The mobilization headed by the workers of the Garrahan hospital brought together this week a social opposition to the government of Javier Milei that grows below the country. It is logical: the most affected by the chainsaw and the blender are the popular majorities that directly suffer the consequences of this economic program.
Now, the novelty in recent times are the voices of discomfort that began to be heard above. He discreet disenchantment of the bourgeoisie or, to be more precise, of a sector of the bourgeoisie. It is discreet, it is diplomatic, but it is a very significant discomfort.
Let’s review some facts and pronouncements. A few weeks ago, the JP Morgan Investment Bank report that summoned its clients to disarm the positions in pesos and get out of carry-trade Argentine for a certain distrust in the government’s financial scheme, is it a break with the government? No, but it is a distance taking that (being an investment bank of the most important in the world) generated a mini-corrida, increase in the dollar, falling the value of Argentine shares, rises from the country risk, etc.
Also in recent months it was known that several international companies retired from Argentina. The most emblematic case was that of the Carrefour chain. But it is not the only one, also Procter & Gamble, Paramount (Telefé) and Telefónica, Petronas, Exxonmobil, Equinor, Total Energy, among others. Several of the companies justified their departure in decisions of their matrices or strategic reorganizations of their international organization chart. Now, the question that arises is: why the decision to leave specifically from Argentina? If it were the land of opportunities that Milei presents, why don’t they stay?
Also these days was heard the complaint of the CEO of Toyota Argentina, Gustavo Salinas: he told the newspaper Financial scope that the company “moves 240 thousand vehicles a year between what comes out of the plant and what is imported. Our vehicles represent 5% of the country’s exports. It cannot be that we do not have roads to get production. There are routes in poor condition, accidents, very high insurance costs. It is a disaster.”
And Nicolás Pino, president of the Argentine Rural Society (MRS), claimed something very similar to Milei: “We have to walk along different routes of the country in a calamitous state. That is an order and it is a demand that we make to the national government, but not depending only on our sector.”
All this exactly at the same time when the government dissolved national roads.
Finally, the president of the Argentine Rural Confederations (CRA), Carlos Castagnani, also said in a meeting with the government that: “Because of the withholdings there is neutral or negative profitability.” And a representative of the Agrarian Federation directly exaggerated and said: “The field comes to a loss.”
What expresses all this? That the general reset of the country proposed by Milei, based on the fulfillment of the payment of the debt and with the fiscal balance of the payment of that debt and the privilege of certain sectors (financial, extractivists) generates a more general crisis that affects export or agro -export sectors. And it also reveals a difference and confession by a fraction of the country’s owners: capital wants the State to provide it with the infrastructure that allows its products to reach the world market and, in addition, it demands that because it pays the withholdings that you want to stop paying. That is, it needs that state that Milei loves to hate. Paradoxes of the capitalist regime and its toxic bond with the State: I love you, I hate you, give me more.
The confrontation with the governors that resulted in the frightening defeat of the Senate last week and especially those who represent the Central Region (Maximiliano Pullaro de Santa Fe and Martín Llaryora de Córdoba) has as its backdrop this dispute. They say that Milei is Trina, especially against Pullaro. They are representatives, above all, of that sector of the core zone. Particularly, of the owners of the land and of agribusiness in that sector of the core zone.
At this time, the inauguration of the rural will take place and these demands are expressed or perhaps reach a diplomatic agreement to hide the differences, but the discrepancies have already been exposed.
What does all this have to do with workers, workers and popular majorities? Indirectly, it has a lot to do.
Milei, until now, had achieved a unit policy of the owners of the country. This is very well reflected in the Berco book “The country that owners want.” The majority of capital fractions support the guidelines of the economic program in terms of the pension reform and, even more, of labor reform that Milei promises after the elections.
Now, a “nuance” emerged around the distribution of state resources, to the economic functions of the State, to the necessary infrastructure so that this sector can carry out its businesses. And that difference is not less. Among other things, because it is impossible to maintain fiscal balance, pay the debt and sustain the adjustment, and at the same time respond to these demands.
This can have its political translation (in fact, it had it in a tactical dispute in the Senate), but it can also develop as a political expression that proposes another classes balance and that ends up weakening a project that depends a lot, it would say a lot, to maintain electoral political support.
We are going to raise it in these terms, friction arise that can be transformed into disputes between the adversaries who agree to adjust retirees or make workers more flexible. Without mixing with their interests, because they defend other interests opposed to popular majorities, these gaps can be used so that you fight the growing social opposition that was expressed in the march of the claw can apply for another social and political exit and put their own interests on the table of the national debate.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
