There is no mystery here.
Mrs. Kirchner is following the economic theories not only of Mr. Chávez but also of Juan Peron, the 20th-century Argentine fascist who gave her party its name.
She wants state control over industry to shore up her power.
Peronism – essentially a pragmatic maneuvering between social classes at home and between rival powers abroad, concocted into a pseudo-ideology by grandiloquent rhetoric and noisy demagogy – contained a hard kernel of nationalist achievement, material progress and social reform. That is why Peron managed to split every party and political formation from the extreme Catholic Right to the Communist Left and line up the dissidents behind his banner. As Carleton Beals wrote, his leading opponents had nothing to offer except to complain of the lack of civil liberties. Their cry for freedom was somewhat suspect, however, as they had never respected it when in office.
Any half serious study makes clear that it is apocryphal to call the Peron dictatorship fascist unless one decides to promiscuously dump any and all dictatorships into a pot labelled ‘fascism.’ All dictatorships, whether of Czar Nicholas I or Diocletian the Emperor, Pope Julius II or Genghis Khan, Hitler or Stalin, have certain similarities. But it is only in the consideration of the different social backgrounds, class purposes and political aims that is illuminated the makeup of the regime and the history of the period.
The fascist dictatorships of Germany and Italy came to power through the deadlock of labor and capital, by mobilization of the lower middle class elements, and with the benign neutrality or outright support of the propertied classes. Once in power, they smashed, first, all Left and labor organizations; then, all independent political and social formations – to rule society as an omnipotent police regime. Peron, in contrast, took power in a more or less legitimate election in which he won a majority, and his ensuing dictatorship rested on the twin pillars of a government-controlled labor movement, and the army; with the regime oscillating between these two essentially hostile forces. Monopoly capitalism strengthened its grip on the economy under both Mussolini and Hitler while social difficulties continued to be solved by a combination of repression and war preparations.
Under Peron there took place the growth of a variety of nationalized state capitalism, an elimination of foreign investors through staying out of the war and bargaining with both belligerents. Nationalism was used by Mussolini and Hitler as a handmaiden of imperialism. It was used by Peron as a weapon of anti-imperialism. Fascism could be said to represent the rule of modern condottieri who slipped into power with the backing of the big monied interests to safeguard the status quo by the rule of the sword. Peronism was the rule of a Bonapartist dictator imposing his will by manipulating the social classes on behalf of industrializing an underdeveloped country and challenging dominant American imperialism. In a word, there is a substantial difference between the two types of dictatorship, and it muddles our comprehension of important lines of social cleavage to identify the two.
The military cliques have always had close ties with the landowning nabobs and the new military junta headed by Major General Aramburu has tried to swing things back in their favor. The junta has returned
After much hedging and several postponements, elections are finally scheduled for late February. The country is in for hectic times, as the economy is starved for capital, and the Wall Street crowd hasn’t changed its spots (even though it has jazzed up its public relations). It will not unloosen the old purse strings until it gets its pound of flesh – first of all, the cancelled oil concessions. The prolonged inflation has made Argentine labor restive, the Socialists and Communists are making strong progress again, and Peronismo remains a potent political force two years after the dictator’s exile.
The Peron regime has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence. It did not realize its proclaimed goals, nor could any regime that left the oligarchic social structure of the country undisturbed; but it could boast of some achievements. The next attempt will start from this higher ground.
by Arthur P. Whitaker
Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1957, $3.50.
What is Peronism?
A Review Article
Labor and Communism: The Conflict that Shaped American Unions (1977), was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
Para que no pataleen, la traducción de maquina, hacer clic aquí.
Resumen; ½ siglo mas tarde, para los buenos muchachos de la calle de la muralla, sigue siendo un dato los dos siguientes párrafos.
-The Peron regime has to be viewed as a stage in the battle of Latin America for economic independence.
-The CGT remains a power that no government can ignore.
El régimen de Perón tiene que ser visto como una etapa en la batalla de América Latina por la independencia económica.
Y la movilización del Viernes; WSJ y sus lectores, lo entienden como un desafío “Urbi et Orbi”, del Bonapartismo que es una Mélange de:
“All dictatorships, whether of Czar Nicholas I or Diocletian the Emperor, Pope Julius II or Genghis Khan, Hitler or Stalin, have certain similarities”
“As Carleton Beals wrote, his leading opponents had nothing to offer except to complain of the lack of civil liberties.
Their cry for freedom was somewhat suspect, however, as they had never respected it when in office”
Traducción; "un misterio que no termino de descifrar"; Vargas Llosa.