Talk:Peronism

Movement

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to describe Peronism as a "movement" rather than an "ideology". Of this movement, there are several factions, ie the political parties... -- Viajero 13:42 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Race

What's with "Racism is often made out to be integral to fascism"? I suppose that I can't argue too much with "often": plenty of people want to tie fascism to every bad thing that's out there, and I understand the appeal of such a position. Still, for an encyclopedia article, that could use some sourcing. To the best of my knowledge, Mussolini wasn't particularly racist (though he was certainly nationalist and imperialist, and certainly not anti-racist). -- Jmabel 07:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Racism would not have had any appeal in Argentina, a country that was lily-white in the 1950s and is about 97% white today. There were not enough minorities for any racist campaign to have any sort of appeal. Peron did, when speaking to an international audience, come off as an anti-racist. With regards to Argentina's Jewish community, Peron himself did not seem to be an antisemite and there were sizeable numbers of Jewish Peronists, yet his Education Minister, Hugo Wass, was a vocal anti-semite who dismissed many Jewish professors and secondary school teachers. In my opinion, Peron's interests lie in political power rather than ethnic supremacy, much like Napoleon I. (anonymous, 17 March 2005)

I* No real disagreement with any of that, but I will point out that many Poles these days can be quite anti-Semitic without needing to have any actual Jews to blame things on. And there certainly has been no shortage of anti-Semitism in Argentina at various times. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have a problem with the statement that racism is thought to be integral to fascism. It is not part of the definition of fascism and many fascisms were not racist. I'm deleting said sentence. -ZeroAsALimit

I'd also love to see a little more analysis of what Peronism means in contemporary Argentina. -- Jmabel 07:40, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The article is biased toward National Socialism. Most people who would consider themselves as National Socialists, as opposed to those who label themselves Nazi hunters, anti-fascists, ie. people who are ideological leftists, would see Peronism as something very similar, if not identical to NS. There were no concentration camps in Germany before the outbreak of WWII. There is no such thing in NS as a slave work ideology based on "racist superiority" but a belief that races should be segregated and groups that are considered hostile or criminal (not because of race issues) should be kept out. It was only during WWII that concentration camps became necessary for German war efforts, in the same way, that men were drafted for the army a working force had to be drafted for the war economy.

?

         WHO WAS JUAN PERON? THE CASE  "GIOVANNI PIRAS - JUAN PERON"

(the truth on the origins of Juan Domingo Peron) ¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? a sardinian enigma in the history of Argentina. (That is published by the investigation’s autors Gabriele Casula and Raffaele Ballore). One of the most mysterious and fascinating cases of the modern history of Mamoiada, a village of the central Sardinia in province of Nuoro (Italy), is with no doubt the one of " Giovanni Piras - Juan Peron ":that is to say two names, two individuals, in truth were the same person. Sure, it is hard to believe that mythical General Juan Peron, three times president of the Argentine, was, exactly, Giovanni Piras, that same humble peasant that at the beginning of the century emigrated young in South America. You will all ask why this Giovanni Piras would have had to change identity or why Juan Peron hid his true origin. Piras had to create for himself an Argentine birth in order to avoid the call to the arms for war 1915-18 from part of his native land and to escape the officials of the Italian embassy, who searched the emigrant deserters. In that period Giovanni Piras, with the aid of powerful persons that were also friends, found the most suitable situation to creep in: a substitution of person was put into effect, which served also in order to undertake the studies to the Military Academy, granted only to the Argentinean citizens, born and nationalized in Argentine. To change identity was, in fact, the sole manner to enter the Colegio Militar. Once he became the President of the Argentine Republic, to greater reason his true identity did not have to be revealed, since the Argentinean Constitution states that the President of the nation must be native of the place. An irreversible process, a point of no return had been primed; the situation became very serious and dangerous for Peron because with the person substitution a fraud had happened to the State, a serious crime and not only for a politician. To reveal the true identity meant to compromise his credibility, his deep concept of native land, of " betrayal of the native land, and of being a true, genuine and faithful Argentinean ", that he exalted and repeated in many speeches; it meant to lose his rank, his uniform and his power. To rigor of logic, this was the reason for which he hid his true identity, a much dangerous one for his position; otherwise, Peron would have shown his true origin, as he went proud of it. Peron justified his great love for Sardinia and the Sardinians saying that the paternal great-grandfather had come from that island, therefore he had Sardinian blood in the veins, but later, his alibi of this declared ancestors did not stand firm. In one of the books of Enrique Pavòn Pereyra, a personal biographer of Juan Peron, a great enigmatic draw has a sentence (dictated to the writer from the exiled Argentinean in his Madrilenian house) on how he jealously preserved the origin of his birth rate; it reads so: “I have played with my destiny a magical bet, and I was successful until today conserving my origins as deep secret”. In Mamoiada this is a case debated from almost sixty years: in the 1951 N. Tola by the newspaper “Unione Sarda”; in the 1984 P. Canneddu whith the book “Juan Peron-Giovanni Piras two names one person”; in the 200/3 the report of Raffaele Ballore an the book of Gabriele Casula “¿DONDE NACIÓ PERÓN? un enigma sardo nella storia dell’Argentina” have illustrated the proofs collected, unmasking and effectively demonstrating plenty of the contradictions of Peron and of the Argentinean historians with documents and photographs, beyond numerous documented oral testimonies and coincidences. The great Argentine press and the living biographers of general Peron never answered to the appeals to discuss the case. Their indisposition to reconsider objectively and serenely the whole story is to be interpreted like fear of the truth and that their studies on the important personage could be knocked down and mocked. The case could feed ideological earthquakes or provoke patriotic resentments. The worries for the risk of tearing open this myth are comprehensible, but the historical truth must not have compromises. From the author’s part, to prove the true identity of Peron in no way must be seen as a discourteous action towards the Argentinean people nor a way to lessen the myth of their former President: if he was elected democratically for three times it means that he must have had some merit, indeed, together with Evita he remains a mythical personage in the entire Latin American panorama. Only after reading the report and the book an objective judgment can be expressed and a conclusion can be attained. The report is documented and deposited, every information is reliable; not only the several oral testimonies are there but, this time, also documentary and photographic proofs. For more informations to the report and the book please visit the site www.piras-per

Peronism and Leftism

I just realized a similar discussion had already occured because of the same reason. So I'm sorry if I am bringing the topic back again, but as it seems, I do not happen to be the first person whose attention was called by this. Academically, I am well aware that there are several sources that have claimed that Peronism is a left-leaning ideology and I do not underestimate them, but there also are several claiming that it is a right-wing or a center ideology. What I believe it should be done is simply not positioning it in the political compass in the first place (or at least try to do it as few times as possible), as it will always be a topic of debate and there will probably be more people who will bring up this issue in the future. I personally recommed trying to focus on other terms for describing Peronism which are less broad and abstract, and avoid saying it is "leftist", "centrist" or "rightist" as it will always lead to confusion and arguments. I write this not to oppose anyone's stance, but to reach a consensus and move foward on this topic that has already been debated on more than one occasion. Rax9000 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No, it is fine, I appreciate you expressing your opinion, especially when you are more concerned about balance than really partaking in that discussion. My main problem was that when I can find a huge amount of sources (most of them used in the article), including ones from well-known political scientists, as well as even statements like "Regardless, Peronism is universally agreed upon to be a left wing populism which tends towards the authoritarian, especially during the latter half of Perón's first presidency.", then it does produce a question if we are not making a mistake by treating all assessments as valid. There is a fair chunk of claims that Nazis were "left-wing", yet these are not taken seriously in the academia, which is why Wikipedia reflects the consensus that it is a far-right ideology. Same applies to left-wing populist parties in general, especially the ones that are socially conservative, such as Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht or Self-Defence of the Republic of Poland. Both parties have some sources that call them "right-wing" or even "far-right", but they are ignored in the view of left-wing assessments being more common and more credible.

In the discussion above, the person representing the opposite of my view, cited Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira as one of the counter-sources to me. I looked at the source and it in fact was closer to my own position, arguing that left-wing populism also has some important right-wing elements, and on page 43, it argued that Peronism and the Venezuelan Acción Democrática represent the same form of populism. There is also Populism and Key Concepts in Social and Political Theory by Carlos de la Torre and Oscar Mazzoleni who argue that the main difference between left-wing and right-wing populism is whether the focus is on redistributive economic policies (left populism) or cultural, ethnonationalist issues (right populism) (p.76). Later (p.125), they make it pretty clear that too:

National sovereignty also plays a role in radical left populism as research on Latin American populism has shown. In two of the most prominent cases, that of Peron in Argentina and Chávez in Venezuela, national sovereignty is understood as a trinom that equates people with the nation and ultimately the both of them with the leader. The Peronist doctrine illustrates this best: “Whoever is not a Peronist is not an Argentinian” (de la Torre 2017).

Which for me it would be at least advisable to mention "left-wing populism" when applicable, because the term is in fact broad enough to include Perón. Sure, some might not understand the difference between "left-wing populism" and "leftism", but that would be a problem of just lack of knowledge rather than the incorrect or controversial use of the term. These are also only three sources that I brought up, I have many more but I just wanted to highlight the reasoning that some of political scientists make for that.

But going back to the discussion, I think I understand your point and it could be good to make it a "judge for yourself" case where we describe the policies and beliefs of Peronism without explicitly using labels themselves. Though I think we can still include the labels as long as we ascribe it to specific authors and explain their reasoning behind it. I think that just might make everyone happy, as in, being scarce about using terms like "leftist", "right-wing" or "centrist". Brat Forelli🦊 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"Sanction"

> the sanction of the law 12,978 on Catholic teaching in public schools

Can someone who knows more about this rewrite the sentence to avoid using the word "sanction?" In English this mean either to support or to punish, so this phrase is ambiguous.

As a secondary concern, it's not clear whether 12,978 is an identifier of the law in question, or the number of public schools affected.

192.72.255.31 (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)