Argentina After Peron

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at
Mon Jun 12 06:20:48 MDT 2000

En relación a RE: Argentina After Peron,
el 12 Jun 00, a las 2:28, Julio Fernández Baraibar dijo:

> Very interesting article. Here some reflections, made during the reading.
> > American Socialist, November 1958
> >
> > The Peron era, authoritarian though it was, left a tradition of social
> > benefits and an awakening of labor aspirations. The next stage of
> Argentine

I find Julio's comments and remarks of the greatest interest. We
commented the article by phone yesterday night, and we both believe
that the short declaration by Olmos (which must have sounded as a
Renaissance sonnet to Horowitz's  Germanian (pace Gino Germani) ears)
contains much of what afterwards developed in Argentina.

The contradiction between capital and class is contained, somehow, in
this denial of the best union leaders to overcome the Peronist cast
of mind and generate a new, socialist, approach. Of course, they had
a variety of socialist parties to chose from (this, ILH stresses
strongly and it is not a matter of chance), but oh surprise all of
these parties were partners in the regime that had turned the very
fact of saying "Perón" a crime (not a metaphor)!

The hopes of the "Leftists" in 1955 were that the Peronist workers
would abandon their Fascist party, become "democratic", and flock
into the well established, respected, Socialist parties. Or, at
least, into the Communist party. None such happened.

Peronists kept doggedly resisting the "democratic" bloc for decades,
and at last obtained the right to vote for their beloved leader. In
the meanwhile, the internal contradiction encapsulated in the words
by Amado Olmos took root, grew, and eventually took the terrible
shape of the Montoneros - AAA struggle which was one of the main
springboards for reaction in 1975/76.

I have expanded this by Julio (and could expand it more) because this
is a very important issue in Argentinian politics. There are few who
can grasp the meaning of this, even among the most intelligent
observers. I have read a book that J.P. Monteiro sent to me, by a
Brazilian journalist, on the events of the mid / late 1970s in
Argentina. And this would be the only serious criticism I would do to
that book. But I admit that in those years there were very few who
had this clear (me not in the bunch, to be honest). Peron was one of

It is interesting to point out that Hugo Moyano does not come down
from the Amado Olmos tradition, but from what in those times most of
us considered the "reactionary" -in fact, just traditional bourgeois
national revolutionary- Peronist Labor Youth which tried to oppose
the Workers Labor Youth of the Montoneros. Most (not all) of today's
leaders coming from this second tradition, which is more or less the
Amado Olmos tradition of "using" Peronism for socialist goals instead
of building up a new party, are now either officials of the Alianza
government, or University professors teaching to love "democracy", or
broken Peronists who will accept whatever the IMF rules. What would
have happened with those who could not survive the death game of the
late 70s is a mystery, but if one thinks in the fact that some of the
best union leaders in the mid 50s were already proposing to use Peron
as if he had no independent will, then prospects are bleak.

Yes, there is no way out for Argentina without socialism, without a
revolutionary socialist party. This was true in 1957, and this is
more true in 2000. Not a matter of chance that IHL did not realize
what was contained in the words he quoted.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list