An article about the brutal September 11th 1973 coup in Chile, the spread of neoliberalism, and US complicity with terrorism. [Repost of an article from the original AAV blog]
The term "neoliberal" has become an Alice-in-Wonderland word—it means whatever the user wants it to mean. It’s a vague, lazy and overused term that should be dropped, as everyone seems to have a different definition.
You’ve perfectly illustrated my point—thank you. The Venn diagram of fascist and neoliberal ideologies shows very little overlap. One advocates for a big state, the other for a small state; one is nationalistic, the other globalist, etc. The fact that you see them as almost interchangeable highlights the point I was making: neoliberal has become an "Alice-in-Wonderland" word, where its meaning shifts depending on who is using it. The same could be said for fascist—ask five people to define it, and you’ll likely get five different answers. It’s fascinating try it!
Socialist probably has even more variation. To many on the right, it’s synonymous with communism, while to those on the left, it can refer to a soft, Nordic style of governance. The range of interpretations for the word socialist is so broad that it often loses its usefulness in discussions.
Apologies if I’ve gone down a bit of a semantics rabbit hole, but I think it’s essential that we’re all speaking the same language in these debates.
For some, socialism represents a failed ideology. For me, socialism represents hope. For many, capitalism represents the status quo. For me, capitalism represents a failed ideology. Fascism was not expunged by the second World War. It went underground and re-emerged as libertarianism. Sounds nice. But it is the ideology of me, me, me ....
And here again is a beautiful representation of the problem—people on both the left and right are wedded to their beliefs through emotion. In your case, the hope that you feel seems to me to crowd out and overwhelm a dispassionate and logic-based position. It’s almost religious, and you can rarely bring a religious person to apostasy with facts or logic. They need to find their own path; all you can do is lead the way and hope they choose to follow (yes, I am a pretty strong atheist).
In the hope (probably futile) that I may apostatize you a little from your quasi-religious position, I pose a question that I hope you will consider:
What does success look like? What measures should we use to assess if a system is working? There are lots of answers to this. Personally, I would offer a range of measures, including life expectancy, child mortality, poverty, and education. On all these measures and many more, the last 30 years have been the best in human history globally—and by a huge margin. For example, in 1980, extreme poverty was at 42%; now it is 9%. Look at Our World in Data for the stats. What measures would you add? Look them up and ask yourself honestly whether they are improving.
Thank you, Dan, this is what I understand it to mean as well. Interesting to note Caroline's comment above: "Would 'fascist' do? Less wishy-washy." The implication (as I read it) is that fascist and neoliberal are interchangeable! This reminds me of The Young Ones, Rick Mail at his best and sort of makes my point for me.
I also note that the definition above has no mention of foreign policy at all. Tom (AAV) has simply attributed the '73 coup to neoliberals, but he has offered no evidence to link the two at all. America has an awful record of interference in Latin America, and the '73 coup could be seen as yet another in a series of anti-left meddling — Guatemala (1954), Cuba ('59, '61), Brazil (1964) (note these predate neoliberalism).
The '73 coup could be seen as yet another case of awful meddling for economic gain—look at the Banana Wars way back in the 1890s, which again predate neoliberalism. What arguments, what evidence, has Tom provided that "this coup marked the birth of the toxic neoliberal ideology"? None. He has just stated it and ignored the long history of similar events that predate neoliberalism. It's just arbitrary nonsense from Tom.
Anyhow, it's Friday, and I can almost smell a beer! Have a top weekend, Sam.
Deregulation led to the Grenfell disaster and lack of government investment contributes to low levels of productivity. It is very convenient to keep blaming the workers for this but they have been screwed and the pips are squeaking, so to speak.
This is as clear and concise an unpacking of the past 50 years as I've seen, thanks for helping put events into context. Do you remember that film "Missing" about jack Lemon searching for his son in Chile after the coup and discovering the CIA were there too? We knew of our complicity even then but it gets rinsed through Hollywood.
Naomi Klein’s excellent The Shock Doctrine provides lots of detail about the Chicago School of Economics invention of Neoliberalism and its deployment in 70s South America. In particular it details Thatcher’s worship of one of the School’s founders, Milton Friedman, which in turn led to the popular student protest chant, Thatcher Thatcher Milk Snatcher!
I think it would take a severe level of self-deception to believe the official narrative of 9-11, that it was 'blowback', I mean.
You have correctly described an uninterrupted cooperation between America/CIA and Al Qaeda, starting with Operation Cyclone in 1979. And yet, are you seriously asking your readers to believe that 9-11 was the one blip on an otherwise unblemished historical record of association between CIA and Al Qaeda (and all its offshoots)?
That strikes me as what they now call 'cognitive dissonance'.
Perhaps it's that you are scared of being labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist'? Well, I would say that's pure cowardice. Place that cowardice against your responsibility and duty to wake people up and fully inform them about the evil monsters who have always been in charge of America (and, well, Britain too for that matter). It is totally naive and gullible to believe the monsters' version of 9-11 - to think that on this one occasion they were the 'victims' and 'the good guys', and that they wouldn't stoop to murdering 'their own' citizens/subjects in order to provide a pretext to murder millions of others.
And not just with war - with neoliberalism too. You have ably described the evil of neoliberalism, after all. Although you should remember that neoliberalism was never an 'economic' system - it is a system of social control (through enforced scarcity, especially of money) and exploitation, dressed up to look like an economic system.
So you just have to look at the evil things these monsters do in order to perpetuate their neoliberal system.
It would be psychologically unbelievable indeed if the official narrative of 9-11 was in any way true. We're talking about evil monsters here. And for evil to flourish, it only takes good people to do and say nothing. Being called a 'conspiracy theorist' - and by evil monsters themselves, ironically - is a small price to pay, and should not be seen as a deterrent to telling the truth and motivating people.
Aside from that one blip, I thought your article was both brilliant and timely.
Please provide a summary to these valuable screeds! This article discusses several interconnected themes related to U.S. foreign policy, terrorism, and economic ideology:
1. 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy:
- The article criticizes the U.S. commemoration of 9/11, pointing out American support for Islamist groups in the past (e.g., Afghanistan in the 1980s, Kosovo in the 1990s).
- It suggests that 9/11 was "blowback" from U.S. foreign policy decisions.
- The author notes the irony of the U.S. considering supporting Islamist groups in Syria in 2013, just 12 years after 9/11.
2. Chilean coup and neoliberalism:
- The article focuses on the U.S.-backed coup in Chile on September 11, 1973, which overthrew Salvador Allende and installed Augusto Pinochet.
- This coup is presented as the birth of neoliberalism, an economic ideology developed by the Chicago School economists.
- The Pinochet regime is described as brutal, with thousands killed, tortured, or detained without trial.
3. Operation Condor and U.S. support for dictatorships:
- The article discusses Operation Condor, a U.S.-supported plan to install right-wing dictatorships in South America.
- It mentions several countries involved, including Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay.
- The Argentine junta is highlighted as particularly brutal, with an estimated 30,000 civilians killed.
4. Spread of neoliberalism:
- The article argues that neoliberal policies (deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts) were imposed in these countries, causing poverty and economic chaos.
- It suggests that state terrorism was used to suppress opposition to these economic policies.
5. U.S. historical narrative:
- The author criticizes the belief that the U.S. promotes democracy and freedom globally, arguing that its actions often undermine these values.
- The article calls for remembering victims of U.S.-backed dictatorships and neoliberal policies alongside 9/11 victims.
Overall, the article presents a critical view of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Latin America, and argues that the spread of neoliberalism has had devastating consequences for many people worldwide.
Islamic fanatics in Kosovo? Maybe you should define Serbian mercenaries as Orthodox Christian fanatics ... Kosova was subjugated by Serbian Tchetniks and government for 100 years and they had the right to fught off the Serbian State terror. Calling them fanatics, and religious ones, shows how far off the mark you are. I am otherwise impressed by your work but on this issue you are an absolute moron 100%.
Yes, this where it began, and how it has continued ever since. Remember Thatcher's sinister threat: "There is no alternative".
Contrary to the myth of "the iron lady", I think she was a stooge. Culpable nonetheless.
She was definitely selected and groomed by some very ruthless men.
The term "neoliberal" has become an Alice-in-Wonderland word—it means whatever the user wants it to mean. It’s a vague, lazy and overused term that should be dropped, as everyone seems to have a different definition.
Would 'fascist' do? Less wishy-washy.
Morning Caroline,
You’ve perfectly illustrated my point—thank you. The Venn diagram of fascist and neoliberal ideologies shows very little overlap. One advocates for a big state, the other for a small state; one is nationalistic, the other globalist, etc. The fact that you see them as almost interchangeable highlights the point I was making: neoliberal has become an "Alice-in-Wonderland" word, where its meaning shifts depending on who is using it. The same could be said for fascist—ask five people to define it, and you’ll likely get five different answers. It’s fascinating try it!
Socialist probably has even more variation. To many on the right, it’s synonymous with communism, while to those on the left, it can refer to a soft, Nordic style of governance. The range of interpretations for the word socialist is so broad that it often loses its usefulness in discussions.
Apologies if I’ve gone down a bit of a semantics rabbit hole, but I think it’s essential that we’re all speaking the same language in these debates.
All the best,
Sam
Hello Sam,
I appreciate the points you make. None 9f us are speaking the same language. The ring lies the problem.
Best wishes, Caroline
For some, socialism represents a failed ideology. For me, socialism represents hope. For many, capitalism represents the status quo. For me, capitalism represents a failed ideology. Fascism was not expunged by the second World War. It went underground and re-emerged as libertarianism. Sounds nice. But it is the ideology of me, me, me ....
https://youtu.be/_tUctFu46_c?si=G_gF_0fw80ZuAt75
Hi Caroline,
And here again is a beautiful representation of the problem—people on both the left and right are wedded to their beliefs through emotion. In your case, the hope that you feel seems to me to crowd out and overwhelm a dispassionate and logic-based position. It’s almost religious, and you can rarely bring a religious person to apostasy with facts or logic. They need to find their own path; all you can do is lead the way and hope they choose to follow (yes, I am a pretty strong atheist).
In the hope (probably futile) that I may apostatize you a little from your quasi-religious position, I pose a question that I hope you will consider:
What does success look like? What measures should we use to assess if a system is working? There are lots of answers to this. Personally, I would offer a range of measures, including life expectancy, child mortality, poverty, and education. On all these measures and many more, the last 30 years have been the best in human history globally—and by a huge margin. For example, in 1980, extreme poverty was at 42%; now it is 9%. Look at Our World in Data for the stats. What measures would you add? Look them up and ask yourself honestly whether they are improving.
All the best
Sam
Really?
Oxford English Dictionary definition:
"a political approach that favours free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending."
I'd say that's how most here are using the term
Thank you, Dan, this is what I understand it to mean as well. Interesting to note Caroline's comment above: "Would 'fascist' do? Less wishy-washy." The implication (as I read it) is that fascist and neoliberal are interchangeable! This reminds me of The Young Ones, Rick Mail at his best and sort of makes my point for me.
I also note that the definition above has no mention of foreign policy at all. Tom (AAV) has simply attributed the '73 coup to neoliberals, but he has offered no evidence to link the two at all. America has an awful record of interference in Latin America, and the '73 coup could be seen as yet another in a series of anti-left meddling — Guatemala (1954), Cuba ('59, '61), Brazil (1964) (note these predate neoliberalism).
The '73 coup could be seen as yet another case of awful meddling for economic gain—look at the Banana Wars way back in the 1890s, which again predate neoliberalism. What arguments, what evidence, has Tom provided that "this coup marked the birth of the toxic neoliberal ideology"? None. He has just stated it and ignored the long history of similar events that predate neoliberalism. It's just arbitrary nonsense from Tom.
Anyhow, it's Friday, and I can almost smell a beer! Have a top weekend, Sam.
Deregulation led to the Grenfell disaster and lack of government investment contributes to low levels of productivity. It is very convenient to keep blaming the workers for this but they have been screwed and the pips are squeaking, so to speak.
This is as clear and concise an unpacking of the past 50 years as I've seen, thanks for helping put events into context. Do you remember that film "Missing" about jack Lemon searching for his son in Chile after the coup and discovering the CIA were there too? We knew of our complicity even then but it gets rinsed through Hollywood.
Naomi Klein’s excellent The Shock Doctrine provides lots of detail about the Chicago School of Economics invention of Neoliberalism and its deployment in 70s South America. In particular it details Thatcher’s worship of one of the School’s founders, Milton Friedman, which in turn led to the popular student protest chant, Thatcher Thatcher Milk Snatcher!
I think it would take a severe level of self-deception to believe the official narrative of 9-11, that it was 'blowback', I mean.
You have correctly described an uninterrupted cooperation between America/CIA and Al Qaeda, starting with Operation Cyclone in 1979. And yet, are you seriously asking your readers to believe that 9-11 was the one blip on an otherwise unblemished historical record of association between CIA and Al Qaeda (and all its offshoots)?
That strikes me as what they now call 'cognitive dissonance'.
Perhaps it's that you are scared of being labelled as a 'conspiracy theorist'? Well, I would say that's pure cowardice. Place that cowardice against your responsibility and duty to wake people up and fully inform them about the evil monsters who have always been in charge of America (and, well, Britain too for that matter). It is totally naive and gullible to believe the monsters' version of 9-11 - to think that on this one occasion they were the 'victims' and 'the good guys', and that they wouldn't stoop to murdering 'their own' citizens/subjects in order to provide a pretext to murder millions of others.
And not just with war - with neoliberalism too. You have ably described the evil of neoliberalism, after all. Although you should remember that neoliberalism was never an 'economic' system - it is a system of social control (through enforced scarcity, especially of money) and exploitation, dressed up to look like an economic system.
So you just have to look at the evil things these monsters do in order to perpetuate their neoliberal system.
It would be psychologically unbelievable indeed if the official narrative of 9-11 was in any way true. We're talking about evil monsters here. And for evil to flourish, it only takes good people to do and say nothing. Being called a 'conspiracy theorist' - and by evil monsters themselves, ironically - is a small price to pay, and should not be seen as a deterrent to telling the truth and motivating people.
Aside from that one blip, I thought your article was both brilliant and timely.
Ah the “it was an inside job” crowd
Ah - it’s the ‘I blindly believe whatever the MSM tell me to believe’ crowd.
Please provide a summary to these valuable screeds! This article discusses several interconnected themes related to U.S. foreign policy, terrorism, and economic ideology:
1. 9/11 and U.S. foreign policy:
- The article criticizes the U.S. commemoration of 9/11, pointing out American support for Islamist groups in the past (e.g., Afghanistan in the 1980s, Kosovo in the 1990s).
- It suggests that 9/11 was "blowback" from U.S. foreign policy decisions.
- The author notes the irony of the U.S. considering supporting Islamist groups in Syria in 2013, just 12 years after 9/11.
2. Chilean coup and neoliberalism:
- The article focuses on the U.S.-backed coup in Chile on September 11, 1973, which overthrew Salvador Allende and installed Augusto Pinochet.
- This coup is presented as the birth of neoliberalism, an economic ideology developed by the Chicago School economists.
- The Pinochet regime is described as brutal, with thousands killed, tortured, or detained without trial.
3. Operation Condor and U.S. support for dictatorships:
- The article discusses Operation Condor, a U.S.-supported plan to install right-wing dictatorships in South America.
- It mentions several countries involved, including Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay.
- The Argentine junta is highlighted as particularly brutal, with an estimated 30,000 civilians killed.
4. Spread of neoliberalism:
- The article argues that neoliberal policies (deregulation, privatization, tax cuts for the rich, welfare cuts) were imposed in these countries, causing poverty and economic chaos.
- It suggests that state terrorism was used to suppress opposition to these economic policies.
5. U.S. historical narrative:
- The author criticizes the belief that the U.S. promotes democracy and freedom globally, arguing that its actions often undermine these values.
- The article calls for remembering victims of U.S.-backed dictatorships and neoliberal policies alongside 9/11 victims.
Overall, the article presents a critical view of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Latin America, and argues that the spread of neoliberalism has had devastating consequences for many people worldwide.
That seems like a pretty good summary to me.
Islamic fanatics in Kosovo? Maybe you should define Serbian mercenaries as Orthodox Christian fanatics ... Kosova was subjugated by Serbian Tchetniks and government for 100 years and they had the right to fught off the Serbian State terror. Calling them fanatics, and religious ones, shows how far off the mark you are. I am otherwise impressed by your work but on this issue you are an absolute moron 100%.