Augusto Pinochet: Fascist or Not?

by Judas and Zoltanous

When discussing post-World War II fascism, it is often assumed by some that Chile fell victim to a ruthless fascist dictator, namely Augusto Pinochet, also known as the Helicopter Man among Libertarians. This misguided perception leads to uneducated individuals, whether they be fascists, Libertarians, or average Communists, labeling Pinochet as a fascist simply due to his authoritarianism and his actions against Communists, without delving beneath the surface. However, Pinochet's extreme anti-communism was accompanied by an anti-fascist stance as well. In reality, Pinochet was a liberal dictator who implemented free market capitalism and espoused mild social conservatism. He banned parties and individuals promoting totalitarian ideologies. This starkly contrasts with historical fascism, which typically came to power through democratic populism or violent revolution led by a vanguard party.

Historian Peter Winn has extensively documented the United States' significant role in placing Pinochet in power. Covert support from the US was crucial in engineering the coup against Salvador Allende and consolidating power under the Pinochet regime. Declassified documents, cited by Peter Kornbluh, reveal the CIA's involvement in destabilizing Chile and creating favorable conditions for the coup. The Defense Intelligence Agency also played a part by securing missiles used in the bombing of the La Moneda Palace.

Upon assuming power, Pinochet's military government implemented radical economic liberalization, dismantling tariff protections for local industries, banning trade unions, and privatizing social security and state-owned enterprises. These policies are in direct contradiction to the economic measures pursued by Nazi Germany and Italian Fascism, which emphasized economic autarky, nationalization, state-controlled trade unions, public social security, and state monopolies. To gain a deeper understanding of these contrasting economic approaches, I recommend reading works such as Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship by A. James Gregor and Hitler's Revolution by Richard Tedor. So, the prevailing belief that Pinochet was a fascist dictator fails to capture the complexity of his regime and its economic policies, which diverged significantly from the foundations of historical fascism.

Robert Packenham and William Ratliff, of Hoover Institute both observed that:

“The first country in the world to make that momentous break with the past—away from socialism and extreme state capitalism toward more market-oriented structures and policies—was not Deng Xiaoping's China or Margaret Thatcher's Britain in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan's United States in 1981, or any other country in Latin America or elsewhere. It was Pinochet's Chile in 1975.”

— Robert Packenham and William Ratliff, What Pinochet Did For Chile

Under the liberalized economy, financial conglomerates emerged as significant beneficiaries, thanks to an influx of foreign bank loans. The resumption of debt obligations, including the payment of principal and interest installments, further fueled the credit cycle. International lending organizations like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Inter-American Development Bank provided substantial loans. Additionally, numerous foreign multinational corporations, including ITT, Dow Chemical, and Firestone, returned to Chile. It is important to note that fascism represents an ideology where the government exercises control over all aspects of society, including businesses, resources, property, money, and vehicles. Fascism vehemently opposes the free-market system and any form of international banking.

In essence, Pinochet's economic practices had little in common with historical fascist economic models, except for a brief period in Austria. Pinochet's system could be compared to the early stages of Austrofascism, where Ludwig von Mises advised Dolfuss, similar to Milton Friedman's advisory role to Pinochet. Like Austria, Chile experienced significant setbacks in its economy due to libertarian economic policies, laissez-faire lending practices (especially in the banking sector), leading to bankruptcies, bailouts, hyperinflation, and mass unemployment. Economists like Amartya Sen have highlighted the failures of the Chilean economy under Friedman's neoliberalism, similar to the studies on the Austrian economy and the Credistalten Crisis of 1931 during the Great Depression.

Austria eventually addressed these issues by removing Mises in 1934 and cracking down on the Austrian school. Similarly, Pinochet expelled Friedman and the Chicago school in 1984. Both economies began to experience growth: Austria through corporatism and Chile through protectionism. However, Chile cannot be considered as fascist to the same extent as Austria due to its different corporatist model. Furthermore, Austria took a decisive step by nationalizing the bank in 1934, around the time Mises left his position. Pinochet's actions did not reflect a strong ideological foundation. Even Robert Paxton, a historian on fascism, acknowledges that had Pinochet attempted to establish an actual fascist regime, he would have been overthrown by the United States. Paxton characterizes Pinochet as a client state leader lacking popular support and expansionist ambitions.

Some individuals may still label Pinochet as a fascist because he included former Nazis in his government. However, this was not exclusive to Pinochet's regime, as it occurred in both Western NATO nations and Warsaw Pact nations. It is worth noting that Pinochet's government arrested Chilean National Socialists and actively suppressed the revival of the Chilean National Socialist party. Figures like Miguel Serrano, an advocate of Esoteric Hitlerism, opposed Pinochet's military regime due to its opposition to Nazism and Serrano's beliefs. Pinochet's government classified National Socialists and other Chilean fascists as communists, resulting in some being subjected to violence or sent to concentration camps. Additionally, it is important to mention that many fascists historically held antagonistic views towards Jews, with some being explicitly anti-Semitic. However, Pinochet was not anti-Semitic.

Colin Shindler says this:

"Unlike Argentina in the 1970s where the military junta killed a disproportionate number of Jews, Pinochet’s regime did not embrace antisemitism as state policy. Instead his underlings visited synagogues on Yom Kippur to express their goodwill and regularly met communal leaders."

"Many middle-class Jews who had left Allende’s Chile for mainly economic reasons now returned to appreciate a new-found stability."

"Pinochet admired Israel’s armed forces, but simultaneously was careful to cultivate the Arab states. Chile therefore opposed the Zionism is Racism resolution at the UN, but hosted the Pan-American Arab Congress in Santiago in 1978. The PLO attended Pinochet’s reception."

"Despite a US arms embargo, Israel trained personnel and provided equipment which could be used against Pinochet’s opponents. In 1989 Eitan Kalinsky and his wife were sent as Israeli emissaries to teach at the Jewish school in Santiago. They attended the now public protests against Pinochet’s regime and were amazed to note that the riot-control vehicles had been manufactured by Beit Alfa, a left-wing Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz."

— Colin Shindler, Pinochet and The Jews

Overall, fascism was rare in South America, and only a few countries can be partially categorized as exhibiting true Latin American manifestations of fascism, such as Peronism and Integralism. However, in the case of figures like Pinochet, there is no evidence of fascist inclinations. Pinochet's main objective was to restore the former liberal Republic of Chile. He drew inspiration from Diego Portales, a key figure in 19th century Chilean politics who served as a minister under President Joaquín Prieto. Portales played a pivotal role in shaping Chilean politics by establishing the liberal Constitution of 1833.

Pinochet himself expressed admiration for Portales, stating on October 11th, 1973:

“[Democracy] will be born again purified from the vices and bad habits that ended up destroying our institutions.... [W]e are inspired by the Portalian spirit which has fused together the nation.” 

— Augusto Pinochet, October 11 1973

It is evident why the United States supported Pinochet, as his objective was to restore a period of Chilean history that was characterized by liberalism and drew inspiration from previous Chilean liberal politicians. This stands in stark contrast to fascism, which is fundamentally opposed to liberalism.

Other esteemed historians, including Roger Griffin, have made the argument that Pinochet cannot be classified as a fascist due to his lack of adherence to key fascist characteristics, such as a radical disdain for capitalism. A. James Gregor, an expert in fascism, also excluded Pinochet from this classification, highlighting his authoritarianism but noting that his support for neoliberal economic policies set him apart from fascism. In essence, supporting Pinochet solely based on his anti-communist stance is as naive as supporting Ronald Reagan for the same reason. Pinochet was nothing more than a puppet backed by the United States, lacking a strong ideological foundation. This phenomenon of liberal authoritarianism can be observed in other instances, such as the puppet presidency of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine following the 2014 coup. Similar to Pinochet, Zelenskyy targets both communists and fascists who oppose him. Over time, Pinochet's foundation has been seen as a mockery, with Chile swiftly discarding his policies and failed ideas after his death. This parallels the experiences in Spain with Franco and Portugal with Salazar.