Brazil is referred to as “the country of tomorrow.” The only problem is that a country can only be called that for so long until people wonder when tomorrow will actually show up. It remains to be seen if Brazil can live up to its potential. Brazil has the goods to become a player – they are the 8th largest economy in the world, with a GDP nearing $3 trillion. Brazil is very high on other lists – unfortunately, they have the world’s highest net homicide rate per annum. They also have a propensity to routinely destroy their economy by electing socialists. Riding on a global wave of post-Brexit, post-Trump populism, Jair Bolsonaro was elected Brazil’s president in 2018 to address these problems.
The entire Latin American world seems to have an addiction to socialism; however, there are differences between South America and Central America. I like to think of countries like Brazil and Chile as European states. Their cultural makeup and political systems have more in common with Europe than they do with Nicaragua or El Salvador. Those countries can be toppled by a military junta at any moment, while most of the South American states are relatively stable in comparison. Chile suffered under the empty promises of socialism in the 1970’s, and I think after recent events, Brazil should take a closer look at Chile and see what happens when you try to play by the rules with Marxists.
Chile had its own history of communism. Communist parties were popping up all over the world in the 1930’s, and Chile was no different. I will be using the terms communism and socialism interchangeably in this article. Capital C Communism means Communist party, while communism refers to the ideology. Because communism held such a negative connotation in the Cold War West, the term socialism is often used instead to sell Marxist governments to the electorate. Socialism is much easier to digest than the hardline Bolshevist, Stalinist communism of the Soviet flavor.
But as Marx said, communism was always the end goal. Communism is when the entire world advances past the capitalist class struggle into one proletariat, Marxist order. Socialism was always going to be the tool to get to communism. So, the Marxist left is right, true communism has never been tried. And that’s where the real threat lies. Since socialism doesn’t have the same baggage, it is sold as a kinder, gentler form of communism where everyone shares, and everyone is equal. In 1970, Chile found out how kind and gentle socialism can be.
Dr. Salvador Allende of the Chilean Socialist party was elected as Chile’s 28th president, taking office in November 1970. Chile was an outlier. Prior countries established socialist governments via violent revolution. Allende was the first socialist to preside over a country by being elected, despite splitting the vote 3 ways and only winning 36% of the popular vote (under the Chilean constitution, the election was thrown to Congress). This time, socialism was going to be different. Because Chile elected Allende, the world was going to see socialism with a kinder face. This was not Mao or Stalin.
However, the Soviet tactics commenced almost immediately. In November 1970, Allende nationalized portions of the press. “Information will be given when the population is mature enough to handle it.” 80% of industry became nationalized, along with 75% of agriculture. Socialists can promise whatever they please, and they can ignore the rules of economics, but they can’t ignore the effects of ignoring the rules of economics. Fearing economic instability, the people of Chile made massive bank runs, foreign investment fled, and their markets crashed.
The irony of all of this is that socialism was often sold on the back of anti-imperialist messaging. The hard left wanted foreign, mostly American, investment and business out of the country. After nationalization of industry, when American companies predictably pulled out of Chile, the socialists then accused the Americans of economic sabotage. The Soviets became Chile’s main line of credit as American credit dried up.
By 1972, inflation had risen by 163%, a world record, comparable only to Weimar Germany. That record would be shattered one year later when inflation rose to 323%. In 1971, Chile’s deficit was forecasted to be $29 million. By January 1972, the finance minister acknowledged it was closer to $385 million. These were dire numbers; however, Allende’s fans still supported the regime. The lower class had more paper money, even though it was worth less. It was immediate gratification with no regard for long-term effects.
How did things run off the rails so fast? What happened to socialism with a human face? One consequence of nationalizing is that you get rid of experts that have experience in that particular industry and replace them with bureaucrats who have experience in coming up with theories, but no experience implementing those theories. The “vision of the anointed” as Thomas Sowell puts it. A government intervenor could inspect a business or farm for any reason and declare the operation inefficient or incompetent. This was enough reason for the government to step in and seize the business.
The Ford Motor Company pulled out of Chile immediately. Ford would rather write off a loss than operate a single day under the Allende government’s conditions. Their factories remained in Chile, and instead of using them to build cars, they were used for installing car batteries and minor repairs. This was a massive waste of infrastructure. Anaconda and Kennecott were the major copper mining industries, copper being Chile’s main export. Both firms were U.S. owned. When the American mining experts fled and were replaced by socialist bureaucrats, work-related accidents and deaths rapidly increased while production declined. Even the brewing company, Cervecerias Unidas, produced half of what they normally could despite doubling their staff.
Chile’s unique geography makes importing difficult, and the lack of copper to export only amplified their existing problems. Food and raw materials became harder and harder to get into the country. Food became harder to produce within the country as well. Corporación de la Reforma Agraria (CORA) was the government’s agricultural agency. Just like industrial operations, CORA could inspect and seize farms for any reason. Much like South Africa today, the seized farms saw a drastic drop-off in production. Meat and dairy products became non-existent by Allende’s final year in office, but the regime spun it as “Chileans were eating better.”
Chile was in an economic crisis. Decades before Rahm Emanuel uttered a similar phrase, Chile’s Minister of the Economy, Carlos Matus, stated “but what is a crisis for others, is for us the solution.” The economic situation allowed the Allende government to expand their powers. Chile had already nationalized the press, but they still allowed opposition newspapers. Chile could not eliminate the press outright, as Western eyes were carefully watching their socialism with a human face experiment, and such actions would reek of Bolshevism. Instead, Allende limited who was allowed to receive paper products, effectively eliminating the opposition via attrition. Very similar to today, where Facebook and Twitter can restrict who is allowed to voice political opinions.
Since Allende only won 1/3 of the vote, he had to rely on support from opposition left-wing parties, namely the Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats eventually grew tired of Allende’s failures and demanded that the government be clear on which industries were allowed to operate in the private sector. As food shortages and inflation got worse, the pro-Allende coalition began to crumble. Opposition parties in Congress also began to push back against the regime.
In October of 1972, Confederacion de Duenos Camioneros, the trucker’s union, went on strike, citing low wages and poor conditions. They were labelled fascists by left-wing militants like the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), along with shop-owners and farmers that protested against the regime. This became a major issue heading into the 1973 elections. The socialists were not delivering on their promises. Street violence between the right and the left became common. In 1972, the phrase “DJAKARTA IS COMING!” appeared in graffiti in a metropolitan area, referring to Indonesia’s violent purge of their own communist party. Something had to give.
Allende went on a diplomatic tour in late 1972, visiting Cuba, the U.S.S.R. and the United States. The hard-left General Carlos Prats took over executive duties in Allende’s absence, blurring the lines between the military and the executive branch. This was the beginning of the end. The Christian Democrats formed a coalition with the right, and the right-wing Confederation of Democracy coalition defeated Allende’s Popular Unity coalition 57 to 42 in the Parliamentary elections of 1973. The Worker’s Revolutionary Front pressured Allende to shut down Congress so that “the Revolution could be completed.”
General Prats came under fire when, insulted by a woman who stuck her tongue out at him, held a gun to her head and forced an apology. The woman, Sra Cox, became a rallying symbol for Chilean women who were tired of the Allende government. More violence erupted in the streets. Roberto Souper’s Second Tank Regiment moved on the capital of Santiago. With only 412 men supporting him, the Allende government shut down the revolt in 2 hours. This gave Allende his own January 6th moment, and he used the crisis as ammunition to seize over 300 more private firms.
By this time, the right-wing factions in Congress and the military knew that Allende had to be stopped. Stolen ballots supporting right-wing candidates were discovered. Numerous plots to assassinate Allende’s opposition were exposed. In August 1973, Chile was in total chaos. Bombings and street violence intensified. General Prats resigned, and his fellow generals followed. This left General Augusto Pinochet in charge of the military, and on September 11, 1973, Pinochet’s forces stormed the capital and Allende committed suicide (depending on who you believe) after professing his love and commitment to the workers of Chile. The Pinochet regime was now underway.
Any talk about 1970’s Chile immediately turns to Pinochet, but I’m stopping the story here to show how brutal Allende’s regime was. The economy, under free-market guidance from Chicago School economists, not only recovered, but did a total 180 and prospered under Pinochet. As evidenced, there was massive popular support to oust Allende. Pinochet also did not move until the court and congress accused Allende of treason. And this is where I address the elephant in the room: didn’t the CIA stage the Pinochet coup? This is the popular rebuke of Pinochet’s regime. The CIA revealed the extent of their involvement in Allende’s overthrow in 2000. I find placing sole blame on the CIA to be a bit of a cope. Like blaming a drop of water for a tsunami. There was going to be a violent revolt against the Allende regime whether the CIA gave their blessing or not.
A legit role of American intelligence is to protect American foreign investment. ITT had operations in Chile, which would be threatened by the incoming Marxist government. Nationalization of industry means confiscation of private property and infrastructure. ITT was not willing to simply let the Allende regime confiscate millions in assets, and in 1970, they asked the CIA to interfere. The CIA refused. However, the American government voiced disapproval of the socialist regime, just like they did all socialist governments during the Cold War. Supporting a coup and staging a coup are not the same thing.
The Pinochet regime is criticized by the left, and even right-leaning libertarians, as being a violent dictatorship. He did execute Communist opposition. But Marxists love to do this. They blame the opposition for things they were going to do to them anyway. Pinochet just happened to strike first. Allende already had extensive plans to eliminate his opposition. What was the right supposed to do? Lay down and die? And as evidenced by Allende’s tactics throughout his entire reign, Marxists do not play by the rules. You cannot expect to respect constitutional boundaries in the name of being “good sports.” You are dealing with barbarians. The left only responds to violence.
And that’s what brings us to Bolsonaro in Brazil today. Lula da Silva defeated Bolsonaro in the 2022 presidential elections. Lula is a hard-left socialist who was incarcerated in 2018 for money laundering. His convictions were nullified after it was determined the court did not have proper jurisdiction over his case. Lula’s background aside, we are already seeing plays from the Marxist playbook. Big-Tech platforms have been ordered to censor any examination into the legitimacy of Lula’s electoral victory. Despite media portrayal, Bolsonaro was tremendously popular. Violent crime went down. They had a reasonably functioning economy by South American standards. Things were moving in the right direction. And now, we are already seeing violent executions of Bolsonaro supporters. How long until food shortages? How long until hyperinflation? How long until a free press is eliminated? Regardless of race, regardless of religion, regardless of geography, socialism produces the exact same results. Every. Single. Time.
In many ways, Bolsonaro is a tragic figure. I hate using the Trump analogy because it’s lazy, but I’ll take it in a different direction. They both believe that we’re still playing by the rules of 1985. They both believe in constitutional norms. Both Trump and Bolsonaro conceded defeat and stressed the need to let the constitutional norms prevail. The sad reality is that during the height of the Cold War, America would have loved to have a president like Bolsonaro anywhere in Central or South America. And Bolsonaro probably expected that out of modern America, but that’s not what he got. We are in a different timeline now where national identity is discarded in favor of cultural suicide. Trump found that out, and now Bolsonaro has too.
It remains to be seen how this story will play out, but my money is on Lula sinking Brazil into socialist despotism. Because that’s what Marxists do. No “constitutional norms” will be obeyed. As far as I’m concerned, Brazil is ripe for their own Pinochet moment. The political situation is raw enough to where anyone can “turn a crisis into an opportunity.” Either that, or they can go the Allende in Chile route. What’s it going to be, Brazil? Are you going to still be “the country of tomorrow” 30 years from now?
Sadly, Chile also seems to be sliding back into socialism, only narrowly rejecting a Marxist overwrite of the Pinochet constitution. But socialist President Gabriel Boric only has a 31% approval rating as of October, so there is a glimmer of hope there. Pray for the people of Chile.
And pray for the people of Brazil. Pray that their people suffer no more under the empty nihilism of socialists.