Why Chile's Boric Does NOT Need to Cater to the American Left & What Americans can Learn from Chile
In the aftermath of Gabriel Boric’s ‘Social Convergence’ party win, a very interesting phenomenon is happening in the american ‘left', where leftists and left-leaning people from the United States are projecting their OWN ideas about Boric not being ‘radical enough’ for their tastes.
This phenomenon is very interesting, not just because Boric is miles away from AOC, but because the entire ‘Overton Window’ of American politics, regardless of individual tastes or preferences, is so far to the right of Gabriel Boric that even ‘moderate left-leaning’ candidates in other countries are far to the left and far more ‘anti-imperialist’ than any ‘fake radical’ that could possibly be elected in the United States without sweeping reforms and fundamental changes to the constitution.
The ‘fake radical left’ in the United States, represented by members of the ‘squad’ as well as the ‘progressive caucus’ is fully supportive of aggressive foreign policy by design. They are willing to advertise for the Democratic party and make their brutal human rights abuses more ‘palatable’ to their supporters by putting a ‘kind’ face on the American empire and ignoring foreign affairs. They also regularly engage in propaganda, photo-ops and very transparent displays of extreme political theater. So-called ‘radicals’ like ‘the Squad’ - regardless of their theoretical views before they went into congress, now fully support the U.S.’s broad and sweeping military empire - simply by voting with their party. The United States has been involved in 19 wars since World War II under both republican and democratic administrations - and bears direct responsibility for 20-30 million deaths (without counting injuries, refugees, or other destabilizing tactics).
Even Bernie Sanders, the most ‘ethical’ of democratic socialists in the United States, voted for the war in Afghanistan - and is thus directly responsible for millions of deaths and a torture regime that has spanned generations; not to mention - thousands of American lives, billions of wasted dollars and almost irreparable damage to the environment. In other words, we are far beyond the need for our leaders, both Republican and Democrat, to be subjected to modern-day ‘Nuremberg Trials’.
But what happens after this in the ‘psyche’ of American leftists is very interesting. Given the seeming hopelessness of American politics, and the fact that no ethical candidate seems to pass the jaws of either the Democratic or Republican party, leftists in the United States seem to have resigned themselves to tone policing Latin American leftists for not being ‘radical enough’, by comparing them to the few countries where alleged ‘full communism’ or ‘socialism’ has taken root.
I’ll leave outside for now - the fact that Cuba and Venezuela, though socialist by name - are still yet to become socialist utopias - right now we are talking about Chile. And it is fairly interesting to see these comments from journalists like Ben Norton (many of whom I greatly admire) but who still seem to have a somewhat biased view of Chile - drawing comparisons between countries that are vastly different culturally, historically and economically that fail to take into account context.
The most that the moderate left has to gain in Chile through - ‘extreme left’ language is alliance with other leftist nations. However, Chile maintains trade with all these nations regardless - and is already a member of MercoSur. Chile’s real problem - is navigating the fine balance between having a left-leaning government - and avoiding the brutal reality of possible American intervention - a task that will not be made easier by being an outward ‘radical’.
And while it might sound a bit simplistic to ‘ideological socialists’, I would venture to say that Chile, a country that is not currently invading several countries, enforcing brutal sanctions on others, and regularly threatening to invade several more; is not the country that really needs to think about having an anti-imperialist government. That work cannot be pushed to the satellite nations of the empire: it is work that must be done right here, in the United States.
So how do we as American citizens manage to fight imperialism, neoliberalism, massive debt crisis, and other problems without tone policing or expecting satellite nations with 1/100th of the power to be ‘radical enough’ or even - to do this work - FOR us. Interestingly enough, one of the best blueprints we have, due to several cultural and historical similarities - is Chile itself.
Similar to the United States, Chile is a country that has very limited, but also very real successes operating under a ‘free market’ economic model. Chile cannot be fully compared to Venezuela, Nicaragua or Cuba, or even its nearest neighbors: or even Argentina & Peru because of its unique history as a ‘testing ground’ for neoliberal economics that were remarkably similar to those implemented (and those which we are still suffering) here in the United States.
Under Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorial regime in the 1970s and 80s, the Chicago Boys conducted the farthest-reaching economic revolution in the history of Chile. Their pro-business policies have had an overwhelming impact that can be seen today in nearly every area of social life: education, health care, the pension system, and more. The Chicago Boys’ legacy is a controversial issue in Chile. On the one hand, Chile’s economic growth has been exceptional: its GDP leaped from $14 billion in 1977 to $247 billion in 2017. On the other hand, the country’s economic inequality is astonishing: 28.1 percent of the total income is concentrated among 1 percent of the population, making Chile one of the world’s most unequal nations.
And both in its capitalist successes and in the sweeping inequalities apparent in those successes, Chile is very similar to the United States. The response of the ‘center left’ in Chile must be understood within the context of this history - Chile’s moderate left is strongly anti-imperialist and starkly in opposition to the brutality of the Pinochet regime, as well as very opposed to American intervention in the country. However - due to Chile’s limited economic successes (Chile is still, to this day, one of the most vibrant economies in Latin America) it is not so useful to focus on the need for the ‘radical language’ which took root in countries like Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua. Rather, a politics of humanism and focus on framing ‘lefty’ policy positions like free college, affordable housing and a living wage as viable; without provoking the United States, endangering relationships with trade partners, suffering sanctions, or even - in the worst of cases, having their leaders assassinated or removed by NATO forces - is vastly more popular.
Similar to the United States as well, one of the core drivers of Chile’s vast constitutional reforms has been the student debt movement. Before 2013, Chile's educational system had significant parallels with that of the U.S.: a robust sector of private colleges alongside public universities; high college tuition; and, before gratuidad, significant student loan debt. But Chileans fought back - and after massive mobilization - Chile made college tuition-free through a policy called gratuidad.
For all intensive purposes - they were able to achieve social reforms such as free college - without subjecting their population to the brutal sanctions and international pressure that more so-called ‘leftist’ nations face; through a combination of seemingly outward cooperation combined with massive internal mobilizations. These enormous protests included everyone but were sparked by the student movement - with the support of indigenous people, working class people and unions. And these mobilizations were not only about police brutality (though that was certainly an element) but they were redirected towards the common goal of a new constitution - one that would give more local power to everyone in the country, and that would enable economic reforms that benefit all Chileans.
So what can we learn from Chile? First, we must never ignore one of the major ‘cores’ of american populism - the student debt movement, which not only brings together americans of many different backgrounds but was one of the key things that brought even our ‘fraud squad’ into power. This energy must simply be redirected, not just into electoral politics or into the Democratic Party but into actual direct action with the stated goal of sweeping electoral and economic reforms. [This would be a good time to state that a large march for student debt cancellation will take place in January, and many journalists are not advertising it because people do not fully understand its importance].
Second, we must fully understand that the student movement is not independent or completely separate from other movements like M4A, racial justice, or housing inequality: it is simply the movement with the most energy behind it right now - that plays to the basic needs of the youngest and most ‘mobilization ready’ part of our population. To this end - we must stop being picky about the fact that ‘not everyone cares about student debt’ and understand that the most sweeping changes will result from the most massive mobilizations.
In Chile - it was the ‘energy’ of the student movement that led to the most sweeping constitutional reforms in history. In the United States, a country similarly hard-hit by unreasonable student debt [as well as credit card, mortgage, rental, bail bond and other debts] - there is an opportunity to launch a movement based on the ‘energy’ of our own student debtors and the needs of our own working poor - many of whom frequently join the military [and indirectly, ‘support the empire’ as a path out of poverty.
Finally, we must stop ‘tone policing’ the Latin-American left and understand that our responsibility lies in fixing the problems created in our country; with the understanding that the majority of our population [just like in Chile] does not consider itself ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ and is ideologically inconsistent - but has daily and consistent hardships where most people agree there is a need for real change. And just like in Chile, it is not necessary for us to take on specific leftist labels, nor align ourselves with leftist countries - but rather - explain the need for specific changes like sweeping electoral reform, debt cancellation and economic reform - in a way that is understood by our own people.
In other words, instead of simulating the ‘Squad’ by demanding radicalism in language - we should be more radical in action.
That is what we can learn from Chile.