• After the elections of October 26, the word “order” became fashionable again: “macroeconomic order”, “new labor order”, “extractive order”. Order and more order.
  • With the issue of “macroeconomic order”, the Government presents it as dogma: fiscal balance at any cost, salary anchor, openness for financial capital and “legal security” for large companies for which “legal security” is never enough.
  • But, around it, around the Government, most of the traditional political and media arc repeats the script: first the order, then we see who lives, who retires and with how much and who eats. It is repeated by the official spokespersons, the serious editorialists and also a large part of the Peronist opposition that no longer discusses the logic, only the rhythm and forms.
  • What order are they talking about? How is it translated? The order specifically and in terms of values ​​is to freeze salaries and pensions (or cut them even more) while releasing prices and rates; order is to shield business profits with labor reform, while everyday life is made precarious; The order is to consolidate the extractivist model to guarantee dollars to creditors and local partners.
  • Tell me all this without telling me all this: “macroeconomic order.”
  • The Government’s labor reform project proposes, among other points, the extension of the working day up to 12 hours, flexibility via a bank of hours, the reduction of layoffs and the erosion of compensation, under the argument of “modernizing” and “reducing litigation.”
  • It is not a technical issue: it is the heart of the new “order” they demand.
  • But the important thing is that this agenda is not just Milei’s. A good part of the opposition accepts the premise: “something must be done with the labor laws of the 70s”, “you cannot compete with this Argentine cost”, “if we do not give signals, investments will not come.” They change adjectives, they leave some conquests standing, they promise gradualism, but they maintain the strategic message to capital: the price of labor power in Argentina is negotiable, even though it is underground. It is the old business dream of transforming each employment relationship into a bond that is always revocable and cheap.
  • But the most general political fact is that the discursive scaffolding of this reform was prepared for years by all the variants of pro-business “realism”: governors, technocrats, consultants, candidates, communicators who assure in front of cameras or any microphone that there are too many “rigidities”, “privileges” and “anachronisms” of labor legislation, and barely discuss whether a brutal ax or a gentle surgery is appropriate. They do not question that salary and labor rights are the adjustment variable: they discuss the dosage. Milei goes to blows, they propose a pedagogy of the same program. The consensus is to socialize risk among workers and guarantee predictability to capital. The public discussion is trapped between: the explicit chainsaw of the ruling party, and the neat scalpels of those who promise “rational” surgery, but on the same body: labor rights. Two speeds, the same destiny: transferring income and power from those who work to those who rule.
  • In this framework, the leadership of the CGT was renewed with a new triumvirate—Octavio Argüello (Truckers), Jorge Sola (Seguro) and Cristian Jerónimo (Glass). They are, for millions of workers, almost unknown names. And that is the point: not because they come from below, from great feats of struggle, but because they come as one of the legs of the administration of the new consensus. His first declared task: “negotiate” labor reform. That is, sit at the table where it has already been accepted that the menu is flexible; just discuss the garnish. The union leadership in recent years killed even the old vandorism: “hitting to negotiate.” He changed it to negotiate to deliver.
  • More or less the same thing happens with the issue of extractivist consensus as a State policy: Milei exhibits lithium, Vaca Muerta, gold, copper, uranium, as a permanent letter of presentation to investors and foreign governments, vindicating the RIGI and the strategic alliance with the US for mining and energy. And the Peronist and “progressive” governors share the script: the only way to “sovereignty” would be to multiply extractive enclaves with tax benefits, repressive security and environmental externalization. Territorial resistance—original peoples, socio-environmental assemblies, affected communities—are treated as noise, if not as an “anti-development” obstacle.
  • And if we go to the topic “debt” we are in the same situation: Milei says to pay until it hurts and on the other side, the most “bold” say to “question” the debt that the Monetary Fund granted too much, above the quota that corresponds to the country. That legitimizes an entire debt that is altogether odious.
  • However, while here “responsible common sense” explains to us that there is no alternative to lowering salaries, making contracts more flexible and giving away resources, another scene appears at the heart of capitalism. In New York, Zohran Mamdani—self-defined as a socialist democrat—has just become mayor with a program that includes: increased taxes on large corporations, rent freezes for popular sectors, free or heavily subsidized public transportation, expansion of public services (child care, housing, food) financed with those resources.
  • Can you accomplish everything? One could say that if the strategy is to reform the Democratic Party and a new social and political force is not built, not even that program will be feasible, but what I want to highlight here is that in the main city of the imperialist country, a program that proposes, at least in its statements, that part of the crisis will be paid for by those at the top; that basic goods (transport, housing, care) are expanded as rights, not cut as expenses.
  • Here we are told that this is “infantilism”, “utopia”, “exhausted model”, and the “realistic” consensus is organized around how to better adjust those at the bottom.
  • That is the heart of the problem: the word “order” is used to cover up a class dispute. The macroeconomic order that they celebrate is fiscal balance with disciplined salaries, liberated rates and honest debt, sunk pensions, guaranteed by a docile union apparatus and financed with the intensive exploitation of the territory. The labor reform is the instruction manual to consolidate that order in the workplace. The extractivist consensus adds geography: an enclave economy to pay the Fund, the bondholders and the local partners. They present it as a technique, but it is concentrated politics; They present it as a neutral order, but it is a class order.

    • Do you want to know more about this topic? Ask ChatPTS

    Source: www.laizquierdadiario.com



    Leave a Reply

    Related News

    Tariffs and vanity dominate Washington

    Tariffs and vanity dominate Washington

    November 9, 2025
    The PSOE launches a war of attrition against the PP for its surrender to Vox if there are no elections in the Valencian Community

    The PSOE launches a war of attrition against the PP for its surrender to Vox if there are no elections in the Valencian Community

    November 8, 2025