That old and productive fellowship between two clear masterminds fell into an abrupt terminal emergency when one of them condemned the inhumane imprisonments and the oppression that reigned in the Soviet Union, and the other answered: “You reserve no option to censure the socialist development since you are out of it. You need to identify with him to reserve the privilege to address him. The connection between the two may be most significant scholars in France – Sartre and Aron – then, at that point, broke like a dry branch. Jean-Paul Sartre, in the wake of denying it commonly, currently perceived the different barbarities of this extremist framework, however, he didn’t endure Raymond Aron scrutinizing the model that incited them.Kirchnerism embraces a similar deception when mindful of the wrongdoings against humankind of Chavismo, it guards and ensures it, and repudiates the analysis of the individuals who uncover it with bountiful proof: you must be a patriot to erupt at patriotism.
Numerous years after the fact, two writers who perceived themselves as individuals from the reformist age of the French May choose to talk with Raymond Aron finally; It was in 1982 and the writer of The Opium of the Intellectuals had effectively turned into an unavoidable figure and a brutal dissenter to all that illuminated tip top. That methodology, which prompted another anthological book – The Committed Observer-I was exceptionally inquisitive: Aron was considered in colleges and in certain media as a “shrewd man, however on the right” (sic). They didn’t excuse him for Aron saying: “The savvy people would prefer not to comprehend the world or change it; they need to upbraid him “, and neither that he blamed them for staying away from genuine issues and liking rather a belief system – in other words: ” a pretty much scholarly portrayal of the best society ” – and furthermore power plots that tended towards dictatorship, albeit taking a stab at romanticizing that way and attempting to sidestep the sickening ramifications of that last decision. At the point when the two writers dig into Aron’s profound idea and request a definition about his own progressivism, he consolidates it into a solitary sentence: “What is most to be dreaded in present-day cultures is the one-party framework.” It doesn’t pick there, as can be seen, a particular financial approach, yet the basic calculated and completed guard of conservative majority rule government – with all that it addresses against what it calls the “fundamental danger”: a risky float towards a one-party ” strong “that fixes the establishments and makes a domineering system without pluralism. Also, he explains that the “moderate left” agrees with his equivalent nodal concern. What amount of “right” then, at that point, does this simple protection of majority rules system have? I pondered Aron while perusing Martín Guzmán’s discourse that he enunciated for this present week, sitting next to each other with Juan Manzur, a progressive novice from Sierra Maestra with the picture of Che engraved in the sunlight based plexus. There the twisted church kid from Stiglitz charged against “the right”, insinuating the resistance, and blaming it for extending “financial weaknesses.” Thus followed the new content for the new mission: it is seen that the fourth Kirchnerist government – invaded with medieval masters – battles sacrificially against the “right”, subsequently saving for itself specific upright leftism, which unusually doesn’t have confidence in the age of work, neither in the security of the poor nor in instructive greatness: the disregard of these three well-known requests caused them a noteworthy electing beating.
Guzmán, the fundamental individual accountable for probably the most blazing swelling on the planet, was getting ready to leave for Washington looking for a sort of concurrence with the IMF. The following day, Máximo Kirchner went wherever to run him on the left and fault him for the severe disappointment at the surveys. The scene is peculiar and affirms that the most emotional crack in Argentina doesn’t occur today outside yet inside the decision group and that the “financial uncertainties” – the swapping scale runs and different apprehensions of vulnerability are not released by outcasts yet by their own. Regardless, we would need to focus on the show, since it could ultimately expect Cristina Kirchner’s strategy for “the following day.” She might have deposed her Minister of Economy in that open letter; not exclusively did he not do as such, he willingly volunteered to endorse it amidst the tempest and not to keep him from proceeding to haggle with the Fund. However, he requested, while his clerics rebuff him and that his own child go out to beat him. Is this a little trial of your new mentality? Will his post-political race strategy twofold game, secretly approving indications of “levelheadedness” that permit him not to additionally dissolve his generally blurred force and openly giving indications of radicalization so as not to lose his emblematic capital? He didn’t do anything else in his most messianic period, when he balanced Chavismo at the platforms and sent Kicillof, with a liberal wallet and head down, to Europe to pay everything and more to the Paris Club. Be that as it may, is it conceivable to fix with the Fund, work a depreciation and raise the rates so as not to detonate into 1,000 pieces, while your soldiers are happy with simple epic fireworks? Or on the other hand was the two-sided course just conceivable previously, when there were holds in the Central Bank or global credits accessible? This matter is critical to understanding the following two years, and the skirmish of models is battled in the psyche of a solitary individual.
While the Egyptian architect mumbles and Guzmán travels, Emilio Persico takes the microphone at the Nueva Chicago event and tells the unanimous but unpronounceable truth: “This democracy of alternation does not walk.” And then he claims: “The popular movement must govern for twenty years.” Ex-militant of the Montoneros organization, founder of the Quebracho group, piquetero of Néstor Kirchner, great beneficiary of Macri’s subsidies, militant of Pope Francisco and current street arm of Alberto Fernández, This language is not refuted by any member of the ruling party; on the contrary, they applaud it with fervor. Its rhetorical device is, in principle, great: Kirchnerism is going through the fourth government and is not guilty of stagflation, the constant increase in poverty, the destruction of the culture of work and concrete employment, the degradation of the public school, the lack of a vigorous export policy, the permanent boycott of progress and private initiative, the terminal deterioration of the currency and the drug boom.
They still need twenty more years to devastate what little is left standing. Or as Marcos Novaro says: “They maintain the myth that Peronist unity is the one that can save us from the misfortune that it generates.” But then there is the “essential threat” that made Raymond Aron sleepless. Persico verbalizes Kirchner’s intention to stay two decades in power to shape the country irreversibly and at will; it falls short, since the fiefdoms from which his companions come – taking over the State, implementing systemic clientelism and colonizing the institutions – in fact, canceled the alternation and achieved much longer periods. In the last elections, society was reluctant to this Santa Cruz dream. Which, as Aron warns, is the worst nightmare. A Kirchnerist writer has already said it once: “For us, democracy is right-wing.”