I think this is the main problem here: a lack of knowledge about the historical context of "authoritarian" socialist projects, but nevertheless making generalized statements about them without even considering the material reasons why they were by necessity "authoritarian." Read up more about the history of Chile and consider what happened to Allende and the hope of a socialist Chile. Who came after Allende (and almost as important, who installed that successor)? Why do these events seem so familiar when learning about every other attempt, successful or not, to bring about a communist society? When you've done that, you will at the very least have a leg to stand on when criticizing so-called tankie authoritarianism.

I'd also suggest reading The Jakarta Method. Here's a somewhat relevant quote from it:

This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

That group was annihilated.

[–] Alterecho@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was aware of Pinochet and the general CIA coup, but not Allende in particular; I don't think it's a failing to admit that the knowledge any one person has access to is limited. That's why my immediate response was one of attempting to find resources, not trying to generalize about something that I was deeply unequipped to speak on. The world's big, sadly I can't claim to have knowledge of everything on it.

My little reading on Allende makes it sound like he was democratically elected and pretty widely loved among the left-leaning members of his country - again, the only potential authoritarian charges I see levied against him are the socialization of private sectors, which I personally have not enough economic background to really have a stance on either way. If that's the only thing that he's called authoritarian for, I'd say that my understanding of the colloquial definition is probably more focused on aspects like freedom of speech, religion, etc. being limited, as opposed to market freedom.

But maybe my internal understanding of what makes a nation authoritarian is flawed! I'm happy to be wrong if it means I learn something. Maybe there's internal conflation of fascism and authoritarianism happening, and I need to re-draw some of the distinctions between the two.

I appreciate the book recommendation - the study I've done has focused less on political theory and more on philosophy, so if you have any other recommendations that cover things like the Marxist/anarchist split, etc., I'd be grateful!

[–] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

, the only potential authoritarian charges I see levied against him are the socialization of private sectors, which I personally have not enough economic background to really have a stance on either way.

If someone is complaining about socializing private sectors -- not that the profits of the now-public enterprises were used to enrich bureaucrats, but that the act of socialization itself inherently infringed on the rights of the capitalists -- the correct response is to spit in their face. That's not always the practical response, so I certainly am not telling you to go out and do it, but it's the correct response. Anyone complaining about "market freedom" as though it is remotely comparable to "human freedom" rather than a tool to be used or put away as the people see fit is either a fool or takes you to be a fool.

In a third world country especially, private companies are frequently the basis of staggering siphoning of wealth from the third world to the imperial core, which is why movements to repatriate them are so popular (see also the oil industries of both Egypt and Brazil right before their respective coups).

Being transparent about things, your comments read as one of the relatively rare cases of someone who is deeply submerged in neoliberal ideology but also intellectually honest and open about it. I'd be happy to discuss things with you from a Marxist perspective if you like.