Opinion of Camila Vallejo

[Anna Komnene]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/20/chile-student-rebel-camila-vallejo

[Lumine]

Neutral. I think she's a natural leader, with a lot of political potential, but I personally dislike her. First, I have never been an avid supporter of the student protests, and Second, she has become the public face of the Communist Party. Now, as a general rule I appreciate and respect the communists here (mostly because they are not really extremists and are willing to compromise), but she has shown her support for certain anti-democratic world leaders, and she has criticized the government and the right for not being democratic enough. I hate that kind of double standard, and it happens a lot here.

[Kitteh]

Nice that we have a Chilean here to give their opinion!

Neutral. I think she's a natural leader, with a lot of political potential, but I personally dislike her. First, I have never been an avid supporter of the student protests, and Second, she has become the public face of the Communist Party. Now, as a general rule I appreciate and respect the communists here (mostly because they are not really extremists and are willing to compromise), but she has shown her support for certain anti-democratic world leaders, and she has criticized the government and the right for not being democratic enough. I hate that kind of double standard, and it happens a lot here.

One question: by "certain anti-democratic world leaders" you meant Hugo Chavez/Evo Morales and such?

[Lumine]

Nice that we have a Chilean here to give their opinion!

Neutral. I think she's a natural leader, with a lot of political potential, but I personally dislike her. First, I have never been an avid supporter of the student protests, and Second, she has become the public face of the Communist Party. Now, as a general rule I appreciate and respect the communists here (mostly because they are not really extremists and are willing to compromise), but she has shown her support for certain anti-democratic world leaders, and she has criticized the government and the right for not being democratic enough. I hate that kind of double standard, and it happens a lot here.

One question: by "certain anti-democratic world leaders" you meant Hugo Chavez/Evo Morales and such?

Well, yes, but in this case the real problem for me is her praise and support for Fidel Castro (I don't like Chavez or Morales, but they are still democratic), especially when you take the the human rights issue into account. The left here always victimizes itself because of the bloody and harsh repression of Pinochet, but they simply don't care when people like Castro (Or Erich Honecker, since they gave him asylum in 1991) use the same repressive methods.

[Anna Komnene]

It seems to me that her cause has a lot of merits.  When inequality is so high and parents have to pay high percentages of their yearly income not just for university education but also high school, that's a big problem.  Also, it's not just that families have to pay but that the schools are making money off of the situation.  I prefer working through established institutions when possible, but when so many of the politicians have a vested interest in the education business, it makes things difficult.  Usually when so many people join a social movement, it means that all the legal avenues have already been tried a number of times.

I'm not sure of the context of her comments on Castro and certainly don't condone that in any way.  Despite that though, she's said she wants to run for the Chamber of Deputies, so that pretty much suggests a support for the democratic process, right?

[Velasco]

Freedom Fighter, despite Castro. I coincide in what she has natural qualities of leadership. On the other hand, I believe that the student protests in Chile -not only during Piñera's mandate but also when Concertación was governing- are completely justified. In a country where a serious economic inequality persists, the fact that the students have to finance 75 % of their training  goes totally in opposition to the equality of opportunities. On the other hand, it's necessary to deal Fidel Castro's conversion in a myth with the Latin-American context. The Cuban leader has been always perceived as a banner against the Latin American oligarchies and the US interventionism in the region. Far away from my intention justifying Castro, oth, but I think that some apparently controversial sympathies can be explained in the light of the recent History in that continent.

The phrase "the left victimizes itself" because of Pinochet seems a bit unsuccessful to me, Lumine.

[Lumine]

To be honest, that line here would have costed me a hard discussion (or a fight) with a lot of people, but I've always felt that way about the Concertacion and the PC.

Now, I'm not a Pinochet supporter, but the fact is that the right wing generals and politicians had to pay the price of their many crimes, but since the return of democracy (23 years already) many terrorists from the FPMN (Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez) and other subversive groups escaped justice without many problems. Some of them even shot and killed Senator Jaime Guzman in 1991 and then escaped jail in a helicopter, and they still don't get a real trial.

To give a more recent example: Yesterday, Guillermo Teiller (President of the Communist Party and a close ally of Camila Vallejos) claimed to have given the authorization for the assassination attempt on Pinochet in 1987. For me, it doesn't matter if you like or dislike Pinochet, that's a confession on an attack on the Head of State, but the only negative reactions come from the right or the DC leadership. Both the PC and most of the Concertacion claim to oppose human rights violations and to be supporters of democracy, but they have supported people like Erich Honecker and they remain silent about their part of the guilt for what happened in the 70's and the 80's. That's why I think of them as a bunch of hypocrites, even more than those damned neoliberals who have been selling the country since the 1980's.

[Ichabod]

Something is very wrong with your argument (and it is actually the same thing that Government Ministers said in Chile yesterday), killing Pinochet =/= violations to Human Rights.

And BTW, no right-wing politician have payed a d..n price for supporting Pinochet's dictatorship (many of them are Ministers, Deputies or Senators) and militars who were find guilty by murders, tortures, etc., are not suffering at all (remember that they have Internet in Punta Peuco).

[Lumine]

Something is very wrong with your argument (and it is actually the same thing that Government Ministers said in Chile yesterday), killing Pinochet =/= violations to Human Rights.

And BTW, no right-wing politician have payed a d..n price for supporting Pinochet's dictatorship (many of them are Ministers, Deputies or Senators) and militars who were find guilty by murders, tortures, etc., are not suffering at all (remember that they have Internet in Punta Peuco).

Well, I believe that any kind of political killing is wrong, regardless of the person, be either Pinochet, Roger Vergara, Jose Toha, Edmundo Perez-Zujovic, Salvador Allende (I know he committed suicide, but I'll include him here), Jaime Guzman, etc. Perhaps the condemned soldiers and officers are not in extremely harsh prisons, but at least they are serving a sentence, not hiding in foreign countries like Galvarino Apablaza. The same with left wing politicians, most of them followed the democratic road during the eighties, but there are several of them who kidnapped, killed and robbed during that period, and they had no trials at all.

Now, I acknowledge that I'm asking too much and being way too naive if I expect both the left and right to admit that they were both wrong and that both sides committed several crimes and assassinations, but since it looks like the main vision (or the more popular) seems to be left=good side, right=bad side, I would rather attack the PC and the former members of terrorist groups (like the FPMN).

[Velasco]

I won't try to do a defense of the FPMR, but some people think that it's legitimate rise up in arms against a dictatorship. For example, a candidate of the Chilean PC believes that the so called operation 20th Century (carried out in 1986) was justified because Chile was under an oppressive regime. Nevertheless he doesn't justify the murder of the senator Guzmán five years later. He says: " I don't share it. We were not in dictatorship. Chile was changing (...) There were people who didn't understand it "

http://www.elmostrador.cl/noticias/pais/2013/04/01/ballesteros-defiende-atentado-del-fpmr-contra-pincohet-y-dice-que-heroes-de-la-patria-tambien-tomaron-las-armas/

In Spain there are people who was thinking that ETA'S activity (assassination of Carrero Blanco in 1973) was justified under the dictatorship of Franco. Nevertheless, the terrorist band prolonged its activity far beyond of 1975 and a majority of the terrorist attacks happened during the democratic period.

I don't see that the crimes and oppression of Pinochet and the activity of the FPMR are remotely comparable. I would condemn the murders committed after 1990 and hold some reservation towards the previous activities of the FPMR, up to knowing more in depth what happened.

[Lurker]

Something is very wrong with your argument (and it is actually the same thing that Government Ministers said in Chile yesterday), killing Pinochet =/= violations to Human Rights.

And BTW, no right-wing politician have payed a d..n price for supporting Pinochet's dictatorship (many of them are Ministers, Deputies or Senators) and militars who were find guilty by murders, tortures, etc., are not suffering at all (remember that they have Internet in Punta Peuco).

Well, I believe that any kind of political killing is wrong, regardless of the person, be either Pinochet [...]

Why would there be anything morally wrong with assasinating Pinochet, a brutal dictator who only came to power through a coup d'état? The only regretable aspect of the attempt seems to have been its outcome, as far as I can see.
Would your condemnation of political killings ("any kind") extend to the July 20 plot (1944) as well?

[Lumine]

Something is very wrong with your argument (and it is actually the same thing that Government Ministers said in Chile yesterday), killing Pinochet =/= violations to Human Rights.

And BTW, no right-wing politician have payed a d..n price for supporting Pinochet's dictatorship (many of them are Ministers, Deputies or Senators) and militars who were find guilty by murders, tortures, etc., are not suffering at all (remember that they have Internet in Punta Peuco).

Well, I believe that any kind of political killing is wrong, regardless of the person, be either Pinochet [...]

Why would there be anything morally wrong with assasinating Pinochet, a brutal dictator who only came to power through a coup d'état? The only regretable aspect of the attempt seems to have been its outcome, as far as I can see.
Would your condemnation of political killings ("any kind") extend to the July 20 plot (1944) as well?

I'm trying to make a point about the way both sides see those years, because they only justify themselves and they are unable to at least make a compromise (the right painting Allende as an extremist, for example, even if he was quite moderate). I suppose that if we start justifing certain deaths then all of them will be justified, and that would be a mistake.

Now, I understand that Pinochet was a traitor to the legitimate government, and that his ridiculous pride cost us 17 years of a dictatorial system. But do you think that killing him in 1986 would have made things better? As I discovered in the recent days, many Concertacion politicians derided Teiller and the extremists for giving the military a reason to crack down on them. Taking Pinochet out would have created widespread chaos, and even if his implied succesor wasn't particulary harsh (Admiral Jose Toribio Merino), the likely result would have been a worse repression during the final years and even more troubles to enter democracy. Taking the same analogy, it would be like killing Hitler and replacing him with Himmler or Reinhard Heydrich, and at the same time giving them yet another motive to create a bloodbath.

[Lurker]

[Well, I believe that any kind of political killing is wrong, regardless of the person, be either Pinochet [...]

Why would there be anything morally wrong with assasinating Pinochet, a brutal dictator who only came to power through a coup d'état? The only regretable aspect of the attempt seems to have been its outcome, as far as I can see.
Would your condemnation of political killings ("any kind") extend to the July 20 plot (1944) as well?

I'm trying to make a point about the way both sides see those years, because they only justify themselves and they are unable to at least make a compromise (the right painting Allende as an extremist, for example, even if he was quite moderate). I suppose that if we start justifing certain deaths then all of them will be justified, and that would be a mistake.

Now, I understand that Pinochet was a traitor to the legitimate government, and that his ridiculous pride cost us 17 years of a dictatorial system. But do you think that killing him in 1986 would have made things better? As I discovered in the recent days, many Concertacion politicians derided Teiller and the extremists for giving the military a reason to crack down on them. Taking Pinochet out would have created widespread chaos, and even if his implied succesor wasn't particulary harsh (Admiral Jose Toribio Merino), the likely result would have been a worse repression during the final years and even more troubles to enter democracy. Taking the same analogy, it would be like killing Hitler and replacing him with Himmler or Reinhard Heydrich, and at the same time giving them yet another motive to create a bloodbath.

I don't think a succesfull assasination would have made things better, no. And with the benefit of hindsight, it is probably a very good thing that it failed. Still, it was an understandable act at the time, and I personally can't see anything morally wrong with it, considering the circumstances. I see  that this is quite off-topic though, so sorry for derailing this thread further .

[Lumine]

[Well, I believe that any kind of political killing is wrong, regardless of the person, be either Pinochet [...]

Why would there be anything morally wrong with assasinating Pinochet, a brutal dictator who only came to power through a coup d'état? The only regretable aspect of the attempt seems to have been its outcome, as far as I can see.
Would your condemnation of political killings ("any kind") extend to the July 20 plot (1944) as well?

I'm trying to make a point about the way both sides see those years, because they only justify themselves and they are unable to at least make a compromise (the right painting Allende as an extremist, for example, even if he was quite moderate). I suppose that if we start justifing certain deaths then all of them will be justified, and that would be a mistake.

Now, I understand that Pinochet was a traitor to the legitimate government, and that his ridiculous pride cost us 17 years of a dictatorial system. But do you think that killing him in 1986 would have made things better? As I discovered in the recent days, many Concertacion politicians derided Teiller and the extremists for giving the military a reason to crack down on them. Taking Pinochet out would have created widespread chaos, and even if his implied succesor wasn't particulary harsh (Admiral Jose Toribio Merino), the likely result would have been a worse repression during the final years and even more troubles to enter democracy. Taking the same analogy, it would be like killing Hitler and replacing him with Himmler or Reinhard Heydrich, and at the same time giving them yet another motive to create a bloodbath.

I don't think a succesfull assasination would have made things better, no. And with the benefit of hindsight, it is probably a very good thing that it failed. Still, it was an understandable act at the time, and I personally can't see anything morally wrong with it, considering the circumstances. I see  that this is quite off-topic though, so sorry for derailing this thread further .

Well, despite the fact that I have problems being objective (or rational, it depends), it's always interesting for me to discuss this part of history, specially when there are conflicting views. But you're right, we are waaaay off topic...