Reply #54: Allende was Chile's Kucinich [View All]

He was swept to power democratically in 1970, on the basis of a "paradigm shift" in Chilean politics. However, once he entered office, he began getting pressure from the state apparatus -- the military, mainly, but also the state bureaucracy, the police, etc. -- to "moderate" his changes (which were already quite tame and moderate, limited mostly to democratic and land reform).

Because Allende failed to break up those elements of the state, the latter rebelled and overthrew him in 1973, with the backing of the U.S., and installed Pinochet as dictator. The "disappearings", torture and murder that happened under Pinochet was a direct result of Allende's failure to break up the old capitalist state apparatus.

Were Kucinich to sweep to power in a similar fashion as Allende did, he would immediately come under the same pressure. The military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, the massive federal bureaucratic machine, the "Homeland Security" apparatus, etc., would try with all their might to get Dennis to "play ball". If he resisted, but left them intact, then he -- and his supporters -- would end up meeting a fate similar to what befell Allende.

This is an important lesson to understand: the state functions as an instrument of coercion and control -- specifically an instrument used by a minority class to compell the majority to maintain "order". If, somehow, the majority wins control, it has to settle accounts with the state if it is to maintain control. If it fails to do this -- i.e., if it fails to break apart the old state and develop new institutions and structures that better fit a new, really democratic (socialist) society -- then all the old barbarism of the capitalist state will regroup and fight back ... with the financial and material aid of the deposed capitalists and their Great Power backers (like the U.S.).

This was one of the points Ben was trying to make in his article: Kucinich couldn't even get the local state apparatus, and its capitalist paymasters, to go along with keeping Muny Light a public utility. True, they didn't take him out like they did Allende, but they didn't need to. They just pushed him out of office. Imagine the kind of resistance he would get if he, as president, tried to abolish NAFTA and the WTO, or the Dept. of Homeland Security, or carried out his plan to cut the military budget.

Remember what happened to Kennedy when he moved to break up the CIA and back away from Vietnam? Dennis would meet the same fate, or worse, if he tried to implement his platform without first settling accounts with the state.

Personally, I like Dennis. I voted for him in the Michigan Democratic Caucus. If he ever ran as an independent, he'd have my vote, my commitment and my money in a second. But, as long as he operates within the "rules" set up by the DLC/DNC (i.e., the capitalist class), he is not only hamstrung politically, he would be a dead man the moment he tried to implement his policies.

It sucks to say it, but this is the ugly reality of capitalism.

Martin

P.S.: About the benefits that military personnel get, I agree that those policies -- gleaned from Socialist platforms of the past -- are progressive. I would fight tooth and nail for their retention and expansion. But those good policies don't change the fundamental character of the military. That's all I was trying to say.