Talk:Peronism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ethnic policy of Peronism

Though the article correctly states that Peronism was not a racist ideology, its nationalism included the idea of a more-or-less homogeneous "Argentine people" and explicitly encouraged immigration of Catholic and Latin peoples over others. It seems that Peronism (ostensibly for reasons of political stability) wanted a national melting pot undisturbed by diversity. In addition to that, the DAIE (Argentine Delegation of Immigration in Europe) filtered out most political refugees (except Eastern European Nazi collaborationists), Communists, and many non-Catholics; applications from Jews (and Muslims) were rejected in large numbers. See LEONARDO SENKMAN, Etnicidad e inmigración. I wonder how we can insert this into the article, which seems terribly short at this time. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits, possible need for overhaul

[copied from User talk:Pablo-flores ]
These recent uncommented anonymous edits to Peronism strike me as not entirely wrong, but at best a mixed bag. I simply don't know enough to go in and make corrections, and the article is way undercited. I'm calling it to your attention in hopes that you can do a better job than I would. - Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those edits, I don't really know what to do about them... My first impulse was to revert them because they are unsourced, but then the content of the previous version which was changed was also unsourced, and the current one is, as you said, not clearly wrong, and quite NPOV (with the exception of the wording about fascism). I'm by no means an expert on Peronism and I don't have good sources on me. If you feel you can do better, start a discussion in Talk:Peronism and invite the anonymous editor in question. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in general eventually needs an overhaul, but I hesitate to wade in without good sources at hand. I'd barely dare write a factual biographical piece on Perón, let alone the much more slippery topic of peronismo. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[end copied]

Perónist propaganda

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 12 for processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There were two essential elements to Perónist propaganda; first, the usual thing that one most associates with this activity: posters, speeches, publications and promotions of all kinds; and second, the practical work carried out by Eva Peron, the President's wife, in the Eva Perón Foundation, the charity she founded and managed, even at a micro-level. It would be difficult to uderestimate the impact of this, and the personal contact it afforded many people with Evita, which was to sanctify her, both living and dead, and, for a time, shore up the authoritarian regime established by her husband. Her work in promoting Perón was also furthered by the establishment of the Female Peronist Party, shortly after women gained the vote in Argentina in 1947. Faithful cadres were sent across the country, everywhere promoting the Perónist message. It was a highly effective, election-winning machine.

Apart from party publications promoting the actions, and more important, pushing the image of the President and his movie-star wife, the normal press channels were also subject to a high degree of control and co-ordination. Opposition newspapers were intimidated into acquiescence, or closed down altogether, as was La Prensa in 1951. Evita also bought her own paper, Democracia, which presented news in an attractive, photo-rich and Perónist light. Radio broadcasts also served the same purpose. Official publications, like The Argentine Nation: Just, Free, Sovereign, were essentially photo opportunities, punctuated by text celebrating the regime's achievments. Others catered for the growing personality cult, with titles like How PERÓN gets it done, A Happy People Acclaims Perćn, The Social Mystique of Eva Perón, so on and so forth.

But the most significant work of all was that carried out among school children, which included the publication of school books and stories like Little Cachito. In this an eight-year-old boy who comes from a family too poor to afford to buy Christmas presents but eventually gets a football thanks to the generosity of Evita and her foundation, which ensures that all the children of Argentina receive gifts, and no-one is left in tears! Children learned to read by pronouncing the names of Evita and Perón. After Evita's death in the summer of 1952 the following little prayer was included in the second-year reader;

Little Mother, who art in heaven, good fairy smiling among the angels, Evita: I promise to be as good as you could wish, respecting God, loving my country, loving General Perón, studying and being in every way the child of your dreams; healthy, happy, educated and clean-hearted. Looking at your portrait, like one who swears an oath, I make this promise to you. Even more, I ask you: have confidence in youe child, Evita!

It was in this area that the work of Perónist propaganda had its greatest impact, outlasting the overthrow of the regime by the military in the 1955 coup. By the 1960s the regime was under sustained attack from radical youth, from the very people who had grown up with the image of Saint Evita and the omnipotent General Juan. Clio the Muse 01:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Wondering if Col.Perons ideals were admired in his time > In other Latin American nations?Thanks!Andreisme (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Know many talk of Peron as a savior to his Counry Argentina

Know That Col .Peon was considered the Savior of Argentina, the "shirtless ones" the workers adored him and especially his wife Eva Peron. But was he really? Did he give the people a vocie though small?Baveriaboy (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to give a definititive NPOV answer to your interesting question, Baveriaboy (whatever the sense of the word savior in your statement mean). It is certainly an open debate for the Argentine society as a whole. The electoral landspcape tell us that around half of Argentines usually vote Peronist factions, while around a third of Argentines would never ever vote a candidate of peronist origins. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The clear facts are that Peronism allowed large masses of people to become a strong political force, whenereas they had little or no influence during previous eras (see the immediate previous Infamous Decade, for example) and upgraded social and labour rights with things that now are commonplace, but in the time were revolutionary. However, this does not necessarily mean that everything else that Peron did was good, much less that opinions about Peron himself can be extended to the governments of other rulers who consider themselves peronists.

By the way, a common mistake commited by modern people that read about Perón is to judge him in isolation. He must be seen in context, and compared with the governments that there were before peronism, and with the ones that took power after the coup against him. Remember that history is not a story, there's never a "begining" (any specific point in history is the product of many other past factors) nor an "end" (whatever is the outcome of something, something else will happen next) MBelgrano (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing socialism category

Do we have any citations to support this? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

We didn't have any in this article. Now we do. All fixed. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You could have read my posts wherein I stated the NYT reference without making asides in edit summaries, ya know. Collect (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll be more direct: you should not have restored that category without first ensuring that a citation in this article supports it. But don't worry, I fixed it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Justicialism = Peronism?

I came to this article looking for Justicialism. Is Peronism the only actual example? Are the two in theory the same thing? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

To my eyes, this article isn't very neutral. It insists with several mentions to "authoritarianism" (even ranking it as one of the "pilars" of peronism through the time, which is a highly inaccurate consideration). In the same way, it deceptively mentions several times the word "corporatism", which has been never or at least hardly ever used by the own Perón in describing his doctrine. It openly accuses him of "subverting freedoms through such actions as nationalizing the broadcasting system, centralizing the unions under his control, and monopolizing the supply of news", making a plain value judgement and taking side. Later, it says "Peronism also lacked a strong interest in matters of foreign policy", as it almost were some kind of Foreign Office of a first world country deciding with whom and whom not a country must establish relations. Because it's false that Perón "was somewhat isolationist". Argentina had a definite and precise foreign policy during peronism, which essentially was aimed at countering U.S. hegemony in the region and in gaining support from other Latin American countries, seeking the "Latin american union" instead of the "Panamerican union". Perón's Argentina had close ties with Ibáñez's Chile, Arévalo's Guatemala and maybe other countries such as Brazil, Paraguay, Perú, Bolivia and Venezuela.

Moreover, it accuses him again of "personally ordering easing arrangements for many Nazi war criminals to be smuggled to Argentina". It is not still definitely proved the responsibility of Perón in these smuggling, at least not at the level of being able to state that he "personally ordered" the refuge of people such as Mengele, Eichmann or Priebke. There was also implication of the Catholic Church, german companies such as Mercedes, and the german community in Argentina. Of course I'm not against it being mentioned in the article, but not in a way that, combined with the other violations of NPOV that scatter on the article, induce any reader to get an inevitably negative and distorted idea of Perón.

The text also cites the opinions of two die-hard conservative and antiperonist men: Supreme Court judge Carlos Fayt and writer Jorge Luis Borges, and you don't know if this is just for illustrating their opinions or as an appeal to authority, since they're not included in a "Criticism" section, but in the description of Perón's policies. Similarly, the text says "Many scholars categorize Peronism as a fascist ideology", and cites James Brennan as the source, and you don't know if it is James Brennan who makes the assertion about the "many scholars", or if Brennan is being cited as an "example" of the "many" who think the same. Maybe there are some other non neutral statements I didn't find, but, I think I can improve this text by making it more neutral and reducing the "antiperonist" bias.

--Franco-eisenhower (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is now relatively short and a quick read indicates it places Peronism as a populism with a broad footprint spanning Fascism to Marxism. In it's current context the above complaint doesn't seem justified so removed the tag. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

--User:rulolp 07:41, 31 December 2011

First sorry form my english, I´m from Argentina and the english is some difficult to me. I agree with the user who write about "neutrality". I took the freedom (before read the discussion, sorry) to change the introduction because it doesn't look neutral, the mention of autoritarism is a read from the oposition side with their own interest. I mention it with other common critics, and added different points considered importants to the peronism. I try to mantain the neutrality. I do not make many editions in wikipedia, so sorry if I broke some rule, I just want improve the article. See you later, bye!.

I would also add Pablo Giussani to the author's reference list regarding Peronism's true nature. ("Montoneros, la soberbia armada", 1984, Ed. Sudamericana). SlP200.68.127.16 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Kirchnerismo

The article adequately outlines the origins of Peronism, and the manner by which it was expressed under Peron. However lacking from this description is a fuller illustration of what Peronism has looked like in recent years. Menem caused a massive economic collapse from which Argentina's economy is still recovering. The Kirchners, especially Christina, have been a very controversial political dynasty and had a very divisive impact on the nation's politics. Additionally, the newly elected president Mauricio Macri is notably not Peronist and represents the growing conservative movement in Argentina, especially in Buenos Aires. In sum, this article lacks a full picture of what Peronism looks like in Argentina today and how it has transformed since its inception under Juan Peron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.isolahenry (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed!

Hi, I came to this article to learn, and while I think it is fairly well laid out I was disappointed to see entire paragraphs without citations or appropriate citations. What's even more concerning though is that there's no tag on this page stating such and the page still has a B rating. In my opinion, I think a warning should be put up that it needs more citations and it needs to be set back to a C rating until it is fixed. Any thoughts/does anyone have any more constructive or easy ways to go about fixing this? Thank you. Kmwebber (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber

Not very good

This article is not very good .

How could any reasonable description of the history of Peronism somehow fail to even slightly mention his return to Argentina, re-election as President, death, or the rather unsatisfactory reign of his third wife as President ?Lathamibird (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peronism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706083051/http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar:8180/publicaciones/bitstream/1/681/1/ES_9_17_1999_pag_91_109.pdf to http://bibliotecavirtual.unl.edu.ar:8180/publicaciones/bitstream/1/681/1/ES_9_17_1999_pag_91_109.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Third way link ambiguous

In the first paragraph, among the defining characteristics of Peronism is listed "A third way approach to economics..."
Third way is a disamb page which lists in part

• Fascism, Nazism and other far right movements often claim to represent a "third way" between Capitalism and Socialism.
• Third way (centrism), or "radical centre", an economic and political idea that positions itself between democratic socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.

Would it be better to make mentions of the "third way" in Peronism link to Third way (centrism), or is this incorrect here? -- Writtenonsand 11:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the right meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so Jmabel :) Third way (centrism) is a movement which tries to superate left-right differences by positioning itself at the center ; in no way does it advocate an alternative to Capitalism ! While Third Position is a tendency in fascist movements which proposes itself as an alternative both to Capitalism and to Communism. If one would have to choose between both, Peron would actually be better in the latter. But this is really controversial, as it amounts, basically, to say that Peron was a Nazi, which is false (despite his acquaintainces with Nazism). I think no linking at all would be best — or, maybe, and I'll do it (reverse me if I'm wrong), simply putting others examples of third way in the disambiguation page (i.e. Peronism, Gaullism, social market economy, etc.) Tazmaniacs 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is for the reader to disambiguate. After reading, I think the first option (authoritarian movements that often claim to represent a "third way" between Capitalism and Socialism) is actually what I would click after reading this article, not the "centrism" second link.

--93.51.235.135 (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Nationalist and populist

After reading the article, I'm a bit confused by His public speeches were consistently "nationalist" and "populist". Either they were nationalist and populist (in which case the quotation marks are not necessary), they were not nationalist or populist (in which case the words are incorrect), or there's disagreement (in which case that needs to be explicit). I lack the knowledge of the subject matter to make a change -- anyone watching this page, please clarify. --Ilya 08:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I see no reason for scare quotes. -- Jmabel 15:07, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, what a fandango this article goes through to avoid the proper term: fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.232.199 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Fascism

The lead should include the notable fact that Peronism is founded on fascism. This does not seem to be disputable, and is quite relevant for readers to be included in the lead. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gobonobo please explain the revert. Are you contesting that Peronism is based on fascism? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It is more a question of whether mentioning Fascism in the second sentence of the lead is WP:DUE. There are NPOV concerns with giving undue emphasis to fascism here. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be undue, given that Peron was openly a fascist? It's a central piece of information, and should be presented clearly in the lead, its very strange this is not present already. Its common for political ideologies to list their foundations at the beginning, and fascism is the foundation of Peronism. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. Fascism is not "the foundation of" Peronism. The national populism of Argentina is quite different from European Fascism and the Peronism of the 1950s is different than that of today. Adding "Ideologically it has been described as fascist" to the second sentence of the lead is grossly tendentious, lacking any context and giving undue weight to one perspective. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

These are not my words. There are many and notable sources stating that Peronism is based on fascist ideology. Following NPOV means this should be included, we can also include what the Peronists self identify as, and notable sources that disagrees with this label. But we should not create any false balance, by non-Peronists the ideology is considered a branch of fascism. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Please observe WP:BRD and stop forcing "Fascism" into the second sentence of the lead. Your original attempt was reverted, but you restored it here. When you were reverted yet again, you restored it again here. The prominence of the claim gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint. Moreover, it is misleading to claim that "Ideologically it has been described as Fascism" without any context or any mention of any other ideology. gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I have asked Uniru288 many times to discuss, but without success, and the explanation for the revert seemed like a mistake. In the second revision, I added a clarification based on your input. Do you have specific input on how to improve the lead?

There are many sources explaining how Peron based his ideology on Italians fascism, and I also provided a modern source from 2018 going into depth of how also this is true in recent years. Not sure why you are saying this is a minority viewpoint? Its a notable viewpoint as several sources are discussing this in depth, and its verifiable. There is a long and complicated history with fascism in Argentina, and it should most certainly be included? I also agree we should add other ideologies from notable sources, but what exactly should be added? Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz The content you reverted is well within this standards of WP:Verifiability, but you believe other interpretations are missing? Can you propose an improvement? The current lead includes no useful information about the ideology, when there are many notable descriptions available, and in the articles body. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pedantic Aristotle: you seem to be openly edit-warring with multiple editors over your disputed addition, without reaching any consensus and then bringing it back. Content dispute aside, this is not appropriate behavior on Wikipedia.

The very beginning of the first chapter of Brennan, James P. (1998), the most easily accessible of the sources you added to back up your addition, states that there is no scholarly consensus on the definition or categorization of Peronism, then puts forward the "three-tiered scheme" of existing interpretations, only one of which is "variant of fascism". What you did instead of stating something similar to the source is cherry-pick this latter interpretation and presented it in WP:WIKIVOICE as the definition of Peronism.

The WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for your addition. It is highly inappropriate to cherry-pick information then shift the burden of making it more neutral on other editors. Your addition should do both in the first place. –Vipz (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm proposing edits actively, sure, but I don't "edit war" content that is being discussed on the Talk page, and I only assume consensus when there is no discussion.

It was not clear to me what you were contesting, so appreciate the clarification. I'll skip the lengthy explanations, but Peronism and Fascism ideologies are very similar, the disagreement comes mostly because it does not contain the typical racist elements, and it includes elements of socialism which is odd. But it was not the intention of claiming it was defined only as fascist, but to highlight it is and has been described as fascist, which is certainly the case.

I'll propose some wordings based on Brennan then. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Instead of actually rewording it (or 'proposing' it as you say, but proposing should be done here on the talk page) according to Brennan, in Special:Diff/1184852085 you went on to imply "national socialism" i.e. Nazism is not a form of fascism. So not only did you not address one highly undue statement, you added another (a fringe one) immediatelly after. Nothing in these two sentences is verifiable to Brennan. –Vipz (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree the wording from Davide King is better, it was not my intention to imply Nazism specifically, but rather include the mentions of nationalism in the ideology. I specifically highlighted populism and socialism, to clarify that national was a descriptive addition. Those were the exact word combinations used on page 4 from the Brennan source;

He goes on to describes two schoools of interpretation, one that "Peronism is a variant of fascism", and the other school with Peronists, conservatives and socialists authors;

"These are the interpretations that on the one hand revolve around the concept of populism (at times National Populism), and on the other those interpretations that can be categorized as a form of Socialism (at times National Socialism), with revolutionary implications."

On page 4 and 5, there is mention of another 5 scholars that support the fascist label directly, and 5 scholars that include it ambivalently. Paul Lewis writes about this debate, and mentions 8 scholars supporting the fascist label (some are the same as Brennan mentions): https://www.jstor.org/stable/2130025

There is a majority of scholars supporting the fascist label, yet the article makes it appear as a fringe label that is more disputed than it is. Many scholars do add clarifications, because its not identical to the typical European version. A large part of the opposition to the label comes from Argentinians and/or Peronists, and its unclear to what extent that should be given precedence. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"There is a majority of scholars supporting the fascist label" is your original research unless you can point to a source that states exactly that (for the entire Peronist movement), and as I pointed out, Brennan begins his book by quoting a scholar who states that there is no scholarly consensus on the definition or categorization of Peronism. Pages 7, 8 and 9 are unfortunately not available for preview on Google Books. Page 11 says this:

"Fascism" and "socialism" can fairly be regarded from another perspective, as the schematic expression of two antithetical tendencies that once attempted to occupy the extreme fringes of this vast and many-sided popular movement.

This is a movement with left-wing, centre-left, centrist, centre-right and right-wing factions that cannot be duly described all as fascist, hence the explicitly pointed out lack of consensus on a categorization/label for Peronism. The radical right traditions of Peronism certainly have origins in the Peronism of 1950s.

Page 17 and 18 have this:

Hans-Jürgen Puhle prefers to speak of an "authoritarian" variant (Peronism until 1955), for example, and another, a "democratic" variant, both being able to occur at different moments in the development of the same movement. [...] The Peronism in power between 1973 and 1976 was not a repetition of the intolerant practices of the period from 1950 to 1955.

Chapter 2 later chronologizes how the perception of Peronism evolved. I don't think I have time at the moment to read this book further and thoroughly, but from the glance I definitely recommend for editors looking to improve this article. I'll try to familiarize myself with the topic more and see whether I can propose a summarized description of Peronism. –Vipz (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of room for improvement. You are correct there is no consensus, mainly because there is no consensus on the definition of fascism. I agree we should simply summarize the disagreements, and stick to what the sources write.

Regarding "There is a majority of scholars supporting the fascist label", you are also correct, that was more a summary of the material I've reviewed, it's not something I've found a source on that we can put into the article. My point was rather that its not a fringe definition, i should rather have said "it is supported by many sources, most of the ones I've found", and it made no sense that this label was excluded from the lead.

As with most political movements (e.g. social democracy, communism, liberalism) they have all changed and evolved since their origins. Peronism originated as something similar to fascist Italy, or fascist depending on which definitions you pick, then it evolved through many stages with different presidents, as highlighted in the article. We are also not even entering the discussion on the violent history of fighting communism in this same period in combination with the dictatorships, which in some cases was agreed with the Peronist government.

The last 40 years of democracy is more challenging. E.g. Menem moved closer to liberal ideas, and the Kirchernism movement shifted things closer to socialism. The trunk typically remained constant, essentially a strong state with corporatist economic ideas and nationalism.

I have limited availability at the moment, otherwise i would have provided more specifics and sources. Thanks. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are some sources describing this in more detail.

"the ideology of Peronism, such as anti-liberalism, nationalism, corporatism and the quest for a new society based on a ‘third position’ between liberalism and communism"; https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc/7/1/article-p80_80.xml?language=en#:~:text=Although%20a%20number%20of%20key,of%20ideas%20after%20World%20W

"Peronism was characterized by nationalism and corporatism, an emphasis on class harmony and the central role of the leader, and the overwhelming presence of a paternalistic state."; https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/argentinian-history-biographies/juan-domingo-peron#:~:text=At%20the%20same%20time%2C%20Peronism,Rock%201987

"before the emergence of Peronism, the Argentine fascist movement was the locus of ideas of corporatism in Argentina."; https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780203730959-13/corporatism-dictatorship-populism-argentina-federico-finchelstein

This source indicates that the origins of Peronist political ideology, which included elements of corporatism, can be traced back to after 1944. The term 'justicialismo', synonymous with Peronism, emerged in 1949, but its ideological roots, including corporatism, were already present in Peronist doctrine; https://www.jstor.org/stable/44484659#:~:text=species%20of%20corporatism,This%20can%20be%20demon Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

On the Italian Wikipedia, this approach was chosen:

"It is a syncretic political movement, sometimes called populist, combining socialism, patriotism, the economic third way of Italian fascism and nationalistic socialism, and ideas akin to social conservatism on an ethical and ideal level."

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronismo 93.45.229.98 (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Position

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it would be more appriopriate to present Peronism as a syncretic ideology. The anti-communist activity of the Orthodox faction is not covered sufficiently. 93.38.68.62 (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message!

The thing is, we cannot have a vibes-based definition on Wikipedia. That Peronism in general is left-leaning is well-sourced.

There is also an ideology quite similar to Peronism, namely Nasserism. It also had socialist and anti-communist factions all alike. Yet it is broadly considered left-wing. Brat Forelli🦊 22:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

that is not true. Peronism is considered as a syncretic ideology. 2800:2502:1:9CCB:FF16:96F9:CD3D:4F92 (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If a movement has far-right factions, even if the movement became an extreme-right one at a certain point in its history, it cannot be a leftist movement. Which on top of that has countless features. It is a completely biased edition. Monito rapido (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not think what you said is true, unless you have actual sources for that.

There are sources for Peronism being left-wing that you deleted. Please stop. Brat Forelli🦊 23:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please, if I want, in two seconds I can find references to say that Peronism is right-wing. Peronism is classified as right-wing, center-left, center-right, extreme right, extreme left. That is why it is clear that it is a third position, catch-all or synthetic movement. Monito rapido (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not seem so, however. The disputed part of the article is backed by 8 sources in total, with each position even including a relevant source - each one classifying Peronism as a left-wing ideology in itself.

If you mean you can find references in two seconds, that is incredible - what are they then? Can you find 8 as credible ones as the one cited for Peronism being left-wing?

Regarding Nasserism and Peronism, my reference to Nasserism is not accidental, as one of the sources does explicitly mention it along with Peronism - Argentina 1943-1976: The National Revolution and Resistance by Donald C. Hodges. And Nasserism is indeed considered a left-wing movement, some right-wing factions developing notwithstanding. So I would say that this idea of "leftist purity" seems to be biased to me instead.

Because this logic is quite circular - then a right-wing movement with a left-wing faction is still right-wing, whereas a leftist movement with a right-wing faction is right-wing and cannot be left-wing? I would indeed like to see a source that argues that leftism has a much more narrower definition than rightism. Brat Forelli🦊 04:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you give me reasons why peronism is leftist? Because the leftt is related to socialism, communism an other revolutionary ideologies. Peronism is conservative, nationalist and catholic, those ideologies are characteristics of the traditional right-wing. Monito rapido (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not about our personal convictions, but simply about these 9 sources that we have.

But as to common arguments, Peronism is left-wing since it was based on emancipation on hitherto marginalized and socially excluded groups in Argentinian society, such as immigrants and the working class. Moreover its nationalism was not of imperialist character, but equite the opposite:

Pablo Bradbury argues that nationalism of Peronism was not rooted in a sense of expansion or imperialist greatness, but was left-wing nationalism that "found its most prominent expressions in anti-imperialism, whether against British economic dominance or US political interference." He also remarked that "Peronism originated in a military dictatorship, but established a populist authoritarian democracy". The democratizing movement within Peronism was significant, as it empowered previously marginalized groups - Peronism introduced universal suffrage and reshaped the definition of Argentinian citizenship and national identity. Bradbury also points to the racist rhetoric of middle-class and upper-class opponents of Peronism, who called Peronists cabecitas negras ("little black heads"), portraying the Peronist masses as prone to criminality, unsophisticated, dark-skinned and of immigrant background. Michael Goebel likewise points to the inclusive character of Peronism that conflicted with the exclusive nature of fascism - non-Spanish surnames were far more prevalent amongst the Peronist leadership than among any other political movement in Argentina, and "even in the more marginal provinces, Peronist politicians often had rather recent immigrant origins." Cas Mudde stated that "it is not an exaggeration to state that [Perón's] populism in general propelled democracy forward, both by encouraging democratic behavior and by enrolling lower class groups and their quest for social justice in political life."

It was not only a class-based (trade union) movement, but there are indeed findings that it contributed to "class consciousness":

Regarding class consciousness, sociologist Susan B. Tiano wrote that in the Harvard Project, a survey of working-class attitudes in Argentina during the 1960s, Peronism was found to be a "a major consciousness-increasing force among Argentine workers." Likewise, Munck and Falcón conclude that "Peronism can be seen as an overall consciousness-raising factor, and the ideological cement for the cohesive and solidaristic social structures of the Argentine working class."

As for Catholicism in Peronism, let me quote Argentina’s Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History by Michael Goebel:

In truth, Perón’s commitment to Catholicism had been less enthusiastic than that of the nacionalistas long before the state–church conflict spiralled out of control. Most of Perón’s references to Catholicism were made in the years before he became president. They related to Christian charity and Catholic social doctrine, but usually refrained from explicitly defining Argentine identity as Catholic. Even in this early period, after which Perón’s positive references to Catholicism waned, he sometimes derived his understanding of social justice not from Catholicism but from the French Revolution and Rousseau’s social contract; an interpretation that collided head on with the anti-enlightenment ideas of Catholic nacionalistas.

But I'm not saying that peronism is right-wing. I'm saying that peronism is sincretic, and you can't only put left-wing. Monito rapido (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I checked your sources, and I am not sure if they really prove much that you wanted to prove, namely that Peronism is syncretic, let alone right-wing.

- First one is El fascismo argentino: La matriz autoritaria del peronismo. Author makes it pretty clear right from the title that they wish to argue for the thesis of Peronism being a variant of fascism. This idea is thoroughly analyzed and described, from both sides of the debate, in the section Criticism of Perón's policies. And some calling Peronism such is already included in the lead. I might say right here that amongst many who argue that Peronism is fascist, they describe it as "left-wing fascism".

- Ideology and World Affairs; a Resource Unit for Teachers seems to explore the same thesis, in fact even calling Peronism "totalitarian".

- Latin America and Caribbean Contemporary Record is a massive book that mentions Peronism 60 times. And in none of these mentions does it refer to it as ideologically right-wing. Do you have a citation?

- Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism by Gino Germani is interesting. On page 126, Germani writes that Peronism was characterized as "classic fascism, phalangism, left-wing fascism, totalitarianism, Bonapartism, a variant of the usual Latin American military caudilloism-authoritarian populism, national populism, Mediterranean corporativism-centered on corporatist and hierarchical aspects allegedly typical of Latin American societies-national socialism (derived from a fusion of right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism), and many others." Germani then rejects all these labels, arguing that "In the extensive literature on Peronism one discovers that it often either lacks any scholarly basis altogether or is based on insufficient or unreliable research in the areas of history, sociology and political science." No judgement of Peronism as right-wing.

- Transatlantic Fascism: Ideology, Violence, and the Sacred in Argentina and Italy, 1919-1945 is by Federico Finchelstein. Finchelstein was the leading figure of the argument that Peronism is a form of fascism, and his thoughts are explained in detail in Criticism of Perón's policies. He cannot really be used to argue that Peronism is right-wing.

- Treasures of War... What is this book? Is this even historical or is it a novel? Look at this writing - [1]

I am sorry, but these appear to be rather random finds - they either touch upon the "Is Peronism fascism?" debate or they do not actually corraborate your claim.

User:Brat Forelli. First, you are ignoring that there are millions of opinions about the political position of Peronism. Second Federico Finchelstein suggests in that book that Peronism is a mixture of far-right nationalism and non-Marxist socialism.

Third, the book Ideology and World Affairs; a Resource Unit for Teachers - Page xviii says that Peronism is right-wing totalitarianism. Here is a reference to put. https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=s9YlAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1961&dq=%22peronismo%22%22derecha%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOz4-I4Z6EAxVnqJUCHc_lA9I4jAEQ6AF6BAgLEAM Monito rapido (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

> First, you are ignoring that there are millions of opinions about the political position of Peronism.

There are millions of opinions on almost everything political indeed, which would make it impossible to write Wikipedia if we assumed that every opinion is valid and/or in need of inclusion. Not to mention that this is MOS:AWW - I am not giving you these unattributed millions, neither do 10 sources with citations.

> Second Federico Finchelstein

Germani and Finchelstein are known as leading scholars behind the concept of Peronism being a form of fascism; I also have source that even single these two people out there. This thesis is included later in the lead, and is extensively described in the section I referred earlier, regarding statements for and against that. And lastly the idea of "left-wing fascism", which further muddles the waters.

> Here is a reference to put.

I looked at the source, and it does have some interesting, uh, statements:

Peronismo, cuya hegemonia en los cuarenta y los cincuenta era fascista de derecha, y en los setenta dio espacio al fascismo de izquierda; y el clásico mundial es la China comunista asuminedo el capitalismo en los ochenta.

Peronismo es el eslabón perdido de una particular evolucíon política subterránea de las masas en el siglo XX. Su historia ejemplifica impecablemente la continuidad existente entre el movimentismo de derecha (fascista) y el de izquierda...

What I see here is once again, not only contributing towards the "Is Peronism fascism?" debate, but also even more uncertainty about the author's take on Peronism's political position, especially as once again "left-wing fascism" is mentioned.

This comes on top of the fact that I also showed how sources such as Treasures of War and Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism are either completely unusable (the former) or fail to confirm your position (the latter). It seems we have given up on defending these sources, and for a good reason - these do appear to be random finds, or rather ones that do not contribute much to discussion. I do question the validity of this whole issue if these sources are presented to me as "proof" and yet prove nothing of sort when inspected.

I find it questionable to present a view based on what appears to be a novel about Nazis and hidden gold (Treasures of War...), or stretch the fascist debate beyond it scope, ignoring the problematic nature of this whole debate itself which claims the existence of "left-wing fascism". This all also comes on top of your earlier assertion that a (left-wing) movement with far-right factions cannot be considered left-wing (this becomes completely circular since a right-wing movement would not be considered right-wing if it had a far-left faction; that is unless political left somehow has a much more narrow definition than the right, which it obviously does not).

There is no question that right-wing Peronism exists (Orthodox Peronism), but to classify the movement itself as such becomes increasingly sketchy, and I did answer your question regarding the scholars' justifications for Peronism being leftist "in essence". I see someone already applied WP:STATUSQUO on us so we should leave it there. I also do not want to enter the accusations of "removing references" since you did it here, here or there. I lastly want to affirm that this page describing Peronism as left-leaning predates my activity here (no, seriously - you can check).

To begin with, those historians you mentioned never referred to Peronism as left-wing fascism. And when an author talks about Peronism being fascist, he is not necessarily from the left or the right (although he is more likely to be from the right). Afterwards you can make all the analogies you want, but your analogies or analyzes should not interfere with your edits on Wikipedia. There are countless analyzes that say that Peronism is a fusion between left-wing and right-wing policies. I asked myself, what is the reason for ignoring these analyses? We are discussing this because a user thought of arbitrarily putting left without consensus like us now. In short, most historians disagree that Peronism is left-wing (they may think that it is right-wing or a synthesis between the two). I don't see any problem, the issue is that you want to leave the article that way even though the majority of sources contradict you (when I talk about the sources I'm not just talking about the ones I included). The article should not be more left-wing and should clarify different positions (which is what it should always have according to Wikipedia policy and what you are delaying). Monito rapido (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The analogies I made are simply responses to the assessments made by you. Unless you want to clarify what you meant, then I would of course apologize for misunderstanding what you wanted to convey back then.

> In short, most historians disagree that Peronism is left-wing

If that were the case, then we would not have statements such as "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. Unlike the right wing ideologies of Mussolini and Franco, Peronism relied heavily on unions and the working class."

> those historians you mentioned never referred to Peronism as left-wing fascism

I disagree. Germani did do that, on page 126, where he lists Peronist characterizations: "classic fascism, phalangism, left-wing fascism, totalitarianism, Bonapartism, a variant of the usual Latin American military caudilloism-authoritarian populism, national populism, Mediterranean corporativism-centered on corporatist and hierarchical aspects allegedly typical of Latin American societies-national socialism (derived from a fusion of right-wing nationalism and left-wing socialism), and many others."

Others also acknowledged or even argued for this term.

This "left-wing" label makes no sense if you investigate the totality of Peronism; I frankly don't understand why it is still up on the page. On the one hand, it surely is rooted in support for state-incorporated unions and social democratic welfare programs, without a doubt. On the other hand, it is also rooted in inspirations from Benito Mussolini and the nationalism associated with their fascist regime, with opposition to a fully socialist economic model, in fact incorporating the business class into its corporatism. In this original form, it's fundamentally syncretic. And yet even beyond that, Peronism exists far beyond Juan Perón; we see its development into Orthodox Peronism and Menemism, indisputably right-wing ideologies who even explicitly rejected leftism, and Kirchnerism, a more social democratic left-wing ideology (still not fully socialist), as well as the Tendencia Revolucionaria Peronista which was indisputably left-wing and socialist. Today, we have both Kirchnerist (center-left) and Federal Peronist (right-wing) factions within the Peronist political sphere, and even within the same Justicialist Party--which, by the way, is clearly cited as a "Syncretic" or "Catch all" party despite being the hub of the Peronist movement. Why might this be?

My point here is that we already have plenty of sources already on Wikipedia articles which clearly demonstrate that Peronism has no single position on the left-right spectrum; it is exactly for this reason that political scientists have struggled with it for so long, that it is a concept working beyond the left-right spectrum. Its variants range from far-left, to center-left, to center-right, to far-right. This frankly should not even be up for discussion, given how well-established this already is; the personal perception of Peronism as merely Kirchnerism demonstrates a weak understanding of the political science of Peronism. LaborHorizontal (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I think exactly the same. But the user insists and insists. I have suggested putting it in the ideology section but he doesn't want to. The truth is that it seems to me that the user should be ignored and the absurd rating permanently removed. Monito rapido (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It is up on the page since it is not a personal assessment, but rather something rooted in 10 sources - these sources do not refer to Kirchnerism, but rather Peronism overall, as something that is "left-leaning" if to be taken as a single ideology. These sources already contain direct quotes, but I can share full context of these quotes, if there is any doubt that they mean to refer to Peronism itself and not just Kirchnerism.

> On the other hand, it is also rooted in inspirations from Benito Mussolini and the nationalism associated with their fascist regime,

That Peronism has right-wing elements is acknowledged by the sources and scholars that classify it as left-wing, and I gave some examples on my earlier discussion with Monito rapido on this page. Indeed, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics by Seymour Martin Lipset notes elements of "right-wing and centrist authoritarianism" in Peronism (p. 173) and then also discusses leftist elements in Peronism. Lipset's conclusion is, however, that Peronism is left-wing overall (p. 176). A different source discussed earlier, Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira, also notes how left-wing populism often contains right-wing elements as well, citing Chavez and Lopez Obrador. This is acknowledged on the article as well by calling Peronism 'left-leaning'.

As for nationalism, what is often emphasized was that Peronist nationalism was anti-imperialist, or at least considered such; Soldiers of Perón: Argentina’s Montoneros by Richard Gillespie notes this:

Nonetheless, anti-imperialism was certainly present in the official doctrine of Justicialismo and as an often-vague and variously-defined, yet highly emotive and generically-unifying, orientation shared by all the Peronist Movement’s principal social and political components. (p. 17)

Argentina’s Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History by Michael Goebel also analyzes the differences between Peronism and right-wing Argentinian nacionalismo:

Another element that was strong in nacionalismo, but absent from Peronist discourse, was an anti-immigration and, particularly, anti-Semitic bias. Among the Peronist leadership, non-Spanish surnames were far more prevalent than among nacionalistas. Even (or especially?) in the more marginal provinces, Peronist politicians often had rather recent immigrant origins. The descendants of immigrants from the Middle East in Neuquén, Catamarca or La Rioja were a case in point. On the national level, Perón’s government included not only many politicians and unionists of immigrant origin, but also several Jewish advisers. (p. 85)

How much Peronism has to do with fascism, and whether it itself is fascist as all, is also explained in detail in the section Criticism of Perón's policies in the article. Brat Forelli🦊 10:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you sources that say that Peronism is right-wing, others that say it is a synthesis and others that say it is a Catch-all party. Enough, don't insist any more, there are different opinions and you can't ignore them. Monito rapido (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You did give me sources, and throughout this discussion (or I suppose several, since you started a few threads here, on accident I suppose), I explained the issues that were there - some are unsuitable as they are either novels (Treasures of War) or travel guides (The Rough Guide to Buenos Aires), others discuss Peronism having right-wing and left-wing elements (note that sources that only say that without explicitly using the word "synthetic" are not usable in this context, otherwise it's WP:OR territory) which is also acknowledged by authors cited that classify Peronism as left-wing (even added that one of your sources acknowledge that it is the case for many left-wing populist movements - Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira), and explained the problem of using sources that call Peronist fascist as unapplicable given that some scholars in this debate argue that Peronism is "left-wing fascist" (Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics); the sources you presented, such as Authoritarianism, National Populism and Fascism, likewise acknowledged this position. I even noted how some of my sources argue that the academic consensus is that Peronism is a form of left-wing populism ("Perón and the Argentine Paradox: An Investigation into an Economic Mystery).

While the 'left-leaning' position is properly sourced with a plethora of sources, I did engage a lot in this topic with you and hopefully shed some light on explaining the views that these sources present and issues that I noticed in the sources you presented regarding this, as much as I appreciate your time. As for the last sentences of your message, I am not sure what you are trying to tell me. WP:JUSTDROPIT? If you just wish to accuse me of 'ignoring opinions' then it looks like this discussion is a WP:TIMESINK. Brat Forelli🦊 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Brat Forelli. That a historian says that Peronism is considered mostly leftist does not make it true. The majority does not believe that it is left or right but rather a synthesis. You can't continue defending the indefensible. I gave you arguments, quotes and I refuted your arguments that were simple analogies of your own (what does it matter if some articles talk about left-wing fascism. When historians call Peronism far-right fascism and nationalism, as is the case with Finchelstein, they precisely call it from the right not from the left). As far as I'm concerned, this is vandalism, removing referenced information is vandalism so I'm going to add back the right-wing references and the formatting that I had given to the page. Monito rapido (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Gansley-Ortiz in fact wrote that it is "universally agreed upon" to be left-wing. You just say it is not true and answer with, well, a weasel word.

I think the problems with your sources were presented in earlier threads (why create 3 separate ones?) and you moved from defending just some to defending none in particular.

Calling me a vandal, or that person reverting your edits before per WP:STATUSQUO, is breaking the fundamental rule of assuming good faith. If you think you can make a believable case of my 'vandalism', you are surely wasting your time edit warring. Brat Forelli🦊 03:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am no longer taking Gansley-Ortiz's opinion as a reference, it was my mistake to use it as a reference, that no longer matters, why talk about a reference that will no longer be used. The reality is that there are different opinions and Peronism "is NOT considered mostly left-wing" so the beginning of the text is wrong because it shows only one part of the opinions and it should be changed. What do you think it should be changed? Or will you continue to ignore the plurality of opinions that exist? Monito rapido (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you mean that you mistakenly referred to it. I see, I understand - that happens.

I do refer to his quote however because what he said is quite impactful - most sources we have on Peronism being called left-wing or leftist are general statements made by authors. They can be chalked up to their views. But Gansley-Ortiz does not do that, he writes: "Peronism is universally agreed upon to be a left wing populism". So he takes it far back and states that the scholarly consensus is for leftism.

So when we say "The majority does not believe that it is left or right but rather a synthesis", we are directly contradicted by Gansley-Ortiz. There is also a problem of other scholars who likewise argue that this is not their view itself but the consensus as well, such as Donald C. Hodges and James P. Brennan. If we can present a user with 10 sources, with direct citations, stating the same thing then it does become a question if it is really one-sided and not a valid consensus.

After all, there is WP:ONUS and there is a need to not overcomplicate this reality and make even fringe opinions worthy of expression either. I do want to affirm that things like "Peronism is fascism" are included later in the lead, though we need to separate it from the left-right dichotomy because of some scholars arguing that Peronism is "left-wing fascism"; heck, I also have a reliable source that affirms that Peronism is leftist, but also with elements that can be described as "neo-fascist", and progressive at the same time. This ends up contributing to the consensus on it being left-wing though.

Lastly, you seem to asked me what I think I should be changed (I think?). Generally I dunno yet, but Obstacles to Change in Latin America by Claudio Veliz argues that Peronism is considered a form of Nasserism. I definitely want to include maybe a paragraph, maybe a section (if it turns out there is a lot of sources on that), that explore this relationship. Otherwise I am also interested in researching the scholars who claim that Peronism is left-wing fascism, because the whole concept of fascism being placed on the left blows my mind. Brat Forelli🦊 17:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are nine references that speak of a synthesis, which of course you decide to ignore when saying that it is a leftist movement. The right-wing factions were apart from the beginning, and for most of the story they were protagonists. Peronism is not leftist even if you look at it from above or from below.

References :

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=D6u7EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOos7IwaaEAxW0qJUCHa6wAXs4ChDoAXoECAMQAw

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=nE5PEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibyP3awaaEAxXyqZUCHT6NDTI4HhDoAXoECAMQAw

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=dKXnc71NpgQC&pg=PA59&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwili6KlwqaEAxXarpUCHSHfANQ4WhDoAXoECAYQAw

https://books.google.com/books/about/God_s_Assassins.html?hl=es&id=gQeLzE60jDgC#v=onepage&q=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&f=false

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=dKXnc71NpgQC&pg=PA59&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing%22%22right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwili6KlwqaEAxXarpUCHSHfANQ4WhDoAXoECAYQAw

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=zn8FAQAAIAAJ&q=El+peronismo+combina+izquierda+con+derecha&dq=El+peronismo+combina+izquierda+con+derecha&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwihxK2lxKaEAxU_rpUCHfHFDsgQ6AF6BAgJEAM

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=BxUXAQAAMAAJ&q=El+%22peronismo%22+combina+elementos+de+izquierda+con+derecha&dq=El+%22peronismo%22+combina+elementos+de+izquierda+con+derecha&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-hoj2xKaEAxXUqJUCHYqXDXQ4HhDoAXoECAIQAw

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=paJoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi655iqxaaEAxU8qJUCHeRECp84ChDoAXoECAIQAw

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Gu1jAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&dq=%22Peronism%22%22left-wing+and+right-wing%22&hl=es&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTn9HFxaaEAxU4pJUCHdiFDzU4FBDoAXoECAcQAw Monito rapido (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here are others who call it a catch-all movement

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=9DwLEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA403&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU4cKew6aEAxVvr5UCHf4ZCxEQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22&f=false

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=i01KDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA242&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU4cKew6aEAxVvr5UCHf4ZCxEQ6AF6BAgOEAM#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22&f=false

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=yctqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PP43&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt0YfLw6aEAxXWrZUCHYV4DoA4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22&f=false

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=1BRNAQAAMAAJ&q=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&dq=%22peronism%22+%22catch-all%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt0YfLw6aEAxXWrZUCHYV4DoA4ChDoAXoECAkQAw#%22peronism%22%20%22catch-all%22

https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=LvcrEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA4&dq=%22peronism%22+%22big+tent%22&hl=es-419&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjky8vww6aEAxX2jZUCHcACCXMQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=%22peronism%22%20%22big%20tent%22&f=false Monito rapido (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and the listed sources. I am also happy that some of them are directly available (given how there are no direct quotes you gave me, but I obviously understand).

One thing that immediately caught my eye is that one of the sources you sent me is The Rough Guide to Buenos Aires, which describes itself as "is the ultimate travel guide to the sophisticated and enchanting capital of Argentina, with clear maps and detailed coverage of all the city's best attractions." While this could be used as a source for articles devoted to tourism, it would not be suitable for political topics.

Another issue is that these sources do say something interesting, that Peronism has both right-wing and left-wing elements. That appears to be an accurate assessment. What is less clear is that we do not have Peronism being explicitly called as syncretic. Visualisierungen des Politischen Homophobie und queere Protestkultur in Polen ab 1980 by Julia Austermann discussed the case of a curious Polish political party Samoobrona. Austermann wrote that it "had a strong left-wing economic policy orientation, but combined this with right-leaning, Catholic-conservative values." (p. 152), but does classify the party as left-wing overall (p. 148).

Of course, here you could accuse me of doing anecdotes. So let me get to the point and point us to the book where this does happen in case of Peronism: Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics by Seymour Martin Lipset. Lipset notes elements of "right-wing and centrist authoritarianism" in Peronism (p. 173) and then also discussed leftist elements in Peronism. His conclusion is that Peronism is, overall, left-wing (p. 176). Even a source you cited, Right-Wing Populism in Latin America and Beyond by Anthony W. Pereira, also notes how left-wing populism often contains right-wing elements as well, citing Chavez and Lopez Obrador. This is acknowledged on the article as well by calling Peronism 'left-leaning'.

Catch-all has the same problem, as it speaks of the movement itself and not the ideology, and we would also have to see how this does not contradict the nature of Peronism as an ideology. The sources shown also refer to Menem and/or Renewal Peronism itself.

> The right-wing factions were apart from the beginning, and for most of the story they were protagonists.

This might be your opinion, and it is an opinion that I would disagree with. Ultimately this is not something that would be productive to discuss without sources that explicitly say that. Brat Forelli🦊 09:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Although you could explain all this in the ideology section and not in the main section. Since it is not a left-wing movement and there are different opinions about it (like the references that I give you). Monito rapido (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

> Although you could explain all this in the ideology section

Right, the ideology section is actually atrocious and only lists "Peronist Tenets" which are after all 'potato potato' and say little without context of what Perón actually wrote and what he also did. I will need to think how to make a coherent section for this though. Probably a collection of statements on Peronism and going through all these sources to see all elements of Peronism that authors list, though then I would also need to mention factions that go against this element (for example nationalized and what Donald C. Hodges called 'non-Marxist socialist' economy are listed as typical of Peronism, yet Menem and Orthodox Peronists were neoliberals).

> Since it is not a left-wing movement

I suppose that is your view. The thing is that we have enough sources to call it left-wing, with some of these sources going as far as stating that Peronism being left-wing is not just author's opinion, but also the consensus. Sources that participate in the 'Peronism is fascist' thesis are not good to prove that Peronism is right-wing since the discussion thing is muddled by scholars here arguing for the existence of 'left-wing fascism', with some concluding that Peronism is this 'leftist fascism' itself. Scholars like Finchelstein note that Peronism has right-wing and left-wing elements, but that is acknowledged by those who classify Peronism as left-wing as well, with the conclusion being that Peronism is nevertheless left-wing (notably Lipset), with others also noting that right-wing elements are pretty typical in other left-wing populist movements as well (aforementioned Pereira). I can find more sources if it would make you feel better about it. Brat Forelli🦊 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.