Lawrence Jones, III
POLI 353
Professor Paarlberg
12/12/18
Causes of Class Division in Chile Pre-Pinochet
A country’s history often dictates the persona that it reflects to the other nations across the world. It could be riled with humanitarian indecencies, government wrongdoings and social inequality. On the other end, it could be filled with successful regimes that have maintained a certain homeostasis inside of their nation that proved to be up to par with what their denizens were searching for. These sort of scenarios make for great film content, as the elements of visual and sound arts come together to capture the true essence of a country. Chilean director Andres Woods’ film “Machuca” depicts early 1970’s Chile during before the oncoming rule of United States’ backed dictator Augusto Pinochet, who entered into power through a military coup d’etat. This shift of power took place after the election of Chile’s first socialist president, Salvador Allende. With the historical context of this movie reflecting the peak of the Cold War, communist and socialist ideologies were making themselves apparent during this time. Internationally, Chile’s new left leaning democratic-socialist government warrened the attention of countries like the United States who were more than opposed to any government that resonated with communism. Domestically, it proved to be a catalyst to fuel strikes and protests for and against Allende’s new form of rule. This resulted in class divisions inside the country to continually deepen. What factors contributed to the creation of such deep class divisions before Pinochet’s rule? Examination of the long history of systematic oppression by the Chilean bourgeois on the working class, imperialism inside of the country and Salvador Allende’s Democratic-Socialist government will bring specifically identify how division happened.
The cornerstone of bourgeoisie mentality in Chile dates back to the 14th century with events such as the Spanish Conquest took place in the mid 14th century at the hands of individuals like Diego de Almargo and Pedro de Valdivia. With former conquests made against the Inca and Aztec Empires in Peru and Mexico, Almargo was well aware that indigenous forces that went against his firearm-wielding horseback army would not prove to be a formidable force. The same can be said about Valdivia, who’s Spanish forces drained rivaling indigenous tribes like the Mapuche down to stagnating numbers (Spanish War History 2012). Francisco de Villagra would be Valvadivia’s successor after dying at the hands of the Mapuche people, contributing to the continuous destruction of indigenous people’s cities. As a result, a myriad of starvation, betrayal and suppression made its presence on the Mapuche and the acquisition of land for the Spanish colonizers. Of the more notable ramifications of Spanish Conquest was the founding of Chile’s current capital, Santiago. The city would soon be home to La Moneda, the seat of the country’s president, and other institutions that would attract the likes of the affluent yet small upper class that consisted of businessmen and economists (Spanish War History 2012). The subjugation of native peoples to Spanish conquest laid the framework for the practice of feudalism in coming centuries. This lead to large masses of land coming being under the control of the relatively small circle bourgeois class. Reports from a 1925 census revealed that 98% of the Anconcagua river valley was controlled by 3% of landowners, leaving only a small portion of land for peasants to and subsequently making living conditions harder among them (Spanish War History 2012). Spain’s invasion of what would eventually be known as Chile began the history of the bourgeoisie taking advantage of the lower class as a whole, marking the beginning of class division.
Another example of this mentality was In 1879, where Chile declared war on Peru and Bolivia for the ownership of precious mineral reserves in the Atacama desert that would serve to the country’s commercial interests and for Bolivia’s access to the Pacific. Bolivia at the time was suffering from weak leadership amongst its ruling class and the inability to secure its land from the conquest of neighboring countries, while Peru’s armed forces were ill-armed and unprepared for the coastal attacks of Chile. Peru lost Tarapaca, a province in southern Peru. Bolivia lost the most in this battle, having to relinquish its access to the sea through the Chilean acquisition of its Littoral province. When the world economic boom hit from 1891-1913, Chile used the natural resources from their plunder in Peru and Bolivia to their financial gain. The bourgeois would then work closely with large landowners in region to secure the lands resources, with special attention to its nitrates, to profit off of their salvaging. Production rates of nitrates went up from 1,000,000 tons in 1896 to 2,500,000 at the of 1910 along with a 75% increase in demand by the 1918. Chile continued to use its usage of natural resources for monetary gain through exploitation of its copper mines. Copper would soon replace nitrates as the most important export of the country, growing the country’s foreign trade from 140 million pesos in 1896 to 580 million pesos in 1906. With majority of this work done through the exploitation of Chile’s peasant and working class, more and more money was circulated among the upper-class while the proletariat was left to toil against their will. Chile’s history of the bourgeois taking advantage of unstable countries’ with valuable resources continues the narrative of class division on a large level. Unequal distribution of land and exploitation of a disenfranchised population both are effects of the bourgeois mentality, both of which enforcing class division inside of the country.
Along with the bourgeoisie, Chile’s imperialistic relations with the United States also fed into the creation of class division inside of the country. Post World War I Chile saw its country’s industries fall victim to the ownership of outside entities. Even before the United States began its conquest on Chilean materials, 50% of the mines in Chile were owned by foreign investors at this time. The United States first struck by obtaining the El Teniente, a mining company that produced ⅓ of Chile’s national total, in 1904 (Martinez 1979). CODELCO, another mining located in Chuquicamata, was acquired by the United States in 1912 after it had produced about half of the country’s national total. This sort of imperialist attitude shown by the United States led to domestic companies such as Anaconda Copper and Kennecott Copper Mine feeding off of the labor of the working class. Like the copper industry, iron and steel companies also succumbed to United States affairs. US based company Bethlehem Steel took control of Chile’s major metal industry, El Tojo (Martinez 1979). And just like that, the much of the natural resources that were acquired through victory of the War of the Pacific were harbored by the greedy expansionist policies of the US. In retrospect, thinking about why Chile gave up lots of its potential wealth to the US can give several different explanations about Chile’s governance of their resources. One possibility is the Paradox of Plenty, otherwise known as the Resource Curse. Much like the name, the definition of this nuisance is a paradoxical situation where countries with abundances in non-renewable resources suffer from a stagnant and often regressive economic growth. Countries that are affected by this often rely on one large industry to fuel their economy, with mining being Chile’s lifeline (Investopedia 2018). At this point in Chile’s history, the bourgeoisie funneled its capitalistic endeavors on the backs of its proletariat through imperialist ties to the largest expansionist country in the world. What may be one of the few achievements of this capitalist/imperialist synthesis was the rise of a middle class. Santiago became a hotbed for those working in the country’s most important industry while simultaneously country-dwellers were relocating to urban areas of the country. However, the bourgeoisie was able to finesse the trust and likeness of this new middle class through exchanges of trust for positions inside of their administration(s). As the bourgeoisie secured the loyalty of the middle class, the working class continued to suffer. Between 1913 and 1923, real wages of the proletariat dropped 10% partially due to the world economic collapse that transpired in 1918 and inflation due to overproduction (Martinez 1979). Strikes were rampant and displeasure among those affected was brought to the spotlight. Later in 1922 The Russian Revolution garnered the attention of an objectified Chilean working class, resulting in the existing Socialist Workers Party of Chile to transform into the Communist Party of Chile. Even with a public discourse against the workings of the bourgeoisie, their capitalistic tendencies drove the country into an economic downturn through its continual exploitation of its mining industry. Accompanied by repudiation of its foreign debt and a drastic rise in unemployment, Chile would soon hit rock bottom economically by 1931 and experience a number of military coup d’etats, reflecting the political instability of the country (Martinez 1979). Chile’s inexperience on the global frontier of economics with consideration of the meddling of the United States’ on their resources enabled the bourgeoisie that ruled the country to engage in a synthesis of capitalist and imperialist policies. The tensions brought about by improper governance of the bourgeoisie created a solid divide between the haves and the have-nots, implicating a strong divide between ideologies and allegiance vis-a-vis classes.
Lastly, Salvador Allende’s democratic socialist government played a vital role in the class divisions inside of Chile. Socialism was a form of governance that had never been nationally practiced on Chilean soil. Considering that Allende was democratically elected at one of the peaks of the Cold War, his stunning victory caught the attention of the United States and many other international powers at the time. Allende’s platform of democratic socialism was pertinent to running both the government’s economy and society at the same level, avoiding the creation of wealth for the few and destitute socioeconomic conditions for the working class/lower middle class. Other governments pre-Allende had failed in creating important changes needed in Chilean society at the time, like land reform to assist the workers that the bourgeoisie had been taking advantage of for years. The Christian Democrats, represented by Eduardo Frei Montalva’s presidency from 1964 to 1970, attempted to initiate major land reform by acquiring 51% of the country’s copper mines from the United States (Hudson 1994). However, the goal of reclaiming land access of nearly 100,000 families fell short as Montalva’s acquisition 13% of the cultivable land could only be dispersed between 5% and 10% of peasant families. Frei’s government proved to be facade to what the unheard voices of Chile were searching for: a relinquishment of power from the bourgeoisie inside of the government which was defined by oligarchic rule (Martinez 1979). With the deposition of the Christian Democrats, Allende secured the Chilean vote with 36.3% of the vote during a run-off election. His unprecedented win allowed for the marginalized of his country to make their voices known through general strikes and organized workers movements. One of Allende’s first move as president was jumpstarting the process of obtaining the remaining 49% of the country’s mines from the US, signaling that he and his party were in the power to give the unfortunate victims of previous oppressive governments. In addition to creating the case for the United States to give reparations back to Chile, Allende also nationalized the coal mines, iron and nitrate mines, and the textile industry (Martinez 1979). For the first time in modern Chilean history the work of the marginalized was being put back into their bosom while their previously shuttered cries for representation cracked the surface.
Latifundists seeing that their former system of alienating marginalized peoples was not working subsequently lead them to paying armed radical right wing groups to resist this new reform. Allende’s government was at a crossroads, struggling to figure out whether an armed leftist resistance en contra de their opponents would suffice or if denouncement of violence on both ends of the spectrum would prevail. A decision was soon made by the government to keep violence from their end, prompted by the party’s fear of losing control of the possible large scale peasant movement. Instead of armed revolution Allende implemented the largest agrarian reform done by his party and expropriated nearly 5 million hectares of land. Formerly owned by individuals in the Christian Democrat party, the Democratic-Socialists left it’s predecessors a solemn 1 million hectares of land (Martinez 1979). This move executed by Allende grew his party’s popularity, inspired peasants in the countryside to take back land they believed to be theirs, and influenced younger members of the Christian Democrats to form a satellite party dubbed the Movement of the Christian Left (Martinez 1979). The party would submit themselves to the the views and ideologies of the now well established Popular Unity party.The oligarchies established inside of parties such as the Christian Democrats feared that their livelihoods were at stake. Years of making money off of the defenseless seemed to be coming to an end until they partnered with the CIA to begin their plan to retake power in Chile. Allende and his supporters were cornered in La Moneda, the home of the president. After aerial attacks had been deployed onto the presidential palace, infantry began their raid into the palace. Allende would later commit suicide with an automatic rifle that was bestowed upon him by Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro. Often referred to as ‘The Other 9/11”, this day would be marked as one of the most infamous events in Chilean history with its outcome representing the beginning of Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship (Gilbert 2013). What the bourgeoisie didn’t expect was their unlimited scope of rule over lower class Chileans to be in jeopardy due to the nation’s first socialist president. Allende’s ability to rally his supported against the tyranny of the oligarchic ruling class is one of the most important reasons as to why class division in Chile became what it was, further emboldened by the Christian Democrats and other anti-communist parties ability to obtain support from their radicalized sectors to defend what they had been building in the nation for centuries essentially.
Class division in Chile dates back to Spanish conquest on Chilean soil where the lives of innocent and ill prepared indigenous peoples were taken advantage of on the behalf of a wealthy Spanish ruling class. This bourgeoisie mentality has lasted in the country for centuries through imperialist and capitalist endeavors taken by the United States and Chilean government. The onset of Salvador Allende’s Democratic-Socialist government continued the polarization between classes as his short tenure as president gave a voice to a massive group of individuals who had been marginalized their entire existence. Culminating these factors together accurately and explicitly explains the existence of such deep class division inside of the country pre-Pinochet.
Sources
Creative Commons. “War of the Pacific.” Ohio River - New World Encyclopedia, New World Encyclopedia, 16 Oct. 2016, www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/War_of_the_Pacific.
Martinez, Jorge. “Lessons of Chile.” Socialist Alternative, Jan. 1979, www.socialistalternative.org/lessons-of-chile/lessons-of-chile/.
Hudson, Rex A. “Chile: A Country Study.” Venezuela - The Judiciary, 1994, countrystudies.us/chile/29.htm.
Staff, Investopedia. “Resource Curse.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 31 May 2018, www.investopedia.com/terms/r/resource-curse.asp.
Gilbert, Sarah. “The Coup.” SBS News, SBS News, 2013, www.sbs.com.au/theother911/.
