With the ex-dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, dying at the age of 91 on Sunday without ever spending a single day in jail for his crimes, the task of judgement falls upon history. In the wake of Pinochet’s death, how he will be evaluated by history remains to be seen. With the exception of fanatical admirers, few will defend the ex-dictator’s repressive measures that included concentration camps, torture and disappearances. However, the gospel of Neo-Liberalism seems poised to annoint Pinochet’s economic deference to U.S. trained economic technocrats known as the “Chicago Boys” during his reign of terror as the foundations for the currently “flourishing” Chilean economy. Especially troubling in this regard is the economic hagiography put forth by the supposedly “just the facts” media institution known as the Associated Press. In an article on Pinochet’s death, the AP attempted to summarize the late dictator’s legacy:

Pinochet launched a radical free-market economic program that, coupled with heavy foreign borrowing and an overvalued peso, triggered a financial collapse and unprecedented joblessness in the early 1980s. Eventually, the economy recovered and since 1984 Chile has posted growth averaging 5 percent to 7 percent a year.

Key to the economic recovery was a group of mostly young economists known as the “Chicago Boys” for their studies under University of Chicago professor and Nobel laureate Milton Friedman. They lifted most state controls over the economy, privatized many sectors and strongly encouraged foreign investment with tax and other guarantees.

The anti-democratic foundations of such a program of economic “shock therapy” speak volumes about Neo-Liberalism. The perhaps not so ironic lexicon of terror applied to Friedman’s “shock treatment” theories in practice in Chile is also quite telling. Such a radical restructuring of the economy could not have occurred without dictatorship. Even if Pinochet’s Chicago Boys and by extension his dictatorship were to be credited with the economic strength of the modern Chilean economy, the foundations are too illegimate to be granted such an honor.

The strength of Chile’s economy is also merely measured by annual GDP growth, which speaks nothing of social stratification. If wealth inequality is used as a measure of economic strength, Pinochet’s economic “miracle,” entailed doubling the poverty rate in Chile from 20% to 40%! Chile’s current poverty level is about 19% after successive center-left governments. In 1970, the year of Allende’s election, the poverty level was roughly the same as it is now! Some miracle.

Perhaps, even more troubling is the article’s pronouncement that the Chicago Boys were key to economic recovery. The article presents its information as if the Chicago Boys saved the day from Pinochet’s mismanagement during the 1970’s. The Chicago Boys were active and responsible for Chile’s economic woes and didn’t suddenly appear to “save the day,” for Chile’s “economic miracle.” The young U.S. educated technocrats were responsible for economic mismanagement, although, one would be at a loss for trying to conclude such from the AP article.

Furthermore, Noam Chomsky, the celebrated linguist and political activist, was in Temuco, Chile last October and noted what the mainstream media fails to in assessing Chile’s present day economy; the contributions of Chile’s state-owned copper company Codelco:

“Chile has succeeded in surviving economically, but those documenting that success don’t like to attribute the existence of Codelco, which contradicts the norms of neo-liberalism, as a crucial factor in the country’s development. Codelco provides a phenomenal amount of fiscal income, much more than any privately owned company. What the private corporations contribute to the copper industry is a seventh of what Codelco produces.”

Essential to understanding Pinochet’s economic legacy is the characterization put forth by the AP article of the regime he overthrew:

Pinochet seized power at a time when Chile’s economy was in near ruins, partly due to the CIA’s covert destabilization efforts and partly to Allende’s mismanagement.

It’s important to present a much more detailed assessment of the situation than simply a “both were partly to blame” statement from the AP article. The economic situation during Allende’s presidency did indeed begin to deteriorate. In the rural sector, 1972-73 had been a poor harvest year. One of the contributing factors had been bad weather conditions. Internationally, the market price for copper had declined. Secondly, the United States manufactured spare parts for the equipment in that industry, and due to the conflict between the two governments, that fact hindered copper production in Chile. The United States also continued its informal blockade and slashed lines of credit. International financial institutions, heavily influenced by the US, refused to grants loans to Allende’s government. Subsidized by the CIA, the truck owners of Chile went on strike, not once but twice, and paralyzed the economy of the world’s longest and thinest country. The impact aggrivated inflation.

Allende’s wage increases did indeed exceed overall production and thus contributed to inflation. Unfortunately, Allende had a combative congress that was unsympathetic to his government’s desire to use taxation to control inflation. For the opposition political class, Chile’s economic deterioration was a chess piece to be played in the hopes of impeaching el compañero presidente. Internationally, it should always be remembered that President Nixon wanted to make Chile’s economy “scream,” in order to undermine Salvador Allende, who he reffered to as a “bastard” and “son of a bitch.” When assessing these factors, it’s hardly a case “partly” this and “partly” that. The outside economic stressors placed on Allende’s presidency coupled with internal collaborators outweighed his own personal economic mismanagement.

The gospel of Neo-Liberalism seeks not to discredit the dictatorship economically, especially during an epoch of Latin American history when the fundamentals of the Neo-Liberal era ushered in by Augusto Pinochet are being challenged by popular frustrations.

In the ongoing saga of Pinochet’s death. I found the following to be interesting. In this excerpt from an AP article on Pinochet’s funeral, I don’t critique the presentation of information so much as I do what it says about Pinochet’s followers:

Although thousands paid tribute to Pinochet, fervent supporters are a dwindling minority in Chile. Many who endorsed his firm hand against communism turned against him after learning that his family allegedly spirited $28 million into foreign bank accounts.

Former supporters of Pinochet turned against him, not because he was ruthless and responsible for the deaths and torture of thousands of people, but because he enriched himself and evaded taxes by stashing millions of dollars in foriegn bank account. In the end, some Pinochet supporters turned away from their beloved “Tata,” not because of lives he stole from others, but because of money he had stashed away.

Perhaps this phenomenon is somewhat related to what Augusto Pinochet’s grandson had to say about his regime:

“[He] defeated Marxism, which attempted to impose its totalitarian model.”

The irony in this statement is too obvious to warrant an analytical dissection.

In the same AP article covering Pinochet’s funeral, another interesting presentation of information occurs, however:

Like tens of thousands of other Chileans, Bachelet was herself a victim of the Pinochet security state. Her father died after being tortured by Pinochet’s forces. She and her mother were jailed, mistreated and forced into exile.

As a reader, “mistreated,” sure is an interesting choice of words to characterize torture.