Andrew Graham-Yooll On A Decade Of Kirchnerism

[Jaredberryman]

I agree about the middle class. However, there is a moral dilema here. On the one hand the middle-class is the engine which drives the economy - and throws off more jobs/opportunity. On the other hand, it is completely unjust and immoral to let people wallow in poverty. Not suggesting an entirely new thread on the hand-out/hand-up debate, but it is a tough job for any government to balance these two needs. People who live below the poverty line, and many who live above it, really need assistance.

It seems to me that there is a philosophical element to the K's perspective on how to manage a country that mirrors the very fundamental difference in rights from how I know them. The legal system here in based on active rights. The legal system that I know is based on passive rights. Let's take property ownership for example. In the US you have the right to own a house and no on can prevent you from owning a house based upon race, religion, sex, etc. What that means is you have the right to get a second job, go to school to get a degree in order to get a better job, save money, etc, etc until you can pay for your house. The right to own a house is a passive right in that it is there for you to take or not. It won't come to you.

In Argentina is it very different. If you own a house and you go on vacation and a family moves into your house while you are gone you now have a problem. You go to the judge and present your case for eviction. The judge says, "Hmm, interesting. You saved your money and bought your house. Therefore, you should have the right to free use of it. On the other hand this poor family has the right to a house, as well. We have competing, but equal, rights."

I suspect they would have the same view when it comes to social and economic policy.

That's an interesting way to look at it, passive rights vs. active rights. That is definitely the mentality that many here have concerning rights. It seems that everyone is entitled to everything. Unfortunately, when you say everyone is entitled to everything, that makes someone the loser somewhere.

 

[French jurist]

Peronist patronage politics, though, pretty much precludes growth of the middle class. It relies on keeping people poor.

I don't know well enough the history of Peronism but I've heard that critic before. Indeed, the poor class is likely the one who still approves her, but the 54 % who voted for her also include middle class people.

There's one thing we can give credit for to CFK, it's to oblige the kids to go to school.

 

[Alicia karr]

At least perhaps they wouldn't be so confrontational and antidemocratic as missy Fernandez de Kirchner. Corruption is one thing, authoritarianism is worse (and invariably leads to even more serious corruption). This is the main reason why I want these lunatics in jail, while I know that in an economic sense, another govenrment would not be necessarily more succesful. But I do think that not constantly scaring away investors would be a great first step.

I totally agree. As soon as this govt. started intervening with "el cepo cambiario"and repatriations, I understood that any multi-national, or foreign based business would flee in fear of "what next?" Or difficulties converting any profits into a currency used outside of Argentina. That was my uneducated guess. It is already amazing to me that there any foreign companies remaining here at all with the labor laws so rife with opportunities for disgruntled employees to take advantage of their employers, and the high cost of the bribes paid just to do business....In all fairness I want to add that I am appreciative of all the efforts of inclusion this government has attempted, and that fewer people are as poor as they were 10 years ago... But these gains have been paid for at what costs?seems to me its been a "band aid" fix that's about to fall off and expose a festering wound...

 

[notebook.fix]

Peronist patronage politics, though, pretty much precludes growth of the middle class. It relies on keeping people poor.

Well said! I've heard it said here, "if there was no poverty, the Peronists would be out of a job." it's in their interest to decimate & destroy what's left of the so called 'Argentine middle class'. They will always run on the Promises of 'freeing the poor from misery'. The record stands on it's own, Peronism is the 'Black Plague' , the mutant virus that won't be eradicated, the cancer that destroyed Argentina.

That's why we have so many Kirchneristas arguing pro-KK ideology against all logic. These 'hangers on' are part of the corruption that is continually sucking profit$ & benefit$ out of the 'Big Government' system. They'd rather see the country up in flames than give up their 'benefit$'.

Another thing, the Peronists have never won power in Capital Federal in Democracy, only under Dictatorship. This is traditionally known as 'enemy territory' for the KKs.
That's why many KKs will masquerade as disgruntled 'anti-macri' ciudadanos. All the while the Queen controls the La Policia Federal , the Police force that dominates the city...doing her uttermost best to create as much Kaos as possible in order to politically vandalize Macri. When trouble occurs, instead of putting order in the Capital she withdraws La Policia Federal while giving the go ahead for the Piqueteros to come in and block roads & paralyze the city at peak hour.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I don't know well enough the history of Peronism but I've heard that critic before. Indeed, the poor class is likely the one who still approves her, but the 54 % who voted for her also include middle class people.

There's one thing we can give credit for to CFK, it's to oblige the kids to go to school.

Well, presuming the teachers are not on strike.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Well said! I've heard it said here, "if there was no poverty, the Peronists would be out of a job." it's in their interest to decimate & destroy what's left of the so called 'Argentine middle class'. They will always run on the Promises of 'freeing the poor from misery'. The record stands on it's own, Peronism is the 'Black Plague' , the mutant virus that won't be eradicated, the cancer that destroyed Argentina.

That's why we have so many Kirchneristas arguing pro-KK ideology against all logic. These 'hangers on' are part of the corruption that is continually sucking profit$ & benefit$ out of the 'Big Government' system. They'd rather see the country up in flames than give up their 'benefit$'.

Another thing, the Peronists have never won power in Capital Federal in Democracy, only under Dictatorship. This is traditionally known as 'enemy territory' for the KKs.
That's why many KKs will masquerade as disgruntled 'anti-macri' ciudadanos. All the while the Queen controls the La Policia Federal , the Police force that dominates the city...doing her uttermost best to create as much Kaos as possible in order to politically vandalize Macri. When trouble occurs, instead of putting order in the Capital she withdraws La Policia Federal while giving the go ahead for the Piqueteros to come in and block roads & paralyze the city at peak hour.

And regarding your motto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmb7TU0OrOI

 

[Matiasba]

Another thing, the Peronists have never won power in Capital Federal in Democracy, only under Dictatorship. This is traditionally known as 'enemy territory' for the KKs.

I dont understand. Could you explain the part of winning power under a dictatorship? Capìtal Federal, as you said, never was peronista, but winning power with a dictatorship?
Im gonna tell you something: peronism was always democratic, representing peoples choice, while 4 of 5 military governments were antiperonistas, and peronism their object of persecution.

Peronism was prohibited from 1955 (when a military coup ended a democratically elected government of Peron) to 1973 (when another military government was obligated to call elections allowing peronism to participate in a very tumultuous scenario).

In the middle, we have "La Libertadora" calling to elections in 1958 (with peronism prohibited -how ridiculous is that), Guido (militar) called to elections after overthrowing the president elected in 1958 (and congress and limited elections totally controlled by the militars) and the president elected in those elections got removed by militars too.

So, to sum up, after obligating Peron, WHO ALWAYS WON HIS ELECTIONS (3) DEMOCRATICALLY, to go into exile, we had militaries governments mixed up with civil governments totally controlled by the militars.

In fact, this prohibition (think please it was almost the half of the society that couldnt vote for peronism, couldnt even pronounce his name in public, etc) this enormous persecution of peronists definitely created a powerfull resistance, pure inverse psichology.
So after 15 years of this the new generations, sons of anti peronistas middle class, converted into peronistas militantes. Lots of upper middle class universitarians became peronistas, and with the militars fortifying their pòsture, we came up to the 70s with these guerrillas of upper middle class armies against bloody dictatorships with the power of a State (tanks, intelligence, + cooperation of neighbouring countries).

So basically, Peronism, that historically represented the majority of Argentine population, that means the wishes of a model of society, was never EVER in power antidemocratically, because it was always object of persecution of the militaries governments.

 

[notebook.fix]

So basically, Peronism, that historically represented the majority of Argentine population, that means the wishes of a model of society, was never EVER in power antidemocratically,

Was Peron a Military man originally or was he a bailarina from teatro Colon? I rest my case.
You can always tell what periods in history were ruled by the Peronists....there's always a news blackout. The media, radio and newspapers were controlled & sanitized.

Peron was a right wing populist who zig zagged across the political spectrum when ever it suited, a painted tiger that never lost his military 'temperament', even when he had to dress up in democracy so to speak. The first victims under Peronism are press freedom, the independence of the judiciary, the national constitution and the economy. These are the hallmarks of the Peronists, as well as the populist practice of expropriating firms and other iron fisted habits etc.

 

[scotttswan]

I dont understand. Could you explain the part of winning power under a dictatorship? Capìtal Federal, as you said, never was peronista, but winning power with a dictatorship?
Im gonna tell you something: peronism was always democratic, representing peoples choice, while 4 of 5 military governments were antiperonistas, and peronism their object of persecution.

Peronism was prohibited from 1955 (when a military coup ended a democratically elected government of Peron) to 1973 (when another military government was obligated to call elections allowing peronism to participate in a very tumultuous scenario).

In the middle, we have "La Libertadora" calling to elections in 1958 (with peronism prohibited -how ridiculous is that), Guido (militar) called to elections after overthrowing the president elected in 1958 (and congress and limited elections totally controlled by the militars) and the president elected in those elections got removed by militars too.

So, to sum up, after obligating Peron, WHO ALWAYS WON HIS ELECTIONS (3) DEMOCRATICALLY, to go into exile, we had militaries governments mixed up with civil governments totally controlled by the militars.

In fact, this prohibition (think please it was almost the half of the society that couldnt vote for peronism, couldnt even pronounce his name in public, etc) this enormous persecution of peronists definitely created a powerfull resistance, pure inverse psichology.
So after 15 years of this the new generations, sons of anti peronistas middle class, converted into peronistas militantes. Lots of upper middle class universitarians became peronistas, and with the militars fortifying their pòsture, we came up to the 70s with these guerrillas of upper middle class armies against bloody dictatorships with the power of a State (tanks, intelligence, + cooperation of neighbouring countries).

So basically, Peronism, that historically represented the majority of Argentine population, that means the wishes of a model of society, was never EVER in power antidemocratically, because it was always object of persecution of the militaries governments.

cough

President Edelmiro Farrell (left) and his benefactor, Vice President Juan Perón, in April 1945.

As a colonel, Perón took a significant part in the military coup by the GOU (United Officers' Group, a secret society) against the conservative civilian government of Castillo. At first an assistant to Secretary of War General Edelmiro Farrell, under the administration of General Pedro Ramírez, he later became the head of the then-insignificant Department of Labor.
Perón's work in the Labor Department witnessed the passage of a broad range of progressive social reforms designed to improve working conditions, and led to an alliance with the socialist and syndicalist movements in the Argentine labor unions. This caused his power and influence to increase in the military government.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I dont understand. Could you explain the part of winning power under a dictatorship? Capìtal Federal, as you said, never was peronista, but winning power with a dictatorship?
Im gonna tell you something: peronism was always democratic, representing peoples choice, while 4 of 5 military governments were antiperonistas, and peronism their object of persecution.

Peronism was prohibited from 1955 (when a military coup ended a democratically elected government of Peron) to 1973 (when another military government was obligated to call elections allowing peronism to participate in a very tumultuous scenario).

In the middle, we have "La Libertadora" calling to elections in 1958 (with peronism prohibited -how ridiculous is that), Guido (militar) called to elections after overthrowing the president elected in 1958 (and congress and limited elections totally controlled by the militars) and the president elected in those elections got removed by militars too.

So, to sum up, after obligating Peron, WHO ALWAYS WON HIS ELECTIONS (3) DEMOCRATICALLY, to go into exile, we had militaries governments mixed up with civil governments totally controlled by the militars.

In fact, this prohibition (think please it was almost the half of the society that couldnt vote for peronism, couldnt even pronounce his name in public, etc) this enormous persecution of peronists definitely created a powerfull resistance, pure inverse psichology.
So after 15 years of this the new generations, sons of anti peronistas middle class, converted into peronistas militantes. Lots of upper middle class universitarians became peronistas, and with the militars fortifying their pòsture, we came up to the 70s with these guerrillas of upper middle class armies against bloody dictatorships with the power of a State (tanks, intelligence, + cooperation of neighbouring countries).

So basically, Peronism, that historically represented the majority of Argentine population, that means the wishes of a model of society, was never EVER in power antidemocratically, because it was always object of persecution of the militaries governments.

Perón, nevertheless, was an authoritarian who admired Mussolini and had a great deal in common with other milicos (his admirers always refer to him "Teniente General" rather than "President").