Many people like to characterize Pinochet´s regime as fascist. But was it really? My opinion is no. Because people must know that there are differences between a fascist state and a military junta (which was the kind of regime which existed in Pinochet´s Chile). Fascist states have as characteristics one-party system; palingenetic ultra-nationalism; a very famous political leader; corporativism; state and young militias. Chile´s military junta didn´t had any of them. Also I would like to show a debuking of the book the Shock Doctrine, where the author, Naomi Klein, defends that Milton Friedman defended the dictactorship of Chile and that the military junta used repression to stop popular criticism of neo-liberal policies, which is a lie. The debuking is here, by Johan Norberg. The issue about Milton Friedman and Chile is right in the beggining: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...2uxwAz&sig=AHIEtbTj5AlG5l1R-J2zMeQJVM5vXesjsQ
He was a Presidential Dictator with Capitalist Economic Policies and moderately Conservatively social views. No one really calls him Fascist. Although I agree, some make it sounds like it was.
Fascism, economically is composed mostly on a corporatist state, a military junta is a little different to fascism. I mean I do understand why people get confused of military junta state and a fascist state, both in which are heavily militaristic. Pinochet wasn't a fascist, although when you look at him your first assumption could easily of be "well, he certainly has the characteristics of a fascist or national socialist" well, I could agree that he looked similar to Mussolini or Hitler, but that doesn't mean he was a fascist. This is almost a bit like the Argentinians during the time of the Falkland wars, most would consider the government of Argentina a fascist government, but truthfully it was a military junta government.
