Since they decided to marginalize themselves from the positive process of the Plenary of Combative Syndicalism, the PTS has reawakened the controversies around the “new leadership”, undoubtedly to justify their setbacks in the working class movement and their electoralist turn.
The PSC (Plenary of Combative Syndicalism), founded in Lanus, has been a clear step forward for the coordination between different combative trade unions and for the alliance between the main left political currents in the workers movement. It has enabled joint actions in the general strikes, unitary mobilizations and the presentation of opposition slates in the CTA (Workers Central of Argentina) and CONADUh (Historical University Professors National Federation) elections. Also, the PSC is starting to develop in different regions, proving that it is a correct policy that responds to the needs of workers achieve the greatest possible unity in action to defeat Macri, and of activists to unite to fight for a new classist and democratic trade-union leadership.
The PTS (Socialist Workers Party) and its trade-union organization MAC (Movement of Classist Organizations) decided to simply boycott this process. They dismissed the calls, refused to participate and, in the face of the success of the PSC, to try to cover their divisionist and sectarian policy, they fabricated a controversy: the plenary only mentions a “new leadership”, which would imply an alleged capitulation to the trade-union bureaucracy. This affirmation would have been easily refuted had they even taken the time to read the program approved in Lanus: “For a new anti-bureaucratic and combative direction of the working class movement based on trade-union democracy and workers political independence. Nevertheless, the PTS has built this factional controversy in order to cover their scandalous electioneering turn.
Amalgam and historical distortion.
In a cumbersome and foolish text published in Ideas de Izquierda and signed by Gabriela Liszt, they try to develop some sort of thesis they’ve called “the failure of the new leadership policy”. In order to justify it, the author distorts the trajectory of the “old” MAS (Movement to Socialism) in the working-class movement, where she claims the origin of the policy they now blame on the PSC originates. They use the amalgam method, taking quotes from both public and internal documents of the MAS completely out of context. And ignoring the diverse components of the Plenary, they turn every sector part of they historical falsifications.
In the article, they affirm without proof that “the unitary tactics were turned into strategies”, that the old MAS didn’t develop classist tendencies inside workers´ organisms, causing the strengthening of the bureaucracy.
Beyond the critiques around that historical moment of our current, the PTS and its author ignore that, by applying united front tactics and building powerful classist organizations independent from the bureaucracy, the old MAS became a powerful force in the working-class movement at that time and became a fundamental actor in the recovery of several unions and dozens of internal commissions and delegate bodies, as well as taking part of dynamic opposition slates in state, private sector and industrial unions.
Consistent with their denial of the democratic revolution that overthrew the dictatorship, the PTS minimizes the powerful anti-bureaucratic wave that is developing in the working-class movement and its unions, many of which were intervened by the state at the time. This wave started by bringing down the “transitory commissions” approved by the military and went on to question the Peronist bureaucracy itself, paving the way for new leaderships.
In honor of the truth
Without a doubt, the utilization by the left of united front tactics with a part of the Peronist activist base and even with some displaced elements of the old leaderships, at that time not only allowed the left to gain terrain, but also to make a process of “new direction” advance. This process wasn’t pure, but allowed the left to defeat the old leaderships and win union leadership positions in some cases, and to develop a strong anti-bureaucratic opposition in others. Winning ATE (State Workers Association) from Horvath’s White Slate was a step forward in winning back demands, even after the Green Slate, in hands of Deggenarism, later hegemonized the conduction.
The “naranjazo” (rise of the Orange Slate) in the Health Service Union not only permitted winning the union of Buenos Aires City from the pro-dictatorship bureaucracy, but also allowed the revolutionary left to be part of the leadership, from where it developed a union-wide opposition that, although the PTS article denies it, continues today in the Maroon Slate and the powerful internal commission of the Italian Hospital.
Other processes like those of the Green Slate in the meat workers union, the Orange Slate in the UOCRA (Construction Workers Union of Argentina) of Neuquen and other provinces, the Violet Slate in Commerce, teachers unions, etc, that the PTS contemptuously dismisses, meant an important change in the working-class movement. They were the tip of the iceberg of the leadership renovation and the influence of the Trotskyist left in the internal commissions of the principal companies of those years.
The author sees in these unitary tactics the defining reason of why the Ubaldinist bureaucracy ended up hegemonizing the labor leadership, ignoring that, in the end, the process of new labor union leaderships was cut short mainly because of the strength that the PJ (Peronist Justice Party) still had as a political leaderships, which the working-class movement saw as an alternative to the conservative government that applied an austerity program and starved them. With this in mind, we should address the immaturity of the development of the revolutionary left and the mistaken politics adopted during the last period of the old MAS, which aren’t the ones pointed out by the PTS.
Denying the united front
This and other texts by the PTS aren’t only the justifying foundation for not joining the Plenary. This is also about a deeply sectarian, and therefore opportunist, conception, of the united front tactics and a propagandist vision of the fight for the leadership.
Filled with a deeply pessimistic outlook and distrust in the working class, they do not believe in the possibility of contend for the leadership, of particular places, and also of the overall leadership. This is why they refuse any unity against any given bureaucracy. They’re the champions of testimonial and “pure” slates, and of self-preservation, that fears every effort towards unity. This sectarianism turns into opportunism because they renounce the fight and facilitate the advance of the bureaucracy. This applies to struggles as well as union elections. This sectarianism-opportunism was key in the defeat of conflicts like Lear and Pepsico, where the PTS held leading responsibility. Or in the loss of organizational gains, like the recent ATEN (teachers´ union of Neuquen) elections, where its divisionist policy surrendered entire regions to the bureaucracy. Every act of this nature is a step backwards for workers and demoralizes the activists we need as the human material for the new leadership.
In order to move the big wheel of unity in action to drive mobilization and beat the bureaucracy, there’s another level at which the MAC/PTS refuses to ally: the unity of the left and classism. Sadly, although we insisted, they blocked every attempt to repeat the massive National Meeting of Workers that the ANCLA (the MST´s National Classist Anti-bureaucratic Organization) and the MAC held with the Posadas Hospital activists last February, compromising not only the development of this conflict, but also the coordination they claim to uphold. When we finally coordinated with the other forces of the FIT (their electoral allies) and anti-bureaucratic sectors to make the PSC happen in Lanus, they refused to take part of it and created this false controversy that, essentially, tries to cover up their pessimism, their propagandist vision and, ultimately, their strategy concentrated on showcasing their public figures, and focused on their participation in the bourgeois elections.
Towards a leadership renovation
We think quite differently: we believe a new process of leadership renovation has begun, like in the one that developed but fell short in the 70s and 80s. Only this time, it takes place in the middle of a profound structural crisis of the bureaucracy, with the unions divided and the bureaucrats profoundly discredited in the rank-and-file. With the influence the left now has in the class struggle, it can and must play a central role. This is why, especially given the attack the working class is withstanding by the bosses and the government, unitary tactics for mobilization and fighting for the leadership is more important than ever. Of course, under the premises of having a correct program, maintaining political and organizational independence, and fighting for a deeply democratic union model. We do not doubt that unitary tactics will help the growth of a new classist leadership, which would also help in the struggle for a new left alternative with mass influence. By building ANCLA and the MST we are helping to achieve this.
Guillermo Pacagnini, National Coordinator of ANCLA/MST