Challenge: a stronger Argenentinian Socialist Party

The Argentinian Socialist party was founded in 1894. It was very progressive and moderate, and quite sensible in terms of economic policy.

And it was internationalist, not nationalistic.

However, IOTL they could never penetrate in the deep interior of the country. Their strongholds were the city of Buenos Aires and the city of Rosario. The first socialist governor wasn’t elected till the year 2007 in Santa Fe.

Part of their problems during the first decades of the XX century was that, on the one hand, their natural electors, the urban workers, were foreigners and didn’t vote. Thus, if they had political inclinations, they tend to favour anarchists or anarcosyndicalists who advocated direct actions in order to get better working conditions, without passing through the Parliament. On the other hand, socialists didn’t find a good way to deliver their message to the poor native peasants of the northweast, who did vote. It was a problem of communication: they tended to speak more about European problems than of local ones, and they used a language they didn’t understand well. Finally, the farmers of European origin who populated the pampas tended more to vote for the radical party than for the socialists.

So, their voting base was pretty small: it was reduced to the few urban immigrants who had voluntary adquired the Argentinian citizenship and to the Argentinian-born sons of European immigrants who lived in big cities and belonged to the lower middle class.

But what if things were different? WI, for example, they had encouraged urban workers to get the Argentinian citizenship, telling them than in that way they could get representatives in the Parliament who would speak for them? WI a greater number of European immigrants had adquired the Argentinian citizenship, as it happened in the U.S.? And wi they had managed to get the vote of the small farmers of Southern Santa Fe, Entre Ríos and Cordoba, and of the tenants in the province of Buenos Aires?

Would this have butterflied away Peronism, a movement who has the majority of working class votes since 1946, and has dominated the unions ever since?

If so, how could the socialist party be stronger during the first half of the XX century? By "stronger" I mean not just winning pariamentary elections in the city of Buenos aires as they did OTL, but having several governors elected, and being a serious contendant for the presidency.
 

maverick

Banned
Well, there were two ways in which I thought this thread would go....mindless ramblings about Ernesto Guevara or without a single comment...

Anyhow, to be fair, no matter how awesome they were (and this is weird coming from a rightist because yes, the Socialists had awesome leadership) they never had a man like Peron, an intelligent and charismatic man that was also in the right place at the right time. Something different takes place in the Revolution of 1943 means no Peron, he's sent to Japan in the 1930s and not Italy, no Peron. The conspiracy of 1930 is unveiled and the military staff replaced, no Peron.

Alicia Moreau de Justo, Alfredo Palacios, Juan B. Justo...just not lucky or charismatic enough.

Now, the UCR followed the revolutionary path and became the most successful party of its time, but I doubt the Socialists can replicate that, especially under the Radical Governments. The army and the Governors are more than willing to do anything they could to stop the Red Menace.

A more down to earth and capable leadership should help, especially one less prone to divide itself time over time.

Otherwise, I'd kill Peron, let them keep their half of the CGT and watch them grow in the 1950s and 1960s...
 
I guess encouraging immigrants to get citizenship and getting Peronism out of the picture is the best way to go for the socialists. However, if they get stronger, there would be massive crackdowns against them which would result in a heavier radicalization of the Argentinean society. The "tragic week" would be one along many.
 
Well, there were two ways in which I thought this thread would go....mindless ramblings about Ernesto Guevara or without a single comment...

Well, I've just checked, and I'm surprised to find two comments. I had abandoned all hope...

A more down to earth and capable leadership should help, especially one less prone to divide itself time over time.

Yep, they were a bit two intransigent. The radicals are more like the Catholics (everybody is welcome, even those who have some pagan camuflaged believes). The socialists seem more like those strict protestant groups that would divide themselves for the slightes differences that might arrise and form a new Church. The Peronist were like the radicals, but in much, much, much greater degree. After all, the radicals did split on several occasions, and didn't had both communists and right-wing nationalists in their ranks at the same time!

Otherwise, I'd kill Peron, let them keep their half of the CGT and watch them grow in the 1950s and 1960s...

Yep, that's probably the best way...
 
I guess encouraging immigrants to get citizenship and getting Peronism out of the picture is the best way to go for the socialists. However, if they get stronger, there would be massive crackdowns against them which would result in a heavier radicalization of the Argentinean society. The "tragic week" would be one along many.

Yes. I think that the problem might then be not so much about economic policy, but about stuff like religion, laicism, public or private education and that sort of stuff. Despite the problems Peron had with the Church in 1954 and 1955 (which might have saused his fall in 1955), I think that we can say that, overall, "Peronism" managed to get along with the Church better that how a strong and "ideologically pure" socialist party would.
 

maverick

Banned
Actually, I found something interesting yesterday at the Library...

Turns out that during the first of their many, many, many splits (it seems that the smaller the party in argentina, the more likely is for it to split, just look at the Conservatives and the Communists:confused:) they actually expelled their only actual competent and popular figure, Alfredo Palacios.

So, during the elections of 1916, the first free election ever, the official Socialists got something like 400,000 votes and Palacios got 330,000, meaning the radicals one with some 450,000 votes I think, or 550,000.

Of course, the main socialist list got so many votes because Lisandro de la Torre and the Democratic Progressives told people to vote for them because the DP could not make a list of their own in Buenos Aires.

No, if they hadn't split before 1916 and had kept Palacios as leader, they could have won the district of Buenos Aires and perhaps take some electoral votes in the process.

This could help them grow as a unified front...
 
Top