ITT We make the leftist case for gun ownership

ITT We make the leftist case for gun ownership.

I'll start: If the socialists in Chile under Allende had taken the step to fully arm themselves and accumulate weaponary, Augusto Pinochet could have never come to power. Indeed, prior to his coup the military set out to systematically remove what little weapons they did have.

Disarming the populace has been a tool of imperialists since the dawn of Imperialism.

Even Scotland, my home country, at the very beginning of the British Empire, was disarmed after it was invaded.


The historical precedents for this are countless, maybe you guys could list some more.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile
nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/
nacla.org/article/declassifying-us-intervention-chile
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_de_octubre_de_1972
michael-hudson.com/2003/10/chiles-failed-economic-laboratory/
theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/03/chile-earthquake
nytimes.com/1994/05/16/us/failure-of-high-flying-banks-shakes-venezuelan-economy.html?pagewanted=all
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#.22The_Chilean_Way_to_Socialism.22
youtube.com/watch?v=3wM6io-a9rQ
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervención_estadounidense_en_Chile#Elecci.C3.B3n_del_4_de_septiembre_de_1970
pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/21/the-invisible-blockade-against-allendes-chile/
nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=50y
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

lmao, Chilean here, the people over there were already armed, including the local left wing terrorist group (MIR) who had been killing military for years before Allende even got "elected". Also, Cuba was sending weapons to Chile to encourage a civil war, that's why Pinochet (and previously Patria y Libertad) tried to take over.

Allende's government was legitimate shit, now thanks to Pinochet Chile is the most successful south american country, for example, by having the lowest poverty of the continent while being relatively poor compared to Venezuela and Argentina (who were both very rich countries before they attempted shitty leftist reforms, including Argentina who was one of the richest countries at the beginning of the XXth century).

Get fucked, commie scum.

It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

Op said make the case fit gun ownership not class cuck yourself as hard as you can

There was no way they wouldn't have been blown out by the military anyways. We had fighter planes and everything. Of course this wouldn't have been needed if your system wasn't a retarded failure.

Why are you bringing up capitalism? This is a thread about gun ownership

No, not capitalism. Capitalism brought the greatest prosperity of the continent, while socialism brought Chile to it's misery by almost sending them to a civil war. Had the system worked the military wouldn't have stepped in, but they did, because it was necessary to stop such a retarded failure.

People talk about how in a revolution there's not much difference between having nothing and having semi-automatic rifles versus tanks and planes and artillery but, y'know, there is a pretty significant difference there. Basic arms give you a jumping off point, the ability to make more progress in that first period and hopefully obtain more of the resources held by the state.

Why do you keep talking about capitalism in a thread about guns. I know capitalism has ruined South America but you don't need to bring it up in an unrelated thread.

...

Which is why it was constantly in the middle of communist insurgencies and why as soon as the dictatorships were abolished left-wing governments swept to power?

Protip: people who like capitalism don't wage geurilla war against it for decades and then vote it away as soon as they have the opportunity.

You are stupid, there wqs direct involvement from the CIA before pinochet arrived to power, the strike set in place by the truck drivers was created by the CIA for example

Obviously that's just because poor people are stupid and jealous. Literally no one that wasn't poor has had a problem with capitalism. The Invisible Hand bestows market value in the faithful and recession on the wicked. Peace be upon the Profit, in$ha££ah

With guns we can shoot fags like

Your country is successful now that you got rid of Pinochet and implemented centre left policies no?

as well as this, many many groups have sustained insurrection with extremely limited weapons. When used to defend the people they bring them onto your side. An armed group makes rebels feel safe.

If pinochet was so greaty why di you all vote him out?

Guns are a means to our ends, but they have no place in our communist future. Why? There will be no next revolution. Communism is the end.

Even if revolutionaries did get guns they would have no way to usurp us. We will be the sole propagators of the populace. We will have the entirety of the world's military for our disposal, and we can afford bringing hell on earth to kill every dissident without worry or care. Why? We will be controlling the media, and money.

wait wait wait
so everyone being equal means
a select elite controlling the military and propaganda machines leading the world
really fired up my neurons user

I feel like we all agree to this, try make the case to liberals

nobody should be allowed to have guns except the army an police

Indeed, we will the philosopher kings of this new global communist empire. Being materialists, we will be the visionaries holding the final decision on how material will be made, mended, and destroyed. We don't want material being able to shape itself, and thus guns cannot be given to the people.

(You)

typical western faggots dreaming about communism
i imagine you don't see yourselves working but sitting in a chair with a party card

?

What did he mean by this?

yeah because not being a leader and working 15 hours a week at some job you like sounds so hellish

you mean the job the party needs you to do

My dream of a global communist empire is the 4th Reich. Work will be carried out by shitskins and degenerates until they are phased out with technology. Then we will have secured an existence for our people and a future for white children.

Because we all know in capitalism you get to pick exactly what job you want to do and your pay.

Of course what jobs are needed has to correspond with demand but there's no reason not to assign people to the jobs they're best skilled at and enjoy the most. Sure some people will prove to be inept at all skilled work but hey, they'll be valued members of society as cleaners or whatever.

...

...

What makes deniers even more pathetic is that the CIA themselves disclosed the documents showing they were the ones fucking over Allende.

[citation needed]
They literally didn't to anything to desestabilize the economy, they just funded political parties and the coup as the country was already in a miserable state.
Prove me wrong.
Allende failed on it's own because socialism is retarded, no intervention was ever needed.

Just stop posting if you are somclueless kid

KIll yourself anytime, pinocuck.

Here fam:
Nixon saying Make the Economy Scream.

The CIA went their and destroyed the economy fam.

+ here even more fam
Project FUBELT
nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/docs/doc03.pdf

And TRACKI, Track II
Here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile

Are you willing now to expect the truth? or you will be "LMAO DEES ARE LIES FAMS XDDD"

expect ??
Accept*

wtf is wrong with me..

Exactly. That's the only thing he said, but he never did anything about it. Politicians love to make promises and not completing them ;)
Try again. What EXACTLY did they do to desestabilize the economy?
Don't worry, I already know the answer: nothing. Allende failed on it's own.


Oh, I'm well aware of all of this, do t worry, kid.


First, I said economic intervention, not political. The economy under Allende collapsed, that's the point. Them funding those political parties had no effect on the economy.

Also, how come the workers are only allowed to strike if it's against a right wing government? Where those truckers not allowed to? Thank God the USA funded their strike, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to express their discontent! Also, if things where doing do great already, they wouldn't have striked on the first place.
Try again, you commie cuck.


I'm well aware of FUBELT, but it was something that saved at nothing. Tell me, what SPECIFICALLY did the USA do to desestabilize the economy? The answer is: nothing. The system collapsed on it's own.

Meant to say "stayed at nothing"

Holla Forumsjust got BTFO

Stop using that image, its gross

nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/

nacla.org/article/declassifying-us-intervention-chile

guns are pretty fun to use

Keep telling yourself that, and maybe someday you'll even believe it.

/thread

Dude why do you want american cock so much? For all their BLACKED memes, Holla Forumsyps are the oc cuckold fetishists it seems.

There literally is no difference.

All it takes is a quick look on wikipedia to deny this bullshit

Of course, the CIA did it for him you illiterate cuck.

Why don't you take a look at what happened AFTER 1971?
Pro tip: Real wages went down by 66% from the start of his government (1970) to the end of his government (1973).

Now it's when you say: "but that's wasn't real socialism!"

Read. A. Fucking. Book.

The Nixon administration continued exerting economic pressure on Chile via multilateral organizations, and continued to back Allende's opponents in the Chilean Congress. Almost immediately after his election, Nixon directed CIA and U.S. State Department officials to "put pressure" on the Allende government.

Talk about reading a book if the american corporate interests actively started to pull out or refuse to trade with Allendes government don't you think it might be hmmm a little difficult to increase economic growth?
Do you seriously think the Americans had no part to play in this at all? Your arrogance is stunning

im from chile. that's total bollocks. the crisis was planned by the usa.

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paro_de_octubre_de_1972

communism works in theory, but in reality is destroyed by imperialist porkies and fascist

Yet you deny all CIA involvement

I am now well aware you are stupid

What do you mean? I'm not the guy who posted that, but Chile's economy experienced hyperinflation after 1971, GDP decreased and debt was incredibly large.

What's important is to juxtapose the living standards under Allende and Chile for most Chileans. Pinochet was far worse in that regard. I think Allende is a prime example of what happens when you try to achieve socialism through reform without a coherent economic program. Allende is another example of a 20th century socialist the left makes into a martyr when the substance isn't really there economically. michael-hudson.com/2003/10/chiles-failed-economic-laboratory/


Chile's economy is still heavily dependant on the copper industry like it was then. I can concede that some of the free trade deals Chile engaged in under Pinoshit were good for the economy in the long term, but his economics are extremely overrated by right wingers. The falling price of copper had just as much to do with the Chilean economic crash under Allende as price floors.

Also Allende did not proclaim to have reached socialism, he was TRYING to reach it through Keynesian-esque reforms. See the article I posted above with an interview with an economic historian. Pinoshit was shit.

That has nothing to do with what I said about wages, you illiterate commie.

Also, I am indeed aware about what you mention about the ITT and related companies.

Bear with me, I can't reply to very long posts now as I'm on mobile. That's why I'm only replying to simple posts. Just be patient.


I'm from Chile too, and I'm telling you that while the USA did intervene in some aspects of chilean politics, they didn't do anything to set the country in a crisis. That was simply Allende failing because of his retarded system.

Makes porky hunting a lot easier

crisis was planned by nixon, as well as pinochet, you better check a book or two, asshat, because what happened in chile before pinochet was a true complot

Bear with me, I can't reply to very long posts now as I'm on mobile. That's why I'm only replying to simple posts. Just be patient.


I'm from Chile too, and I'm telling you that while the USA did intervene in some aspects of chilean politics, they didn't do anything to set the country in a crisis. That was simply Allende failing because of his retarded system.


Copper prices actually increased under Allende. Check out the time line of copper prices at any mining site and see for yourself.

aweonao culiao, no sabes acaso que la crisis fue producto de la guerra económica? como será la wea que hasta los estados unidos incluso organizaron y financiaron el paro de los camioneros (y eso que no fue lo unico que financiaron), mejor anda a estudiar, que parece que ni siquiera entiendes bien lo que significa "socialismo".

aweonao

Pick one and only one.

Also
Lmao, he didn't do anything by himself other than taking over.

You do realise that it becomes incredibly difficult not to drop both governemnt expenditure and wages when companies are actively hightailing it out. It was needed both to entice companies to stay and to cut back on government spending when the amount of tax revenue had been depleted from the nixon administration pulling out certain sections of american business

¿Acaso los camioneros no tienen derecho a paro? Aweonao. Si quieren protestar contra el gobierno tienen todo el derecho de hacerlo.
Y si, se lo que es el verdadero comunismo, no ese comunismo gringo super falso, idiota.
La crisis fue producto de la incompetencia de Allende al nacionalizar empresas, subir sueldos mínimos de forma descarada, fijar precios a todos los productos, entre otras cosas.
Los de la CIA no hicieron nada aparte de financiar algunos partidos políticos, el paro, y el golpe. La crisis económica fue culpa de Allende y de nadie mas.

Pick one and only one.

nice strawman m8, what im trying to say is that the us government conspired against unidad popular even before allende was elected.

some papers still exist, and the information is in wikipedia, learn before you dare to visit /leftypol, ignorant fucker

...

Yeah, because companies love negative profits, very smart, that's why they sabotaged themselves. Nevermind the government placing fixed prices for everything, nationalizing companies and let them run by incompetent workers, leading to shortages despite the USSR financing Allende with one hundred million dollars, tons of food, and lots of machinery.
Fucking retard.

LOL

The Economy under Pinochet was utter shit

1) A note about Pinochet: After taking power, Pinochet introduced free-market policies envisioned by the "Chicago Boys" a group of laisez-faire Chilean economists educated in America. These policies (which included privatizing the fucking fire department) were so disastrous, that Pinochet himself fired them. In fact, prior to Pinochet, under democratic socialist president Salvador Allende, Chile had the best health care & education in South America and a strong middle class.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/03/chile-earthquake

2) Venezuela's economic troubles have very little to do with socialism. It's roots can be traced to the Venezuelan banking crisis of 1994 under then president Rafael Caldera, when 17 out of Venezuela's 49 commercial banks failed and had to be taken over by the government (sound familiar?). The crisis happened because oil (which Venezuela kinda lives & dies by) prices fell. Up to 31% of Venezuela's GDP was spent on the bailout, & the economy got completely fucked because of it. Venezuela's socialist policies came later under president Hugo Chavez to help combat this, but by then there was only so much that could be done. Here's a contemporary article:
nytimes.com/1994/05/16/us/failure-of-high-flying-banks-shakes-venezuelan-economy.html?pagewanted=all

3) Pre-revolution Cuba is a great example of capitalism? WHAT?!?!?!?!? Okay, first of all, the statement "Cuba before the revolution had one of the highest per-capita incomes in Latin America" doesn't mean much.The average per-capita income in all of Cuba—including upper-class Havana and Santiago de Cuba—was six dollars a week. In addition to all the corruption & despotism associated with the Batista regime, here are some other lovely little facts about capitalism in Cuba:
* Only 4% of Cubans had meat in their diets.
*Under 3% had eggs.
* Only 1% had fish - ON A FUCKING ISLAND!!!!
* Only 11% had milk.
* Only 4% had bread.
* 64% had no toilets.
* Only 2% had indoor toilets.
* Only 3% had running water.

Magic of the free market, everyone!!!!

Copper prices did not increase during Allende's, retard en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Salvador_Allende#.22The_Chilean_Way_to_Socialism.22

You are right at that, I never denied the USA conspired against the UP, what I'm saying is that the UP failed on it's own, with the CIA having negligible effects on the economy.

Don't tell me to learn before coming on here as I already know more than you and I have been aware of absolutely everything said on this thread so far.

Read a fucking book.

Excepto que el paro camionero fue patrocinado por la CIA

Yes, I know that's not true socialism, I'm critiquing that the way to achieve socialism leads to misery.


What a retard.


Y? No tienen derecho a parar acaso? Que bueno que la CIA les facilitó una forma de expresar su descontento contra el gobierno. Fuera un paro durante el gobierno de Pinochet financiado por la URSS no dirías lo mismo.
Tremendo retraso, amigo.

Superior theory always win fam
C ya on another thread comrades

I will reply to you later (I'm on mobile). Your post was probably a long one that will need some sourced references for me to prove you wrong. But don't worry, I have listened to the exact same argument before so I already know what sources to use to prove you wrong.

Also, I don't get what's so surprising about a single person not replying to some posts made by around 20 people…

Si, el que no tiene derecho a meterse es la CIA
Tremendo retraso, amigo

el gobierno de los estados unidos les pagó para que dejaran de trabajar, ¿estudiaste en liceo?


y el tancaso, y la contrapropaganda anti-unidad popular, y el bloqueo económico a chile……

escoge una y solo una saco de bolas

obvio que no, si la wea no es simétrica

youtube.com/watch?v=3wM6io-a9rQ

Estoy en desacuerdo contigo. La CIA tiene todo el derecho del mundo a simpatizar con los camioneros.
Aun así, si el gobierno fue tan bueno, ¿por que quisieron parar los camioneros en primer lugar? Hmm… Quizás las cosas no estaban funcionando muy bien :/

con un bloqueo metido en el culo nada funciona muy bien que digamos

Tremendo retraso. Si el gobierno de Allende hubiese sido decente no hubiera sido necesario el paro.

Además, me parece bien curioso que siendo comunista uses el "estudiar en un liceo" como un insulto. Que inconsecuente. Pero no, no estudie en un liceo ;)

El tanque cuenta como parte del golpe y la propaganda como financiar partidos políticos. El bloqueo económico al final no fue ya que siguió el comercio entre Chile y USA.

MI SISTEMA PERFECTO NUNCA HA SIDO PROBADO
Todos los trabajadores tienen derecho a paro, incluso los camioneros, maldito subnormal.

No, no lo tiene, ya que ambos paises habian previamente ractificado las politicas de la ONU, entrometerse de tal manera es sabotaje y es un acto de guerra

Obviamente, habia gobierno, si algo prueban mas de 6000 años de civilizacion humana es que el gobierno no sabe lo que hace

Si subnormal, los trabajadores tiene derecho a paro, la que no tiene derecho de entrometerse es la CIA


Eso vale verga, ambos paises eran miembrosmde la ONU y por lo tanto el sabotaje es un acto de guerra

Copper prices did not increase under Allende - they fell from a peak in 1970 - 1972, and started going back up in 1973.

supongamos se logra el socialismo y todos ganan lo mismo, y viene la cia y le ofrece a alguien el doble de su sueldo para dejar de trabajar, el hombre obviamente les hará caso ¿según tu eso es culpa del gobierno socialista?, y se supone que el retrasado soy yo?, leete un libro, bestia.

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervención_estadounidense_en_Chile#Elecci.C3.B3n_del_4_de_septiembre_de_1970

aquí para que se entere.

Wow it's like I'm on Hispachan.

By this logic most countries in the world would need to get a murderous dictator.

Also, I think it's pretty interesting how lockstep the Chilean economy is with the price of copper. For example, during the Great Recession the price of copper fell significantly, and the % of people living below the poverty line rose by 75%.

The Chilean economy overall benefited from the commodities boom of the 00s, driven mostly by the Chinese.

Because the Chilean economy is fucking shit.

This is true.

But to everyone in the thread, I think you're greatly over exaggerating the effect of the "invisible blockade". The Chilean crisis under Allende is mostly due to:
1. Stupid land reform
2. Falling price of copper
pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/21/the-invisible-blockade-against-allendes-chile/

So defending Allende economically is not what we should be focusing on. It makes much more sense to focus on how Pinochet was ultimately a regression back to military dictatorships Chile had been freed from, implemented economic reforms that saw extremely small growth if at all and was wholly incapable of dealing with economic crisis and did not represent an improvement in living conditions for the Chilean working class.

Our right wing friend is half right - he's just retarded for exalting Pinoshit. Complaining that the United States used its veto power to limit credit is kind of like complaining that the imperialist weren't financing the socialist revolution.

Sorry for not being able to reply to everybody, but I don't have much time and these are a fuckload of posts from about 30 persons? Phew!
I hope you can all understand.
I most likely won't reply to any other posts until tomorrow.


Uhm, you were saying?
nasdaq.com/markets/copper.aspx?timeframe=50y
Copper prices went down the first year, then stayed around the same for 1971-1973, and went up back during 1973 during Allende (just when Allende was doing at his worst), and down again by 1974 with Pinochet. So yes, I'm right by saying copper prices did increase under Allende, which was exactly when the economic crisis was at it's worst. Considering his system failed when copper prices were going up is pretty retarded.


But that's wrong.
This is wrong. Growth under him was immense. It just happened to be halted by the latin american debt crisis (which, unlike the Allende, wasn't caused by the government), and even then Chile wasn't the latin american country who did the worst. See: Peru, a country with very similar resources to Chile, who not only were hit harder and recovered slower, but were drawn into a second recession because of the left-wing incompetence of the then government, which led to the rise of the neoliberal right wing dictatorhip of Fujimori, which helped to improve the country.

Considering he increased real wages by 200% from the end of Allende until just the beginning of the latin american crisis, I wouldn't be sure about saying he didn't improve the living conditions of the chilean working class.

You seem like a cool person by the way, way more intelligent that the other posters on here. Do you have any contact info to keep on discussing on this subject?

Hey! Don't get me wrong! I do think he was a "net positive" for the country, but I'm in no way exalting his figure. No need to call me a retard for that :)

Do you have any sources of this? I was looking for similar info regarding Chile and the Great Depression, but couldn't find anything.
Thanks in advance!

Not really. Consider Chile used to be a pretty poor country compared to Argentina and Venezuela, and suddendly managed to surpass both of them. It wasn't because of copper alone, as those two other countries are also rich in other resources, but because of a sound economy (that started with Pinochet and barely received any modifications by the following governments).
True, Chile is pretty dependent on copper (especially in the past, today it's economy is more diversified), but that's a far call from saying that Chile had a shit economy. Similar countries with richer resources (again, Venezuela and Argentina) or simply similar (Peru) have not enjoyed better economic policies, just to name some examples.

Do you have a source for all those Cuba facts I want to lay them down on my Dad over Christmas

considering Allende was taken down in 1973, no you are not, the "invisible hand" did not respon that fast back in the 70's