Were Perón and Getúlio Vargas leftists? What do Argentinian and Brazilian socialists think of them?

Were Perón and Getúlio Vargas leftists? What do Argentinian and Brazilian socialists think of them?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (700x466 163.07 KB, 474.83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

openrevolt.info/2011/11/04/peron-on-che/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Peron was an authoritarian populist. He did a lot of social inclusion for the imporvished workers of argentina, but he opposed class war and made a cult of his oersonality. After he got ousted by a military coup, he endorsed socialists militias called "montoneros". When he returned for his last presidency, he became a complete right wing anti-communist and started to kill and disappear many of his own left followers.

Dont know about Vargas but ive heard that its a similar history…

Neither argentinean nor brazilian (I'm chilean) but from what I know, I can sorta understand why some people would say Peron was a leftist (he wasn't imo) due to some of his policies. But Vargas was 100% rightwing afaik.

Vargas was an authoritarian right-winger who approved of measures in favour of the working class just to appease and gather support amongst them and due to a paternalistic view of government. Claiming he is a socialist is like claiming tories that upheld the post-war consensus in Britain were socialists

Read this:

Vargas was anticommunist, when he came to power he imprisoned or deported members of the PCB (the communist party of Brazil) and even killed the wife of a revolutionary and member of the party (Luiz Carlos Prestes) by deporting her (a jewish woman) to nazi Germany while pregnant (she died in a gas cha,ber but her daughter survived somehow). He had good relations with the nazis but didn't support them in WWII for obvious strategic reasons. He was indeed an authoritarian populist, which is quite different from an economic liberal but is not really leftist.

Pretty much this.

But your question is quite interesting user, so I will proceed to give further information.

Perón was really counterrevolutionary, Even when the country was about to go to a civil war and labor unions were ready to defend their new rights and conquers, he was still trying to appease oligarchs. In this regard, Evita was much more based. Even though she lacked the proper theoretical knowledge that every vanguard revolutionary needs, she was much more subversive: she wanted to arm the workers and distrusted the army (which in the end did the coup against Perón and installed a dictatorship that crushed the workers and pushed for higher levels of exploitation, i.e. lower real wages, less taxes for the piggies and a long etc,)

Maybe the best that Perón could do was disappearing and then returning to just die a short time after that. Workers gained a much better bargaining position thanks to peronism, and when he was absent to appease workers demands and co-opt the working class while maintaining an extraordinary high rate of profit for capitalists, labor unions really acquired a revolutionary character. His policies were escape valves for masses that had a strong sense of class consciousnesses, but had also fallen in love with the man who had completely changed the economical landscape without any traumatic process like some sort of revolution.

For example, prior to the 1976 coup, when Perón had already died and her second wife government was a complete disaster, lots of unions organized commissions to gain control of the productive process. Class tensions were on the rise, and this uncontrollable worker's organization was one of the reasons why the big capitalists choose to finish the industry once and for all, accumulate capital through financial valorization and disappear 30000 people in the country (the big majority were, of course, blue-collar workers and not guerrilleros). Basically, the piggies preferred to end industrialization altogether when they realized their profit perspectives were quite limited with such a strong working class.

I will now translate an interesting text talking about that time (I apologize for my bad english):

"The ‘intra-factory committees'… had their origins in the basic organisms that the Argentinian working class conquered at a fabric and plant level. The internal commissions and delegate corps, the claims commissions, the paper of sectional and factory assemblies, constituted an extraordinary achievement of the working class, and the organizing core of their strength and cohesion. In this respect, Adolfo Gilly made an interesting analysis of this particularity, which he denominated 'Argentinian anomaly': “This level of organization, possibly the highest in Latin America and one of the highest in the world, relies it’s strength in the very bosom of the production process: in the section delegates, the delegates corps and the internal commissions. This social power practiced in the working spaces tends to periodically create in Argentinian capitalism a crisis of valorization and a crisis of accumulation, when it obstructs further compression of wages in the necessary measure to recover the Rate of Profit (ROP); it questions the very rule of capital in the working place, the centralized control of the productive process.”… We might say this factory organization, even though the permanent will of Peronism of limiting and regulating it, constituted a kind of “nerve and muscles democracy” (like Nahuel Moreno said) that limited in a grand scale, both during the first two governments of Perón as after their fall, the rise of labor exploitation; this crystalized in important conquers for the workers. From this point of view, the intra-factory organization was a limit to the capital dictatorship in the process of labor and one of the objectives to eradicate by all capitalist governments”.

Attached: Juan_Domingo_Perón_(1973)[1].jpg (829x466 115.89 KB, 60.59K)

I'm gonna talk to you from a position of a man who has grew up to hate every single spic that lives in the "nation" called Spictina.
Peron basically was a populist, the real reason why he is associated with leftism is because after he died he left the mandate to his wife *va, who still plagues the streets with her disgusting face painted by bribed unions. She's the beacon of the current peronism ideal, which basically encompasses enslaving people by subsidizing. "Free" shoes, "Free" computers, "Free" money for the poor to replace demographically the medium working class, you name it. Peronism has basically become her, and people who use the images of the fart are just doing it because as typical marxist ideologies, presidents become too deluded in their cult of personality and put their retarded actions as some kind of political method. Most leftist governments end up just working on assumptions and a lot of ifs, which is what the government of this nigger could be called for (since when there was the woowoowee he made profit from the axis, soviets and americans).
I'm mostly reacting against him because it's what retarded boomers and the lowest of the low spics keep shilling for, and also because it's election year and everyone is still falling for the democracy niggertrick where if you aren't black you're white.
t. trade student

Attached: the stanley parable.png (1020x720, 612.13K)

Retarded boomers? I rather have them than the brainless zoomers like Ofelia Fernandez with their love for CFK. Goddamn it, that people is retarded as fuck. They don't know shit about the most basic proposition of economics, they are just excited with feminism talking about abortion all day. It's really tiresome.

Bourgeois propaganda: the post

That's interesting, he seems like a pretty controversial figure. So socialists there pretty much hate him?

And why do neoliberals like Menem and de la Rúa consider themselves peronists? Speaking of Menem, some people claim that he his economic policy wasn't liberal, but, as far as I know, he privatized the hell out of Argentina, deregulated the financial market and did some labour reforms. Are those liberals just in denial because their economic model didn't work there?