Salvador Allende and Hugo Chavez: Similarities and Differences on the “National Road to Socialism”

Post Information
Print & pdf

By James Petras

I have known and advised three left wing presidents including President Papandreou (Greece 1981-85), President Salvador Allende of Chile (1970-73) and President Hugo Chavez.

Prof. Petras on Venezuelan TV 2008

Picture: Prof. Petras in a recent interview on Venezuelan TV, 2008. Some of his recent interviews on Venezuelan Media can be viewed here (Spanish).

Both Allende and Chavez share many strategic goals and embrace policies favoring the working class, peasantry and the urban poor. They also pursued programs regaining national control over the strategic sectors of the economy, redistributing land (agrarian reform), reallocating budgetary expenditures in favor of social programs for the poor and pursuing independent anti-imperialist foreign policies.

In broad historical and sociological terms, they also share a common belief in constitutional, electoral processes, in a multi-party system, a mixed economy and independent trade unions, business and civic associations.

Despite the convergences and similarities between Allende and Chave, there are important political differences, which account for their different trajectories. Chavez proceeded toward political change before undertaking a deep socio-economic structural transformatio, thus creating a solid constitutional and political framework. Allende, on the other hand, accepted the existing political system and proceeded to implement radical socio-economic changes. As a result, Allende constantly faced political blockages, institutional obstacles that limited his capacity to realize the full potential of the structural changes. In contrast, Chavez’ political reforms led to the compatibility between political institutions and socio-economic change - minimizing opposition obstructionism.

President Salvador Allende statue at Chile’s Ministry of Justice

Picture: President Salvador Allende statue at Chile’s Ministry of Justice. From the George Washington University’s National Security Archive, CIA Operating Guide on Coup Plotting in Chile:
“It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the … American hand will be well hidden.” CNN article: “CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende’s overthrow, Pinochet’s rise”. The military coup led by US ‘asset’ Augusto Pinochet. The violent overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende changed the course of the country that Chilean poet Pablo Neruda described as “a long petal of sea, wine and snow”. Because of CIA covert intervention in Chile, and the repressive character of General Pinochet’s rule, the coup became the most notorious military takeover in the annals of Latin American history.

Secondly, Allende’s government lasted less than 3 years, while Chavez has governed for nearly a decade and is still very popular. The military coup in Chile in September 1973 destroyed the Popular Unity Government and the military dictatorship lasted 15 years (until 1989). In Venezuela, a military coup (April 11-12 2002 lasted 48 hours before it was defeated and Chavez was restored to power. The reason why the coup succeeded in Chile and failed in Venezuela was because Chavez had built a substantial loyalist base among military and developed a strategic alliance between the military-popular masses, while Allende mistakenly trusted the so-called ‘professionalism’ of the military. Both Allende and Chavez faced ‘bosses’ lockouts’, attempts by the capitalist class to shut down the economy in order to foment discontent and overthrow the government. In both countries the mass of workers, technicians and some managers intervened to support the government. However, while Allende returned the majority of the factories to their capitalist owners, Chavez fired 15,000 managers and supervisors who led the lock-out and replaced them with loyalists. Similarly while Allende allowed the rightwing generals to purge loyalist military officers in the run-up to the coup, Chavez expelled and jailed military officers after the failed coup.

In other words, Chavez is a political realist who understood better than Allende the limits of bourgeois democracy, was willing to use the prerogatives of executive power to defend popular democratic rule against its internal oligarchic and external imperial enemies.

Presidents Chavez of Venezuela and Lula of Brazil

Picture: Presidents Chavez of Venezuela and Lula of Brazil.

Chavez sees the revolutionary democratic and socialist transition process based on institutional and popular power organized through mass organizations. Allende saw socialist change principally through the established institutions and minimized the role of popular power institutions - creating a constant tension between the political parties and the community councils.

Chavez and Allende opposed US imperialism, its wars (Vietnam in the 1960-1970’s), Iraq and Afghanistan (today). But Chavez’ foreign policy is much more pro-active, in promoting Latin American integration via ALBA, Banco Sur and bilateral trade and arms agreements with China, Russia, Iran, Brazil and Argentina. Allende looked more to the Andean Pact, the non-aligned movement and links with social democratic European regimes like Sweden and Germany. As a result Chavez has been more successful in isolating and defeating Washington diplomatically than Allende with his constant effort to conciliate with the US.

The political paradox is that the Allende government, based primarily on self-identified ‘Marxist’ parties and trade unions, never achieved hegemony over the majority of the masses (especially poor women) while President Chavez has established Chavista majorities in 12 national and local elections and referendums.

Chilean stamp in honor of assassinated president Salvador Allende

Picture: Chilean stamp in honor of democratically elected then assassinated President Salvador Allende. Democratically elected President Allende implements a certain number of economic measurements, getting Chile’s resources back to its people: nationalizations, of which that of the copper mines, land reform, raising of salaries. But, very quickly, partly under the pressure of the United States, the economic situation worsens, as well as the social climate. On September 11, 1973, the army, directed by General Augusto Pinochet, seizes power in a putsch implemented by the American secret service and ordered and managed by the then assistant to US President for national security affairs, ashkenazo-zionist Henry Kissinger. President Salvador Allende is assassinated during this military rising. This, and some other major crimes of that famous international criminal are revealed within this BBC documentary: THE TRIALS OF HENRY KISSINGER.

During his tenure in office President Allende represented his time - a clear democratic-socialist alternative to US-controlled client regimes. Even today the establishment of worker-controlled factories, popular neighborhood councils and popular power under Allende, serve as important reference points for the present transition to socialism in Venezuela. But President Chavez has gone much further and deeper in some areas of social transformation: He has introduced popular militias, decentralized the budgetary expenditures to local neighborhood councils and organized a unified mass socialist party, to avoid the intra-party conflicts which plagued the multi-party coalition of the Allende Government.

Conclusion

While there are important historical continuities between the democratic socialism of Allende and the 21st century socialism of Chavez, and both reflect important milestones on the road to national liberation, it is clear that Chavez, much more than Allende sees the clear and decisive importance of building a mass base for popular power outside of the strictly electoral parliamentary arena. Where Allende mistakenly idealized Chile’s bourgeois democratic institutions, attributing to them a classless character, Chavez combines the democratic norms of electoral politics with the need to build independent organizations of class power. History has demonstrated, at least so far, that Chavez’ realism has been much more effective in gaining and retaining popular power than Allende’s idealism.


Have a good day!

James Petras, a Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet.

He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo.

James Petras is a specialist on US Zionist politics and a close reader of the Israeli and American Jewish Press.

The James Petras website

He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu

James Petras latest books are The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press 2006) and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants (Clarity Press 2007).

 



Comments

Leave a Reply






Anwaar’s articles appear simultaneously here at Truth Spring and at Soul Vibes in The Pakistan Tribune.


US loses its status as economic world power
DAVOS, Switzerland, 2008
.: ARTICLE BLOCKED :.
ON MARCH 2008
Who links to my website?