Community Service Hourstemplate Letter

THE POWER IN THE 21 ST CENTURY

Argentina was the "financial homeland" but also a nation "just a free and sovereign." Do we have lucid enough to reach the best of terms as opposites, but all the end of the representative of our idiosyncrasies?

I will talk politics but without reference or the politicians or their way of practicing politics. All these players that we define as gross and willful, many of whom love to think of power as inextricably linked to the increase in personal assets beyond the mere sum of its assets.
In quite unfortunate, the younger generation have a false perception of politics from the bad reputation that made the politicians, and especially to witness many of those who came to power in recent years then left with accusations of all sorts. They have not had a chance to delve into the "political" and to become aware that there may be real alternatives to live the luxury of managing what is everyone with a legitimate criterion for management excellence.
And we will not raise the real drama of political-issue of a future post-not because they do not exist or is an issue of vital importance. But you ignore this note to put your shaft in ideology, coupled with the danger of such real millstone around the neck of the Republic called "economics."
is true that PJ is not enough to be an ideology because it was never meant to himself as such, always spoke of "doctrine", a series of concepts that allows more correct deviations que aleccionar, un pragmatismo que trata de aprovechar las ventajas de correr a resolver problemas o a prevenirlos sin necesidad de ajustarse a tantos principismos consagrados como era tan común en los partidos políticos tradicionales.
Fue la ventaja que le permitía a Perón amoldar sus discursos según las circunstancias, las características del auditorio o lo que realmente guardaba en su propia cabeza y que responde a las razones nunca del todo conocidas de los grandes estrategas.
Y también fue la ventaja que permitió al peronismo definirse como “movimiento” y aunar las fuerzas más opuestas para lograr ese reiterado voto mayoritario que le facilitó tantas veces estar al frente del poder.

Where philosopher
about Peronism Peronism, in its original form, appeared as a proposal based on various aspects of fate that have become fully effective:
The focus at the national, as opposed to the whole economy oriented more to benefit the business of the great powers providing raw materials (coincidentally produced by the supports of the Conservative governments, large landowners).
The real importance of the economic, above any ideological attachment-oriented and always pragmatic, both in planning and in recognizing the active role of each of the participating sectors.
The active political role in the scheme that only requires players to handle the issue in the same setting of the strategy. And more is achieved when these players more aware of the interests and the field of opponents and supporters.
value by outlining a new approach to the scheme of world power: the "third position", which appear on the geopolitical scene as a strong pillar of its own internal power.

What about the individual social
What did he do that Peronism that cut in two the previous century, 20?
It had hitherto prevailed certain criteria that said "liberal" managed by conservative politicians whose only interest (based on the aegis of such alleged liberal theories) was his own business with a clear objective: to increase their personal wealth ad infinitum, and wash their consciences "sacrificing" their wives at work "charity" .
"Peronism was fascism, capitalism, a new socialism? Was dictatorship, democracy was a new form of authoritarianism? Of all that is said he was charged, because in fact pragmatism has perhaps everything. It's like parenting: a child may accuse their parents of evil by denying him a treat after hours, or the best dad in the world in a moment of tenderness for the boy everything is measured from its immediate feeling.
All ranges on the left refused to Peronism by a capitalist and promote capitalism. It is absolutely true: Perón never denied, and at most was talk of a "national socialism" that had to do with that strong state that propelled the same: to administer for the Treasury's greatest treasures that should never fall into foreign hands.

In the 20th century was fought as much as the primitive
This aspect seems to hold too rigid principles for liberal thinking, is nevertheless quite wise: liberalism applied to the economy proved too fruitful at times of plenty but be a murderer at the time of the crisis. So many people running together, and all had personal profiting from crises are painful, terrible, pitiful. And the 30 from the U.S. stock market disaster in the world broke in two, impoverishment and showing one of the most tragic side of capitalism.
Crisis, confrontation between powers and world wars with millions killed, tortured, disappeared and impoverished. Those individual lust for power that the Phoenicians were gala, had been murdered the intelligent and refined through capitalism. That through the painful stage of industrialism also won lives of so many dispossessed that first gave their labor to survive until they finished giving their lives (and this is no metaphor, just read all that tragic European literature generated in those bloody times.)
In response, the Socialists get ever stronger and more violent until the Russian Revolution imposed for the first time a mass dictatorship against capitalism by several states to pass up this unique phenomenon so typical of the twentieth century, which called "communist countries", the countries behind the Iron Curtain or legally "Soviet Union."

A third position They were
seemed possible two opposing blocs: the capitalist countries of "first world" and the communist "second world." "The most noticeable differences between the blocks? The individual freedoms, that of the regimentation of life, the misery of the poor. There was little, but faced with something else: the influence on the rest of the world.
When there Peronism, the Cold War was in full view. And then arises Perón starting to talk about the "third position", a clear strategic design typical of geopolitics, but applied to a political practice in all fronts.
liberalism risks have always been exposed face of national crises, external shocks that affect the indigenous economy, or global crises and their domestic impact.
Our recent generations have lived two of the largest at the domestic level: the hyperinflation of the late eighties and the default of 2001, but originated in a club of their own (the "convertibility") that was detectable in the crisis pushes previous Mexico, Brazil and Russia.

Economy "or casino?
must not understand much about economics. Everyone knows that the fate of any strong betting will be the crisis. And the whole blanket structure, promotes or does not face the punters know that sooner or later going to enter the risk area.
A late 20 th century started a worldwide wave of "privatization" that brought promises of revival of capitalism from the creation of "pension fund" means a strong commitment to the strengthening of capitalism from ... small taxpayers. Huge masses of money drawn by law to workers and which were previously the state coffers, went to be saving money for the capitalist ownership structure, and a smaller portion for states. The interesting thing is that these laws are almost always mandatory, with small and unmotivated to continue providing options states. In South America, Chile marked by Pinochet and his business appoggiatura had more significant change: the measure was the backbone of economic growth and this crazy justification for the pillars of the then-vaunted Washington Consensus.
For those who read newspapers in fragments, always must have seemed arbitrary Kirchner measures regarding the AFJP, but you see the fact curb the power of pension funds is, internally, more a measure of tone political than economic. It allows those who want to keep betting they do (and if a crisis occurs Fuck, as in general all bets venture capitalist) but offers a way in which the state will have to give an answer (and if not, you also get screwed ...)

From despair to hope.
What is the conclusion I arrive?
From childhood we were raised to believe erroneously that "there are" solutions. Let us protect our greatest everything. What is more, until we built sponsors who would take care of us if necessary. We have been surrounded by so-called securities, laws, religions and superstitions of all colors to solve each of the collapse of reality. There are even churches in districts whose posters invoked "stop suffering." But no reality shows us every day we live, balancing on fragile glass spread between two towers of forty floors.
The political duty and commitment of this century so cute 21 for other reasons is not deception, this reality show and teach us to fully engage everyone in the work of the individual solution of hundreds of problems.
On Sunday Clarín 16 (page 32, or this link) its correspondent in Italy opens an interesting window on the reality of today in the land of the mighty "euro": 2,600,000 Italian families are experiencing serious economic difficulties. People surgeons reported in the trash and socialist journalism reveals that continued well, will soon end "such as Argentina, (...) and worse." They say the Italian socialists, our bound cousins \u200b\u200bwho stayed there while all his family fled in the last century for us to be born here, a country which by then was a combination of the strongest hopes. All-so far-still quite broken.
A FLIPI.