Juan Inigo jinigo at
Mon Feb 6 13:06:11 MST 1995

Andy Daitsman writes

>As to Juan's post, well diplomatically the best I can say is that he reminds
>me why I eventually rejected structuralist Marxism.

As I'm not fond of diplomacy's twisted arts of insinuation, I will answer
Andy's message in a straight way.

I'm not actually interest in labeling Peronism this way or that (Populism
Fascism, etc.). What truly moves me to look for the determinations of
peronism is the concrete form I may give to my own political action. But
I've no way to start shaping this action other than through the question,
what is to be done? Of course, the fact itself that I need to formulate
this question shows me that the necessity of my action does not come down
to its form itself. Oh, I could say to myself, it's just a matter of
national ideology. But, then, where does the necessity of this ideology
itself come from? Obviously, I will have to look for it in the specific
form that the Argentine process of capital accumulation takes (even if this
specificity wouldn't go beyond the mere national form this process takes).
But, now, I'll have to look for the necessity of this process in what it is
a simple process of capital accumulation. And I'll have to go on this way
until I face the simplest necessity my action encloses. Nevertheless, once
reached this point, I will still be lacking any answer about what to do. So
the only thing I'll be able to do then, will be to start following with my
though how this simplest necessity realizes itself into its concrete form,
which at its own turn will develop into its own concrete form. And I'll
have to proceed this way until I reach the developed form of this necessity
that has my own political action, and more precisely, my own political
action determined as an action that has needed to follow all this path to
become a conscious action, as its own necessary form of realizing itself.
Free action isn't that which ideally negates the existence of its real
determinations by abstracting from them. Free action is that which
thoroughly follows in thought the development of its real determinations
until recognizing itself as the necessary concrete form that the
realization of these determinations take. What Marx calls "the reproduction
of the concrete through the path of thought."

I'm currently working on the concrete forms and determinations of this
conscious action and the process of cognition through which it regulates
itself in my "Capital's Development into Conscious Revolutionary Action;
Critique of Scientific Theory." In fact, I gave my first steps in this
direction when, at 16, my strong political formation towards the Socialist
Party (which included having suffered from peronist political persecution)
clashed against the real nonexistence of this party and a completely
peronist working-class.

Now, according to Andy

> Granted, Peronism
>occurred at a particular moment in the history of Argentine economic
>development, and you could even argue (persuasively in my opinion) that the
>existence of that moment was essential to allow Peronism to come about, but
>I for one don't see any reason at all why the phrase "ground-rent" should
>even appear in a discussion of the specificity of *Peronism* as a populist
>movement.  We're already deep, deep into ideology here, and economic
>structures simply don't apply.  (Why Peronism, for example, and not
>Varguism?  Or Iban~ecismo, for that matter?)

>From Andy's point of view we have, in the one hand, "a particular moment in
the history of Argentine economic development." In the other hand, we have
Peronism just floating "deep, deep into ideology" when, suddenly, "the
existence of that moment" "allow[ed] Peronism to come about." It could have
even been left there for ever if "Varguism or Iban~ecismo," that were there
floating too, would have taken its place. 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. Or could
there exist a moment in economic development that doesn't need to realize
itself through political action? Could there exist a political action that
is not the concrete form through which a moment in economic development
regulates itself? As soon as it is emptied from its specific determination
as a concrete form through which the appropriation of ground-rent takes
place, peronism can move freely in the nebulous world of ideological

I will come back later concerning the basic appearance that this
appropriation takes in ad hoc economic theory, that is, the so-called
Import-Substituting Industrialization.

Juan Inigo
jinigo at


More information about the Marxism mailing list