Alberto Spektorowski - The Ideological Origins of Right and Left Nationalism in Argentina, 1930-43

8/17/2019 Alberto Spektorowski - The Ideological Origins of Right and Left Nationalism in Argentina, 1930-43

1/31

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Contemporary

History.

http://www.jstor.org

The Ideological Origins of Right and Left Nationalism in Argentina, 1930-43Author(s): Alberto Spektorowski

Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1994), pp. 155-184Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/260959Accessed: 11-06-2015 19:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.

For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 200.5.224.104 on Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:35:07 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/260959http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/260959http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/31

Alberto

Spektorowski

The

Ideological

Origins

of

Right

and Left

Nationalism

n

Argentina,

1930-43

This

work

examines

the

development

of

a

particular

nationalist

ideology

from the

late 1920s

through

Peron's ascent

to

power,

an

ideology

that

has had an

important

influence on

Argentinian

politics

ever since.

Although

the first

attempt

to

implement

it

politically

was

made

in

1930,

with

Uriburu's

abortive

military coup,

the

ideology

only

achieved consummation

with

the

successful

revolution of

1943,

which

ushered

in

Peronism. The

following analysis

concentrates

on

the

Argentinian

intellectual rebellion

against

the West's liberal

democratic models of national modernization. This intellectual

rebellion was the basis

for

the

delegitimization

of

the liberal

version

of

Argentinian nationalism, which eventually gave way to an organic

populist

version.

The

Argentinian

intellectual rebellion

against

the West's

liberal,

democratic

and

bourgeois

values and its models

of

national

modern-

ization was motivated

by

two

different

political

and

intellectual

trends.

One

of them was the

'integralist'

nationalism of

Charles

Maurras,

Italian

fascism,

and the

resurgence

of the ideal of

'Hispanismo'

as

a

cultural

and

developmental

alternative to

the

materialist,

utilitarian values

of

the West.

The

other

was rooted

in

the

'authentic' national

populist

tradition raised

by

the Radical

Party,

with its

impetus

in

anti-imperialism

and

social

justice.

In

the

1930s,

General A.

Justo's conservative

government

provided

the

necessary

political

and economic

backdrop

for

an

ideological synthesis

between

the two

trends,

national

populism

and

the

integralist

concept

of

nationalism. This

synthesis

produced

an

alternative 'third

road'

of

political

and

economic modernization

to counter

the modernization

programme

advocated

by

the liberal

elites,

an

alternative

which,

in

the Argentinian context, would include elements of national

integration,

social

justice,

populist

mobilization and economic

and

cultural

anti-imperialism.

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

(SAGE,

London,

Thousand Oaks

and

New

Delhi),

Vol. 29

(1994),

155-184.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/31

Journal

of

Contemporatry

History

This formula was the

basis for a

particular

version

of

fascist

ideology

which

emphasized

social

justice

and

anti-imperialism,

two

concepts

that

on

the

surface

would

appear

alien to the fascist

ideology

developed

in

Europe.

Whereas

in

Europe,

fascist

ideology

blended a

new anti-liberal nationalism and an

anti-Marxist socialism

derived

from Sorel's revision

of

Marxism,

the

Argentinian

version was

rooted,

as

mentioned,

in

the

synthesis

of

two trends of

nationalism,

the

integralist

and the

populist.'

However,

both

syntheses represented

a

total

political,

social and economic

response

to

problems

created

by

political

modernization.'

Our

purpose

here is to examine the

development of Argentinian nationalism within the context of the

fascist

ideological

revolution.3

Any

discussion

of

the emergence of

Argentinian

anti-liberal

nationalism

must deal first with the

characteristics

of the

Argentinian

liberal-democratic

order and with the

appearance

of

the first

'populist

democratic'

attacks on

it.

From 1810 to

1852,

Argentina

was a

country divided by the struggle between Federalists and Unitarists.

The

eventual

triumph

of

the

latter

reflected the

victory

of a national

modernization

project

based

on the

principles

of the

Enlightenment

over the caudillista

anti-modernist tradition

represented by

the

Federalists.

In

fact,

from the

defeat

in

1853

of

Juan Manuel de

Rosas,

the

Federalist

caudillo who best embodied the values of

the anarchical

uncivilized

past,

Argentina began

a liberal

process

of

modernization,

a

process

idealized

in

the works

of

intellectuals

like Bartolome Mitre

and

Domingo

F.

Sarmiento.

According

to

them,

Argentina

was a

'barbarous',

ignorant

country,

a

product

of

Spanish

colonialism,

which had

to

be

civilized

by

means of

a new

ideology

of

progress

based on

positivist

philosophy.4

The

modernizing

6lites were influenced

by

the American

Constitution

and the Declaration

of Human

Rights.

At the

same

time,

however,

they

were

also

inspired

by

the

positivist

social

thought

of

Comte,

Saint

Simon,

Fourier and

others.

They

believed

in

the

power

of reason

as a

guide

for

human

behaviour,

and

in

the

Enlightenment ideas which linked material progress to science and

human

liberties.

When

General J.A.

Roca's

presidency began

in

1880,

the

positivist

ideology

was

implemented

under the

slogan 'peace

and

admini-

stration'.

At the end of

the second

half of the

century, Argentina

entered

a

period

of

high

economic

growth,

and

foreign

investment

156




4/31

Spektorowski:

Right

and

Left

Nationalism in

Argentina

was

encouraged.

The

British established new

banks,

a railroad

network

and

gas companies,

while a

great

wave of

immigration

from

Spain,

Italy,

Ireland

and

other countries transformed the

sociological

face of the

country.

Buenos

Aires,

the

capital,

was

federalized,

the

provincial

guards

who

constituted

the local

power

base were

suppressed,

and the

monetary system

was unified.

However,

under

Roca's

administration,

economic

development

took

place

without

political

democratization.

Indeed,

despite

the

process

of socio-economic

modernization,

the nation's

political

system

remained

closed until

1912.

As late as 1910 it was estimated

that only some 20 per cent of the native male population voted.

Political

power

was

concentrated

in the hands of the

PAN

(Partido

Autonomista

Nacional),

which

represented

the

oligarchy's

economic

and

political

interests.

As a

political analyst

of those

years

has

observed,

the

government 'accepted

all the

great

ideas of

political

liberty...

and universal

suffrage

... but it has a

theory

which it

rarely

confesses,

which is its

guiding

idea,

and

that is the

theory

of the

tutelary

functions of

government'.5

The firstprotests against the liberal democratic establishment and

the liberal elite's modernization

programmes

came from two different

sources.

The first was the new middle class created

by

the

process

of

economic

modernization,

which was

beginning

to seek

political

participation.

As we

will

see,

the Radical

Party

was the new

movement that

expressed

the demands of

this

class,

with a

populist,

democratic but anti-liberal

programme.

The second source of

unrest

was

a class-conscious

working

class,

mostly

of

immigrant origin,

which

supported

the Socialist

Party

and

the

anarchist-led unions.6

Although

both the Socialists and the anarchists threatened the

oligarchy's political programmes, ideologically

and

culturally they

did not

oppose

the

concept

of

political

modernization based on

secularization,

anti-traditionalism and faith

in

universal human

values.

Moreover,

they accepted

in

principle

the

liberal elite's faith

that the

flow of

European immigration

would

exert

a

modernizing

influence

in

Argentina by defining

the

parameters

of a

modern,

'Europeanized'

nation.

The

anarchists,

however,

took a more

radical,

revolutionary stance, whereas the Socialist Party advocated a policy

of

gradual

reform.7

In

his

book

Theory

and

Practice,

J.B.

Justo,

the founder of

the

Socialist

Party,

describes

a

process

of

gradual

development

in

Argentina

in

which a

capitalist

stage

and the

constitution of a

national

bourgeoisie

were

preconditions

for

the

development

of a

157




5/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

socialist

society.8

Endorsing

the elites'

modernization

programme,

Justo

rejected

the

spontaneity

of

the

masses and

'caudillo

politics',

and

accepted

the liberal

premise

that a

dependent

economy

was

merely

a

temporary stage,

a

step

towards

modernization.

By

adopting

this

assumption,

the

Socialist

movement

joined

the

de-

fenders of

former

democracy

and

economic

liberalism,

issues

that

became the

focus of

nationalist

attacks

during

the

1930s.

It is not the

intention here

to delve

into the

development

of the

Argentinian

labour

movement or the

differences

between its

socialist

and anarchist

ideologies.

However,

to

understand the later

devel-

opment ofintegralist and anti-imperialistnationalism in Argentina, it

is

important

to realize that the

socialist

and

anarchist

movements did

not

object

to

culturally

enlightened

modernization.

They

both

feared

any

kind

of

'authentic'

nationalism.

They

would

never

praise

the

national

collectivity

as an

organic entity

with

its traditional

myths,

religion,

glories

and

graveyards.

They simply

refused to bow

down

before it and its cultural

baggage.

The real

ideological

challenge

to

the

proponents

of an

enlightened

and limited democracy, however, came during the first years of the

century,

when a new

political

movement,

rooted

in

the

pre-liberal,

traditionalist caudillista

populism,

made its

appearance.

In

1890 the

Union Civica Radical led the first

violent dissent

against

what some

members of the

oligarchy

saw as the

fraudulent administration of

President Juarez Celman.

During

the

1920s the Union

developed

into

a

popular

movement that

spoke

for the new

native middle class then

seeking political representation.

The Radical

movement,

indeed,

was

the first to raise the

flag

of

universal

suffrage,

and at the same time it

refused to be definedas a

party

of sectorial interests. In

fact,

since the

Radical movement

conceived

society

as

integrated

and

organic,

it

saw

itself

as

representing

the whole of the nation. As

such,

it

rejected

the

bourgeois

establishment

of the

liberal conservatives and

reformist

socialists as

well as the class

struggle

of

the anarchists.

In

its

view,

both

trends,

the

liberal and the

Marxist,

contributed to the

disintegration

and the 'denationalization'

of

Argentina.9Advocating

a

violent,

intransigent struggle

for

democratization,

and for the

rescue of the 'authentic' national identity of the country, the

movement

manifested,

from the

beginning,

the

rebellious

spirit

exemplified

by

its first

leader,

Leandro Alem. The latter was

representative

of 'the

oppressed

canons inserted into

the caudillist

tradition

...

[more]

...

than... the idea... of a modern

nation'.'0

In

other

words,

Radicalism was

synonymous

with

rebellion,

with a

158




6/31

Spektorowski:

Right

and

Left

Nationalism in

Argentina

new

morality opposed

to

bourgeois

materialism and the

cosmo-

politan spirit promoted by

the

oligarchy.

This rebellious

spirit

was

continued

by

the next 'caudillo' of

the

movement:

Hipolito

Yrigoyen.

Under

his

leaderhip,

the Radical

movement

accentuated

its

'intransigent'

struggle

for universal

suf-

frage by

making

another

revolutionary

attempt against

the

legal

government

in

1905.

Although

this

attempt

also

failed,

it

enhanced

the movement's

revolutionary

democratic

appeal.

It also

sparked

renewed

popular

interest

in

the ideals

of

Radicalism,

and

convinced

the

oligarchical

elites once and

for all

to allow democratic

reform,

in

orderto turn the Radical 'rebel' movement into a partyof the system.

The Saenz

Pefa law of universal

suffrage

in

1912 was what clinched

the Radical movement's

bid for

power

in

1916.

It

may

be said that at

that

point

the cultural and

political

delegitimization

of liberal

democracy began, paving

the

way

for the

age

of

populist

democracy.

In

no time the

staid,

closed

atmosphere

of the

oligarchy

was

swept

away by

a wave of

popular

euphoria.

Yrigoyen,

indeed,

was to

challenge

the rationalist

and materialist

utopia of the liberal elites. Heir to the rebellious, traditionalist,

anti-modernist

Federalist

spirit,

Yrigoyen attempted

to

integrate

the

politics

of

regional

federalism

with the constitutional order.

This translated into a

concept

of direct

democracy

or clientelist

politics

reflected

in

increased

links between

Yrigoyen

and local

caudillos,

particularly

in

populous

areas. This

system

of

patronage

ruffled

the

feathers of not

only

the conservative forces outside the

party

but also the Radical

movement's own

elite,

which could not

accept Yrigoyen's populist

style

of

operating through

the

party's

committees."

In

contrast to

Yrigoyen's

constitutional

populism,

characterized

by

federal intervention

in

the

provinces

and

the sanction of

presidential

decrees and ministerial

resolutions,

the

party's

aristoc-

racy

demanded more

congressional

control and a more rational

management

of

public

funds. These conflicts

reached a

peak

in

1928,

when

Yrigoyen

ran for re-election. The

anti-Yrigoyenists,

dubbed

'antipersonalistas',

found

common

ground

with the

conservative

parties of the aristocratic elite, who shared their support for an

orderly,

institutionalized

democracy.

Yrigoyen's supporters

remained

the

'intransigent',

moralist,

and

organically

nationalist

wing

of

the

party.

In

the 1928

elections, however,

Yrigoyen

was re-

elected

by

a wide

margin, proving

once

more that the formula of

popular democracy

had been

accepted by

the

Argentinian people.

159




7/31

Journal

of ContemporaryHistory

During

the

widespread

economic

depression

at the end of the

1920s,however,

the

regime began

to

disintegrate.

At

the

height

of the

depression,

a coalition

of interests

ranging

from

conservative

liberals

to national

corporatists

was

composed.

Although Yrigoyen

posed

no

threat to their economic

interests,

the conservative liberals

despised

his rhetoric and

political

style.'2They

were flanked

by

a new

group

of

nationalist intellectuals

who wanted to

replace

the

populist

state with

a

strong,

authoritarian,

corporatist

state. Common to both

groups

was the

belief that

the

political

formula of constitutional

populism

was

inappropriate

for

confronting

the new

challenges posed

by

economic depression. It is clear, however, that the coalition against

Yrigoyen

was

the

product

of a

temporary

intersection

of interests

between

corporatist

and

liberal conservatives.

As we shall

see,

during

the 1930s a

different

ideological

environ-

ment

developed.

While the

Yrigoyenist

ideology supported

a

populist

democratic

attack

on liberal

democracy,

the new nationalist

inte-

gralist

ideology

presented

a

corporatized

authoritarian

alternative

to

it.

A

synthesis

of the

two

ideological

lines,

seemingly

inconceivable

in

1930, was possible later in the decade when the issues of anti-

imperialism,

the revision

of the

Argentine's

history,

and

neutrality

in

the

second

world war

became central

problems

for both trends.

The most

prominent

pioneer

of

a new

political

ideology

restating

the

values of

military strength,

heroism, order,

technical

efficiency

and

anti-politics

was

the renowned

poet

Leopoldo

Lugones.

Lugones,

who was well

known

in

Argentina

for his

poems,

historical

works

(such

as La

Historia de

Sarmiento),

and articles he wrote for various

newspapers

in

the

capital,

was

unquestionably

a

poet

whose

poetry

could

not

be

separated

from

his

political

ideas.

A

radical

revolu-

tionary

socialist

during

his

youth

and

a

right-wing

nationalist

and

fascist

in later

life,

Lugones

never

wavered

in his scorn

for

liberal

democracy

and reformist

socialism.

His

most famous

political

statement

was delivered

in

a

speech

at

Ayacucho,

Peru,

in 1924.

There,

during

the

centenary

celebrations

of

the famous battle of Ayacucho, Lugones heralded the 'hour of the

sword'.

He

was

referring

to the

Argentinian

army,

which had

fought

for

independence

and

was the

only

reliable

institution

exemplifying

hierachy

and

order.

This

speech

also

represented

an

attack

against

bourgeois

morality

and

politics.

In

fact,

Lugones

believed

strongly

in

social

Darwinism

and

the use

of

force

as the

basis

for a new

morality:

160




8/31

Spektorowski: Right

and

Left

Nationalism

in

Argentina

'Life does

not

triumph

by

means

of

reason

and

truth,

but

by

means

of

force.

Life is

incomprehensible

and

inexorable

.

. .3

The militarization of

society

and industrial

modernization

under

a

corporatist

state were to

be the

response

to liberal

democracy

as

well

as to anarchist

populism. Lugones

insisted, moreover,

that in a

world

of

imperialist

competition,

an

industrially

backward,

militarily

weak

country,

in

which

partisan

politics

took

the

place

of a

defined

national

identity,

could not survive. His

political

message

had a

great impact

on

a number of

army

officers,

and

especially

on

a

group

of

young

intellectuals

who

congregated

in

the offices

of the

journal

La

Nueva

Republica,which had begun to appear in 1927. They all agreed with

Lugones

that

'the

general

progress

of

technology,

and

the

correlative

empire

of

the scientific

method,

have

certainly

modified

the old

political

concepts

. .

Majority democracy

is

already

a

failed

experiment."4

In

the

expectation

that the

world was

in

the

process

of

a new

conservative

revolution,

this

group

of

nationalist

intellectuals

pro-

moted a new

interpretation

of

nationalism and an

alternative

concept

of 'corporatized' democracy. Instead of liberal democracy and

constitutional

populism,

La Nueva

Republica

proposed

a

different

system

of

representation

based on:

the

organized

and

corporatized

collectivity,

in

which

individual interests are

subordinated to the

Nation.

The common

good

of

the

people

which

is

the end of

all

government

is

contrary

to

these abstract

principles

of

popular

sovereignty,

freedom,

equality

or

proletariat redemption.'

This

type

of

nationalism was

clearly inspired by

Charles

Maurras's

idea of'le nationalisme

integral',

which was

deeply

suspicious

of

any

popular

participation

in

the

political

process.'6

Only

an

elite

not

elected

by

the

process

of

formal

democracy

could

represent

the

nation

as

an

organic

unity.

For

the

nationalists of

La

Nueva

Republica,

the

Yrigoyenist

concept

of

populist

democratization,

although

based on

the

pre-liberal

tradition,

meant

the intrusion

of

the

unintelligent

masses into

the

political

system.

Democratization

implemented

by

means of a

law of

universal

suffrage

ed

inevitably

to

the

consumerism

produced by populism. This assumption, too, reflects Maurras's

influence. In

his

Enquete

sur

la

Monarchie,

Maurras

asserts

that when

a

republic

tends

towards

democratic

forms,

it

passes

from a

regime

of

regular production

to a

regime

of

pure

consumerism.'7

That was

indeed La

Nueva

Republica's

fundamental

objection

to

Yrigoyen's

democratic

populism

as well

as to

liberal

democracy.

161




9/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

This

criticism of

liberal

democracy

and

constitutional

populism

was shared

by

the anti-liberal

wing

of

the

Argentinian

Church.'8

Argentina,

according

to

the

anti-liberal

clergy,

was

oppressed by

a

revolutionary immigrant

working

class that

fomented labour

unrest,

and

also

by

a liberal

oligarchy

responsible

for

the

secularization of

the

Argentinian

political system.

The

disputes

between

the

modernizing

political

elites and the

Church

came

to

the fore

when

President Roca

took measures to limit

the civil

functions of

the Church

in

1884. From

then

on,

relations between the

secular

state and the

Church were

never

completely

comfortable,

although they

managed

to

establish a

modus vivendi, especially during Agustin Justo's administration.'9

From the theoretical

as well as the

practical

point

of

view, however,

the

right-wing

Catholic

message

conveyed by

nationalist

Catholic

publications

like Criterio

(founded

in

1928),

as

well as Sol

y

Luna

and

Baluarte,

was far

from

conciliatory

towards

the liberal state.

Moreover,

it aimed for the

theoretical

synthesis

of Catholicism and

fascism. The same

message

was

imparted

in

the

Cursos de Cultura

Catolica

(courses

in

Catholic

culture),

set

up

in

1932 with the

Church's financialsupport. The ostensible purpose of the Cursos was

to raise the intellectual level of

Argentinian

Catholic

intellectuals,

but

their real

goal

was to

prepare

for the

counter-revolution

by

delegitimizing

the

concept

of

liberal,

popular democracy.

A

turning-point

for

Argentinian

nationalist Catholic intellectual

development

was Cesar Pico's article

responding

to

Jacques

Maritain's

book,

Humanisme

Integral.

In

that book Maritain

harshly

criticized

Catholics who

supported

totalitarian

regimes. According

to

Pico,

however,

the

Italian fascists and the

Spanish

and Latin

American nationalists were to

develop

a doctrine in which Cath-

olicism and

fascism would find common

cause.?2

In

spite

of the

secular nature

of fascist totalitarianism

in

the world

ideological

struggle against

liberal

democracy,

fascism was an authoritarian

way

of

restoring

Catholic

doctrinairism.21

In

the

Argentinian

context,

however,

only

the

army

could

rescue

this nationalist Catholic

spirit.

For more than

a

decade,

the anti-liberal

clergy

had believed a

military

takeover

was

necessary,

and these

views,

together

with those

promoted by La Nueva Republica and the poet Lugones, gained

currency

at

army headquarters, especially

in

the influential

Circulo

Militar,

where

the most

distinguished

officers met. These

doctrinary

views were not the

only impetus

to the

military

revolution

against

Yrigoyen's

administration,

however.

The

first

signs

of

army

unrest

came

when some

key

officers

162




10/31

Spektorowski: Right

and

Left

Nationalism

in

Argentina

complained

of what

they

considered to be an

attempt by Yrigoyen

to

politicize

the

army.

The events that

followed, however,

were

not

prompted solely by practical professional

concerns. It was

impos-

sible,

in

fact,

to isolate

the

army

from

the

new

ideological develop-

ments

in

the

world and

in

Argentina;

the

Argentinian military

was

a

microcosm of

ideological

developments

in

the

country

as a

whole.22

Two

important military

figures represented

the two

major

rival

ideologies

in

Argentina.

One of

them

was General

Agustin

Justo,

who

had

been

war minister

in

Marcelo T. de

Alvear's

administration and

director of the

influential Circulo Militar in

1928;

the other

was Jose

Felix Uriburu, who played a cardinal role in the ensuing political

developments.

While

Agustin

Justo was

a

legalistic

military

man of

liberal

democratic

convictions,

Jose

Felix

Uriburu

was a

corporatist

nationalist and an

admirer

of

Prussian

military discipline.

Trained

in

Germany

under

Prussian officers

(the

army

had

sent

him

to

Germany

during

the first

world war

to

study

command

techniques),

Uriburu

was well

aware of the

nationalist

uprising

in

Europe,

and

believed

that a

new nationalist

style

and

political

method

could be

developed

in non-European countries.23 Influenced also by contacts with

Lugones

and the

nationalist

intellectuals of La

Nueva

Republica

and

by

their

writings,

Uriburu

reaffirmed

the

nationalist

corporatist

concepts

he had

developed

as a result of his

European

experience.

Both

Uriburu and

Justo

conspired

against

Yrigoyen

by

organizing

the

military

coup

d'etat

of

1930,

but

they

demanded

Yrigoyen's

resignation

for

different

reasons. While

Justo

wanted the

military

revolution to restore

political

hegemony

to

conservative

liberalism,

Uriburu

believed the

liberal

democratic

political

structures

should be

transformed into those of a functional or

corporatized

democracy.

Preparations

for the

military

coup

were

accompanied

by

discussion

of

these

goals.

It is a

fact,

however,

that

although

Jose Felix

Uriburu

led

the

revolutionary upheaval

of

1930,

most of

the

regular

officers

supported

General

Agustin

Justo's

defence of

constitutionality.

Thus,

from the

outset it was

clear that

without the

support

of

Justo's

line

officers

and

the

representatives

of

the

political

opposition

parties

there

would

be

no revolution at all. In short, contraryto the expectations of Lugones

and the

rest of

the

nationalist

intellectuals,

Uriburu's

revolution

was

doomed

to

failure from

the

start.

Thus,

the

uprising

of

6

September

1930 did

not

give

rise to

the

corporatist

state

as

the

integralist

nationalists

had

expected.

Scarcely

a

year

later,

the

old

conservative

establishment

returned

to

power

under

General

Justo.

163




11/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

However,

the

return of the

oligarchical

liberal

democracy

provided

a framework for a

radical

metamorphosis

of the

nationalist

ideo-

logues' political

discourse. Until

the end of

the

1920s,

Argentinian

integral

nationalism remained

elitist

in

nature. Its

adherents feared

political participation

by

the

masses. But

in

the 1930s

radical

nationalists were introduced

to the

language

of

anti-imperialist

economics,

something

that was

to be reflected in

their

ideology.

The

Justo

era,

although

characterized

by

a

modicum of industrial

modernization and

political stability,

was in

fact an era

in

which the

dependent

character

of the

Argentinian economy

and

society

was

greatly felt. Argentinian nationalists defined these years as the

'infamous

decade';24

the

time was

ripe

for a new

synthesis

between the

concepts

of

economic

emancipation,

fascism and traditional Cathol-

icism.

In

other

words,

in

the

context of liberalism

and economic

dependency,

a new

ideology receptive

to the modernist

message

of

fascism

merged

with the

demand for economic

emancipation

and the

recovery

of cultural

identity.

To

Argentinian

nationalists,

fascism offered a new

anti-liberal

order,

synthesizing

a novel

concept

of nationalism and a

different

under-

standing

of socialism. For

Carulla,

C.

Ibarguren

and R. Laferrere

(the

founder of La

Liga Republicana),

fascism was not

properly

Italian

but

represented

the ideas of a new

order,

an attractive

form of

nationalism

from which the

Argentinian

renaissance could learn.

It

was a doctrine full of

vitality,

discipline

and

order,

comprising

a new

conception of political life and cultural revolution. In 1933, the

nationalist

newspaper

Bandera

Argentina

wrote:

Fascism

was born of the

necessity

for

pure

action. The war

imposed

it on the

world,

but

before the

war,

in

1904 and

1910,

Sorel and his

disciples,

Peguy, Lagardelle

and

some other

French and Italian

syndicalists,

had tried to revitalize

socialism

by

adding

to it a

spirit

of action in order to drive electoralist

opportunism

out of

it.25

To the Argentinian nationalists, however, fascist ideology was

neither a

response

to communism

nor

purely

a result of

the first

world

war,

but

rather a total cultural

and

political response

to the

problems

presented

by

political

modernization,

in

both

developed

and under-

developed

or

economically dependent regions.

Whereas for

the

Catholic

wing

of

Argentinian

nationalism

fascism was

the

political

movement that

would halt anti-traditionalist

world

forces,

for

most

164




12/31

Spektorowski: Right

and

Left

Nationalism

in

Argentina

modernist nationalists fascism

represented

a new call

for

mass

mobilization and national

revolution.

One man

who

clearly

understood

this

point

was the

prominent

nationalist

writer Manuel

Galvez,

who

specifically

addressed

himself

to

the modernist

significance

of the

fascist

revolutionary

trend

for

the

Argentinian

national

uprising.

Inevitably,

Galvez's

analysis

of

fascism as

a

modernist,

populist phenomenon

reopened

a

local

discussion

of the

problem

of

populist

democracy

in

Argentina.

Acceptance

of

the idea

that the masses

had a role to

play

in

the

political

game

was in

fact a

step

towards a

synthesis

of the

ideological

elements of the fascist revolution with the authentic republican

tradition of

the

Yrigoyenist

movement.

Galvez was

seriously

convinced that

fascism could

develop

in

Argentina.

Galvez's

conception

of

fascism, however,

was linked

to

populism

and

social

justice;

in

this

respect

he

differed

sharply

from the

La

Nueva

Republica

nationalists,

whom

he

defined as

authoritarians

and

militarists

rather than

true

fascists. For

Galvez,

fascism

had a

social

and

modernizing

content;

he tried

to

prove

that 'fascism

(in

Italy)

is a

doctrine

of the

right,

which

opposes democracy

and

socialism,

but

socially

belongs

to the left'.26

The fact

that

in

Argentina

the

people

had

responded

to

the call of

Yrigoyen's

Radical

Party,

a

populist

and

nationalist

movement,

led him

to

the

conclusion that 'an

authentic

"Radical"

could not

be far from

fascism'.27

He wrote

his

own

biography

of

Yrigoyen,

an act

that

indicated his

reconciliation

with

the

'populist

caudillo'

deposed

by

Uriburu's

military

coup.

It

must

be

remembered

that

most

nationalists

hoped

Yrigoyen's

fall

signalled

the

beginning

of a

new

corporatist

era

that

would

completely change the structuresof the liberaldemocraticsystem. Up

to

that

point,

the

revolutionaries

could

visualize

a

corporate

authoritarian

society,

anti-liberal and

anti-oligarchic,

full of

youthful

vigour,

but

they

could not

envision

the

function of

the

people

in

that

schema,

since

anything

connected with

the

people

would

carry

connotations

of

Yrigoyenism,

anarchy

and

disorder.

Manuel

Galvez,

however,

recognized

that,

alongside

the

corporatist

formula

devised

by

the

integralists,

the

Radical

Party's

populist

tradition

had

introduced a new kind of anti-bourgeois political style based on the

heroic

spirit

of

Argentinian

national

traditions. This

was the

spirit

of

the old

caudillos,

struggling

for

independence

at the

beginning

of

the

nineteenth

century.

In

this

analysis,

the new

spiritual

force

of

fascism

revolutionizing

the

world

was

the

modern

embodiment of

the old

caudillista

spontaneous

rebellion

against

the

liberal

mode of

modernization.

165




13/31

Journal

of ContemporaryHistory

The idea of rebellion was an

ideological development

of cardinal

importance

in

Europe

as well as

in

Argentina.

It

would

revive the

myth

of the state and the

nation,

elevating

them over the utili-

tarianism and individualism of liberal

democracy.

The

myths

of

heroic life

in

Argentina

had

been

destroyed by

the

post-independence

modernizing

elites,

but the new heroic

age

was an era of vitalism

and

idealism. Carlos

Ibarguren

wrote of the new force 'which

repudiated

the dominant intellectualism

of the end of the

XIX

century'

in

Europe

and

America,

to

replace

it

with 'a wave

impregnated

with a new

mysticism

which

appears

and

inspires

a

spiritual

exaltation.

After an

era in which the world was inundated by an anti-heroic materialism,

now we want to breathe

in

a new heroic breeze

. .28

Clearly,

an

attack

against

the liberal

&lites'

project

of national

modernization

had to be

accompanied

by

the revival of

the historical

myth

of Juan

Manuel de Rosas.

Rosas,

it

will

be

recalled,

represented

traditionalist

leadership,

the

politics

of order

and

violence,

and

the

struggle

against imperialism.

The true

political

use

of the

revision

of

Argentinian

history began

in

1930 with Carlos

Ibarguren's

book,

J.M. de Rosas, su vida,su tiempo,su drama(1930).29This book, like

others,

was a

clear

attempt

to

link

Argentina's

liberal tradition

with

cultural

and economic

dependence,

and

the Rosas

reaction

with

nationalism

and

anti-imperialism.

These books

invoking

the

mythical

values

of the

pre-liberal

past,

as

well

as

Galvez's

attempt

to fuse the

concepts

of

Argentinian

populism

with

fascism,

included,

as

mentioned,

criticism

of

Argentina's

political

and economic

dependence.

While world

fascism

was rebel-

ling against

liberal

democracy

and Marxist

socialism,

Argentinian

nationalism

waged

its

struggle

against

liberal

democracy,

which it

held

responsible

for

Argentinian

dependence.

This

conclusion,

developed

by

the

brothers

Julio and

Rodolfo

Irazusta,

was the

basis

of the

Argentinian

right-wing

anti-imperialist

conception.

These

same

issues-

the revival

of Juan

Manuel de

Rosas as

a cultural

hero

and the

new criticism

of economic

and cultural

imperialism

became dominant

concerns

for a new

group

of

intellectuals

in the

Radical

Party,

who found

the old

Yrigoyenist

political

style

to be

an

inadequate response to the problems of a new era. In spite of the

different

perspectives

of the two

groups,

their

criticism

would

fuse

to

become

the

intellectual

framework

for a

new nationalist

ideology

combining

the

revolutionary populist

tradition

of

Yrigoyenism

with

the

corporatist system

of

mass control

idealized

by

the

integralists.

166




14/31

Spektorowski:

Right

and

Left

Nationalism

in

Argentina

Right-wing

nationalists like the Irazustas reserved their main

criti-

cism for the association that non-productive interests -public

adminstrators,

lawyers

and financiers -maintained

with

British

foreign

interests. And the

ideological

framework

for

these

foreign

interests and the local

unproductive bourgeoisie

was

liberalism.

Argentinian prosperity

cost too much ... the liberal formula of Alberdi

stimulated

immigration

but it was realized without criteria ... if

it

promoted

commerce

and

agriculture,

it was

promoted

in

an artificial and

disproportional way...

if

it

provided

for

development

of a

huge railway

network this was done

according

to

immediate

foreign

interests without

planning

for the

future.3"

For the Irazusta

brothers,

the liberal democratic model of

progress

-a

democratic

party system

based on the Saenz

Pefa Law of

1916-

was uneconomic on the one

hand,

and immoral

and anti-national on

the other. Their central

thesis was that the

liberal tradition was

associated

with

the

foreign plutocracy

and

responsible

for

the eternal

dependence

and

underdevelopment

of the

Argentinian

nation.

At the

same

time,

an

emphasis

on

the need for

economic

emancipation was to become the link between the Irazustas' philo-

sophy

and that of FORJA

(Fuerza

de

Orientacion

Radical de la

Juventud

Argentina),

the new left

wing

of the

Yrigoyenist

move-

ment.3'

FORJA

promoted

a new

species

of

economic

nationalism

that would

greatly

influence

the former

integral

nationalists.

Despite

their

diverse

philosophical

roots and

different

perspectives

on

the

specific

results of

liberal

modernization,

both

nationalist

wings

contributed

complementary

components

to a

third

path

of

development.

FORJA members did not

speak

in terms of class

struggle,

but

addressed

themselves

to

the

'Argentinian

people'

at

large.

As

the left

wing

of

the

Yrigoyen

populist

movement,

they

understood better

than

the

integralists

that

giving

the

masses

political

expression

was

the

only

route to

integration.

This

process

went

hand

in

hand

with

economic

anti-imperialism,

which

in

their case was

directed

virulently

towards

Great

Britain.

Common

to both

the

right-wing

integralists

and the

left-wing

populists was that they did not consider the Argentinian economic

crisis

as

structural

-

that

is,

the

result of

free

market

forces. In

their

view,

the

crisis

was

political,

a

result of

the

dealings

between a

non-

nationalist

elite and

British

interests.

Breaking

off

this

disadvan-

tageous

relationship

was a

precondition

for

national

industrialization

and

integration.

Moreover,

the

question

of

economic

dependence

167




15/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

was

clearly

linked to

what FORJA

members

defined as the

problem

of cultural

imperialism,

a

syndrome

to

which both

the rational

right

and left fell

prey.

Arturo

Jauretche,

one of the most

prominent

FORJA

intellectuals,

linked the

problem

of colonization of

the mind to the rationalist and

materialist

right

and left.

In

other

words,

the

'enlightened'

intellectual

proponents

of

liberal democratic modernization

and the

left-wing

intellectuals who relied on a 'class

struggle'

Marxist

analysis

for

peripheral

countries held misconceived

ideas.

The

struggle

for

emancipation

and social

justice

cannot be won

separately by

different social

classes.

Moreover,

the class confrontation

was

one

of

the most

effective

techniques

used

by

British

policy

. .

.The

proletarian

revolution as an

instrument of national realization had been abandoned

by

the national movements

long ago.32

Nationalism

in

any

context

meant

class union rather than

class

struggle.

For a

peripheral

country

like

Argentina,

nationalism meant

both class union and anti-imperialism.

Altough

Jauretche

did not

develop

the

concept

of the

corporatist

state as the

nationalist

integralists

did,

he did form a

mythic

ideal of

populist

democracy.

However,

apart

from the loose reference

to the

traditional

populist

democratic

principles

of

Yrigoyenism,

he

never

defined

any

formal

political organization

that would

express

those

principles.

Clearly,

the solution

to

FORJA's

predicament

would be

a

strong,

mobilized

nationalist

state,

removed

from

political

liberalism

and collectivist

Marxist

socialism.

Rejecting

the

easy agro-export

economic order

required

a social

consensus

based on

a third

way

of

development,

one that

was neither

liberal

democracy

nor socialist

proletarian

revolution.

Unques-

tionably,

the

answer

was a

populist, corporatized

society

that

would

push

for social

integration

and industrialization.

However,

in

contrast

to the Italian

nationalists,

who

emphasized

productivity,

Argentinian

nationalists

believed

the

principle

of

productivity

should

be balanced

by

a clear

concern for social

justice.

This

was the basis

of

the 'inclusionary' concept of corporatism,which integrateda demand

for benefits

for

the

poor

and

less

protected

classes.33

n

addition,

anti-

imperialist

politics,

which

to FORJA

members meant

economic

emancipation

and mass

participation

in

the

political

process,

were

also

a

precondition

for

the

development

of

an authentic

national

programme

of industrial

modernization

and social

welfare.34

168




16/31

Spektorowski:

Right

and

Left

Nationalism

in

Argentina

The 1930s

were characterized

by

several

attempts by

the

nationalists

to form a unified

movement, attempts

that in most cases failed.

A

number of

fascist-style leagues

were

created,

such

as La

Liga

Republicana,

which

performed

the function of the 'Camelots du

Roi'

for La

Nueva

Republica,

or La

Legion

Civica,

originally

created

by

Felix de

Uriburu

as the civil militia of the abortive revolution

of 1930.

These

leagues

reflected the

paramilitary, revolutionary

fascist

spirit.

The

Legion

Civica,

for

instance,

was

initially

identified with the

nationalist

goals

of the

army

that took

power

in

1930,

and

was

inspired by

the

martial

spirit

that

characterized

the

revolutionary

groups of the rightand left all over the world.35The Legion's doctrine

was

based

on the

assumption

that war 'more than

a function of

armies was a

function

of

peoples,

and no

component

of

the

nation

...

could not

participate

in

it'.36

There was no

danger

of

war in

Latin

America,

but the

Legion

Civica was

organized

on

military

lines,

with

brigades

and divisions that

would

parade

in

columns

of

eight

members.

In

poor

neighbourhoods

bands of

'legionaries'

were

organized

in

groups

of

twenty

headed

by

a leader.

Since one of the

organization's proposed objectives was to give the population

ideological

guidance,

its activities

naturally

included

women and

children,37

who

were trained

in

military camps.

At the

same

time,

on

the

ideological

level,

the

Legion

adopted

a

political

discourse based

on

the

specific

conditions of

Argentinian

development,

proposing

a

political

programme

that

employed

anti-imperialist,

reformist and

even

proletarian

concepts.

The

Alianza de la

Juventud

Nacionalista,

founded

by

Juan

Queralto

in

1935,

had a less

military style

than

the

Legion

Civica.

However, it was the nationalist

group

that

synthesized

most

clearly

the new

populist

and

'pro-worker'-oriented

approach,

the

struggle

for

economic

independence,

and the

traditional

concepts

of

corpor-

atist

organization.

In

other

words,

the

Alianza

combined

the

fundamental

ideological

elements of

fascism

-

the

hierarchical

organization,

the

violent

style

and

the

nationalist

rhetoric

-

with

the

indigenous

Latin

American

nationalist

features

arising

from

the

particularities

of

the

continent's own

development,

such

as anti-

imperialismand the concern for socialjustice. The Alianza advanced

the idea

of

the

syndicalist

state

by

boosting

the

participation

of

workers

and

the

unemployed,

precursors

of

Peron's

descamisados. It

was

the

first

nationalist

group

to

succeed in

organizing

mass

rallies

in

the

Plaza San

Martin

in

Buenos

Aires to

celebrate the First

of

May,

in

what was a

clear

attempt

to

transform the

international

workers'

169




17/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

holiday

into a national

celebration

of

the

Argentinian

worker. In

the

words

of

the

Alianza's

founder,

Juan

Queralto:

Our

struggle against

the

oligarchy

is

parallel

to

our

struggle

against

Marxism. We

repudiate

the 'latifundist'

[agrarian] oligarchy,

since its

existence

delays

national

progress;

[we

repudiate]

the

capitalist

oligarchy,

because

it is the

flag

of reaction

against...

our revolution in

march,

and

[we

repudiate]

the

political

oligarchy

. .

because it

has

no

patriotism

. .

3

The Alianza

accepted

the

right

to

private

property

and freedom of

contract

but

provided

for

government

intervention

against

economic

speculation and the formation of monopolized trusts. 'Production

would rest on the

principle

of

being

at the

service of the

country

and

not

at

the

service of liberal

capitalistic

accumulation...

'.3

Fur-

thermore,

'until now

any

social

policy

was based on

reforms,

conceded

by

the

liberal

system'

but 'our

national revolution

will

transform the main

concept

of work .... Work is

going

to be

associated

as a

partner

in

the

production

of

wealth'.4

Although

the

Alianza,

unlike the

Legion

Civica,

became

during

Peron's admini-

stration the movement of the 'declasses', the 'plebeians', its rhetoric

resembled

that of the

Legion.

It was clear to both of

them that

the

evils

of

capitalism

and industrialization could be overcome

by

a

strong

syndicalist

state,

to the benefit of the

workers.

Anticipating

Peronist

ideology,

which

was

to

become

popular

in

the

mid-1940s,

the

Legion

announced,

'We are not enemies of the

workers'. Solutions

to the

workers'

problems

had not

yet

been

provided

by

socialism

and

could

not

be

provided

in

the

future.

The

only

road left

was 'class

syndicalism

. .

.that

can

mediate

between

workers and

employers.

. . that would certainly develop into a

corporatist

state that

binds and

harmonizes'.4'

In

fact,

it was evident

that the

liberal democratic

regime

would have to

be

turned

into a class

state that

could

preserve

both

harmony

and social

justice.

Nevertheless,

the nationalists

made few

attempts

to

put

their

political

beliefs

into

practice.

One

of the sole efforts to institute

an

inclusionary, corporatist system

in

Argentina

was made

by

Manuel

Fresco,

the

right-wing

nationalist

governor

of

Buenos

Aires

from

1936 to 1940. Manuel Fresco understood that despising democratic

practices

was not

enough,

and that another

kind of

democracy,

or

another

way

to

reach the

people,

should be

proposed.

Fresco's

assertion

that the democratic

regime

was a

'plutocratic

regime,

that is

bourgeois,

capitalist,

atheist, materialist,

sensual

and

positivist;

sceptical, pragmatic

and

utilitarian',42

id

not,

in

his

eyes,

170




18/31

Spektorowski:

Right

and

Left

Nationalism in

Argentina

rule

out

acceptance

of

an alternative

conception

of democratic

and

social

practices,

that

which characterized

the fascist

regime.

His

visit

to

Italy

in

February

1935,

while he was

president

of the Chamber

of

Deputies

in

Congress,

convinced

him of the effectiveness

of

Italian

corporatist

procedures;

and

while

governing

the

province

of

Buenos

Aires

he instituted

an

experimental

administration based

on

the

socio-economic

corporatist

model of Salazar's 'Estado

Novo'

in

Portugal.43

Under

the

slogan

'God,

Fatherland,

and

Home',

he

proceeded

to

give

an

unprecedented

boost to

public

works

in

the

province, thereby solving

unemployment

there. These reforms

were

accompanied by reactionary policies in education and politics. He

instated

religious

education

in

the schools and

outlawed the

Communist

Party.

These measures

gave

him

a certain

prestige

among

the

nationalists,

even

though

he was

considered

a

controversial

personality

of

questionable morality

because of his

relations

with

foreign

interests.44

Fresco

severely repressed

the radical left

although

he

considered it

politically

impotent.

In

the

Chamber

of

Deputies,

Fresco

defined the

Socialist Party as 'a conglomerate of the bourgeoisie',45 imited to

parliamentary

politics.

For

Fresco,

parliamentarist

procedures

were

obsolete.

He

defended what he called

'patriotic

fraud'

and

'patriotic

violence',

if

they

would lead to the

required

nationalist

social

reforms.

This was the

synthesis

of

a

nationalist fascist

state, which,

in

contrast

to

the

liberal,

socialist

state,

could

provide

social

solutions to the

demands of

the

working

class.

Fresco

sought

a

system

of

representation

in

which unions

would be

recognized

by

the

state and

would be

required

to

submit their

demands to compulsory state arbitration.These

principles

were

given

expression

in

the

Organic

Labour Act of

1937.

Fresco

also

stressed

that while the

nationalists

were

working

for

national

emancipation

and

social

justice

and

fighting against

economic

imperialism,

the

communists and

socialists,

who

had

formed the

Popular

Front

in

the

mid-1930s,

had made

the

struggle

against

fascism

their

priority.

In

other

words,

while

the

struggle

for

democracy kept

the

socialists,

communists,

and

liberal

democrats

busy,

both

the

right-wing

and

left-wing nationalists were engaged in the fight against imperialism.

On 4

June

1943,

the

armed

forces

led

by

General

Rawson took

power

in

Argentina.

The

military

uprising

followed a

political

crisis

within

the

conservative

government

then in

power.

The

domestic

front

had

171




19/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

seen

growing

dissatisfaction with the

government's

economic strat-

egy; this, together

with certain

administrative

malpractices

and the

threat of a

possible

communist

upheaval, galvanized

the

army

leaders

into

action.

The

actual

trigger,

however,

was

the

military

leaders'

fear

that Robustiano

Patron

Costa,

a

supporter

of the

Allies,

would be

elected

president

and

end

Argentina's

neutrality

in

the second world

war.

The defence

of

Argentinian

neutrality

in

the

second

world war was

a cause

that united nationalists

of both the

right

and the left.46

Moreover,

this

issue,

which

in the

case

of the nationalist

right wing

meant clear support for the Axis, could not be separated from the

political

and

ideological

convictions

of both

rightists

and leftists who

sought

the

end of

the liberal state.

The conviction

that

Argentina

had

to

change

its

political path

went

hand

in

hand

with the conviction

that the old world

of the Western

democracies

would

soon

collapse.

In the words of Marcelo Sanchez

Sorondo,

it was

the

'revolution

we announced'.47

t

was,

in

fact,

the

anticipated

revolution

that would

put Argentina

both on the road

of

national liberation and in the midst of the universal fascist revolution

against

the

Western democracies.

Although

its

objectives

were

unclear,

the

GOU

(Grupo

de

Oficiales

Unidos,

the

military

pressure

group

that led

the

military uprising

in

1943)

seemed

to be fascist-

oriented.

For the

anti-semitic

priest

Meinvielle,

the

coup

was the

expected

counter-revolution,

while

for

the

'plebeian'

Alianza

it was

a

radical,

anti-imperialistic,

populist

revolution

that

would create

a

single

nationalist

party

supported

by

the

declasses.

As

it

turned

out,

these

developments

would have to await Peron's accession to power, but

Colonel

Juan

D. Peron

was an

integral part

of

the

revolution

from

the

beginning.

One of

the

most

significant

acts

that determined

the

political

direction

of

the

government

took

place

on

27 October

1943,

when

President

General

P.P.

Ramirez,

who had been

part

of

Uriburu's

political

circle,

decreed

the conversion

of the

Departamento

Nacional

de

Trabajo

into an

autonomous

department,

one

which Juan

Peron

would later use as a springboard from

the

military

to

political

leadership.

As

Ramirez

declared,

'social

justice'

was

to

be

one

of

the

'fundamental

objectives'

of the

military government.

In

Decree

156.074

of

27 November

1943,

Peron

was

assigned

the task

of

taking

the

necessary

measures

to

improve

relations

among

the

productive

forces

in

the

country.48

172




20/31

Spektorowski:

Right

and

Left

Nationalism

in

Argentina

Indeed,

the

improvement

of the

relationship

between

the

workers'

unions and

the state

was essential for the

implementation of the

military

government's

short-term

industrial

policies.

Mixed

indus-

trial

complexes

were created with

the

goal

of

exploiting

national

resources,

and

long-term

loans were

offered

to

industrial

concerns.

The

'productive' conception inspired by

Lugones's

thesis

of

national

strength

was

accompanied

by

a limited social

policy

designed

by

the

nationalist

intellectuals,

reflecting

their

attempt

to

achieve

a

degree

of

social

justice.

However,

social

justice

and

the welfare

of

the

workers

could

only

be achieved by the regulativehand of the state. This control allowed

the state

to manoeuvre

freely

when

circumstances

warranted. The

ideas

implemented by

Peron,

as we have

seen,

were

originally

developed by

the

nationalists.

Yet

the

local nationalists

were

not

the

only

influence on

Peron's

ideological

development.

Peron

had also

been

deeply impressed by

his

visit

to

Italy

in

the

period

1939-41.

That

personal

experience

encouraged

his admiration of

Italian

fascism,

especially

as a

way

to

lead the

working

class.49 In

fact,

Peron's

approach to industrial relations resembled Mussolini's. In his view,

all

syndical organizations

must be

corporatized by

the

state,

because

it suits

the state to

have

organic

forces

it can control and

lead rather

than

inorganic

forces

that

escape

its

leadership

..

We do not

want

unions divided

into

political

factions,

because what is

dangerous

is,

precisely,

the

political

unions.5s

At the same

time,

however,

Peron

was

convinced that

he

could

improve

upon

Mussolini's

experience,

by

paying greater

attention

to

worker welfare.

The

Syndical

Statute,

initiated

by

the

military government

in

1943,

represented

the

first

effort to

institute

corporatist

authoritarian

control of the

workers'

organizations,

which had

to be

approved

and

supervised

by

the

government.

Yet it

also

offered

benefits

for

the

working

class,

including

a reduction of

housing

rents and

a rise in

salaries

for the

lowest-paid

public

administration

workers.

The

Syndical

Statute was

followed

by

the

1945 Law

of

Professional

Associations, whose provisions were also almost identical with those

of

Mussolini's

Labour

Code.

Under this

law,

only

officially

recog-

nized

unions

and

employers'

associations

could

sign

labour

contracts,

and

only

one

employers'

association

and

one

labour union

was to be

permitted

in

each

economic

field,

and

strikes and

lockouts

were

forbidden.

173




21/31

Journal

of

Contemporary

History

The

nationalist

press

reacted

enthusiastically

to what it

saw as an

atte

Alberto Spektorowski - The Ideological Origins of Right and Left Nationalism in Argentina, 1930-43

Documents

Transcript of Alberto Spektorowski - The Ideological Origins of Right and Left Nationalism in Argentina, 1930-43