It hasn’t been forgotten – it has been ignored because, as far as the ruling elite is concerned, it wasn’t a tragedy. It was a triumph. Pinochet is a hero of the neoliberals. Mrs Thatcher was his bosom friend. His savage coup was among the first really comprehensive assaults by neoliberals on social democratic states and as such kicked off the long running war on ordinary people currently being waged under the cover of the “deficit must be cut, whatever the cost to the social fabric” policies of this coalition government. The history a society chooses to ignore tells one as much about its real values as the history it chooses to celebrate (see the constant barrage of 9/11 stories now deluging the MSM).

“The tragic irony is that the defence of freedom – or the War on Terror – has more often been used to curb people’s freedom in the name of counter-terrorism.”

It’s not even irony, it’s just PR. Modern powers have a tendency to hide their negative actions behind nice-sounding phrases – the war on terror, the war on drugs, Operation Iraqi Freedom, the PATRIOT Act – that have little if anything to do with these projects’ ultimate intentions. They’re just attempts to protect the power’s hegemony and interests, hidden behind rather Orwellian whitewashed terminology.

Friedman also advised socialist dictators on how to stop starving their people so much, and the chinese communist party on how to develop their economy. Does that make him a left-wing guru? The only difference is that pinochet listened to some more of what he had to say and allowed chile to transition into a successful economy.

@Nick (3)

Wow! That’s low, praising a dictatorial mad-man who killed thousands and evaded justice like a coward for ‘improving’ the economy of a country with those abysmal statistics. I’m not sure too many Chileans would agree with you there Nick.

If those ‘socialist’ dictators (including the Chinesse ‘communist’ party) didn’t take all of what Friedman said on-board (i.e. didn’t do exactly as he said) then it’s a little strong to refer to him as a left-wing guru (especially since his ideals were decidedly un-left-wing). An advisor perhaps, but not a guru!

Friends of mine were forced to emigrate to the uk through fear (being also given the choice of Canada and Germany) after they were stripped of their nationality; for years they could not return to their family. That’s how your rewarded for taking part in a democracy when it doesn’t suit the right wing, operation condor was a disgrace to our race and all those who took part (whether supervisory or not).

Via OP, Milton Friedman: “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

Lenin and Trotsky would have said the same thing. And that reflection does not make the concept more digestible.

@Charlieman

“Lenin and Trotsky would have said the same thing. And that reflection does not make the concept more digestible.”

I don’t think they would have. Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists and believed in the history of the class struggle. They believed capitalism had within it the seeds of its own downfall. Crisis might ignite something but the underlining organisation of society is the fundamental driving force. The only difference between classical Marxism and Marxist-Leninism was the belief in the vanguard party which was meant to lead the working-classes struggle. They still believed the road to socialism required class consciousness, not crisis.

And don’t forget also, that klein pointed out, that a true follower of `Milton Friedman’ capitalism idea’s would see any kind of state provision as a distortion in the system. Which feels important to mention because we only seem to have ideologically extreme conservatives nowadays.

@leftie isn’t the whole concept of class consciousness just an idea? As with any political ideology…! The events running up to and following the October revolution were everything that can only be described as a crisis, followed by a conflict of ideas that happened to be lying around, subsequently leading to the events that created the USSR…. Predetermined effects of ideologies are irrelevant, what is relevant, is how the idea is used in the end.

@amber

It’s different to an idea because it’s about historical determinism or inevitability if you will (although granted still a theory). I don’t think Lenin and Trotsky would have seen the October Revolution as pure proletarian revolution because there wasn’t a developed bourgeoisie. They were waiting for the German revolution which never came.

@leftie inevitability that never happened. Communism as stated in the Marxist manifesto (like many other ideologies) has been altered or more so evolved to suite contemporary circumstances, an idea made to fit the crisis. Nothing is determinism when it is altered to fit?!! Thus it only an idea or theory which like everything else can be proved wrong at a later stage. Industrialisation and class conscious uprisings had little to do with russian revolution, it was more down to opportunism of intelligentsia or so called vanguards…

9
The emergence of the USSR and its administrative system was more to do with the conditions of Imperial Russia at the time of the February revolution As much as Lenin attempted to then create a Marxist narrative, there was no hiding that the population in 1917 consisted of 90% peasantry.
Later, Marxist historians would argue that the failure of the Soviet Union to evolve into a socialist state was because of the misguided attempt to ‘leapfrog history’.
Unfortunately, the experiment , which was the USSR, has made both Marx and socialism very difficult to ‘sell’ to the existing capitalist populations.

@steveb concur. Sad as it is, but mention socialism and your more likely be seen (by the general public) as the oppressor not the oppressed!

Which is why 9/11 should be ignored.
Those that lost will always remember…but this all encompassing anniversary crap does nothing but please Islamists and (as seen here!) provide a huge forum for pro-Islamic, whining Muslim/Lefty spokesmen and articles to excuse Islam, blame America, moan at The West and try to derail the tragedy (as seen here!) with other agendas…
All designed to attacking the victims and excuse the killers and their entire Islamic agenda behind the attacks.

Ignore their foul attack, ignore their act, ignore the anniversary moaning and whines of fake victimhood from them…and hopefully these Islamic bores will scuttle back under their rock. And take you lot with them.

Islam can be destroyed non-violently.

I recall on here, One person saying that police and firemen should have gone into the smoking remains of the london underground on 7/7 even if they’d got themselves killed, rather than staying outside as health and safety wouldn’t let them sacrifice their lives as it was what was dictated to them,as firemen sacrificed their lives in 911,yet Amreica thoguht they were under attack from a foreign country flying planes at them on 911, and as such had the patriot act, what civil rights did we really give up after 77, Section 44 stops and 28 days detention, yet sec 44, stops are not much different to section 60 searches that have been almost national in the last year.

“And don’t forget also, that klein pointed out, that a true follower of `Milton Friedman’ capitalism idea’s would see any kind of state provision as a distortion in the system. Which feels important to mention because we only seem to have ideologically extreme conservatives nowadays.”

Not really, actually. Milton Friedman approved of a redistributive citizens basic income and state funding of primary and secondary education. On this, Naomi Klein simply read Friedman very, very selectively.

“The only difference is that pinochet listened to some more of what he had to say and allowed chile to transition into a successful economy”

Do you know anything about the the economy under Pinochet? It performed far worse than the Latin American average until 1985 (and was still playing catchup in 1990. In 1984 GDP was lower than it had been in 1970. During that time period there had been 2 devasting recessions (1975 and 1982). From 1985 to 1990 it did have good growth but this was only catching up with everyone else. The actual miracle of Chile occurs after 1990 (long after the voodoo economists got the the boot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_per_capita_LA-Chile.png

The only thing that saved Chile from going under was Pinochet adopting Keynesian policies to reboot the economy and the fact that Allende had nationalised the copper in 73 (which provided a vast amount of Chilean income).

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10347/pub_detail.asp

“”9/11 – What a Difference a Decade Makes””

Unlike other religions, Islamic doctrine is seditious and should have no place within American society. It is at war with the rest of mankind. One might ask is it not our government’s role to protect American citizens from foreign and domestic attacks here at home? It is clear that we, the people of the United States, are alone and can no longer depend on those who were sworn in to serve. I weep for the America we once knew and the one my parents brought me to a few decades ago. Throughout our country’s history there have been the gatekeepers and those who sounded the alarm. I will continue to ring the bell and hopefully this administration will fail in its bid to criminalize criticism of Islam. If not, I’ll see you in jail.

Chile 1973 is the forgotten 9/11.

So how about an article in 2013 then rather than hi-jacking this one.

“Do you know anything about the the economy under Pinochet? It performed far worse than the Latin American average until 1985 (and was still playing catchup in 1990. In 1984 GDP was lower than it had been in 1970. During that time period there had been 2 devasting recessions (1975 and 1982). From 1985 to 1990 it did have good growth but this was only catching up with everyone else. The actual miracle of Chile occurs after 1990 (long after the voodoo economists got the the boot).”

Successful longterm economic policies rarely impact on contemporary GDP (thats what makes them viable). You have to judge policies by what they produce 10-20 years down the line rather than the turbulence along the way which is likely due to errors committed decades before. Unless you are Keynsian, in which case there is no long-run and your only purpose is to keep stock prices and consumer spending up.

See this for a slightly more long-run comparison: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2010/Sumnerneoliberalism.html

Not that any of this justifies Pinochet’s political regime. It just so happens his economic policies could have been a lot worse than they turned out to be, and were better than comparable states in Latin America.

NATO murdered 2,500 people (80% civilians) during the criminal bombing there and authorised the “police” they appointed (formerly the KLA) to dissect, while still alive another 1,800 totaling mote than 9/11 and in a far more obscene manner. Also more than Pinochet.

Can there be any reason, other than outright Nazi racism, why this does not get 10,000th as much British media remebrance. Does anybody seriously suggest that the late bin Laden was as criminal as Clinton , Blair and their genocidal Nazi followers (all the way down to Ken Livingston and Clair Short?

Indeed how often has “liberal” conspiracy reported the greater, compared to the lesser, atrocity?

“Successful longterm economic policies rarely impact on contemporary GDP (thats what makes them viable). You have to judge policies by what they produce 10-20 years down the line rather than the turbulence along the way which is likely due to errors committed decades before. Unless you are Keynsian, in which case there is no long-run and your only purpose is to keep stock prices and consumer spending up.”

This is nuclear grade rubbish designed to shield your own bias.

Fascinating article on 9/11 from the respected Asia Times Online, which deserves to be spread as widely as possible:

9/11 Revisited: Was Saudi Arabia involved?
By Paul Church

At 9:37 Eastern Daylight Time on September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the western side of the Pentagon, killing all 59 passengers and 125 others in the building. News of the crash went global within minutes; yet another symbol of American power was ablaze. For the few still struggling to believe that the United States was under attack, doubt evaporated like the bodies of the many dead.

Conspiracists have puzzled for a decade over the failure to intercept the aircraft – or indeed, take even the elementary step of phoning the Pentagon to warn them of the approach. But only recently has wider attention been paid to the failure of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) Bin Laden unit to tell anyone that “muscle” hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, were in the country.

The chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Keane, is now on record [1] as calling this “one of the most troubling aspects of our entire report”. How is it that, despite having known for several months about al-Midhar and al-Hazmi, nobody at Alec Station saw fit to mention them to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the counter-terrorism policy board in Washington, Immigration or the Defense Department?

The Bin Laden Issue Station – codenamed Alec by insiders such as US Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer – was the CIA unit dedicated to reporting on al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and militants in Afghanistan. It was this unit that had called on authorities in Malaysia to monitor the Kuala Lumpur “terror summit” at which plans for 9/11 were probably finalized. Both al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were at that meeting.

Accounts differ as to exactly when the CIA became aware of the hijackers’ presence in America. But specific orders were issued not to share the information: Doug Miller, an FBI agent loaned to the Bin Laden unit, was among those who received the instructions. In his book Pretext for War, author James Bamford quotes another FBI agent loaned to Alec: “[T]hey didn’t want the bureau meddling in their business – that’s why they didn’t tell … that’s why September 11 happened.”

Full article:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB11Ak03.html