Concerning Argentinas Failure As A Nation

[camberiu]

Until 1970, everything was ok, I mean there was some decadence considering the beginning of the century, but we were very similar to Europe and Australia and Canada. We were far better than Spain, for exapmle, in fact we recieved the last wave of spanish immigration during the 60s. The beginning of the end, the fact that changed everything till now, the barrier, the hit, was the last dictatorship (1976-1983).

If everything was "OK" there would have been no military coup. A military coup is not a cause of a problem, it is a symptom. A coup usually happens when the majority within a society has lost faith in the rule of law and in the institutions. Argentina's disfunctionality was not created by the military coup. The military coup was a consequence of Argentina's dysfunctional institutions and society.

And the fact that your military dictatorship was extremely brutal by South American standards (which is saying something) just shows how dysfunctional this society was even back then.

 

[Matiasba]

If everything was "OK" there would have been no military coup. A military coup is not a cause of a problem, it is a symptom. A coup usually happens when the majority within a society has lost faith in the rule of law and in the institutions. Argentina's disfunctionality was not created by the military coup. The military coup was a consequence of Argentina's dysfunctional institutions and society.

And the fact that your military dictatorship was extremely brutal by South American standards (which is saying something) just shows how dysfunctional this society was even back then.

No. the military coup had a purpose: implement an economic plan, market oriented policies that democratically got 2% of votes. They had to do it by force, they had to repress the 98% of the population that oposed to that model. what institutions you mean were not working fine? are you saying that a military coup (anti democratical, unconstitutional) was necessary? that a "dysfunctional society" needed a coup?

 

[camberiu]

Sir, there is no military on this Earth that can overthrow a government and implement massive apparatus of torture and repression without having wide popular support. To say otherwise is to perpetuate the mindset of self-victimization and to abdicate any sense of responsibility.
The reality is that about half (maybe more) of the Argentine population welcomed the military coup. They were frustrated with the economic situation, scared of the rise of the communist guerrillas and felt that the country was descending into civil war. Is a military coup the best solution for these problems? I certainly don't think so. But back then many did, not only in Argentina, but in most of South America. To deny that is to deny reality.

 

[EdRooney]

my take:

1. The article is total bollocks. Ditto what Brad said.

2. Camberiú is right that a lot of Argentines are unwilling to acknowledge that there was indeed plenty of support for the coup, just as there is in any coup. It always involves a minority wanting to take control. Given the results of the coup, many today would never acknowledge the fact that they supported the military taking power or would say "If I had only known what Videla & co. were going to do I never would have supported them..." Total BS.
But this is true anywhere: there were Poles that supported the Nazi invasion, Hungarians that supported the Soviet backed coup, Iraqis that supported the Bush/Blair invasion... There is always a small sector that is utterly anti-patriotic and undemocratic.

3. If the sectors supporting the military had the majority there would have been no coup. A lot of people forget this, but the ERP had been roundly defeated in "Operativo Independencia" in Tucumán. The Montoneros had been greatly debilitated by Lopez Rega and the AAA. Thus (as Matías said above) the reason for the coup was not to deal with "internal subversion", but rather to implement an economic policy that never could have been implemented democratically .

4. Lastly there is a boatload of silliness here recently about everything being hunky dory before the coup or Argentina being just swell until the Peronists messed everything up. Argentine history pre-1946 was no better than life under the Peronist cult of personality: a horrid succession of coups and mass impoverishment. Even while the country was relatively rich in GDP terms, the bulk of its population lived at a subsistence level. And before the 1976 coup the country lived under two brutal military dictatorships and then the proto-neoliberal policies of Celestino Rodrigo.

We would do well to ditch the idea of Argentina being saved or destroyed by Perón.

 

[camberiu]

\
3. If the sectors supporting the military had the majority there would have been no coup. A lot of people forget this, but the ERP had been roundly defeated in "Operativo Independencia" in Tucumán. The Montoneros had been greatly debilitated by Lopez Rega and the AAA. Thus (as Matías said above) the reason for the coup was not to deal with "internal subversion", but rather to implement an economic policy that never could have been implemented democratically .

The REAL reason does not matter. What matters is that a large number of Argentines found the justification of going after guerrillas enough to legitimize the regime.

 

[EdRooney]

This is an interesting question.

By comparison, the Bush/Obama regime have used the argument that they are "keeping us safe from terrorists" to justify mass surveillance, indefinite war, imprisonment without trial and the de facto suspension of habeas corpus. And in many cases, thanks to aggressive propagandising and a supine media, there is a plurality or majority of the country that at least initially supports the gov't on these measures. Yet there can be no doubt that the policies have not only not kept the population safer, but in fact engender more terrorism.

In this sense, there is a huge degree of responsibility that gets shirked by the Argentine and US populations, who do bear a lot of blame for allowing these regimes to exist. And this shirking is only exacerbated every time there is a Cámpora Memoria rally or when the Democrats blame Bush for the PATRIOT Act.

Either way, in a more democratic, less propagandised society, none of this would have ever happened.

 

[camberiu]

Yep. I agree with you. I was living in the USA when 9/11 happened (flying from Atlanta do Denver and forced to land in Tulsa). I watched in horror, disbelief and disappointment as Americans gladly gave up many of their freedoms in exchange for a vague promise of security. There is no doubt in my mind it would have taken no more than one or two additional terrorist strikes for most Americans to have gladly welcomed martial law and the end of the Bill of Rights.

 

[mc kenna]

Those who are willing to give up their freedoms for an apparent security deserve neither , this was said long ago by someone way brighter than me and with fancier words
Not all Americans jumped on the patriot act band wagon(we knew what it meant) but we were to few......

 

[camberiu]

Very few did not jump into the bandwagon. The weeks and months after 9/11 were very bleak and lonely. I would hear comments about how the Bill Of Rights was not a "collective suicidal pact" and other types of non-sense every time I expressed my opposition to such piece of legislature. I was even called a "terrorist sympathizer" a handful of times because of my position on the Patriot Act.
But I had lived under a dictatorship before and I knew what was in store for the American people in the years ahead. I am sad to say that time has not proven me wrong.

 

[Noesdeayer]

Once again the original object of the article " Argentina's Failue As A Nation" has been diverted to the desire of certain contributors to lambast and scold the U.S Quite naturally,they are perfectly entitled to do this. However,in my view, it changes the direction and purpose of the thread.As is well known the history of .financial problems and defaults in Argentina dates from, at least, 1890 which almost brought down Baring Bros..A large part of the immigration was "golondrina" meaning it went back and forth with not enough attention being paid to nation building.The working class did,indeed,live at an near subsistnce level before Justicialism which ,undoubtedly promulgated many necessary laws promoting social justice.Unfortunately,they came with an overwhelmingly heavy dosis of populism and demogougery and little participative democracy.A notable ingredient in the Argentne personality makeup is the "no te metas" meaning " don't get involved" .For many but not all,ot them ( because this is changing) as long as their personal situation is accepable,that is enough.The gov't can do what it wants.This is why in 1976 so many applauded the coup It allowed them to get on with their lives with no effort from themselves.Also,the economy under Peron became protectionist with significant
employment scarcity.resulting in marked emigration especially (approxmatly 200,000) to the .U.S. As employment manager at a company in NY,I gave jobs to many of them from1972 to '76 and they weren't leaving on account of fhe military yet They were leaving on account of Isabeiita,Lopez Rega and he A.A.A:.to say nothing of the Rodrjgazo It is up to the Argentines themselves Hopefully,the coming elections will be a turning point
o
p