# Think Tank > History >  What Pinochet Did For Chile

## r3volution 3.0

http://www.hoover.org/research/what-pinochet-did-chile




> The 1973 coup is often represented as having destroyed Chilean  democracy. Such characterizations are half-truths at best. In the late  1960s and early 1970s, Chile’s democracy was already well on the road to  self-destruction. The historian James Whelan caught its tragic essence  when he wrote that Chile’s was a “cannibalistic democracy, consuming  itself.” Eduardo Frei Montalva, Chile’s president from 1964 to 1970, who  helped to bring in Salvador Allende as his successor, later called the  latter’s presidency “this carnival of madness.” Freedoms increasingly  overwhelmed responsibilities. Lawlessness became rampant. Uncontrolled  leftist violence had also been escalating during the government of  Christian Democrat Frei Montalva, before Allende became president and  long before Pinochet played any role whatsoever in Chilean politics.
> 
> In 1970, Allende won 36.2 percent of the popular vote, less than the  38.6 percent he had taken in 1964 and only 1.3 percent more than the  runner-up. According to the constitution, the legislature could have  given the presidency to either of the top two candidates. It chose  Allende only after he pledged explicitly to abide by the constitution.  “A few months later,” Whelan reports, “Allende told fellow leftist Regis  Debray that he never actually intended to abide by those commitments  but signed just to finally become president.” In legislative and other  elections over the next three years, Allende and his Popular Unity (UP)  coalition, dominated by the Communist and Socialist parties, never won a  majority, much less a mandate, in any election. Still Allende tried to  “transition” (his term) Chile into a Marxist-Leninist economic, social,  and political system.
> 
>  Allende’s closest UP allies were the Communists, the right wing of  the UP, but both were pressed to move faster than they wanted by the  left wing of the UP, mainly members of Allende’s Socialist Party, and by  ultraleftists (the term used by the Communists) to the left of the UP.  Violence escalated rapidly, with the extreme left, including many  members of the president’s own party, seizing properties and setting up  independent zones in cities and the countryside, often contrary to what  Allende and the Communists thought prudent. In the process Allende, his  supporters, and extremists they could not control virtually destroyed  the economy, fractured the society, politicized the military and the  educational systems, and rode roughshod over Chilean constitutional,  legal, political, and cultural traditions. Thus by July 1973, if not  earlier, Chile was looking at an incipient civil war.
> 
> Many on the left had long believed that capitalism and democracy were  incompatible. In a brazen demonstration of its contempt for majority  wishes, and for the institutions of what it called “bourgeois  democracy,” the pro-Allende newspaper Puro Chile reported  the results of the March 1973 legislative elections with this headline:  “The People, 43%. The Mummies, 55%.” This attitude and the actions that  followed from it galvanized the center-left and right, whose candidates  had received almost two-thirds of the votes in the 1970 election,  against Allende. On August 22, 1973, the Chamber of Deputies, whose  members had been elected just five months earlier, voted 81–47 that  Allende’s regime had systematically “destroyed essential elements of  institutionality and of the state of law.” (The Supreme Court had  earlier condemned the Allende government’s repeated violations of court  orders and judicial procedures.) Less than three weeks later, the  military, led by newly appointed army commander in chief Pinochet,  overthrew the government. The coup was supported by Allende’s  presidential predecessor, Eduardo Frei Montalva; by Patricio Aylwin, the  first democratically elected president after democracy was restored in  1990; and by an overwhelming majority of the Chilean people. Cuba and  the United States were actively involved on opposite sides, but the main  players were always Chilean.
> 
> ...
> ...

----------


## Petar

Most advanced country in SA. 

Still can't condone them throwing people into the ocean for so little as the crime of having a tattoo.

----------


## openfire



----------


## jmdrake

> http://www.hoover.org/research/what-pinochet-did-chile


Pinochet was a butcher and a fascist.  I'm surprised you'd post this tripe considering how much you are against Trump and that the worst thing that can be said about Trump is he is an economic fascist and doesn't believe in civil liberties.

----------


## Ronin Truth

What did Pinochet do TO Chile?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Most advanced country in SA.


Despite, not because. 




> Still can't condone them throwing people into the ocean for so little as the crime of having a tattoo.


Damn right. Individual rights > economic success.

----------


## jmdrake

> Despite, not because. 
> 
> 
> Damn right. Individual rights > economic success.


You know, when you think about it, Adolf Hitler turned the German economy around despite having the economic philosophy of national socialism.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> You know, when you think about it, Adolf Hitler turned the German economy around despite having the economic philosophy of national socialism.


That is exactly why I don't care much for economic development unless I am free.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You know, when you think about it, Adolf Hitler turned the German economy around despite having the economic philosophy of national socialism.


Are you a fan of Juan Peron of Argentina,  too?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

So, on balance, you all think that communism under Allende would have  been preferable to Pinochet's relatively pro-market dictatorship?

...no comprendo.




> That is exactly why I don't care much for economic development unless I am free.


How do you figure you'd be free in a communist state?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> So, on balance, you all think that communism under Allende would have  been preferable to Pinochet's relatively pro-market dictatorship?
> 
> ...no comprendo.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure you'd be free in a communist state?


There is no freedom in a communist state as there is no individual.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> There is no freedom in a communist state as there is no individual.


Right

So, I ask again, why would you have preferred communism under Allende to Pinochet's relatively pro-market dictatorship?

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Right
> 
> So, I ask again, why would you have preferred communism under Allende to Pinochet's relatively pro-market dictatorship?


Where exactly have I said that ? First of all, I have no clue what that country would have looked like absent Pinochet, neither do you. Second, I'd probably get the $#@! out if I had to choose between Communism and a Fascist dictatorship(or whatever the $#@! that was). I don't like to choose between two evils.

I have however voted for a leftish/socialist party here in the Netherlands, who happen to be Eurosceptical, not nationalist but pro individual. It's kind of a weird mix but they have over the years shown to be more decent in regard to individual rights than any other party and in regards to government spending... The most socialist party here only wants to spend like 5% more than the most 'capitalist' party...... So really, I just get to pick from socialists.  But I'll gladly vote human rights over economics if the difference in economics is very minimal but the difference in regards to human rights is vast.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Where exactly have I said that ?


You said:




> Individual rights > economic success.





> That is exactly why I don't care much for economic development unless I am free.


I  took these comments to mean that you thought you'd have been be more  free under Allende's communism than under Pinochet's regime. 

...that you'd have rather lived under the communists than have Pinochet suppress them and reverse their policies. 




> First of all, I have no clue what that country would have looked like absent Pinochet, neither do you.


Well,  its president was an open Marxist who allowed communist para-military  groups to run rampant through the country establishing their own de  facto revolutionary communist governments, while he himself was pushing  through legislation for the collectivization of agriculture and  industry, all the time expressing contempt for the Chilean constitution,  for which he was denounced by the courts.

Allende  was working toward a coup of his own, except his would have resulted in a  communist dictatorship, instead of a pro-market one.

And, had he succeeded, no doubt he would have treated the anti-communists much as Pinochet did the communists.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are you a fan of Juan Peron of Argentina,  too?


1) Never heard of him.
2) What do you mean by "too?"

I'm neither a fan of Pinochet nor Hitler.  One institute market "reforms." The other instituted socialist "reforms."  Both arguably turned around basket economies for the better.  Both butchered their own people.  This thread is pointless.

----------


## jmdrake

> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I  took these comments to mean that you thought you'd have been be more  free under Allende's communism than under Pinochet's regime. 
> 
> ...that you'd have rather lived under the communists than have Pinochet suppress them and reverse their policies. 
> ...


Your point is?

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Your point is?


...that relatively pro-market Pinochet was much better than hardcore communist Allende. 

That, contrary to communist and fellow traveler history, Chile was saved by the coup.

That Pinochet deserves a monument, and Allende deserves to be dumped into the south Atlantic.

----------


## presence

> Chile was saved by the coup.


Chile was saved by the rising price of copper on global markets and before and after the coup copper was nationalized in Chile.  So don't get ahead of yourself. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codelco

The Chilean economy depends heavily on copper price and state run copper to this day




Pinochet greatly reduced tariffs, pegged the currency to the dollar, and privatized several government run industries to his cronies on the cheap... then resocialized most of them later buying them back with state funds from his buddies.   The economic reforms all sponsored by CIA operatives; "The Chicago Boys". 

Allende was an economic commie dip$#@! that hated fascism.  
Pinochet was an economic fascist dip$#@! paid to hate communism by the US.

Neither was really interested in free markets.   Pinochet had little interest in political liberty or the right of free association or press. 

The market and the market alone can solve the employee to employer relationship problem.

Pinochet liberalized the economy for employers while jackbooting employees.


That's not freedom.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/.../sp001280.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile
http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...od_was_pi.html
http://chomsky-must-read.blogspot.co...-in-chile.html



All of this goes back to the difference between deregulating an economy and dis-intervening in an economy.  Pinochet's disinterventions just led to alternative moral hazards.   

see:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...wledge-Problem





> Why Disintervention Fails The Flaws 
> 
> Interventionism is distortive, disruptive, and potentially socially  destructive because it attempts to defy the criticisms and possibilities  of centralized planning according to the market process view of the  dynamic market. Yet disintervention_ faces the same problems._ When disintervening, political actors *with necessarily limited information and knowledge*  must somehow decide, not only what to liberalize, but how and when. It  is perhaps these latter considerations which are the truly crucial  elements for successful disintervention. "Crude" disinterventionism  enacted without understanding the complex interactions that occur  between an intervention, other interventions, and the dynamic market  process may very well lead to cascading negative unintended  consequences. Deregulation *in the one sector*, let's say housing, might lead to bottlenecks in another complementary (or even seemingly disparate) sector, say in finance, _which might cascade into other areas in unpredictable ways._
> 
> To better assert this point I offer the following: not all interventions  are created equally. I say this to emphasize the fact that not all acts  of government interference with the economy can be equally harmful,  even according to the most stringent anarcho-libertarian standards._ A price floor that falls below the current market rate is not as harmful as the price ceiling that (attempts) to cut the price of a product in half from its going market rate._ There  also exists the possibility that there may even be less obvious  interventions that are unintentionally "beneficial" relative to others  given the uncoordinated nature of the interventionist system. Likewise,  even many free-market economists would agree that if a banking system  must rest upon a "lender of last resort" with its subsequent moral  hazard, then some regulatory framework preventing the to-be-expected  excessive risk-taking may be justified or necessary *in the meantime,* even if the longer-run disinterventionist goal is a free market banking system.
> 
> The mixed economy often also contains entire markets built on the backs  of previously distorted market processes. The wholly superfluous market  process emerges where *opportunities for profit would otherwise never have existed* outside of the influence of interventionism (Kirzner 1985). In the real world this can mean *entire industries*  built on the shaky grounds of government intervention. Though due to a  lack of unencumbered price signals, few if any might be able to realize  this. Thus there also exists the chance that by liberalizing one sector,  or removing one control,_ that a large collapse may be unleashed and backfire in the face of the disinterventionists_ harming the political capital necessary to continue with any necessary disinterventions.
> 
> All this leaves the question of 
> ...




Pinochets disinterventions clearly stand out as having net negative effect on GDP from 1972 to 1985.   He didn't create free markets, he created different markets.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile

----------


## Krugminator2

Chile was a  Communist country with hyperinflation when Pinochet took power. Pinochet hired Chicago School economists and made FA Hayek chair of his council of economic advisors.

Chile today is the most economically free country in South and Latin America by far.  Chile is more economically free than the US. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Chile has the highest per capita GDP of any country in South America. Anyone living in Chile today is indisputably better off for having Pinochet in power.  

The question isn't if Pinochet was a good guy or not. The question is whether they were better off with a a Communist or Pinochet. Milton Friedman thought Pinochet. Hayek said he ""not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende."

----------


## presence

> Chile is more economically free than the US. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking


they rank 77.7 (chile) and 75.4 (US) so they are a statistical parity. 

from your source:





> *CHILE:*
> 
> Property Rights 85.0
>                                    Freedom From Corruption 73.0
> Government Spending 83.1
>                                    Fiscal Freedom 74.8
>                               Business Freedom 72.1
> *Labor Freedom 64.3*
> Monetary Freedom 82.9
> ...






> *UNITED STATES of AMERICA*
> 
> Property Rights 80.0
>                                    Freedom From Corruption 74.0
> *Government Spending 54.7
>                                    Fiscal Freedom 65.6*
> Business Freedom 84.7
> *Labor Freedom 91.4*
>                                    Monetary Freedom 77.0
> ...


So whereas the US has a fiscal and government spending issue.   Chile has a labor freedom issue. 

What does this mean? 




> *Four Freedom Categories:*
> 
> 
> Rule of LawLimited GovernmentRegulatory EfficiencyOpen Markets





> *Fiscal freedom*  is a measure of the tax burden imposed by government. It includes  direct taxes, in terms of the top marginal tax rates on individual and  corporate incomes, and overall taxes, including all forms of direct and  indirect taxation at all levels of government, as a percentage of GDP.
> *Fiscal Freedom: How Tax Burden Affects Economic Freedom*
> 
> www.heritage.org/index/*fiscal*-*freedom*





> *Government Spending          * 
> 
> 
> 
>                                            This component considers the level of government expenditures as a  percentage of GDP. Government expenditures, including consumption and  transfers, account for the entire score.
> 
> 
>                  No attempt has been made to identify an optimal level of  government expenditures. The ideal level will vary from country to  country, depending on factors ranging from culture to geography to level  of development. However, volumes of research have shown that excessive  government spending that causes chronic budget deficits and the  accumulation of sovereign debt is one of the most serious drags on  economic dynamism.
>                  The methodology treats zero government spending as the benchmark,  and underdeveloped countries with little government capacity may  receive artificially high scores as a result. However, such governments,  which can provide few if any public goods, are likely to receive lower  scores on some of the other components of economic freedom (such as  property rights, financial freedom, and investment freedom) that reflect  government effectiveness.
> ...





> *Labor Freedom*
> 
> 
> 
>                                               The labor freedom component is a quantitative measure that  considers various aspects of the legal and regulatory framework of a  country’s labor market, including regulations concerning minimum wages,  laws inhibiting layoffs, severance requirements, and measurable  regulatory restraints on hiring and hours worked.
>    Six quantitative factors are equally weighted, with each counted as one-sixth of the labor freedom component:1
> 
> Ratio of minimum wage to the average value added per worker,Hindrance to hiring additional workers,Rigidity of hours,Difficulty of firing redundant employees,Legally mandated notice period, andMandatory severance pay. 
>          Based on data collected in connection with the World Bank’s _Doing Business_  study, these factors specifically examine labor regulations that affect  “the hiring and redundancy of workers and the rigidity of working  hours.”2




so in the US you have a value added per worker of  57194 and a minimum wage of 7.25;* $7888 value added per dollar of minimum wage
*in chile you have value added per worker of 6638 and a minimum wage of 2.83;  *$2345 value added per dollar of minimum wage. 
*
as we understand from the austrian school, as we increase minimum wage relative to value added, you price out minimum wage workers in favor of technology and overall less economic output. 

The equivelent minimum wage in the US would be 57194 / 2345 = *$24.38 per hour
*which constitutes one of the primary plights of the Chilean economy.
Either you're worth $25 an hour or you don't have a job. 


which is why chile has substantial issues with human trafficking; child prostitution, and domestic violence/slavery. 

You're worth $25 or you're worthless. 




http://www.tradingeconomics.com/coun...r-wb-data.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...cking_in_Chile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domest...lence_in_Chile


so whereas the gdp of chile has risen substantially since the time of pinochet; so too has unemployment and percent living in poverty; and we're not talking US iphone poverty; chile had an issue with indegence by 1987; 17%. http://web.worldbank.org/archive/web.../PDF/CHILE.PDF




> the percentage of Chilean population living in poverty rose from 17% in 1969 to 45% in 1985.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile


it wasn't until Chile had achieved both financial _and political freedom_ in the 90's that the economy really began to grow; which shows that no amount of piecemeal disintervention will solve the market problem.      In many ways "the people" are better off under a well organized socialist state than they are under a poorly planned disintervention.  Even though the economic output of the country as a whole may be rising under disintervention, the little man gets squeezed if the changes benefit primarily big business. 





Milton Friedman, like Ron Paul... foresaw that radical change in economic policy moving towards "more free" on the spectrum would have immediate negative effects on the poor, pushing them temporarily towards indigent.  Pinochet chose to ignore the warning. 




> _[Friedman] proposed relief of cases of real hardship among poorest classes._


http://www.ecaef.org/klex/user/1/41894820_10_10.ppt

That suggestion was ignored until Aylwin took office in 1990; which is when the real growth in the chilean economy has occurred. 

The economic intervention of the State causes poverty.
Elimination of the economic State (disintervention) causes the most needy to become completely indigent on the short horizon. 

Pinochet took the nuclear approach.   




> So, on balance, you all think that communism under Allende would have   been preferable to Pinochet's relatively pro-market dictatorship?
> 
> ...no comprendo.


for the average joe, yes; communism under Allende was better than the immidate effects of living under Pinochet




> *it is simply impossible to know how all of these rules, codes, and regulations affect one another.* To remove one  intervention that seemingly causes clear negative unintended  consequences, may not actually erase those negative effects. There may  still be other _complementary interventions,_ or the market process  may have been so distorted under the intervention as to render those  effects inflexible. It should therefore come as no surprise if an  intervention is finally removed unaccompanied by any positive effects as  were expected. *There is also the possibility that disintervention can make the economic situation worse than it had been.*




and you have to note all of this discussion is also tainted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor





> After Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told Nixon that the United States "didn't do it" (referring to the coup itself) but had "created the conditions as great  [_sic_] as possible".[32]


So we can assume there was great manipulation by foreign actors in the chilean economy during Allende's rule.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

Pinochet was a thug, but a right wing thug is always better than a left wing thug (barring bizarre aberrations like Nazism, whose status as right wing is at least debatable). The fact is, that sometimes countries need a thug to run the place. Latin American countries seem to have nothing but.

Keep in mind that during the beginning of Pinochet's rule, the Khmer Rouge took over Cambodia. The French Revolution had Year One and The Terror; the Khmer Rouge had Year Zero and horror that would make Colonel Kurtz blush. There were many mass-murderers in the 20th Century, but none had such an insane break from reality as the Cambodian Communists did. There was a real fear of a Khmer Rouge-like regime arising in Latin America. Would Allende's theoretical Chile have turned into Cambodia? Probably not, Pol Pot's communism was... unique to say the least. Bust still, it's not a risk worth taking. Compared to some theoretical libertarian government, Pinochet was awful, compared to the actual options available at the time, he was the best there was. By far.

----------


## farreri

> barring bizarre aberrations like Nazism, whose status as right wing is at least debatable


They were right wing socialists. I'd even argue North Korea are right wing communists since NK's ideology is the Korean people are the most pure race on the planet--something influenced on them by fascist Japan at the time--and don't allow non-Koreans to live in NK.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Damn right. Individual rights > economic success.


Fixed version: individual rights = economic success




> You know, when you think about it, Adolf Hitler turned the German economy around despite having the economic philosophy of national socialism.


Did he, though? Seems to me the Piper eventually got his pay - with interest.

One way or another, that is always what happens when you try to shortcut or cheat reality.

(And the laws of economics are quite real ...)

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> FDid he, though? Seems to me the Piper eventually got his pay - with interest.
> 
> One way or another, that is always what happens when you try to shortcut or cheat reality.
> 
> (And the laws of economics are quite real ...)


Yes, Hitler, much praised by Keynes at the time, turned around the German economy in the same way that FDR ended the depression.

i.e. only in his own propaganda

----------


## Lamp

>only killed 3200 people and most of them were Cuban/Chinese/Soviet allied guerillas
>most advanced and just about the only decent country in SA
>left after 17 years after giving his people the vote
>Actually listened to Uncle Miltie

sounds like a pretty ok guy to me

----------


## r3volution 3.0

Yes, fellow, with odd Japanese name (stop watching anime, bad, bad), you have the hang of the reign.

----------


## Lamp

Um not sure how that relates to anything but I'm not really breaking the law or doing anything morally objectionable when I sit down and read my comics for fun

----------


## r3volution 3.0

I was just harassing you, as a new member. 

The important thing is that Pinochet did indeed, despite the lingering leftist sentimentality of certain folks here, save Chile. 

And this says something very important about the future of American politics.

(...which you appear to appreciate)

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Um not sure how that relates to anything but I'm not really breaking the law or doing anything morally objectionable when I sit down and read my comics for fun


Well not yet anyway. But they better not be fake comics.

----------


## Lamp

> Well no yet anyway. But they better not be fake comics.


how?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> They were right wing socialists. I'd even argue North Korea are *right wing communists* since NK's ideology is the Korean people are the most pure race on the planet--something influenced on them by fascist Japan at the time--and don't allow non-Koreans to live in NK.

----------


## Ender

> Chile was a  Communist country with hyperinflation when Pinochet took power. Pinochet hired Chicago School economists and made FA Hayek chair of his council of economic advisors.
> 
> Chile today is the most economically free country in South and Latin America by far.  Chile is more economically free than the US. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
> 
> Chile has the highest per capita GDP of any country in South America. Anyone living in Chile today is indisputably better off for having Pinochet in power.  
> 
> The question isn't if Pinochet was a good guy or not. The question is whether they were better off with a a Communist or Pinochet. Milton Friedman thought Pinochet. Hayek said he ""not been able to find a single person even in much maligned Chile who did not agree that personal freedom was much greater under Pinochet than it had been under Allende."


Had a friend that went to Chile on a business venture. When he came back to the US, he looked around and said: NO. 

Went back to Chile to live forever- said it was much freer than the US and the people were fantastic.

----------


## robert68

> ... http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
> 
> ..


Interesting, Canada which has "socialized medicine" is ranked number 6.

----------


## Firestarter

I've read a little something about what Pinochet did for Chile in Greg Palasts unsurpassed _The Best democracy money can buy (2002)_: http://www.chemtrails911.com/books/T...0Palast%20.pdf

This is my very short summary (from another thread).


> In 1973 General Pinochet took dictatorial control of Chile, and destroyed the economy. The CIA, since October 1970, had helped Pinochet to oust president Salvador Allende. US Ambassador to Chile, Edward Malcolm Korry explained that US companies used the CIA as an international collection agency. In 1973 Chiles unemployment rate was 4.3%; by 1983, after 10 years of free market liberalisation, unemployment was at 22%, while wages had declined by 40%. In 1970 20% of Chiles population lived in poverty, by 1990  when dictator Pinochet left office - this number had doubled to 40%. In 1982 and 1983, the GDP dropped with 19%, and foreign companies bought 85% of Chiles profitable industries. The USA the State Department reported: _Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management_. The respected economist Milton Friedman called this _The Miracle of Chile_.

----------


## juleswin

Debunking Pinochet apologists



Very informative video.

----------


## juleswin

Also, I have always wondered how Hitler was able to grow his economy if he was such a leftist socialist then I watched this.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Also, I have always wondered how Hitler was able to grow his economy if he was such a leftist socialist then I watched this.


Why on Earth are you posting a video from a "Hitler was a capitalist, Mao wasn't so bad" socialist? Ye Gods, man.

----------


## juleswin

> Why on Earth are you posting a video from a "Hitler was a capitalist, Mao wasn't so bad" socialist? Ye Gods, man.


Because I think it is super interesting. Many people still believe a load of lies about Hitler and this is a lighthearted one to debate. The better question is why is a person of your political leaning afraid of me exposing the lies about Hitler? 

Btw, nothing in my post suggests that Mao wasn't so bad, that part he made up out of thin air.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Because I think it is super interesting. Many people still believe a load of lies about Hitler and this is a lighthearted one to debate. The better question is why is a person of your political leaning afraid of me exposing the lies about Hitler?


The idea that Hitler was a classical socialist isn't a lie that needs to be "exposed". Fascism doesn't neatly fit on the socialist left or capitalist right, hence the term "Third Way".  Basic conservatives might think he's a socialist, but they're the only ones.

The idea that he was a liberal is just asburd, by any definition of the term.




> Btw, nothing in my post suggests that Mao wasn't so bad, that part he made up out of thin air.


Why not peruse the other videos that guy made. Namely, the one claiming Mao did more good than harm.

----------


## juleswin

> The idea that Hitler was a classical socialist isn't a lie that needs to be "exposed". Fascism doesn't neatly fit on the socialist left or capitalist right, hence the term "Third Way".  Basic conservatives might think he's a socialist, but they're the only ones.
> 
> The idea that he was a liberal is just asburd, by any definition of the term.
> 
> 
> Why not peruse the other videos that guy made. Namely, the one claiming Mao did more good than harm.


I listened some of the quotes of Hitler, some of his policies and I think he put him squarely in the capitalist category and yes, he went socialist to fund his war efforts but everybody did that during WWII. The point is that I like most people have always believed that Hitler was some socialist left winger. I remember listening to Tom Woods making this argument and I believed it.

But if anything, the nuance about Hitler's economic platform was never presented to me like this democraticsocialist did with the video and I am very appreciative of that. 

Yea, as you can tell, I do not believe everything the presenter says. But I will get back to you once I have watched the Mao is a good guy video.

----------


## William Tell

He just happened to have a party named the national socialist party and implemented socialist policies because war. Totally not a socialist though because everyone was doing it and its impossible Churchill was a socialist. And no one who is a socialist would be mean to minorities, left and right is defined by niceness and not actual policies and Hitler was not nice. Oh and America is not a republic. Interesting vid.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> I listened some of the quotes of Hitler, some of his policies and I think he put him squarely in the capitalist category and yes, he went socialist to fund his war efforts but everybody did that during WWII. The point is that I like most people have always believed that Hitler was some socialist left winger. I remember listening to Tom Woods making this argument and I believed it.


The Nazis introduced a massive increase in the welfare state, banned many German private charities, nationalized some industries, increased the finances for state industries several-fold and spent tons on infrastructure spending. Like I said, there's a reason they called themselves Third Way.




> But if anything, the nuance about Hitler's economic platform was never presented to me like this democraticsocialist did with the video and I am very appreciative of that.


"Hitler was a capitalist!" is not "nuanced". It's the same Marxist propaganda that's been spewed since the war, before then, even.




> Yea, as you can tell, I do not believe everything the presenter says. But I will get back to you once I have watched the Mao is a good guy video.


Do.

----------


## juleswin

> He just happened to have a party named the national socialist party and implemented socialist policies because war. Totally not a socialist though because everyone was doing it and its impossible Churchill was a socialist. And no one who is a socialist would be mean to minorities, left and right is defined by niceness and not actual policies and Hitler was not nice. Oh and America is not a republic. Interesting vid.


Every economy in the world is a mixed economy, there are no 100% capitalist or 100% socialist nations in the world. The point I am trying to make is that their economic system was more capitalist that socialist.

The point he was trying to make about the republic fascicle is that republics are not that special. just about every country in the world has a republic system. And yet the outcome is about the same for all of em.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

> Every economy in the world is a mixed economy, there are no 100% capitalist or 100% socialist nations in the world. The point I am trying to make is that their economic system was more capitalist that socialist.


This video is all about throwing the brutality of Nazism at the feet of capitalism and you're buying it hook, line and sinker. From a communist apologist no less.

Here ya go:
https://mises.org/files/vampire-econ...token=GpitWHXI

Try learning about Nazism from someone who was actually there.

----------


## William Tell

> Every economy in the world is a mixed economy,  there are no 100% capitalist or 100% socialist nations in the world. The  point I am trying to make is that their economic system was more  capitalist that socialist.


 Well I just don't see how that is  true. I mean for the entire length of its existence they were preparing  to or already engaging in war. I mean the guy admitted they gave  millions of marks to the private companies but he acted like that was  capitalism because they had "private" companies that did whatever the  government wanted them to.

Another thing that bothered me was how he called Kitty  Werthmann, who actually grew up in Nazi occupied Austria a nutjob. And  of course he would, because the guy making the video is obviously far  left. Here's a video of Kitty I've seen before, I found it fascinating. 




Her  rendition of life there is the same that I have read from other like  books the real Maria who the Sound of Music was based on wrote. The Nazi  doctor actually tried to get Maria to have an abortion, that was one of  the reasons she left Austria. and of course the Nazis were euthanizing  handicapped people. And they were taking God out of school and  indoctrinating kids to basically worship Hitler. So the idea that Hitler  was some kind of pro-life right winger is bull$#@!. I don't even care  about labels, but he's trying to act like Hitler represented everything  he considers to be the modern right wing, from pro-life,  to pro capitalism. And that's simply not true. 




> The point he was trying to make about the  republic fascicle is that republics are not that special. just about  every country in the world has a republic system. And yet the outcome is  about the same for all of em.


 No I think he just called Crowder  and idiot over the Republic thing. He didn't really expand on it, I  guess we both got something different out of it.

----------


## juleswin

> This video is all about throwing the brutality of Nazism at the feet of capitalism and you're buying it hook, line and sinker. From a communist apologist no less.
> 
> Here ya go:
> https://mises.org/files/vampire-econ...token=GpitWHXI
> 
> Try learning about Nazism from someone who was actually there.


What brutality are you talking about? there is no mention direct or implied brutality in any of the presentation. I just find it hard to believe that an economy who is supposed to be socialized would have the boom they had without natural resources and they would engage in privatization of major national infrastructure and utility. Privatization is the furthest thing on my mind when I think of socialist economies.

Also, I doubt I would read 368 pages of the book you sent me, is there any area in particular you suggest I focus on?

----------


## juleswin

> Well I just don't see how that is  true. I mean for the entire length of its existence they were preparing  to or already engaging in war. I mean the guy admitted they gave  millions of marks to the private companies but he acted like that was  capitalism because they had "private" companies that did whatever the  government wanted them to.
> 
> Another thing that bothered me was how he called Kitty  Werthmann, who actually grew up in Nazi occupied Austria a nutjob. And  of course he would, because the guy making the video is obviously far  left. Here's a video of Kitty I've seen before, I found it fascinating. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Her  rendition of life there is the same that I have read from other like  books the real Maria who the Sound of Music was based on wrote. The Nazi  doctor actually tried to get Maria to have an abortion, that was one of  the reasons she left Austria. and of course the Nazis were euthanizing  handicapped people. And they were taking God out of school and  indoctrinating kids to basically worship Hitler. So the idea that Hitler  was some kind of pro-life right winger is bull$#@!. I don't even care  about labels, but he's trying to act like Hitler represented everything  he considers to be the modern right wing, from pro-life,  to pro capitalism. And that's simply not true. 
> 
>  No I think he just called Crowder  and idiot over the Republic thing. He didn't really expand on it, I  guess we both got something different out of it.


I am not quite sure what to make of Kitty W and the video you posted. At one point she was criticizing Hitler for nationalizing their healthcare system which was so good that it provided healthcare to everybody. Also, smearing Hilter is favorite past time game for most conservatives. Just come up with any atrocity and blame Hitler for it and everybody would believe it.

I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that her memory at 84 is not what it is used to be. She says Hitler was very pro life unless you were non Aryan. So how does that make him pro abortion when most of the population was Aryan? 

I have also been searching for the Austrian car company Hitler nationalized and I am having a very difficult time finding it. She says that Hitler nationalized the Austrian car company and yet not hit on google. What I found instead was this. A private car company nationlized by the allies because they suspected that they were NAZI collaborators.




> Renault heirs challenge 1945 car firm`s nationalisation after Louis Renault had been jailed for alleged collaboration with the Nazis
> Heirs of the founder of the French car company Renault have demanded in court compensation for the nationalisation of the firm after World War II. The car maker was nationalised in 1945 after the death of Louis Renault, who had been jailed without trial for alleged collaboration with the Nazis. During the Nazi occupation the firm was placed under German control and used to make equipment for German forces.


http://hitlernews.cloudworth.com/cars-world-war-2.php

Republic thing is something I have questioned even before I started listening to his videos. My questions has always been, why is it any better to democratically vote for a representative who then makes decisions for you instead of making the decisions yourself? why is having a middle man an advantage in this scenario? The didn't quite ask this question in the video but instead he showed the dozens of country with the same representative democracy that the US prides themselves in having to show how common it is around the messed up world.

----------

