By New PST

By June 2026, with a year and a half to go before the October 2027 elections, the FITU (Left Front-Unity) has launched its electoral campaign. They have begun forming "committees," some for the Left Front, others for Myriam Bregman for president, even though no one among the working class or the people is talking about elections, and not even the bourgeois and employers' parties have finalized their candidates. A year and a half is an eternity in capitalist Argentina amidst the deepening social and political crisis of the country, and many things could change in that time. Nevertheless, the leaders of the leftist groups have launched a feverish campaign as if the elections were just around the corner.

The leaders of leftist groups are trying to disguise the launch of their electoral campaign by claiming that the committees they are convening are for "struggle." But no matter how hard they try to hide it, the committees and "discussion forums" they have launched with slogans like "the left must govern" are the start of the 2027 election campaign. Why is the FITU launching its campaign so far in advance of the elections? Why are the leaders holding "discussion forums" about "governing" ? Are the leaders of these groups suggesting that power can be attained through bourgeois democratic elections, in a kind of "reformist path" to power?

Given these considerations, is Myriam Bregman's candidacy a Trotskyist one? This article will address these questions, which requires analyzing the profound changes that have taken place within the Argentine left in recent years. These changes explain the launch of a premature campaign, rife with slogans and proposals that represent a clear and public break with Marxism. Furthermore, they raise the dilemma of how to resolve the country's crisis: through reform or revolution.

The FITU collaborates with the bourgeois policy of diverting the upswing towards the ballot boxes

To understand why the FITU has embarked on this premature electoral campaign, it is necessary to understand the changes taking place in Argentina's political landscape. We are witnessing a collapse and political crisis of Milei's government, massively rejected by the people as a result of the worsening living conditions. This has led to a surge of mass protests against the government and a process of political radicalization and a leftward shift among sectors of the population. Milei's government is also beset by the crisis and corruption allegations, which is making the ruling classes nervous. They fear that Milei will not be able to finish his term, especially considering the broader Latin American context characterized by the crisis and weakness of other capitalist governments, such as Paz's in Bolivia, Castro's in Cuba, Trump's in the US, and Delcy Rodríguez's in Venezuela.

The Argentine bourgeoisie wants to prevent a popular uprising, a strike, or a major struggle from bringing down the government. Therefore, they seek to channel discontent and divert it toward elections and the ballot box—a policy that Marxists have historically denounced as a policy of "democratic reaction." The problem is that bourgeois democracy is in complete crisis due to a global phenomenon of people breaking with their old leadership. This break is expressed in the fact that millions will not vote because, as the crisis of capitalism degrades their living conditions, people cease to believe in bourgeois or reformist parties—a phenomenon we call "political revolution . "

The political revolution has triggered a global "wave of abstention," impacting the bourgeois electoral system, weakening it, and with it, the politics of "democratic reaction," which is no longer as effective at halting revolutions. The crisis of bourgeois democracy was reflected in our country in the 2025 parliamentary elections, in which more than 13 million people did not vote for anyone. Thus, abstention, blank votes, and invalid ballots became the dominant force, surpassing the most voted-for political party, LLA, by 4 million.

The weakening of the "democratic reaction" policy forces capitalist political parties like Peronism, PRO, all other bourgeois forces, and the union bureaucracy to redouble their efforts to try to derail the workers' and popular upsurge with a worn-out tool like bourgeois democratic elections. Many honest activists wonder why the country hasn't erupted given the dire situation of the people, and one of the most powerful reasons for this is the concerted effort by all the country's union and political leaderships to prevent it.

Figures like Kicillof, the governor of Buenos Aires, appear to be backed by a sector of imperialism, participating in the "progressive summit" in Barcelona alongside Lula, Sanchez, and Petro. Macri holds events everywhere and even appears at the World Cup, while Kirchnerism launches rallies under the slogan "Free Cristina." Even without defined presidential candidates, the leaders of the establishment parties are touring with events to create the "sense of an early election." The media, as well as bourgeois analysts and pundits of all stripes, seek "opposition" figures to fill airtime , and it is in this context that Myriam Bregman's presidential candidacy emerges.

The launch of the "committees for Myriam," despite their purported "revolutionary" image and their use of "power struggle" rhetoric , is a premature launch of Myriam Bregman's candidacy. This represents the FITU leadership's contribution to the "democratic reaction" policy promoted by the bourgeoisie. Instead of capitalizing on the leftward shift of mass sectors to organize workers' and popular activists within unions, democratic organizations, or social movements, they seek to channel activism into elections. Instead of unseating Peronism to defeat Milei immediately, they aim to bring those who no longer believe in the bourgeois electoral circus back to the circus "to vote for Myriam in 2027. "

This policy of class collaboration between the FITU leaders and the bourgeoisie is no surprise; it's something they've been developing for years. They demonstrated this when they approved more than 24 laws from the Peronist government in Congress, when they went to the home of the corrupt Cristina Kirchner to offer their solidarity, when they formed an inter-bloc with Peronism in the Congressional Committee on Freedom, when they mobilize as the tail end of Peronism in CGT marches, in the March 24th rallies, and in the annual Women's Meetings. They demonstrated this when, through action or omission, they supported the Peronist candidacy in the second round of the presidential elections, when they joined the UN-backed Global Sumud Flotilla for Palestine, and when they voted in favor of Zionism in the Buenos Aires City Legislature—a scandal for which they claimed they "hadn't read the bills ." The "committees for Myriam" are a new chapter in a policy that the FITU has been developing for years of class collaboration with the bourgeoisie.

The reformist front " Myriam 2027" emerges

When, in April 2026, image polls conducted by bourgeois opinion consultants showed Myriam Bregman with a "positive image," as if they had been "spurred" by an elixir of love for the ballot box, all sorts of Castroist, Chavista, and pro-Kirchnerist leaders launched into a debate about how Myriam's "positive image" was an opportunity to present themselves as a "power alternative" and "govern ." Aldo Casas, Ariel Petruccelli, Eduardo Lucita, and Juan Pablo Casiello of the "Viento Sur" group sent an "Open Letter to the Left" in which they argued that there was "a historic opportunity." The "Viento Sur" group , which had previously supported capitalist governments like those of Chávez and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, quickly "as the wind" enthusiastically threw their support behind Bregman's candidacy, claiming that with her "it's possible to fight for power."

In the "open letter," the former Chavistas assume that the FITU can win the elections. They also assume that the left can come to power through elections, stating: "How do we move from a left-wing government that won the elections to a new constitutional framework? No one has the answer. But the FITU is in a position to launch the challenge and lead the way. It is necessary to form working groups on different issues. We need to bring together people who don't necessarily think like Marxists, but who may sympathize with Myriam Bregman's candidacy." (Open Letter, etc.)

The argument put forward by the "Kirchnerist Chavistas" that the left could come to power through elections quickly resonated with leaders of the FITU (Workers' Left Front for Unity), such as those at Izquierda Diario (Left Daily) of the PTS (Workers' Party for Socialism), who immediately published a letter accepting their position and launched "Committees for Myriam for President . " Alejandro Bodart of the MST (Socialist Workers' Movement) called a congress of his organization and held a vote on the slogan "A Historic Opportunity," after which he began an electoral tour. Gabriel Solano of the PO (Workers' Party) announced the launch of "Unitary Committees" in conjunction with Miguel Sorans and Mercedes Petit of the IS (Socialist Left) group, under the slogan that the left "can and must govern." The list expanded to include Manuela Castañeira of Nuevo MAS (New Movement for Socialism), Juan Carlos Beica of Convergència (Convergence), and Eduardo Sartelli of Via Socialista (Socialist Way), who called for joining the forums and committees under the slogan "A Historic Opportunity," asserting that "we can convince millions" and that "the left can govern."

The emergence of this front of Chavistas, Kirchnerists, and FITU members, who are launching a series of "debate panels " or "forums" and seeking to establish a political force that claims " power" can be attained through elections, is increasingly clarifying the landscape of the Argentine left. A new "front" is emerging that asserts the crisis can be resolved through elections, and consistent with this position, it is launching its electoral campaign, offering candidates for 2027. This front, in the face of the crisis, offers a reformist solution, typical of social democracy, because it says the people must "wait" a year and a half, respecting bourgeois institutions, and endure Milei until October 2027 to vote for " Myriam 2027."

We'll see how this whole development of "committees" ends up: whether it leads to the emergence of a "FITUKirchnerist" front, whether it evolves into a kind of new FREPASO, or whether the FITU excludes everyone and runs alone. But whatever form it ultimately takes, what we're witnessing is the formation of a de facto front of all these organizations under a reformist strategy—that is, a strategy that maintains the solution to the crisis is to wait a year and a half to vote for "Myriam 2027."

Goodbye dictatorship of the proletariat!

However, this entire reformist front that has united behind the slogan "with Myriam, we can govern" falls apart with just one very simple question: Is it true that we can govern with Myriam? The answer is as simple as the question: No, it's not true. To say that we can govern with Myriam is a lie bigger than a house. When they launch the "Committees for Myriam" and say that "the left can govern," they are lying. They are lying to those they are calling for because with the "Myriam Committees" there is no contest for power, nor is it possible to govern; they are simply electoral committees to participate in bourgeois democracy, at most to get a few representatives and councilors elected. As we explained in editorial 79, which you can read by clicking here.

Precisely to "contest for power" it is necessary to confront the bourgeois regime, not to be part of it, nor to submit to its rules. The leaders of the reformist front are lying, and they do so consciously because they know that bourgeois democracy is a fraud orchestrated by the ruling classes. Not even Lenin and Trotsky, after seizing power in the Russian Revolution, could win the elections; on the contrary, they lost when they called for elections to a constituent assembly because all the rules of bourgeois democracy are against the working class. This is exactly what we explained in the work "Bourgeois Democracy: Is It Democracy?" which you can read by clicking here.

In other words, the number one task of Marxists is to denounce bourgeois democracy, to denounce elections, their mechanisms and institutions, and to constantly tell the workers and the people that no change favorable to our interests will come from that system. Every position we hold, every candidacy we launch, must be at the service of telling the people the truth, of denouncing the regime by taking advantage of the channels and means that the regime itself offers, whether by holding a seat in parliament or by being candidates. But instead of doing this, the reformist front lies by saying that within the framework of bourgeois democracy the left "can govern ," which is a complete lie, a falsehood, and a deception.

But there is another, deeper, and more important lie behind the slogan "the left can govern." What kind of government does the FITU propose? Because the only thing that can emerge from elections and the bourgeois democratic system is a bourgeois government. A workers' government can never emerge from the institutions of bourgeois democracy, even if the improbable possibility arose that Myriam Bregman won the elections; it would still be a bourgeois government under bourgeois institutions, under the bourgeois Constitution, and under the rules of the bourgeois state. The only possibility for a workers' government to emerge is for the workers and the people to mobilize outside the bourgeois system, and against it, as happened in the Argentinazo of 2001, and seek a way out through their own efforts, self-determination through their own organizations. But the reformist front's policy is not to overthrow the system, but rather to subordinate itself to it.

Like in the farcical film "Goodbye Lenin, " the leaders of the reformist front are saying "goodbye" to the struggle for a workers' and people's government, because they are telling those they are calling for that it is possible to "seize power" by submitting to the rules of an electoral system that is a fraud orchestrated by the ruling classes. They are saying that power can be attained through elections, ballot boxes, candidates, poll watchers, and votes, but they don't say what kind of government can emerge from that. This "omission" is the most significant lie told by the leaders of the reformist front, a way of avoiding acknowledging that they have abandoned the fight for a workers' and people's government.

The leaders of the reformist front removed the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat from their platform, as it is no longer necessary, because now, with "Myriam 2027," it is possible to govern without confronting the regime. The proposal for a workers' and people's government is a popularization of the Marxist concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," the most democratic dictatorship in history because it is the government of the working class and the absolute majority over the minority class of the 1% of millionaires. With the "committees for Myriam" and the slogan "the left can govern," the leaders of the reformist front broke with Lenin's classic approach in "The State and Revolution , " because they do not seek to disregard the institutions of the regime, but rather to legitimize them; they even argue that by relying on them , "it is possible to govern."

The leaders of the reformist front are lying when they say that power can be achieved through elections, and they are lying to conceal what kind of government they propose. They are lying to hide the fact that they have broken with Marxism and Trotskyism, and they don't even have the honesty to acknowledge it publicly. They simply want to lead a sector of activism toward a reformist and electoral project disguised as Marxists, while with the slogan "Myriam 2027" they are saying "Goodbye dictatorship of the proletariat!"

A "new" project that is "old reformism"

The leaders of the reformist front not only lie when explaining the "struggle for power ," but they also lie when outlining their proposals, their program, and the kind of party we should build. The reality is that profound changes have taken place within the Argentine left in recent years, mirroring the shifts occurring on the left worldwide. A process of social democratization and a reformist turn has been underway across the globe, which is why, when these leaders open their mouths to explain their proposals, we hear all sorts of nonsense that demonstrates the theoretical and political collapse into which they have fallen.

The leaders of the reformist groups will never admit that they have abandoned the struggle for a workers' and people's government; instead, they will claim to have found "new ways " to achieve it. They will try to disguise their public pronouncements by saying that "an electoral victory for Myriam "could pave the way for revolution ," or " trigger a revolutionary crisis ," or "change the balance of power." In "discussion forums" and "committees," one will hear talk of how an electoral victory for Myriam will require "the government to launch massive popular support," that "they will build soviets from within the government, " or that "the government will convene a constituent assembly ." In other words, when the leaders of these groups begin to explain how they intend to govern, they spout one absurdity after another, attempting to reconcile Lenin with bourgeois democracy.

And they present it all as something "new," "novel," a " new party" for "a new working class," a "new development," an "unprecedented opportunity , " a "new event that has never happened before" or that "has never happened anywhere in the world." But in reality, they're adding more lies, because what they're doing is not "new" at all; it's absolutely "old," repetitive, and outdated. Although they present their proposals as the "new elixir , " they're just repeating worn-out formulas already put forward by old reformist projects all over the world.

The collapse of the parties and organizations that were the traditional leaders of the mass movement has been underway for years, giving rise in Spain and Greece to coalitions like Podemos and Syriza, which emerged in 2014 and promised that elections could challenge the power of the bourgeoisie. Similarly, the Bernie Sanders phenomenon arose in the United States, as did Mamdani in the New York mayoral election, presenting himself as a "socialist" or "leftist." And what did Mamdani propose to "seize power" in New York ? Forming "Committees for Mamdani," committees that argued that by voting and trusting in bourgeois democracy, they could change things. When Syriza emerged in Greece, " forums" for "theoretical debate" were held . But what became of all that process of "committees" and "forums"? The failed experiments already seen years ago with Brazil's PSOL, Syriza, Podemos, France's NPA, Germany's Die Linke, and others. who ended up integrating or supporting "progressive" bourgeois governments , in what later became the Progressive International.

In other words, the leaders of the reformist front don't even come up with their own ideas; they simply copy what reformists and progressives have already done in other countries. These coalitions were promoted by parties and organizations that called themselves "Trotskyist," but belonged to the current of the old Trotskyist leader Ernest Mandel, known as "Mandelism." The "Mandelist" current had broken with the Trotskyist program decades earlier and spearheaded a revisionist movement that argued it was no longer necessary to fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Therefore, they promoted the line of "anti-capitalist parties" that no longer fight for power and instead integrate into the bourgeois democratic regime, dedicating themselves to the elections of bourgeois democracy.

And this is exactly the same approach being pursued by the leaders of this new coalition of reformists, comprised of the FITU groups and former Kirchnerists and former Chavistas from the "Committees for Bregman." They haven't invented anything "new "; they're simply repeating, like a worn-out photocopy, what the old leaders of Mandelism already proposed years ago, in a kind of "Mandelism without Mandel." Some groups, like the PTS-Izquierda Diario, the MST-LIS, or leaders of Viento Sur, have been or are part of that Mandelist current for years, and have been built on recruiting Mandelist or revisionist cadres. Even in the "forums" and "committees" one will hear the old proposal of a "party of tendencies" proposed by Mandelism, while the "new party of the working class" is the proposal to make a reformist party, breaking with the Trotskyist program on the basis that there is a "new precarious working class", a theoretical absurdity similar to that put forward by the old founding leader of the PO Jorge Altamira when he spoke of the "new social subject of the piquetero" .

In short, all the theoretical and political absurdities put forward by the leaders of the reformist front in "forums" and "committees" during the launch of the electoral campaign are not only not "new" but have already failed. Syriza, Podemos, the NPA in France, and other similar experiences were resounding failures that ended in disillusionment and led to frustration among sectors of activism as a result of failed experiments that culminated in reformism and class collaboration. In this case, the sequence of events is reversed: the leaders of the FITU have been carrying out a policy of class collaboration for years, which they now intend to present as something "new," while in other countries, reformist leaders presented the "new" format to implement a policy of class collaboration. In this case, the order of the factors does not alter the outcome, which ends up being selling the rotten fish of " old" reformism as "new."

Is Myriam Bregman's candidacy "Trotskyist"?

Some journalists and leaders of the reformist front claim that Myriam Bregman's candidacy is "Trotskyist." They probably want to present it that way so that many will think it's a "revolutionary" candidacy. However, if this whole group of leaders lies when they say they can take power through elections, lies when they fail to mention that they propose a bourgeois government, lies when they say they propose a "revolutionary" program and project , then are they telling the truth when they claim that Myriam's candidacy is Trotskyist?

Myriam Bregman's candidacy is not Trotskyist; it is a reformist, social-democratic candidacy closely linked to a policy of strong support and agreements with Kirchnerism. The Izquierda Diario group has mobilized in support of Kirchnerist figures such as Hebe de Bonafini, Milagro Salas, and Cristina Kirchner, all figures highly connected to corruption cases involving the shady handling of public funds. This candidacy implies strong support for the last Peronist government, for which they voted in favor of dozens of laws, and support for Kirchnerism and Peronism in CGT marches, human rights events, and women's movement activities. Furthermore, their public support for Cristina Kirchner at her home when she was imprisoned for corruption demonstrates a political current with a clear policy of class collaboration with "progressive" bourgeois sectors, which has nothing to do with Trotskyism.

The "Myriam 2027" candidacy reflects the profound changes that have taken place within the global and national left, which we have been discussing. These changes are the product of decades of revisionism and a break with Marxism led by the Mandelist current, which gave rise to the "progressive" and "anti-capitalist" movements in Europe and the United States. However, the only current that confronted Mandelist revisionism, orthodox Trotskyism, has been absent all these years because its leaders embraced revisionism. Some leaders of " Viento Sur," like Casas, come from orthodox Trotskyism, as do Bregman's Izquierda Diario, Bodart's MST, and Miguel Sorans' IS. All of them broke with orthodox Trotskyism, some publicly and clearly, like Izquierda Diario-PTS, others quietly, like Bodart and Sorans, and now they converge in the reformist front "Myriam 2027."

Orthodox Trotskyism developed around the leadership of James Cannon and Nahuel Moreno, the leaders of the PST in the United States and Argentina, respectively. But after Nahuel Moreno's death, orthodox Trotskyism was left without leadership. The MAS, which had been the largest Trotskyist party in history, shattered into a thousand pieces, and the orthodox Trotskyist current disappeared. Its leaders broke with Nahuel Moreno in different waves and at different times. Even the LIT, the organization founded by Moreno in 1982, broke with his principles in 2025. Leaders like Bodart and Sorans, who continued to call themselves "Morenists," left Nahuel Moreno as a mere figurehead in order to implement an opposing, revisionist policy that inevitably led all these currents toward reformism.

Trotskyist currents that never belonged to orthodox Trotskyism, such as The Militant or Mandelism, inevitably degenerated and ended up supporting Chavismo or Castroism. They converge with the remnants of Stalinism in crisis and decompose along with them; this is what we see in the "convergence" of Viento Sur and the FITU in Argentina. But inevitably, the failure of these currents, which pursue a policy of class collaboration, has caused them enormous setbacks: Today they are small groups that mobilize a few dozen people in neighborhood clubs or in the cooperatives they control, which at best allow them to fill a small basketball arena or university halls. And these small groups, which don't govern anything, claim they "can govern " based on favorable " image polls," trying to sell a pipe dream to the gullible. The leaders of the reformist front would not pass a basic course in Marxism if they were talking about imposing a workers' and people's government through the elections of bourgeois democracy.

What the leaders of the reformist front are really trying to hide is that the FIT-U has failed. For over 15 years, its priority has been electoral politics, and all it has achieved is reducing its members to small, disintegrating groups, increasingly resembling bureaucrats rather than proletarian leaders. They have abandoned the construction of a sound organization with independent state funding and have instead increased the number of paid activists. They are dependent on the state apparatus; if they are deprived of state revenue, their parties will collapse. Therefore, when sectors of the masses develop a more progressive consciousness and move to the left, they respond with more reformism, attempting to steer the process toward the defense of bourgeois democracy.

The crisis of the Argentine left, like the crisis of the global left, brings back to the forefront the old dilemma of reform or revolution. The leaders of the reformist front have already made their plans clear; they're proposing that you join them in reformism, in the "Myriam 2027" front. From the New PST, we propose turning our backs on the social-democratic project of the "forums" and "committees" and building a revolutionary solution. This is the only serious path: building a project within the framework of Nahuel Moreno's orthodox Trotskyism, building an organization of cadres, rigorously educated in Marxism, capable of waging a principled battle against the reformists.

In other words, there are two, and only two, proposals on the table. The reformist proposal of the " FITUchavista" front of the "forums" and "committees" for "Myriam 2027," and the revolutionary proposal of the New PST. We don't deceive the masses with a social-democratic solution like the electoral path; that path is for those who believe in bourgeois democracy and aspire to be bureaucrats, the most backward and opportunistic elements who gather in the " forums." Far from the charlatanism of those who sell the " new elixir" of reformism, we maintain that there are no shortcuts to building a revolutionary alternative; there is only one path, solid and serious, to take advantage of the exciting events that are approaching. We invite you to come and build a revolutionary organization to put an end once and for all to the capitalist Argentina defended by the bourgeoisie and the reformists.

ShareCreated with Webnode