Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T01:52:32.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Pre-1943 Labor Union Traditions on Peronism*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Joel Horowitz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although in recent years there has been an increasing quantity of suggestive and important investigations of Peronism, little attention has been paid to the continuity between the pre-1943 and the Peronist labor movement.1 This continuity has been neglected despite general recognition that there were important labor leaders from the earlier labor movement who provided key initial support to Peonism and that the pre-1943 labor movement was one of Latin America's strongest.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Latin American Studies , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , May 1983 , pp. 101 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The principal exceptions are the ground-breaking work by Miguel, Murmis and Juan, Carlos Portantiero, Estudios sobre los orígenes del peronismo (Buenos Aires, 1971),Google Scholar and an excellent and suggestive article by Ricardo, Gaudio and Jorge, Pilone, ‘Estado y relaciones obrero-patronales en los orígenes de Ia negociación colectiva en Argentina’ Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad, Estudios sociales, no. 5 (Buenos Aires, 1976).Google Scholar See also the article by Torcuato, S. Di Tella, ‘Working-Class Organization and Politics in Argentina’, Latin American Research Review, 15, 2 (1981), pp. 33–56.Google Scholar

2 See Decreto 23,852 of a Oct. 1945 in Analesde de legislación argentina, 1945, vol. v (Buenos Aires, 1946), pp. 591–6.Google Scholar

3 For a lingering mistrust of paid staff, see Lucio, Bonilla, Instituto Di Tella Oral History Program, p. 52 (hereafter IDTOHP);Google ScholarLa Vanguardia, 12–23 12 1931;Google ScholarFederación, 08 1931. For comments about Borlenghi,Google Scholar see Rafael, Ginocchio, IDTOHP, p. 14;Google ScholarPedro, Otero, IDTOHP, p. 76;Google ScholarFrancisco, Pérez Leirós, IDTOHP, pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

4 Federación, 31 07 1943, 31 12 1946.Google Scholar

5 This is an over-simplification of a complex argument that became increasingly complex as time went on. For the nature of recent arguments on the subject, see Desarrollo Económico, nos. 51, 54, 56, 57 (1973–1975).Google Scholar Also, see Walter, Little, ‘Popular Origins of Peronism’, in David, Rock (ed.), Argentina in the Twentieth Century (Pittsburgh, 1975), pp. 162–78,Google Scholar and Di, Tella, ‘Working-Class Organization and Politics’, pp. 47–51.Google Scholar

6 For detailed and good descriptions, see Louise, M. Doyon, ‘Organized Labour and Perón (1943–1933): A Study of Conflictual Dynamics of the Peronist Movement in Power’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1978), pp. 197–356;Google ScholarSamuel, L. Baily, Labor Nationalism and Politics in Argentina (New Brunswick, N.J., 1967), pp. 71–96.Google Scholar

7 For the nature of the Unión Ferroviaria, see Joel, Horowitz, ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement, 1930–1943: A Study of Five Unions’ (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1979).Google ScholarJuan, Carlos Torre in ‘La caida de Luis Gay’, Todo es Historia, 10 1974, p. 82, makes the same argument that I am making here on the continuity of the leadership, but he does not elaborate.Google Scholar

8 Manuel, F. Fernández, La Unión Ferroviaria a través del tiempo: Veinticinco años al servicio de un ideal, 1922–1947 (Buenos Aires, 1948), pp. 149–61. The job history of these men and those in the unions discussed below are included in my files. If anything, I am underestimating the number of those active at the secondary level, as I have made no attempt to locate activists at the level of the local branches, nor do I have a complete list of all those who attended conventions.Google Scholar

9 Fernández, , La Unión Ferroviaria a través del tiempo, pp. 362–5.Google Scholar For his role see, Unión Ferroviaria, Libros de actas de la Comisión Directiva, Acta 11, 20 07 1931, p. 28; Acta 21, 9 Dec. 1931, p. 28.Google Scholar

10 The dissent in 1942 and 1943 was principally directed by the Communists and the Radicals and had strong political overtones but at least part of the problem lay elsewhere. For contrasting view of the struggle, see La Hora and El Obrero Ferroviario during those years. For a summary, see Horowitz, , ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement’, pp. 458–65.Google Scholar One reason for the continuity may have been the nature of the government intervention. For the intervention, see David, Tamarin, ‘The Argentine Labor Movement in an Age of Transition, 1930–1945’ (Ph.D. Diss., University of Washington, 1977), pp. 292–6. One of the union's employees in 1976 was related to the pre-1943 leadership.Google Scholar

11 He did have some problems with the national confederation of retail clerks, but he was able to overcome it. Juan, Carlos Torre, ‘La CGT y el 17 de octubre de 1945’, Todo es Historia, 02 1976, p. 74;Google ScholarFélix, Luna, El 45: Crónica de un año decisivo (Buenos Aires, 1969), p. 225.Google Scholar

12 CGT, 16 11 1946.Google Scholar For Borlenghi's dominance in the union see Horowitz, , ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement’, pp. 469–73.Google Scholar

13 Horowitz, , op. cit., pp. 490–500, especially p. 490.Google Scholar

14 CGT, 16 03 1947. For information on Gay's fall, see Torre, ‘La caida de Luis Gay’.Google Scholar

15 For the union and patronage, Pérez, Leirós, IDTOHP, pp. 29–30;Google ScholarConceo Deliberante de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Actas del H. Concejo Deliberante, 2 12 1933, vol. IV, pp. 4100–22.Google Scholar For the intervention, CGT, 16 05, 1 07 1946.Google Scholar The ex-Socialists served the union for three years as advisors and then resigned and a strike followed, Doyon, , ‘Organized Labour and Perón’, p. 456.Google Scholar

16 To view a decline of a Communist-dominated unions see El Obrero Textil, 1943–1946.Google Scholar

17 The union was active in the Syndicalist confederation, U.S.A.

18 Francisco P. Ruberto, Alejandro Priotti, Enrique Nigro, interview conducted by Robert, J. Alexander, 2 11 1946;Google ScholarCGT, 16 07 1946.Google Scholar Some of the other unions were ephemeral. For the alternate CGT, 12 07 1946;Google ScholarLa Vanguardia, 12 09 1934.Google Scholar

19 Doyon, , ‘Organized Labour and Perón’, pp. 256–7.Google Scholar

20 El Obrero Ferroviario, 1 05 1943;Google ScholarAngel, Perelman, Cómo bicimos el 17 de octubre (Buenos Aires, 1961), 43–5.Google Scholar

21 It is significant that union men held important government positions that dealt directly with labor. The man in charge of union affairs in the Labor Secretariat in 1944 was Luis Cerutti, a former Secretary General of the CGT, CGT, 1 09 1944. Juan Bramuglia, the lawyer of the Unión Ferroviaria also held an important position.Google ScholarRobert, J. Alexander, The Perón Era (New York, 1951), p. 24.Google Scholar

22 It is interesting that as late as 1 April 1946, the CGT carried an article in remembrance of Francisco Largo Caballero, the Spanish Socialist leader of the Second Republic. It was written by José Marotta, who had been both an official of the municipal workers' union and a member of the city council of the city of Buenos Aires, representing the Socialist Party.

23 Many of the labor leaders had hoped to create a true labor party. See, for example, Luis Gay, IDTOHP; Torre, ‘La caida de Luis Gay’.

24 For an important discussion of the periodization of the Peronist labor movement see Little, , ‘La organización obrera y el estado peronista’, Desarroilo Económico, no. 75 (10/12 1979), pp. 331–76.Google Scholar

25 In José, Luis de Imaz, Los que mandan (trans. Carlos, A. Aztiz), (Albany, 1970), pp. 226–8, it is stated that a significant portion of the top leadership even after 1946, had had union experience prior to 1943. This entire argument is in opposition to what Torcuato Di Telia observed in ‘Working-Class Organization and Politics’, pp. 50–1, but I do agree that more work is necessary.Google Scholar

26 Juan, Carlos Torre and Santiago, Senén Gonzáles, Ejército y sindicatos (los 60 días de Lonardi) (Buenos Aires, 1969);Google ScholarRubén, Rotondaro, Réalidad y cambio en el sindicalismo (Buenos Aires, 1971), pp. 317–26;Google ScholarRubén, H. Zorrilla, Estructura y dinámica del sindicalismo argentino (Buenos Aires, 1974), pp. 206–7;Google ScholarReview of the River Plate, 9 04 1976, p. 473 and 18 06 1976, p. 870;Google ScholarLa Nación, edición internacional, 26 04 1976.Google Scholar

27 See David, Rock, ‘The Survival and Restoration of Peronism’, in Rock, (ed), Argentina in the Twentieth Century, p. 181.Google Scholar

28 For more details see Horowitz, , ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement’, pp. 342–430.Google Scholar

29 Boletín de la Dirección General de Ferrocarriles, no. 1 (01 1939), pp. 40–5;Google ScholarHorowitz, , ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement’, pp. 190–4, 219–26, especially 223–4.Google Scholar

30 The Ley relamento general de los ferrocarriles nacionales. Publicación oficial (Buenos Aires, 1936) is 220 pages long.Google Scholar

31 Federación Obreros y Empleados Telefónicos, Lucbasj conquistas: Las organizaciones telefónicas en el país (Buenos Aires, 1944), pp. 78–80;Google ScholarLa Vanguardia, 14 09 1930. The telephone company was in fact trying to crush the union.Google Scholar

32 See, for example, La Vanguardia, 8 10 to 5 11 1930, 30 01, 13 and 28 02 1931;Google ScholarFederación, 10 1930, 05 1931.Google Scholar

33 La Vanguardia, 01 1932 to 09 1933, especially 6 08, 21 09 1932, 24 07 1933.Google Scholar

34 For the other campaigns see, Horowitz, , ‘Adaptation and Charge in the Argentine Labor Movement’, pp. 228–35, 268–70.Google Scholar The Federación had 820 members in 1932 according to Liga Patriótica, ‘Sindicatos obreros de Ia Capital Federal’ (09, 1932),Google Scholar enclosure in U.S. Embassy, Buenos Aires, to Secretary of State, 13 10 1932, National Archives Record Group 59 file no. 835. OOB/69.Google Scholar The original source is most likely the police. In 1936 the union claimed a membership of 18,489. Departmento Nacional del Trabajo, Boletín informativo, 09/10 1936, p. 4736.Google Scholar

35 La Vanguardia, 8 05 1933.Google Scholar

36 Celia, Durruty, Clase obrera y peronismo (Córdoba, 1969), pp. 95–7.Google Scholar

37 Unión Obrera Textil, Memoria y balance correspondiente al año 1939 (Buenos Aires, 1940), pp. 10–17;Google ScholarEl Obrero Textil, 01 1940.Google Scholar

38 Federación, 02 1937;Google ScholarProvincia de Buenos Aires, Ministerio de Gobierno, Política obrera y legislación del trabajo del gobierno de Buenos Aires (La Plata, 1937), p. 14.Google Scholar

39 See, for example, La Vanguardia, 1 03 1937;Google ScholarEl Obrero Ferroviario, 16 09 1941.Google Scholar

40 Luis, Monzalvo, Testzgo de Ia primera hora delperonismo (Buenos Aires, 1974), pp. 64–5.Google Scholar

41 An important exception was the contact during a strike in 1932 of the telephone workers with Roberto M. Ortiz. Ortiz was elected President in 1938. U.S. Embassy, Buenos Aires, to Secretary of State, 1 07 1932, National Archives Record Group 59, file no. 835.75/13, pp. 1–2;Google ScholarLa Vanuardia, 12–14 07 1932;Google ScholarLa Nación, 12–1407 1932.Google Scholar

42 Rotondaro, , Realidad y cambio en el sindicalismo, p. 370;Google ScholarCarmelo, Mesa-Lago, Social Security in Latin America: Pressure Groups, Stratification and Inequality (Pittsburgh, 1978), p. 200.Google Scholar

43 It has tried to limit union power by lessening union income. Under General Onganía the unions' power in this area had been greatly expanded.

44 A national congress of the CGT felt called upon in 1947 to recommend to its member unions that they establish various social welfare policies, CGT, 16 11 1947.Google Scholar See founding dates for vacation facilities in Ministerio de Trabajo y Previsión, Asesoría de Turismo Social y Vacaciones, Tiempo libre y colonias de vacacions (Buenos Aires, 1956).Google Scholar

45 For a recent review of the literature on such activities in Germany see Gerhard, A. Ritter, ‘Workers' Culture in Imperial Germany: Problems and Points of Departure for Research’, Journal of Contemporary History, 13, no. 2 (04 1978), 165–89.Google Scholar See also, Guenther, Roth, The Social Democrats in Imperial Germany: A Study in Working-Class Isolation and National Integration (Totowa, N.J., 1963), especially pp. 212–47.Google Scholar

46 According to Departamento Nacional del Trabajo, División de Estadística, Investzgaciones sociales, 1938 (Buenos Aires, 1939), p. 119, textile workers were the lowest-paid blue-collar workers in the city of Buenos Aires.Google Scholar

47 El Obrero Textil, 12 1938;Google ScholarFederación Empleados de Comercio, Informe del Concejo Adminsiralivo: Asamblea general ordinaria, 26 de agosto 1930 (Buenos Aires, 1930), pp. 39–43;Google ScholarConfederación General de Empleados de Comercio, Estatuto (Buenos Aires, N.D.).Google Scholar

48 Fedcración Empleados de Comercio, Memoria de la Comisión Direcliva, periódo desde el l0 de noviembre de 1936 al 31 de julio de 1937 (Buenos Aires, 1937), p. 77.Google Scholar

49 Federación Empleados de Comercio, Informe dcl Concejo Adminstrativo: Asamblea general ordinaria, 26 de agosto 1930, pp. 32–3;Google ScholarEl Obrero Textil, 06 1938, 07 1941, 11 1941, 04 1943.Google Scholar

50 See, for examples, Unión Ferroviaria, Libros de actas de la Comisión Directiva, Acta 21, 15 11 1933, p. 37;Google ScholarEl Obrero Ferroviario, 15 01 1933, 1 05 1936;Google ScholarLa Vanguardia, 16 09 1930, 9 05, 20 06 1931;Google ScholarFederación, 02, 1936.Google Scholar

51 El Obrero Ferroviario, 16 11 1941.Google Scholar

52 This was a typical month. For strike expenses, see May 1941. El Obrero Textil, primer quincenal, 07 1941.Google Scholar

53 The Socialist Party was during the 1930s the largest or second largest party on the city council of Buenos Aires. For the nature of the relationship between the union and the government, see Horowitz, , ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement’, pp. 369–75.Google Scholar

54 Concejo Deliberante de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Actas del H. Concejo Deliberante, 111, 28 06 1932, p. 2277; IV, 28 12 p. 4578;Google ScholarLa Vanguardia, 8 07 1932.Google Scholar

55 Unión Obreros y Empleados Municipales, Dtignificando en vacaciones: Obra que debe imilarse (Buenos Aires, 1940), front piece with no pagination.Google Scholar

56 See, for examples, La Vanguardia, 11 10 1931, 27 05 1932.Google Scholar

57 Unión Obreros y Empleados Municipales, Dignificando en vacaciones, pp. 9–12;Google ScholarLa Vanguardia, 8 09 1935;Google ScholarEl Obrero Ferroviario, 16 02 1935.Google Scholar

58 For dues, see Unión Ferroviaria, Memoria y balance correspondiente al año 1942 (Buenos Aires, 1943), pp. 107, 121. For the nature of the union and its philosophy, see Horowitz, ‘Adaptation and Change in the Argentine Labor Movement’.Google Scholar

59 Juan, B. Chiti and Francisco, Agnelli, Cincuentenario de ‘La Fraternidad’: Fundación, desarrollo, obra (Buenos Aires, 1937), pp. 337–41;Google ScholarFernández, , La Unión Ferroviaria a través del tiempo, p. 431;Google ScholarPartido, Socialista, Anuario socialista 1930 (Buenos Aires, 1929), p. 48;Google ScholarEl Obrero Ferroviario, 1 02 1931, 1 12 1937, 1 05, 1 10 1939, 16 02 1942. Libraries were also extremely important in the railroad unions and elsewhere in the labor movement.Google Scholar

60 El Obrero Ferroviario, 16 02, 1 03 1943;Google ScholarUnión Ferroviaria, Memoria y balance correspondiente al año 1940 (Buenos Aires, 1941), p. 37;Google ScholarUnión Ferroviaria, Memoria y balance correspondiente al año 1942, p. 46.Google Scholar

61 Fernández, , La Unión Ferroviaria a través del tiempo, pp. 255–260.Google Scholar

62 El Obrero Ferroviario, 1 03 1939, 16 02 1939, 1 08 1940; 08 1942;Google ScholarUnión Ferroviaria, Memoria y balance correspondienie at año 1942, p. 42;Google ScholarJuan, Manuel Santa Cruz, Ferrocarriles argentinos (Santa Fe, 1966), p. 33. The percentage would have been higher, but the state railroad workers were already covered for hospitalization through a mutual aid society.Google Scholar

63 Besides allowing for subtraction of the dues from the pay of the workers, the government had offered to help finance the building of a hospital. The unions never received the money because they bought a hospital. El Obrero Ferroviario, 16 11 1940, 16 07/1 08. 1943.Google Scholar

64 See CGT, 16 01 1944, 16 01 1947.Google Scholar For information on individual clinics see, for example, CGT, 16 03, 1 09 1946.Google Scholar The rail unions were not the only organizations to benefit. For example, the national confederation of retail clerks received two million pesos to establish a vacation resort, CGT, 16 10 1947.Google Scholar