Okay. My point is only that the people you need to convince, in the specific case of cold-war-era governments, are not your own citizens, but rather the hard-ass anticommunists in the U.S. government, war criminals like Kissinger et al.

Amusingly enough, if you were a military junta like Alvarado’s in Peru in ~1970, even a leftist military junta, you could pretty much get away with attempted agrarian reform, expropriation of foreign assets, nationalization of major industries, etc., as long as you agreed to fight against isolated communist guerillas in the jungle, and the US would leave you alone. If you were a democratically elected moderate like Belaundé, they’d cut off aid and impose sanctions. If you were a center-left european-style socialist like Allende in Chilé, they’d go all out to destroy your government.

Former East Germany didn't work out for substantially different reasons than Chile. Neither excuse making nor specific domestic policy was really the cause in either case though.

Basically, the "givers", other states, should, according to commonly accepted international laws and norms, only intervene in the operation of other sovereign states in certain limited circumstances, such as for self defense, etc. Deciding you don't like the leaders they elect, even before those leaders have done anything, doesn't cut it as a rationale for toppling a foreign government.

Allende sought to to nationalise banking and redistribute land. That's not what people think of as centre-left.

European socialists (outside of Italy where everyone is mad) are generally solid on constitutional matters, including separation of powers. Whereas Allende created the crisis by trying to steamroll the supreme court on separation of powers.

Western Europe is dramatically less economically centralized than any part of Latin America, and so there’s much more balance between the influence of the richest part of the society and the rest. (Which is to say, egalitarian policies are much less politically explosive.)

Allende’s politics were much closer to western European socialists than to say, Mao or Lenin. Maybe “center left” is a bad label for being ambiguous; the point is that his goal was not some kind of communist utopia with a completely centrally planned government, &c. &c.

In places where a tiny minority have a chokehold on a country's economy, land reform is a pretty essential prerequisite to general political and social equality. General MacArthur carried out massive land reform in Japan in the late 40s, and few people would call him a leftist, &c.

* * *

But all of that is getting away from the central point, which is that thinking that it was better for U.S. long-term interests to overthrow the government, without any legitimate justification, and replace it with a brutal fascist police state, is the height of hubris, and frankly despicable.

He didn't use force against his own people, and this was in strong contrast to the sort of leaders you have pointed out. Mao and Lenin and Chavez wouldn't hesitate to use force to reach their objectives.

    his goal was not some kind of communist utopia with a
    completely centrally planned government

Central planning is a foundation of socialist thought, and he was pursuing this. (1) He was implementing a computer system designed to run a centrally planned state and used it in anger; (2) he had a stated aim to seize and redistribute property based on priorities to be determined by a central authority; (3) he was forming strategic relations with the soviet union; (4) he was undermining the separation of powers in the standing constitution; (5) close working relationship with the communist party, sometimes against the perspective of his own party and supporters.

    In places where a tiny minority have a chokehold
    on a country's economy land reform is a pretty
    essential prerequisite to general political and
    social equality

Social equality is an unachievable ideal though.

Chile never underwent that reform, and has for the last twenty years been the most stable elected parliament in the region, with economic growth at all levels of society. The UK has never land reform of this sort either.

    ... thinking that it was better for U.S. long-term
    interests to overthrow the government...

I don't buy into your original point that what Kissinger thought was to have been more important than what the local powerbases was doing.

I don't find it surprising that the US took a dim view of Allende. He was supported by his local communist party and was setting up an intelligence relationship with the Soviet Union, and the cold war was on.

But I agree with you that the US would do better by leading by example rather than meddling in the affairs of other states, and that that sort of conduct is the 'right' thing to do.

You are wildly out of context here.

In 1970-73 Chile had a democratically elected president with a socialist program, not unlike France's Francois Miterrand. He wasn't "given a fair shot" because he was overthrown before the end of his term.

(Edited: no solid evidence that he was murdered.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_détat

I don't think the parent of your post was out of context.

Wikipedia is poor resource for recent political history, because people defend their history there. Heavily contested events like this, or The Dismissal in Australia end up with summaries that are sympathetic to the left-wing view of history. That doesn't make it right, it just means that people of that inclination are more interested in contesting the history than their opponents.

You do Miterrand a disservice by comparing his to Allende. Miterrand is an example of a socialist leader who worked within the bounds of his constitution.

It’s not clear that he was murdered: officially it was a suicide, and as far as I know the evidence is pretty sketchy. But many others were certainly murdered, before and after the coup.

You think his girlfriend left him?