Pinochet is dead, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not

Augosto Pinochet died yesterday, despised by the people of Chile and the world for his trail of torture, repression and service to capitalism as military dictator.

Lesson #1: All dictators die, but they don't take class dictatorship with them.

Lesson #2: The state is not neutral. When the popular front leader Salvador Allende was elected president of Chile (in the prototype of a "peaceful revolution,") Pinochet was the tool for a US-engineered coup d'etat on September 11, 1973. Allende was more afraid of the people than he was of the military, and by refusing to arm the workers of Chile – they were left defenseless when the terror came. Allende was among the first to die, but thousands were killed, mutilated, raped and disappeared in the coming years. The best of the generation were cut down or driven into exile. It was a blow that the revolutionary movements of the Southern Cone have yet to overcome.

Without state power, all is illusion. Without a people's army, the people have nothing.

Comments

[Modern Pitung]

I've made my own writeup on Pinochet's recent shuffling off of the mortal coil.

Just a thought: it is my utmost belief that this period will mark the end of the liberal illusion that you can deliver anything like justice through the court of the State (or even international courts). Of note: just a week before Pinochet died, the Indonesian commission established to investigate Suharto and the New Order regime was officially struck down -- it will be ages before it is reconstituted, and Suharto will likely join Pinochet before appearing in the dock.

This should all serve as something of a warning to the CPN(M) -- that the Naxalites were not necessarily just engaging in sectarian games in wondering aloud when Gyanendra would be offed.

"To die for the people is weightier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather."

[the burningman]

Gyanendra is just a man.

There are always more Pinochets and would-be kings. It's why their death as individuals means almost nothing.

What forms of particular justice will be done in Nepal to the old rulers... I don't know. Prachanda has said "exile or justice."

Here in the USA, we have a new head of state every four to eight years, but that SAME state just keeps creaking along causing havoc.

In Russia, the Romanovs didn't fair so well. In China, their last emperor became a florist, which is somehow more fitting and humane.

But the question is the STATE, and what class controls it – through what exact mechanisms...

Bourgeois democracy is so-called exactly because it is democracy for THEM and dictatorship for the proletariat. There is no "state of the (whole) people." It is a contradiction in terms.

This is why today in Nepal the fate of the formerly Royal Nepal Army – and the People's Liberation Army are so crucial to what will unfold.

If we are "learning lessons of the 20th Century," it's that a snake is always a snake – and whatever the ruling classes promise, the knife is AlWAYS in their hand until they are disarmed. And they will use it.

[small question]

"Without state power, all is illusion."

I've seen this pithy quote attributed to Lenin. Can someone tell me what work it was in?

[ShineThePath]

While I agree with you Burningman with your simply put assesment of Chile and Allende, there is something I must say, I think Allende had a great love and respect for the worker in Chile; however being ultimately a pragmatist his tactics led to his eventual downfall.

Indeed Allende was in fear of the Military more so than the People; however Allende pragmatically choose to not arm the workers out of fears of reprisal from the Parliament, the Middle Class, Capitalists, and the Army. Chile has a rich history of reformist minded presidents being crushed by atleast one of these forces. If is not the Army, it would have been Parliament, and so on.

In Chile today, the legacy of Allende is something which is not seen in the same light by common people as Leftists do. Even I, being a Maoist, have a deep respect for Allende and the Socialist Alliance government; however it is important to note that even among Chileans, Allende is not seen as martyr. Allende and his government really never tried, above all else to raise the consciousness of the masses in Chile. Allende's failure was not merely arming the workers, but failing to build the necessary consciousness amongst them that goes beyond their own self-interest.

The people need a People's Army, but just as importantly they need the leadership and the consciousness to even fight. I am not sure, from my examination of Chilean history and politics over the years, such was possible in Chile.