Iran nationalized their oil industry, and they got a CIA-backed coup for their troubles.
Chile's story is a strange duality of murder and relative economic prosperity. It is extremely difficult to say whether it was "worth it".
But, the most important thing is that we say it happened, just like you did.
I still hold out some hope for Bolivia. Of course it's tragic that the new "Christian" coup government has harmed so many indigenous people. In doing so, however, they may have overplayed their hands. Indigenous and unionists aren't knuckling under. There are some inland areas the police and military no longer dare to tread. The coup government that CIA picked out in Bolivia are nearly as hapless as Guaidó and his gang. It will be interesting to see whether Bolivia appears on the popular news in USA once in 2020...
The level of ruin the bolivarian revolution has brought to my country with the help of Cuba is just appalling. At this point we need all the help available, it's been 20 years already of mismanagement and corruption at levels never before seen in the region.
I think you are underestimating the international bankers' power and resolve. Guaido was a special guest at the state of the union address and both parties along with trump praised him and gave him a standing ovation. Something like that doesn't happen unless a coup in venezuela is pre-ordianed. It also shows that politics and the divisive theatrics are just for show. They are distractions to dupe the american people. Both parties and trump serve the same international banking masters, not the american people.
> It will be interesting to see whether Bolivia appears on the popular news in USA once in 2020...
It won't.
What's interesting is the sudden rise of the pro-coup messaging on social media and of the course the odd downvoting of comments pointing out the coups. I guess the bankers' weren't happy just buying nytimes op-eds. Now they are trying to buy social media influence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/contributors/vene...
Joanna Hausmann is a daughter of a "venezuelan" banker who got ousted by venezuelans. She is a youtuber "comedian" and I guess that is good enough to get an op-ed piece on the nytimes about a major geo-politic issue. But then again, the nytimes was created by a banker...
CIA themselves are on shakier ground than they used to be. They expected to be ordering Pres. Pence around by now. Now the "grown-up" Democrats have "chosen" Biden (as I predicted in 2017), with whom Trump will play as a cat torments a mouse. Say what you will about his speed habit, at least the Cheeto isn't already sundowning halfway through the afternoon. After he wins this year, Trump will be far more interested in shuttering CIA than in tolerating their further misadventures abroad.
Above, I was actually referring to Hausmann père, not Hausmann fille. The Hausmann (what a traditional Venezuelan name!) family run sort of a low-rent one-stop yes-we'll-take-black-budget-funds shop. Prof. Hausmann is at the K-school, which I guess explains why he didn't actually stop working for Guaidó when he promised Harvard administration he would. He's hoping to land at CFR...
“The only thing that protected Chile from complete economic collapse in the early eighties was that Pinochet had never privatized Codelco, the state copper mine company nationalized by Allende. That one company generated 85 percent of Chile’s export revenues, which meant that when the financial bubble burst, the state still had a steady source of funds…. By 1988, when the economy had stabilized and was growing rapidly, 45 percent of the population had fallen below the poverty line. The richest 10 percent of Chileans, however, had seen their incomes increase by 83 percent. Even in 2007, Chile remained one of the most unequal societies in the world—out of 123 countries in which the United Nations tracks inequality, Chile ranked 116th, making it the eighth most unequal country on the list.”
You can read her go deeper into this subject in her 2008 blog post here: https://naomiklein.org/response-attacks/
The economy under Pinochet was actually quite mediocre:
"By the end of the dictatorship, Chile's average real per capita GDP had grown by only 1.6% per year, a result very close to economic stagnation; 18% of the population was unemployed and 45% below the poverty line. In 1990, Chile’s average GDP per capita, calculated on the basis of purchasing power parity, was only US $4,590, lower than Brazil’s, which at that time, after the “lost decade” of the 1980s, was $6,680. To define this as a "success" is, to say the least, intellectual impudence, if not contemptuous ideological propaganda."
Taken from here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/myths-abo...
Naomi Klein is a incredibly left wing journalist who's conclusion had all already been made before she did the research. I would argue that much of her book is incredibly badly research and bordering on straight up conspiracy theory nonsense. Her book is absolutely not up to any standard of economic or any social science resource.
It is true that Pinochet did not produce some kind of economic miracle. That part is mostly correct.
However one can also argue that the alternative path Allende wanted to go down was incredibly unlike to produce even those results.
Because of how Pinochet was was removed, helped Chile on a different path that was good for it, even if many people still don't like it.
All that said, I'm against US intervention in other countries.
The shock doctrine is really intersecting book and as far as remember 1/4 of it is just references and links to points she is making or stories she describes
As oppose to your 'leveled unbiased opinion', as its just that - an opinion unsupported by a single fact.
My opinion is not unbias, as is nobodies, and I agree with one of the main points, that there was no economic miracle. However taking the whole book at face value will give you a totally distorted one-sided view of the topics.
You might as well read a book by Bill O'Reilly and claim its a balanced an accurate representation on the topics. But of course only Republican journalists are bias.
Venezuela also nationalised their oil industry with Chavez but they were already in a very weak spot and of course not a nuclear power (or close to being one). Oil price dropping was the huff&puff that brought the house down.
Have you seen the film “There will be blood”? While not biographical, the gist is people were and are willing to do what it takes to “win”.
I don't know if the cynicism is warranted or helpful really. Of course every country has bad actors and every system has problems but there are real differences and improvements possible.
Off course culture of people matter but systemic rot arises when existing people work in what essentially is sometimes a negative sum game. Fights between heterogeneous groups over limited resources exist and far too often much powerful foreign powers do interfere to make the best of the situation for themselves.
Do you vote in elections? Why? Your options(tm) have been pre-purposed so nothing you do matters.
This is the highest form of corruption.
That's not really corruption so much as it is not having much of a say in who the national leaders are. As the other comment mentioned, corruption is more like having to pay bribes to the police at traffic stops, bribes to get government services, etc.
In some countries, if I were stopped by the police I'd fully expect and try to "Can I pay the fine here?" In the US I'd fully expect that trying to do so would get me worse legal trouble.
Corruption is world wide, no doubt, but it doesn't occur with the same frequency worldwide.
What you're describing is low level corruption. Now consider how many construction projects and government services are being 'outsourced' or 'privatized' and take wild guess how much money is ending up in the wrong pockets at that game. Not to mention the lack of quality control and general oversight that often comes along with it.
That's much worse than some traffic cops taking a cut or bribe. Which is also bad. But first the major corruption should be dealt with.
Also, US simply made significant portion of corruption legal by calling it lobbying. In all the other countries it's a corruption, but not in US because they simply renamed it.
Lobbying is legal in every free country on earth. What specifically are you referring to?
Really interesting one because it drifted from being the most likely theory to a "conspiracy theory" pretty rapidly. Once Barr said he was going to get the bottom of it, the media coverage mostly dried up.
People have a very bad idea of what corruption actually is. Low level bribes don't really make a difference anywhere. What really matters is corruption at the highest levels, that change how the whole economy works, and these you only hear when the (proverbial) dam breaks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
> On Saturday 15 August, Colonel Nematollah Nassiri,[14] the commander of the Imperial Guard, delivered to Mosaddegh a firman from the Shah dismissing him. Mosaddegh, who had been warned of the plot, probably by the Communist Tudeh Party, rejected the firman and had Nassiri arrested.[53][54][55] Mosaddegh argued at his trial after the coup that under the Iranian constitutional monarchy, the Shah had no constitutional right to issue an order for the elected Prime Minister's dismissal without Parliament's consent. However, the constitution at the time did allow for such an action, which Mosaddegh considered unfair.
"The laws not fair! I wanted to be a dictator but it wouldn't let me"
Declassified Documents Reveal CIA Role In 1953 Iranian Coup : NPR https://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217976304/declassified-docume...
For the last time, the American Civil War was not about states’ rights — Quartz https://qz.com/378533/for-the-last-time-the-american-civil-w...
At worst you can say he wanted to be dictator but the dictator wouldn't let him, but arguing that somehow Mosaddegh is the bad guy for resisting such an obvious power grab is ridiculous. Being constitutional doesn't excuse a coup.
>In historiography, the term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved.