Argentine politics – lost in the labyrinth
To speak of Argentina today is to speak of the implementation of a neoliberal project that continues the economic line drawn by the military dictatorship (1976-1983), the government of Carlos Saul Menem (1989-1999) and the government of Mauricio Macri (1915-1919), with its consequences of external debt, alienation of natural resources to foreign corporations, and the impoverishment of the country’s population.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of a real inflation that far exceeds the statistics presented by the government of Javier Milei, that declares an annual inflation rate of 31.4% (Nov-2025), a figure that does not reflect the changes in the consumer habits of most Argentines, where meat, one of the most important items in the Argentine diet, saw a year-on-year price increase of 70%.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of the destruction of local industries and, consequently, the loss of jobs. With the reduction in local consumption, it is more convenient for foreign corporations to import than to produce in the country, as demonstrated by the multinational Whirlpool, which two years ago invested in the country to produce 300,000 washing machines per year and has now closed its factory, laying off 220 workers.
To talk about Argentina is to talk about rampant corruption at all levels of national (and provincial) government, concealed by the mass media and sustained by the judicial apparatus; in particular the Supreme Court of Justice. The denialist offensive attempts to justify state terrorism (1976-1983), avoiding the prosecution of corrupt government officials, while social activist Milagro Salas has been in prison since January 2016, and the main opposition leader Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is under house arrest with an ankle bracelet.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of the role played by the US ambassador, Cuban-American ‘businessman’ Peter Lamelas, who has no problem in declaring that he has come to the country to ‘support Milei’s government… and ensure that Cristina Kirchner receives the justice she deserves [i.e., is appropriately victimised]… and to travel around the Argentine provinces to ‘monitor’ their trade agreements, particularly with China’.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of the break with the historical diplomatic traditions maintained by the country, with Milei’s government voting alongside the United States of America to maintain sanctions against Cuba, support the genocide against the Palestinian people, ignore the presence of the NATO military base in the Malvinas (Falkland Islands), and welcome Trump’s efforts to ‘invade Venezuela and liberate the Venezuelan people from Nicolas Maduro’.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of the bicicleta financiera (carry trade), a speculative strategy that foreign corporations use to obtain enormous profits in the short term. While Milei’s government keeps the dollar exchange rate unchanged, speculators exchange their dollars for pesos to invest in local assets that pay high interest rates, and then convert them back to dollars, obtaining a considerable profit. This mechanism is not new; it was applied by all governments that implemented neoliberal policies – with the support of the IMF. This always affected the country’s real economy and increased the external debt. And since this economic model is obviously not viable, crises of confidence arise. In the last crisis before the legislative elections, the mainstream media announced, ‘economic catastrophe’ if the government were not supported. Donald Trump’s government weighed in to promise an additional $20 billion in financial aid to maintain these policies, and this influenced the recent election results in favour of the government that had fallen badly behind in the opinion polls, facilitating Milei’s re-election as president despite his unpopularity.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of a country in which the majority of the population is harmed by an economic model that benefits only a few, reducing public spending on education, health, and public works, but in which broad social strata continue to support the political representatives of the monopolists, as if they were sleepwalkers walking toward a precipice, that is, toward their own destruction.
To speak of Argentina is to speak of all these issues and of whether it is possible to overcome this state of affairs, and the role that the main opposition force, Peronism, plays or can play.
A little history…
Peronism, or rather ‘Justicialism’, the name given at the beginning to the social movement created by General Perón in 1945, was based on three pillars: class conciliation, a national project and a leader.
It grew up to counter the strong communist movement of the 1920s that had arisen as a result of the victory of the Russian revolution. The Argentine national bourgeoisie was all for ridding the country of its British imperialist masters, but was deadly opposed, of course, to proletarian revolution. A party to represent its interests needed, as a central element, class conciliation only insofar as necessary to oust imperialism, a party supporting the idea of maintaining existing production relations and the capitalist system of exploitation. That party and movement was Peronism. It never sought to overcome the existing economic system and build a different social alternative. It only sought to ‘improve’ the capitalist system and achieve a more equitable distribution of national income in favour of the working class – akin to Western social-democracy, but without the benefit of being an imperialist nation benefiting from the super-profits derived from monopolist profits and captive imperial markets and subjects to support such a system.
The second constituent element of Justicialism was its ‘national project’. This is a central element in any political project, defining a goal and indicating a path to follow, and Justicialism had this from its origins. This gave it a unique identity, its ‘national project’ being summarised in the expression: “Una Patria Libre, Justa y Soberana” (a free, just and sovereign homeland), that is, the construction of a country with economic independence, social justice and political sovereignty. Clearly, the prospect achieving of these goals without a profound rupture with capitalist exploitation and subservience to imperialism was negligible.
Finally, the third pillar of Peronism was expressed in the fact that the political representation of the movement would always be through a leader, in this case Juan Domingo Perón. The leader is the one who represents the people, disguising the fact that his government represents only the interests of the national bourgeoisie. Such a leadership excludes the active participation of the population in the struggle for a better future, because, they are told, it will of course be the leader who will be responsible for achieving the social progress that most of the population needs.
This call to the people not to fight or to be responsible for their own destiny is a central element of Peronism and will serve to resolve social contradictions not through struggle but through the mediation of the leader. Perón himself expressed this clearly when, at the beginning of the movement, he uttered his famous phrase, ‘from home to work and from work to home.’
On this basis, Justicialism, or rather ‘Peronism’, carried out one of the most innovative administrations in Argentine political history during its nine years in government (1946-1955), particularly during Perón’s first presidency (1946-1952). Economically, the government contributed to the industrialisation of the country, nationalised the Central Bank, nationalised foreign trade previously in the hands of British corporations, nationalised the electricity, gas and telephone companies, created the national merchant fleet to facilitate the export of agricultural products and reduce payments to foreign shipping companies, nationalised the railways, which were mostly owned by British companies, and paid off debts incurred by previous governments to the Bank of England.
On the social front, laws were established to protect workers (paid holidays, bonuses, pensions), health coverage was extended to the entire population, free university education was established, and access to housing was facilitated. At the same time, new universities were created and countless schools, hospitals, and holiday camps for workers were built. During this period, workers’ share of GDP reached 50%.
In short, the changes, especially social ones, left their mark on most of the working population, but the enemies of the working class, the local oligarchy and foreign corporations, which had only accepted a few concessions but had not lost their immense power, drastically interrupted this cycle through the coup d’état of 1955.
The leader, Juan Domingo Perón, was banned. Mentioning his name was prohibited, his party dissolved, and union leaders were imprisoned. The leader was forced into exile, and decisions about the country’s fate would thenceforth be made in Washington, just as they had been made previously, before Perón, in London.
With the overthrow of Perón, another sad chapter began in Argentina, one of surrender of national heritage and corruption by the lackeys of the empire, but it also began a glorious chapter in the history of Argentine workers who were prepared to fight on tooth and nail for democracy and national sovereignty. They still associated their well-being with Peronism, and their resistance therefore was based on demanding the restoration of Peronism.
With their leader in exile and banned, the people loyal to Perón demonstrated in strikes, public protests and sabotage, walls were painted with slogans: ‘Long live Perón’ or ‘Fight and he will return.’ The dictatorial governments acted and from 1958 onwards, with the Conintes (Internal State Commotion) plan, following Washington’s instructions, used the armed forces to repress the workers, acting as an army of occupation in a colony. Film director Pino Solanas, working clandestinely, managed to film La Hora de los Hornos (The Hour of the Furnaces), a magnificent fresco of the Argentine people’s resistance struggle.
The struggles continued, with authoritarian military governments succeeded by other authoritarian military governments, while the streets were filled with resistance and the country witnessed heroic days of the working class such as the ‘Cordobazo’ (29 and 30 May 1969), where thousands of workers and students took over the city of Córdoba and defied police repression.
While resistance grew and the country changed, his ‘personal delegates’ mediated between Perón and the people through their messages, but the leader’s ideological evolution had already stopped in 1950s. In the country, while the union bureaucracies accommodated themselves to the regimes in power, young Peronists chanted anti-imperialist slogans, carried out military actions against the dictatorships in power, and sang ‘Perón and Evita, the socialist homeland.’
According to Perón, everyone was working for his return regardless of ideological differences, and the leader summed up the differences within the movement with a famous phrase: “Some are orthodox, some are heterodox, some are combative, some are contemplative, but they all work“. Nevertheless, the persistence of Peronist illusions among the working class would undoubtedly have been an obstacle to the growth of the communist movement truly representing the interests of the working masses. The Communist Party of Argentina would also, of course, have been damaged by the influence of Khrushchevite revisionism.
After 1970 considerable numbers of frustrated elements attempted to resort to armed struggle. They were known as the Montaneros and their activity consisted mainly of kidnappings, attacks on military and police posts and targeted assassinations) to promote various political demands, such as the release of prisoners, etc. They were unable to establish a mass base and were to be violently wiped out after the Generals seized power in 1976.
Finally, in 1973, after 18 years in exile, Perón returned to the country. He was already 78 years old, in poor health, and was elected president for the third time with 62% of the vote. Of his ‘national project,’ the ambition to build a ‘free, just, and sovereign homeland,’ only his past speeches remained, and among the factions of Peronism, he chose the union bureaucracy and the most conservative sectors.
Following an unwritten rule of Peronism, the leader must perpetuate himself eternally in his leadership and avoid appointing anyone who can erode this leadership. Perón complied with this maxim by appointing his wife, Isabel Martínez de Perón, someone without the minimal political education or any knowledge to lead a country, as his successor after his death in 1974. In the absence of a strong communist movement, the willingness of the national bourgeoisie, the real leaders of Peronism behind the scenes, to make concessions to keep the allegiance of the working class was minimal, which is what ensured that Isabel inevitably disappointed her working-class followers.
This characteristic of Peronism was repeated in 2015 when Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, leader of the Peronist movement, after twelve years in government, chose Daniel Scioli, a politician aligned with the neoliberal ideas of Carlos Menem, to succeed her as presidential candidate. Scioli is now part of Milei’s government as Secretary of Tourism. This story repeated itself in 2019 with her support for the presidential candidacy of Alberto Fernández, a mediocre politician, who did not even know what it meant to have a ‘national project’. None of these Peronists had any hope of not disappointing their working-class followers!
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves, because after the 1976 coup d’état that overthrew Isabel Perón and established the Generals in power, bringing in the darkest night in recent history with its 30,000 disappeared, while the ‘occupying army’ was busy repressing the population, and the oligarchy and foreign corporations were completing the destruction of national industry by applying neoliberal policies, and the foreign debt multiplied by 10 in just 7 years, Peronism continued its ideological regression. In the meantime, the neo-liberal looting of the country led to hyper-inflation that reached the incredible level of nearly 3,000% in 1989. Damaging to bourgeoisie and proletariat alike, the only way the bourgeoisie knows how to deal with the problem of inflation is imposing vicious austerity on the working masses.
Far from its origins, having lost its identification with a ‘national project’, Peronism was transformed into a way of doing politics behind the backs of the people. At the same time, for many trade union leaders, deputies, governors and Peronist politicians, it became a way to enrich their personal fortunes.
Only in this way is it possible to understand the administration of Carlos Menem (1989-1999), who won the presidential elections by flying the flag of Peronism and promising to build a ‘free, fair and sovereign homeland’ following the teachings of Juan Domingo Perón. In his speeches, candidate Menem called on workers to ‘follow me, I will not let you down,’ but when he took office, he did exactly the opposite of what he had promised.
He threw his discourse of social justice into the dustbin and raised the banner of neoliberalism, handing over economic management to the largest export group of the time, Bunge & Born. During his administration, he continued the neoliberal policies that had been initiated by the military dictatorship (1976-1983), continuing down the path of debt and dependence. He also privatised all the public companies that Perón had created, dismantling all the legislation protecting workers that Perón had put in place, becoming the most corrupt politician in Argentine history.
With the crisis of 2001, progressive administrations also emerged from Peronism, such as those of Néstor Kirchner (2003-2007) and Cristina Kirchner (2008-2015). During this period, income distribution for workers recovered in relation to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), reaching 53.2% in 2015. The debt to the International Monetary Fund acquired by other governments was paid off, some of the companies privatised by Menem were recovered by the state, the military personnel involved in crimes against humanity were tried, and an independent and Latin American-oriented foreign policy was developed.
However, the power of the oligarchy and foreign corporations remained intact, the monopolistic multimedia companies continued to mis-‘educate’ Argentines, the dependency of the economy was not modified, and ‘the embassy’ (a term used to describe the diplomatic mission of the United States of America) continued to control the country’s direction. For this reason, the government of Mauricio Macri (2015-2019), which succeeded Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, managed to dismantle in just 60 days the social progress made in twelve years of the Kirchners’ governments, while at the same time running up vast amounts of new debt which has shackled the Argentine government ever since.
The new Peronist government of Alberto Fernández – Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (2019-2023) could do nothing to improve the situation: see ‘Victory of Javier Milei reveals the failure of Argentina’s popular forces’, Proletarian, December 2023.
Present and future
As in the past, during the Menem (1989-1999), De la Rua (1999-2001), Macri (1915-1919) administrations, and since 2023 with the election of Javier Milei, a large number of Peronist legislators and governors who are elected on a platform of social progress immediately change sides, abandon the political project they supported, adapt to the new scenario, and sell their services to the government in power.
With its deep identity crisis, divided among several groups, and with leaders aspiring to lead it in the future presidential elections in 2027, Peronism has been exposed and found wanting. But what is to replace it?
A celebrated tango by Enrique Santos Discépolo, ‘Cambalache’ (1935), said, “Today it turns out that it is the same to be honest as it is to be a traitor, ignorant, wise, a thief, generous, a swindler. Everything is the same, nothing is better. A donkey is the same as a great teacher.” If, for Peronism, the administrations of Carlos Menem and the Kirchners, the union bureaucrats of the CGT and the ‘Peronist resistance,’ the comrades who defend a programme of transformation, the ‘mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo’ and the corrupt who swell their personal fortunes are all the same, then the prophecy of the tango would have been fulfilled and the interests of the working masses would be hopelessly lost. But this is not necessarily the case, because everything will depend on the paths that are taken.
In the struggle of oppressed countries on the one hand against imperialism on the other, it is that contradiction which is primary, relegating the contradiction between capitalists and workers to a secondary position. However, the contradiction, even if only secondary, remains and is real and needs to be managed. The national bourgeoisie can never be relied upon in the struggle against imperialism, as the history of Peronism – and so many other movements, revolutions and nations – has demonstrated. For the movement to succeed it must be led by the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie. The people of Argentina need to rally around a genuine communist leadership, uniting in the fight against imperialism all those sections of the population that are willing to be united, including elements of the national bourgeoisie should any be found who are still willing to fight, but control of the movement should never be left to the bourgeoisie.
We might ask ourselves what a policy of ‘class conciliation’ means when the ruling classes wage a systematic war against workers, when the wealth of the country that belongs to all Argentines evaporates abroad while a tiny fraction remains in the hands of local servants, when only a few enjoy the benefits of increasing the foreign debt that all Argentines will pay.
History has shown that social progress is achieved through struggle, with an active and mobilised working people.