Milei Prevailed in Argentina’s Midterms Despite Economic and Political Problems

The midterm election results in Argentina handed a political victory to Javier Milei’s far-right government of Javier Milei, despite recent economic, financial, and political problems.

Indeed, there were currency runs and financial turmoil amid a decline in consumer spending and recessionary trends in production, with a resurgence of price increases and significant limits on productive recovery. At the same time, there was an increase in allegations of corruption, political scandals involving figures with links to drug trafficking, and fractures within the ruling party.

Despite the turbulence and critical forecasts, more than 40 percent of the voting public supported Milei. Milei’s leadership drew huge support from politically unknown figures throughout the country. He was marketed as being against traditional politics, even with his crazy musical performance and the terrible image of his entourage. Of course, there was the highest absenteeism in contemporary history, 32 percent, which — combined with the null or contested votes — amounts to more than 12 million people incredulous of politics as a way of solving problems.

The most important considerations are Milei’s victory and the rampant absenteeism, both of which call for reflection economic and political changes in Argentine society. One source of hope is the third place achieved by the left in several districts, especially in the country’s capital city and in the province of Buenos Aires.

Support from Trump

It can be argued that these results are related to the economic and political support of the Trump administration. The support is self-serving in the context of the difficulties of contemporary capitalism, especially in the United States, which is challenged by China’s expansion. Although Argentina may seem insignificant in its contribution to regional or global GDP, its relative weight looms large in the face of a reality that is eluding the interests of US foreign policy.

The country is the tip of spear in an offensive against the leftist turn of the region in the early years of the 21st century. Thus the tightening of the blockade on Cuba, the deployment of troops in the Caribbean against Venezuela, and the attacks on the Colombian government and on anyone who does not submit to the expectations and desires of Washington. The US is intervening forcefully to change the balance of power in Latin America and the Caribbean, to get the region behind its global objectives of sustaining its threatened hegemony.

The influx of dollars from the US Treasury to support Milei was part of a campaign to achieve MAGA’s interests. Beyond the criticisms levied Democrats, some Republicans, the “gringo” press, or those economically affected, including workers who are not being paid due to the shutdown, Trump and Bessent’s monetary investment is part of a global strategy to address the capitalist crisis. The Milei government is part of that strategic proposal, which has an impact on global and local capitalism.

We have argued that Milei’s presidency is an experiment comparable to that of Chile in 1973, which set the course for a new experience of capitalist organization under the “neoliberal” dimension.

Capitalism in crisis needs to reorganize itself and find ways and mechanisms that give meaning to the pursuit of profits and accumulation for domination and systemic reproduction. Hence the commitment to technological innovation, digitalization, and AI, which capitalism needs to be the focus of conversations rather than the growth of inequality and the impoverishment of large segments of society. That perspective needs to be agreed upon in society, even via cultural manipulation mediated by social media and fake news.

Trump needs Milei and his “success,” even if it is temporary, to fight other battles to consolidate far right interests in the United States.

We have argued that Trump and Milei should not be underestimated, that beyond any eccentricity, they express the will of a part of concentrated capital to give direction to capitalism in crisis.

That is why Trump was financially assisting Milei while negotiating, once again, with China for the supply of rare earths and a renewed truce in the trade war.

The terrain of capitalism is global. That is why the goals of political power transcend national boundaries.

Local accumulation and the alternative

Local powers here in Argentina needs consensus to recreate the accumulation model, which in the last 40 years was agribusiness exports and finance leveraged by public debt and privatizations. Now, for the powers that be, is the time to complement this with the use of unconventional hydrocarbons and metal mining associated with AI innovation and the digitalization of the economy. This requires investment and is the goal and expectation of the Milei government.

A reorganization of local capitalism is required, as announced in 1975/76 and in ongoing process beyond the obstacles posed by the political tradition of the subordinate classes and their organization in trade union, territorial, popular, and even bourgeois movements associated with the model of substitution industrialization that has been hegemonic in the country for decades. That is why we have argued on several occasions that Milei sought to discipline local society from both below and above.

The election results on October 26 do not mean that this goal has been achieved, but they do represent a step forward in that direction. That is why it is essential to think and act in terms of political alternatives — that’s the main thing missing in Argentina.

Reorganizing the popular movement and providing a new horizon of transformative meaning is the imperative of the moment.

Radicalism was the answer at one point in Argentine history, but today it appears diluted under libertarian hegemony. Peronism burst onto the scene as a popular response in the 1940s and has resurfaced in different guises, including Menem and Kirchner. At this conjuncture it appears disoriented even with the significant number of votes that keep it as the second largest political force in Argentina. Its fate is unknown, but it calls for political reformulations for a new moment in local and global capitalism. The left deserves to be discussed, given its visibility in the City of Buenos Aires, the Province of Buenos Aires, and Jujuy, even though it did not retain its representative in the Chamber of Deputies.

We must study and understanding the moment of local capitalism, the structural changes that have taken place over half a century of reactionary restructuring, which now seeks to consolidate themselves with regressive labor, pension, and tax reforms. Everything has an impact on society’s subjectivity and consciousness.

Due to everything that is happening, there is excitement in the “markets,” speculative investors driving down currency prices, who until yesterday were speculating against the local currency. The risk of Argentina defaulting is falling, and bonds and stocks are rising in anticipation of investments that have been elusive until now. It remains to be seen whether the horizon long awaited by the ruling class will materialize.

While that happens, resistance will make itself present at protests in front of Argentine congress every Wednesday from retirees, alongside demands for wages, education, and health care, against looting and the widespread dissatisfaction with unresolved social needs.

These are just some initial reflections on the current situation in an electoral period marked by a reactionary liberalization offensive, which give no cause for either pessimism or optimism, but rather for seeking a way around the current challenges faced by those harmed by the offensive of capital and the far right.