- Adorni and Laje
- Gramsci
- Our Battles
- Justicialist Doctrine
1.
The year 2025 slowly begins, and LLA advances strongly with its agenda, aligned with the influences of Agustín Laje and the cultural battle in Gramscian terms. Between the denunciations against Lali and María Becerra, the campaign against Milo due to his mother working in human rights matters (the so-called “human rights scam” within that cultural agenda), and the president’s evidently provocative comments on homosexuality and pedophilia…
Regarding the debate on REPROCAN, a journalist suggests to Adorni that marijuana consumption is already normalized in society. Adorni, horrified, insists that the system will be reformed to prevent “practices that the law currently prohibits and punishes,” referring to recreational marijuana use. The presidential spokesperson himself shares clips of this exchange on social media. This is the official agenda of the presidency, its weapons and movements in the cultural battle.
Is Adorni an indicator of Argentine common sense? Recently, Trapé stated that, from his perspective, today Fantino represents the ideological center of Argentine politics. This, of course, is based on an analysis of what society seems to express, rather than on what one personally believes or desires. This is undeniable because Milei is currently a democratically elected president. Moreover, his engagement in the cultural battle is openly intentional. At this moment, Laje is teaching a course titled “Leadership in Cultural Battle”—a clear sign of how relevant political theory remains.
2.
According to Gramsci, economic groups act alongside intellectuals who consolidate their influence in the social and political sphere: “The capitalist entrepreneur creates, along with himself, the industrial technician, the scholar in political economy, the organizer of a new culture, a new law” (Gramsci, 1986).
Intellectuals serve as organizers and persuaders, not presenting themselves as leaders but rather as “specialists.” They engage in “subaltern tasks in social hegemony and political governance, meaning they are part of the ‘spontaneous’ consent granted by the masses to the direction imposed on social life by the dominant group” (Gramsci, 1986).
Regarding spontaneity, it is worth challenging how Gramsci conceptualizes what he calls the masses. He describes the existence of a “popular science” of “common sense,” referring to a way of perceiving the world rooted in specific social strata, which has historically deep roots and is stubbornly embedded in the psychology of particular popular groups (Gramsci, 1977). Thus, it is necessary to study and analyze the historical elements of popular psychology and, according to Gramsci, educate them “in a modern mentality.”
What appears to be a coldly calculated method of mass instrumentalization seems to be the training ground for the political movement surrounding La Libertad Avanza.
Gramsci asks whether modern theory can stand in opposition to the “spontaneous” feelings of the masses. He concludes that this is impossible: the difference may be in degree, but not in kind. Rejecting the spontaneous movement of the masses means renouncing leadership over them, “to elevate them to a higher level by inserting them into politics” (Gramsci, 1977).
That which Gramsci would like to include in the political sphere, is a specific feelin, that he describes as: “spontaneous as not due to a systematic educational activity by a conscious leading group, but rather formed through daily experience illuminated by common sense—that is, by the traditional popular conception of the world, something very crudely called ‘instinct,’ which is also a historical acquisition, primitive and elementary” (Gramsci, 1977).
Spontaneity is part of the “history of subordinate classes” that do not consider themselves important due to a lack of self-awareness. When they mobilize, it represents the potential for conscious direction over what is spontaneous, avoiding mechanical spontaneity which is never controllable. It is not mechanical because it does not simply replicate theoretical abstraction; instead, “the theorist must identify in these peculiarities the confirmation of their theory, ‘translate’ historical life elements into theoretical language, and not the other way around, demanding that reality conform to an abstract scheme” (Gramsci, 1977).
3.
The presidential spokesperson is a beacon, defining the segment of reality to be preoccupied with while also establishing an agenda that, though initially dismissed as mere “bread and circuses,” actively shapes reality and will have tangible effects in the near future.
The post-peak period of what is labeled “woke” serves as a reminder of the political humility that must be maintained. Not necessarily from a Hobbesian ontology, but in recognizing impermanence and that the pendulum swings between periods—of better and worse quality of life, of greater or lesser compassion, dynamics that are neither universally applicable in time nor space.
Politics could very well instill fear, as it subtly manipulates threads that may turn reality into a nightmare for those who do not already perceive it as such. Some tactics seem hidden, while others are not. What is happening in Patagonia should concern us nationally, and it is indeed the matter for which the President chooses to pass judgment on famous characters.
The debates on the “Malvinization” of history, the Antarctic map as Rattenbach teaches us, the continuous re-examination of national history, the analysis of Argentine workers’ conditions by Garello, and the defense of Patagonia are the true identity-driven discussions that should guide our focus. It is time to shift away from endless divisions and instead engage in collective learning about the history that unites us and directs us toward protecting our homeland and our people—concepts that today remain fiercely contested. Now is the moment to organize our ranks and reactivate our own debates, extending beyond discussions of public positions in Buenos Aires. We must rise above this.
4.
Justicialism defines itself as popular because the People, the collective, are its supreme objective. At the same time, it is a “philosophy of life,” prioritizing vital values over rational ones, life over reason. Justicialist humanism differs from Renaissance humanism: “Renaissance humanism is essentially intellectual and speculative; it remains detached from the daily problems of the People” (Perón, 2022).
Justicialist humanism is not intellectual, it is not separated from the life of the People, it is practical, concrete, and comes from a comprehensive view of people: in their condition as material, spiritual, individual, and social beings. Perón criticizes Descartes, asserting that the human being is much more than a thinking thing, and criticizes Marx for having denied the spirit. The principle of community is one of harmony between opposites, and this includes matter and spirit, individual and community.
Justicialist thought differs significantly from Gramscian assumptions. On the one hand, it eliminates the division between “homo faber” and “homo sapiens,” that is, between manual workers and intellectuals.
A worker is anyone who performs socially useful work that benefits the community and, as such, maintains active and practical meditation in solving everyday problems: “we must admit that it is from the life itself – thought and action – of the worker, from where the fundamental concepts that drive humanity have arisen and arise” (Perón, 2022).
Regarding culture, Justicialist doctrine will uphold the Aristotelian view that human fulfillment is not possible outside of the community, since otherwise, one cannot overcome the condition of animality. This strongly opposes the individualist view, the selfishness of seeking to achieve one’s own goals to the detriment of others if necessary. The primary call of Justicialist doctrine in the cultural battle is solidarity, that is, acting by considering one’s peers as brothers and sisters.
If the elements of culture are not accompanied by altruistic elements, they will be enlightened elements, cultural capitalists, but not cultured. An uncultured person is someone who does not contribute to the society that has allowed him to develop. “The modern, which obeys the new forms imposed by evolution and current needs, is an idea transformed into doctrine and ideology, which the people then imbue with a mystique with which man tends to surround everything he loves (Perón, 1973).”
For Perón, just as one cannot conceive of a person without a soul, one cannot conceive of a Community without doctrine. It gives meaning to life and coherence to communal actions. It is the foundation of the People’s education: “for us, to organize is to indoctrinate, because doctrine is the only leader that withstands the destructive force of time, and we work for the future” (Perón, 1973).
This is grassroots work, not imposed from above. Reading a chapter during a break, sharing it with a friend, hearing a comrade producing content, and above all, listening to each other. We will continue meeting at the kiosk, challenging and debating, where voices find their space.
References
Aristóteles. (2010). La Política. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Libertador.
Gramsci, A. (1986). La formación de los intelectuales. México: Juan Pablo Editor.
Gramsci, A. (1977). Escritos políticos (1917-1933). México: Siglo XXI.
Perón, J. D. (1973). La hora de los pueblos. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Presente.
Perón, J. D. (1974). La fuerza es el derecho de las bestias. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Síntesis.
Perón, J. D. (2022). Filosofía Peronista. Buenos Aires: Punto de Encuentro.
