MovieChat Forums > Colonia (2016) Discussion > Putting this in perspective - Allende, P...

Putting this in perspective - Allende, Pinochet, and the Cold War

posted 8 years ago by jemmerling
8 replies | jump to latest

I think we can all agree on a couple of things. The Colonia Dignidad was probably every bit as horrific, or nearly so, as portrayed in this film. Also there is no denying that a great deal of brutality accompanied the Pinochet coup. Although brutality of various sorts has occurred under all sorts of otherwise respectable governments. I won't question that the Coup used Colonia Dignidad as a venue for conducting torture, etc. against Allende supporters. However Colonia Dignidad was not the Pinochet government. It existed prior and continued to exist after. I think the screenplay conflates these two entities much as Michael Moore tends to conflate valid factual points in his films in a way that ultimately leads the viewer in the direction he wants them to go.

It never hurts to put things in perspective. Concerning political freedom, how much more or less political freedom did people have in Pinochet's Chile than did people in Castro's Cuba (a regime most likely admired by the protagonists of the film) during the same time period. Did brutality in Chile continue at the same level for the duration of Pinochet's administration or was it most intense at the beginning when emotions were running high? Did Pinochet's government accomplish anything positive that benefited Chile in the long run?

I should also point out that the specific story presented is pure fiction even if the surrounding places and events are more or less accurately portrayed. And I feel completely justified in stating that this story is utter nonsense and could never have happened IRL. I won't try to defend that statement because I don't want to focus on it (that would have to be a separate thread).

But getting back to the opening scenes. We have a German who has gone to live in Chile to give his support to the Allende government - let's ignore his stewardess GF as she doesn't seem to have much motivation beyond her feelings for him. So what motivated him to do this? I am old enough to remember that during the Cold War, there were active Marxist political movements everywhere in the West, including Germany. In some places the Communist Party was a major player, in particular France and Italy. For some reason, with the fall of the Soviet Union, these "grass roots Marxists" evaporated overnight. The male protagonist would have been a member of one of these movements. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the Soviet Union did everything it could to support such movements, at the same time insisting that the rest of society take them seriously in the spirit of "open-mindedness". In particular, Westerners, especially students, were encouraged to view this type of Marxism as "humanitarian". As a young Western Marxist, should we see Daniel as a humanitarian hero? Or simply a victim of the circumstances in which he found himself, through his own actions?

I would like to also say something about the Allende government as an expression of "the peoples' will". Please be aware that Allende was "democratically" elected with just 37% of the vote. So 63% of the electorate actually voted for somebody else. Also, the previous government, although flawed in many ways, was not dictatorial. Allende's rise to power did not "liberate" the Chilean people. Those who voted for him did so for economic reasons. They sincerely believed that Allende's leftist agenda would lift them out of poverty. BTW consider reading up on the history of the Chilean economy in the years leading up to the Pinochet coup.

I would also like to add that the final plot point - in which the German Embassy tries to remand its own citizens back to torture at the hands of the Coup - is absurd to the point that any German official who might still be alive, and was associated with the Embassy to Chile at that time, would be justified in suing, and would deserve to win. I can't imagine any major Western government at that time, including the US government, doing such a thing. I could actually imagine the US government not going out of its way to help citizens who had gotten themselves into such a situation, but sending them back after they had escaped? Only somebody who had imbibed Leftist propaganda Kool-Aid would think it possible!

In conclusion, let's appreciate this film for being the thriller it is, but maintain a clear perspective on what is seems to be trying to tell us about the political history of that particular place and time.

[–] ValeriaMessalina 8 years ago

All I'm hearing here are a bunch of apologetics. So pinochet was actually a positive for Chile as were death squads and torture camps and hundreds of thousands of the disappeared. Are you just embarrassed that he was a US puppet?

[–] DerrrrDerp 8 years ago

It seems the idea that fascism is some sort of legit working system of governance is making a resurgence. And, it's always those who will suffer least who romanticize it. Guys, anyone who says Cuba is better off than Pinoche's Chile are wrong. ANY type of authoritiam regime is a BAD *beep* IDEA.

[–] jemmerling 8 years ago

I question the premise that Fascism per se every really existed as a bona fide political movement. The party that took control of Italy in the early 20th century called itself the Fascist party, based on elements of Italian history and culture. Subsequently, many governments throughout the decades have been characterized as "Fascist" by their detractors, as they were seen as equivalent to Mussolini's government. The Franco regime in Spain, for example, was routinely spoken of as "Fascist" but I don't think they called themselves that. All these governing groups were authoritarian and right-wing (although many different flavors of Right, some more populist than others for example). Some more brutal than others. Most eventually fading away and replaced by more democratic governments e.g. Pinochet and Franco.

In contrast, many political movements including many who actually gained control of a good many countries have proudly called themselves Communist. The ruling party in China calls itself the Communist Party.

The concept of a Fascist political philosophy and global political movement is more likely a fabrication of the Soviet propaganda establishment. They held up "Fascism" as the primary bogeyman against which all right-thinking people must valiantly struggle, in fact they went on about it incessantly.

People who piss and moan about Fascism nowadays are simply doing as the Soviets trained them, decades ago.

[–] AniMartin 8 years ago

Let me get this straight: you're saying that fascism might not actually exist simply because no person or group describes themselves as "fascists" anymore?

That's the most ridiculous argument on this subject that I think I've ever heard.

Has it occurred to you that because after World War II most Western people associated "fascism" with the absolute worst governments in history that no sane person would use that word to self-identify? Even if a person believes the best form of government is one that has a strong single-party leader, a martial government, and that uses imprisonment, forced labor, torture, and executions to subdue any possible detractors, that person won't say "I'm a fascist." Anyone that did would immediately be dismissed as being either stark raving mad or extremely dangerous and violent. Possibly both. Not many people are that desperate to be a pariah.

"Fascism" describes that type of brutal totalitarian government, but it's also a pejorative. People that are in favor of fascism or elements of it use different words to describe their stance because "fascism" is such a loaded word. In fact, these days there are certainly people that favor fascism, but they don't even know it. Colloquially "fascism" has come to mean simply "the worst kind of government" and "fascist" has become an insult for people that are perceived to be using their power inappropriately against others.

Claiming that fascism no longer exists simply because no prominent person or group uses the term to describe themselves is just absurd. And fascism apologetics is sickening.

[–] jemmerling 8 years ago

Your reply fully supports my original premise. "Fascism" is not a form of government. Apart from having been the political philosophy espoused by the party that ruled Italy in the 1920s and 1930s (symbolized by their party symbol, the fasces), "fascism" is just a handy pejorative used to describe a politician or government one doesn't like. In fact, I wish I had stated it so well.

If you don't agree, as you are apparently American (I looked for some of your other posts) I invite you to go to the nearest shopping mall, randomly approach strangers, and ask them if they believe Hillary Clinton to be a Fascist. About 50% of them will enthusiastically agree with that opinion, and the other 50% will vigorously insist she is anything but. That should convince most people.

In case it's not clear, the point of my OP was not to actually defend the Pinochet government, but to put that phase of Chilean history "in perspective" with what preceded and followed it. I think the most important question to ask is, what would that same time period (in Chile) have been like had the Salvador Allende Gossens government not been overthrown? And I am indeed ready to claim that the latter scenario would have been no better for the Chilean people in general than what actually happened. If you can't believe that, then you must have drunk the standard leftist propaganda Kool-Aid at some point.

Again, I won't try to defend the imprisonments, torture, etc. but on the other hand I have never been in a position to have to overthrow a Communist government and deal with some fairly nasty characters that would have quickly come out of the woodwork in the event of a "legitimate" challenge to Communist power.

Which perhaps brings us to the crux of the argument. Don't forget that all this happened at the height of the Cold War, and the Soviet Union had eagerly if not quite so publicly promoted the leftist government in Chile as a great beacon of hope for the downtrodden of the world, especially those suffering under the yoke of US Imperialism. In particular the intellectual elite, in Europe way more than in the US, swallowed this whole concept unquestioningly. I will contend that most of the negative view of the Pinochet era that persists today can be traced back to this huge propaganda victory on the part of the Soviets. Which is why I posted a plea for some perspective.

[–] AniMartin 8 years ago

I am American. I live in a small city in Texas that has a reputation even among Texans for having a very poor public school district and a strong element of anti-intellectualism in the culture.
So, I don't doubt that the majority of people here would eagerly agree that Hillary Clinton is a fascist. They would then likely turn around and sing Ted Cruz's (he's a senator for Texas. An inexplicably popular one.) praises without a hint of irony.
But that doesn't prove that the word "fascism" or "fascist" only exist as near meaningless insults.

A word can have multiple meanings and multiple uses. So, yes, as I stated, "fascism" is used to as an insult, usually against someone one disagrees with when it comes to politics. But that's its colloquial use. It's more formal definition is a system of government that typically has a single, unelected or unfairly elected, person as the head of government. That head is backed up by a government that is controlled largely or exclusively by the military. A fascist government is extremely nationalistic, often to the point of making certain groups second-class citizens or worse, and right-wing and authoritarian in the extreme. It usually also goes hand-in-hand with an extreme dislike and distrust of democracy.

Just because the word is used as a pejorative and just because many people don't fully understand the meaning of the word beyond "authority figure that I don't like," doesn't at all mean that fascism doesn't exist. It simply means that the word has its formal definition and a colloquial/slang definition and usage.

[–] Janko007 8 years ago

''However Colonia Dignidad was not the Pinochet government. It existed prior and continued to exist after.''
- It wasn't Pinoche's, it just existed during Pinochet's rule? Wow, how stupid.

[–] AniMartin 8 years ago

It not only existed during Pinochet's rule, but his government was well aware of it, and they possibly used it to torture detractors and bought weapons from them.
But don't worry everyone: Pinochet was a good guy and his government was good for Chile and for Chileans.

*rolls eyes*
Puh-lease. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised that someone could defend a dictatorship and fascist regime. Especially one that murdered thousands.
It's sickening and scary.

(Edited to Add: I just realized that my comments might look like I'm copping an attitude with you, Janko007. I don't intend that and I apologize if it came off that way. I was adding on to what you were saying. All my ire is directed at Jemmerling and his/her fascism apologetics.)