Argentina

[spartan]

What was Argentina during the Peron years?

Some people describe it as fascist whilst I have heard others say that it was socialist!

The ideology of Peronism (Spanish: Peronismo) is also known as "Justicialism" (Spanish: Justicialismo) and gave it's name to the Peronist party "Partido Justicialista".

Justicialism is derived from the Spanish words for "justice" (justicia) and "socialist" (socialista).

Peronism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronism

[beaslythebeast]

I don't know that's a good question maybe it was socialist but sometimes did things in a fascist way.

[el_chavista]

Juan Perón in Argentina, Lázaro Cárdenas in México and Getulio Vargas in Brazil drove attepmts to take the English-German way of protected-by-the-State capitalism development. They were destroyed by the neoliberal oligarchy and the USA.

[Red Flag Rising]

Authoritarian Populist.

[leftist manson]

Juan Perón in Argentina, Lázaro Cárdenas in México and Getulio Vargas in Brazil drove attepmts to take the English-German way of protected-by-the-State capitalism development. They were destroyed by the neoliberal oligarchy and the USA.
well said:)

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, Peron was always a populist, and he had a right-wing period and a left-wing one. In either case the Argentinian state remained capitalist, and was extremely authoritarian, though I'm not sure it could be said that it was fascist (and certainly not socialist).

[Zurdito]

neither fascist nor socialist.

Peronism was based ont he weakness of the imperialist powers at the time which left space for the growth of manufacturing industries which previously would have drowned out by foreign exports and capital. Their growth and the abscence of needing to compete with the imperialists as much as before meant that 1.) employment was created and better wages and conditions could be offered than before and 2.)the need for the creation of an internal market, which led Peron, with the support of the industrialists, to redistribute wealth away from the agro-export sector, towards the masses, who then used this to buy Argentinian manufactured products. This made Peron hated byt he traditional elite, but loved a lot of capitalists. Finally, Peron was able to use this reformism to break the power of the left int he unions and the working class, and to centralise the unions under the control of the Peronist Party, i.e. under the control of the party of industrial and weak capitalists! Even today this legacy makes it very hard for the left to operate in the working class. Peronism is a cancer on the working class, and not socialism.

Finally, when the above conditions ended, Peronism was no longer viable, and the party of the industrial capitalists was forced to turn on the workers openly slashing wages and conditions, to privatise (as Peron did with part of Argentina's oil in the 1954 I thnk) and eventually co-operating with a military coup which wiped out radical trade unionism and much of the left.

So not socialism or fascism, but populism based on conditions which were specific to the time.

[spartan]

neither fascist nor socialist.

Peronism was based ont he weakness of the imperialist powers at the time which left space for the growth of manufacturing industries which previously would have drowned out by foreign exports and capital. Their growth and the abscence of needing to compete with the imperialists as much as before meant that 1.) employment was created and better wages and conditions could be offered than before and 2.)the need for the creation of an internal market, which led Peron, with the support of the industrialists, to redistribute wealth away from the agro-export sector, towards the masses, who then used this to buy Argentinian manufactured products. This made Peron hated byt he traditional elite, but loved a lot of capitalists. Finally, Peron was able to use this reformism to break the power of the left int he unions and the working class, and to centralise the unions under the control of the Peronist Party, i.e. under the control of the party of industrial and weak capitalists! Even today this legacy makes it very hard for the left to operate in the working class. Peronism is a cancer on the working class, and not socialism.

Finally, when the above conditions ended, Peronism was no longer viable, and the party of the industrial capitalists was forced to turn on the workers openly slashing wages and conditions, to privatise (as Peron did with part of Argentina's oil in the 1954 I thnk) and eventually co-operating with a military coup which wiped out radical trade unionism and much of the left.

So not socialism or fascism, but populism based on conditions which were specific to the time.
This is a great post thanks!

I was wondering could parallels be drawn between early Peronism and what Hugo Chavez is currently doing in Venezuela?

In Venezuela you have Chavez nationalising industries which are dominated by foreign companies in a time of crises for the global economy.

This shows similarities to early Peronism where Peron wrested control of industries from the "English-German way of protected-by-the-state capitalism", as someone else put it, when things were not going their way during the depression.

[Zurdito]

I was wondering could parallels be drawn between early Peronism and what Hugo Chavez is currently doing in Venezuela?

In Venezuela you have Chavez nationalising industries which are dominated by foreign companies in a time of crises for the global economy.

I think it's similiar. It's different in one sense in that when Chavez began this project the imperialist powers weren't as weak as they were at the time of Peronism - back then they concentrating on rebuilding their internal markets and trade between themselves, so countries like Argentina had a lot more room for manouvre than they do today. This explains why Peron was a lot more radical than Chavez.

But the similarity is 1.)that high oil prices give Venezuela the power to have quite a lot of independence and 2.) the US, although it wasn't as inward-looking and Europe-looking as it was when Peronism came to power, was too militarily occupied in the Middle East to do much about Venezuela. :)

I think you're right that Chavismo will turn to the right as Peronism did when the conditions change, and this is even beginning to happen as Chavez is bringing in pay deals below inflation and trying to hold the unions to an investment friendly "national project".