Argentina: On its knees?
The following essay is simultaneously being sent to several newspapers, and
is FREE COPY for all that wish to publish it. It may also be redistributed
at discretion.
by Alasdair Lean
The time when the Argentine Republic was on its knees is unhappily no more.
Now it is down and out. Quite understandably it has lost all credibility in
the world. It is, we ruefully acknowledge, what you might call corrupt, and
always has been, ever since the colonial period, though never quite so
utterly so as in recent times. It is this corruption that has brought it
plummeting from the heights it achieved up to the 1930s to its present sorry
condition. This characteristic is encountered not just in the government-
although the political class does seem to possess it to an extraordinary
degree- but is also an ingrained attitude in a considerable portion of the
general population. Needless to say, it does not lead to anything good, yet
how do you make people understand this when they are convinced of the
opposite, and attribute their misfortunes to external factors?
Although the country shares some common ground with the rest of Latin
America, it possesses one characteristic that sets it apart from the rest,
which is that it has, even yet, a sizable middle class, thanks to the
enlightened policies of D.F.Sarmiento, that great champion of public
education, and others like him, e.g. Roca, Mitre, Alberdi, etc. It was these
men that, in the latter third of the 19th century, set Argentina on a
civilized course, after decades of turmoil and primitivism. And they brought
it off- or so it seemed for a while- until a series of unhappy events
leading to the appearance of Parón in the 1940s and the installation of
demagoguery and virtual fascism, fostered by elements frequently of Italian
and German origin. Still, Perón, rogue though he was, was but a suckling
babe next to the chappie that ruled this country the decade prior to the
present administration; and it is mainly to latter's offices we may
confidently ascribe the present debacle.
What is the value of a middle class, a class of citizens, in a country? It
is precisely this that distinguishes Western democracies from Oriental
states. Says G.K.Chesterton in his essay "The Sentimentalist": "If it is our
duty to give our best, there can be no doubt about what is our best. The
greatest thing our Europe has made is the Citizen." [...] "Popularism, the
idea of the people alive and patiently feeding history, that we cannot give;
for it exists everywhere, East and West. But democracy, the idea of the
people fighting and governing- that is the only thing we have to give."
The Citizen brings about progress, cultural and material. As well as
producing wealth, he is its main distributor. This distribution has not
invariably been of smooth operation, but the middle class tends to keep the
wheels of the economy turning, if they are to turn at all, providing the
humbler classes with employment. It is also the class ready to spend on the
more intangible goods, like education and the arts, in contrast with the
humbler classes who consider such things pretty much an irrelevance. In this
sense it is interesting to recall the dictum of Schickelgruber's henchman
Goebbels, "I spit on culture." How similar to the Peronist slogan,
"Alpargatas sí, libros no." (Shoes [espadrilles] yes; books no.) Is this
bias not perfectly typical of the fascistic outlook?
The struggle between despotism and democracy continues to be a fact of life
in today's world, and it would sometimes seem the former were inexorably
getting the upper hand, or at least making such encroachments that we should
regard the situation with alarm. Fromm (The Fear of Freedom), Ortega y
Gasset (La rebelión de las masas- The Revolt of the Masses) and others have
seen this crystal clearly, that is, that the masses, avidly eyeing the
outward signs of wealth, gradually acquire the same prerrogatives as the
cultured class, but without sharing the philosophy that begets them, in
fact, even directly repudiating it. Thus you get the form without the
content, which is the perfect recipe for disaster. It is like the man who
sees another's house and, saying "I want that," takes possession of it
rather than build one himself. All this is undoubtedly very schematic, but
it serves as a tidy way of summing up the social process at work in
Argentina over at least a century.
Argentina is possibly the cutting-edge in this long-term struggle. It would
appear the country were unable to cope with the forces threatening to rend
it asunder, forces operating from without as well as within. To be sure, the
economic behaviour of the country has been anything but exemplary, yet a
solution must be found that will allow it to regain its feet and once more
take its proper place among the civilized nations of the world. The present
government certainly cannot be relied on to do anything worthwhile and
effective: besides also being rather corrupt, it is perhaps the most inept
administration we have ever had, utterly incapable of carrying out any
practical measures that might assuage the present ills, which are the most
serious the country has ever experienced. Yet something must be done, for-
and make no mistake about this- if Argentina perishes, it will be still
another light extinguished in the already dwindling West. This is relevant,
then, not just to the country itself, but to the rest of the civilized
world.
It is the middle class that is the principal victim of the stranglehold
being applied on the country. The government, grossly overstaffed as it
always has been, is impervious to all this, blythely plying its
extravagances. Meanwhile the country has been brought to a standstill.
Industry- what little is left- continues seizing up, so unemployment
increases daily, now numbering about 25% of the workforce according to
official estimates. Those underemployed or spuriously employed, such as
"security" personnel (read "protection" rackets) must be at least equally
numerous. Thus there is hardly any production.
The foreign debt now probably stands at something like a staggering $120
billion. Most of this money has never been used for its intended purpose,
but has found its way into numerous private pockets, or otherwise been
maladministrated. The dishonesty exists on both sides, however: does the
international banking system not have to keep its investors happy? What
better than loaning to some mug country, and then just sit back and let the
money roll in? However, servicing such an enormous debt has become one of
the main factors crippling this country. And it is not unlikely it will be
forced to default unless some relief is forthcoming. To do otherwise is much
like carrying on hitting a fallen man. So, who cares? some will answer. But
is it licit to live at the expense of another's ruination? (There is a
Biblical passage I cannot help feeling has some bearing on all this matter.
For those that are interested it is Mt 23.14)
Capital judiciously used should be a blessing to humanity; but the savage,
rapacious brand abroad in today's world is more like a cancer than anything
one can think of: a tumour that devours its host, thriving upon its vital
organs for a time. But expectably the day comes when the organism is no
longer able to support its voracious diner, and so inevitably succumbs, as
does also its unwelcome guest. Who is better off in the end? Where is the
dividend?
Sometimes one wonders if Capital really can function otherwise than by
ultimately sucking its very source dry. Although, when intentions are
worthy, and honesty prevails, any kind of system must work. Maybe it is
precisely in this respect that everything has gone wrong in these barbarous
times. Money employed for the common welfare is greatly useful; that
employed exclusively for the sake of its own ruthless incrementation is
below contempt. In the meantime, though, it wreaks incalculable mischief.
All this may sound naive and idealistic, but perhaps a little innocence now
and again is not such a bad thing.
Some of the measures I think will have to be implemented- somehow- are to
(1) reprivatise those parts of the debt that were previously gratuitously
nationalised (what has been done can be undone); (2) stop all unnecessary
imports, particularly those manufactured in countries employing slave-labour
(for who can compete with them and at the same time maintain a reasonable
standard of living for its own citizens?) In the same way, clamp down on
local quasi-slave-driving concerns; (3) little by little go reducing the
number of state employees, including political posts and the judiciary, once
alternative employment can be devised for them; (4) eliminate the Senate;
(5) eliminate unjustifiable emoluments and pensions at public expense such
as are presently enjoyed by a considerable number of individuals; (6) foster
education, so that it once again achieves the standards of yore; (7) restore
the state-administrated public health system to its former level of
excellence; (8) in general cut down on all unnecessary expenses; (9)
restructure the legal system, so that it becomes effective, rather than the
risible sham it is at present.
Easier said than done, no doubt. If only the people possessed the necessary
capacity and desire to react it would be a simpler matter to carry out the
necessary reforms. This is undoubtedly a complex country with many atavistic
flaws. But to keep on bludgeoning it, particularly those sectors of it that
would be precisely the ones most suited to pulling it out of its crazy
nose-dive, will in the long run be of no benefit to any of the parties
concerned.
Please! no more loans to our irresponsible governments. No more foreign
"investment" such as we have had the misfortune to receive in recent years,
that is, capital out to make a quick buck and then get out again to do the
same elsewhere. This sort of investment is the one we are least in need of.
The Argentine people cannot be held liable for any obligations undertaken by successive governments, which have clearly shown their shameless
disregard for the country's welfare.
