I read most of your story Henryk, I wrote my previous reply before reading it. I think from what I wrote and what you wrote that we are not all that different in opinion about what are the fundamental forces that led to such bad outcomes for Argentina. Although I would add you can repeat much the same story about the whole of Latin-America.
The big difference between us are the conclusions we draw from this. To me there is absolutely nothing social-democratic about Argentina and its political and economic history.
As a social-democrat and someone who grew up in a social democratic country, I would say Argentina stands for the complete opposite of what we believe in: It is a top down hierarchical society, where all the power rests with an elite and the masses are kept silent through paternalism.
To me it seems like the old Roman "Bread and circus," where Roman politicans bought off the public with cheap short term frills.
Social democracy in constrast is about flat power structures, not about having some rich elite rule everybody while throwing out crumbs to the masses. The Argentinian way seem to be: Rigg the system to favor the rich and powerful, then butter up the masses to keep them quiet and avoid turmoil and revolution.
Social democracy is not about bread and circus but about giving power to the people who they have control over their own lives. That is why there is a strong emphasis on things like unions, labour representation and corporate boards etc. It is so regular employees can get the salaries and benefits they have earned instead of waiting for handouts from the rich.
To me the Argentinian system seesm more like a classic case of crony capitalism: An insider game, where the rich have special access to politicians and special favors to secure their wealth and benefits.
Social democracy aims for the complete opposite, the remove the special privilges of the rich. To give regular people, workers, disabled people, environmentalists and all sorts of other groups of people who don't necessarily have their pockets fully of money access to the political system and an ability to have their voices heard.
That is reflected in our laws: All tax returns are public. I can lookup any politician in Norway to check if they make unusual amounts of money. Transparency is enforced at all levels.
Educating the public and raising up the common man has been important. Argentina may have been far ahead of Norway in the 1800s e.g. economically but they were far behind us in literacy rate and democratic participation.
Norway in the 1800s was before social democracy as an ideology really existed, but similar ideas dominated even then. This idea that the purpose of the state was the advance the welfare of the common man, rather than a small elite. Laws were regularly made to limit accumulation of power and wealth at the expense of regular people.
Large corporations e.g. could not buy up forrest. Only farmers could own it. As saw mills, paper mills etc developed this secured an income for a lot of regular farmers who could sell their lumber to the factories operated by the bigger industrialists.
I wrote about a lot of this in my economic history of Norway from 1800 to 1940s. It is a rather long read though with a lot of details: https://erik-engheim.medium.com/how-norway-got-rich-against-all-odds-before-oil-a597885df7c9
