Since it's relevant, I stumbled across a thread in r/askhistorians (one of reddit's best subreddits) that is directly related to this: How deeply was the US involved in Pinochet's coupe in Chile in 1973?
Everywhere, the expansion of capital creates its apparent opposite in the form of nationalist movements which seek to appropriate the means of production "on behalf" of the exploited and thereby appropriate social and political power for themselves. Imperialism's extraction of surplus has its political and social consequences, not only in enforced poverty of those who must become its workers, but in the secondary role allotted to the local bourgeoisie, which is incapable of establishing its complete hegemony over society. It is precisely this vacuum which the "national liberation" movements seek to occupy, thereby assuming the managerial role unfulfilled by the dependent bourgeoisie. This process has taken many forms - from the religious xenophobia of Khadafi to the bureaucratic religion of Mao - but in each instance, the marching orders of "anti-imperialism" are the same, and those who give them are in identical positions of command.
Whatever faults there were with the Allende government, I feel it's pretty wacky to blame him for the atrocities of one of the world's great dictators that followed him. It's a bit like placing the moral blame of a burglary on the homeowner because they left a window open.Allende was as responsible as Pinochet for the mass murders of workers and peasants in Santiago, Valparaiso, Antofogasta and the provinces.
Considering Allende's disarmament of the workers' militias just before the coup, a better analogy would be putting (part of) the moral blame on the guy who took a gun away from a subsequently murdered home invasion victim, at the request of the thugs, as they started to kick down the door.