If Ortega is a socialist and Kirchner is not...

[Cheung Mo]

Why does Kirchner have the stones to tell Washington and the Vatican to fuck off while Ortega implements reactionary policies and their behest?

[RedAnarchist]

I assume you mean Daniel Ortega?

Ortega may have been some form of socialist at once point, but not any more. Nowadays, hes just another American sycophant, just another reactionary who we shouldn't dignify with the word socialist.

[Luís Henrique]

Take a map, and look at Nicaragua and Argentina. You might see the difference in size. Pick an encyclopedia, read about each country's economy and history. You might understand the difference in population, in natural resources, in work force tradition, etc.

Not that this should justify Ortega's (or whomever's else) actions, but, as Marx said, we don't make our history in the conditions of our choice, but rather in the conditions handed down to us by the previous generations.

Luís Henrique

[which doctor]

Do you support Kirchner?

[CheRev]

Rhetoric does not make a socialist.

[Cheung Mo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:43 pm
Do you support Kirchner?
I don't consider him a socialist, but that doesn't discount from that the fact that he's much more willing to stand firm against reactionaries and neo-liberals than most world leaders and that his alliance is more progressive than any of the spineless fucks in the "Socialist" Internetional.

Why are social democrats and ultra-liberals doing so well in Argentina? The most successful anti-Kirchnerists in Argentina's politics seem to distinguish themselves in their opposition to its Peronist heritage rather than to its actual policies. (Neo-liberal "Peronists" and the far-left both seem to be on the fringes right now...The top two candidates in the presidential election were Kirchner's wife and a left-liberal anti-Peronist. Conservatives and revolutionaries were out in the hinterlands somewhere...)

I just noticed the Larouchites seem to like the Kirchners...That's odd to me that the far-right would have sympathy for the left flank of Peronism.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Cheung Mo+November 11, 2007 06:08 pm--> (Cheung Mo @ November 11, 2007 06:08 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 04:43 pm
Do you support Kirchner?
I don't consider him a socialist, but that doesn't discount from that the fact that he's much more willing to stand firm against reactionaries and neo-liberals than most world leaders and that his alliance is more progressive than any of the spineless fucks in the "Socialist" Internetional.

Why are social democrats and ultra-liberals doing so well in Argentina? The most successful anti-Kirchnerists in Argentina's politics seem to distinguish themselves in their opposition to its Peronist heritage rather than to its actual policies. (Neo-liberal "Peronists" and the far-left both seem to be on the fringes right now...The top two candidates in the presidential election were Kirchner's wife and a left-liberal anti-Peronist. Conservatives and revolutionaries were out in the hinterlands somewhere...)

I just noticed the Larouchites seem to like the Kirchners...That's odd to me that the far-right would have sympathy for the left flank of Peronism. [/b]
Most Argentines are being impoverished by the hyper-exploitation of their cheap currency, and the poor are finding it harder and harder to put food on the table. only 20% of Argentines have recovered the buying power they had before devaluation, while the government encourages the driving down of the currency to keep wages low for foreign "investors". In turn as the products get more "competitive", the rise in demand from developed countries makes the prices even higher for argentine workers. So it's a double devastation of their living standards.

Kirchner is a bourgeois populist, you can criticise Ortega without descending to the level of praising some clown who once in a while waves the flag and insults Bush, whilst simultaneously dismantling independent working class representation and rebuilding an economic system based on exploitation which was in crisis before the populists turned up to save the day. the difference between Kirchner and Menem is that he stabs you in the back whilst Menem stabbed you in the chest.

And Carrio and Lavagna were not left-liberals. Carrio was campaigning on restoring the Catholic church to the centre of society.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 11, 2007 06:08 pm
I don't consider him a socialist, but that doesn't discount from that the fact that he's much more willing to stand firm against reactionaries and neo-liberals than most world leaders and that his alliance is more progressive than any of the spineless fucks in the "Socialist" Internetional.
Kirchner owes his position to the quasi-insurrection that ousted De la Rúa. This greately reduces his possibilities to lead an all-out offencive against the proletariat.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:27 pm
Carrio was campaigning on restoring the Catholic church to the centre of society.
Carrió? Did she? I would like to have some source on that...

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/04/25/elpais/p-00901.htm

Carrio: "the church was, is, and will (under K) be persecuted".

My Opus Dei cousins in Argentina voted for that clown.

It's true she was centre-left once, but she is not any more.

[Cheung Mo]

Kirchnerism's attitude to Washington and to the Vatican are good enough reasons to offer it critical support.

[Zurdito]

Originally posted by Cheung [email protected] 12, 2007 03:06 am
Kirchnerism's attitude to Washington and to the Vatican are good enough reasons to offer it critical support.
you would critically support an outright bourgeois government which is openly hostile to independent working class organisation, simply because it sometimes uses nice rhetoric?

Tell me, what has that government done to challenge capitalism, or even imperialist interests? I remember they put some price controls and beef and asked people to boycott Shell for a little while, if they wanted to. Those were their high points, after 4 years in government. True there were also the prosecutions of ex-military officers, but in this are no superior to the opnly pro-imperialist Lagos ex-govt. in Chile...and they haven't done a very good job of "ending impunity" either, because people who give evidence on thiose tirals are liable to disappear without trace (google Julio Lopez).

In reality, workers in Argentina were better off in 2001 than the are now. After the crisis Kirchner's predecessor Duhalde and then the K's themselves have done nothing whatsoever to hold to account those interests which looted the country throughout the 1990's...instead they have consolidated their hold over the nations resources and means of production. Did you knwo for exmaple that under Kirchner YPF, the state oil company, was privatised, something even Menem didn't manage to do?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:45 am
you would critically support an outright bourgeois government which is openly hostile to independent working class organisation, simply because it sometimes uses nice rhetoric?
I think Kirchner's government, as a whole, is unsupportable. Certain of its actions, however, may be supported in themselves.

For instance,


they put some price controls and beef and asked people to boycott Shell for a little while, if they wanted to.


the prosecutions of ex-military officers

************************


In reality, workers in Argentina were better off in 2001 than the are now.

That's certainly untrue, though the merit of the improvement being of Kirchner's is highly dubious.


Did you knwo for exmaple that under Kirchner YPF, the state oil company, was privatised, something even Menem didn't manage to do?

I was pretty sure that Menem privatised YPF. Didn't he? (I am sure it was privatised while Fernando Henrique was president in Brazil, and I don't think this overlapped with Kirchner's term.)

ETA: In fact, you are wrong.

Privatisation of YPF (http://www.creepace.com.ar/notas/20030123-sec_pet.htm):


El 24 de septiembre de 1992 se produjo el desenlace del triste y solitario final de Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF). La petrolera del estado era privatizada por decisión del gobierno de Carlos Saúl Menem y los legisladores nacionales que sancionaron la ley 24.145, la que dio por concluida la existencia de la principal empresa nacional.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:34 pm
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/04/25/elpais/p-00901.htm

Carrio: "the church was, is, and will (under K) be persecuted".

My Opus Dei cousins in Argentina voted for that clown.
Despicable as it is, that's not the same as "campaigning on restoring the Catholic church to the centre of society".


It's true she was centre-left once, but she is not any more.

Here it seems that you have it correctly. :(

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

you were right about YPF Luis Henrique, seems I got confused on that.

As for whether workers are worse off than in 2001: since devaluation the basic cost of living is through the roof. The statistic I heard is that only 20% of workers have recovered pre-devaluation buying power, though that was in an article by the PTS of Argentina and I can't remember which one right now, for the purposes of a link. Either way, I know for a fact that more and more workers are struggling to put food on the table and that shops are once again changing prices day to day: you can see it when you go in and they have to check on a list each day to see how much milk has gone up by. And as for petrol: "ni hablar".

Now I'll be clear that I don't think workers are worse off because Kirchner's polciies are "worse" than Menem of De La Rua's governments - De La Rua was an outright pro-imperialist clown and we all know about Menem - but I will say that those economic policies lead to the crisis Argentina suffered, and the only purpose Kirchner serves is to find a way to pick up the peices for the capitalists and instead of making them pay, to persuade workers to bear the brunt of that crash through their living standards - which undeniably have dropped for most workers and are still dropping.

You might ask yourself how the Kirchner's have managed to retain power if this is the case - I'd say that they'r getting a lot of backing from the capitalist elite, whof inds this era extremely profitable, to "control" the continuing economic crisis Argentina's workers suffer, and therefore give the illusion of stability and of some kind of "project" of national rebuilding which will eventually pay-off. However this is a lie, all that is happening is outright looting of the nation. The next term for Christina could be very interesting indeed because the Argentine working class is getting increasingly radicalised (ie unionised workers are replacing piqueteros as the prime social movement).