I read this interesting post http://ezequielmeler.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/peronismo-kirchnerismo-progresismo-reflexiones-liminares/ That I want to share with you.

Any discussion of current experience is, by definition, impossible to repay. In case, the old debate about the new, the not so new and old of Kirchner, as is necessary to clarify some things, no longer a debate underground.

We call it a metropolitan debate, because a hundred kilometers from the capital, lost much of its meaning. Outside the AMBA, Peronism is essentially as thirty years ago showed Mora y Araujo and Llorente, a structure rooted in the old style conservatives and progressives, just a projection of something that fails to embody in anything tangible.

In fact, one may ask what is this thing called liberalism, what experience or experience embodies. There is a chicane, we see that the definition is elusive and rarely leaves her more than a theoretical construct (eg, the "national and popular field") that is not consistent with the performance of any particular political force, identity, party or core constituency.

"We extend the question to Peronism? Vale. Although no strong singularities, Peronism has been at all times the policy synthesis own historical experience of the popular sectors, who accompanied him even when, according to Progressive, the sinking. I always have felt as their own, even in their differences, and it is from there that have resignified its evolution and mutations.

But it is true that Peronism has essentially two very different structures inside of which the Province of Buenos Aires, the failed state is a small scale map. On the one hand, modern areas, Peronism class acquires a profile which, although not completely shun the middle class, maintains a bias inevitably tied to the fate of Argentine workers.

Moreover, in the peripheral regions of the country, Peronism acquires a multiclass fully defined profile, populist classic, which amalgamates the vote of similar coalitions in social terms, which faces. With one difference: the catch all Peronist reaches its peak there. Since 1946, the contribution of peripheral to the quantum of Peronism Peronist vote was not only the most stable, but has even increased its share of the total.

In these areas, the Peronist political machine is usufruct management by conservative and radical-occupied mostly early. The differences between Romero and Gomez Diez, for example, are differences that can not be explained by social background, ideology, program, sociability and perspective: quite simply, shares much of those. But one of the two will never be governor.

Is an intermediate area, the Centre - Coast, where the Peronist watering way means changing in rural areas, lower in urban areas, etc., But does not even have the unbeatable call NOA and NEA, and definitely classist profile cords suburbs. That area was for many years, the expected geopolitical opponents of Peronism: we were told that if there was a negative correlation between Peronism and development, the second naturally erode the foundations of the first. Some may feel that something has happened, but overall the change has been less dramatic course.

What are the contours of Peronism? Can not be reduced to an ideology. Quite simply, the mainstream of Peronism was able to accept both religious education (1946) and divorce (1954), without flinching too.

Nor can we speak of a program invariant, much less a nationalist agenda, as is Peron conservative who recovered from oblivion the very concept of regional integration (at the time, ABC) so that we live today.

Can decompose to Peronism, ideational, component "progressives" and others are not? Attempted. I present my objections. First, the demon of context: what is progressive and in what circumstances is always a matter relative, not absolute. Then, it should be noted that these elements have coexisted, fused and naturalized, within the same political power for at least thirty years. It is doubtful divisible new character.

But more complicated, as Laclau rightly points out, is that the level of ideas appears as a license to practice. Because the ideas, discourse, and all actions are performative politics, while praxis. In that sense, when Artemio López Kirchner notes that "a populist stage of deployment, often contradictory, launched in 1946, then under the leadership of Juan Peron, the phrase must be read with caution, as regards both the general law-that is, the conditions of populism as a form itself of the political structure within a given community, "as to the specificity of the concrete, that we call, yet, Peronism.

Did you finish with Peron Peronism, as argued frequently? It is doubtful that this is: enough to look at the voters, leaders, candidates, to become aware that, even in defeat, remained traits that were typical. The ending was a particular modality of the populist experience, which involved, for the political subject, the need to get an internal governance rule. That was the task of renewal, and its inevitable result was the Menem.

Was a Peronist Menem? If it is judged from an ideational level, at least it was one very strange. But again, judged from the level of praxis, y-axis here deliberately choose controversial, from its social basis, there is no doubt that the answer can only be yes. The Peronist Menem was the solution could be to the crisis in Argentina's post-war society, a crisis that had dragged on since the mid-fifties, and was in frequent deadlocks, bottlenecks, etc. He was also a response to the challenges posed by the legacy of Martinez de Hoz, in a continent beset by debt crisis and its corollary, the failure of the State. Politically, it was a successful response: avoiding the disbanding own similar political formations such as the APRA Peruvian and Chilean socialism, and remained in government at a political leadership that was able, in time, to realize the urgency of unavoidable change.

Because Kirchner, who certainly has a lot to do with the crisis experienced since the collapse of the neoliberal cycle can not be thought of as a process that was born on May 25, 2003, at 11 am. On the contrary, is born when a handful of leaders, many of which, if not all, accompanied Menem experience, begin to take note of its progressive depletion. The difference arises then, the Duhalde-go our condolences to those who seek this source-meets invisible around him to the best tables for a leap to think that society, understood as an electoral majority, was unwilling to give.

It was only after that jump back imperiously, by force of things, that same ruling elite could come, not without stumbling, to the conduct of a torn State. And then, one could almost say that as in 45, the measure of all things passed refound the nation - state, to recover the lost powers and resources, to restore the link between the state and society, in a process not stopped since 2002 to date.

Kirchner, like so many others before him, could dream of leaving a mark different from any predecessor own indelible mark. It was logical, in the context of crisis and political legitimacy of the existing channels, which give such a strategy. Much more logical, to the extent that the process that followed the devaluation was a process of reform from above, formatted from within the traditional policy, but the required dose of reformism to make it viable. It was a reform from above, decisions and vertical, where the party was reduced, in truth, the Government House itself. It was, in short, what could be.

However, to the extent it was successful, that reformism hit limits arising both its success and its own policy matrix, which can be seen in the repeated failures of Nestor Kirchner strategic when forming, in PJ and outside it, its own force. And is that the impossibility of transcendence was inscribed in the very origins of the experience Kirchner, who applied pragmatically prescriptions deemed appropriate to the purpose of reconstituting the social hegemony. Was enrolled, ultimately, in their own historical matrix.

Kirchner Is a progressive or a progressive Peronism? In metropolitan areas that may be government, it is possible that your profile fits that need. Out of them, Peronism is traditional, conservative, pure and simple, as it always has been. And this does not detract, but rather, expresses the asymmetry of a nation which is still too far from having resolved its fierce structural differences. The Peronist Kirchner, on the contrary, it is possible that the government fragmented society, a government that has the signifiers of a vast popular and populist tradition, namely, that began in the mid-forties.

In any case, so we should not think that destiny is written. Will men and women in politics and society who are for Peronism, for Kirchner, and possibly for that indefinable progressivism no specific history, a future potential in our future. O, no.