chile the great transformation

(2): fallacies

1. not due to dictatorial nature of Pinochet regime
2. return to democracy took mass protest, not thanks to economic growth
3. nationalization+state intervention were not obstacles to neoliberalism, but made it possible (redirection rather than reversal)
4. capitalist revolution, but not a bourgeois revolution (not a civic rebellion)--State 'gave birth' to civil society

(14): with Chile coup, 7 out of 11 countries in LA were under military governments

(17): weakness of social movements after Pinochet takeover, due to extreme repression

(18): 1983-1984 as turning points

(21): why protest began? [not insignificantly unconvincing, here]

(23): two trade union movements -- the radcial, and the more professional/strategic (copper workers, etc.)

(30): structural handicap in first part of dictatorship, where smaller portion of w-class formally employed, etc.

(32-33): imp--splits in middle-class because of the memory of Allende, when agitation got underway. no organization, point of unity amongst protestors

(35): from 'lions to foxes'

(36): communists, from broad front to popular rebellion (by 1979-1983)

(37): socialists became much more moderate/tamed

(39): mobilization for 'no' vote, 1988

(43): the 'underdevelopment of civil society'

(44): imp--neoliberal reforms mostly imposed by technocratic elites, supported by business [hmm]

(45): imp--State's autonomy was made possible by Allende reforms, since they weakened the power of the national business class (distinct from Uruguay and Argentina) [almost opposite the argument of the other reading!?]

(47-48): two periods [rather than three] -- (1) '73-'83 (reduction of tarriffs, end of state controls, privatizations); (2) '83-'90 (began with external debt crisis, etc.)

(48): gov't had to 'get prices wrong' in second period, to recover from the first

(50): good table of principal neoliberal reforms, and how they changed period to period

1. foreign trade
2. prices
3. privatization
4. fiscal policy
5. internal credit
6. external debt
7. labour markets
8. land market
9. social security

(53): Chile had comparative advantage of its resource endowments--so neoliberalism would result in export-economy based on this sector

(55): state socialized losses after the debt crisis, of course. neoliberalism in practice

(58): imp--the 'opening up' in late 70s was accompanied by very little productive investment--most went into consumpiton, etc.

(62): LR redistributed 60% of arable land

(64): reform of pension funds was attempt to liberate funds for accumulation

(65-67): the neoliberal state--highly interventionist in Chile, five features

(73): four forms of resource transfer

1. from State to large capital
2. from wages to profits
3. towards export sector
4. destruction of natural resources

(78): Allende couldn't retain support of small and medium companies, because of policy over labour. worker conflict over wages affected them adversely.

(80): int--the anti-Allende coalition was not motivated by a positive vision; held together by 'socialist threat' [some evidence for this in the other reading, but more a question, there, of competing positive visions rather than all negative]

(81): key--autonomy permits something grater than state 'reaction'--it permits capitalist revolution [this is key contrast to other reading]

(83-84): very odd claim -- C. boys appeal rooted in their creating something 'new', 'universalist' appeal

(85): need autonomy from the political right

(86): key--very different explanation of how 74-75 crisis mattered. here it weakens business, bringing technocrats to the front [in other reading, the mechanism is liquidity overseas]

(87): again--a technocratic elite 'autonomous from immediate class considerations'

(88-89): imp-- newcomers take commanding heights -- a new class being constituted by the policy shift

(94): technocratic elites' task made possible by total power being in Pinochet's hands

(95): imp--after '82, call to temper ideological policy. business coming back into picture [BUT when they come back in, in this story, they are a largely undifferentiated class]

(97): here you get an 'active' State, in the service of a 'pragmatic neoliberalism', but willing to 'get prices wrong' to serve business

(98): in sum--State autonomy explains 'radical transformation'

(99-100): again, story of political elite being outmanuevered by Pinochet and the technocrats in this exceptional period

(105): a new working class is born, of a different composition than the old one

(111-115): int. reflections on the informal sector

(121): creation of reserve army in late 70s--w/ unemployment, and whatnot

(124): capitalist recovery took place w/ heightened levels of inequality

(127): 'precarity' was not backward, but emphatically 'present'

(130): a 'weak' sense of continuity, across the two periods [what's the point of this? v. odd]

(132): nationalization was a clear prelude to 'successful' neoliberalism

(134): three points, critical

1. Allende weakened business class, which was critical to implementation of neoliberalism [in the other story, they are weakened more as a result of labor withdrawal, and international changes]
2. w/o copper nationalization, not possible to avoid fiscal crisis
3. extensive agrarian reform was critical to modernization of agriculture

(138): neoliberalism destroying its grave-digger in the 1980s (unions and left-wing parties)

--

[1] contrast w/ other reading, particularly the neoliberal period (different mechanisms are diong the explaining--in one, autonomy; in other, power of 'radical internationalists')

[2] this one is, of course, compatible with relative autonomy of State--it is just that the State is being brought to heel after 8-10 years of experimentation. whereas in the other the State depends upon the power of a new coalition.

[3] weakening of business class important to explaining neoliberal period? why weakened, in both accounts different story

[4] lessons for generalizing to other experiences (of course no a priori reason that this should be straightforward), given (1) claim of enabling (exceptional) autonomy; (2) land reform/nationalizations, etc.