I get his (mild) attacks on Bolsonaro make him look better, but he’s not done any actual fucking reforms. At all. All he did during his first government was create some means tested welfare programs and keep public funding going, all while not combatting the bourgeoisie’s interests. Which in turn, left ample time for fascism to grow, he even funded some of the exponents of it like Igreja Universal do Reino de Deus (evangelical cult that is much like US prosperity gospel). Not to mention shooting incarceration rates sky high by kicking off the war on drugs by law in 2006 and invading Haiti on behalf of the UN in 2004

His ministries are all commanded by neolibs, and even far right União Brasil in communications and tourism.

His main deed as of this year has been pushing new fiscal policy for the government which will deepen the already horrible one that was put in by Temer. It even has penalties for “overspending” like forbidding the government from creating new public jobs and such!

Fucking interest in loans is the actual highest in the world at 13.25%! (~9% per year accounting for inflation)

Just because a government doesn’t outright support the public sanctions on Cuba, China and the DPRK it doesn’t make it a fucking ally, hell, many European countries do the same and I don’t see y’all praising it.

Lula is not moving Brazil any, and I mean any, closer to liberation. This job is up for the communists, nominally the Brazilian Communist Party (which is at the moment undergoing a split due to a complacent and persecutory petit-bourgeois central committee that doesn’t want to oppose Lula but that’s beside the point)

Every time I see Lula praise here one of my neurons explodes with anger

Edit FYI: I am actually organized in the youth of the Brazilian Communist Party. If y’all want any more info just ask (ofc nothing confidential)

  • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get your point, but I think that what’s more worth in this cases with such leaders, I’m from Argentina, so we have something very similar here with the Peronists, is that their national policies are trash, but they tend to have relatively good international policies and that’s what’s more pressing at this time with the geopolitical events that are taking place. Of course a Lula or a Kirchner will never truly do something that should be done under a socialist revolution, but I also think the conditions are not met for some real movement to be done in any of these countries, we have been fucked by fascist regimes and neoliberal propaganda and the working class is highly unorganized and politically apathetic. Furthermore, meaningful policies by left wing liberal governments such as these cannot go too far because they risk being intervened by the West, and it is better to have some stability while the empire collapses.

    I think in this cases what happens is that we give critical support, we have ideological disagreements with governments such as the ones in Syria, Iran, Russia, etc, but critical support is necessary because in those cases they accomplish a revolutionary role by opposing liberalism, even though indeed their ideologies are reactionary. Lula represents the national bourgeoisie of Brazil, but they are, in the global affairs, playing a revolutionary role by opposing the West, but of course they shouldn’t be considered true comrades. Given the economical and geopolitical condition globally, what we should strive for first is the collapse of the empire and the construction of a multi polar world, without a power such as the US pushing its rules based order real revolutionary movements can be built and emancipation achieved, but at least from my understanding (from my country and yours) that is something that cannot happen right now and it is better to strive for some economic stability.

    • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s not possible right now then we ought to work towards making it possible. Increasing economic stability can be a part of that but only a part.

      • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Of course, I didn’t say that’s the only thing we should do, and precisely while we wait the masses need to be organized, educated and radicalised.

    • cass@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lula represents the national bourgeoisie of Brazil, but they are, in the global affairs, playing a revolutionary role by opposing the West,

      The national bourgeoisie in the global south is subservient to imperialist capital and has no revolutionary potential, this is a read any serious communist party has. Also, he does not oppose liberalism at all, he is liberalism. Domestic policy is hardly better than Biden and he’s not nearly as combative a Kirchner/Fernandez

      that is something that cannot happen right now and it is better to strive for some economic stability.

      That is a straight up anti-revolutionary reading but go off

      Communists should unequivocally oppose Lula and push for radical and mass means, because he doesn’t do any of that. In fact his purpose is to disorganize our class

      Edit: ofc this doesn’t mean letting the fascists defeat him either. Making the proletariat more class conscious will only make our life easier, and to do that we must stand against Lula’s neoliberal policies

      • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The national bourgeoisie in the global south is subservient to imperialist capital and has no revolutionary potential, this is a read any serious communist party has. Also, he does not oppose liberalism at all, he is liberalism. Domestic policy is hardly better than Biden and he’s not nearly as combative a Kirchner/Fernandez

        It is subservient and opposes it at the same time, but you cannot make any movement against the national bourgeoisie if the international bourgeoisie has so much hold in the country. The revolutionary potential it has is its opposition to the West, when it comes to the national level, they of course are reactionaries, but as I mentioned, I my opinion, given the current climate crisis, what we should strive for is the collapse of the West first, that will give space for more revolutionary movements to take place. Right now, there’s no way a true combative process could take place without it diverging into something worse by outside influence. I know he is a liberal, that does not mean there can’t be two factions of the same force where one’s opposition to the other could be of benefit to the working class. I don’t know if by Fernandez you mean Cristina or Alberto, but Alberto is the biggest lackey Peronism has produced, Cristina was indeed pretty based all in all.

        That is a straight up anti-revolutionary reading but go off

        Communists should unequivocally oppose Lula and push for radical and mass means, because he doesn’t do any of that. In fact his purpose is to disorganize our class

        Edit: ofc this doesn’t mean letting the fascists defeat him either. Making the proletariat more class conscious will only make our life easier, and to do that we must stand against Lula’s neoliberal policies

        I understand that, but at the moment I don’t think producing that is feasible, and I think the working class can benefit more with having Lula on power than by having a failed socialist revolution followed by a fascist instalment by the West. The only thing I’m saying is we should wait for the West’s collapse, which I don’t think will take much longer, and in the meanwhile educate the classes, organize and be in a better position for the time where a revolution can indeed happen. It doesn’t matter how much we want for something to actually happen if it is materially impossible, and trying to achieve it while these conditions are not met is what Mao or Deng called “leftist adventurism.”

        • cass@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We don’t want to take arms and do guerrilla war right now for fucks sake

          A communist party should strive first and foremost to organize the proletariat and create conditions for a revolution, you don’t get that by supporting a neoliberal government filled with banker money in its pockets (often from global conglomerates like Santander)

          You are complacent. Revolution cannot be build by neoliberal governments, only by organized worker’s struggle, and these governments only demobilize the working class, any serious reading of Brazilian history will show you that Lula’s government almost decimated union activity and other struggles

          • Soviet Snake@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, I didn’t understand exactly what did you mean by not supporting him. The only thing I’m saying is I’d rather have him than Bolsonaro. I never aid revolution can be built by neoliberal governments, only that having them can achieve more things in international geopolitics than a Bolsonaro could.

    • swiftessay@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brazilian here.

      Of course a Lula or a Kirchner will never truly do something that should be done under a socialist revolution

      I think it’s important to point out that Lula’s government is a coalition of forces that are overwhelmingly to the right of the Kirchner or even Alberto Fernández.