# data[].attributes.body
It began in 1815 and finished in 1871. Austria captured the northern part of Italy. in 1846 a new pope was elected, and promised for improvement of Papal States. Nationalism destroyed empires, it gave chances for new nations. Cavour lead the unification of Italy. he was able to obtain Napoleons III's approval. Garibaldi Giuseppe took next process of the Unification.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Unification of Italy was a political and social movement in the nineteenth century that resulted in the Unification of the many republics of the Italian Peninsula into a single entity known as the Kingdom of Italy. The Unification of Italy began in the 1840s and was completed in 1871, the same year as Germany's Unification. This article will provide information on the Unification of Italy and explain the process fully.

Unification of Italy: Introduction

The Congress of Vienna began the process in 1815, and it was finished in 1871 when Rome was designated as the Kingdom of Italy's capital.

The Unification of Italy took place in two stages. First, it attempted to establish independence from Austria at first. Second, it had to bring all of Italy's autonomous states together into a unified body. Mazzini and Garibaldi were the most notable revolutionaries during this period.

Italy was nothing more than a geographic statement for many centuries. It was a patchwork of minor states that were envious of one other. Since the Roman Empire, the Italian Peninsula has never been properly united under one rule. Several attempts to unite the Italian Peninsula under a single administration had failed. One of the most significant roadblocks to Italian Unification was the division of Italy among foreign dynasties.

Austria had captured the northern section of Italy. The Hapsburg family of Austrian princes ruled the duchies of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany. The Bourbon dynasty ruled over the Kingdom of Sicily and Naples in the south. Metternich used the term "Italy" as a geographical word because of the country's fragmentation into numerous separate divisions.

The Pope had temporal jurisdiction over Central Italy. Aside from the Peninsula's political divide, the Italians had not yet established a genuine sense of national consciousness. As a result, different areas and towns in Italy have evolved their own traditions, resulting in local resentments that stifled national progress. 'In Italy, the provinces were against the provinces, towns against towns, families against families, and men against men,' stated historian and statesman Metternich.

During the 1820s

During the 1820s, the Carbonari secret society attempted to organize revolts in Palermo and Naples, but they were largely unsuccessful, owing to the Carbonari's lack of peasant support. Then there was Giuseppe Mazzini, a patriotic writer who founded the Young Italy national-revolutionary organization (1831). Mazzini advocated for a unified republic. His ideas immediately diffused throughout broad swaths of the Italian people. Revolutionary cells sprang up all over the Italian Peninsula in Young Italy.

In 1846, a new Pope, Pius IX, was elected, promising improvements in the Papal States. Other Italian princes implemented liberal measures to weaken revolutionary forces. Instead, in 1848, these changes sparked revolutions in Sicily, Naples, Rome, Florence, Milan, Venice, and Turin.

The secret organizations, the greatest of which was the Carbonari, or Charcoal Burners, were a major source of agitation. The Carbonari were constantly engaged in stirring up opposition and revolution against foreign control, using the watchwords "freedom and independence." The enthusiastic leadership of idealists and intellectuals was another crucial aspect of the resurrection's success. Cavour, Mazzini, and Garibaldi are the three persons most responsible for the restoration of Italian unity.

Let us now describe the process of Italy's Unification, the Unification of Germany and Italy, and the aftermath and other aspects. For further information on other important topics, go to the UPSC study materials website here.

Explain the Unification of Italy with explanations

In this article, we will describe the roles of three influential leaders in the Unification of Italy.

Mazzini (1805- 1872)

Mazzini was born in Genoa, studied law as a young man, and read the works of democratic thinkers widely. His extreme views drew the suspicion of the authorities, and he was jailed in 1830. Mazzini had already decided on the first step while incarcerated.

He opted to leave the cause of Italy to young minds and hands after losing faith in Carbonarism, whose leaders were mostly elderly men. He founded the Young Italy society among the Italian exiles in Marseilles in 1832.

Friends founded the first lodge in Genoa, and it quickly expanded throughout northern and central Italy, largely drawing students, young professionals, and mercantile youngsters.

The organization's banner read "Unity and Independence" on one side and "Liberty, Equality, Humanity" on the other. Within two years, the membership had expanded to more than 50,000 people.

In addition to forming and directing Young Italy, Mazzini produced numerous ardent articles and pamphlets that were smuggled into Italy.

The Patriots were united in their belief that the only way to achieve unity was to expel the Austrians in whatever shape it took.

While nationalism shattered empires, it also gave birth to new nations. Italy was one of the countries that arose from the ruins of empires. Between 1815 and 1848, a growing number of Italians felt dissatisfied with living under foreign control.

Image Source: Wikipedia

Cavour (1810-1861)

Italian nationalists looked to the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia, Italy's largest and most powerful state, for leadership. In 1848, the monarchy established a liberal constitution. As a result, union under Piedmont-Sardinia sounded like a decent idea to the liberal Italian middle classes.

By birth, Count Camillo di Cavour was a Piedmontese. In 1847, he took a decisive political step when he co-founded the II Risorgimento, a publication dedicated to the establishment of a Piedmontese constitution. Charles Albert signed the Constitution in February 1848, and Cavour was elected to the parliament under its provisions in June.

In the year 1852, he was elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Cavour put himself wholeheartedly into the task of restoring Piedmont and bringing Italy together. He reorganized the army, erected new fortifications, and expanded military resources as a result. He also focused on the growth of industry and commerce, constructing multiple railways, and negotiating commercial treaties with France, England, Holland, Belgium, and Switzerland.

Cavour Leads the Unification of Italy

Piedmont also established a strong claim to equality with other states by deploying an army to Crimea. Cavour spoke at the Congress of Paris in 1856, denouncing Austria's dominance and misrule in the Peninsula. On June 24, 1859, the combined forces of France and Piedmont defeated the Austrians at Magenta and again at Solferino.

Austria appeared to be on the verge of being fully evicted from Italy. However, Napoleon III abruptly came to a halt and signed the Armistice of Villafranca (July 8) with Emperor Francis Joseph without consulting his ally. Lombardy was added to Piedmont under the terms of the treaty signed in Zurich on November 10, 1859, although Venetia remained under Austrian authority.

Cavour resigned his premiership in a fit of wrath, but he returned to the fight after a brief respite. Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and Romagna rose against their rulers, declaring unanimity for union with Piedmont, sparked by the zeal of Piedmontese leadership.

By surrendering Savoy and Nice, Cavour was able to obtain Napoleon III's approval. Victor Emanuel then acknowledged the annexation of the four Italian states, and on April 2, 1860, an enlarged parliament assembled in Turin, comprising roughly half of the Peninsula's population.

Garibaldi, Giuseppe (1807-1882)

Garibaldi took the next process towards the Unification of Italy. He joined the Young Italy society as a young man and took part in an attempted insurgency in Genoa in 1833.

He was sentenced to death but managed to flee the country and travel to South America in 1834. There he learned the art of guerrilla warfare, which he would use to great effect in the conquests of Sicily and Naples.

Garibaldi and his followers always wore bright red shirts in battle. This is how they got the title "Red Shirts."

He overcame his opponents so fast that he was lord of the island in a matter of weeks, after which he crossed to the mainland and marched on Naples nearly unchallenged. When Francis II saw him approaching, he fled, and Garibaldi entered the capital to the delight of the people.

Victor Emmanuel II

Victor Emmanuel II rode into Naples early in November with Garibaldi at his side to make the annexation official after a plebiscite declared the annexation by a virtually unanimous vote. Garibaldi now considered his work completed. He withdrew to his island, refusing all honors and awards.

In the meantime, Piedmontese troops had conquered the remainder of the Papal States, with the exception of Rome and a tiny territory around it. The first national parliament representing the north and south met in Turin on February 18, 1861. Victor Emmanuel II was formally dubbed "by the grace of God and the will of the country king of Italy" on March 17, 1861.

The more arduous stage of the unification process had come to a close. Only Venetia and Rome remained beyond the new kingdom's borders.

When Bismarck was preparing to conquer Austria in 1866, he formed an alliance with Italy, promising them Venetia as a reward for fighting on Prussia's side. The Austrians defeated the Italians on land and at sea. Still, the Prussian victory at Koniggratz on July 3, 1866, was so decisive that Prussia won the war, and Venetia was given to the new kingdom of Italy. The necessities of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 enabled the acquisition of Rome four years later.

Victor Emmanuel was welcomed into the Eternal City by the people in July of 1871. Cavour's and the Italian patriots' dream, which had elicited laughter in European diplomatic circles a quarter-century before, was realized.

Image Source: Wikipedia

Describe the process of Unification of Italy

1. 1849- The Austrian army defeated Venice this year, causing a tremendous upheaval in Venetia by crushing many people.

2. 1858- Cavour and Napoleon III decided to wage war on Austria by annexing Venetia, Lombardy, Modena, and Parma to Italy in 1858.

3. 1859- Cavour's return to Venetia and Napoleon III's withdrawal from the war with Austria were significant events in 1859. In this year, Sardinia conquered Modena, Tuscany, and Parma, as well as Lombardy.

Napoleon III

1. 1860- In 1860, Parma, Modena, Tuscany, and the Papal State of Romagna became part of Sardinia-Piedmont. Nice and Savoy were given to Napoleon III.

1. Garibaldi landed at Marsala, won Sicily at the Battle of Calatafimi, and crossed the straits to Naples with the stated goal of crowning Victor Emmanuel at the Vatican.

2. Cavour intervened to put a stop to Garibaldi's rash idea, which would have enraged both Austria and France. To halt Garibaldi's advance on Rome, he dispatched the Sardinian King and army into the Papal States, where the Papal army was destroyed at Castel Fidardo. Garibaldi was postponed a fortnight on the Damage by the Neapolitan army, which was fortunate for Cavour and Italy. After defeating this army, he met Victor Emmanuel at Teano and graciously gave over Southern Italy. The Kingdom of Italy was established in 1861, following the V. Venetia-Austro-Prussian War.

2. 1861- "Camillo Di Cavour" died this year after learning that Italy had no control over the Papal States. In Venetia, the official kingdom of Italy was established.

3. 1867: Garibaldi wants the Papal States and Rome, despite his attempt failing and the revolt in Rome is put down.

4. 1870- The Italian army advanced slowly towards Rome, capturing the city and establishing a stronghold in the town.

5. 1871- The unity of Italy(Unification) is accomplished with the relocation of the Italian capital to Rome.

Germany & Italy Unification

The principles of nationalism and enlightenment motivated and affected the people of Europe in the 1800s. Many regions were encouraged by these ideals to rebel against the Europeans and sought independence. Italy and Germany were similarly forced to unite by the principles of nationalism and enlightenment. Neither Italy nor Germany existed in the mid-nineteenth century since they were divided into smaller territories that frequently struggled for autonomy, despite their cultural similarities. These cultural, historical, linguistic, and religious commonalities prompted impulses of nationalism in both Italy and Germany.

Germany was split into 30 states, all of which were allies of the German Confederation. The Austrian Empire ruled this Confederation, but it was the state of Prussia that spearheaded Germany's union. When Otto von Bismarck was elected Prime Minister of Prussia in 1862, he declared that the only way to achieve his goals of Unification was via blood and war. Over the course of seven years, he fought and won battles with Denmark, Austria, and France. This resulted in Germany's union, and William I, King of Prussia, was declared Emperor of a unified Germany in 1871. Germany's and Italy's unification are classic examples of nation-states.

The Unification of Italy and Germany brought in many new powerful figures, including Giuseppe Garibaldi, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Cavour, whose contributions are engraved in world history. We have described the Unification of Italy and, in short, Germany here.

Unification of Italy: The Aftermath

The unity and administration were done solely for the benefit of Piedmont. The new Kingdom of Italy was formed by renaming the ancient Kingdom of Sardinia and annexing all of the new provinces. Victor Emmanuel II, who inherited his father's title, was the first king. Piedmont's old constitution was replaced with the new one. The document was liberal in nature and received positive feedback from liberals.

Pro-clerical areas like Venice, Rome, Naples, and Sicily despised its anti-clerical legislation. Cavour pledged regional, municipal, and local administrations, but in 1861, he broke all of his commitments. Civil wars erupted in Sicily and the Naples region in the first decade of the monarchy, but they were all put down. Many local Italians were nonetheless unhappy with the arrangement, and there was constant turmoil throughout the kingdom, often known as Italian irredentism.

In 1915, Italy joined the 1st World War in order to achieve complete national Unification. It first remained neutral, but when the Treaty of London was signed in 1915, it agreed to join the war against the central powers. Because Italy did not receive the additional territories promised by the Treaty of London, the result was dubbed a "mutilated victory." Benito Mussolini coined the phrase "mutilated victory," which aided the establishment of Italian Fascism and became the propaganda of Fascist Italy. The irredentism movement in Italian politics collapsed after World War II.

Image Source: Wikipedia

Conclusion- Unification of Italy

In conclusion, this article will assist you in providing all information relevant to Italy's Unification. We've also talked about Italy's unification process, Three strong leaders were described, and the Unification of Germany was explained in simple terms. This is a key topic for your UPSC history test. As a result, read carefully and make notes on important points. Also, keep an eye on the UPSC's official website for the most up-to-date exam information.

FAQ- Unification of Italy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unification of Italy - Complete Process Describe with Explaination

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Unification of Italy was a political and social movement in the nineteenth century that resulted in the Unification of the many republics of the Italian Peninsula into a single entity known as the Kingdom of Italy. The Unification of Italy began in the 1840s and was completed in 1871, the same year as Germany's Unification.

# data[].attributes.body
Italy was proclaimed in 1861, Italy also joined the war with Austria. When it was unified there was a lot of problems that came, most did not speak the language, the northern and southern were culturally and economically different. Italy went on to create its own empire, while doing that they destroyed the balance of Europe. While doing that it would create world war 1.

# data[].attributes.body
Independence came from Spain in 1821 and from Mexico in 1823. When Honduras joined the United provinces of central America the Liberals favored republicanism, less government regulation, remove economic powers. More recently government hoped getting a closer relation to Honduras would help establish the country as a model Central America Democracy, but that image was destroyed in 1986 by another liberal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following history of Honduras focuses on events since European settlement. (For regional treatment, see pre-Columbian civilizations: Mesoamerican civilization; Latin America, history of; and Central America.)

When the Spanish arrived to colonize Honduras, the land was occupied by a variety of indigenous peoples, the most advanced of whom were the Maya. Gold stimulated Spanish conquest of the area early in the 16th century, and the Honduran gold-mining town of Gracias became the capital of Spanish Central America (the Audiencia de los Confines) in 1544. By 1548, however, the Spaniards had exhausted the gold, and Santiago ( Antigua Guatemala) became the new capital of the Kingdom of Guatemala. Honduras, with its capital at Comayagua and agriculture the base of its economy, was a province of that kingdom () within the Viceroyalty of New Spain. In the 1570s, a silver strike in the highlands brought a rush of prospectors to Honduras, resulting in the rise of an important population centre at Tegucigalpa, which competed thereafter, especially in the 18th century, with Comayagua. However, agriculture, the enduring economic base of Central America, was slow to develop in Honduras. Development of Spanish society in the Honduras area was hindered by coastal attacks from the pirates and buccaneers endemic to the Caribbean Sea and eventually by a concerted British effort to control the coastal areas of Central America. For long periods the Spanish utilized a soft defense against the Caribbean threat, falling back to the highlands and to the Pacific coastal areas, which were generally closer to their network of communication and transportation. Thus, the British came to control the Caribbean's Mosquito coastal region. The Sambo- Miskito peoples along the coast were the indispensable allies of the British in this endeavour. In the 18th century, however, the Spanish Bourbon kings made a sustained effort to recover the Caribbean coastal areas, and their success in the Gulf of Honduras was manifested by the completion of a fort at Omoa on the gulf by 1779.

Independence from Spain came in 1821 and from Mexico in 1823, when Honduras joined in the formation of the United Provinces of Central America. Friction between Liberal and Conservative factions soon undermined the federation, however. In general, the Liberals favoured republicanism, freer trade, less government regulation, removal of the Catholic clergy's political and economic powers, and imitation of foreign models of development. Conservatives defended the clergy, leaned toward monarchism, mistrusted foreign models, and were generally more traditional and pro-Spanish in their outlook. In 1830 a Honduran Liberal, Francisco Morazán, became president of this federation, and for a decade he promoted Liberal policies that curtailed the traditional power and privileges of the clergy and increased agricultural exports. Conservative and popular opposition to Liberal policies led to the collapse of the federation, and Honduras declared its absolute independence on November 5, 1838. The prochurch Conservatives in Honduras took control under Francisco Ferrera, who became the first constitutional president on January 1, 1841. During the mid-19th century, despite its declaration of sovereignty, Honduras supported efforts to restore the Central American union, while its real independence was severely limited by its more powerful neighbours. Conservative domination lasted until the 1870s, during which time the church regained its former position and the Honduran government signed a concordat (1861) with the Holy See in Rome.

After 1871 the ascendancy of Justo Rufino Barrios in Guatemala influenced a return to liberalism in Honduras, where Marco Aurelio Soto, a Liberal, assumed the presidency (1876). In 1880 the Liberals promulgated a new constitution that sought to undo the work of the Conservatives, and they also moved the capital from Comayagua to Tegucigalpa. Five years later, Liberals in Honduras and elsewhere proved to be nationalists first and blocked an attempt by Guatemala to unify the isthmus by force. Liberals continued to dominate the country well into the 20th century, encouraging foreign investment and economic growth, although Honduras remained the poorest state on the isthmus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Honduras - Honduras - History: The following history of Honduras focuses on events since European settlement. (For regional treatment, see pre-Columbian civilizations: Mesoamerican civilization; Latin America, history of; and Central America.) When the Spanish arrived to colonize Honduras, the land was occupied by a variety of indigenous peoples, the most advanced of whom were the Maya.

# data[].attributes.body
Honduras broke free from Spain, leaving with full independence in 1838. in 1880 the economy was not good. A hundred thousand Salvadorans were kicked out of Honduras after years of of military rule.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Honduras 1900-2021 [Countyballs]

# data[].attributes.body
There was a international economic situation, and it was hard for them to rebuild the Chilean society. The rise of the working classes of Chile was with artistic and culture. The new revolution power had some workers struggling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fifty years ago today, at the end of a hard-fought electoral campaign that served as the culmination of decades of struggle by the organized working class of Chile against the forces of the country's traditional oligarchy, its modern, monopolist bourgeoisie, and the forces of imperialism, Salvador Allende Gossens was elected President of Chile.

Paraphrasing the lyrics to a popular song written following the victory, this victory was not a simple question of changing one head of state out for another, but a fundamental shift in the balance of power that put the working class of Chile into the position of chief executive.

The significance of the moment was not lost on any of its main protagonists.

As the workers, students, shantytown dwellers, and peasants filled the streets to celebrate the electoral victory of the Popular Unity ticket, the wealthy residents of the fancy neighborhoods they marched through, shuttered their doors and boarded their windows in anticipation of the mob violence that never came.

The domestic opposition - including the sitting president Eduardo Frei Montalva of the center-left Christian Democratic Party whispered to his advisors about the possibility of the military taking control of the situation.

Military leaders, both with and without Frei's knowledge, began to plot various schemes to prevent Allende from ascending to power.

Meanwhile, when he heard the news, Nixon gave carte blanche to the CIA to prevent Allende from serving as president. With Kissinger publicly acknowledging just 10 days later in no uncertain terms in Chicago that an Allende presidency in Chile would be intolerable to the United States' vital national interest.

The victory on September 4, 1970 is a watershed moment, both for the history of Chile and for the history of the world. And yet for most, especially in the US, the importance of this moment is overshadowed by what took place three years and one week later, when the Armed Forces of Chile, led in part by their commander in chief, one Augusto Pinochet, launched a military attack on their own government, bombarded the presidential palace, and effected a coup d'état against the Popular Unity government.

The deadly aftermath of the coup cannot be overstated. Even low-level government functionaries and party members were kidnapped, rounded up, tortured, and executed, in the most vicious and horrific ways imaginable (the documentary work of Patricio Guzman is especially poignant in its portrayal of this brutality, and no visit to Santiago should be complete without a visit to the Museo de la Memoria, whose collection of first-hand accounts is a chilling and poignant testimony to the barbarity of the dictatorship).

Without dwelling on the macabre details, the Left in particular also tends to dwell on the significance of the defeat of the Popular Unity on September 11, 1973, oftentimes with an ideological axe to grind - some pointing to the role of imperialism and its calculating efficiency at eliminating ideological threats, others seeking flaws in the supposed theoretical and strategic deficiencies of the Allende government, the Popular Unity coalition, and in particular critiquing the commitment of both to the rigidly idealistic "Chilean road to socialism."

But the strengths of the Popular Unity coalition, the 1970 presidential victory, the decades of workers' struggles that preceded it, as well as the merits of the Popular Unity government's 1,000 days in power also cannot be ignored- in what they were able to achieve against the strong headwinds of an unfavorable international economic situation, in the shadow of a hostile world economic power, and against the domestic turbulence of right-wing vigilante violence and economic and political sabotage by the ruling classes as well as in terms of leading a united working class in a revolutionary struggle to remake Chilean society.

Allende on the campaign trail, 1970

Of course it's critically important to analyze and understand the failings of the Popular Unity coalition, its political philosophy, and its inability to overcome the combined resistance of the forces arrayed against it. It would be dishonest not to acknowledge and dangerous not to take to heart the real strategic and tactical lessons that were paid for with the blood of the Chilean workers and their leaders, first among them Salvador Allende himself.

But it's just as necessary to recognize that Chile in the 1970s lived an authentically revolutionary moment, and from this recognition, it's incumbent to understand its roots in history, the conditions of its making, and the dynamics of its development.

In 1970, Chile, through the Agrarian Reform, was on the verge of toppling the base of traditional political power it had inherited from colonial times.

The basis of this political power was a centuries-old system of land ownership and a form of semi-feudal tenant farming. The consolidation of land ownership in Chile is the political and economic basis of the class structure in Chile.

The economic basis of the tenant farming system, called the latifundios, was exportation - first of animal products to Peru in the 1600s, then later grain to the same up until the time of independence in 1810. Setting the dominant pattern in the Chilean economy up until the present day - exploitation of the laboring masses to produce raw materials for export, and importation of commodities largely consumed by the middle and upper classes.

Shortly after independence from Spain, silver was discovered in the Norte Chico region of Chile, and the export of silver along with wheat to new grain markets in California and Australia - thanks to the gold rushes in each respective area and Chile's strategic placement as a transit hub to both - fueled a boom in Chile's economy. Notably, this also added mineral extraction for export to the existing economic paradigm. Exploitation of mineral resources led to a more industrialized political economy, with an ascendent, small mining elite, often with ties to the Great Britain and the United States.

As soon as the silver mines were exhausted, the Chilean republic immediately went to war with Bolivia and Peru for control over what was then Southern, coastal Bolivia, an area in which Chilean mining interests had invested heavily in following the silver rush. It was the protection of these interests that launched the War of the Pacific, from which Chile emerged as the victor, winning territory in the North whose mineral production continues to drive the economic development of the country to this day.

Today, the North of Chile is known for its copper production, but it's also home to the richest natural deposits of sodium nitrate - or Chile saltpeter, known as "white gold" - in the world. Saltpeter's value as a fertilizer and in the production of gunpowder made it an extremely lucrative business (copper mining took a backseat), one which came to be dominated by the United Kingdom, for its ability to provide the industrial capital capable of efficiently exploiting saltpeter resources.

Simultaneously, the Chilean state solidified its dependence on private, monopoly saltpeter mining by foreign interests through a tax structure that made state revenue highly dependent on sodium nitrate mining, effectively subordinating the Chilean economy to British capitalism, which also came to dominate the internal consumer market through importation of British manufactured goods.

Saltpeter mining, being heavily dependent on manual labor, also served to absorb the excess rural population, and on the one hand fueled an increasing urbanization in Chile, creating a growing commercial class of petit bourgeois merchants in Chilean cities, while on the other gave rise to the first labor unions in Chile.

When German scientists discovered a means to synthesize sodium nitrate, natural sources of saltpeter were no longer necessary. The subsequent collapse of the saltpeter economy in Chile led the Chilean ruling class to seek two potential remedies - opening up greater trade links to the United States to prop up a collapsing export market in saltpeter, and the development of industry internal to Chile through protectionist policies, leading to the growth of the state and of "intermediary" urban economic activity and thus the development of urban middle classes.

At the same time, a crisis in wheat production fueled a process of displacement of rural peasants to the peripheries of major cities.

All of this set the stage for the principal social conflict from the era of 1920 (when saltpeter production began to decline) through 1973. Here's how the alignment of social forces stood:

Traditional, landowning oligarchy: political power based on the domination of land and the peasants who worked it and expressed in the Conservative Party

Nascent, "dependent" bourgeoisie: a loose, heterogenous combination of commercial, industrial, and financial interests with deep ties to English and US capital, represented by the Liberal Party

Middle classes: Composed of small, urban merchants and state bureaucrats, and other upwardly mobile sectors, often favoring redistributive policies, most directly represented by the Radical Party, but also finding political expression in various other political formations

Popular classes: Rural campesinos (peasants), miners, urban industrial workers, and displaced rural workers living in shantytowns called poblaciones, who first formed political alliances with the middle classes and bourgeois against the landowning oligarchy, but increasingly found political expression in a growing union movement and popular political parties, such as the Communist Party and the Socialist Party

With the economic crisis triggered by the collapse of saltpeter production, the popular classes saw an opening of the political system as various social group began vying for power. In particular, the battle over the role of the state in the economy - whether it should support traditional agrarian economic interests by remaining laissez-faire or engage in ascendent industrial development and protectionism, took center stage, along with what would become the chronic problem of controlling inflation.

The key questions for the strategic orientation of the Chilean revolutionary process are:

The relationships between different dominant and subordinate classes, domestically and internationally

The relationships between the popular classes and their (at least nominal) political leadership (trade unions, political parties, coalitions, and eventually government)

The role of the state (and various institutional elements of the state) in mediating, exacerbating, and engaging in class conflict

To answer these questions, we need to take an in-depth look at the historical processes that led to the formation of the relevant social classes in Chile up to 1970; the political history of Chile; and the formation, composition, and political orientation of the relevant political parties and trade unions.

The political and institutional history of Chile is deeply tied both to the conditions that led to the development of the revolutionary process in Chile as well as the prevailing political philosophy of its protagonists.

A certain conception of the political history of Chile lies behind not just the concept of the "Chilean road to socialism," and some attitudes towards the possibility of a coup d'état, but also the attitudes of the Popular Unity coalition's erstwhile opponents in the Christian Democrat party.

The mythos of Chilean liberal-democratic institutionality at the time of Allende's election traces a continuity from the 1833 constitution of Diego Portales, a minister of President José Joaquín Prieto charged with drafting a new constitution. Even on the left, the 1973 coup was referred to as the end of 140 years of democracy, citing a kind of Chilean exceptionalism that traced a long and democratic tradition in Chile. But the system of government inaugurated by Portales was less of a modern liberal democracy and more a consolidation of power by a small clique of elite rulers, with a veneer of republicanism.

Nor was there a consistent line of constitutional government from 1833 to 1973. While Portales's constitution was not replaced during the Civil War of 1891, the war pitted congress against the presidency and the Navy against the Army.

And when the constitution of 1833 was finally replaced, it was only after a military coup had ousted the president and then was itself ousted by a counter-coup of left-wing forces within the Armed Forces who reinstalled the president and had him write a new constitution with a stronger presidency.

Two presidencies later, including the authoritarian populist military leader Carlos Ibáñez, who instituted a kind of Chilean perónismo. After resigning in scandal, Ibáñez's successor was once again ousted by a military coup, led by Marmaduque Grove, who had been involved in the previous coup and with his other co-putschists declared the Socialist Republic of Chile in 1931, which was not actually popular with the Armed Forces.

Only under the threat of mutiny did the Socialist Republic organize elections and center-right candidate Arturo Alessandri won the race.

So while it was technically true that some semblance of legal continuity, and certainly institutional continuity did extend from 1833 to 1973, it was hardly a straight line of uninterrupted, pacific democracy that was breached in 1973.

Not only that, the Chilean military's history is rife with intervention in the affairs of the civil state, from the Civil War of 1891 to the coups of the 20s and 30s.

If there was any one key event that set the stage in terms of the International politics at play in Chile during the revolutionary process from the late 1950s through the early 1970s, it was the Cuban Revolution.

Not only did the Cuban Revolution act as inspiration and the primary reference point to all manner of Leftists in Chile during this period, it also set the stage for the reaction of North American imperialism to the possible ascendancy of a left-wing Marxist government on the southern tip of the Americas.

Two simultaneous campaigns were led by the United States in Latin America - first, coordination and training of the armed forces of Latin American countries. The Armed Forces of Chile trained in counter-insurgency and anti-guerilla tactics alongside troops from across South America. These are not just tactical trainings but ideological indoctrination that primed militaries across Latin America to orient towards "internal enemies."

Starting during the years of government in the 1940s by the Radical Party, supported by a Popular Front alliance coalition that saw working class parties allied with and subsumed to the interests of the petit bourgeois Radical Party, the "popular classes" increasingly sought political independence.

The growing power of militant syndicalism as well as the growth of popular left-wing political parties came increasingly to be seen as a political threat to both the landowning oligarchy, whose political basis was eroding, and the foreign-dependent bourgeoisie (who feared the loss of US investment).

As successive governments attempted to address the prolonged economic problems, particularly inflation, they attempted to do so mainly on the backs of workers and urban salary-earners, both of whom became increasingly radicalized through struggles for adequate cost of living increases in the face of continuously rising prices. By the 1960s, general strikes against government policies aiming to limit worker wage increases in order to solve the problem of inflation became common, led by an increasingly unified labor movement, under the auspicies of the Central Unica de Trabajadores (CUT).

The final stage of social conflict came with the presidency of Eduardo Frei, whose policies were explicitly designed to co-opt and tamp down the worker's movement, simultaneously conceding key reforms like the Agrarian Reform, while attempting labor reforms explicitly designed to break the power of the militant, unified union movement.

The rise of the working classes of Chile coincided with an artistic and cultural flourishing in the country that arose from the same social milieu as the revolution itself.

The Nueva canción chilena was a musical folklore movement tied to the immortal figure of Violeta Parra, who not only catalogued and recorded traditional folk songs from among the Chilean campesinos, but artfully advanced the artform of Chilean folk music, infusing it not only with themes of personal anguish but also working class, left-wing politics. Her songs about strikes, police violence, electoral opportunism, and exploitation of workers quickly became standards in a growing Chilean folk music scene.

Poster for an exhibition of Brigada Ramona Parra works in 1971. Photo credit: http://www.bifurcaciones.cl/2013/03/el-chile-de-la-unidad-popular/

Visual art in this revolutionary period also flourished in the form of a grassroots street muralist movement headed up by the Brigada Ramona Parra (no relation to Violeta), young muralists tied to the Communist Party who worked under the cover of dark to produce striking and vibrant representations of working class political consciousness.

The most critical component in the recipe of the revolution in Chile in the 1970s was the Popular Unity coalition itself.

The class alliances it forged - between campesino, industrial worker, students, and salaried employees, between slum-dwelling pobladores and a city-dwelling middle class - were the basis of a new revolutionary power with roots in workers struggles, that developed beyond the 1970 election through the years of the Allende government.

The fact of worker's power being embodied in the executive branch, through popular elections in a liberal democratic system stands in stark contrast to the period of co-optation that preceded it. And the full consciousness and unity of the working class movement-far from being dissipated by the supposedly reformist project of the Popular Unity government-on the contrary was only strengthened. Meanwhile the antagonism with the ruling classes-the traditional oligarchy and foreign-dependent capitalist class, and aligned elements of the middle classes-was only heightened.

The fact that there existed both grassroots worker organization alongside the "official" state power wielded by the Allende government and a "bureaucratic" expression of the workers movement within the state itself, with varying degrees of collaboration and independence between one another doesn't discount the revolutionary character of the Allende government or the Popular Unity coalition. The failure of not "activating" and enhancing the workers' self-defense groups, the cordones industriales, was not a decisive error.

Nor does it change the significance that the workers' movement (not to mention its class enemies both domestic and foreign) saw the Allende government as the legitimate leadership of the class. Even the cordones industriales, sometimes touted as a more revolutionary "alternative" power, were organized on this basis-this was not a question for any of the primary participants on either side of the class struggle in Chile in the 1970s. Even partisans of the ultra-leftist MIR viewed the capture of state executive power as an authentic, critical achievement of working class struggle.

The outgrowth of poder popular-"popular power"-as the grassroots expression of the Popular Unity movement is a critical achievement in the revolutionary process in Chile in the 1970s. The fact that the connections and coordination between poder popular, the Popular Unity coalition of political institutions, and the Popular Government of Salvador Allende were not as strong as they could be or indeed needed to be is one of the key lessons of this period, but it does not mean by itself that the revolution was dashed by the lack of cohesion between these three elements of the process.

On the night of his election, 50 years ago today, Salvador Allende spoke to the assembled crowd, from the balcony of the Federation of Chilean Students.

An Allende mural in modern day Valparaíso, Chile

He eloquently described the meaning of that particular moment, not just as an electoral victory, but as a turning point in history:

"Thousands and thousands of Chileans sowed their pain and their hope in this moment which belongs to the people. From beyond these borders, from other countries, people look onto our victory with deep satisfaction. Chile is opening a path that other peoples across America and the world will be able to follow. The vital power of unity will break the dams of dictatorships and open the course for other peoples to be free and to build their own destiny."

Our context today is far different, and though the long shadow of Pinochet hangs over the entire revolutionary project in Chile, the lessons to be learned are not entirely premised on the strategic and tactical errors made by the leadership. The revolutionary process in Chile, and its roots in Chilean history, are a rich source of inspiration and critical reflection.

On September 4, 1970 a new day dawned in Chile. May the same new day dawn for us all one day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty years ago today, at the end of a hard-fought electoral campaign that served as the culmination of decades of struggle by the organized working class of Chile against the forces of the country's traditional oligarchy, its modern, monopolist bourgeoisie, and the forces of imperialism, Salvador Allende Gossens was elected President of Chile.

# data[].attributes.body
Chile was a democratic nation. They sent money too help Montalvo win the election against Salvador Allende but he couldn't because no chile president can serve 2 terms. Pinochet elected him self as president and was head of miltary too.