Peronismo/Varguismo have a fixation on dependency theory and import substitution industrialization as the road to becoming First World. They are, after all, a product of the heyday of the New Deal, five year plans and the like, when such ideas were the norm. Their narrative centers on the undeveloped global South exporting raw materials and importing manufactured goods from the developed global North. This pattern is deemed parasitical and destructive, with foreign investment in particular being hated with a passion, and must be broken away from by shutting off foreign imports and developing sheltered local industries which feed the internal demand for consumer goods.

Several Latin American countries followed this course, some of them growing sizable national industries. When neoliberals later lifted their state support and trade barriers, some industries remained -Brazil still exports plenty of manufactured goods, even cars, to less developed neighbors- while others collapsed because they couldn't stand to foreign competition: awful infrastructure, unreliable institutions, red tape, corruption and an expensive and yet unqualified workforce meant their products were more expensive and even lesser in quality than foreign imports. Such was the case with the Brazilian homegrown computer industry, which provided awful overpriced products and only survived due to lavish protectionism. Once tariffs were lifted it collapsed. For the native capitalists owning those industries, this was a tragedy (and hence they bitterly opposed changes to the system), but consumers had cheaper and better products at their disposal.

These industries were artificial, only survived because they were being propped up by the state and secured profits for their owners without offering a clear advantage to consumers. As for the ones which still survived and thrived without protectionism, perhaps they could still have come into existence without all this effort. Long before there was ever a directed state effort towards industrialization coffee oligarchs were already reinvesting their profits into railways and embryonic industries. The Soviet Union's rapid industrialization is often praised by those people, but the late Russian Empire was already industrializing. That is not to say there is no virtue to ISI and there are arguments for its advantages and need in certain situations, like the need to develop local know-how prior to being able to compete with foreigners on the market.

The problem is a cargo cult mentality. The idea is that the First World is developed because it has factories, and simply building factories will make the nation developed. But successful industrializations are only successful because they're competitive, and this model made Latin America only partially competitive and skirted this whole problem of competitiveness by just indefinitively propping up inefficiency. In fact, it even reduced competitiveness in some ways.
The point of having industries is the products they make, but to those people simply having assembly lines staffed with workers is an end unto itself. If foreigners can make better and cheaper products, then one should either surpass their quality or consider buying from them. This line of thought needs to be given consideration.

And some of the more hardliners even believe in autarky and that it's the optimal mechanism for material prosperity. In reality autarky is economically suboptimal (I can elaborate on this). It must be seen as a way to acquire geopolitical advantages at an economic cost, just like having a military.