Chile is one example of the way the United States has sought to control and influence the internal affairs of nations. But the spirit of resistance planted in so many different ways in so many places by cultural performers and revolutionaries such as Victor Jara lives on. (from “The Spirit of Socialism in Chile Lives On,” Diary of a Heartland Radical, September 7, 2013).
As long as we sing his songs,
As long as his courage can inspire us
to greater courage
Victor Jara will never die.
Pete
Seegerto greater courage
Victor Jara will never die.
“Singout Magazine” 1975
Nancy MacLean in Democracy
in Chains, analyzes central premises of the so-called Austrian school of
economics. Nineteenth and twentieth century luminaries from this tradition,
particularly Van Mises and Hayek, articulated the view that the main priority
of any society, but particularly democracies, is the extent to which markets
are allowed to flourish, unencumbered by governments.
According
to this view in a truly free society markets remain supreme. In fact, “liberty”
exists in a society to the extent economic actors are able to act in the marketplace.
Virtually all limitations on economic liberty so defined constitute a threat to
“real” democracy. Governments exist only to maintain domestic order (the police
power) and to defend the nation from external aggression (defense of national
security). In short, governments exist to provide police protection and armies.
And that should be all. In sum, as President Ronald Reagan expressed the
market vision: “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.”
To further illustrate, MacLean describes the brutal dictatorship that overthrew the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. Allende, a socialist, was elected by a plurality in the 1970 presidential election in that country and in the spring, 1973 in municipal elections held across the country, Allende’s coalition of parties drew even more votes for their candidates than did Allende in 1970. The United States, based on directives from President Nixon, had already moved to make the Chilean economy “scream” and had initiated contacts with Chilean generals who would be prepared to carry out a military coup against the popular government. The military coup, ousting Allende from power, was launched, ironically on September 11, 1973.
As
MacLean points out, in the aftermath of the coup, General Augusto Pinochet
rounded up and killed thousands of Allende supporters, destroyed the long
tradition of electoral politics, abolished trade unions, and began the process
of ending government involvement in the economy and public institutions. Social
security and education were privatized. Policies of nationalization of key
industries were reversed.
All of
the shifts to what the Austrian school called economic liberty were imposed on
the Chilean people with the advice of University of Chicago economists, such as
Milton Friedman, and later, George Mason University economist, James Buchanan,
who was instrumental in recommending “reforms” to the Chilean constitution
making return to democracy more difficult. Subsequently only a few other
countries in Latin America, fellow dictatorships, showed any sympathy for the
Pinochet regime with most of the world condemning its domestic brutality. But
as MacLean reports, Milton Friedman and his colleagues never condemned the
Chilean regime and Buchanan regarded it as a paradigmatic case of economic
liberty, a model which the world should emulate. For Buchanan, changes in
the constitution were as vital as economic policy changes.
Although the Chilean case represents an extreme example of dictatorship and free market capitalism, MacLean uses it to illustrate a central point. In most societies, and the United States is no exception, majorities of people endorse government policies that can and often do serve the people. As a rule citizens support public transportation, schools, highways, libraries, retirement guarantees, some publicly provided health care, rules and regulations to protect the environment, as well as police and military protection. The problem for Buchanan and his colleagues is that each one of these government programs. except for the police and military, constrain the “liberty” of entrepreneurs to pursue profit.
Although the Chilean case represents an extreme example of dictatorship and free market capitalism, MacLean uses it to illustrate a central point. In most societies, and the United States is no exception, majorities of people endorse government policies that can and often do serve the people. As a rule citizens support public transportation, schools, highways, libraries, retirement guarantees, some publicly provided health care, rules and regulations to protect the environment, as well as police and military protection. The problem for Buchanan and his colleagues is that each one of these government programs. except for the police and military, constrain the “liberty” of entrepreneurs to pursue profit.
To put it simply, if
citizens, in the current case Chile, were asked if they support public
programs, majorities would say “yes.” If economic liberty is conceptualized as
inversely related to majoritarian democracy, then capitalism and democracy are
incompatible. The best government is no
government (except for the maintenance of police force to squelch demands for
change and military power to protect the nation at home and abroad). In short,
the rising ferment in Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa is
about economic justice and democracy, both incompatible with capitalism.
