Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 14:10:46 +0500 From: Andy Daitsman <adaitsma-AT-mail.cc.trincoll.edu> Subject: Re: Peronism If I had to pick out one statement from Juan's thoughtful critique of my analysis that most crystalizes the distinction between us, I would probably choose this one: >... From my point of view, Peronism >is the necessary political concrete form through which that particular >moment in the history of Argentine economic development realizes itself. >Therefore, Peronism is itself that particular moment in action. In particular, I would profoundly disagree with the assertion that "Peronism is the _necessary_ political concrete form" of a particular moment in economic development. This is the exact context for my suggestion that other populist movements (Varguismo, Iban~ecismo) could have developed in place of Peronismo. In other words, I see no inevitability in the rise of Peronism -- in the absence of the unique confluence of Juan Peron with Eva Duarte, Argentina might easily have witnessed the development of a different form of populism. In fact, I don't even reject the possibility that Argentina could have experienced a revolutionary moment in 1945, especially if the Perons had not been so effective in defeating the Communists' influence over the trade union movement. The point is, the economic moment of 1943 demanded that a political change take place. The old order was spent; it was incapable of dealing with the accumulation crisis. Juan accuses me of positing a: >Peronism just floating "deep, deep into ideology" when, suddenly, "the >existence of that moment" "allow[ed] Peronism to come about." In fact, what I suggest is just the opposite. Until it was invented by Juan Peron, Eva Duarte, and the Argentine working class, there _was no such thing_ as Peronism. It wasn't "floating" anywhere. It simply didn't exist. Just as the steam locomotive couldn't be invented until a whole series of prior technological developments occurred, allowing for the invention of the new device, so Peronism could not be invented in the absence of the particular and specific crisis of the Argentine political economy in 1943. So, where I actually agree with Juan is that Peronism arose due to a particular accumulation crisis in Argentina. If you want, you can use ground-rent and any other economic category you wish in order to fully describe that crisis. Where I fundamentally and profoundly disagree with Juan, however, is in the assertion that Peronism was the natural and inevitable resolution of that crisis. Without the Perons themselves, the movement and its ideology would never have come into being. If you will, I'll push my metaphor to the limit. Rather than the invention of the steam locomotive, the invention of Peronism is much more like a train wreck -- a historical accident that occurred when the westbound Perons ran into the eastbound Argentine working class... Trying way too hard to be literary, Andy ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005