Right Vs Left

[toongeorges]

I see it like this, and this is not a complete picture, other opinions will add nuances or clarify other things:

South American culture has a very primitive mindset about how to acquire wealth. Wealth is not something fluid that can be created or destroyed, it is something static that you acquire by taking it from someone else.

This is very much ingrained in the "viveza criolla" mentality where people would choose the easiest way to get what they want as if the way you obtain something does not matter and cannot do damage.

In developed countries, you would have nuances and say there is a good capitalism and a bad capitalism, as well as a good socialism and a bad socialism.

The good capitalism could be seen as the one where money is used as a mean to reach noble goals, where the bad capitalism would be the one where money is the end goal. The good socialism would be the one where people organise themselves to get ahead financially through their own effort and the bad socialism would be the one where the money has to be stolen from someone else.

In developed countries, good capitalism and good socialism embrace each other. China became a strong economy because it embraced the good capitalism.

In Latin America, people lack the understanding about the good capitalism and the good socialism and about them going hand in hand. All they know is that money has to be taken from someone else.

Instead of socialism and capitalism being merged in one philosophy, both the bad socialism and bad capitalism are fighting each other. Especially the "socialists" see themselves as the good ones that have to fight the evil capitalists. When socialists come into power here, the policies are usually not about how they could improve the economy, but about how they could take money from the rich and give it to the poor, e.g. the "Impuesto para una Argentina Inclusiva y Solidaria".

Then Argentine Peronists also have the peculiarity that for them, it does not matter what happens to the country, what matters is who is in power. That is why Argentina is doing worse than other South American countries. For the Peronists, only Peronists are good and all the rest is bad. They need Argentina to be in crisis, so they can lead as the saviours, because their programme is to be the saviours of the country, they really have no other plan. Everything that goes wrong in the country is always the fault of the others, such as the "evil capitalists".

 

[Rich One]

Then Argentine Peronists also have the peculiarity that for them, it does not matter what happens to the country, what matters is who is in power. That is why Argentina is doing worse than other South American countries. For the Peronists, only Peronists are good and all the rest is bad. They need Argentina to be in crisis, so they can lead as the saviours, because their programme is to be the saviours of the country, they really have no other plan. Everything that goes wrong in the country is always the fault of the others, such as the "evil capitalists".

Well Peronistas haven't been The saviours of Argentina, Peronistas have been in Power Forever in the Provincia de Buenos Aires and poverty is still like at 50 %
What matters is WHO is in Power to Distribute the taking$.. to family, friends and relatives. From the Central Government to the smallest municipality..!

 

[toongeorges]

Well Peronistas haven't been The saviours of Argentina

Of course they are not and they are very cynical about it, they just want people to think they are so they can stay in power for the reasons you mention.

 

[antipodean]

I would always say yes and no to the whole "viveza criolla" idea (I wish there was a better term for it..)
Here in Argentina, like Uruguay, the modern economy was developed mostly on the backs of SMEs and the middle classes - like Australia etc. This is generally seen as "good capitalism" and there would not be thousands of SMEs going out of business right now if they were all living the viveza pura.

The root problem here, however, is mafia-ism. It is very real and is at a higher level. It is all about protection and avoiding real competition. And protection comes with a price tag and it can only be provided using the instruments of the state.

This is where Peronism comes in strong and also explains why "Neo-liberalism" for the most part in Argentina is not really liberal at all or usually stops far short of applying it in all areas.

Focusing on Peronism, the fact that it doesn't have a real policy other than creating a feeding frenzy of emotion, fear and pasión amongst the masses allows the Peronist state to be the "hero", pushing it into the middle of everything. This is key to allowing certain business interests to prosper at whatever cost since generally, you need some anaesthetic to numb the pain. It is also key to facilitating corruption.

Sometimes they champion positive social issues (abortion, gay marriage, human rights) and other times they focus on negative "enemies" (oligarchs, farmers, foreigners, the British, the USA, truck drivers, the church, an airline, labour unions, IMF, runners, other politicians etc etc etc) to distract people. These hot issues often contradict themselves within the party/ coalition and any internal fractions they create soon disappear when it comes down to keeping control of the state, meaning being popular enough to get the votes. Some interesting tidbits to paint this picture of being ideologically loose:

• General Peron protected numerous Nazi war criminals and human rights abusers and spent his exile under the protection of General Franco in Spain who was also a notorious human rights abuser. During his administration, there was strict media censorship and intimidation.
• Peronism has been involved in various acts of violent antisemitism by left-wing Peronist and fascist factions while at the same time of promoting Jewish immigration and political participation.
• Peronism knowingly protected numerous Nazi war criminals and human rights abusers.
• Evita would stand in front of crowds and demand they literally "break the skulls" of those who questioned General Peron while championing "workers' rights" (dressed fabulously in Lanvin and Chanel, of course)
• Isabel Peron lead the forced disappearances and murders of political rivals using anti-communist death squads to "protect the Patria".
• Peronism strongly celebrates the legacy of the Malvinas war even though it was a violent act of the dictatorship carried out at the same time as forced disappearances of thousands of left-wing Peronists and other political victims.
• A Peronist government declared 25MAR the day of the unborn child to please the Catholic church and now barely two decades later they are championing the legalization of abortion.
• Personism blatantly supports the biggest human rights abuser in Latin America (Venezuela - the country that has the most killings by police every year than anywhere else on earth) while claiming to be a champion for human rights.
• In the 90´s they had neo-liberal economic policies and in the 00´s they had almost the polar opposite.

Amidst all of this commotion, big Argentine business keeps on ticking. Most stay silent about where their political allegiances lay and know that any government needs them as much as they need a government. Cars keep rolling off the production lines. Union leaders keep making money from the Obras Sociales. Rich businessmen stay rich and the political class stay employed while the middle and lower classes slip away into poverty and become dependent on the state. This is the moment regular people need the state just to stay alive and have the most fear of losing its protection.

Meanwhile, foreign competition with their bigger wallets and more innovative products are kept out and state contracts are "sold off cheap" to someone's buddy who seeks a favour in exchange for another favour.

In this sense, the Peronist idea of "national socialism" is very, very similar to Nazi-ism, Franco-ism or Italian Fascism.
Fuhrer! Volk and Vaterland! Those regimes also existed first and foremost to serve domestic business interests, not necessarily blood lust which was "just the noise" to get the people all worked up to keep the party in control of the state.

I guess that is why Peronism proves to be such a divisive issue here. And why it ends up being way longer to explain than one would hope.

 

[Ries]

I would add that, Peron, just like Hitler, combined military dictatorship with a very close relationship with wealthy industrialists. To call Peron "socialist" isnt really true- at the same time he was building workers housing, he was spending very substantial amounts of public money in sweetheart deals with wealthy old families, creating state supported captialist monopolies. The SIAM history of the "people's car" (justicialista) or even the Bolita- the first argentine refrigerator- is the story of state supported private companies, protected markets due to tariffs, and resultant rich supporters. The "100 families" still pretty much own everything, which is a far cry from socialism. Peron insisted Argentina have its own steel mills, when it would have been cheaper to import- but somebody made a lot of profit from that decision. The same thing with the Pulqui fighter jet- a very profitable propaganda statement. Yes, FMA was technically a government owned company, just as Aerolinas has been at times- but the subs and suppliers were all private, and made bank.
Obviously they could have bought better, cheaper planes, but the combination of Peron being able to claim Argentine independent greatness, with big profits to a few families, is pretty much the story of Argentina.

It is a feudal/military/religious model that was once much more common, but still has some vestiges present in Argentina today.

 

[London2Baires]

I would add that, Peron, just like Hitler, combined military dictatorship with a very close relationship with wealthy industrialists. To call Peron "socialist" isnt really true- at the same time he was building workers housing, he was spending very substantial amounts of public money in sweetheart deals with wealthy old families, creating state supported captialist monopolies. The SIAM history of the "people's car" (justicialista) or even the Bolita- the first argentine refrigerator- is the story of state supported private companies, protected markets due to tariffs, and resultant rich supporters. The "100 families" still pretty much own everything, which is a far cry from socialism. Peron insisted Argentina have its own steel mills, when it would have been cheaper to import- but somebody made a lot of profit from that decision. The same thing with the Pulqui fighter jet- a very profitable propaganda statement. Yes, FMA was technically a government owned company, just as Aerolinas has been at times- but the subs and suppliers were all private, and made bank.
Obviously they could have bought better, cheaper planes, but the combination of Peron being able to claim Argentine independent greatness, with big profits to a few families, is pretty much the story of Argentina.

It is a feudal/military/religious model that was once much more common, but still has some vestiges present in Argentina today.

It's funny you should mention this dynamic, I just a few days ago happened upon an interesting article which relates to this.


Enjoy! :

The Supermanagerial Reich | Los Angeles Review of Books

The managerial class and the crisis of democracy.

lareviewofbooks.org

 

[Ries]

thanks for that article- really interesting. Of course, beyond Germany, (where many of those familes STILL own everything) it applies to Argentina, the US, and, well, just about everywhere. But look over there - a socialist squirrel!

 

[mmoon]

Sure the politics are a disaster but at least there are more than two true political parties (unlike in the US), so to get any real power they generally have to make friends/alliances with another party and make some compromises. Lots of changing alliances but it’s a bit refreshing to have some grey instead of only black or white.

 

[antipodean]

Sure the politics are a disaster but at least there are more than two true political parties (unlike in the US), so to get any real power they generally have to make friends/alliances with another party and make some compromises. Lots of changing alliances but it’s a bit refreshing to have some grey instead of only black or white.

I agree that multiple parties are a healthy sign of more advanced democracies. It makes politics more accessible and more likely smaller voices will be heard.

I just wish various state institutions here had more independence and were less political. Have never known any country that undergoes a near-total purge of mid-senior level state employees across so many agencies of the state every time there is a new election. In most advanced countries with lower levels of corruption, only the ministry / executive staff change with a new government while the other agencies are staffed by skilled and experienced professionals whose job is to follow or apply the law or function regardless of who's in charge. Unfortunately, without stronger and more professional institutions with greater separation of powers, it makes everything political even when it should not be and results in lower standards.
It also goes back to the point about facilitating corruption which the whole structure of the Argentine super-state excels at.

 

[Alby]

A socialist swing-vote.
Economically socialist. Politically, opportune.

So its participation in Cambiemos was electoral opportunism with partners who had a quite different economic agenda?