Peronismo clásico y peronismo plebeyo: el populismo de la globalización
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
Authors
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
UNR Editora
Resumen
Descripción
La comparación de las dos variantes de populismo
que proponemos muestra que sólo el peronismo
clásico se montó sobre un proceso de
constitución de actores sociales, en especial
en lo que se refiere a las clases trabajadoras y
al sindicalismo. Mientras el peronismo clásico
integraba políticamente y acompañaba esta integración
con una experiencia subjetiva de ascenso
social, el peronismo plebeyo de los Kirchner
reproduce las formas de vida de las comunidades
que constituyen gran parte de su base socioelectoral.
En esta segunda variante del populismo,
las dimensiones discursivas e identitarias son
notoriamente débiles, y sumamente fuertes, en
cambio, las dimensiones vinculadas al ejercicio
patrimonialista y predatorio del gobierno, al disfrute
cleptocrático del poder y a la manipulación
de los recursos fiscales. La dinámica del populismo
plebeyo está esencialmente desvinculada
del mercado de trabajo capitalista en lo que se
refiere a sus lazos con los sectores populares. En
este sentido, se trata de un populismo centrado
en la administración de los pobres. Consiste en
una adaptación pragmática y provechosa a las
nuevas condiciones sociales dadas por la pobreza
estructural.
A comparison of the two variants of populism that we propose shows that only classical Peronism developed upon a process of constitution of social actors, particularly the working class and the trade unions. While classical Peronism was politically inclusive, and accompanied that inclusion with a subjective experience of social ascent, the plebeian populism of the Kirchners governments reproduces the ways of life of the communities that constitute its social and electoral base. The discursive and identity dimensions of this latter variant of populism are notably weak, while those connected to the patrimonial exercise of power, the predatory administration of government, and the manipulation of fiscal resources are remarkably strong. Plebeian populism is disconnected from the labor market in its relation to the working and lower classes. As a result, this variety of populism is centered on the management of the poor, and consists in a pragmatic and successful adaptation to the new social conditions presented by structural poverty.
A comparison of the two variants of populism that we propose shows that only classical Peronism developed upon a process of constitution of social actors, particularly the working class and the trade unions. While classical Peronism was politically inclusive, and accompanied that inclusion with a subjective experience of social ascent, the plebeian populism of the Kirchners governments reproduces the ways of life of the communities that constitute its social and electoral base. The discursive and identity dimensions of this latter variant of populism are notably weak, while those connected to the patrimonial exercise of power, the predatory administration of government, and the manipulation of fiscal resources are remarkably strong. Plebeian populism is disconnected from the labor market in its relation to the working and lower classes. As a result, this variety of populism is centered on the management of the poor, and consists in a pragmatic and successful adaptation to the new social conditions presented by structural poverty.