Table Of ContentAnarchism and Violence
SeverinoDiGiovanniinArgentina1923–1931
Osvaldo Bayer
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Remarkspriortoanexplanationofoneman’stragedy…researchandslovenlyhistory. 7
BackgroundNotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
I.Facetofacewiththeenemy 12
II.ForNicolaSaccoandBartolomeoVanzetti 20
III.Error,crueltyandblindobstinacy 29
IV.Anarcho-Banditryversusdrawing-roomanarchism 42
V.Theanarchist,loveandthewoman 47
VI.TheBandits 52
VII.Thestruggleisalwaysabitterone 61
VIII.ForabsolutefreedomwithaColt.45 68
IX.Thelastbattle 80
X.TheEnd 86
XI.Death 95
2
Introduction
ThebookwearepresentinghereisaninterestingattemptbyOsvaldoBayertoreconstructthe
activities of the Italian anarchist Severino Di Giovanni in Argentina in the 1920’s. It also bears
all the consequences of such a difficult task undertaken with the thorough but limited tools of
thejournalist.
The figure of Di Giovanni has always highlighted a profound division within the anarchist
movement,whichgoesfarbeyondtheboundariesofthespecificeventsinhislifetime.Fromwell
beforetheperiodofhisactivity,rightuptothepresentday,therehavealwaysbeencomradeswho
include the methods of direct action, armed struggle and expropriation in the struggle against
exploitation.Ontheotherhandtherehavealwaysbeenthosewhoareagainstthesemethods,in
favourofpropagandaandlibertarianeducationismalone.Thelatteristhepositionthatwasheld
bytheanarchistsinvolvedintheanarchistdailyLaProtesta inDiGiovanni’stime.Todaythere
arestillmanywhoholdthispositionandwhowouldnodoubthavepreferredustohaveleftDi
Giovanniandwhatherepresentsinrelativeobscurity.
As it stands, this book contains certain defects which need to be pointed out and which we
shallexaminefurtheron.Bayer’swork,however,isanhonestandobjectiveattemptfarremoved
fromthestereotypessodeartothebourgeoispress.Contemporaryaccountsofhisactivitiesfilled
columnsandcolumnsaboutDiGiovanni,paintinghimasabomb-thrower,banditandassassin.
Notonlytheyellowpress,butalsoareasfromwhichonewouldexpectbetterhaveinsistedon
seeing Di Giovanni both detached from the brutal and homicidal reality in which he lived and
carriedonhisstruggle,anddetachedfromtheanarchistmovementofwhichhewasapart.
For example the author to the preface of the Spanish edition of this book, José Luis Moreno,
states,“DiGiovanniwantedfromviolencewhatthebourgeoisiewantedfromlaw:aninstrument
toobtainafinalaimwhich,naturallyinbothcases,weredifferentandantagonistic.DiGiovanni
believed he could fight the bourgeoisie with their own weapons”. And further on, “…he used
his arsenal of war like a basic instrument, relegating ideological problems to second place. For
him,asformanyanarchists,thatiswhat‘directaction’meant”.Andagain,“Inrealityhewasa
romantic.Paradoxicalasitmightseem,andquotingBayer,wewouldsayhewasaromanticof
violence.LoveandViolencearerealends:andforhimtherewerenoothers”.
It might be difficult at first glance to draw a distinction between the proletarian violence of
defenceandtheoppressiveandterroristicviolenceoftheState.Butthisdistinctioncanandmust
bemade.Inattackinginstitutionsarmsinhand,DiGiovanniwasnotusingthesameweaponsas
thebourgeoisie,butthequitedifferentonesofliberationandpopularvindication.Andwherever
did the author of the preface read that Di Giovanni put ideological problems in second place?
Perhaps he could have done better in Di Giovanni’s place, hunted and followed by the police
likeawildanimal,butstillbringingoutnumerousanarchistpublications,includingafortnightly
paperCulmine,andaneditionofReclus’work?Andfinally,whydefinehimaromantic?When
we well know that today bourgeois historiography links this term to the decadent aspects of
romanticpoetics,thoseoutoftouchwithorturningawayfromreality?Tousethistermtoday
canonlyconfusethereader.ThereexistedforDiGiovannifarmorethanLoveandViolence:the
struggle against fascism, the trade union struggle, the struggle for a new society—the struggle
foranarchy.Allwereundertakeninfullawarenessoftheneedtousedangerousmeans,means
whichwerejustifiedonlybytheopenwardeclaredbythoseinpower.
3
To return to the book. As We have said, it is an objective reconstruction far from the sensa-
tionalism of Di Giovanni’s time. The development of Di Giovanni’s activity has been followed
attentively,throughconsultingcontemporarynewspapers,documentsandtestimonies.Fromthe
eventsattheColónTheatretothefinalmomentinthefaceofthefiringsquad,weencounterDi
Giovannithroughamixtureofdistanceandsympathy.Nothavinghadaccesstothesourcesused,
wecanonlyaccepttheconclusionsreachedbythehistorian,andconsiderhisworktobepositive.
Itisotheraspectsofthebookthatgiveuscauseforconcern,particularlythefrequentrecourse
tovaluejudgementsalllinkedtoa‘romanticandidealist’visionofDiGiovanni’srevolutionary
activity.
Itisnotourintentiontodeprivethereaderofthepleasureofreadingtherichnarrativewhich
Bayersupplies,sowewillnotattempttogooverDiGiovanni’sactivityhere.Wedohoweverfeel
itisnecessarytoattempttoindicatethelackoffoundationtoBayer’stheoreticalconclusions.
Forexample,hewrites,“Asaself-taughtman,DiGiovannibelievedintheoryimplicitly.Andin
histragicnaivetehebelievedthattheorywasmadetobeapplied.IfBakuninorKropotkinstated
that, for the revolution and the achievement of freedom, all means are legitimate, Di Giovanni
wouldusethesemeans.”(page37)
ItisinsuchpassagesthatwerealizethatBayer,althoughaconscientiousresearcher,haseither
not read, or has not understood anything of anarchist thought. Wherever did he find the state-
ment that “Bakunin and Kropotkin say that all means are justifiable?” Where did he read that
touseanarchisttheoryacriticallyistypicaloftheselftaught?Wheredidhelearnthatanarchist
theoryistheorymadeonlytoremainonpaper?DiGiovanniwasacoherentman.Itisnottrue
that any means were good in his opinion. He always chose means in relation to the terroristic
violenceofthestructuresofpower,andhestayedonthisroadtotheend.Toaskoneself,asour
authordoes,thepsychologyofhisrelationshiptoanarchisttheorydoesnotmakesense.Faceto
Face with the Enemy, Galleani’s famous volume, and also the title of a section of Di Giovanni’s
paperCulmine,clearlyshowsthetruesubstanceoftherelationshipbetweentheoryandpraxis.
DiGiovanniknewthattheattackagainstoppressionhadtousecertainmeans,buthealsoknew
thattheothermeans—anarchistpropagandaandpublications—wereofgreatvaluebecausethey
serve to prepare the field for active revolutionary intervention. But for this exchange between
theoryandpraxistocomeabout,thefirsthadtobedevelopedinacertaindirection,notbecome
anobstacleinthepathofdirectactionasinthecaseoftheLaProtestaeditors.
Another interesting interpretation of Di Giovanni that Bayer makes is to identify him with
Nietzscheanindividualism.Thisisaninterestingproblem.BayermentionstheGermanphiloso-
pher’spresenceinDiGiovanni’sthinkingmorethanonce.Infacthisinfluencecannotbedenied.
Bayertellsus,“NoticableinDiGiovanniwasthepronouncedinfluenceofNietzsche(insearch-
ingthroughhislibraryinBurzaco,policeweretodiscoverprintedpostersdisplayedonthewalls
and bearing quotations from the author of Thus Spoke Zarathustra).” (page 113), and in a letter
of October 22 1928, Di Giovanni himself writes, “Oh, how many are the problems that crop up
alongthepathwayofmyyounglife,besetbythousandsofwindsofevil.Evenso,theangelinmy
headhastoldmesoverymanytimesthatonlyinevilistherelife.AndIlivemylifetothefull.
The sense of my existence has been lost in that …in that evil? Evil makes me love the purist of
angels.DoIperhapsdoevil?Butisthatmyguide?Inevilliesthehighestaffirmationoflife.And
bybeingevil,amImistaken?Oh,problemfromtheunknown,whydoyoudefysolution?”From
this Bayer concludes, “That tenderness turned to ruthlessness later when action was called for.
Apparentlyhewasawhollyimpulsivemanwhosurrenderedfullytohisemotionsandbehaved
4
asifintoxicatedbythewholegamutofcolours,struggles,contradictions,beauties,generosities
andbetrayalsthatlifehastooffer,whichistosaythatheisatrueNietzschean.”(page56)
Reading Nietzsche certainly makes an impact on many, and probably did so on Di Giovanni.
But to go on from this to define the man and his actions as Nietzschean seems too great a step.
Even the presence of some phrases from Nietzsche’s works in our comrade’s library seems too
modest an element to justify the claim that he was a dedicated follower of the philosopher’s
doctrines. This is a very serious problem and one which affects all the actions of an anarchism
thatinsistsondirectactionand,whilenotdenyingtheimportanceandvalueofpropagandaand
education,accentuatestheimportanceoftheattackagainstoppression.
It is not true that Di Giovanni “acted as though intoxicated by the whole gamut of colours,
struggles,contradictions(…)”.Thefullnessofhisconceptionoflifehadnothingoftheimprovised
violence which confuses itself with the vital force in Nietzsche’s philosophical dimension. We
mustnotforgettheGermanphilosopher’svisionoftheessenceoftheworldandofhistory,nor
his admiration for the ideal of the ‘superman’. In Nietzsche the deterministic element of the
eternal return interacts with the voluntaristic and mystical element of the will to power. These
opposingtendenciesmakethephilosophersayinterestingthingsaboutnationalism,religionand
war;butalsoabsurdanddangerousaffirmationswhichinthemouthsofthefollowersofnational
socialism, have wrongly made him a ‘rightwing’ philosopher. The reading of Nietzsche, as of
Stirner,isquiteadifficulttaskandithasnearlyalwaysbeendonebadly.Butthereexistsaclear
division between Di Giovanni’s reading of Nietzsche and his revolutionary anarchist activity.
The voluntaristic aspect of his activity never aimed at creating a myth or of tracing the model
of the ‘superman’. He always bore in mind a precise situation of struggle, one which emerged
fromclassexploitationandfascistoppression.Thissituationwascontinuallybeingverifiedona
theoreticallevelinhispaperCulmine.
Oneshouldnotbemisledbythefloweryandoverflowingprosethatwasoncequitecommon
amonglibertarianwritersofthetime(Galleaniisoneexample).Whenhesaysthat“onlyinevilis
therelife”,theliteraryreferencerelatesdirectlytoacontradictionthatisquiteevidentinaman
who has chosen the road of the ‘outsider’. If the bourgeois dimension of life is what everyone
defines ‘good’, then only in ‘evil’ is there true life, only in breaking the circle of hypocrisy and
false love of good is it possible to find a different, more essential good, the only one capable of
foundingthesocietyoftomorrowthroughthepainandsufferingoftoday.Eveninhisrelation-
ship with the very young comrade Josefina is he aware that, from the bourgeois point of view,
hisactioncouldbecondemnedandconsideredevil:butwhatifitispreciselythisevilthatmakes
him feel he is right and affirming life? Then there is nothing left to do than to put words aside,
lookrealityintheface,andact.
Andsowecometothethirdproblemwhichemergesfromreadingthisbook:thatofterrorism.
Once again Bayer gives way to value judgements and loses himself in absurd, unfounded state-
ments:“DiGiovanniwasanillstarredhero,ayoungmanwhotookseriouslyeverythingwhich
thetextsofhisideologytoldhim.Thatideology,asheinterpretedit,canshiftfromgoodnessand
respectforhumanlifeineverycircumstance,tothemostdesperateandviolentactionexplained
awaybyanidealthatseekstosecureabsolutelibertyforall.”(page228).Itisthereforeindispens-
ablethatthereaderbearinmindBayer’sabsolutelackofunderstandingastowhatanarchismis
andwhat,infact,DiGiovanni’sactionsmean.
Butourproblemisalittledifferent.Alongwithhiscomrades,DiGiovannicarriedoutactions
which are normally defined ‘terrorist’. He himself wrote, “In the eternal struggle against the
5
Stateanditsprops,theanarchistwhoisfullyalivetohisfunctionandhisrebelliousnesswhich
arise out of the ideal which he professes and out of his conception of action, cannot very often
foresee that the avalanche which he will shortly bring tumbling down the hillside will trap his
neighbour’stail…thisneighbourwhoisabsorbedincontemplationoftheheavens.”(page65)
Firstofallitneedstobesaidclearlywhatterrorismis.Statepropagandabytheusualservants
in the pay of the bourgeois press has always described as terrorism actions by individuals or
groupsagainstthoseresponsibleforexploitation,againstproperty,Stateinstitutionsandconsti-
tutedorder.Theotherterrorism,therealterrorismcarriedoutbytheStatedirectlyusingthearmy
inwar,orbythebossesattheworkplace,hasneverbeenconsideredterrorism.Thethousandsof
workerskilledormaimedeveryyearinthiscountryalone.Thepoisonedsweets,hallucinogenic
gases,defoliantsandeverykindofbacteriologicalarmperfectedinVietnam,nowthepatrimony
ofallthewarmongeringStates.InDiGiovanni’stimethefavouritesportoftheArgentinianbour-
geoisiewas‘hunting’intheTierradelFuego,duringwhichthenativesoftheforestswereshot
dead.Thesamepeoplewhoshotthose‘savages’incoldbloodforthepleasureofthehunt,were
the most vigorous in condemning Di Giovanni’s actions. Evidently when terrorism is practised
againstothersitdoesnotdisturbthedelicatepalateofthebourgeoisie.Butwhenthethreatofit
appearsneartohome,thentheiropinionchanges.
Itisrightthereforethatwhenwespeakofrepressiveviolencethatweshouldspeakofterror-
ism,butwhenspeakingoftheviolenceoftheexploitedintheirowndefence,theuseoftheterm
becomesthecauseofmisunderstandingandlong,pointlessdiscussions.
And Di Giovanni’s actions were never violent for the sake of it. They were never indiscrimi-
natelyappliedtocreateatensionthatwouldonlyfavourpoweranditspoliticsofconsolidation.
Di Giovanni’s actions were always guided by a precise revolutionary reasoning: to strike the
centres of power with punitive actions that find their justification in the State’s violence, and
which were aimed at pushing the mass towards a revolutionary objective. Di Giovanni always
tookaccountofthesituationofthemass,eventhoughhewasoftenaccusedofnothavingdone
so.Hewasalsoaccusedofhavingcontributedtotherepressionunleashedagainsttheanarchist
movement.Infactsuchanaccusationisnotpossible.Policerepressiononlykillsarevolutionary
movementifitisalreadydeadinitsmostessentialcomponent,theattackagainstpower.Inother
words, if a revolutionary movement in a social democratic situation deludes itself that it exists
only because it vegetates in the shadow of governmental tolerance, it is logical that a wave of
repressionwillalwaysendupdestroyingit.Butinfactthisrepressiononlykillsalifelesscorpse,
one that deluded itself that it was alive because, like a vegetable, it threw out a few seeds or
generated a number of groups who spread nothing but opinions. It is necessary to interpret Di
Giovanni’sactivityanditsrelationshipwiththeArgentiniananarchistmovementinthiscontext.
Last,itisnecessarytosaysomethingaboutthepossible‘accidents’whicheveryrevolutionary
musttry,asfaraspossibletoavoidinthecourseoftheattackagainstpower.These‘accidents’are
alwaysquitedeplorablebecausetheyareseeninanegativelightbythemassoftheexploited,and
because they endanger the lives of people who, taken individually, are not responsible for one
particularactofrepression.Butwhentheviolentact,decidedbyamilitantorgroupofmilitants,
is carried out with opportune analysis and guarantee; when its political opportunity has been
considered and it is carried out with the maximum possibility of comprehension by the mass;
andthemilitantorgrouparereallypartofthearmedminorityoftheexploited:theniftheaction
causesan‘accident’andsomeonediesduringthecourseofit,wecannotcondemntheactionand
thecomradeswhocarrieditout.
6
In any case, even when we don’t agree with a particular action and criticism seems justified,
we must always bear in mind that our criticism cannot go beyond that particular action. To go
on to draw general principles from it—however logical they might seem—is always gratuitous
anddangerousfromarevolutionarypointofview.
ManyseriousargumentsaboutDiGiovanniwouldnotmakesenseifthecomradeswhotook
partinthem,inthepastasstilltoday,hadnotstartedoffwithmisconceptionsaboutthefunction
andaimsofrevolutionaryaction.OsvaldoBayer’sbookcansupplyakeytounderstandingthis
problem within the limits of the events he relates and the documents he produces—but it must
beusedwithcare.
AlfredoM.Bonanno
JeanWeir
Remarks prior to an explanation of one man’s tragedy… research and
slovenly history.
WhenFelixLunaputittomethatIshouldprepareapieceontheanarchistpistoleros forthe
historicalmagazinethatheedited,Ifeltnoneoftheenthusiasmwithwhich,onotheroccasions,
I have relished the thought of exploring this or that subject. This, I believed, would be too dry
andcrude,merecrimereportageinvolvingpersonalitiesalmosttailor-madeforjournalisticsen-
sationalism. It would serve no useful purpose except to boost the image of some able inspector
orpolicechief.
AtthattimeIknewlittleornothingaboutSeverinoDiGiovanni,asidefromapieceIhadread
inafashionableweekly.Theauthorofthathadnotbotheredeventoconsultpolicestatementsin
thecontemporarypress.The‘facts’assetoutweresoinaccuratethatthewriterhimselfbecame
befuddled and wrote that Rosario is the capital of the province of Santa Fe. Since then I have
read occasional crime articles or histories of crime and hold-ups, simply bulging with mistakes
(inaccuratedatesandplaces,themisattributionofresponsibilities)andquiteevidentlywrittenon
thebasisofclippingsfromearliernewspaperreports,whoseauthorshadwrittenfrommemory
orhearsay,avoidinganyrigorousinvestigation.
Pressarticlesofthatsort(thesortstillwrittentodaywhenthewriterhasnotime,novocation
andnointerestininvestigativereporting)areperhapslesstobecriticisedfortheirfailingssince
theyareunsigned—althoughtheydoincalculableharm.Whatcannotbeexcusedisthatmistakes
ofthissortshouldberepeatedinbookswhichbearanauthor’sby-line,bookswrittenbyauthors
whocommandwidepublicreadership.
Forexample,oneofthosewhohaveoflatedonemosttomisrepresentthefigureofSeverinoDi
GiovanniisErnestoSabato.Misrepresentinghimisaseasyasdressinghimupinasilkshirt.In
hisbookSobreytumbas,Sabatosays:“ForIsawmanysuchcriollosintheanarchistsyndicatesof
theportoronthewharfswheretherefrigerationshipsweremoored.Amongthemwasacertain
Vallejos who died of starvation on the streets and in whose pocket the police had discovered
while searching him, a 100 peso note. They asked why he went hungry when he had so much
money.Withserenedignity,heansweredthem,“Because,gentlemen,thismoneybelongstothe
union”.Yes,therewereanarchistscutofthesameclothasVallejos.Justastherewereothers,too,
7
of the type of Di Giovanni who, although he published the complete works of Reclus with the
proceeds of his hold-ups, also decked himself out in silk shirts to the end of his days; whereas
pistoleroslikeAscasoorDurruti,menofausterityandsincerityuptothemomenttheyfelldead
by their machine-guns during the Spanish Civil War, never held back a single centavo of the
proceedsfromtheirhold-upsfortheirpersonalneeds…”
ThebitaboutDiGiovanni’ssilkshirtscamefromawitticismbyinspectorGaribotto,thehead
ofthepoliticalpolice.Naturallyhiswordsweretakenupbyallthecrimereportersofthepress
ofthatday.ButneitherDiGiovanni’sfriends,norhisfoes,afterasearchofhiswardrobeinthe
villa in Burzaco and of his person upon his admission to prison had anything to say about silk
shirts.Hisonlyaffectationduringhislifewastoweararatherfloppyandbroad-brimmedblack
soft hat which he had purchased in El buen gusto, the store run by the Torres brothers at 199
AsambleaStreet.
Of course, it is all very well for a novelist to resort to improvisation and declare that Di Gio-
vanniusedtowearsilkshirts.ItbringstomindtheCríticareporterwho,inanefforttoexaggerate
thistit-bitandmakeitmorenews-worthyattributedtotheanarchistthewearingof“silkunder-
wear”.Oralloftheotherswhodeckedhisfingerswithjewelsandhiswristwithpricelessgold
watchesandsparklingbracelets.Thepolicesheet(showntothejudge,butnotpublicisedbythe
Press)liststheratherdisappointingbootyfoundonthecapturedanarchist.“…awhitepropelling
pencil, a yellow metal watch with a chain made of the same stuff, a tiny keyring with 3 keys
attached,oneofthemoftheYalesort(Canonmake),oneordinarykeyandonesmaller,padlock
type.”
Basically,whenanintelligentwriterlikeSabatocreditsananarchistwithwearingsilkshirts,
he does so in an attempt to discredit him. No matter whether the story is unfair or inaccurate.
Thepointistoconjureupacaricatureortotossinsomethingthatcanbeimprovisedupon.We
findthesamethingfromBeatrizGuidoinherElincendioylasvisperas.Sheneededacharacterof
story-bookdimensionstoaddthatcertainsomethingtohernovel.AndinArgentinaonewould
behardpressedtocomeupwithalifemoreresemblingthestuffofwhichnovelsaremadethan
thelifeofSeverinoDiGiovanni.Furthermore,DiGiovanniwasamanhuntedbythepoliceand
outcast by society, so it was relatively simple to seize upon him and say any outrageous thing
about him. Why put oneself to the trouble of doing a little research? That sort of thing is best
left to bookworms or cowards, it is not for successful writers. Consequently, Beatriz Guido did
not even bother to establish that Di Giovanni’s first name was Severino and not Salvador (it is
allonetothevictimofthefiringsquad)orthathehadnosisters(BeatrizGuidoclaimstwofor
him) or that Lieutenant Franco did not, in fact, attend the execution (it is all one…what does it
matter!)andthathedidnotbequeaththreeflats(sic)inBurzaco.Nordidshebothertofindout
that he had never had a nephew called Alcobendas or anything of the sort. But then these are
unimportantdetailsbecauseaone-timepistolero andanarchistcalledDiGiovanniisthesortof
godsendonedoesnotshrinkfromseizingupon.
Before we conclude our review of historical gaffes, deficiencies of tact and also, occasionally,
ofintellectualhonesty—letusturntotheprimeoffender,oneArturoJauretche.(Understandable,
really—afterall,DiGiovanniwasanalien,atano,infact,whohadnotbeenfortunateenoughto
havebeenbornontheplainsofLaRiojaortohavebeenarancherinCerrillos).Intoxicatedbya
whimsicalobsessionwithestablishingwhetherBeatrizGuidoisahalf-breedorathoroughbred,
he alludes to the grand (sic) piano allegedly discovered in the home of Di Giovanni’s nephew
8
andsays…“itmayhavebeenusedasastoragebin—andrememberthatthiswastheDiGiovanni
familyhome—forbombsandmachine-guns.Thedeadmanwasthatsortofafellow…”
This is merely gratuitous speculation resorting to squalid fantasy when Jauretche’s duty (re-
member,helikestostylehimselfa“revisionist”)wastohavesetstraightthehistoricalerrorsso
thoughtlesslycommittedbyBeatrizGuido.
But let us turn to the REAL Di Giovanni. The research I have carried out has led me to the
conclusionswhichthereadermayexaminebelow.Thoseresearcheswereslowandpainstaking
butmostfruitful.Idiscoveredamansetinaveryparticularhistoricalcontext.Themancannot
bethoroughlyunderstoodunlessonefirstunderstandsthecontextinwhichheacted.
Ihavestucktothestrictlyhistorical,todocumentaryevidenceandtoeyewitnessstatements.
ShouldtherebeanywitnesswhomIhavenotbeenabletotraceordiscover,letthatwitnesscome
forward. I would regard it as a duty to revise anything which is not unassailable fact, anything
which (up to now) I have regarded as accurate and truthful. For I have only set down in these
pagesthatwhichIbelievetobeverifiable,historicalfact.
OsvaldoBayer
Background Notes
HipólitoYrigoyen(1850–1930),lawyer,memberoftheRadicalCivicUnionandnephewofthe
party’sfounder,LeandroAlem.TheRadicalPartywasopposedtotherulingoligarchyandcham-
pioned universal suffrage; that was the extent of its programme. Because the oligarchy was ex-
cludingothersectorsofthebourgeoisieandthepettybourgeoisiefrompower,three‘revolutions’
eruptedunderradicalleadership,in1890,1893and1905.HipólitoYrigoyenledthelasttwo.Af-
ter the death of Alem, Yrigoyen became the undisputed head of the Radical Civic Union, the
apostle (ashisfollowersused tocall him) offree electionsand administrativeefficiency.In fact
the oligarchy had based its power upon the total absence of democracy. But fearing that other
sections of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie might achieve power through seditious activ-
ities with the backing of the workers and peasants, some members of the oligarchy decided to
promulgate the Saenz Peña law which established a Secret and Compulsory Ballot. As a result,
Yrigoyen became president in 1916 and an enthusiastic populace unharnessed the horses draw-
ingthe presidentialcoachandcarriedYrigoyenintriumphtothegovernmentpalace.Itshould
be stressed that the rule of the oligarchy safeguarded the interests of the British imperialists
andoftheArgentinianbourgeoisieasawhole:thoseatleastwhowerelargescaleproducersof
livestockorcereals,largeexportersorbelongedtofinancialconsortia.Ontheotherhandbroad
sectorsoflandowners,industrialists,tradersandpettybourgeoiswereexcludedfrompowerun-
der the oligarchy. Needless to say the urban and rural proletariat were totally excluded from
power. The capitalist development of the country, however, required that these social strata be
integrated into the system. Consequently, various segments of the bourgeoisie and petty bour-
geoisie joined the Radical Civic Union in pursuit of their capitalistic interests. For quite other
reasons,themassesoftheurbanandruralpoorfloodedintotheparty.
Yrigoyen’s First Presidency (1916–1922)—Yrigoyen was elected president with a majority of
more than 100,000 votes over his main rivals and enjoyed huge popular support. His election
wasanhistoricmomentinArgentinianhistory:itsignaledtheburstingontothepoliticalstage
9
of the masses of the people, hitherto excluded by the oligarchy. It was, indeed, the first time
their wishes had been canvassed. This new development posed a threat not only to the ruling
classes, but also to British imperialist interests. The outbreak of the First World War enabled
the Argentinian government to trade more closely with Britain: the Argentinian bourgeoisie
amassedgreatwealththankstothewarinEurope.YrigoyenclungtotheneutralitypolicyofV.
delaPlaza,oneofthemostloyalrepresentativesoftheoligarchyandofBritishimperialism.At
the war’s end, Yrigoyen proposed to the League of Nations that small nations should enjoy the
same rights as large ones: when the Great Powers rejected this proposal, Yrigoyen recalled the
Argentiniandelegation.Ingovernment,YrigoyenadvancedtheinterestsoftheBritishandofthe
Argentinianbourgeoisietowhomhepartlyowedhiselection,buthetookaclearstandagainst
the local oligarchy which never forgave him for snatching power from their grasp. During his
firstpresidencyhecarriedoutavaguelypopularpolicy(establishingaminimumwage,reducing
rents,regulatingworkathome,establishingconcilationandarbitrationfacilitiesforstrikes,with
a slight bias in favour of the labouring class). This posed no threat to capitalist profits which
had soared during the war years. Yrigoyen hesitated to repress strikes and went so far as to
invitetheworkerstomeethiminthepresidentialpalacefortalks.Thispolicyrenderedsterling
service to capitalist interests insofar as, up to 1916, Argentine’s trade unions had been marked
by a pronounced revolutionary militancy, little inclined to countenance pacts with employers
andministers. Withlabour movementsupport,Yrigoyenachieved twothings: on theone hand
he achieved the strength to oppose the large bourgeoisie and, on the other, the working class
itselfwasabsorbedintothesystem(anyautonomousmovebyworkerswasdealtwithbypolice
andtroops).From1915onwards,theArgentinianproletariatstruggledfiercelyagainstcrushing
exploitationbythecapitalists.In1915,12,000cameoutonstrike;in1916,24,000;in1917,136,000;
andin1919,300,000.
LaSemanaTrajica(TheTragicWeek)—from7to14January1919,themetalworkersofBuenos
Aires carried the poor and the working class with them in a general strike which brought Ar-
gentinatoastandstill.ThestrikehaditsoriginsinthedirepovertyinwhichArgentina’sprole-
tariat lived. The Yrigoyen government mobilized the police and the army: these had assistance
fromthefascisticgroupsofthePatrioticLeague.Amongthosewhocommandedthetroopsand
orderedthemtoopenfireontheworkerswasayounglieutenantbythenameofJuanDomingo
Peron.
TheWorkers’UprisinginPatagonia—TwoyearsaftertheTragicWeek,theYrigoyengovernment
again massacred workers, this time in the district of Santa Cruz in the south of the republic.
Labourers there had struck and occupied some of the larger factories; the army moved in and
imposedmartiallawthroughoutthearea,shootingdownhundredsoflabourersandimprisoning
thousandsmore.
Towardstheendofhisfirsttermaspresident,YrigoyenresistedtheseparationofChurchand
Stateaswellasdivorcelawsand,instead,strengthenedhisconnectionswiththeleadingallyof
Britishimperialismandtheoligarchy—theCatholicChurch.Yrigoyenwasfollowedby—
Marcelo T. Alvear, President of Argentina from 1922 to 1928. Alvear stood for the right wing
of the Radical Civic Union. It is worth pointing out that it was under his presidency that US
10
