A historic event took place this March 24. Argentina’s human rights organizations managed to organize a united, independent, and massive demonstration after almost 20 years of holding two separate annual marches and rallies on this date. In relation to this significant development, two opposing positions were raised by the revolutionary left: one was ours, of the MST, contributing to that correct united action on the 49th anniversary of the genocide in Argentina; and the other was that of the PTS and its allies, who (unsuccessfully) attempted to sabotage that call and turned their backs on a massive show of force in the country of the 30,000 disappeared while Milei’s ultra-right-wing government is in power. Their failure to understand the crisis of Peronism, as well as their sectarianism and opportunism that are destructive for the FIT-U (Workers Left Front–Unity), reveals two strategic conceptions for the struggle to build an anti-capitalist and socialist left capable of gaining mass influence in our country.
For Marxists, the initial foundation for building the revolutionary party is its program, its method, its ideas, the accumulated tradition. On that basis, the militant organization is then raised. Theory and program are the synthesis of the long historical experience of the working class and revolutionary socialism. This is the starting point, the first aspect of the challenges of revolution. Then comes the more complex part: figuring out how to reach the majority of the working class and the oppressed with our program and ideas. This is not a simple task.
Obviously, shortcuts never work and almost always lead to disappointment. But for a sectarian mindset, there appears to be no major obstacles in how to reach the masses with socialist ideas. It suffices to self-proclaim “the independent revolutionary party,” call on workers to join it, and then just wait. In one of his articles, Trotsky said: “The sectarian looks upon the life of society as a great school, with himself as a teacher there. In his opinion the working class should put aside its less important matters, and assemble in solid rank around his rostrum: then the task would be solved. Though he swear by Marxism in every sentence, the sectarian is the direct negation of dialectic materialism which takes experience as its point of departure, and always returns to it. A sectarian does not understand the dialectic action and reaction between a finished program and a living, that is to say, imperfect and unfinished mass struggle… Sectarianism is hostile to dialectics (not in words but in action) in the sense that it turns its back upon the actual development of the working class.” (1)
The founders and leading figures of scientific socialism, the great builders of the revolutionary party that Trotskyists uphold, always began by analyzing reality as it was and employed the most clever tactics to connect with the genuine mass movement and generate sympathy for the revolutionary Marxist program, making the most of every opportunity presented by the class struggle.
In Argentina we have entered a new phase. We have a far right government with fascistic leanings, which has set out to reshape the rules of the economy, social relations, and the political regime as we have known them for the last 40 years, since the fall of the genocidal dictatorship. In this context, all the traditional bourgeois political forces have fallen into an unprecedented crisis, especially Peronism, which is the key obstacle to building a left-wing force capable of gaining massive influence among workers and the people.
Therefore, in light of this situation, and because the revolutionary left has significant militant strength and presence in our country, we wish to present a fraternal, constructive, and frank debate as a contribution to building the political alternative with mass influence that is necessary to displace Peronism in the labor movement, in the youth and throughout the popular sectors, capable of fighting for power and paving the way for a socialist and revolutionary solution.
March 24 as a testing ground for two different perspectives on the left
Last March 24, on the 49th anniversary of the genocidal coup, an historic positive event took place in the political center of the country: after nearly 20 years of organizing separate marches, the human rights organizations that spearheaded the struggle against the dictatorship and against the impunity that followed under this democracy of the rich, came together to call for a united rally in Plaza de Mayo. The call was independent of the State, the governments and all bourgeois parties, and it mobilized hundreds of thousands of people.
In the country of the 30,000 disappeared and Milei’s far right government, this was a massive and important event.
The revolutionary left adopted two opposing positions in relation to this massive development: one held by our party, the MST, which worked together with more than 40 organizations of the Encuentro Memoria, Verdad y Justicia (Memory, Truth, and Justice Meeting, or EMVyJ), to make the united Plaza happen; and the other held by Myriam Bregman’s PTS, which, together with PO, IS, NMAS, and a few other small groups, turned their backs on this transcendental event and did everything in their power to divide it—although, logically, they did not succeed. The debates that preceded these two positions, the assessments of this historic event, the methods of those assessments, and the conclusions drawn from the entire discussion highlighted, in stark contrast, two distinct conceptions regarding how to build a left-wing political alternative with mass influence in our country. This contribution is addressed to the membership of the PTS and the other FIT-U parties, and to all sympathizers of the left in Argentina. We aspire to engage in an honest exchange and to contribute elements for collective critical reflection. In this spirit we present this pamphlet of public debate.
Is it correct to oppose the united action of the human rights organizations?
What took place in Plaza de Mayo on the most recent March 24 was massive, historic, powerful, and independent. Massive, it constituted one of the main street mobilizations that have gathered against Milei since his inauguration. Historic, because after almost 20 years of division on that date—caused by Kirchnerism’s political takeover in 2006—unity in action was reestablished between the human rights organizations that have spearheaded the struggle against genocide, and for memory, truth, and justice in this country. Powerful, because it became a tremendous demonstration of social strength against the far right and fascistic project now in office. It was independent of the State and of all political authorities, as demonstrated by the statement read at the Plaza de Mayo rally, and reflected by the people who delivered it, and by the two main blocs that articulated this convergence. The statement that was read was categorical: (2)
• It declared that Milei and Bullrich must go,
• Demanded the publication of state archives dating back to 1974—including the Triple A era under Isabel Perón’s administration,
• Called for justice for Jorge Julio López, Santiago Maldonado, Mariano Ferreyra, and many others,
• Denounced the IMF and the country’s debt,
• Rejected Executive Order 70, the RIGI (Integral Investment Reform Bill), and the extractivist model,
• Demanded that all labor confederations call a strike and a plan of struggle,
• Expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Four prominent figures from the human rights movement in Argentina (two from Encuentro Memoria, Verdad y Justicia and two from the Coordinating Committee of Human Rights Organisms) delivered the statement:
• Adolfo Pérez Esquivel (Nobel Peace Prize laurate, leader of SERPAJ)
• Elia Espen (Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Founding Line)
• Taty Almeida (Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Founding Line)
• Estela de Carlotto (Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo)
Regarding the physical stage set up in the Plaza and the use of space there, everything was agreed upon fairly between the Coordinating Committee of Human Rights Organisms and the majority of the EMVyJ, and the agreement was fully respected.
Therefore, in view of the PTS and Bregman’s political decision to turn their backs on this demonstration, campaigning against it, attempting until the last minute to hold two separate marches, two separate rallies, and perpetuate the division of the human rights organizations—calling the event “an action subordinated to Peronism and the worst of the union bureaucracy, one that liquidates the political independence of the EMVyJ”—we should ask ourselves a few questions:
Did the March 24 mobilization that we built in the Plaza strengthen or weaken Milei? Is it positive or negative for the revolutionary left to help restore unity among human rights organizations in the country of genocide? Should the left continue advocating, forever, for two marches and two rallies on this date, or were these 20 years of division among the organizations ultimately a step backward? Was it a rally celebrating Peronism, Kirchnerism, or any other force that has governed the country, or was it an independent rally? Was it controlled by the CGT or any other wing of the union bureaucracy, or did those sectors remain marginal? Did the platform, the message, and the speakers at the rally not clearly mount a resounding denunciation of the government—aligned with the bulk of the politics and slogans advanced by EMVyJ? What did the PTS-PO-IS and even NMAS achieve by holding a small rally off to the side of the Plaza once most attendees had already left, and that went virtually unnoticed? Which action contributed more and gave more momentum to the EMVyJ’s demands: the united action that the 42 member organizations (including the MST) worked to build, or the small gathering that hardly anyone even knew about, late in the day, without the mass turnout of a few hours earlier? Didn’t PTS, Bregman, and their allies turn their backs on a historic and constructive moment against Milei? More fundamentally, almost appealing to the basic ABCs of revolutionary Marxism, we ask: isn’t a united front tactic both viable and necessary—even when the other side does not endorse our entire program? Isn’t that precisely why we use it: because reaching total programmatic convergence is impossible, and agreeing on certain positive points for mobilization is already a step forward?
In short, we consider these (and other) questions crucial for a critical examination of what this March 24 left in its wake and what it reveals as alternative visions on the left, in the current stage.
It must be noted that EMVyJ had collectively drafted its own statement ahead of time, which unfortunately was not read at the beginning of the event as had been agreed. The sector that refused to unify at the Plaza backed out and ended up using that statement as a way to create a separate focus and sabotage the majority consensus. (3)
A Huge Element of Reality that PTS Leaders Do Not Perceive (or Do Not Want to See): The Crisis of Peronism
After the failure of the most recent administration headed by Alberto, CFK, and Massa, Peronism has spiraled into a deepening crisis. The internal power struggles in the Province of Buenos Aires between La Cámpora and Kicillof are nothing more than a superstructural expression of the grassroots divorce between that political project in its various forms and the working-class and popular base that once supported it. Disenchantment with Peronism, the disappointment caused by its latest stint in government, paved the way for the Milei experiment, fueled in part by an enraged vote for this monstrous figure we now suffer as president.
This erosion of what was once a mass-based Peronism—now adrift and increasingly shifting to the right in its political proposals (including CFK in her latest public appearances)—was the overarching context for this past March 24, one that left Peronism in a more defensive stance than it had been since 2006 in terms of its ability to influence. It was precisely that Peronism which, politically dominating the calls to mobilize since 2006, was responsible for splitting the March 24 mobilizations, attempting to “nationalize” the date and operating within part of the leadership of the human rights organizations. This malignant role played by Peronism weakened the democratic struggle in our country. With Milei now in government and waging an ultra-offensive against even the most basic democratic freedoms, coupled with his active stance promoting denialism, and noting the inaction of PJ leadership and the entire union bureaucracy from his inauguration to the present, the possibility arose—through decisive action by EMVyJ—to approach the Human Rights Agencies Coordinating Committee (Mesa de Organismos) to build a Plaza of unity in diversity that would be both independent and massive. Capitalizing on the crisis within Peronism (whose members in the Coordinating Committee acted autonomously), agreeing to a joint call at the behest of the Encuentro while respecting each bloc’s independence, proved key to achieving this tremendous outcome.
Our party clearly recognized this crisis, understood that it opened a positive opportunity, and decided we could not keep doing the same old things; instead, it was crucial to commit ourselves fully to that united action. This crucial reading—together with the political determination with which we acted in a united front with the majority of EMVyJ organizations, and the willingness of the Coordinating Committee of Human Rights Agencies to come together—made possible a historic rally that dealt a hard blow to Milei and bolstered our people’s strategic fight against this fascistic project.
Is this not precisely how to challenge Peronism’s influence, for instance, in the realm of human rights? Is our objective not to unite in action—without giving up our banners—broad sections of our people against their class enemies? Doesn’t the left strengthen its influence when it acts as the MST did (alongside other organizations) to bring about that historic Plaza? Don’t we gain greater confidence from those sectors who take part in the action and see us, rather than the PJ or the CGT, leading it? Starting from the very causes that the Peronist base is willing to fight for, even if their leaders are not, don’t we build up our left-wing strength by taking the lead and driving those causes consistently? Isn’t it self-isolating and purely testimonial to sit out that mobilization and try to boycott it by every possible means? Isn’t it sectarian in form and simultaneously highly opportunistic in substance, by ceding direct confrontation with Peronism on its own turf and relinquishing the initiative? What would that Plaza on March 24 have looked like had the majority within EMVyJ not pushed ahead with our plan for “unity in difference”? What would have been the message? How would the stage have looked?
It will forever stand among the darkest blunders in left-wing history that the PTS and Bregman deliberately chose to be absent and mounted an ill-fated campaign for two separate events, two separate marches, two Plazas on March 24. It constitutes a major lesson in what absolutely must not be done if our aim is to outmaneuver Peronism—on March 24 or at any other time.
Lies Are Not a Method of the Left, But Stalinism
Socialist organizations have a responsibility when engaging in debates: to help clarify them, arguing our positions and, at the same time, starting from and using real facts. Falsifying reality, lying, making up elements to confuse others rather than being transparent is not part of leftist practice; that’s Stalinism. We may make mistakes when working on politics, and engaging in analysis, criticism, and self-criticism is a healthy method of collective militant construction and education. We do not debate merely to “win” those debates, but to reach the best ideas and conclusions to offer to class struggle and the building of a revolutionary organization—this is, at least, MST’s perspective. We do not lie to our members or to activists, nor do we falsify anything when we debate with organizations on the left with which we might have differing points of view.
We consider this a basic principle, an elementary way of proceeding of the working class. We emphasize this because the PTS, through its website “La Izquierda Diario” (LID), its lawyers’ group CEPRODH, and its leading candidate, Myriam Bregman, have made serious contradictory affirmations stemming from manipulations and distortions of facts—something that cannot be overlooked. On one hand, they advocate for a particular position; on the other, they conceal it, lying in a regrettable display on an embarrassing cover-up in front of their own party base and FIT-U sympathizers alike:
• On LID they claimed that the March 24 event in Plaza de Mayo “was organized by the Human Rights Organizations Committee and the PJ,” and that “the MST unbelievable insisted on getting EMVyJ involved in it.” PTS leaders in University of Buenos Aires assemblies even stated that “the rally at Plaza de Mayo would include Milani and Berni”, even though they did not go as far as to write it on their website.
• Meanwhile, one of the members of their leadership (Pistonesi, Bregman’s advisorand a member of the FIT-U National Committee) wrote, in his “Assessment of the March 24 mobilization,” that “the Human Rights Organizations Committee imposed an ultimatum on EMVyJ,” which was its own document, shaping the setup of the stage as they wished, and ultimately holding a rally dominated by Peronism and union’s bureaucracy, lacking political independence.
• Meanwhile, one of the members of their leadership (Pistonesi, Bregman’s advisorand a member of the FIT-U National Committee) wrote, in his “Assessment of the March 24 mobilization,” that “the Human Rights Organizations Committee imposed an ultimatum on EMVyJ,” which was its own document, shaping the setup of the stage as they wished, and ultimately holding a rally dominated by Peronism and union’s bureaucracy, lacking political independence.
• However, until the week before the event, members of CEPRODH-PTS in EMVyJ supported a unified rally on the condition that the Human Rights Organizations Committee accept a set of demands (which they did accept, and were included and read at Plaza de Mayo), for no “big names” to be on stage and that the Encuentro present its own document (collectively drafted) at the outset of the march. All of that was fully granted, without exception. The statement read at Plaza de Mayo consisted largely of what the Encuentro proposed; there were no “big names” on stage, only Mothers and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo; the text was read by two representatives selected by each group, and EMVyJ had its own document, publicized and ready to be read at the start of the march. However, 72 hours prior to the mobilization, the PTS, at the EMVyJ’s last preparatory plenary, made an “ultimatum” and abruptly changed its position in an astonishing U-turn: They wanted to impose a specific start time for the Encuentro march, nearly overlapping with the rally at Plaza de Mayo, and proposed holding its own event after the alleged “Peronist rally.” That’s how we ended up with two marches, two rallies and two statements. A back-and-forth zigzag of maneuvers aimed at preventing what, in the end, they couldn’t stop: the majority of EMVyJ marched with our own demands to Plaza de Mayo to organize a massive and strong anti-Milei rally, offering an alternative message, which was independent of the entire mainstream political opposition.
Nevertheless, the PTS fails to mention or acknowledge its actions or what actually happened. They do not admit that there was no PJ or the CGT “dominated” rally, that there -was no “Berni and Milani” takeover of Plaza de Mayo, but rather an extraordinary unified call by human rights organizations in Argentina, guided by the agenda that the EMVyJ overwhelmingly proposed.
These contradictions run even deeper: on the very evening of March 24, social media accounts of Myriam Bregman and La Izquierda Diario posted photos of the massive Plaza rally—the same alleged “Berni and Milani” one—praising it as a “great Plaza of thousands” adding a photo of the PTS candidate as if she had participated in it, even though her faction had worked to sabotage it. Can you see how ironic it is? For them to first oppose unity, but then, given the fact that there was a huge, historic, positive call, using it on social media to look good for obvious electoralist goals. Due to the fact that, far from being taken over by “Berni, Milani, and the CGT,” Plaza de Mayo was filled with thousands of young people, workers, professionals, and activists who sympathize with the left and were happy to see the majority of EMVyJ there along with a huge MST contingent—clearly visible in countless photos, TV reports, aerial shots, and all kinds of media coverage of that monumental event
To sum up: there was no PJ/CGT rally. Instead, there was a united rally by the human rights organizations, sending an independent anti-Milei political message, and a joint effort between the majority of EMVyJ and the Human Rights Organizations Committee.
Accordingly, was it the right move for the PTS, together with PO, IS, and NMAS, to turn their backs on this powerful, historic event? Moreover, does manipulating, lying, distorting facts, and then, in the end, trying to opportunistically use what they fought tooth and nail against without offering any self-criticism contribute to this debate at all? Does that have anything to do with the left that we need? That’s for the honest, intellectually and politically responsible membership to decide—recalling what Lenin said: “In the end, the truth is always revolutionary.”
Unity in Action, the United Front, and the Essential Tactics to Make the Left a Leading Player
For Lenin, what characterizes a true revolutionary—and differentiates them from “petty-bourgeois revolutionism”—is being aware that class struggle does not advance in a straight line, nor does workers’ consciousness; that reformist and treacherous leaderships operate within this process; that the working class does not automatically come to revolutionary consciousness; that its own experience is key; and thus, simply having a superior program and reciting it like a prayer is not enough. Instead, all kinds of tactics are needed to actively participate in this process:
“The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and without fail, most thoroughly, carefully, attentively and skillfully using every, even the smallest, “rift” among the enemies, of every antagonism of interest among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who fail to understand this, fail to understand even a particle of Marxism, or of scientific, modern Socialism in general. Those who have not proved by deeds over a fairly considerable period of time, and in fairly varied political situations, their ability to apply this truth in practice have not yet learned to assist the revolutionary class in its struggle to emancipate all toiling humanity from the exploiters. And this applies equally to the period before and after the proletariat has conquered political power.”
This quote is from the 1920 pamphlet “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, but it bears a less known subtitle: “An Attempt at a Popular Exposition on Marxist Strategy and Tactics.” In other words, Lenin did not envision it merely as a timely document but as a set of guidelines on Marxist strategy and tactics. (4)
In Argentina, it is not the left that influences the majority of the working class and popular sectors—neither electorally nor in class struggle. Indeed, the influence of Peronism and its class-collaborationist perspective is the barrier to be overcome. To do so requires winning over its valuable working-class, youth, popular, and middle-class social base through their own experience. At times of wavering, crisis, and disillusionment with Peronism, as seen now in our country and was reflected in the most recent March 24th demonstrations, the opportunities we have to influence and draw detachments of that social base toward the left become crucial. This makes unity in difference—the unity of action—an outright necessity. The influence of socialist ideas is proven by being the most consistent force in common struggles that mobilize the social base of the very forces which programs, leaderships, and orientations we oppose. That means joining them in action, without relinquishing our own identity, and showing that we are the most resolute fighters in that battle—for instance, against Milei’s far-right-wing government. To remain on the sidelines, preaching for some vague purity, is to flee from the fight, to dodge a courageous, determined confrontation with our competitors; in the end, it reflects a profound lack of confidence in the strength of our own ideas and a severe underestimation of the potential for millions to evolve toward socialism in their consciousness. Such lack of confidence and skepticism about mass consciousness lead organizations to become conservative and dogmatic. Hiding behind harmful sectarianism, they make things easier for the very forces they claim (in words, though not in deeds) to oppose, by giving away the initiative to them.
What is true for a mass mobilization such as that of March 24 also holds for the struggle over leading unions or any mass organization we aim to be the leadership of: tactical alliances with sectors that break away from leaderships like Peronism, or that are in a circumstantial crisis, are key to winning over the leadership of strategic sectors of the mass movement. The requirement for such temporary tactical alliances to be effective is that the program underpinning the unity be correct and serve the mobilization and political experience of the people who take to the streets—accompanied by their leaders—and of us. In this regard, it is of course essential that each bloc or force (particularly ours) preserve its own political-organizational independence within those alliances.
All this, which belongs to the basic Leninist playbook, appears to be historically misunderstood by the PTS. They represent the denial of the struggle for leadership of the mass movement—especially in the working class—where unity-and-struggle tactics and the united front are essential to fight for leadership in unions and other bodies such as bodies of delegates or internal union committees. The PTS rejects such a perspective in the workers’ movement, as well as in the student movement, and historically has even held reactionary positions on the piquetero (unemployed workers’ movement)—which they have consistently labeled declassed—and on united-front efforts to mobilize that sector. Because of their sectarian approach, they sideline themselves or split (or attempt to split) what they cannot control. (5)
In the labor movement, beyond their marginal influence in its leadership structures, their interventions do not aim to confront the bureaucracy, to foster mobilization, or to deploy the unity-and-struggle and united-front tactics needed. Typically, the role they play is highly negative, shaped instead by their own internal needs and their self-building goals, rather than serving the specific victories of conflicts or strengthening (new or reclaimed) organizational bodies, for instance by creating new bodies or artificially contrived “coordinating committees,” instead of focusing on building up class-struggle leaderships in unions, shop-floor committees, and delegate bodies.
This does not seem to be the path through which the revolutionary left can gain ground over Peronism and grow strong in the workers’ and mass organizations. (6)
The PTS’s Conservative, Election-Focused Perspective Limits the FIT-U’s Potential
The debate surrounding March 24 and the discussions taking place among activists who participated is far from an isolated, serious mistake on the PTS and its allies; rather, it reflects an entire political conception that is strategically harmful.
This thesis is important for reflecting on and drawing all necessary conclusions from this situation, given that this party holds some of the best-known personalities within the political-electoral coalition that brings together the most important parties of the revolutionary left in Argentina. Furthermore, we believe it exports the same deeply mistaken approach internationally, to some of the countries where organizations belonging to the same international grouping as the PTS also operate.
Still, let’s first talk about the national context. In Argentina, the Trotskyist left has attained significant influence among the activist vanguard and even substantial presence in political-electoral terms. Unlike many other countries, this space in Argentina is not occupied by reformist, social-democratic, or neo-Stalinist expressions on the left, but rather by Trotskyist forces. This dynamic, expressed through electoral unity in the FIT–Unidad (the Left and Workers’ Front–Unity), is itself positive, yet it remains limited to an electoral coalition, and has been so for nearly 15 years.
It is indeed valid and correct to engage in political-electoral struggles from a revolutionary viewpoint and to win seats for socialists in the parliaments so that powerful socialist ideas can be broadcasted, using those positions to boost extra-parliamentary activities and bring the voices of the oppressed into these capitalist institutions. All of that is appropriate for as long as reality has yet to produce higher forms of workers’ and people’s self-organization. However, the problem arises from the PTS repeatedly refusing (along with PO and IS, of course) to discuss or adopt measures that would transform the FIT-U into something far more than an electoral front.(8)
It is clear that the strategy required to structurally transform Argentina, dismantling the capitalist model and applying transitional measures toward a socialist model, calls for a workers’ and people’s government. Toward that end, building a revolutionary political alternative centered on political intervention in the class struggle is urgent. It is likewise evident that there is no hegemonic force on the left within our country that, on its own, could resolve this historical challenge. The FIT-U unites the strongest forces, but it still does not encompass all the left’s organizations and social sectors—nor, by far, the vast amount of union, student, social, human rights, cultural, women, LGBTQ+, and environmental activism. That broader activism holds a huge potential for power and is part of the irreplaceable base of the political subject that must be built in order to become a genuine political alternative with mass influence in Argentina.
This issue has always been a round for disagreement for us and the PTS (plus its circumstantial allies, PO and IS). We have insisted that the FIT-U’s strictly electoral focus is a severe limitation. It is evident that the PTS’s core interest is its own self-building, with a focus on elections, on creating electoral “personalities,” full stop. Moreover, the FIT-U, as an experience, can be cast aside if it ceases to benefit that party’s apparatus. There are numerous examples, but let’s highlight a few recent ones:
• Early elections in Salta. Since there are no primaries (PASO), the orientation debate cannot be decided through that mechanism, nor can the lists be set that way. Therefore, we would use the results of previous elections as the standard. In Salta, the MST obtained the best results, outperforming PO and beating the PTS (which is barely presence there). This time, it was the MST’s turn to lead the unified list. What did PTS propose? They broke with the FIT-U, running on a separate list to prevent the MST from leading, even though that meant jeopardizing the front’s opportunity to win legislative representation. If I can’t go first, I’ll split… They didn’t mind if the left was weakened or if the PJ or the far-right won more seats.
• In the City of Buenos Aires (CABA), Jorge Macri pushed forward the election date for the Deputies for the City Legislature elections. The criteria we use when there are no Primary (PASO) elections, is for the leading party to be the one that got the best results on the previous elections. In 2023, the MST headed that category with Cele Fierro, and we won a wide margin over PTS-IS when running in an internal list with PO. Now, this time around, did that matter? Not at all: the PTS, in an agreement with PO and IS (yet again!), decided that the MST won’t head the list, even though we have the right—agreed upon in past elections—to do so. We, of course, challenged this. But once again, the objective was to block a distinctive voice within the FIT-U like the MST from heading up the slate that rightly belonged to us.
This is all about an apparatus-driven sectarianism, an enforced hegemonism, and constant electoral calculations. One more thing: there is a clear fear of workers’ democracy as a means to make decisions. We will explain that below. But it is this closed-minded approach that keeps the FIT-U confined to its limits within the bourgeois-democratic regime and prevents it from transforming into a reference pole to organize tens of thousands of active members, rather than merely passive voters.
Why Not a Unified Left Party with Internal Democracy?
Evidently, the PTS does not believe that anything bigger and more powerful than the FIT-U can be created for the class struggle. Our proposal is to transform the FIT-U into a unified party, functioning democratically on the basis of the right to act as independent tendencies within it. The coalition’s current anti-capitalist and socialist program would serve as the base, and from there we would openly call upon thousands upon thousands of activists and other social and political left forces to take an active part in building it.
Ever since we, as the MST, entered this coalition in 2019, we have insisted on this idea, while the PTS, supported by PO and IS, has always rejected even the call for an Open Congress to debate the matter openly, in front of the membership of our organizations and the hundreds of thousands of FIT-U supporters. Why do they refuse to do so? What are they afraid of? What dangers do they envision? Clearly, an open call of this nature, based on the FIT-U program, would initially have that political safeguard: a program aimed at something left-wing, revolutionary. What would be the problem with allowing the participation of thousands upon thousands of sympathizers, even people disenchanted with Peronism who have oscillated between the FIT-U and progressivism over the years? Wouldn’t that be a massive event? Wouldn’t it boost our capacity to intervene in unions to free them from the bureaucracy or to create new ones, uniting thousands of delegates and independent activists who hate bureaucrats? Wouldn’t it help us reclaim student centers and federations currently in the hands of groups tied to Radicalism and Peronism? Wouldn’t it be an attractive leap for noteworthy personalities in critical intellectual circles and culture? Wouldn’t it be a positive factor for intervening in the struggles around women and diversity, environmental issues, and human rights, in the face of such a denialist offensive like the one’s Milei is leading? Wouldn’t it greatly further regrouping efforts in international causes and allow us to carry out strong campaigns and mobilizations, while working through internal debates, nuances, and differences? Wouldn’t it be an extraordinarily positive point of reference for the international left to establish a militant force of tens of thousands of activists on the basis of a revolutionary program and democratic functioning? What fears and cautions are paralyzing the PTS from accepting this proposal or some similar, more advanced option? Some time ago, back in 2019 or 2020, the PTS put forward the idea of a single party with democratic centralism for the entire FIT-U. Why have they gone from that proposal to not even accepting an Open Congress? We don’t want to speculate, but it’s not hard to reach the conclusion that, at the time, it was merely a maneuver rather than a plan meant to be carried out in earnest.
An undertaking of the kind we propose would be tremendously impactful. Moreover, it would rest on the most basic standards of workers’ democracy for deciding everything, including candidates and the formation of slates for electoral participation.
If the PTS believes—as its leadership presumably does—that it holds the best political ideas and the greatest militant capacity and strength to lead such a process, surely it would succeed. Why not give it a try? If they believe they have the left’s most recognized personalities, then why wouldn’t a unified party’s workers’ democracy, with mechanisms for collective debate, choose them to serve as spokespeople for everyone?
On our part, we are enthusiastic about starting a massive process of political construction that breaks with all routine and dogmatism, forcing us to revalidate our positions and put everything up for constant debate, in a rich process of democratic exchange. This breaks with every conservative, apparatus-driven, and self-preservationist logic. As is widely known, when workers’ democracy takes precedence, majorities and minorities are transient and dynamic, not permanent—at which point political formations cease to remain in fixed hands.
What potential such an orientation would have. Isn’t it worth trying? We pose this to the PTS rank and file and to the entirety of the FIT-U: let us build the party. We, the MST, are already more than convinced. And we have no doubt that a proposal of this kind, rolled out collectively across the entire workers’, youth, popular, and intellectual vanguard in Argentina, would gather immense support and endorsement.
This course is markedly different from the one the PTS is pursuing today—one that has become an obstacle to revolution—and it would enable us to advance in achieving the two strategies needed for making it a reality: developing a state of permanent mobilization and building a party with a genuine drive for power that can lead it.
(1) Trotsky, L. (1935), Sectarianism, Centrism and the Fourth International, www.marxist.org
(2) Periodismo de Izquierda. (2025, March 24). 24M. Documento leído en la marcha unitaria a Plaza de Mayo – Periodismo de Izquierda. Periodismo de Izquierda. https://periodismodeizquierda.com/24m-documento-leido-en-la-marcha-unitaria-a-en-plaza-de-mayo/
(3) Periodismo de Izquierda. (2025, March 24). 24M. Compartimos el documento del EMVJ – Periodismo de Izquierda. Periodismo de Izquierda. https://periodismodeizquierda.com/24m-compartimos-el-documento-del-emvj/
(4) Vladimir Ilʹich Lenin. (1921). “Left Wing” Communism, www.marxist.org
(5) Ataques al sindicalismo combativo en salud y al MST. El PTS: una corriente nociva en el m ovimiento obrero – MST :: (2023, May 4). Mst.org.ar. https://mst.org.ar/2023/05/04/ataques-al-sindicalismo-combativo-en-salud-y-al-mst-el-pts-una-corriente-nociva-en-el-m-ovimiento-obrero/
(6) ¿Adónde va el PTS? – MST :: (2024, May 2). Mst.org.ar. https://mst.org.ar/2024/05/02/adonde-va-el-pts/
(7) France: Where is the CCR going? (2022, December 9). Lis-Isl.org. https://lis-isl.org/en/2022/12/francia-adonde-va-la-ccr/
(8) Periodismo de Izquierda. (2024, November 21). Carta Abierta del MST en el FIT-U. Fortalecé un nuevo proyecto, junto a la izquierda – Periodismo de Izquierda. Periodismo de Izquierda. https://periodismodeizquierda.com/carta-abierta-del-mst-en-el-frente-de-izquierda-unidad/
