Re: Skimming history: Peronism and women's rights (Was Re: Clemenceau une autre fois plus (was Re: Deutschland Schon Wieder))

[Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx <xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

thanks Nestor! a  huge history of what Peronism means to women...

Xxxx

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:

> En relación a Re: Clemenceau une autre fois plus (was Re: Deuts,
> el 15 Jul 00, a las 23:42, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx dijo:
>
> > For example, Kemalists in Turkey granted women voting rights in 1934
> > in order to distance themselves from fascist Germany and Italy, and to
> > look liberal and modern to the West, despite being authoritarian What
> > about Peron fellow?
>
> To begin with, and in general: there are some connections between
> Peronism and Kemalism, though they are more or less at the same level
> of the connections between Nasserism and Peronism. The Nasser era in
> Egypt, the Vargas era in Brazil, the Sukarno era in Indonesia, the
> Lázaro Cárdenas government in Méjico, are more suitable paralellisms,
> and if one looks at the socialist camp, perhaps Tito could look like
> a "socialist" Peron. Will extend further on another posting.
>
> But now on to women.  In Argentina, women voted for the first time in
> 1952. This means that although we had feminists and sufragists
> already in the 1900s and 1910s (the wife of the founder of the once
> important -but unfortunately proimperialist and anti-Creole racist-
> Socialist Party, Alicia Moreau de Justo, was one of our first female
> medical doctors, of the first feminists and sufragists). The fate of
> women has been narrowly linked to that of the thrifty semicolony that
> Argentina turned out to become between 1890 and 1910. Any
> progressiveness of the project of the Argentinian Generation of the
> 80s (who in fact gave birth to modern Argentina) was dead by those
> years. This generation, which included even socialists (I always
> recall that the Engineer Hermann Aue Lallemant, a friend of Engels
> who came to Argentina as a topographer for the railroad companies
> was, at the same time, founder of our Socialist Party and a respected
> member of the scientific elite of the Argentina of the 1880s1900s),
> took power in 1880 with a very advanced program of modernization to
> which feminist (and, in particular, sufragist) positions would not
> have been alien. But as the whole movement lost momentum, and when
> the scheme made crisis in 1930, the progressivism was substituted for
> a reactionary conservatism which, as always, included seclussion of
> women and restricted voting franchise (for males only).
>
> The 1943 military movement which eventually took Peron to power was
> intent on putting an end to the Argentina of the 30s.  Anti-peronist
> (and by the same token pro-imperialist) socialists in Argentina saw
> this Colonel, later General, fulfill all and every one of the claims
> that they had been voicing for decades. Among them were the voting
> rights for women. There is an anecdote here: Peron's wife, Eva Perón,
> was already dying of cancer -and anti-Peronist anonymous militants
> painted "Long live cancer!" on the walls- but she had the privilege
> of casting her ballot in her dying bed; at the same time, anti-
> Peronist women (among them, Socialists and not few Communists)
> declared that "This way, we do not want to vote"...
>
> Peronism meant much more for women than voting rights. Its
> ideological face was sternly conservative. The ideal of woman was
> more of the "good housewife in a nice clean Californian style little
> home" who would take care of husband and children after working hours
> than of what we would now call a free woman in equal stand with men.
> But the material realities of the country that was under a strong
> industrialization effort spoke otherwise, and women flocked out of
> the hearth into factories and offices, which was in itself a socially
> liberating movement. Unions, even Parliament members, began to see
> women filling their leading ranks. The textile mills employed
> hundreds of thousands of women, and there were even tangos that spoke
> of the "fabriqueras" (that is, young women who worked at a factory)
> in a tender and lovingly way. This was another liberatory movement.
>
> When in 1973 Peronism returned to power, after 18 years of oligarchic-
> imperialist dictatorship, new gains were obtained by women, including
> the much hated by capitalists the monthly "feminine day", which
> allowed each working woman a free day during her period, and the
> equiparation in the rights of natural and legitimate children (this
> law was passed through the offices of an otherwise conservative -even
> reactionary- Labor minister, Otero, who however was of humble origin
> and must have been witness to the plight of women with illegitimate
> children in the old, oligarchic Argentina that preceded Peron).
>
> These are just a few, only a few hints of what did _in practice,
> though not in ideology_ Peronism mean to women.
>
> >
> >
> > comradely,
> >
> >
> > Xxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
> >
> > > En relaci¢n a Re: Clemenceau une autre fois plus ,
> > > el 15 Jul 00, a las 15:38, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx dijo:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >En relaci?n a Re: Deutschland Schon Wieder,
> > > > > >el 14 Jul 00, a las 21:56, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx dijo:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> During the debates about war reperations, I remember Keynes
> > > > > >> arguing that the allies, particulary the British, should be
> > > > > >> less coercive with
> > > > > > enforcing payment of reperations on Germany, or change the
> > > > > > priority of
> > > > > >> payments at least-- an idea, which was actually championed by
> > > > > >> American international bankers who were agents for reperation
> > > > > >> payments created under the Dawes plan of US.  It seems
> > > > > >> Keynes' bourgeois anticipation matched with the German
> > > > > >> nationalist critique of liberal order at that
> > > > > > >time.
> > > > >
> > > > > >Blaming the German "unfinished bourgeois revolution" for
> > > > > >Fascism, useful and right as it is for comrades struggling in
> > > > > >Germany, is a partial truth, and provides an alibi for the
> > > > > >bourgeoisies of the remaining imperialist countries.
> > > >
> > > > Comrade Nestor, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I was
> > > > not blaming the German "unfinished bourgeois revolution" for being
> > > > responsible for the rise of fascism. I don't subscribe to
> > > > Kautskian version of orthodoxy/ mechanistic theory of stages.  My
> > > > suspicion is that it was not the *lack* of capitalism, but rather
> > > > its very existence, even in immature form, that brought about
> > > > fascism in Germany. Fascism is one form of capitalism; not absence
> > > > of capitalism. Therefore, my Keynes example was meant to
> > > > illustrate the fact that the imperialist allies, despite the
> > > > inter-imperialist conflict between the French and the British at
> > > > some moments during negotiations for war reparations, under the
> > > > Dawes plan, were indeed aiming  to restructure German industrial
> > > > capacity/capitalism, and hence directly/indirectly enforcing
> > > > Germany into fascism, despite bourgeois Keynes' warning.
> > >
> > > No misunderstanding at all, on my side at least.  Maybe my poor
> > > English took you to misunderstand me. Because, in fact, I do fully
> > > agree with your comments above. And that is precisely what I wanted
> > > to stress in my intervention. Fascism in Germany was as much a child
> > > of German bourgeoisie as it was of British and French bourgeoisies.
> > > My "Subject" line tried to recall Keynes's account of the greedy and
> > > cruel attitude of Clemenceau.
> > >
> > > >From that time on, Germany was already
> > > > entering into a capitalist phase of development with a state
> > > > monopoly bourgeoisie *benefitting* from massive flows of capital
> > > > channeled into German economy.
> > > >
> > > > On the other hand, of course, I can not end up blaming the German
> > > > bourgeoisie for what it did, not for it what *failed*, but for
> > > > what it *actually* *accomplished*, that is, fascism, which was
> > > > reinforced by *international capital*, not always in *conflict*,
> > > > but also in *allience* with German capitalism. American Ford had
> > > > investments in Germany. During the Nazi regime, his name was being
> > > >  published on the front page of anti-semite publications that were
> > > > deliberately involved in the creation of international jew
> > > > conspiracy. Rise of fascism was not a simply a *function* of
> > > > Germany's victim position in the international political economy
> > > > (Germany was never technically imperialized to begin with).
> > >
> > > Moreover, I would add, in the line of Jos?'s posting on Peronism,
> > > that in imperialized ("globalized"?) countries nationalisms have
> > > little or nothing to do with Fascism, and when they have something
> > > to do it is just as a thin ideological layer or as a clumsy reaction
> > > of hatred against the "democratic" imperialist powers of the West
> > > (the enemy of my enemy, etc.).  This formal and limited relationship
> > > cannot be predicated on the structure and meaning of the movement
> > > itself.
> > >
> > > I am preparing a long and explanatory letter on the origins of
> > > Peronism and the FALSE assumption that Per¢n came to power in order
> > > to put a safety valve to an upsurge of working class militancy. He
> > > rather boosted it, in fact. The bourgeoisie in Argentina knew this
> > > very well: by October 10, 1945, for example, when a cold coup within
> > > the military government forced Per¢n to resign and reaction seemed
> > > to have already won the battle against this Colonel, workers who
> > > went to claim for the wage rises that had been recently awarded
> > > under Per¢n's order were greeted by the words  "Go, tell Per¢n to
> > > pay the rise!". A week after that, we had the great political
> > > appearance of the Argentinian working class in the October 17, 1945,
> > > demonstration.
> > >
> > >  Germany was too aiming to become another
> > > > capitalist/imperialist power.
> > >
> > > It was a capitalist/imperialist power, before WWI. You are a little
> > > shy in this characterization
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Xxxx
> > >
> > > Regards from someone who looks at your postings with great interest,
> > >
> > > N?stor Miguel Gorojovsky
> > > gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > NUEVA DIRECCI N ELECTR NICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000
> > > NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000
> > > gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > --
> >
> > Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
> > PhD Student
> > Department of Political Science
> > SUNY at Albany
> > Nelson A. Rockefeller College
> > 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
> > Albany, NY 12222
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
> > Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> > Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
> > ___________________________________________________________
>
> Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
> gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx
> NUEVA DIRECCIÓN ELECTRÓNICA DESDE EL 10 DE JULIO DE 2000
> NEW E-ADDRESS AS OF JULY 10, 2000
> gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx

--

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222



____________NetZero Free Internet Access and Email_________
Download Now     http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
Request a CDROM  1-800-333-3633
___________________________________________________________