I don´t care about commies and right wings bastards.
My mom told me that an uncle was beaten of a bunch of soldiers because he have a shotgun and posters of Guevara.

Salvador Allende wasn't a communist though.

>>1
Sure, he was alright.

There isn't a consensus between the Chilean population at all so you'll get different answers. Personally I don't support his policies because trying to work together with the bourgeoisie doesn't work.

He was going to change the fact that this country is just the playground of the bourgeoisie. You can't deny that he obviously had the best intentions for the people. If I had lived during the Unidad Popular I would have been a Allendaaboo.
Maybe he fucked up a little (because he fucked up big time by his no-rifles policy) the economy, I honestly don't know and don't care. I firmly believe he wouldn't have led the country to a shithole state, at least not without gringo intervention. This country would be a lot better with him not being murdered by capitalism.

>>4
How is succesfully expropiating 80% of the banks and major companies "work together with the burgeoisie"? Not to mention the land reform, which aimed specifically at expropiating big landowners to redistribute the land among the rich and poor equally.

Because he tried to work inside bourgeois institutions. There's no way he wasn't going to get fucked over by the parliament.

I'm honestly trying to understand what you're saying, I'm having a hard time though.

Red democracy is still playing with the set of rules imposed by the bourgeoisie. I understand that most radical leftists criticize that, I would too but from my point of view every little step counts, forward or backwards.

Reformist crap that failed precisely because they worked within the bourgeois system.

Since we're all from Chile I'll just go and paste a link to something worth reading in our language: http://www.archivochile.cl/Chile_actual/21_est_ide/chact_estidea0022.pdf

The closest thing to democratic socialism working. In the end it didn't and Allended was just another socdem.

He was pretty radical for a socdem though, but it might very well be proof of a problem in social democracy itself.

he wouldve been voted out. shouldve been more moderate and assuaged washington and key figures behind closed doors, now we would be swedish.

He is my only hero in the whole chilean's history.

>>10
It failed because of imperialism, and not through any fault of their own. Let's give credit where is due, and blame the real enemy here: USA. Whether you are trying to change the country through democracy like Allende did, or a la MIR, with paramilitary forces, US intervetion is imminent.

>>15
It would be naive to say that the tactic used by the UP's parties did not influence the outcome at all. How else would you face imperialist intervention and fascist coups if not through militant mass mobilization and the creation of military organs of the workers? Instead, Allende decided to trust the "strong institutions" of Chile rather than create a dual power outside of it (in the Leninist sense), and what naturally happened is that these institutions acted as they would in any bourgeois state: by turning to reaction and purging themselves of any leftist elements, all in an unopposed manner since there's no place for the working class in a bourgeois state (even if electing some communist deputies and senators might give that illusion).

I'm way more fond of revolutionary groups such as the EZLN and the FSLN, but certainly Allende is a model of virtue among others like Marti and others that decided to walk down the democratic path.