By Sergio García – MST leader and member of the FIT Unidad National Board
With the arrival of the IMF, two demonstrations were held that were very different, though both stood against the Fund. The march to Congress (CTA, sectors of the CGT, social movements and pro-government parties) was in support of the government’s negotiations with the IMF, which proposes to pay the debt without even investigating any of it. And the march to Plaza de Mayo that we spearheaded from the FIT Unidad was against the IMF, the payment of the debt and the government´s policy of carrying out a new hand over that entails more austerity. This was our rallying call and all the speakers at the plaza expressed it: Myriam Bregman, Cele Fierro, Pitrola and Giordano.
The two demonstrations represent two incompatible policies and, logically, our task in the previous days was centered on inviting to strengthen the independent pole that the left organized in the FIT-U was raising in Plaza de Mayo. Something that was finally partly achieved; the mobilization was big, the rally very correct politically, all the media had to mention its existence and some sectors and referents that were not part of the FIT-U decided to accompany us.
The latter could have been even better if we had given ourselves a bold and more offensive policy from the FIT-U to try to attract other sectors towards a correct policy on this issue. In the face of the campaign against the payment of the debt that we have to strengthen, it is good to draw conclusions and think about all the alternatives to achieve this and continue to show our front.
Some Political Debates
Logically, there are debates and different perspectives among left-wing parties in general and between the parties that make up the FIT-U. The challenge is how to carry these debates positively and looking for them to help improve our politics and intervention and not to create dead end debates.
The first thing is to reaffirm the central politics that we all share, disseminate and express and on which we have full agreement: we stand for a rupture with the IMF, for the non-payment of the external debt and for the denunciation of the law that the government presented and voted in Congress in conjunction with Macrism. We stand against the implementation of that law, of the entire austerity plan that is in progress and we call to mobilize in the streets to confront it.
Beyond this important agreement, there are some debates. Izquierda Socialista (IS) insists that it is wrong to talk about investigating the debt because it was already investigated by the Olmos case, so saying that we must investigate deviates attention from the main demand. This is not the case. There are new and large parts of the debt, for example the one contracted by Macri, that nobody has investigated and the government is going to pay. In addition, the forces of the regime shelved the extensive and serious Olmos investigation. Hence, insisting on the need for a total investigation, which includes Macri´s debt and takes Olmos’s demand as a starting point, is still very useful for developing our politics. Far from deviating anything, it is an angle that strengthens the argument for non-payment.
It is also a proposal to unmask the government who said just four months ago that the debt was a fraud that had to be investigated and now pays without investigating. If it were investigated, the truth would be revealed, that the debt funded capital flight, that it is illegal, that those who took that debt should be tried and that it should not be paid. This is the purpose of investigating, which is not the central demand, but can be used in combination to better develop the arguments of our campaign. In denying this, IS refuses a specific policy and at the same time denies the very history of the current it comes from, which tried all kinds of tactics and slogans to enhance the mobilization against the debt (1). Although they claim to continue defending that legacy, on this issue, they act completely contrary to it, and with a mistaken outlook, binding itself to a single slogan and discarding other correct ones.
Another debate is about the slogan “suspension of payment and investigation” that the “self-summoned against debt” sector raises. Several of its organizations participated in the event in Plaza de Mayo marching with that flag. There are organizations of the left, such as the Nuevo MAS, that believe that the slogan is mistaken because it is the same thing that the government says. Unfortunately, the PTS comrades give in to this false and sectarian reasoning by the NMAS, when they express in an article that they agree with the NMAS that: “if we change the word suspension for grace period, for all practical purposes, the result is the same: buying some time to gather the dollars to pay, exactly what Fernández wants”(2).
For us, “suspension of payment and investigation” is a combination of slogans that is not at all the same as the government policy, which proposes in its law to restructure the debt and pay it by changing payment terms, without investigating anything. Nowhere does it propose to suspend all payments and investigate. We also consider that determining whether a slogan is correct or not independent of the political moment in which it is raised, is a bad method. For example, “suspension and investigation” was the rallying call of an event held on the steps of Congress the same day that, inside, the Frente de Todos (governing coalition) and Macrism voted a law to pay without investigating. That is, it was an event against the government´s policy, nor in favor of it, nor similar to it, nor was the result is the same, as the NMAS mistakenly affirms.
Unilaterally suspending payments, investigating and auditing all the debt is contrary to the government´s policy that always says that its will is to pay, not to suspend any payment or investigate. That is why there is no political problem in saying that we are for the immediate suspension of all payments to the IMF and the bondholders and for the investigation of the debt. Especially decause we express this within the framework of our central policy of non-payment of debt and breaking with the IMF. It is also a policy that allows the mobilization to be expanded through unity of action, something that is essential for defeating the government´s policy, unless someone believes that you can defeat the policy of paying the debt, the IMF and the government without extensive mobilization. Not following this path ends in falling into propagandist positions, of expressing a position but not making every effort to defeat the policy of the government and the IMF, which should be the focus of our intervention.
That is why we believe that it is correct to have the possibility of using other slogans that point toward non-payment in combination and not replacing the main demand, when they allow us to promote mobilization or carry out unitary actions with those who raise the suspension and investigation, and explain at those unitary actions that our policy is non-payment. That is, we defend and fight for the politics of the FIT-U. There is no contradiction or mistake in that, and we believe the criticism against participating, as the MST did, in a speak out or other initiative under this minimum agreement – on the basis, logically, that the actions be independent of the government – is mistaken. Some FIT-U parties oppose this and have the right to not want to be part of such actions, we believe it is mistaken. In the same way, the MST has the right to participate and develop all our politics as we deem necessary.
As part of deploying our politics and defending it among other sectors, it is good to assess what organizations that participate in this self-convened space do. For example, one day before the marches of February 12, they published a text in which they correctly said: “From this self-convened space we also reject the new law, called ´restoration of debt sustainability´. In truth, it is a blank check for the Executive Power that authorizes it to negotiate the conditions of payment of a debt whose legitimacy and legality even many parliamentarians questioned before voting … but they voted it just the same! It also authorizes the taking of more debt, relinquishing sovereignty to foreign court once again. No more plunder! The law says that it is “a priority interest of the country” to restore debt sustainability. The priority is another one: guaranteeing the rights of the people. For this, the road is another, opposite, one. That is why we convene ourselves and invite all the people to build a broad independent and inclusive campaign of popular mobilization”(3).
So, if they criticize the government and propose an independent campaign, why did some of those organizations and public figures go to Plaza Congreso in support of the government? Some linked to the Frente de Todos obviously do so because they only signed the self-convened text to save face a little, like Claudio Lozano and sectors of the CTA. But there are also organizations like Poder Popular and the FOL that went to Congress and also came with us to Plaza de Mayo, which has a double face; It is very positive that they have come with the FIT-U to strengthen a pole on the left for non-payment, but it is reproachable that they did not break with the government’s march. That contradiction will have to be resolved by their comrades, because political dynamics leave no room for ambiguities. Those who organize the self-convened space have to know that it cannot play a positive role if it does not have a clear political delimitation from the government and its actions, not only in texts, but in the concrete political struggle, which is where things are decided. In this regard, we welcome that important fugures like Nora Cortiñas, Sueco Lordkipanidse, Claudio Katz, Eduardo Lucita, all self-convened signatories, attended the event in Plaza de Mayo, which evidences positively that between suspension and non-payment there is a link that we cannot ignore in a sectarian way.
A separate debate takes place with the NMAS and the PO Tendency, two sectors that have a permanently very hostile and sectarian policy towards the FIT-U. Both developed a series of strong and misplaced criticisms of the FIT-U the days leading to the march, while demanding to be part of the rally with a speaker. Beyond this attitude that both groups express and that most of the time includes incredible falsehoods, our opinion at the FIT-U Board was that a speaker could also be given to these forces, because of the logic of our open call, and because we had to make the left pole as strong as possible in this national political debate. Unfortunately, on this occasion there was finally no agreement, in particular due to the refusal by PO, in its crisis with the Altamira-Ramal sector.
Nonetheless, our front guaranteed a very positive rally at Plaza de Mayo, it will be a pending task to resolve how to better address these issues and be consistent in putting forward the FIT-U and at the same time coordinate better with other forces when reality makes it necessary. Forces such as the NMAS and the PO-Tendency who could, at some point, contribute some reason instead of permanent unfounded attacks on the FIT-U. In the case of the NMAS, it could also have contributed to the mobilization, since its contingent was visibly very small and it could have avoided ending the day lying, when its leader Heberling said next to the Plaza that “the FIT-U rally was not convened in favor of non-payment, or for the break with the IMF or criticism of the government´s austerity”(4). An incredible falsehood that is borderline ridiculous.
Strengthen the Campaign For Non-Payment
The fight against the IMF, the payment of debt and against the government´s policies will continue these months as long as negotiations with the IMF and the vulture funds are carried out. It is a priority task for the FIT-U to be at the forefront of a great national campaign against this new scam and plunder. We must put forward our alternative proposals and declarations, continue promoting actions in the street and organizing all kinds of events that serve to develop the whole of our policy in every possible way., including support for the struggles of workers, retirees and the unemployed that the government´s austerity policy will generate.
Our proposal is clear: to better put forward the FIT Unidad we have to lead and promote the broadest political and mobilization campaign against the IMF, the payment of the debt and the government´s policy. Calling on all those who agree with this, organizing meetings, events, forums, mobilizations or other initiatives of struggle, debate and dissemination. Doing this boldly without any sectarianism, because the best way to strengthen our front is, among other things, to not be afraid to interact with others but to defend our policy to lead a great movement in the street of rupture with the IMF and with the odious debt. Reality will say who will want to accompany us.
We know that to defeat the policy of the government and the IMF it is essential for thousands and thousands to take to the streets, so the only correct policy is to attempt that path, based on a correct policy, as expressed in the rally that we held in common in Plaza de Mayo. On that solid basis of agreements, from the FIT Unidad, we have the political opportunity to continue moving forward and if possible, to coordinate a space on the debt issue, including other sectors that agree to promote it in common.
(1) In the text “Elementary political concepts”, by Nahuel Moreno and Mercedes Petit, you can read the long list of attempts that we made from the old MAS in the 80s, when the debt crisis began, to promote the mobilization in favor of breaking with the IMF, without mechanically binding ourselves to the sole “non-payment” slogan, but also using others that went in the same direction.
(2) Article by Pistonesi; “El MAS y el perro del hortelano” (La Izquierda Diario)
(3) Text of the self-convened calling for the suspension of the payment and investigation of the debt, February 11, 2020.
(4) Video of “Chino” Heberling´s speech at the exit of the march to Plaza de Mayo, February 12, 2020.