Mauricio Macri’s triumph in presidential elections in Argentina seems to have given some credence to many left-wing groups, who say there is a “right-wing turn” going on in our continent.
A clear example of this point of view is the statement of the so called “Intellectuals and artists in defense of humanity network”, published a few days before runoffs in Argentina.
“It is not about national elections, but a debate which can have continental repercussion, if the right-wing parties get to the Government, changing the current local balance of power”
“A possible triumph of ‘Macrismo’ in Argentina would represent a continental reinforcement of right-wing forces, which also intend to win municipal elections in Venezuela on December 6th”; it would help to“stop Evo Morales’ new nomination through the referendum of next February, and it would accelerate Dilma Rousseff’s overthrow in Brazil”.
We do not agree with this point of view. We think it is a superficial analysis, which leads to incorrect conclusions because of its interpretation of current reality, and the political processes taking place in the consciousness of the masses and their political perceptions.
We think it is superficial because it only takes into consideration one superstructural aspect (the elections’ result), without considering the deeper processes of class struggle. Even taking only the electoral scenario, it simplifies to the maximum the complex contradictions in masses’ consciousness.
The failure of neoliberalism and revolutions
To explain our point of view, we are going to make a brief review of what happened over the last 20 years in the continent.
In the 90’s, neoliberal governments ruled Latin America (Carlos Menem in Argentina, and Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil, for example). They implemented a policy of surrendering and privatization of their countries’ economies, and strongly attacked work conditions and salaries.
In the beginning of 21st Century, workers and people’s reaction to struggle against this policy (implemented during the previous years) turned into revolutionary processes in several countries, many of them defeating and overthrowing governments: in 2000, in Ecuador (against Jamil Mahuad); in 2001, in Argentina (against Fernando de la Rúa); in 2003, in Bolivia (against Gonzalo Sanchez Lozada). In Venezuela, this kind of process had been already seen in 1989, when the “Caracazo” destabilized Carlos Andrés Pérez government and the so called “Punto Fijo Pact”.
Situation deepened in 2002-2003, when workers and people’s mobilization defeated the coup and lockout against Chavez government.
The decade of “Popular Front” and “Populism”
On the contrary, national bourgeoisies and imperialism were on defensive, and as a response to these continental scale revolutionary processes, they accepted (in many cases even encouraged) “Popular Fronts” (class conciliation fronts) or populists governments: Hugo Chavez in Venezuela; Rafael Correa in Ecuador; Néstor Kirchner in Argentina; Evo Morales in Bolivia. In Brazil, there was no revolutionary process, but Lula and PT got to the government preventively.
These ‘popular’ governments were the expression of a deep contradiction: on one hand, they were the distorted reflection of a revolutionary process, which is why many of them “dressed up in red” and adopted antiimperialist speeches, taking some unenthusiastic, partial, nationalists measures, and making some concessions to people. On the other hand, they were completely bourgeois, and their main goal was to stop the revolutions and save capitalism and bourgeois regimes.
This is why they never overtook the limits of capitalist economic system and its States. Here, we can see with all intensity an each time more current premise: the one who does not break with imperialism and financial capital, eventually ends up becoming an instrument to them.
These governments’ crises
For many years, these governments enjoyed a “tailwind” because of global economic situation (expansion phase from 2002-2007), due to high prices of commodities and export of food, situation which lasted for many years, thanks to China’s demand.
However, by 2011-2012, “prosperity” got to its end, and the governments had to start implementing harder and deeper adjustment plans, attacking the concessions previously made, attacking the health system, public education, work conditions and employment itself. It means, they started implementing the right-wing neoliberal program in full, in many cases taking their representatives to the governments (like Joaquim Levy, Ministry of Treasure, and Katia Abreu, Ministry of Agriculture, in Brazil). This was also the moment when their deep erosion among workers and masses began.
From its central point of view, these plans were “successful”: they were able to save bourgeois state and capitalism. Undoubtedly, at the same time, they spread the basis of their own declining.
There was no defeat in the struggle
These governments got to change the course and stall revolutionary processes, but masses were not defeated in struggle. Even the economic upswing period was expressed by a numeric increasement of the working class, specifically the industrial proletariat (it is a fact a process of dismissal and suspensions takes place now, but it is upon a higher number of workers’ than in the 90’s).
Workers go to struggle (through strikes and demonstrations) to confront the adjustments implemented by these governments, therefore opening the possibility of a new generalized rise.
A very interesting article, recently published in “Le Monde Diplomatique”, Argentinian’s edition, analyzes social and geographical differences between those struggles which led to the “Argentinazo”, in December 2001, and current struggles. The author points out, while in 2001 the base of struggles were unemployed workers of one of the poorest regions in Greater Buenos Aires (La Matanza), current struggles have as their main character, workers of the most industrialized areas of the country (“Ruta Panamericana”, in northern area of Greater Buenos Aires, and oil workers in Rosario).
In other words, there is nothing like a structural “right-wing turn” (it means, an unfavorable change in current “balance of power”); on the contrary, there is a “proletarization” of the struggles.
Why is the right-wing winning the elections, then?
For many years, workers and masses saw these Popular Front governments as “their own”, but as they started implementing austerity plans, workers began a rupture process with them (and even more important: they started struggling against them). A rupture aggravated by the fact these are minor or growing bourgeois sectors, so the high level of State corruption is more visible than in classical bourgeois governments (where usually things happen off-stage).
This allows the right-wing groups to conceal their speech. Nobody says “I will implement a strong adjustment”, but “We are the change”, because “we need honest, efficient, capable people”.
Like this, besides traditional right-wing electorate, many workers (through the so called ‘punishment vote’, which leads to fall into bourgeois elections trap) are actually expressing their anger and their frustration with unaccomplished promises of society transformation made by populists. Following an incorrect reasoning line, this anger led them to the conclusion that “anyone is better than these people”.
If we analyze Mauricio Macri’s voting evolution, we can see in August’s primary elections, his coalition got 30% (24% to his party and 6% to his allies). Even if we take into consideration the votes for another candidate (Sergio Massa, who got 20%) include a portion of right-wing voters, the result is the “pure” right-wing electorate corresponds to 1/3 of total voters, or so. The rest of Macri’s votes during runoff (52%) are clearly “punishment votes” [to the current government].
The complex processes of consciousness
Ultimately, popular front and populists governments themselves are responsible for right-wing’s electoral rise (and its triumph). First, as we have seen already, for frustrating people’s expectation about the change they promised to represent. Second, because now they have “pure austerity” government. Third, because by presenting themselves as “left-wing” and “popular”, against the “right-wing”, they contributed to create a false electoral polarization, in which there are only two alternatives (both of them bourgeois).
The affirmation there is a “right-wing turn on the situation” aims to avoid (or slow down) the breakup process with those governments. On one hand, by telling masses not to fight against the adjustment, “because if they do, they ‘play the right-wing game’”. On the other hand, during electoral processes, populists say “we have to defend the achievements we have made”, and “the ones to come are much worse than us”, just to get a vote. If there is an electoral defeat, they will use it to “wash their hands out of the matter” and blame the masses, who could not differentiate good from bad.
Left-wing groups and parties supporting and defending these governments (even critically, but arguing “it is not the same”) end up “embellishing” them and stalling the struggle against these governments. Like this, they become their accomplices, also in the electoral field. In a deeper background, they are responsible for not helping to build, over all these years, a true left-wing, classist alternative to these governments’ crisis (and capitalism in general), to take at least part of the workers who were breaking with these governments, to our ranks.
The action and consciousness of the masses went through highly contradictory processes over the last 20 years. First, they struggled against neoliberal policies and governments, defeating them in many countries. Then, they mistakenly believed populists and Popular Front governments could be the tool for change. More recently, they started struggling against the adjustment implemented by those governments, and they began the rupture process with them.
This breakup means a great progress in masses consciousness. This is not a straightforward progress but highly contradictory, because when we face this polarization, a part of them is limited to “defend what we conquered”, and the rest of them get confused believing “anyone is better”, and ends up supporting right-wing parties electorally.
These workers and masses’ breakup with “Kirchnerism”, “Chavism”, PT and Evo is the most important process going on in the consciousness of the masses, because without it there is no possibility of building a strong workers’, revolutionary, socialist alternative to capitalism crisis. This political breakup is the process we have been waiting for many years.
Of course, it is a left-wing parties and groups task to build an alternative, essentially in the struggle, through masses’ organizations, and also in the elections. First, by not “embellishing” these governments (integrating or supporting them) during their up period, but telling the truth to masses about what they really are: bourgeois governments acting to save capitalism. Second, by struggling with no hesitation against them, when they implement the adjustment and control society through Bonapartist measures. Finally, by not being their bodyguards during elections defending them as the “lesser evil”, and presenting independent alternatives instead (or calling to blank vote for runoff). Furthermore, if a right-wing party wins, by not crying for a bourgeois defeat, as it is not a workers’ defeat.
We want to conclude mentioning once again the unfavorable change of “power balance” Macri’s triumph would mean, according to the statement mentioned before. With the naked eye, the fact a representative of Argentinian highest bourgeoisie gets to the power would represent a “right -wing strengthening” (and a strengthening of bourgeoisie and imperialism as a whole), therefore a perspective of backwardness to workers and the masses.
But this is only in appearance, not in content. Macri’s government will probably be much weaker than “Kirchnerism”. Economic context is nationally and internationally unfavorable (let’s just consider the beginning of China’s crisis and current situation of Brazil, Argentina’s two main trade-partners), which will force him to deepen the austerity plan already implemented by Kirchner, without extenuating or compensatory mechanisms. At the same time, it reflects a meager, fragile electoral victory (almost half of the population voted against him, and part of his voters only voted him to “free” the country from “Kirchnerism”). It means workers and masses will not see him as “their own government”. Institutionally, he is in parliamentary minority, and does not have base support of any union bureaucracy.
It is true, imperialism and a big part of bourgeoisie (including sectors of Peronism, like Daniel Scioli himself) will support him in his measures against the masses, to “move the country forward”. However, this support will happen in a scenario of strong adjustment.
The vital element for us is, workers and masses were not defeated in struggle, and they have their strength intact to react to attacks, without the “grace period” new governments usually count on. We trust workers and their reaction. It is up to the left-wing organizations (in Argentina, in Venezuela, In Bolivia, in Brazil) to encourage those struggles and pose themselves as an alternative, with a real program to overcome capitalism.
Translation: Mariana Soléo.
Notes:
1 http://elcomunista.net/2015/11/17/intelectuales-alertan-sobre-derechizacion-de-argentina/
2 Agreement between the three main political forces in Venezuela (Acción Democrática, COPEI and Unión Republicana Democrática), in 1958, to have presidential elections, to save the bourgeois regime.
3 In this article, “oil workers” makes reference to “Aceiteros”, sector of the food industry, not petroleum workers.
4Fernando Rosso, “The new power of workers”, Le Monde Diplomatique N° 196, Buenos Aires, octubre de 2015.
5 Kirchnerism candidate for presidency, against Macri.
