My overall impressions of the films evoke feelings of awe, exhaustion, and fear. I am in awe of the vast amount of real footage and the capturing of different perspectives during the actual moments. The passion and raw emotions of the Chileans are fully captured by Guzman. I am further in awe of the quick pace at which Allende goes from being celebrated by 800,000 people to committing suicide during the bombing of the palace during the coup de tat. Honestly, I am also exhausted from reading hours of subtitles and trying to focus on the video while reading. Hearing the words of the Chileans in their native language had a value that surpassed any of the difficulty experienced. I have a new appreciation for others who perform daily activities while speaking and reading in a secondary language. Finally, I am in fear of how detrimental interference from other countries within an established democracy can be and that the military that is sworn to protect the constitution of a country can turn against its citizens. (A thorough reading of the enlistment oath for the US Military provided little consolation to me.)
Allende’s socialist experiment was referred to by many as a “dream for justice” during the documentary. To the “masses” (majority of his supporters) – workers, peasants, and pobladores [urban underclass] the dream was very modest. In the opening moments of the documentary, Guzman ask Chileans which party they will support, why, and by what margin will the party win. One mother makes it clear that she supports Allende’s party, Popular Unity (PU) because her standard of living had greatly improved. PU “vastly expanded social programs” and this resulted in raised incomes that met the basic needs of the people (Wood 199). She passionately stated, “I lived in a shack that was falling down, it was damp all the time and my four children had bronchopneumonia. I asked everywhere for help and nobody listened to me. But now, wherever I go, I’m seen to and that’s thanks to Allende. I’ve got a lovely house. I don’t have many comforts, but we don’t go hungry.” This sentiment was key to Allende’s socialist experiment because he needed the poor supporters to be “won over by the material benefits they would receive and persuaded by their experience that socialism was a superior system that was in their own self-interest” (Wood 200).
However, he also needed the support of a “sizable sector of the middle classes who wanted the benefits of los cambios (the changes) . . .while allaying their fears of a violent or authoritarian revolution in which they might become victims” (Wood 200). To achieve this, Allende needed to implement Popular Unity’s program of structural change in a “carefully controlled and phased revolutionary process. Here the strategy called for dividing the Chilean bourgeoisie, confronting one sector at a time, and enlisting the cooperation or neutrality of the smaller and medium sized enterprises by confining leftist attacks to the monopolies” (Wood 200). This plan required a very delicate, balanced strategy of economic and political change and the “masses” were expected to wait patiently for the “advances and benefits of the revolution from above” and provide political and social support when requested (Wood 200). However, to a group of people who lacked power for so long, the success of Popular Unity signaled a call to action. The “masses” knew the PU agenda of structural change, redistribution of wealth and providing the basic needs of the country’s poor, and began the revolution at their level. The “hallmark of this revolution from below was the toma – the seizure of the sites where people lived or worked – or hoped to live or work” (Wood 201). This resulted in suburban and farm seizures, reclaiming of land taken from Indians by the European settlers, and toma of large estates by peasants. The “masses” had the confidence to take these actions since Allende had promised to not use the state as security against “the people” (Wood 200). Workers demanded the largest real wage increase, thirty percent, in Chilean history, and got it, in 1971. The land seizures and wage increases that could exceed inflationary bounds, became a big concern for Allende’s political timetable and strategy (Wood 202).
Naturally, this was not well received by all Chileans. “The widening reach of Allende’s revolution horrified well-to-do Chileans, who saw their property being stolen and their privileges usurped” (Constable 25). Members of the opposition – Right Christian Democrat and National parties were as vocal as Popular Unity when asked about the elections. In the documentary a very angry supporter of the opposition party spat, “They should impeach the President! They should impeach him and throw him out on May 21! He’s destroyed the country, ruined it . . .and this is a corrupt, degenerate government! Degenerate, corrupt, filthy! All those dirty communists should get out of Chile! On May 21, thank God, we’ll have the cleanest, finest government we’ve ever had! Democracy will win and we’ll get rid of those rotten Marxist communists!” If relying solely on the content of Guzman’s documentary, I would not have been able to understand why she was so outraged. To witness her degree of anger provided a context for the coming events when the election did not favor the Opposition.
Many actions were taken by the Opposition to derail the progress of Political Unity ranging from a US government funded transportation strike that resulted in shortages of food and raw materials and a stagnation of the economy and a substantial decrease in US aid from 260.4 million in in 1967 to 3.8 million in 1973 (Constable 26). The Nixon White House sought to destabilize the Chilean economy because Allende’s socialist government was considered a threat to all of Western Europe and the US multinationals feared loss of investments if socialism spread (Constable 26). The documentary shows Allende’s supporters handling each issue with an admirable resolve and supporting him until the end. They used factory trucks for transportation, and organized peacefully to get food for their families during the food shortages manufactured by the Right. Despite all of the actions against his government, Allende attempted to use Parliament and laws to keep the peace. He requested, and was denied, a State of Emergency after a rebel armed regiment killed twenty-two people outside the presidential palace and sought a minimum agreement with the Christian Right until right before the coup was legitimized by Parliament and his resignation requested. Pinochet, the Commander-in-Chief thought to be a Constitutionalist, proved that he had long simmering hatred for Allende and PU and resolved to “fight against Marxism if it meant breaking democracy.” The human rights atrocities suffered in Chile during this time are proof that he and many in the Opposition embraced this concept and it even became the historical memory for Chile. Guzman’s Obstinate Memory addresses this version of history that had been accepted and shows young students The Battle of Chile. They are visibly shaken when confronted with the irrefutable proof that the accepted historical narrative was at best incomplete, but most likely false.
A professor with a vital position within Popular Unity characterized the time as such: it was a “Dream for justice. The dream failed. I was glad to be part of the crew on this ship of madmen . . .[the failure was] not a shipwreck. Small earthquake, nothing else.” When I first read the translation I was sure that something that he said just did not translate to English properly, but after thinking about his words I realized the true meaning. It was a dream that failed, a social experiment that did not succeed. The followers were “madmen” to follow Allende with his “slim mandate and lack of majority support in Congress” but it was a time of euphoria for students, professionals, peasant leaders and factory workers (Constable 24). However, when Allende’s attempt at socialism failed, it was not a shipwreck because it affected far more than Allende’s followers – it really was like a small earthquake whose tremors affected more than just the epicenter, but was not so debilitating that recovery was not possible. Chile today, less than 50 years since the tragedy, has a strong economy and enjoyed recent policy changes from a Socialist President who expanded civil rights and access to higher education (Londono).
Works Cited
Constable, Pamela and Valenzuela, Arturo. A Nation of Enemies: Chile Under Pinochet (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991): 15–39
Londono, Ernesto. “In Chile, a Billionaire Takes the Reins From a Socialist, Again.” nytimes.com. March 2018.
Wood, J. (2011). Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations, 4th edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.