Large countries develop solid states capable of containing and stimulating the generation of wealth from the private sector. Decades declaring that only democracy was successful, an idea that took the place of dogma, until the Chinese, powerful and Marxist state developed capitalism without changing its authoritarian structure and managed to become the fastest growing state of humanity. Socialism failed in Cuba, Russia and China until the state took charge of leading the collective, authorizing free competition. For some, it will be the triumph of greed; for others, the logic of the reward deserved for the effort. The truth is that private initiative has imposed itself as a fundamental element for the development of humanity. Cuba was a failure that cost thousands of lives in an attempt to expand without even achieving dignified stability in its own land. Venezuela is now an expression of the error whose hardest image runs through the painful exile of a large part of its inhabitants. The State conducts all successful experiences, liberal or Marxist, be it the United States, China, Russia or the complex conquest of the European Common Market. And in all of them the private ones generate wealth, controlled to avoid monopolies and concentrated powers that harm the collective and hurt the very roots of that society. The policy must try to organize a government that promotes and controls, being able to order the private initiative, facilitating the credits and the markets that they need for its development. In a crisis like the current one, in which we allow half the citizens to fall into poverty, a productive project is needed that generates work and wealth that gives us hope for a more dignified future. Starting the discussion with the Justice leaves the feeling of dealing with the problem of leaders and not with the needs and urgencies of the majority. And conceiving the defense of the state or the private as two opposing sides reduces ideas to the times of anarchists against Marxists, lines of thought that fortunately already lack followers. Peronism was a stage that has supporters and detractors. What is unbearable is that some try to blame him for all the evils, forgetting that since the overthrow of Yrigoyen until the fall of Isabel Perón, 46 years have passed, of which they belonged to Peronism and, consequently, to democracy, only 13 in total, from beyond the dignity of Arturo Frondizi and Arturo Illia, both governed with outlawed Peronism. There have been bombings in the Plaza de Mayo, deaths and disappearances, and they are all recorded on the page of the antiperonistas who fill their mouths with honesty while silencing the miseries of their comrades on the road, on the undemocratic side they always belonged to.
Social democracy was for humanity one of the best ways to resolve the conflict between the state and the private. Radicalism and Peronism in our history have expressed the imposition of collective interests on individuals in different ways.. Both were overthrown by coups d’état, at the hands of the military party, a political expression of those who continue to try to justify dictatorships with their family members in courses on ethics or economic profitability. The State, politics, cannot be the result of an agreement of sectorial interests, much less that these reach greater strength than the government itself. The citizen is not represented by any power group or pressure factor, and democracy is losing its meaning at the same time that economic distances reduce the citizen to a dependency that leaves him in questionable freedom and with little freedom.
We have successfully concluded a debt negotiation, now we have a productive program that calls for investment and defends small and medium producers, which launches a system of credits and incentives that at first forces the private banking system to get back on track. at the service of the citizens, which controls the profits of the supposedly “privatized” services that are undoubtedly the main responsible for the current concentration of wealth and the parallel growth of poverty. Beside that, which constitutes the true social drama, talking about justice reform is a senseless and tasteless provocation, not because we deny its evident need, but because we question the absurdity of its location among the priorities of the desperate situation that our needy live.
Today, the real justice that we need to recover is distributive; the other is just a minority problem of guilty consciences.