Hullo all,
Is the point of this question about Pinochet's recent difficulties, or
about the original coup? I think the coup would stand some examination
in the light of Foucalt's point that a coup is about cutting off the
head of govt and replacing it but not substantially changing the nature
of power exercised - because in this case that is just what did not
happen, the kind of power exercised was distinctly different to that of
Allende's govt, and that is intrinsically related to the nature of this
coup as a rightist, perhaps even New Rightist coup d'etat. A documentary
called 'Sonmeone Else's country' makes this point, that in the case of
Chile the neo-liberals got in by force but in other countries they have
got in by 'democratic' means.
Nesta
Is the point of this question about Pinochet's recent difficulties, or
about the original coup? I think the coup would stand some examination
in the light of Foucalt's point that a coup is about cutting off the
head of govt and replacing it but not substantially changing the nature
of power exercised - because in this case that is just what did not
happen, the kind of power exercised was distinctly different to that of
Allende's govt, and that is intrinsically related to the nature of this
coup as a rightist, perhaps even New Rightist coup d'etat. A documentary
called 'Sonmeone Else's country' makes this point, that in the case of
Chile the neo-liberals got in by force but in other countries they have
got in by 'democratic' means.
Nesta