

Yup, but thats like claiming that jews needs to thank the Nazis because without the Holocaust there would be no Israel.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yup, but thats like claiming that jews needs to thank the Nazis because without the Holocaust there would be no Israel.

No, I think there's a distinct difference between claiming those two things.

I think a much more accurate and relevant comparison would be between Pinochet and another dictator, General Park of South Korea. Both were ruthless, and both helped set the stage for rapid economic development which followed their tenures.

 

[Rod1]

Atleast he fucked off when the Cold War was largely over. The Communist battalion should have done the same once the USSR fell.

Yup, commies like religious nuts use a cloak of righteousness in order to commit their attrocities so its harder for their regimes to die off.

 

[Rod1]

No, I think there's a distinct difference between claiming those two things.

I think a much more accurate and relevant comparison would be between Pinochet and another dictator, General Park of South Korea. Both were ruthless, and both helped set the stage for rapid economic development which followed their tenures.

Dont know about Generla Park but Pinochet's tenure was marked by a series of economic debacles.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Dont know about Generla Park but Pinochet's tenure was marked by a series of economic debacles.

Yep. Centrally planned economies tend to mess things up. As an example, Castro's entire tenure was an economic debacle. Communism < tin pot dictators.

 

[Rod1]

Yep. Centrally planned economies tend to mess things up. As an example, Castro's entire tenure was an economic debacle. Communism < tin pot dictators.

Pinochet's wasnt a centrally planned economy, he simply sucked balls at running a country.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

he simply sucked balls at running a country.

I think we can take this as a basis for agreement.

However, although the Chicago Boys tried to introduce market reforms, it was my impression that large parts of the Chilean economy, particularly in areas like mining, were nationalized under Pinochet.

 

[moreorless87]

From the little I know of each, both were detestable men.

But saving people from capitalism ultimately saves people from prosperity, while saving people from communism is saving people from destitution.

So while Pinochet can rot in hell, Chile is the wealthiest nation in South America in terms of GDP per capita.

Chile was already one of the wealthiest nations in South America before him, totally different situation to somewhere like Cuba which grew from slave plantation culture, Chile grew via emigration of European farmers and then a very significant nature resource economy.

A lot of its ups and downs have been due to those changing resources, the bottom dropping out of the phosphate market in the early 20th century and then the changing price of copper since then. Probably the most significant shift in Chile in the late 20th century was I would say Allende breaking up the giant land owning class into smaller farms.

Plus of course any nation in Latin America government in opposition to US interests is likely to find itself on the end of very significant economic warfare.