Some questions about the Milei government that have a problem. Editorial of “El Círculo Rojo”, a program on La Izquierda Diario that broadcasts on Thursdays from 10 p.m. to midnight on Radio Con Vos, 89.9.

  • There are some questions in circulation in the public debate that from now on contain a problem or several problems: the questions revolve around the “consensus” on the need for an adjustment; secondly, about “why a situation as dramatic as the one we are experiencing does not explode” and thirdly, if Milei’s plan “can work” even if it is on its own terms.
  • The three questions are linked and, in general, they start from a premise (to me absolutely debatable) which is to place responsibility on society, on the people, on the town and whatever you want to call it.
  • Because? Because they are questions whose addressee is the majority of society and especially the popular sectors. Because they could be reformulated like this: Why are you, who are poor, part of the “consensus” of adjustment? Or why don’t you, who are in terrible working or living conditions, explode? And the same with those who would allow the Milei plan to work by “letting themselves be affected” to unheard of levels “without doing anything.”
  • Let’s go by parts. The question about the “adjustment consensus”—which has a kernel of truth because many people were convinced of it (beyond the specific value they gave it)—allows us to return to a little-researched aspect of Milei’s triumph. We know that many people voted with the idea (repeated ad nauseam by Milei) that “this time it was going to be different” because the adjustment was going to be paid for by abstractions such as “caste” or “politics.” But it is true – and this is filtered through some TV mobiles – that there are other people who think that they have to self-adjust, although now it seems to them that the Government is going a little astray and they don’t like it, obviously. (Jorge Lanata on radio Miter interviewed Fernando Moiguer, who has a consultancy firm of the same name, and made some interesting definitions). I say it allows us to return to one of the little-explored reasons, an aspect that helped Milei’s victory because the question would be: How was that consensus built among those people when the word adjustment in Argentina after 2001 was almost “forbidden”? Partly because the experience of the governments that claimed to be “not adjustment governments” were in fact so and the situation of the popular majorities was going from bad to worse. So, the reasoning in many people could be: if this is the “non-adjustment” and these are the results, let’s try the adjustment and see what happens.

    But there is also another element and that is that for some time now all the traditional coalitions joined what Alejandro Horowicz called “the national adjustment party”, that is, all (and here I include politicians, political commentary professionals, journalists) , economists), 90% or more of what has circulated in the media in recent times adhered to the idea that an adjustment was necessary. And an adjustment on society or on “everyone equally”, “we all have to adjust”, as if there were not people who have been hyper-adjusted for decades and others who are beneficiaries of that adjustment.

    The last to join this chant was Cristina Kirchner: in the document she published a few days ago she says that she is willing to agree to discuss privatizations, labor reform, etc. because it is “what the people voted for.” So, another reasoning, in a sector of Milei voters, could have been the following: “If everyone says that the solution is to make an adjustment, then why not support the one who says it most convinced? I say, because consensus is not born from a cabbage, it is the product of ideological and political discussions, of political and communication narratives, based on experience.

  • The second aspect: Why doesn’t it explode? This is based on a perception that is a half-truth and is the idea that “nothing happens.” And the reality is that, in terms of social mobilization, in these two and a half months everything happened (the march of December 20, the CGT strike, the mobilizations in Congress, the recent strikes in Health, railways, teachers , in all the country). But, in addition, two issues are at play here: on the one hand, the somewhat routine idea of ​​thinking that history is going to repeat itself in a similar way or just as it was in the past and the “model” is 2001: looting, mobilizations to the Plaza de Mayo, that is, an explosion. It will not necessarily be like that because the society is different and the crisis is different. But, on the other hand, in this questioning of “why don’t you explode” it is demanded of the people in general and the political and union leaders who do not call for more forceful actions are absolved: let’s start with the CGT and the powerful unions; the so-called “social movements” and an entire political leadership (even the Pope who implicitly criticized him now, but received him with kisses in Rome giving a political signal). When you ask these people why they don’t do it, they say: because society still has to do the experience, otherwise it would “explode.” Then a circular question arises: they do not call because it does not “explode” and it does not “explode” because they do not call for more forceful measures. And with all this, Milei is given something that is worth gold to him: time, which is what he is playing with.
  • Thirdly, whether this “works” or not obviously depends on all of the above, because economics, political economy, is not “numbers” as Milei’s dogma would have us believe (and as many believe). In other words, whether it works or not does not depend on a numerical equation, but on a relationship of forces. I listened to Ernesto Tenemabum who asked himself this question on his program and consulted economists, etc. and Ernesto said “that we are asking ourselves this question is already a triumph for Milei.” You are right, that is why we do not have to ask the question, but rather organize the answer.
  • All this refers to an old adage that comes from the French Revolution and that says “The people have the governments they deserve.” Almost 200 years later, the writer André Malraux modified and corrected the apothegm a little and said: “It is not that the people have the governments they deserve, but that the people have the rulers that resemble them.” At the same time and in several texts, Leon Trotsky argued against this idea for several reasons: because in a relatively short period of time the same people have very different and even opposing governments; because from the moment a government is established it can last much longer than the relationship of forces that gave rise to it (say that it “deserved” it at that moment, when general opinion changes they continue), because a people is not a homogeneous unit (it is divided into classes, class fractions, etc.).
  • So no, Argentina does not have the government it deserves, it deserves something else, but to achieve that, in addition to fighting and not looking for answers in the wrong place, the questions would also have to change.
    See this post on Instagram

    A post shared by El Círculo Rojo (@elcirculorojo.899)

  • Politics / Javier Milei / Government


    Leave a Reply