> if the working class is well organized and class conscious (as in
> Chile in 1970), not only may the legislature but the executive may be
> subordinated to non-bourgeois forces.
> The problem, of course, is that in the Chilean case, the repressive
> component of the state (the armed forces) stepped in to suppressed the
> democratic component -- aided and abetted by the US and US-based
> multinational corporations -- so that capitalism and the international
> relationships of domination could be restored to their "normal" status. In
> the situation of Chile in 1973, either capitalism was going to be preserved
> by military force or there had to be a socialist break from capitalism.
> Jim Devine
Chilean constitution called for presidential selection by legislature
if no electoral majority occurred. Constitutional transfer of power
took place in which Allende agreed to leave military & bureaucracy
intact. Popular Unity (UP) controlled only 36% of congressional
seats and had no appointments on Constitutional Court. Thus, many
disposed to preventing fundamental changes were situated in official
positions, often outside public accountability. Possession of limited
formal power was heavily outweighed by opposition control of key
economic, military, political sectors. Plus, opposition forces
controlled mass media and used it for purposes of political sabotage.
Reproduction of capitalist relations was threatened in Chile in early
1970s and context in which Allende government operated was historic -
concrete example of test of peaceful transition to socialism.
Fundamental contradiction within UP was between its stated intention -
abolishing capitalism - and adherence to constitutional means. Thus,
UP was not only restricted by power of opposition, it was limited by
its own character. Coalition contained several elements not
committed to working-class socialism and standard bearers - Socialists
and Communists - had long accepted constitutional path to socialism.
These factors limites popular mobilization, created conflict,
prevented development of alternative strategies for seizing state
power, and bought time for opposition. Michael Hoover
