Allende sought to to nationalise banking and redistribute land. That's not what people think of as centre-left.
European socialists (outside of Italy where everyone is mad) are generally solid on constitutional matters, including separation of powers. Whereas Allende created the crisis by trying to steamroll the supreme court on separation of powers.
Western Europe is dramatically less economically centralized than any part of Latin America, and so there’s much more balance between the influence of the richest part of the society and the rest. (Which is to say, egalitarian policies are much less politically explosive.)
Allende’s politics were much closer to western European socialists than to say, Mao or Lenin. Maybe “center left” is a bad label for being ambiguous; the point is that his goal was not some kind of communist utopia with a completely centrally planned government, &c. &c.
In places where a tiny minority have a chokehold on a country's economy, land reform is a pretty essential prerequisite to general political and social equality. General MacArthur carried out massive land reform in Japan in the late 40s, and few people would call him a leftist, &c.
* * *
But all of that is getting away from the central point, which is that thinking that it was better for U.S. long-term interests to overthrow the government, without any legitimate justification, and replace it with a brutal fascist police state, is the height of hubris, and frankly despicable.
He didn't use force against his own people, and this was in strong contrast to the sort of leaders you have pointed out. Mao and Lenin and Chavez wouldn't hesitate to use force to reach their objectives.
his goal was not some kind of communist utopia with a
completely centrally planned government
Central planning is a foundation of socialist thought, and he was pursuing this. (1) He was implementing a computer system designed to run a centrally planned state and used it in anger; (2) he had a stated aim to seize and redistribute property based on priorities to be determined by a central authority; (3) he was forming strategic relations with the soviet union; (4) he was undermining the separation of powers in the standing constitution; (5) close working relationship with the communist party, sometimes against the perspective of his own party and supporters.
In places where a tiny minority have a chokehold
on a country's economy land reform is a pretty
essential prerequisite to general political and
social equality
Social equality is an unachievable ideal though.
Chile never underwent that reform, and has for the last twenty years been the most stable elected parliament in the region, with economic growth at all levels of society. The UK has never land reform of this sort either.
... thinking that it was better for U.S. long-term
interests to overthrow the government...
I don't buy into your original point that what Kissinger thought was to have been more important than what the local powerbases was doing.
I don't find it surprising that the US took a dim view of Allende. He was supported by his local communist party and was setting up an intelligence relationship with the Soviet Union, and the cold war was on.
But I agree with you that the US would do better by leading by example rather than meddling in the affairs of other states, and that that sort of conduct is the 'right' thing to do.
European socialists (outside of Italy where everyone is mad) are generally solid on constitutional matters, including separation of powers. Whereas Allende created the crisis by trying to steamroll the supreme court on separation of powers.