The historic rise that the shares of Argentine companies registered at the beginning of the week both on the Buenos Aires stock exchange and on Wall Street clearly showed that the winner of the elections on Sunday, October 26, was international financial capital. The euphoria also spread to Argentine public debt bonds, achieving the unprecedented feat of reducing the country's risk rating by almost half in a single day. As was to be expected, enthusiasm swept through the economic team, made up almost exclusively of J.P. Morgan traders, who saw their dream of "returning to the credit markets" coming true, that is, to be able to indebt Argentina again as they had done so many times in the past under all the governments they had been part of, which inevitably ended in economic and financial runs and bankruptcies and social catastrophes.

The democracy of extortion

To achieve this victory, financial capital ensured that it took control of the ruling party's campaign in advance. Trump himself acknowledged this role by retweeting a post that praised him as the real winner of our country's election, attributing to the fascist in the White House the role of "Milei's campaign manager". Beyond his lack of propensity for moderation, we must recognize that in this case there is not a hint of exaggeration. In the days leading up to the election, the US government began to determine Argentina's exchange rate by selling dollars through private banks, and its political envoys sat down at the same table with politicians from the ruling party and the opposition to ensure the country's governability. As if that were not enough, JP Morgan organized its global meeting in Buenos Aires as a gesture of support from the leading US bank to the libertarian government. In accordance with Trump, JP Morgan announced that it would finance projects that would allow the US government to deepen its international dispute with China.

Far from concealing it, US intervention was carefully staged by Trump himself at his meeting with Milei and his cabinet at the White House. The phrase that echoed in the media, that "if Milei does not win, we will leave and withdraw all economic support," was aimed directly at our country's electorate to vote in the elections under the coercion of the main power of world imperialism. To leave no doubt, US officials made it clear that Trump was talking about this election and not the 2027 presidential election, refuting those who wanted to downplay the threat. Only under these extreme conditions did a portion of the electorate that had not supported Milei in the Buenos Aires provincial elections or in the provincial elections earlier this year turn out to vote for the ruling party. Even so, it failed to replicate the vote of two years ago, when comparing what Milei and Mauricio Macri’s Juntos por el Cambio achieved separately. The loss of votes, which stands at around 3 million, shows that popular disillusionment with the democratic regime also extends to La Libertad Avanza. Whether this disillusionment turns into a radicalization of the left will depend on the evolution of the class struggle and the actions of the left itself in the near future.

Braden or Perón?

Elections under the current regime have nothing to do with the free choice of citizens. Equating the voting booth with a supermarket trolley where the customer chooses according to their preferences is the height of fetishism for a democracy of the rich. If even in the supermarket itself the decision to buy is conditioned by the customer's social position, in the voting booth the choice of vote is even more conditioned by the clash of political and social forces. If Trump and his financial gang's extortion is not opposed by a force of greater magnitude, it should come as no surprise that a part of the popular electorate ends up voting for the extortioners, considering them the lesser evil. The greater evil, in this line of reasoning, would be a financial run against the peso and a precipitous devaluation that would drive up inflation with the consequences known to all.

In the 1940s, an equally scandalous and blatant US intervention ended, at least in the electoral arena, in the opposite way. The US intervention through its ambassador Spruille Braden to prevent Perón's victory ended in an embarrassing defeat and a resounding victory for Peronism. Appealing to history, Peronism wanted to appeal to that mystique in this election. But the posters reading "Axel Kicillof or Bessent" (in reference to the US Treasury Secretary) or "Homeland or colony" did not yield the expected results. The reason is that, for a large part of the population, Peronism is no longer synonymous with bonuses, eight-hour working days and paid holidays, but rather with poverty, job insecurity, inflation and corruption. The recent experience of the government of Alberto Fernández, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Sergio Massa is there to remind us of this. The person most aware of this situation seems to be Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Her criticism of separating the Buenos Aires elections from the national ones was not limited to the fact that the mayors were going to ignore national election; she also warned that holding local elections in September could function as a primary, which, if won by Peronism, could provoke a backlash in the subsequent October election. Behind the criticism, which in hindsight appears to be correct, lies the awareness that Peronism could only win by surprise.

Peronism's defeat was not only the fatal result of the failure of its last government, but also of its behaviour towards Milei during these almost two years in office. Far from confronting him, Peronism disappeared from the streets, collaborated in different ways in Congress and applied the libertarian chainsaw in the provinces it governs. It is no coincidence that the song most sung at the Garrahan, University, pensioners' and disabled people's marches was and is "Where is that famous CGT that we cannot see?". The differences and factional clashes within Peronism did not have this collaborationism as the focus of the controversy. On the contrary, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner ordered the fomration of common ballots with the governors that most collaborated with Milei, such as Osvaldo Jaldo of Tucumán or Raúl Jalil of Catamarca, or to put a faithful representative of the Salta oligarchy, Juan Manuel Urtubey, at the head of the peronist ballot in Salta.

Comparing the extortion and threats of Trump-Milei and this attitude of Peronism, the result speaks for itself.

What's next

Peronism was not the only loser. The governors who improvised the "Provincias Unidas" ballot suffered an even stronger setback. They lost in their respective provinces by a landslide, coming in second and even third place. The claim to embody a "well-mannered Mileism" was buried by the pressure of financial capital. If before the election they were already showing a willingness to negotiate with the libertarian government, now, after their defeat, they will surrender at bargain prices. Peronism, for its part, will accelerate its internal clashes, and it will not be long before its blocs in Congress split, as already happened with Macri and also under Alberto Fernández's government.

Although the government has not achieved a majority in Congress, the truth is that it is in a better position than in the past. It has consolidated a third of the seats to ensure that Milei's eventual vetoes will not be overturned and that impeachment requests will not succeed. At the same time, by gathering the support of governors and provincial parties, it believes it is in a position to move forward with labor, pension and tax reform projects and to approve a 2026 budget that does not include the funds voted for the University, the Garrahan Hospital and disability. After all, from the most right-wing to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Grabois, they have said that "labor relations must be modernized", some for SMEs and others for all companies.

A fundamental struggle is therefore coming between workers on one side and capitalists and the government on the other. The government has won an election, but that does not guarantee victory in the coming class war. Macri, Bullrich, Caputo and Sturzenegger can attest to their experience in 2017-2018. Furthermore, the financial crisis is far from over. Devaluation pressures remain present and default has not been eliminated from the medium-term horizon. If the government were to devalue, the resulting inflation would hit wages, and if it decided to defend the current exchange rate, it would aggravate the wave of layoffs and industrial depression. In either case, we face a scenario of profound social upheaval.

The Left Workers Unity Front emerges from this election with the merit of having resisted a strong political polarization. As never before, Peronism focused on attacking the FIT-U, even resorting to embarrassing McCarthyism. Itai Hagman and Grabois [of Patria Grande, a leftist component of the peronist coalition] showed that they were rewarded with high places on the ballots because they were necessary to try to prevent a shift to the left by voters disenchanted with Peronism. Despite this, the FIT-U achieved its best election results in the City of Buenos Aires and won seats in the province of Buenos Aires, becoming the third largest force.

Now the challenge is to use that position to organize and mobilize workers against what is coming. The immediate task is to launch a major campaign against labour reform and bring the debate to all workers' organizations. The working class's distrust of the CGT leadership is clear, and we must challenge its claim to a right to decide that workers have not given it. It is necessary to explain that far from "modernization", the intention is to eliminate any hint of labour protection. In other countries, such as France, Italy or the closer Brazil and Colombia, the working class developed a major initiative against these reactionary labour reforms. Now it is Argentina's turn.