Argentine capitalist development (and by extension Latin) has some peculiarities compared with that of other developing countries. Argentina for centuries in two models of capitalism have alternated, one which we might call "national defense" and one that could be defined as "underdeveloped uninhibited."
Argentine Capitalism "national" is referring to the sector of the bourgeoisie more related to actual production activities, typical of an autonomous capitalist development. At the time of Rosas farmers have the economic muscle to impose a country different from that proposed by the more parasitic bourgeois oligarchy clustered around the port. While licks were engaged in a primitive production activity, the "good people" of Buenos Aires were a mere parasite that did not produce anything of value, merely sucking income from customs.
This phenomenon is not unique to Latin America but any former colony. If the U.S. succeeds in becoming an industrial powerhouse, it was thanks to the victory of the advanced sector of the bourgeoisie over the rent seeking sector after the Civil War, during an international economic times allowed the autonomous development of American capitalism.
Cambalache
In the twentieth century this sector of the bourgeoisie advanced Argentina can also be identified with the industrial sector. An industrial sector which of course can not be compared with developed countries, but we must not forget the special character of underdevelopment Argentina. In other countries (for example, many Africans) industrial activity is negligible, limited to primary treatment of raw materials before export immediate. Argentina, and parts of Latin America have, however, a more diversified industrial development and dynamic, usually linked to big cities, living in rural areas where the "African model" is in full force.
The "African model" is exactly the underdeveloped without complications, and is powered by the most backward of our bourgeoisie, mainly related to financial income and agriculture. By their nature these sectors are nulamente intensive use of labor and value-added application, merely to vegetate and collect rents. All political activity is aimed to safeguard their source of revenue, in the case of "field" based solely on the possession of natural resources. These material conditions of life are reflected in his particular psychology (brutality, intensive exploitation of unskilled labor, feudal mentality, etc.). Logically, the model country which is a happy dream factory where a small number of families monopolize natural resources, is in charge of exports and counting the bills. 70% of Argentina's population surplus. This is the "African model, successfully applied in countries where human life is worth less than a meal.
The model favored by most advanced sector of the bourgeoisie in Argentina is not really a model ... or is promoted. It is simply the expression of interest, always fluctuating, the bourgeoisie tied to the industrial sector. This sector has seen its political and economic power at certain times in the history of Argentina, provided by external factors, rather than a plan to towards a more or less independent of Argentine capitalism. By contrast, "autonomy" of a sector of the bourgeoisie Argentina against the bourgeoisie of the metropolis has always been a surprise to herself.
We stayed at the '45
In 1945, when the world's metropolises were exhausted by the war effort, there was an impasse in the relationship of Argentina (and in general all Latin American countries particularly Mexico) with the bourgeoisie of the central countries. The need for import substitution became the bourgeoisie against a development path that took in the same manner that takes advantage any favorable business niche.
This widespread phenomenon in Latin America was an imperialist democratic nationalism in whose best interests of this sector of the bourgeoisie partially overlap with those of broad sectors of peasants and workers. It is in this context that Peronism came in the shape of what the bourgeoisie desperately needed: a shrewd politician and fearless. Peronism is a Bonapartist regime, ie a regime that gives the bourgeoisie itself when you do not know what to do, when within itself the contradiction of interests is very strong.
Peronism Argentina disciplined bourgeois imponiéndole una dirección política relativamente autónoma a su desarrollo. Para mejor medir el significado del concepto "relativamente autónomo" siempre conviene echar mano de la comparación con el "modelo africano", en el que la burguesía es simplemente un club de propietarios de recursos naturales, en todo desligado de la población debido a la inexistencia de mercado interno, y por eso absolutamente dependiente de la exportación al extranjero.
Esta época favorable le permitió al peronismo como movimiento político ganar un capital importante de credibilidad entre la clase trabajadora. Capital que fue simétrica y prolijamente desperdiciado por la izquierda marxista. El Partido Comunista, una sort of club of friends of the Soviet Union prepared to play the role of political agency to the Stalinist bureaucracy, called these workers, for the first time in his life had something tangible and were preparing to star in Argentina politics of "Murga" . Brilliant stroke of genius.
The '50 and swingin 'sixties
Of course, the autonomous development of the bourgeoisie Argentina was never planned but was a mere effect. The test is stopped as soon as he did his cause. By the mid-50s the Central Powers recovered the level of industrial activity with the U.S. as a new power, and consequently the most backward and dependent sector of the bourgeoisie Argentina returned to impose its model of the country in which the happy factory exported commodities the patricians sent to silence and servitude.
When speaking of the most backward sector or the most advanced of the bourgeoisie, can not believe that there are two fixed entities. While each has its ideologues and prominent figures, the structure is actually up and interchangeable plastic; capital generated in the industry can migrate to the cattle, or travel from financial activities to the service economy. It should be noted that the bourgeoisie is a class, and as such interest is common. But the vast variety of possible bourgeois regimes (neoliberalism, populism, fascism) expresses no more than the deep contradictions that permeate the bourgeoisie itself.
Plastic and interchangeable, but structure to end the dominance of the "advanced sector" of the bourgeoisie Argentina had its swan song with the development Frondizism, last humbug of traditional bourgeois politics in total bankruptcy. Since the '60s the military party successfully won the African model excluding politically Peronism. Until the turn of this in '73, whose political capital intact is available a. ..
A. ..
In the early 70's in Argentina's industrial sector of the bourgeoisie in a while that from the political point of view is comfortably in retirement, forgetting all popular nationalistic whim. Hardly notice the suffering of a petty bourgeoisie is trying to do strenuous walk in the local market. However, we must bear in mind that the country still has not received the strongest blow. Through the process of industrialization started mildly in '45, Argentina win the working class and economic weight of numbers. The workers of Cordobazo are the highest paid in the country, participating in more than 40% of GDP. Industrial activity has created a working class that has relatively strong to pull the country from the hands of the bourgeoisie, or at least recover what they consider their right: to live in dignity.
The Marxist left Argentina has historically had difficulty taking note of this fact more or less obvious, difficulties reaching even his most lucid revolutionary sector. This error results of the Peronist phenomenon incomprehension, misunderstanding that the left paid and will pay dearly.
Around Perón the international economic context and not allow any hint of self-development for Argentina ( plan Gelbard was the last slap of drowning). Perón , finally bourgeois politician, used his political capital on behalf of those who never stopped serving, setting a police-terrorist regime in which only privileged ones are dead.
Argentine revolutionary process was to establish a dialogue channel between Peronism and the revolutionary Marxist left. The defeat that brought the strike of '76 was also a breakdown of these linkages and the potential loss of all revolutionary Peronist militancy for a long time. King
Africa Since 1976 the African model made enormous progress. It should remember the effect it had on the industry and illustrious neoliberal assertion: "The best industrial policy is to not have industrial policy, more crudely reformulated by Martinez de Hoz :" It does not make steel that candy. "
terrified with the working class, bound hand and foot, and the working population forced to accept a policy of setting after another, workers lost the political initiative, which did not recover even with the return of democracy in 1983. The word "adjustment" would become a litany.
menemcavallista period meant a deepening of the African model to intolerable levels, which led to the 2001 crisis. As a logical Argentina therefore grew up a mass of unemployed than ever before, and it is instructive to read what Trotksy says about the growth of the mass of unemployed, a dangerous cancer for the working class.
Son of this crisis is the new Peronist Kirchner led by .
Back to square one Today
populist phenomenon repeats itself throughout Latin America, with a revival of the advanced sector of the bourgeoisie. Industrial activity, which had reached a very low-charge a new dynamism, thereby increasing the mass of employees. Again the Marxist left has difficulty understanding a very obvious: the revitalization of the industrial project, with all its limitations and contradictions, is objectively good news for the working class. The impressive demonstrations against the death of Nestor Kirchner confirm the data, while the left still absorbed in examining her navel.
is not to deny the bourgeois character of this project, or stick with it. It is defended as a springboard to the working class can be used to gain political and economic weight in view of their organization and political autonomy, impossible under the African model.
The reasons for this resurgence populist are several, but perhaps most important is the weakness of the American Empire. Plunged himself into an unprecedented economic crisis, drained by two fronts where it is bogged down (Iraq and Afghanistan), the U.S. needs stability in the "backyard" can not open another front direct conflict with a dozen countries so is limited to low-intensity operations: lightning coup, riot police, wild political opposition, etc. It features the eternally pathetic middle class, privileged sector workers generally clustered in urban centers congenitally unable to identify their real interests and political ram big business in the ridiculous belief that you have something in common with this sector. We know what awaits the "middle class" once again imposed the African model. But TV and mass media dumbing do a good job even though this sector is now enjoying a well he thought lost forever.
And as always ... left
In this context the Marxist left to make a paper returns null. Unable to explain the profound conflict wracking the country, merely to play the trumpet solo, demanding that the working class faces who have objectively done more for her. The assassination of the militant Mariano Ferreyra, consciously or not, cut any hint of militancy communication between Kirchner and the left, setting the bourgeoisie feared like the plague. The astute leadership of the PO does not suspect the intent of the extensive media coverage given to this fact means that have never been concerned about the death of leftist activists, naively believing that it is his own political growth. As in '45, the left acts on behalf of the most dangerous enemy of the working class.
And like the '45 sound is present wit. Boasting a superb partner to your narrow-mindedness, the left is pleased Peronist worker's stupidly fun with jokes and "Captain Craig." Insists again and again in the bourgeois character of this government as if it were sufficient to meet all bourgeois regimes in history, ignoring any difference between tactical and strategic behavior that the class must be taken in each case.
History repeats: Peronism regained political capital among workers, and left to lose. The massive demonstrations of support after the death of Nestor Kirchner have not left the central fact about where is the working class in political geography, and what is the way to walk in it. Objectively the Marxist left is benefiting from increased of workers employed in industry, but thinks it is a wisdom of its policy when in fact a policy effect displayed by this government.
The only thing I see left-Marxist phenomenon perceived by the membership Kirchner, is that this model has an expiration date. Because as always, it is a favorable situation in which "national" bourgeoisie tries to catch a raging river.
No one can deny the clarity, firmness and great political ability Cristina Fernández to frame this trend in the closest thing to a project. Just listen to her speech to realize the differences that separate the bunch of ignoramuses who has governed Argentina in the previous years. The howls of hatred of a few gorillas, fat insane, opportunistic mollusk, privilegiaditos underdeveloped and mere criminals with loud sounds contrast with the sobriety and intelligence of this woman.
But as always in politics is not about individuals but of classes. The advanced sector of the bourgeoisie is doing excellent business, but is aware of the danger posed by the organization and growth of the working class. Socially speaking can not do anything, because it is part of a process that can not help but politically it does all it can to hamper the growth of their political autonomy.
Peronism is itself that should take care of it, and that is why the Marxist left, could profitably bring this to the membership Kirchner, the most dangerous enemy of this government is right in the ranks of the Peronist movement itself, which Cristina Fernandez not without difficulty maintaining discipline. In this sense the death of Nestor Kirchner is bad news, and if you want to keep CFK tied to the mayors of the metropolitan area, a good idea to put someone so careful of the ways Guillermo Moreno.
The problem that arises is left not what will replace this model . Possibly the OP think that the media have become revolutionaries and arranged catapult Altamira to power, but the bourgeoisie is much further away. With the fall of the industrial model and return to the African model, the left will again cornered, with no class to go to.
The strength of this government depends on the viability of the industrial model. But this model has profound contradictions that the killing of Mariano Ferreyra laid bare. The same thugs of the union bureaucracy is now a militant fired on the OP, Morning shot a Peronist worker. And neither left nor militancy Kirchner will have answers.
The African model of Argentine capitalism encourages the disappearance of the working class and its replacement by a body of chronically unemployed who get killed for food parcels. The duty of the Marxist left is to avoid by all means to consolidate this model . The class struggle requires first and foremost its existence, rather obvious fact that is somewhat annoying to have to record. The class struggle without contradiction combines preserving the gains made, the demand for more concessions, and the struggle for power. Disparaging the first two, and identify the latter with the vote for the PO is a weight error.
If the left does not fight for survival the working class, then confidence will never get it in the struggle for power.
0 comments:
Post a Comment