Talk:Popular Unity (Chile)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chile Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wow, nice context. Plus the word coaleseced goes well with coalition. Please write more like this!! --Uncle Ed 01:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have reverted recent [1] extensive additions because they appeared to be plagiarized at least in part. I didn't actually have proper access to one site with similar copy, but found it cached at [2], and the post is dated Mar 27, 2006, so it is pretty clear who copied whom. Also, some of this seems to have come from [3]. - Jmabel | Talk 01:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social democrats were initially not member of PU, they joined later, I think it was 1973Constanz - Talk 11:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UP wasn't a

in the UP. The Christian Left was an independent organization who openly embrace the theoretical and political marxist principles. Finally, there were not social democrats in the UP coalition. Not by explicit autodefinition, nor by the actual meaning of the concept.

I wish to edit this article according with these problems. I'll wait some days to do so in expect of any discussion.

IsmaelPR 20:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously question the claim that there were no social democrats in the Popular Unity coalition. What about the Partido Radical and MAPU? - Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a conflictive point in my previous post. But, the Partido Radical wasn't then the "Partido Radical Social Democracia de Chile". In fact, the "Partido Social Democracia de Chile" split from the "Partido Radical" and join the UP, but quickly retires from the coalition and becomes opposition of the government. By the other side, the "Partido Radical" was a very little force in the UP and wasn't "social democrat", was instead a liberal and "desarrollista" party who allies with the UP to oppose the Christian Demochracy. The MAPU, by his side, wasn't a social democrat organization, as the IC, MAPU embrace a marxist approach and see himself like a "radicalized little bourgueis" ally to the proletarians forces in class struggle.

All parties in the UP but the socialist party signed for a democrathic process from capitalism to socialism, but this doesn`t define the social democrat ideology. All this parties but the Partido Radical claim to be organizations seeking a socialist transformation, while the Wikipedia (and my own) definition of the social democracy involves organizations who "aims to reform capitalism in order to remove its perceived injustices".

I'll remove, for now, the definition of the UP as a Popular Front. IsmaelPR 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]