The speech of the candidate of La Libertad Avanza in front of the businessmen and the world upside down. Editorial of “El Círculo Rojo”, a program from La Izquierda Diario that is broadcast on Thursdays from 10 pm to 12 midnight on Radio Con Vos, 89.9.

  • He Javier Milei’s speech in front of a select group of businessmen in the Council of the Americas had a merit: shouted to the four winds their crude positions.
    View this post on Instagram

    A publication shared by The Red Circle (@elcirculorojo.899)

  • Why do I say it is “meritorious”? Well, because it enables you to discuss issues openly, without turning around. For example, He spoke of “theft”, of social justice, of infinite needs and finite resources, of rights and obligations.
  • I’m talking about the issues he brought to the table, not the content, because the content is a disaster: every two words there are four lies; a speech full of “fallacies” as he liked to say at that time when he did not take care of himself so much and did not have the “good manners” like the ones he showed in front of the businessmen. Because In front of the owners of the country (nationals and foreigners) “the lion” was a little lamb. And yes, the devil is in the details and that detail (good manners against businessmen) It says a lot about the character’s nature, his interests, his comfort zone.
  • For example, he said society (and especially the link between employers and workers) “is a process of social cooperation, because if employers do well, workers do well and Argentines do well.” Fake. Historically false and conceptually false (and, beware, I’m not talking about small businesses, “enterprises” etc., I’m talking about businessmen; those who were there, part of the cream of Argentine business). This is refuted by historical experience in general.but for a very recent one, in particular: the 90s. In that decade, the employers did very, very well and the workers (beyond a few early years of expansion) did very, very badly (remember, the decade ended 25% unemployment, extreme poverty etc.). And even more concrete: if this were so, Why do practically all employers ask for more labor flexibility, less wages, more adjustment, less labor rights and so on ad infinitum? Now, some are refusing to pay a miserable bonus of 60 thousand pesos! I mean, Why are they thinking all day about how to make the workers do badly?
  • Later, Milei also said that the “modernization” of the labor market (ie, more “flexible” conditions) would solve the problem of the economy and employment. Also fake. And there are the ’90s to refute it.
  • Now, I’m interested in the part where he talked about the “robbery”: arguing against the proposals of “social justice” and that behind every need a right is born (closely linked to the universe of ideas of Peronism) He said they were aberrational concepts “because they agree with unequal treatment before the law and theft”, that is, “to steal from someone to give it to another”. And he said that there are infinite needs and finite resources and that there was a conflict there.
  • Let’s start with the latter: it is also false. Actually, there are people with “infinite resources” who develop infinite needs and even go to bizarre follies. For example, Eduardo Eurnekian, the mentor, the “owner” of Milei has the extravagant “need” to have three mansions exactly the same (one in Argentina, another in the US and another in Armenia) because he “needs” to feel and not have the slightest doubt that he is at home when he wakes up in the morning. There are other tycoons who have the “need” to plan tours to Mars or the moon. While the vast majority have very unsatisfied “finite” or minimal needs: from food to a roof. So, infinite needs, finite resources, it depends for whom or according to whom expropriates or appropriates those resources that do not correspond to them by “nature” or by divine mandate.
  • And that brings us to the second question: the robbery. The idea of ​​”social justice” presupposes taking something from those who have everything to distribute it a little among those who have nothing, but it does not go to the heart of the robbery. because it does not question the founding fact, the main cause that leads to the fact that a few have almost everything and the majority have almost nothing. And this happens because there is a “robbery” that takes place before the state intervenes; before those businessmen meet there in the charming Hotel Alvear and before Milei delivers her speech. This “theft”, this crime takes place in the production and circulation of all merchandise. In that realm, in that sphere of production and circulation a hidden operation takes place that in the legal architecture of this society is not presented as a robbery, but in reality it is looting, it is a robbery, it is an expropriation because the worker or worker is paid for the “market value” of his labor power (that is the salary) while all his work is expropriated. Y there is the origin of profit and wealth, including that of all the businessmen who came together in that meeting. In Milei’s terms: “You steal from someone so that others can keep it.” Because if the worker or the worker were paid the value of all their work, there would be no profit and if the worker did not work, there would be no wealth.. Wealth is not generated in the financial, banking universe or in the “crypto” world, these are businesses that are built on another looting that is previous and founding.
  • If the worker did not work, nothing would work; nothing could be done: they could not eat the banquet they ate there, they could not arrive in the planes or luxury cars in which they arrived and which were produced by workers who were paid less than the value of all their work; they could not dress in the expensive suits and not even Milei could give her speech full of ideological trifle that she intends to sell us as part of a world turned upside down in which looters are looted.
  • So yes, Milei has a point: there is a robbery. A robbery that is intended to hide and that is at the opposite end of where he thinks he lives. Even the idea of ​​”social justice” legitimizes theft by asking that 5% or 10% of what was stolen be returned so that the looted do not explode and remain calm, so that the theft is hidden a bit.
  • We must also take up the gauntlet in this field, in the ideological debate, taking advantage of the issues that reach the great public agenda to reveal the lies and to try to show the popular majorities where the theft is, who are the expropriated and who are the expropriators.
  • Politics / Exploitation / Council of the Americas / Javier Milei / surplus value / Eduardo Eurnekian


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *