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: |
| id |
I28-R145-2563_oai |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| institution |
Universidad de Buenos Aires |
| institution_str |
I-28 |
| repository_str |
R-145 |
| collection |
Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) |
| language |
Español |
| orig_language_str_mv |
spa |
| topic |
Peronismo Burguesía industrial Empresariado industrial Alianzas económico políticas Peronism industrial bourgeoisie industrial business political economic alliances |
| spellingShingle |
Peronismo Burguesía industrial Empresariado industrial Alianzas económico políticas Peronism industrial bourgeoisie industrial business political economic alliances Acuña, Carlos Hugo Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism |
| topic_facet |
Peronismo Burguesía industrial Empresariado industrial Alianzas económico políticas Peronism industrial bourgeoisie industrial business political economic alliances |
| description |
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”. |
| format |
Artículo publishedVersion |
| author |
Acuña, Carlos Hugo |
| author_facet |
Acuña, Carlos Hugo |
| author_sort |
Acuña, Carlos Hugo |
| title |
Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism |
| title_short |
Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism |
| title_full |
Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism |
| title_fullStr |
Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism |
| title_sort |
peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of perón's peronism |
| publisher |
Instituto Interdisciplinario de Economía Política (IIEP UBA-CONICET) |
| publishDate |
2014 |
| url |
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 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT acunacarloshugo peronismthatwasnottheroleofinterindustrialpoliticalstruggleintheearlyfrustrationofperonsperonism AT acunacarloshugo elperonismoquenofueelpapeldelaluchapoliticainterindustrialenlatempranafrustraciondelperonismodeperon |
| _version_ |
1857043028297908224 |
| spelling |
I28-R145-2563_oai2026-02-09 Acuña, Carlos Hugo 2014-04-01 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”. El conocimiento histórico generalizado sugiere que el Peronismo persiguió como sostén de sus políticas la construcción de una alianza político-institucional de tres patas: bajo el liderazgo estatal como pilar central, cobijó al pequeño/mediano empresariado regional (burguesía “local” en lenguaje odonnelliano y nucleada en la CGE) y a los trabajadores organizados (los sindicatos). Esta alianza populista entre el Estado, la burguesía local y los trabajadores organizados, aunque sin trascender los límites del capitalismo, desafió el poder de los dos actores centrales del gran capital: la burguesía agro-exportadora (nucleada en la SRA) y la gran burguesía urbana (burguesía industrial compuesta por empresas transnacionales y la capa superior de las empresas de capital doméstico, nucleada en la UIA). El Peronismo como un movimiento cuyas tres patas estructuraban al “campo popular” en base a los trabajadores y al pequeño y mediano empresariado y confrontaban, aunque de diversa manera y en distintos momentos, con las diferentes fracciones del gran capital, constituyó no sólo una pieza central del proceso político-económico argentino desde la segunda mitad del siglo veinte. El trabajo coloca el foco en el periodo que abarca de 1943 hasta 1955 para argumentar que las políticas del Peronismo persiguieron incorporar en su alianza constitutiva a la gran burguesía industrial. Y esto no con la mera aspiración de contar con su capacidad de inversión, aunque disciplinada políticamente bajo la conducción del pequeño-mediano empresariado, sino apuntando a que jugase un papel central de liderazgo económico-político sobre el conjunto del empresariado. En términos sustantivos, el trabajo sostiene que el Peronismo “realmente existente” y sobre el que se articuló la lucha política argentina a partir de mediados de los años cincuenta, no fue el perseguido por las estrategias estatales implementadas por el gobierno de Perón sino, por el contrario, el resultado del fracaso político-institucional de estas frente al veto de actores en pugna dentro del empresariado industrial. En síntesis, el Peronismo “de Perón” no era el de la triple alianza sino uno que incorporaba con un papel de liderazgo, a la fracción industrial del gran capital. Por ello es que, en definitiva, este es un trabajo sobre “el Peronismo que no fue”. application/pdf https://ojs.economicas.uba.ar/DT-IIEP/article/view/2563 spa Instituto Interdisciplinario de Economía Política (IIEP UBA-CONICET) https://ojs.economicas.uba.ar/DT-IIEP/article/view/2563/3303 Derechos de autor 2014 IIEP UBA CONICET Documentos de trabajo del Instituto Interdisciplinario de Economía Política; Núm. 4 (2014): El peronismo que no fue el papel de la lucha política inter-industrial en la temprana frustración del peronismo de Perón Working Papers series at Instituto Interdisciplinario de Economía Política; No. 4 (2014): Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism 2451-5728 Peronismo Burguesía industrial Empresariado industrial Alianzas económico políticas Peronism industrial bourgeoisie industrial business political economic alliances Peronism that was not the role of inter-industrial political struggle in the early frustration of Perón's Peronism El peronismo que no fue el papel de la lucha política inter-industrial en la temprana frustración del peronismo de Perón info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=dociiep&d=2563_oai |