Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism
The generalized knowledge about Peronism suggests that to sustain its policies, this movement sought a politico-institutional alliance held on three legs: under State leadership as a central pillar, it included the small-medium regional entrepreneurs (termed by O’Donnell “local” bourgeoisie and repr...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Instituto Interdisciplinario de Economía Política (IIEP UBA-CONICET)
2014
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://ojs.economicas.uba.ar/DT-IIEP/article/view/2563 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=dociiep&d=2563_oai |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | The generalized knowledge about Peronism suggests that to sustain its policies, this movement sought a politico-institutional alliance held on three legs: under State leadership as a central pillar, it included the small-medium regional entrepreneurs (termed by O’Donnell “local” bourgeoisie and represented by the Confederación General Económica) and organized workers (unions). This populist alliance, without transcending the limits of capitalism, defied the two central actors of big business: the rural exporting bourgeoisie (represented by the Sociedad Rural Argentina) and the great urban bourgeoisie (i.e., industrial bourgeoisie constituted by transnational firms and the strongest domestic industrial firms, represented by the Unión Industrial Argentina). As the story goes, Peronism embodied a historical confrontation (between, on the one hand, organized workers and small-medium provincial entrepreneurs and, on the other, the different fractions of big business) that shaped the Argentine politico-economic process since the second half of the twentieth century. This study focuses on the 1943-1955 period to argue that Peronist policies pursued the inclusion the great industrial bourgeoisie as part of its socio-political alliance. And this not merely to capitalize these firms’ investment capacity -although set under the political leadership of the small-medium entrepreneurs of CGE-, but also aiming at placing the great urban industrial bourgeoisie in a central leadership role over the bourgeoisie as a whole (including under this leadership the “local” bourgeoisie). In this sense, the study argues that the “really existing Peronism” was not the one that Peronist governmental strategies sought to build but, to the contrary, the result of Perón’s political defeat in the achievement of his goals, a defeat brought about by different industrial groups in conflict. In a nutshell, “Perón’s Peronism” was not the one of the triple alliance between the State, the local bourgeoisie and organized workers confronting with big industrialists and rural exporters, but one that included in a leadership role the great urban industrial bourgeoisie. This is why this study is, in the end, about the “Peronism that wasn’t”. |
|---|