Throughout Debray’s interview with Allende it was made clear that he questioned the legitimacy of Allende’s strategy, especially as an “revolutionary” within the institutional framework. I found Allende’s ideals very Gramscian. Similar to critiques that we’ve discussed on Gramsci, Allende’s tactics, in the same way worked within the framework of hegemony in order to create counter hegemony. Though this revolutionary process is unique, can we consider the idea of a counter hegemony to actually be revolutionary in nature? Using civil society as the most powerful tool in creating consensus and capturing the state, like Gramsci, Allende’s tactics are restricted to the confines of the established institutions. But at what point do we consider Allende’s methods to be reform rather than revolution? Though Allende claims revolution is simply, “the transfer of power from a minority class to a majority class,” it is hard to call methods which derive within the framework of the oppressive powers very revolutionary at all. First, As Debray questions Allende, “Don’t you feel that you are gradually becoming institutionalized?” And then As Debray claims, “it has acted within the established institutional framework, and it can therefore be said that what there has been to date is reform.”
However, I’m hardly convinced that democracy was part of Allende’s long term plans. As he responds, “I believe we have used those which open the road to revolution…All the measures we have adopted are measures which lead to the revolution.” In this way, I think that Allende didn’t exactly care about democracy or even creating a democratic popular Government but rather he was interested in utilizing the democratic process as a stepping stone in which to open the door, unlock the gate to a revolution and eventual socialism. Sure Allende may have been attracted to the allure of being revolutionary by unique, peaceful, and democratic tactics, but how much revolutionary change could he have expected to create working within the same institutional framework as his opposition?
I really like your argument on whether a counterhegemonic revolution can really be considered s revolution at all. I agree that Allende’s long-term goals for Chile were too radical and, as Jake has mentioned, aimed to be too rapid for what Chileans could handle. I appreciate your insight into Allende’s own concession that the “revolution” he aimed to create would, in fact, not be possible to fulfill through only peaceful and democratic means, and the democratic elections were only a step in the process of a much more violent revolution. While I agree that Allende’s aims were so radical that they could only be brought by non-institutional rebellion, I do believe gradual, institutional reform can be revolutionary, and perhaps more effective at creating change than attempts at a full-fledged non-institutional rebellion.
You make an interesting point about being restricted by the repressive powers when attempting to do anything revolutionary. On the one hand, one could argue that to merely get a foot in the door of revolution, it is smarter (and safer) to follow the hegemonic regime–not to a tee, but a bit no doubt. On the other hand, when a strategy like this is pursued one runs the risk of never transitioning away from the “enemy’s” tactics, both falsifying and giving validity to the meaning of revolution (one as transformative and the other as cyclical).