Exposure was Re: GLW:Put Pinochet on trial.
david.welch at SPAMst-edmund-hall.oxford.ac.uk
Thu Jan 27 07:20:45 MST 2000
Owen Jones writes
"The involvement of US imperialism without which [Pinochet] could never
have seized power would be revealed; workers across the world will be
stripped of their illusions of the "humanitarianism" of the American State
and see it for what it is."
Are you sure? The idea of exposure has been used to justify support for a
lot of unpalatable things recently, one of the contentions of the
supporters of the DSP was that Australian intervention would expose
imperialism, indeed throw Australia into turmoil. In neither case has
anything like this happened.
"I probably don't need to tell anybody this dictatorship killed thousands
of progressives, tortured thousands more in the most hideous ways, smashed
down the workers' movement, attacked the working class, imprisoned and
exiled thousands upon thousands..."
And of course it isn't suprising that the victims want justice, however
the difficulty in using the British courts is that it legitimises
imperialist intervention into Chile (and elsewhere). Far from equipping
anyone with an exposure of imperialism, the effect is to increase the
moral authority of the governments which imposed Pinochet on Chile in the
"In Chile, the bourgeoisie who so benefited from his rule
call for his return. The "Pinochet Foundation" is funded by the wealthy
Chilean businessmen Pinochet created through his implementation of
reactionary Thatcherite anti-working class policies before Thatcher was
even in power. Anybody who calls for Pinochet's freedom, whose reactionary
dictatorship represented the interests of the Chilean bourgeoisie, is on
the same side of the barricades as these extreme reactionaries and
anti-communists, and on the opposite side from the progressives who fled
his fascist terror."
It is rather incongruous considering the actual record of his government
that Pinochet's supporters claim to stand up for Chile's independance,
nevertheless they are correct. What can anti-imperialism mean if not
political and social independence, how can you have independence when the
your political life is determined by the British Home Secretary and the
"All in the name of anti-imperialism...indeed, the same people who
politically defend the Milosevic regime on the same grounds."
I'm also rather puzzled by this comment, is there a non-political defence
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Owen Jones wrote:
More information about the Marxism