A reflection on “Kirchnerism unarmed” by Alejandro Horowicz. Editorial of “El Círculo Rojo”, a program on La Izquierda Diario that broadcasts on Thursdays from 10 p.m. to midnight on Radio Con Vos, 89.9.

  • These days I finished reading Kirchnerism disarmed. The long agony of the fourth Peronisma book written by the essayist Alejandro Horowicz and recently published by the Planeta publishing house.
  • Horowicz is the author of The four Peronisms, a classic text in studies on Peronism. Regardless of whether it agrees with all the postulates of that work, it is an essential book to understand the future of that movement that was at the center of Argentine politics for more than half a century.
  • Let’s review: the four Peronisms, for Horowicz, are made up of the first, the classic one, which was from 1945 to 1955 when Perón was overthrown by the Fusilador Coup; the second in which the traditional union leadership (the “backbone”) takes center stage with Perón in exile and which runs from 1955 to 1973; the third when the center of gravity passed to the “Peronist left” (the Government of Héctor Cámpora; the Montoneros, the Peronism of Base) between 1973-1974 and the fourth that began with the death of Perón and the Government of María Estela Martínez de Perón and especially with that phenomenal adjustment plan known as “Rdrigazo”. To a certain extent it is confirmed with the Peronism that emerged with the democratic restoration in 1983 and is sustained to this day.
  • This Peronism, the fourth, is framed in the social, economic and political reconfiguration that took place with the dictatorship and after the dictatorship that implied a defeat of the labor movement that transformed the entire political system. He imposed an economic and political program of plunder that, according to Horowicz, remained in its structural bases until the present. A model of looting that has external debt as its vector, the legal flight of capital allowed to companies that cause a shortage of dollars that lead to new debts that force new adjustments. He says that the adjustment and stabilization plans that were repeatedly attempted to be imposed in these four decades were variations of the same plan: the Austral plan (the creation of a new currency based on the adjustment). What the author calls the “systemic Alfonsinization” and the imposition of that red economic route as a program of the “State Party” against which the different “Government Parties” were powerless. Anyone who has read, once again, the famous Diary of a season on the fifth floor by Juan Carlos Torre (the book in which he narrates the years in the Ministry of Economy under the Alfonsín government) was able to verify how the economic program went off the rails due to subordination to the mandates of the Monetary Fund and anyone who proposed deviating from those recipes would be He said that it put not only the Government but democracy itself at risk. Therefore, these texts must be read with another that prefaced several editions of The four Peronisms and which is also included in Kirchnerism disarmed and it is “The democracy of defeat.” Synthetic: democracy could maintain an institutional triumph only on the condition of not deviating from the program that the dictatorship had left behind.
  • Menem, as is known, deepens all these guidelines, and in 2001 the situation is partially reversed: Kirchnerism emerges as a response to 2001 to try to contain it and redirect it. This forced changes that, however, for Horowicz were changes in the “music” that this new Peronism played (the music of the third), but without substantially deviating from the lyrics of the fourth.
  • “Debt is not malpractice,” writes Horowicz, “but a management error. It is a strategic instrument of political discipline” and adds: “The Kirchnerist ‘program’ was only superficially different (NdR: that of Mauricio Macri). Public debt It climbed with the yellow management up to 77 percent of GDP, but the K government had left it at 66 percentage points. That is the entire difference in terms of debt.”
  • The key to the title is the reading of a formula by Carl von Clausewitz, a 19th century Prussian general and war theorist who said that the objective of war was to disarm the enemy and this is not only to take away his weapons, but, and above all, break him in his will to fight. Trying to impose our will on someone who has been “defeated” but not disarmed would be a fatal mistake. In this sense, a prerequisite for imposing one’s will on another is disarmament because as long as the other is armed he will potentially be in the fight. To consider imposing one’s will without this prerequisite of disarmament is to continue the war without knowing it.
  • Translated to politics in general and Kirchnerism in particular, he is saying something very profound and crude: he is not only defeated, but he is disarmed in his will to fight. A deeper defeat than in 2015 when they said that society was wrong, we are going to return or in 2019 when through tactical “genius” it was believed that a delegate (Alberto Fernández) had been appointed in the Casa Rosada.
  • Personally, I believe the diagnosis is quite accurate. What are the factors or facts that explain this disarmament? Well, we met one yesterday: more than 40% poor. A movement that throughout its history has raised the flag of social justice and since 2001 has raised social inclusion as its objective, with 40% poor, it has no argument that can give it moral strength to dispute anything. .
  • But also, in the strictly political aspect, the consequences of this disarmament are noticeable on the surface: in the somersaults to explain that in reality the results of the administration were the fault of Alberto Fernández, of Martín Guzmán or of all the ministers who resigned. But even more so: in her last intervention, Cristina Fernández said that there was one thing that she claimed from Sergio Massa and that was that she told the truth to people. What was that truth? That he was “forced” to carry out the devaluation after the PASO (with the skyrocketing inflation and new looting of salaries that this implied) because the Fund asked him to do so. Is that understood? The positive “weapon” that is rescued from the new representative of Peronism’s unity is that within the framework of the fact that he adjusts to the people, he tells them openly: I am going to adjust you. Because he takes the Fund’s program as his own, and in that way imposes his will on everyone.
  • As has happened many times in history, they want to make us pass off their disarmament, their defeat as a disarmament and a defeat for everyone. All the members of the “National Adjustment Party” (Horowicz dixit) want to convince us – like Margaret Thatcher at the time – that “there is no alternative” and the most that can be done is “tell the truth”: adjustment + sincerity.
  • Well, there is never “no alternative” and the worst defeat is to believe that this fatalistic opinion is really true.
    See this post on Instagram

    A post shared by El Círculo Rojo (@elcirculorojo.899)

  • Sergio Massa / Cristina Fernández de Kirchner / Kirchnerism / Peronism / Alejandro Horowicz / Elections 2023

    Source: www.laizquierdadiario.com

    Leave a Reply