The impact of the participation of Myriam Bregman in it debate of candidates for president It was massive and quite unanimous. He had a sharp participation, mischief, content and strength to confront the candidates of the adjustment parties. Basically, the other four candidates.
In the heat of each intervention by Myriam, both in her presentation and in the responses, the reactions and the laudatory comments on social networks. Some users of the X network (formerly known as Twitter) commented positively on Bregman’s intervention: it was first trend on the network for more than a day. For many, it was the first time they heard, at least so long and clearly, the leader, in a media system that was as generous in broadcasting right-wing candidates or government officials, as it was stingy in allowing exposure. ideas to references of the socialist left. The growth of a phenomenon like Milei’s It is not explained only by media exposure, but evidently in the society in which we live this is not minor.
In Twitterin TikTokin WhattsAppin Instagram and in all corners of virtual communication comments, videos, clippings circulated. Myriam’s attack against him was commented here and there. Cuddly kitten of self-perceived economic power a Lion against those who have less, Javier Miley. Or your reference to “The lazy man’s corner”but also when he told Massa that he changes his political space (and ideology, I add) “without breaking a sweat.”
Support for the different interventions or replicas of Bregman it was nothowever, a recognition merely of oratorical ability. The leftist candidate She was the only one who brought into the debate a whole series of issues that, without her, would have been absent.. Bah, they would have been directly ignored: the situation of the workers, the mistreatment of retirees, the unanimous defense of the agreement with the IMF by the other parties, the defense of natural common goods, the vindication of the rights of women and the ESI, the support for teachers in the face of so much attack by the governments, he recalled in solitude the memory of the 30 thousand in the face of all the denialist discourse.
Myriam Bregman vindicated the struggle of the working class and of the great majorities as a way to fight for a exit in favor of those belowwithin the framework of a serious capitalist crisis. Within the framework of the drought of mobilizations and struggles promoted by the large unions, which are divided between supporting Massa and kneeling before Leoncito Milei, the left’s intervention pointed to the opposite. To explain that the demobilization and demoralization that Peronism supports is not a single path, they are not inexorable. Without Bregman, that entire agenda would not have been in the debate. In the same way, only with the vote for Bregman and Del Caño, that same agenda can be expressed in the elections.
Bregman excelled in the debate. Now don’t get scammed with the “cuddly kitten” of the lesser evil to Massa
Some reactions on social networks said, half jokingly and half seriously: “What if we all organize ourselves and vote for Myriam to be president?”as a positive impact of sectors that seriously consider voting for the left.
But at the same time other voices, with clear and zero naive intentions, spoke in the opposite direction. Seeking to redirect the enthusiasm that the intervention of the left provoked, towards the opaque and pitiful request for a vote for a lesser evil, Sergio Massawhich went to a debate among other things tell Milei that he would consider it and call in an eventual government of his.
Some arguments sought to reduce the left to good but inapplicable arguments. Others mention Bregman as a good speaker “so needed in Congress.” The point is that Myriam Bregman is already a representative, she is already in Congress. She is not fighting as a legislative candidate, We are not in a runoff, we are in an election with 5 lists. And fight for the vote for all sections of the FIT ticket, because the vote for the left in all its positions is a demonstration that what was said in the debate, the left takes it seriously.
That we must seriously confront the big businessmen, that we must seriously break with the IMF, that we must seriously prioritize the working people, that we seriously aspire to a collective solution, to fight. That we are seriously looking for people to vote for us, as part of strengthening a left, worth the redundancy, seriously strong.
The ideas of the left They are not only applicable, linked to popular and worker mobilization. In some way, They are even necessary and inevitable if we do not want the current economic crisis, combined with an enormous global crisis, to be discharged as a blanket of new miseries on the majority.
Patricio del Corro on network Bench on the left because they are always with the workers and they don’t turn around. The issue is that they troske it later.” Friend, it’s the other way around, “trosking it” is doing that and for what’s coming it’s going to be more necessary.”
Indeed Bregman liked it because he said, in a country that is shipwrecked, that to resolve key issues, but even minimal issues, we must go deep with a program and a solution in favor of the workers. That was in part one of the main contributions to the debate: to show that there is not only a right-wing radicalism, but also one that bets on a collective solution against the capitalists and their State and their parties. Avoiding the supposedly utopian ideas of the left has been the scarecrow with which all versions of “realistic” progressivism, with the desire not to clash with any powerful person, have caused those who clash to be the popular majorities, who are The hall of a stranger’s party fell on him.
Either a serious, thorough exit is proposed, or only resignation and surrender remain as a horizon.which is what was seen with Vicentin, with the IMF, with the price markers, and with a long etc. Grabois, who convinced himself and many that he would fight for a more radical and “sovereign” alternative in Unión por la Patria, once the PASO was lost he confirmed his support for Massa. He also confirmed, in passing, that His role, that of Grabois, is to contain critical votes, in support of Massa, to prevent them from migrating to the left. It is difficult to think that a “traitor sells his country” who was going to “ruin a militant generation,” as Grabois classified Massa, is now an option. The left proposes, in every fight in the streets and in every debate, that this anger and criticism from supporters disenchanted with the ruling party be expressed by voting and supporting the left.
Resignation or fight
Peronism took note of everything and the necessarily lackluster intervention by his candidate Massa. The Kirchnerist militancy, which Massa called “gnocchi de la Cámpora”, was at the forefront of a campaign to consecrate a current adjuster and a Menemista for years as a supposed limit for the right, looking for something to take from the galley. Peronism’s new campaign slogan could easily be “It is what it is”, “vote against your ideas, vote against your convictions, vote for me.” Only fear is challenged.
He cuckoo on the right is used to call an accomplice of the government of Macri, despite the fact that this candidate proposes including several right-wing people in his government, from Morales to libertarians. The double talk, the pancakery on the stick. “Vote with disgust, but kid, come and vote.”
They appeal to the greatest possible distance between the call to vote and the fight for the greatest thing that each of us may have: our own ideas and convictions. In this way, a true extortion is built to somehow seek to violate the will for change that hundreds of thousands have.
What did the debate show in this regard? That the left speaks and reaches very broad sectors that agree and share part of its values. The demobilization carried out by unions and social movements, we said, has among its consequences showing an isolated left. It is only enough to remember December 2017 to see the left playing a central role in the crisis of Macriism.
Recently it was the left that resisted in PepsiCo. Then, of course, that same left is questioned by the same ones who adjust, who empty the street, who demoralize: why doesn’t the left capitalize on the anger? Why are they divided?
But as he said Turf singer Joaquín LevintonIf no one wears a shoe size 26 if they fit size 38, why choose someone who you know in advance will favor those already favored? If you voted against Massa in the Unión por la Patria internal elections because you considered him an adjuster, a friend of the right, a crony of The Embassy, why vote in favor two months later?
You don’t stop a leak with an ice cork
Before the debate, but with great urgency afterwards, sectors of the press, activists, officials, etc., try to say “The debate is over. Very good Bregman. But the only one who can stop Milei is Massa.” However it is the other way around. Milei grew thanks, first, to the shipwreck of the Macrista adventure. And second, due to the collapse of the experience of the Frente de Todoswhich deepened hunger, poverty, national subjugation, discontent and, to top it off, the strengthening of the right. Never before has a radical right been so strengthened like todayprecisely in a government that asked for the vote in 2019 as a “lesser evil” compared to the Macrista right.
Why is the formula that already went wrong going to work now, precisely with the government that, with the adjustment it applied and the demobilization it caused, fed the right-wing beast in its mouth?
How is the right going to be stopped with someone who calls for a unity government with the repressor of the mobilization in Jujuy, with those who admit to putting together the Milei lists, with those who favor hatred towards “politics” with gestures? of impunity and shame as obscene as that of Insaurralde in Marbella? You can’t plug a leak with an ice cork: at first it may seem like it stops the water, but ultimately it ends up feeding it. Much more so in the face of a crisis that leaves less and less room for lukewarm alternatives. More and more it is “them or us and us.”
Bregman’s debate performance is only part of the left’s fight: now we have to redouble what remains of the campaign, organize the enthusiasm into new forces in each faculty and each place of work and study, give a more solid body to the only force that fights to confront the right without falling into the trap of other crouching rights.
The right is stopped in the streets and in Congress, fighting and voting with conviction an alternative that has the workers as protagonists. Shortcuts lead to new frustrations, which the left refuses to validate. On the contrary, this entire year of electoral and street fighting is part of the tasks for the emergence of an increasingly stronger leftwith increasingly visible and audible references, but also with a increasing social weight. What is needed for the way out of the crisis is provided by those of us who are more than all: the workers.