- In regard to ethnic origin, Argentina differs from both Mexico (where the majority of the population has some Indian blood) and Brazil (where there is a significant African population). Argentina is populated almost exclusively by people of European descent, with only 1.5% of its population being of Indian origin. Most emigrated from Spain, with a significant percentage from Southern Europe, particularly Italy. Considering the makeup of its population, the question arises as to why Argentina did not advance technologically at the same rate as the US and Canada. According to Carlos Weissman, events in Europe had an effect on Argentina's economy, freedom, and political crises. This refers to both the cutbacks in British importation of meat from Argentina, as well as to the Russian Bolshevik Revolution that led to a strict authoritarian regime in Argentina in an effort to prevent revolution from breaking out in Argentina. Weissman's claims are both unpersuasive and superficial. Authoritarian regimes existed in Latin America for 500 years, long before there was any fear of a Bolshevik revolution. Passing temporary factors do not need to be examined, when deeper long-term reasons are involved. Fear of communism was stronger in the US than in Argentina, yet the wave of McCarthyism passed and the essentially liberal nature of the government in the US remained. Britain's cutbacks in meat importation were virtually irrelevant, contrary to Weissman's claim otherwise. As Weissman himself describes, the governments in Argentina maneuvered to establish mutual trade agreements with other countries besides Britain, thus increasing the amount of meat exported from Argentina. The global meat market is far wider than Britain alone. Finally, the question arises - why Argentina focused only on meat and meat products. The answer to this question addresses the root of the matter, and is linked to Argentineans ability to develop industry, an ability that is connected to motivation and inner strengths found within the Argentinean people and the internal relationships that exist between them. Venezuela, as will be seen further on, developed much more advanced industry than Argentina - perhaps because of the natural resource, oil, that it possessed - that encouraged the growth of industries connected to oil, and because of which, it saw a large European immigration in the 1940's. A contrast, nevertheless, emerges between Catholic man's ability and motivation to compete in demanding fields involving skilled labor and Protestant man's ability and drive. This relates to Max Weber's comparison of the dedication and ability of Protestants and Catholics. This chapter will focus presently on the specifics of the Argentinean case, leaving in-depth examination of these issues to later. Argentineans perceived themselves as people of Spanish descent who were born locally (Creoles, by their Latin American name). They permitted immigration from Europe for utilitarian reasons, since the new immigrants were willing to work in areas of labor, such as agriculture, that the Creoles disliked. Class distinctions were made between "old timers" and new immigrants. Voting laws made it difficult for new immigrants to become citizens and gain voting rights, making it easy to expel any "undesirable" non-citizen. This was a product of the hierarchical nature of the system, previously described. Throughout the generations, there has been significant emigration from Argentina that clearly stems from Argentina's failure to develop into an industrialized nation, a reality that must be examined. Between 1821 and 1932, 6.4 million Europeans immigrated to Argentina, fewer than immigrated to the US (34.2 million) or Uruguay (7 million), but more than Canada (5.2 million), Brazil (4.4 million), and Australia (2.9), and percentage-wise (of the former population) the most of all countries. In 1914, 30% of all Argentineans had been born outside of Argentina (In America, during this period, the percentage never exceeded 15%). In 1914, new immigrants constituted 90% of coastal populations and vineyard regions, where 77% of the total population lived. New immigrants made up 66% of factory owners, 50% of factory workers, 74% of merchants, and 45% of craftsmen. A significant portion of the middle class in general, and of industrial workers was new immigrants. Nearly half of the immigrants were Italian and close to a third were Spanish. The Italian immigrants brought with them a different political culture than the Spanish immigrants. The immigration to the US, in contrast to Argentina, was primarily from northern and central Europe. In a comparison of the rates of growth (or decline) of agriculture and industry in various countries between 1940 and 1978 it emerges that: in Argentina, agricultural workers decreased from 33 to 14 % and industrial workers increased from 28 to 29%, in Italy, agricultural workers decreased from 47 to 13%, and industrial workers from 27 to 48%, in Spain agricultural workers decreased from 52 to 18%, and industrial workers increased from 24 to 43%, in the US, agricultural workers decreased from 18 to 2%, and industrial workers increased from 32 to 33%, in Brazil, agricultural workers decreased from 67 to 41% and industrial workers increased from 13 to 22%, and finally in Mexico, agricultural workers decreased from 65 to 39%, and industrial workers increased from 13 to 26. These statistics demonstrate that Argentina lagged behind the other countries in developing industry, and that Italy surpassed Spain. Therefore, there must have been some fundamental impediment to the growth of industry in Argentina, that inhibited its growth despite strong immigration from industrially - successful Italy. Mexico and Brazil both exceeded Argentina in growth of industry, despite the fact that they have large Black populations who do not have a tradition of industrial growth, while Argentina's population is nearly entirely of European descent. Prior to WWI, standard wages in Argentina were higher than in Italy, France, and Germany, though lower than in England and the US. The standard of living in Argentina was relatively high which explains the mass immigration to there. Trade with Britain provided Argentina with the materials to construct railroads, slaughter and packing- houses, while Spain and Italy supplied her with all the labor she needed. Everything began to change in Argentina during the worldwide Depression of 1930, and Argentina has yet to recover fully from it. The military seized control of the government, an event that was typical of the attempts of various classes in Argentina (first-the land owners, then the middle class) to take control of the government with the help of the military, maneuvering the minorities to their own advantage, using manipulation, military force, and pseudo-democratic games. Argentina, in the years 1880-1930, was a democracy in the Wig style, where until 1912, the electoral system left control of the elections to a minority of landowners. In 1912, an electoral reform conferred voting privileges also upon the middle class, and in 1916, the radical party that represented this position actually won the election. Despite all their promises, the new government did nothing to change the financial status quo, and occupied themselves only with extending the right to vote. The global economic crisis that also shook up Argentina terrified the landowner class. As long as the radicals did not threaten their assets, they allowed the radicals to play whatever democratic and political games they desired. When they erroneously determined, however that the radicals were planning to change the economic status quo, concern for their wealth and the political status associated with it impelled them to ally with the conservative party that prodded the military to revolt. Apparently, the army promptly restored democratic rule, transferring control of the government to the liberal party, a party that then sought to retain control by repressing other parties, such as the communist one. While democratic rule was theoretically restored during the years 1930-1943, in practice there was no opportunity to alter the identity of the ruling party. Thus, Argentina - until 1943 - was bereft of the democracy that had not led to any real change even before then. Such was the nature of hierarchical Argentinean society, that democracy was to a certain extent simply a political game, rather than actual power. Until 1930, everyone, besides the radicals, supported Argentina's inclusion in the world economy, as an agricultural nation since agriculture had been shown preference over industry. The radicals did not dare to change the status quo even though they were in control of the government. During 1930-1943, extensive social change took place. New bourgeoisie rose from the lower middle classes, while farmers arriving from agricultural regions became the new lower middle class. Two groups of middle class developed - one of new immigrants and one of natives, with the latter group considered higher class and possessing connections to foreign capitalists. A split formed also between immigrants and native Creoles. Labor unions and the labor class rose in stature. In 1943, following an economic crisis that resulted from a partiality to agricultural interests and a lack of financial resources to support this policy, a military insurrection occurred that sought to introduce true democratic rule. The winner of the elections, Juan Peron, attempted to unite different classes, particularly workers and members of the middle class. As a result of his connection with the workers, factories were nationalized. Prices were set, salaries raised, and financial incentives were offered to factory owners who couldn't compete. Agricultural produce was sold on the local market, instead of exported, and markets were closed down. No land or assets, however, were expropriated. Within a few years, Peron realized that his policies had curtailed production and decreased exports. The economy suffered, and the alliance between the classes that supported Peron dissolved. Even the workers who had backed him abandoned him the moment their salaries froze and even fell. In the year 1955, the military again gained control of the government, and from the fall of the Peronists in 1955 until democracy was restored in 1983, the government changed hands many times, but always with connections to the military. In 1983, after the economy had completely deteriorated and even the army's plans for the Faulkland Islands - intended to salvage the government's image - had failed, the army restored control of the government to the people. The economic depression, however, continued, and Argentina did not recover from the crisis. The chapter of Argentina is a tragedy of failed attempts to establish democratic rule over a society of European immigrants who never successfully formed an integrated nation and who squandered any economic opportunities. Relationships were founded on the basis of hierarchy, without the personal dimension that was characteristic of the patronage tradition. Without, a feeling of connection and unity, class struggles were inevitable. What we have here is the combination of two evils from two opposing systems, the Hebrew-Catholic hierarchic model on one hand, and the Anglo-Protestant democratic one on the other. This can be formulated in the following manner: 1. Excessive hierarchic leadership that is more radical than the Iberian (Spain and Portugal) tradition, that lacks the institution of patronage, the upper class' charitable support of the lower class, and the lower class' political support of the upper class - as a result of all the classes having the same ethnic and racial (White European) background. 2. Playing political games with democracy without adopting its true principles - accepting the name of democracy without its inner content. 3. The establishment of a national framework without forming a true national identity, because of internal disparity and divergence.