Talk:Salvador Allende

(create an archive)

Edit as of 8:14pm CST 7/1/12

Salvador Allende Gossens (1908-1973) was a Chilean politician democratically elected as President of Chile from 1970 until his death in 1973 by suicide (he shot himself with a gold-engraved AK-47 given to him as a gift by Fidel Castro).

Allende was a thorough, albeit weak, stooge of the KGB; and his insufficient brutality in moving swiftly to secure Soviet objectives in Latin American resulted in him being, anomalously among the entire pantheon of Soviet satellite tyrants prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the only one deposed by non-communist factions. Had he been more earnest in laying a Cuban-style truncheon across the napes of his domestic opposition in the Chilean Chamber of Deputies (such as, for instance, simply having them shot), it arguably would have resulted in an impotent body too frightened to pass the Resolution of August 22, 1973 authorizing his military removal for gross violations of the Chilean constitution (Allende's own KGB handler reported such weakness to Moscow).

Three weeks after the passage of the Resolution, the Chilean military (headed by General Augusto Pinochet) swiftly wrested control of the country from Pinochet and his imported Cuban brownshirt army. Allende gave a self-serving radio speech from the presidential palace promising to fight on, then shot himself after sign-off as the military closed in -- presumably concluding that the heady glory of martyrdom was far more appealing than spending the rest of his life in prison, as well as the fact that a copper-jacketed 7.62 under the chin was guaranteed to do the job.

Two days after legally ousting Allende, Pinochet declined to relinquish control of the country back to the legislature; and what is labelled as his "Coup" properly began at that point. (Legions of communist academics, including those ensconced at other Wiki encyclopedias, have spent the last forty years attempting to bury memory of the Deputies' Resolution, seeking to promote the historically false notion that Pinochet just decided to go kick Allende in the ass for no apparent reason at all other than that he like to someday run a country under an iron fist like that world-famous champion of free Potemkin health-care, Fidel Castro); they especially like to trump up the death statistics (some 5,000 over a period of 17 years) in the period of unrest following (in which Pinochet consolidated his control), apparently unaware that such a figure is below that of the murder rate of a typical American urban area, and well below that of a Cuban prison in which Che Guevara is executing homosexuals, or any random plot in Venezuela under latest commie heart-throb Hugo Chavez where the murder rate is in the five-digits per year.

While Allende was opening the Latin gates to the Soviets, Richard Nixon specifically told the CIA to do something to get him out of power, but the Chilean Chamber of Deputies beat them to it before the CIA could do more than write a paper. In a twist of irony, the CIA might have wanted to overthrow Allende (a difficult prospect seeing as tanks and jet fighters are difficult to conceal under trench-coats), was beaten to the punch, but ended up getting blamed for it anyway.

References available upon request; I'll have to dig them out of the archives of commie-controlled Wikipedia where historically-accurate versions of this chapter of Latin history once briefly existed. Suffice to say that if you think any word of the above is bullshit, get prepared to look stupid when you're proven wrong.)--Bezzle (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC) --

Oh I'm sure this is going to end very well.--Revolverman (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We clearly established Allende was an asshole. That gives the BoN no excuse to engage in his own historical revisionism about Pinochet.

Speaking of favoured communist Jimmy Wales... Osaka Sun (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Allende an "asshole"? Bitch please! There was no Soviet "infiltration" in Chile. No Chilean was ever tortured/executed/"disappeared" under Allende's government! He is still regarded as one of the best Presidents in Chile's history (along with Pedro Aguirre Cerda, Jose Manuel Balmaceda and Eduardo Frei Montalva). I know that you Americans hate Socialism/Communism but, geez, get your facts straight! 201.215.122.10 (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

--

Main article is very incomplete, and make lots of assumptions out of known facts, this proposed article is utter bullshit. The KGB dispised him. The congress' resolution didn't allowed or authorized in anyway a far more grotesque overthrowing of the constitution. In his speech he said that he wasn't to leave the palace alive and that... "sooner than later" things would be better, Cubans carried on their own revolution, without URSS help, and had their own agenda, often arousing tensions with the URSS, since they had NO intention in stepping feet in Latinamerica. Guevarism was an off-shoot from Maoism, as all the insurrectional partisans. The sovietics only financed miniographers, at least in Chile, and send old, obsolete tractors as gifts of good will, and that was it. I see no point for an anti-communist rant in the rational wiki, that, simply, sounds to conservapedia. The parlament had no word over constitutional matters, that was the job of the constitutional assembly, and the motion passed had no legal support, instead, it pointed out vague terms, eventually referring to old non recurrent dispositions, rather to actual unconstitutional activity.

The Cuban army was an hoax, and there were no more than 40 members on the GAP, other than that, there were civilian conflicts and the unestructurated answer from the MIR and other minor insurrective movements that tried to fight the army with makeshift weaponry and their personal equipement (which they mostly acquired while serving for Cuba in international brigades on their own). The sovietic arsenal bought by the government to distance the army from the NATO remained unscatted (or else, there would had been a civil war, duh).

The CIA trained Contrera's, Matthei and Merino under the School of the Americas at Panama under the intern enemy doctrine (or whatever it's named in english), and throught the ITT and other american companies, they financed transportists strikes, planned to kill the main legetimist General (after whom came Pinochet), financed ultra-right movements, and the US closed relations and credits to the UP, which never had intentions to cut relations with the US, instead, they bought US citizens property overpriced, never recurrying to expropiation against them, whereas it did toward chilean citizens, and until the very last moment, relied on the US help for the development.

The article by GGM

This page on Allende is severely flawed. Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote a much better review of Allende in 1974, after the coup at La Moneda. The only problem in GGM's article is the ending: we now (2013) know with high probability that Allende committed suicide. But on everything else, GGM is spot on.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/03/why-allende-had-die

Article could do with improvement - but Bezzle's contributions wasn't it

While the earlier version was far from perfect (e.g. lacking citations), the rewrite by Bezzle changed it into the red-baiting version of history, just "enjoy" this nugget from Bezzle's first lines:

"Allende was a thorough, albeit weak, stooge of the KGB; and his insufficient brutality in moving swiftly to secure Soviet objectives in Latin American resulted in him being, anomalously among the entire pantheon of Soviet satellite tyrants prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the only one deposed by non-communist factions."

I hope this snippet makes it obvious why I thought it appropriate to undo all of Bezzle's changes and revert the article to its "pre-Bezzle" form.

Still, feel free to improve the article. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

freemason

the recent edit war reminded me that he is a mason http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/allende_s/allende_s.html

Initiated : 16 November 1935
Passed : 27 October 1937

Lodge Progress No. 4, Valparaiso

Affiliated : 8 November 1940
Raised : 31 October 1945
Tyler : 1949
Worshipful Master : 1946, 1950-1951, 1953

Lodge Hiram No. 65, Santiago

Grand Lodge delegate : 1948

Lodge Progress No. 4 ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.180.193.48 / talk / contribs} 18:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Antisemitism

The idea that Allende was an antisemite (as one BoN has claimed) has been fairly well discredited I think, and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to contend with the evidence on this WP page: Criticisms of Salvador Allende. The idea that Allende had Jewish ancestry, which is also on this page, seems to be incorrect though. His mother was Basque (Uribe family), not Jewish. Bongolian (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dornbusch was a biased source

He worked for the IMF to "stabilize" Latin American economies. Obviously he's not gonna be friendly to economically progressive policies. Also as I've mentioned before, impositions of debt by the IMF are a tool of neocolonialism that ensure the global south remains in a dependent state on the global north. If anything, Allende was making moves to ensure Chilean independence from neocolonial authorities. Carthage (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

yeah that probably should be removed. A somebody. (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC)So, because he worked for the IMF, he's biased? And how is the information innacurate? Can you please provide the factual information? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's incomplete and lacking perspective. US aid to Chile fell dramatically during the Allende presidency, which could very well have cushioned Chile's economy during Allende's move to cancel all imposed debt obligations from neocolonial authorities. But they didn't, because they were already planning to coup Allende. I at the very least wouldn't call that government incompetence, Allende's term was doomed to failure (and death) from the start simply because he was a socialist in the US's backyard. Carthage (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

So, can you provide an academic peer reviewed source claiming that the Chilean economic collapse wasn't because of Allende's policies? If you think it is incomplete, sure, you can add that to the article, as long as you have good sources (like Dornbusch, who is a respectable academic). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah:

The purpose of this article is to analyze U.S. involvement in the military overthrow of Chile’s popularly elected president, Dr. Salvador Allende, by examining the aims, efforts, and results of U.S. involvement. America’s aims were to prevent Allende’s rise to power, destabilize his government, and secure the interests of U.S.-owned multinational corporations in Chile. Allende was an avowed Marxist, and his socialist policies conflicted with America’s national interests. U.S. policy makers perceived Allende’s victory as a threat to hemispheric unity and a diffusion of Marxist ideology, which would be a huge setback for America’s power in world politics. In addition, Allende threatened America’s economic interests by nationalizing foreign-owned industries and bringing them under state control. Therefore, the U.S. government was compelled to intervene to protect its business and national security interests. Through the CIA and multinational giants like ITT, America imposed an invisible economic blockade on Chile and spread anti-Allende propaganda using covert action to diminish support for Allende in Chile. The White House plotted multiple times to provoke a military coup and provided selective aid to the military. Overall, the results of the overthrow of Allende and the subsequent military coup served America’s political and economic interests, even though U.S. involvement was not chiefly responsible for the overthrow. While U.S. involvement in Chile cannot be morally justified, it can be justified in terms of national security and the political and economic interests of America.

Yeah, this demonstrates that your edit is very much incomplete. Also, it's simple logic: The US is the world's largest economy and dominant political power. It cut off vital economic aid to Chile because Allende's policies threatened American economic and political interests. The global south is largely reliant on the global north because of deliberately unequal power relations. Ergo, Allende's policies were doomed to failure from the start because of the fact Chile was an entity in the global south also situated in the imperial backyard of the world's dominant political and economic power. Carthage (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Our article already mentions the Operation Condor, I think. Of course Allende fell because of America, no one is questioning this. The point is, the economy failed because he pursued bad policies. If it's simple logic, you can find people studying this. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In a neocolonial world, power differentials between the global north and the global south matter. I don't think Allende's policies were doomed to failure prima facie. If Allende had the support of the world's largest economy it is very well possible that his economic performance wouldn't've been as disastrous. Also remember the strike efforts by the Chilean bourgeoisie. That also negatively impacted Chile's economy because Allende's policies conflicted with their class interests. Carthage (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

(EC) No, it wasn't possible. Not when you're fiscal deficit reaches more than 20% of the GDP. Also, why should America support a country that defaulted on them? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm still waiting for your sources. Could Allende succeed? According to who? That's an honest question. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, because it conflicts with America's economic interests as an imperial (and capitalist) power. Socialism is an existential threat to the American system. If the global financial system wasn't set up from an imperialist perspective and instead out of solidarity and support for self-determination it could have played out very differently. Also, Chile's economy was largely reliant on copper exports, the prices for which fell. This is a typical trap of the global south, which tend to be exporting economies. In a global system deliberately designed to ensure a continuation of colonial policies any efforts to combat that system is going to be fighting an uphill battle. Allende lost, not because his policies were bad prima facie but because of circumstances beyond his control. (EC) Oh good god, GJK, this is basic dependency theory. Carthage (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

"If, if if". Again, you still haven't posted any sources claiming that dependency theory (I've read the guys in college, it's garbage) can explain how a country with such a huge deficit could succeed, or why should America help a country that was hostile towards her. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That reads like creationist criticism of scientific language. We're arguing about social constructs and theoretical economics here, not the laws of gravity. Notice how you (again) refuse to seriously engage with my arguments. I already explained why America is not going to help a country hostile to its economic interests as an imperial power. Because America is a colonizer, not a colony. I don't want to repeat myself. Even the fucking Harvard Review acknowledges that, say, the IMF is a tool of neocolonial dominance. Dependency theory is not as academically depreciated as you'd like to claim it is. Carthage (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Also that criticisim is rich considering the fact that your self-cited "best study on why Africa is poor" engages in heavy speculation itself. Carthage (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so you can't post a source of how can a country with such a gigantic deficit will not have hyperinflation. Yeah, you've explained. Your explanation is not enough. No country supports another one after a default. Of course, that's not excuse for supporting a coup (nothing is), but that still doesn't explain the problems Chile faced with Allende. Would you help a "friend" when they are clearly hostile towards you? No. Also, NBER, not the IMF (which is one of the leading institutions on economic research anyway) published the book. The author of the chapter is Chilean, and a UCLA scholar. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Sebastián Edwards is one of the 200 most cited economists in the world.[1] Can you post a source this good? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I think it explains it quite well. The US is a colonizing power, of course it's not gonna help a country rebelling against colonial oppression. My argument is that the system is set up to make any attempts at overthrowing colonial authority doomed to failure. What is ethical about this system? I think the reality of the situation is that matters are a lot more complex than it being wholly Allende's fault. With a hostile power to the north actively interfering with Chilean society, a hostile legislature and a hostile global system designed to keep the global south in heel (and yes, this includes the IMF and its "economic research" program, see here:

Finally, people’s judgments are clouded by their interests. Since economic theories bear so centrally on people’s interests, there are bound to be ideological biases at work in the discipline (Marx 1867, Preface). Positive and normative are especially interlinked within economics, because economists are not all researchers and teachers. In addition, economists work as commentators and as it were “hired guns” whose salaries depend on arriving at the conclusions their employers want. The bitter polemics concerning macroeconomic policy responses to the great recession beginning in 2008 testify to the influence of ideology. [2]

The IMF is an active participant in neocolonialism, of course it's going to promote perspectives that benefit it ideologically. Carthage (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Your argument has nothing to do with the discussion here, and you haven't answered my questions: 1 How could an economic downturn could be prevented when you have a 20% deficit? 2 Why should the US help Chile when they were defaulting? 3 Can you post which part of the information is incorrect instead of poisoning the well and using outdated sources, like what Marx said 150 years ago? Either ypou answer these three questions (with sources) or I'll revert your edit.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 12:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 1) I have already answered them at length. As the paper I link also argues, a combination of factors doomed Allende's socialist project that were largely outside of his control. Also, are we going to address your incredibly stupid and hypocritical "objection" to hypothesis and speculation or is that just going to be swept under the rug as well? 2) Obviously the authors of the Plato Encyclopedia of Philosophy disagree with you that Marx's point is irrelevant and "obsolete". 3) Anyway, for what should be obvious (the US is a dominant colonizing power, Chile is a client state of said power), this paper pretty much argues my point: Allende's socialist project was doomed by circumstances largely outside of Allende's control: [3] Carthage (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to say for the record that the rhetoric that Gee is utilizing of “my source is highly cited” is straight up a fallacious reason to propose that that the individual being cited is correct. On that logic, any hereditarianist can appeal to how widely cited Arthur Jensen is. Leaving out the fact that the vast majority of these citations are from papers discrediting Jensen’s work. Higher cite count does not correlate to higher quality research. It’s arguably a bit anti-empirical and is straight up just a appeal to authority fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Carthage No, you haven’t. Again, no one is denying that Allende fell because of the US. The point is, he was incompetent, and his economic policies didn’t work. Many incompetent leaders didn’t fall around the same time, some of them had support of the US (Peru, Brazil), and they were pursuing the same policies as Allende, some fell despite being supported by the US (Argentina). You still haven’t answered how he an economic catastrophe can be avoided when the country is spending itself to death. 20% of deficit in a developing country. When did it work? You know what a counterfactual is? Yeah, it’s obvious by the available literature that it couldn’t work. The SEP authors were using Marx on a historical perspective, no one uses him (except for a couple of cranks) as a source anymore, not because he was wrong, but because, like everyone writing 150 years ago, he’s outdated. Also, you didn’t answer. Why should the US help Chile when they were defaulting on them? 3 also you didn’t answer which part of the information provided by my sources is incorrect. You just said they are “biased”, but that doesn’t mean they anything. All the four authors of my source are among the 500 most cited economists in the world. Your source (E. James Walther) is what seems to be a non-peer-reviewed source from a literal nobody (independent researcher that is not even on RePec). You either post a decent source from a respectable academic or your point is nil. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb, We can check the authors one by one. Which of their works have been discredited? Of course, saying that a source is highly cited doesn’t mean that the source is correct, but, except for a few cases that pretty much prove the exception, it’s the best way to find out if the literature is good or not. There are papers defending every subject (remember anti-vaxxers during the pandemic? They could pull out this argument too), but we should use the most accepted literature. Comparing Arthur Jensen with Sebastián Edwards, probably the most respected economist from Latam, is asinine to say the least, even if you're using Jensen as an extreme example. Again, you're free to show how his views are not the most accepted on the economic history of Latam. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would have to strongly disagree with that for philosophical reasons and reasons related to the history of science. I mean we should also acknowledge that “cited by” and “acceptance” are not interchangeable concepts. Also how does one measure acceptance exactly without polling a representative sample of academics? Also accepted by who? Only people within discipline or others outside it? I think we need to appeal to the evidence that maximizes explanatory coherence, and demonstrates the strongest methodological rigor. A widely popular publication full of methodological flaws within a discipline that doesn’t acknowledge said flaws wouldn’t mean much of anything. Naturopaths have their own publications and journals, there also exists journals that promote “complementary and alternative medicine”. Regardless of how accepted the literature is within those “disciplines”, it would’t mean much right? Epistemic justification, hell, even science itself for that matter does not work on the basis of popular opinion, and/or prestigious authority. At the end of the day it’s about building theoretical models most consistent with our observations and data —- which we ought to gather in the most controlled and systematic ways we can. Sir Issac Newton was an extremely influential scientist for a very long time, but we now know his theories are technically wrong. We don’t progress science through appealing to popularity and reputation.

Also I wasn’t comparing Jensen with Edwards, that is a strawman fallacy. I was only using Jensen to explain why the argument is a logical fallacy. I was criticizing the logic you were using not Edwards himself. I used Jensen because my undergraduate degree is in psychology and that is the most relevant example from my educational background. Citation count does not imply anything whatsoever about research quality, there is no logical connection between the two. Extremely well designed studies can get ignored (think Mendel’s peas as a historical example), and extremely bad research can be highly cited (as Jensen proves). This doesn’t say anything at all about the qaulity of Edward’s work, it is directly a critique of your reasoning. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, that's what RePeC is used for. The rule of thumb is, if a paper or an article is high on there, it's usually accepted by most of the scholars. You're free to cite another method to find what's the most accepted. Problem is RePeC is the most accepted method. There are many similar indexes,(h-index, impact factor) that we can also use to see if an author is prestigious or not. And they all show how respected Sebastián Edwards is.. It's true, science doesn't work on authority, but we're are not going to change the mainstream here. We work with scientific dissemination, none of us are experts. Our article on climate change wouldn't say that climate change is real if it wasn't the most accepted view. Do we have any reasons that his publication is filled with methodological errors? If not, your "critique" is irrelevant here, and should, at best, be on my talk page. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Our stance about climate change being real should be based on the scientific evidence, that is what scientific skepticism is about. Anthropogenic climate change is the most coherent theory for all our current data on the earth’s current and past climate. It also extends phenomena we have observed and utilized in disciplines like physical chemistry, and astrophysics. You’d have to reject so much evidence from ice-core data, to satellite imagery, to atmospheric sampling, as well as, so many experiments within physical chemistry that demonstrate greenhouse effects with gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour, etc. The evidence for greenhouse effects on Venus, and all the data we have on ice sheets, rising sea levels, etc. You can not adequately explain all this phenomena, with all the pre-suppositions regarding naturalism being equal, in such a way as to be maximally coherent while rejecting climate change. That’s why the scientific consensus exists, that’s why we should accept the reality of climate change. It’s the same with evolution via natural selection. Biological science makes far less sense without it. It is a mistake to think of genuine scientific consensus as merely heing a product of expert agreement. Experts have massively agreed upon things and dubbed them “scientific” in the past and turned out to be radically wrong. The history of scientific racialism can attest to that. It was once medical consensus that homosexuality was a mental illness. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, science was wrong before, we have an article on that. It is now, on this specific subject? I don't think we have any reason to believe it is. Especially considering the evidence (or the lack of it) being brought to this page. We know that Allende's policies harmed Chile (and not only on Chile, again, Structuralist economics is huge on South America, even if it doesn't considered pseudoscientific elsewhere) for a plethora of reasons: huge deficit, money printing, lack of respect of property rights, sovereign default... Same as climate change, there's a huge body of theory that is widely accepted. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

You are completely misunderstanding the point. The argument I am making isn’t reason to reject science as that article is actually about. My point is that scientific evidence, explanatory coherence, and rigorous methodology is historically more reliable than popular opinion within an academic discipline. How annoyed would you be with a naturopath that insisted that only the consensus of “N.D”’s mattered on the topic of naturopathic medicine? This is why you have to look at the sum total of accessible empirical evidence on a whole to make accurate judgements with scientific worth. Otherwise you are just doing the disciplinary equivalent of cherry picking. If some biological theory or finding came into conflict with the empirical evidence or known laws within, say, physics, that would be a problem. A problem that wouldn’t be resolved by ignoring physicists simply because they are not biologists. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

No, I'm not understanding your point at all. Are you saying that my sources might perhaps lack scientific evidence, explanatory coherence, and rigorous methodology? Or that maybe they are not looking at the sum total of accessible empirical evidence? Or that the consensus on other disciplines might be different? Because those are the possibilities I see from your post (maybe there's something I'm missing).GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Also to compare popular theories about the causal effects of Allende policies as being on par in terms of epistemic justification to climate change is a faulty analogy fallacy. Even granting that all the most rigorous evidence within economics or even other social sciences make it clear that Allende’s policies “harmed” Chile, there are still massive relative differences. The evidence and research into climate change has a global scope with evidence stretching back to at least the last ice age. Climate change is structurally impeded in a plethora of natural sciences from biology, geology, astrophysics, chemistry, meteorology, climatology, etc. Climate change is a active component to modern STEM education. The evidence we have across a multitude of different scientific disciplines is mountainous, and a lot of it is experimental as well as observational. That’s not comparable to the relatively softer non-experimental evidence from a insular social science. Not even close. There is no comparison here. The theory of human-caused climate change is a product of a multitude of hard sciences, not evidence accumulated from a single soft science. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You use Arthur Jensen as an analogy and claim that my analogy is faulty? Look, I'm trying to be polite here. You either get on-topic (were Allende policies harmful or not? According to who? What is the evidence) or we don't have any reason to keep this conversation. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, your assumption that Arthur Jensen was being used as an analogy is actually a strawman. I used him as an example, not an analogy. I demonstrated the faulty logic using Jensen to make it clearer. That wasn’t an analogy, that was a demonstration. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean if inflation really did get that high due to Allende’s policies then probably. I think that is fairly reasonable. You can still be arguing a correct conclusion but using logical fallacies to do so. To assume otherwise is the basis to the fallacy fallacy. Also I don’t know if Carthage was making so bold a claim as to suggest Allende’s policies were uncontroversially harmless. I think that may be a reductive interpretation of her argument. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Ok, so you will keep posting off-topic stuff instead of posting actual sources that might contradict mine. Good night then. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that 1) I did and 2) none of this is off-topic. It's directly relevant to the thread at hand. But go ahead, continue to act in bad faith while accusing others of doing the same. Also yeah, I wasn't arguing that Allende's policies were harmless. I was arguing that they were doomed from the start because of forces outside of his control. The cited paper you asked for (and then proceeded to poison the well and insinuate that because of the author being an independent researcher and not a prominent Nobel Prize winning author means it's somehow invalid, you know, a classic argument from authority. Also as OSD pointed out above, we're dealing with isolated cases that can't be independently replicated by controlled experiments in a sterile setting, meaning that unlike in the hard sciences with, say, evolution there's going to invariably be room for social interpretations inconsistent with the model propagated by the IMF and related authorities seeing as how we're dealing with the soft sciences which have an inherent ideological aspect to them the physical sciences lack) also argues the same. Continue to move the goalposts, GJK. Carthage (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Anyways, I won't object to you readding the content I reverted. However I am going to add the following sentence: "However, it can also be argued that Allende's economic policies were not prima facie bad on their own, but were harmful because of circumstances outside of Allende's control, including de facto sanctioning by the big-ass imperial elephant in the room the US of A, the hyperpolarization of Chilean society ensuring that practically no cooperation with Allende's goals was possible (seeing as how Allende's radical policies to pursue economic autonomy from neocolonial authorities needed immense popular support to succeed, something the hyperpolarized Chilean environment ensured was impossible), the common pitfalls of economies in the global south being exporting economies (international copper prices fell just as Allende nationalized the Chilean copper industry), among other factors." Carthage (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Then I will oppose to your edit. To add that you will have to find either a (good) source that support the economic theory behind Allende's policies (huge deficit, money printing, lack of respect of property rights, sovereign default) even though they have historically failed everywhere, even in countries supported by the US or a (good) counterfactual source that suggest that they could have worked in Chile. And by good I mean something that was written by an important academic, like the ones I've posted. Despite your claims, you still haven't done this. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And that's still an argument from authority. Keep moving the goalposts, GJK. You asked for a citation. I gave you one. Apparently that's no longer the relevant qualifier. Carthage (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) You gave a non-peer-reviwed citation from an independent researcher. That's just as good as no citation at all. Give a good citation from an academic and you can add your sentence. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Walther is a former diplomat affiliated with the Dickinson College Department of Economics. Ignoring your continued anti-empirical attitude, I'd hardly call that an "unqualified amateur" (let's ignore the subtle snobbery there). And even then, as OSD points out, peer review is itself not automatically a guaranteed qualifier of research. Note however, that my proposed edit doesn't say that this is fact, just that it's a legitimate argument one can make as informed by the relevant empirical evidence. Carthage (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ And I'm saying it's not a good argument. Yes, being peer reviewed is not enough for something to be a good argument. But when you can't find any peer-reviewed source it means that your argument is so fringe than it's probably not correct according to the best knowledge available. Even Wikipedia (the most unbiased source) has WP:Fringe and Wikipedia:Undue for this sort of ideas. "Dickinson College" is not even among the top 50 Liberal arts colleges in the US and this Walther guy is not on RePeC (meaning that his academic reputation is nil). And before you cry about ad verecundiam, read our own article and see what is has to say about experts. Only one source, that is not peer-reviewed, and was written by a total nobody, is not good enough and you will have to live with that. Find another one, it shouldn't be that hard. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please take care to explain how something like sanctions from the dominant economic power on the planet, copper prices falling when Chile's predominant export is copper, and large swathes of the classes with the largest market share (and thus the largest class interest against Allende's proposed reforms) refusing to cooperate with Allende's economic plans all fall under Allende's control and also don't directly impact the Chilean economy somehow? The economy is not an isolated entity in a vacuum, it's a dynamic system informed by a greater human whole. Also, this wiki isn't Wikipedia. It allows for original research. Aside from that, Dickinson's ratings are irrelevant and an snobbish aside. Walther, as I mentioned before, is a former diplomat. Do you seriously think someone not involved in international affairs is going to be ignorant about international affairs? Carthage (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a strawman. I never said that those weren't important factors (I said that Allende's default was one of the reasons why the economic plummeted during his govenment) I just said that they were going to fail anyway because that's what happens when you reach a 20% fiscal deficit. Brazil is probably the best example we have to compare with Chile. They were backed by US, so no sanctions here. They also defaulted. They also had a huge deficit and started to print money. Guess what happened? Also, now you're the one appealing authority. Are you sure there is no one else claiming that same things as him, someone with, you know, respect inside the Academia that can publish peer-reviewed papers? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok then. Since I'm arguing that Allende's policies failed because of factors outside of his direct control, and you're saying my criticism is a strawman of your argument (when it's the thing I've been arguing all along), then why are you objecting to me adding that sentence? The paper argues basically the same thing I'm arguing. Nothing about this is that controversial. To repeat myself, "However, it can also be argued that Allende's economic policies were not prima facie bad on their own, but were harmful because of circumstances outside of Allende's control, including de facto sanctioning by the big-ass imperial elephant in the room the US of A, the hyperpolarization of Chilean society ensuring that practically no cooperation with Allende's goals was possible (seeing as how Allende's radical policies to pursue economic autonomy from neocolonial authorities needed immense popular support to succeed, something the hyperpolarized Chilean environment ensured was impossible), the common pitfalls of economies in the global south being exporting economies (international copper prices fell just as Allende nationalized the Chilean copper industry), among other factors.".

It's a sufficient compromise. My initial contention in the first place was that your assessment was incomplete. Also, no, my response to you is a rebuttal to your claims that Walthers is some ignorant nobody. It's a response to your argument from authority. Carthage (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Because I'm not arguing the same thing as you. I'm saying that they would fail anyway. There is no evidence that they could succeed~. Yes, they were prima facie bad on their own. There is no reason to believe that they could work, in Chile or elsewhere. You can, if you want to, rephrase it and say that these elements were also bad for Chile, but saying that there is evidence that they could work is denialism. That's all. Finally, regarding Walthers, I'm pretty sure he's a nobody, otherwise, we would see him on Repec and on a major university, but he is not even relevant enough to have a page on Wikipedia. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Just revert your edit and say that all those factors worked together and call it a day. This is getting tiresome. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I just did. Agree that it's getting tiresome. However, I disagree that economic democracy or the redistribution of lands to ensure more equitable access to real estate is prima facie a bad thing, as is nationalization of industries, British health insurance is nationalized for instance and it works, not perfectly but it's functional. Chile's problem was circumstance (it's an exporting economy and I do think that rising copper prices during this period is a relevant factor), and "instituting a programme to provide free milk to children." Perhaps a way to smooth over the transition (and therefore prevent elite disgruntlement) is to sufficiently compensate landowners for the usage of eminent domain (something we do here in the States all the time). How is this denialism? Carthage (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

We can talk about that elsewhere, I'd rather focus on Allende here. The current state of the article is good enough for me. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carthage (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)