Among the gross distortions that are suffering on the decade of the sixty to seventy which is attributed to all the activism "thoughts" national "," popular "," Peronist "and a string of ideas copious frozen, very hackneyed by now that militancy that seems to believe that achievement of human rights was the goal for which they gave the lives of hundreds of young and old scores. I remember a dinner companion that circumstance has no qualms about additives to their name the title "nephew" because his uncle is a "famous", correct the word "seventy" calling this generation, the generation revolutionary Peronist " without taking into account that we had invented that strange word "seventy", just to cover an ideological, political, programmatic and highly practical, very varied.
Well gentlemen, among those seventies there was the PRT-ERP, which although not large was all we had hoped, we were several thousand and a lot of talk, and not the national sport of the senseless use words, but it was much what we did, I think this is no doubt.
Well gentlemen, it seems necessary to remind them, including former members of the PRT-ERP itself, they forgot or ignored the PRT-ERP was not for nothing "national thinking", nor was it "thinking people", much less had a reading or Catholic, or oligarchical, or revisionist, or populist, or Stalinist history.
The PRT-ERP was defined itself as Marxist-Leninist concept at that time, replaced "national" by international and multi-class "popular" by the workers classism. That meant, in practice, the subjects were we, the industrial workers' vanguard. " In the Political Bureau of the PRT, due to the tenacity of Santucho of eight members, four were workers of big industry: "I exaggerate? Then there are the names: Charles Herman, Luis Mattini, Juan Ledesma, Antonio del Carmen Fernandez. The others were Santucho, Urteaga, Mena and Gorriaran. Someone tell me if you knew something like this in Argentina, both on your PC, such as the Trotskyist parties or Peronism itself. And in America, well, may be Uruguay, Chile and that may stop counting. It goes without saying that I am not making a fuss about this, just remember how things were. (Because, justice orders, moreover also loaded with some "workers" who will voglio dire!! Better to lose to find them)
is also true that PRT favored a revolution carried out by an alliance of character class and popular. " That is, (and pardon the irony, but it's true) we were not "popular" folk would be our allies. Because the TRP "popular" was a sociological category below the class. Something like today when we speak of "progressive" rather than revolutionary. Besides trostkysta origin, our tendency, led by Mario Roberto Santucho, adopted as a guide Guevarism tactics and ethical content, overcomes the Stalinist nightmare (it does not entail having been vaccinated against Stalinism.)
course, the current neo-populist Peronist home are as Stalinists, I understand, I understand I can not help my sympathy. The idea of \u200b\u200b"popular" gives them a place, the law allows them to be "cutting edge" and not "petty bourgeois" groundless epithet that should suffer Leninist parties of the time. Poor things! We must recognize that Marxism-Leninism was indeed aristocratic, only the workers, and within these industrial-could be "cutting edge." It must be said that the very Santucho not escape this dogma. I enjoy that, because Colorado is the complaint of Vincent's daughter's book of Roby, which relates that Santucho challenged him for not having joined Mattini Central Committee, when he, Santucho, was in jail.
Of course, the PRT-ERP, never believed that the revolution could do only with the vanguard of the working class and therefore had profound tactical agreements with the organizations of origin and also Peronist Montoneros. (That is the "popular") but make no mistake gentlemen tactical agreements and respect their beliefs. But we did not share much beyond the prospect of taking power and launch into a socialist Argentina, as a project yet to be created. That was no small thing, but did not mean that visions we shared philosophical, ethical, historical and class to these sectors. Of course it must be recognized that if history teaches us is stubborn, is that within the PRT were also frequent the "popular", it just looked Campora saw in 73 and only the power and prestige could control the situation Santucho , driving without fuss. Otherwise we would have diluted in a larger group of populists. However, in view of the flirtation with the current government, I see that was more than I thought.
We must be clear. We who follow Santucho, we were not Christians, did not think in the "national bourgeoisie" or seduced us essayists "national and popular" now so fashionable in those days knew only about "lackey" and required him to Cortazar heard "right? If, Julio Cortazar, who returned to Argentina in order to "write for the people." Nor is not the case "compare" Che to Evita, simply because they are so different that they are incomparable.
Our enemy was landed oligarchy and the large agricultural and industrial bourgeoisie, which did not consider "sepoy" but a member of imperialism. In what is now called "middle class" the objective we considered an ally, but he had such confidence that we tried not to recruit people of the social sector, we were convinced that only the working class should be the driver of a process that was national and international as the content, leading the allies to the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie (ie the middle and poor peasants) to the militant intelligentsia and the "urban poor", as we called others said the slum dwellers.
repeat if it is not clear: national in form only, so we were not nationalists, we were internationalists, or a world propiciábamos without borders or flags. We knew some languages, but enough to know that in the Germanic languages \u200b\u200bthe adjective goes before the noun, therefore "national socialism" exactly means in German "national socialism", without national socialism so everything was always Fascist as national models of socialism forms were numerous. .
But above all things, at least on the facts, and perhaps without knowing it, were deeply immanent, ie, we believed that history is made by human subjects by choice, here and now and not on a transcendent predetermined plan from outside, is given God, by Providence or abstract terms. This content is perhaps the most absent today. also did not accept the subjunctive, the "have". We did not believe that if the farmer landowner Juan Manuel de Rosas "had" won the battle of Caseros, the English "have" lost influence in national history. For something Rosas died in exile in England. (Ah, that rare thing, right? His tomb was very close to that of Karl Marx, but so are the exoteric English)
The PRT-ERP studied much history, because history is the teacher of disciplines. The real story learn. But we were committed Marxists body and soul into a proletarian revolution, so that, faithful to that commitment, it is natural that we should seek to escape the influence of bourgeois ideology. And, of course, Peronism, and radicalism, was a bourgeois ideology. Or do you doubt? Do you have any doubts that Pacho O'Donnell is so bourgeois as Romero? The difference in favor of Romero is on one hand he denies it and the other is an intellectual, politically stable and predictable, a highly professional science scholar, not a Type. and therefore his work is more likely to draw our own conclusions.
course, we could not prevent science being in the hands of the bourgeoisie in streams of various shades and interests. "By the way as they are today even in universities alleged" popular "as the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, or even as the Cuban socialist, and repeat the academic models and social practices of universities have emerged of official bourgeois modernity where the use of professional title has replaced the title of nobility "At both the PRT tried to follow the professional historians, knowing that no one is devoid of ideology and reality is always complex. And while we clearly taught by Marx, men tend to respond to class interests, the history also teaches that there were many men who emancipated themselves from the class interests to act in the interests, say, human. Or do you believe that Che Guevara was responding to class interests? For those uninterested are going to find at the University of Berlin, at the Sorbonne, in Havana, in the UBA and may in some cases in Mothers of Plaza de Mayo
How to deciding when to respond or not interest of certain classes? It was not easy, but good advice is to keep the subject's behavior, not words: We must begin to distinguish the practitioners of a conservative, liberal, Catholics, Communists, of mere scribes. The former are obviously ideology, from right to left thinking with their own heads, because to achieve real impact on knowledge should at least control their own ideological prejudices, try to prevent the condition, open to ideas and practices. Otherwise the bourgeoisie had not developed the way science did. Instead these scribes have no ideology, write to order. Follow commands. May be at the request of political power, as the market.
And it is very worrying greening of scribes at this time in Argentina, which seems to be a consequence of the incredible commodification, to which is added the institutionalization of grassroots organizations. I can assure that the latter is not even an Argentine invention, is a Swedish invention. You ask it, how he solved the Swedish social influence of the French May to late sixties. Just keep in mind that soybean yields more dividends to Swedish industry. Then
also applies to follow the action of men in the history Notice: José de San Martín, who was a professional of arms, freed American genius and talent, creativity, political courage, selflessness and, above all, by So after completing their mission, retired into exile without being involved in subsequent disputes. In his memorial of Boulogne Sur Mer says its best tribute, saying: "General Argentino relinquished power" that I know the other one was also resigned to Argentina, Che Guevara.
In contrast, Simon Bolivar, who was a farmer turned general, also had great talent, audacity and creativity to free America, but finish the job, kept fighting and fought to disarm indigenous farming communities, for ranchers. You grip on power by founding a republic which bears his name, imposed by the Creoles, not by Aborigines, Bolivia, dividing that Upper Peru, which was, along with Mexico, one of the most developed indigenous cultures. Accordingly, TRP, was entitled sanmartiniano, as well as Che Guevara, people who did not interest us personal power, but was hardly Bolivarian, the man who destroyed the indigenous community and Upper Peru in favor of a "native" ( daughter read English) and especially landowner "Great Colombia".
course, "sanmartiniano" sounds very close to the Argentine military because they have a foundation that name. Instead Bolivarian seems "more national and popular." Well, sorry, but I will not let me steal the military. All because in effect, the General San Martin was a commoner born in Corrientes, probably the son of an Indian, half-ascetic, rigorous training talented official, undisputed genius, comparable only to the great military history, whereas the other was an aristocratic landowner, known as pompous, linked to the ruling class in Venezuela, and some royal world come to general circumstances.
that the Argentine military to take the formality of the supposedly ascetic aspect of General San Martin, I have carelessly. I did not value people or by asceticism or by the directions. I can only worry about what resources are paid the rumba. But the undisputed merit of San Martin was giving up power after America liberated
For its part, Belgrano, attorney general had to take like not even know how to ride a horse in a country of Gauchos, he did so without hesitation and with unexpected efficiency. He dedicated his life to it, dying in poverty. Can you tell what class interests represented? Walked the same path Monteagudo, Castelli, Moreno himself.
Instead Rosas, who does not need to insist it was a big livestock organized the first "conquest of the desert to reclaim land for farming, repression of indigenous nationalists who systematically forget, even the" popular. " Sure, it was not genocide as Rock, the Indians who surrendered were favored place like feudal vassals on farms that still exist today in certain provinces.
This happened in general seems to have learned from the British to win all wars losing all the battles: Bartolomé Mitre was also a man conspiscuo defended oligarchy oligarchic interests, besides having led the War of Paraguay, action war of extermination, almost genocide, the most infamous in our history. However, on the other side and several other things, Mitre raided by historical discipline. Let's say that as a historian is not a genius, but not much worse than others. Mitre deny the competence as a historian he was a representative of the oligarchy, is like denying the talent of Balzac because he was a monarchist. Moreover Mitre was not so reactionary as Jose Maria Rosa, much less a repentant as Manuel Gálvez, who climbed the tree to the left and down the right. And frankly, gentlemen, if in a matter of ideas force me to choose, I'll stick to liberalism rather than with Catholicism. National and popular gentlemen, you seem to forget that Catholicism has always been and still is - synonymous with reaction. (Priests of the Third World are too recent and few)
Anyway .. what I mean is that the harmful conduct of Mitre as ruler, not as an intellectual disabled. Of it is not advisable to read his translation of Dante because, experts say, is so bad that there was an attempted declaration of war from Italy to Argentina for having offended the Italian culture. But despite that, Mitre has respectable historical texts. For some the banned Videla dictatorship "War of the Republiquetas" Bartolomé Mitre book that Che was in his backpack and Santucho always recommended. The very "Historia de San Martín" Mitre is not the summum of a story, but no worse than others, especially is much better than any written by dialectical materialists attribute the action of our General, that they relinquished power , his "objective" class position, to the point of denying their status almost desiring subject ..
The problem of so-called historical revisionism is rampant in our days by the Queen as scribes scribes of the market, not to their supposed different interpretation of history that would be good, an enrichment the possibility of interesting debates. No, the problem with these journalists, historians alleged that take serials like rabbits from the hat, is the lack of seriousness, unimaginable and gross superficial ideological, bastard historical facts for the sole purpose of justifying the present. It can no longer Mitre he died decades ago.
But also defends the history of writing fills of slapping, ie history is a discipline that cares only because he lives teaching: the revisionists do not understand how they learn. Notice, for example, with respect to British imperialism. Railroads were one of the symbols interference over the English in Argentina, an issue particularly denounced by Scalabrini Ortiz. Well, Perón was a wonderful act of unquestioned historical justice, an act that was worth more than tons of pages: nationalized. Grande Perón, so big that even I erased the names they had put the British (Central Argentine Railway, South FC, FC Pacific, etc ... ..) and gave them national names, yes sir, good national names because they like it or not, these people were born in Argentina: Mitre, Sarmiento and Roca, and of course San Martin and Belgrano also. How do you explain this man who learned from Marx to be a nationalist Jew and always remember to Codovilla walking with an open umbrella on a sunny afternoon, as he explains, saying that General Peron in this magnificent act of historical justice, has christened with names of "traitors" like Mitre, Roca, and Sarmiento, the nationalized railways?
Stop, stop, do not follow invented ... not that the "oligarchy" Perón pushed ... I know I will explain: Why Perón was no revisionist, nor Rosas, nor anti-Semitic, or Catholic nationalist, Perón was Peronist, for better or for worse, Perón was primarily Peronist, and Peron was as free of bias as befits the great pragmatic era. That is a great case of immanence, did his work inspired by the divine or historical significance, but in its immanent will. Also, if anyone knew of history, not just national, but universal, was Perón. And he knew that those people are the major drivers of the railroads.
And finally for now, for better or for worse, "I am convinced that good because I am and always was a convinced internationalist," PRT "of Santucho" was primarily staunchly internationalist and class Guevara. The Populists, who were clearly in error in the PRT, which now bloom generously irrigated by this government have the right to make your own, right to self-criticism, repentance, or whatever they want, just ask that, by silence or omission, not appropriate for this part of history.
Well gentlemen, among those seventies there was the PRT-ERP, which although not large was all we had hoped, we were several thousand and a lot of talk, and not the national sport of the senseless use words, but it was much what we did, I think this is no doubt.
Well gentlemen, it seems necessary to remind them, including former members of the PRT-ERP itself, they forgot or ignored the PRT-ERP was not for nothing "national thinking", nor was it "thinking people", much less had a reading or Catholic, or oligarchical, or revisionist, or populist, or Stalinist history.
The PRT-ERP was defined itself as Marxist-Leninist concept at that time, replaced "national" by international and multi-class "popular" by the workers classism. That meant, in practice, the subjects were we, the industrial workers' vanguard. " In the Political Bureau of the PRT, due to the tenacity of Santucho of eight members, four were workers of big industry: "I exaggerate? Then there are the names: Charles Herman, Luis Mattini, Juan Ledesma, Antonio del Carmen Fernandez. The others were Santucho, Urteaga, Mena and Gorriaran. Someone tell me if you knew something like this in Argentina, both on your PC, such as the Trotskyist parties or Peronism itself. And in America, well, may be Uruguay, Chile and that may stop counting. It goes without saying that I am not making a fuss about this, just remember how things were. (Because, justice orders, moreover also loaded with some "workers" who will voglio dire!! Better to lose to find them)
is also true that PRT favored a revolution carried out by an alliance of character class and popular. " That is, (and pardon the irony, but it's true) we were not "popular" folk would be our allies. Because the TRP "popular" was a sociological category below the class. Something like today when we speak of "progressive" rather than revolutionary. Besides trostkysta origin, our tendency, led by Mario Roberto Santucho, adopted as a guide Guevarism tactics and ethical content, overcomes the Stalinist nightmare (it does not entail having been vaccinated against Stalinism.)
course, the current neo-populist Peronist home are as Stalinists, I understand, I understand I can not help my sympathy. The idea of \u200b\u200b"popular" gives them a place, the law allows them to be "cutting edge" and not "petty bourgeois" groundless epithet that should suffer Leninist parties of the time. Poor things! We must recognize that Marxism-Leninism was indeed aristocratic, only the workers, and within these industrial-could be "cutting edge." It must be said that the very Santucho not escape this dogma. I enjoy that, because Colorado is the complaint of Vincent's daughter's book of Roby, which relates that Santucho challenged him for not having joined Mattini Central Committee, when he, Santucho, was in jail.
Of course, the PRT-ERP, never believed that the revolution could do only with the vanguard of the working class and therefore had profound tactical agreements with the organizations of origin and also Peronist Montoneros. (That is the "popular") but make no mistake gentlemen tactical agreements and respect their beliefs. But we did not share much beyond the prospect of taking power and launch into a socialist Argentina, as a project yet to be created. That was no small thing, but did not mean that visions we shared philosophical, ethical, historical and class to these sectors. Of course it must be recognized that if history teaches us is stubborn, is that within the PRT were also frequent the "popular", it just looked Campora saw in 73 and only the power and prestige could control the situation Santucho , driving without fuss. Otherwise we would have diluted in a larger group of populists. However, in view of the flirtation with the current government, I see that was more than I thought.
We must be clear. We who follow Santucho, we were not Christians, did not think in the "national bourgeoisie" or seduced us essayists "national and popular" now so fashionable in those days knew only about "lackey" and required him to Cortazar heard "right? If, Julio Cortazar, who returned to Argentina in order to "write for the people." Nor is not the case "compare" Che to Evita, simply because they are so different that they are incomparable.
Our enemy was landed oligarchy and the large agricultural and industrial bourgeoisie, which did not consider "sepoy" but a member of imperialism. In what is now called "middle class" the objective we considered an ally, but he had such confidence that we tried not to recruit people of the social sector, we were convinced that only the working class should be the driver of a process that was national and international as the content, leading the allies to the rural and urban petty bourgeoisie (ie the middle and poor peasants) to the militant intelligentsia and the "urban poor", as we called others said the slum dwellers.
repeat if it is not clear: national in form only, so we were not nationalists, we were internationalists, or a world propiciábamos without borders or flags. We knew some languages, but enough to know that in the Germanic languages \u200b\u200bthe adjective goes before the noun, therefore "national socialism" exactly means in German "national socialism", without national socialism so everything was always Fascist as national models of socialism forms were numerous. .
But above all things, at least on the facts, and perhaps without knowing it, were deeply immanent, ie, we believed that history is made by human subjects by choice, here and now and not on a transcendent predetermined plan from outside, is given God, by Providence or abstract terms. This content is perhaps the most absent today. also did not accept the subjunctive, the "have". We did not believe that if the farmer landowner Juan Manuel de Rosas "had" won the battle of Caseros, the English "have" lost influence in national history. For something Rosas died in exile in England. (Ah, that rare thing, right? His tomb was very close to that of Karl Marx, but so are the exoteric English)
The PRT-ERP studied much history, because history is the teacher of disciplines. The real story learn. But we were committed Marxists body and soul into a proletarian revolution, so that, faithful to that commitment, it is natural that we should seek to escape the influence of bourgeois ideology. And, of course, Peronism, and radicalism, was a bourgeois ideology. Or do you doubt? Do you have any doubts that Pacho O'Donnell is so bourgeois as Romero? The difference in favor of Romero is on one hand he denies it and the other is an intellectual, politically stable and predictable, a highly professional science scholar, not a Type. and therefore his work is more likely to draw our own conclusions.
course, we could not prevent science being in the hands of the bourgeoisie in streams of various shades and interests. "By the way as they are today even in universities alleged" popular "as the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, or even as the Cuban socialist, and repeat the academic models and social practices of universities have emerged of official bourgeois modernity where the use of professional title has replaced the title of nobility "At both the PRT tried to follow the professional historians, knowing that no one is devoid of ideology and reality is always complex. And while we clearly taught by Marx, men tend to respond to class interests, the history also teaches that there were many men who emancipated themselves from the class interests to act in the interests, say, human. Or do you believe that Che Guevara was responding to class interests? For those uninterested are going to find at the University of Berlin, at the Sorbonne, in Havana, in the UBA and may in some cases in Mothers of Plaza de Mayo
How to deciding when to respond or not interest of certain classes? It was not easy, but good advice is to keep the subject's behavior, not words: We must begin to distinguish the practitioners of a conservative, liberal, Catholics, Communists, of mere scribes. The former are obviously ideology, from right to left thinking with their own heads, because to achieve real impact on knowledge should at least control their own ideological prejudices, try to prevent the condition, open to ideas and practices. Otherwise the bourgeoisie had not developed the way science did. Instead these scribes have no ideology, write to order. Follow commands. May be at the request of political power, as the market.
And it is very worrying greening of scribes at this time in Argentina, which seems to be a consequence of the incredible commodification, to which is added the institutionalization of grassroots organizations. I can assure that the latter is not even an Argentine invention, is a Swedish invention. You ask it, how he solved the Swedish social influence of the French May to late sixties. Just keep in mind that soybean yields more dividends to Swedish industry. Then
also applies to follow the action of men in the history Notice: José de San Martín, who was a professional of arms, freed American genius and talent, creativity, political courage, selflessness and, above all, by So after completing their mission, retired into exile without being involved in subsequent disputes. In his memorial of Boulogne Sur Mer says its best tribute, saying: "General Argentino relinquished power" that I know the other one was also resigned to Argentina, Che Guevara.
In contrast, Simon Bolivar, who was a farmer turned general, also had great talent, audacity and creativity to free America, but finish the job, kept fighting and fought to disarm indigenous farming communities, for ranchers. You grip on power by founding a republic which bears his name, imposed by the Creoles, not by Aborigines, Bolivia, dividing that Upper Peru, which was, along with Mexico, one of the most developed indigenous cultures. Accordingly, TRP, was entitled sanmartiniano, as well as Che Guevara, people who did not interest us personal power, but was hardly Bolivarian, the man who destroyed the indigenous community and Upper Peru in favor of a "native" ( daughter read English) and especially landowner "Great Colombia".
course, "sanmartiniano" sounds very close to the Argentine military because they have a foundation that name. Instead Bolivarian seems "more national and popular." Well, sorry, but I will not let me steal the military. All because in effect, the General San Martin was a commoner born in Corrientes, probably the son of an Indian, half-ascetic, rigorous training talented official, undisputed genius, comparable only to the great military history, whereas the other was an aristocratic landowner, known as pompous, linked to the ruling class in Venezuela, and some royal world come to general circumstances.
that the Argentine military to take the formality of the supposedly ascetic aspect of General San Martin, I have carelessly. I did not value people or by asceticism or by the directions. I can only worry about what resources are paid the rumba. But the undisputed merit of San Martin was giving up power after America liberated
For its part, Belgrano, attorney general had to take like not even know how to ride a horse in a country of Gauchos, he did so without hesitation and with unexpected efficiency. He dedicated his life to it, dying in poverty. Can you tell what class interests represented? Walked the same path Monteagudo, Castelli, Moreno himself.
Instead Rosas, who does not need to insist it was a big livestock organized the first "conquest of the desert to reclaim land for farming, repression of indigenous nationalists who systematically forget, even the" popular. " Sure, it was not genocide as Rock, the Indians who surrendered were favored place like feudal vassals on farms that still exist today in certain provinces.
This happened in general seems to have learned from the British to win all wars losing all the battles: Bartolomé Mitre was also a man conspiscuo defended oligarchy oligarchic interests, besides having led the War of Paraguay, action war of extermination, almost genocide, the most infamous in our history. However, on the other side and several other things, Mitre raided by historical discipline. Let's say that as a historian is not a genius, but not much worse than others. Mitre deny the competence as a historian he was a representative of the oligarchy, is like denying the talent of Balzac because he was a monarchist. Moreover Mitre was not so reactionary as Jose Maria Rosa, much less a repentant as Manuel Gálvez, who climbed the tree to the left and down the right. And frankly, gentlemen, if in a matter of ideas force me to choose, I'll stick to liberalism rather than with Catholicism. National and popular gentlemen, you seem to forget that Catholicism has always been and still is - synonymous with reaction. (Priests of the Third World are too recent and few)
Anyway .. what I mean is that the harmful conduct of Mitre as ruler, not as an intellectual disabled. Of it is not advisable to read his translation of Dante because, experts say, is so bad that there was an attempted declaration of war from Italy to Argentina for having offended the Italian culture. But despite that, Mitre has respectable historical texts. For some the banned Videla dictatorship "War of the Republiquetas" Bartolomé Mitre book that Che was in his backpack and Santucho always recommended. The very "Historia de San Martín" Mitre is not the summum of a story, but no worse than others, especially is much better than any written by dialectical materialists attribute the action of our General, that they relinquished power , his "objective" class position, to the point of denying their status almost desiring subject ..
The problem of so-called historical revisionism is rampant in our days by the Queen as scribes scribes of the market, not to their supposed different interpretation of history that would be good, an enrichment the possibility of interesting debates. No, the problem with these journalists, historians alleged that take serials like rabbits from the hat, is the lack of seriousness, unimaginable and gross superficial ideological, bastard historical facts for the sole purpose of justifying the present. It can no longer Mitre he died decades ago.
But also defends the history of writing fills of slapping, ie history is a discipline that cares only because he lives teaching: the revisionists do not understand how they learn. Notice, for example, with respect to British imperialism. Railroads were one of the symbols interference over the English in Argentina, an issue particularly denounced by Scalabrini Ortiz. Well, Perón was a wonderful act of unquestioned historical justice, an act that was worth more than tons of pages: nationalized. Grande Perón, so big that even I erased the names they had put the British (Central Argentine Railway, South FC, FC Pacific, etc ... ..) and gave them national names, yes sir, good national names because they like it or not, these people were born in Argentina: Mitre, Sarmiento and Roca, and of course San Martin and Belgrano also. How do you explain this man who learned from Marx to be a nationalist Jew and always remember to Codovilla walking with an open umbrella on a sunny afternoon, as he explains, saying that General Peron in this magnificent act of historical justice, has christened with names of "traitors" like Mitre, Roca, and Sarmiento, the nationalized railways?
Stop, stop, do not follow invented ... not that the "oligarchy" Perón pushed ... I know I will explain: Why Perón was no revisionist, nor Rosas, nor anti-Semitic, or Catholic nationalist, Perón was Peronist, for better or for worse, Perón was primarily Peronist, and Peron was as free of bias as befits the great pragmatic era. That is a great case of immanence, did his work inspired by the divine or historical significance, but in its immanent will. Also, if anyone knew of history, not just national, but universal, was Perón. And he knew that those people are the major drivers of the railroads.
And finally for now, for better or for worse, "I am convinced that good because I am and always was a convinced internationalist," PRT "of Santucho" was primarily staunchly internationalist and class Guevara. The Populists, who were clearly in error in the PRT, which now bloom generously irrigated by this government have the right to make your own, right to self-criticism, repentance, or whatever they want, just ask that, by silence or omission, not appropriate for this part of history.
0 comments:
Post a Comment