Leftism in Brazil

[Comrade Arthur]

Leftism in Brazil

Brazil has more than 190 million inhabitants, more than 55 million poor people (24.7 million under the line of extreme poverty), which corresponds to more than 28% of the population. Though it may appear, that is NOT the worst of all. Our political system is decadent, corrupt and unethical. People suffer from droughts on the Northeast region. Public education is inefficient, poorly planned and structured.
I ask you:
Where is justice?
Where is harmony?
WHERE IS FREEDOM?

We have corruption; we have starvation, serious droughts, illiteracy, stealth, and now the useless Olympics in our hands. We do have enough problems to take care of and I can think of countless solutions for them. We lack the ACTION. We lack judges that can do their jobs ethically, senators that can create laws for the people – not for the bourgeoisie or for themselves – and, overall, we lack a president that has at least INTEGRITY.
President Lula may have a terrible Portuguese and be ignorant when it comes to other languages, but the one thing - I believe – that is VITAL for a president is to have integrity. During the 1960s, Brazil was shadowed by a violent rightist dictatorship supported by the USA (yeah, tell me about your freedom, stupid American capitalists). Back then, Lula was a Union leader. His speeches were fascinating. He talked about the proletariat libertation, a communist government and all. What happened? He betrayed all his principles. After loosing some elections against rightist parties, Lula united PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores – Worker’s Party) to the bourgeoisie so that he could win the election.
LULA LOOKS LEFTIST, TALKS LEFTIST AND ACTS LEFTIST. BUT HE IS NOT LEFTIST. If you could be here, comrades, you would see what a shame it is for a socialist/communist/anarchist (and so on) eye to see what he has become. He is capitalist.

Communism in Brazil really seems to be dead. At least it’s what the appearances tell. It is alive, at least implicitly. If you take some Brazilian sociology/philosophy/history books and read the chapters that talk about Modern politics, their leftist intentions will be revealed.
My history book, for instance brings the following in the chapter that talks about the end of the Cold War: there is an image of a manifestation in post-soviet Russia, with women holding a poster close to the camera. Below, its description says (in Portuguese, of course):
“Pensionists’ manifestation in Russia (January 2005) against Putin government’s policies. The poster says: ‘A hungry retiree is more dangerous than a wolf’. Notice the old Soviet Union flags carried by the mob.”

My philosophy book is divided in sections, each of them talking about one single philosopher. Marx has the longer of all sections.

If so many cult people believe in Commun ism, why don’t we have strong leftist movements? We have quite a number of parties that hold socialist/communist names. To quote a few: PSOL (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade – Socialist Party), PCB (Partido Comunista Brasileiro – Brazilian Communist Party), PC (Partido Comunista – Communist Party) and PCdoB (Partido Comunista do Brasil – Brazil's Communist Party).

It is disappointing, indeed, to have so much will to change things (like I do) but to not have the age or the courage to.
I am proud to be who I am: communist, atheist, animal rights defender, anti-racism/ethnicism, feminist and anti-homophobia, but sometimes only our beliefs aren’t enough to move us against the flux.


We need to be united, for union is our last hope. Union is all we have left.


Thank you very much for reading. I’m very sorry if I went on too long, but I just wanted to speak my mind.

Arthur

EDIT: thank you very much, "Organ", for the corrections. ^^

[cyu]

More from Brazil: http://www.revleft.com/vb/brazil-land-occupations-t120910/index.html

[The MST have added media democracy to their tactics of land occupation.]

[dez]

PSOL = Partido Socialismo e Liberdade, not "Partido Socialismo"
PSB = More rightwinged than PT, and is not even a main party.

PCB = Partido comunista brasileiro.
PCdoB = Partido Comunista do Brasil.
Huge difference, although both work together at times

[Искра]

FORGS - COB

Brazilian section of IWA
Anarcho-syndicalists.

Although, I think that they are not active :(

[Red Label]

carlos maringhella was from brazil, he wrote the urban guerrilla handbook

[red cat]

And a splendid book it is. A must read for anyone interested in conducting urban resistance in the third-world.

[Red Label]

sounds like you are interested:);)

[Luís Henrique]

Leftism in Brazil

Brazil has more than 190 million inhabitants, more than 55 million poor people (24.7 million under the line of extreme poverty), which corresponds to more than 28% of the population. Though it may appear, that is NOT the worst of all.Yes, it is a third world capitalist country, and an extremely unequal society. What is worse than that?


Our political system is decadent, corrupt and unethical.As opposed to what non-decadent, non-corrupt, and ethic political system?

Perhaps the United States?

Perhaps China?


People suffer from droughts on the Northeast region.But the suffering from drought stems out from the inequality pointed above. So it is not actually worse than inequality, it is a consequence of it.


Public education is inefficient, poorly planned and structured.Yes, certainly. It again stems out from inequality. Since there are two parallel educational systems, a public and a private one, it follows that one of them - the public system, of course - is derelict, so that the other can thrive.


I ask you:
Where is justice?
Where is harmony?
WHERE IS FREEDOM?Nowhere together with capitalism.


We have corruption; we have starvation, serious droughts, illiteracy, stealth, and now the useless Olympics in our hands.So I think we actually hit here what is supposedly "worse" than misery and inequality: the Olympic games.


We do have enough problems to take care of and I can think of countless solutions for them.Within capitalism?


We lack the ACTION.Action by whom?


We lack judges that can do their jobs ethically, senators that can create laws for the people – not for the bourgeoisie or for themselves – and, overall, we lack a president that has at least INTEGRITY.So we lack bourgeois representatives that make bourgeois laws on behalf of the people, instead of in behalf of the bourgeoisie?

And even worse, our central problem is the lack of integrity of one individual?


President Lula may have a terrible Portuguese and be ignorant when it comes to other languages, but the one thing - I believe – that is VITAL for a president is to have integrity.What terrible Portuguese?

He speaks popular Portuguese, and quite well. In fact, he is an awesome speaker; his speeches are much more consistent and relevant than those of any other public speaker I can think of - including our former genius president, Sorbonne sociologist, and free market reactionary, Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Integrity isn't, nor has ever been, vital for a President. In fact, I can't name a single president, of whatever nation, that was noted by his or her integrity.


During the 1960s, Brazil was shadowed by a violent rightist dictatorship supported by the USA (yeah, tell me about your freedom, stupid American capitalists).While that dictatorship was certainly supported by Washington - even before its inception - it was a Brazilian dictatorship, with Brazilian leaders, Brazilian cops, and Brazilian supporters.


Back then, Lula was a Union leader. His speeches were fascinating. He talked about the proletariat libertation, a communist government and all.This is, unhappily, untrue. Lula never spoke of communism; he never was a communist, nor he ever tried to seem he was. He spoke of rank-and-file action, and yes, in a fascinating way. But it was rank-and-file action to attain reforms within a capitalist society, at most to topple the dictatorship, not to attain a communist society. Yes, he occasionally spoke of socialism - but there is no reason to believe his "socialism" was anything more than a reformed capitalism.


What happened? He betrayed all his principles. After loosing some elections against rightist parties, Lula united PT (Partido dos Trabalhadores – Worker’s Party) to the bourgeoisie so that he could win the election.This isn't far from the truth, but is presented in a completely distorted way. It is true that the PT lowered its aims and standards in order to attain more electoral success. But the PT isn't one individual; it is an organisation of hundreds of thousands of people. It is absurd to believe that Lula could have made all this against the will of the party. It is absurd to believe that the PT would attain better electoral results by lowering its program, if such lowering wasn't representative of vast layers of Brazilian society.


LULA LOOKS LEFTIST, TALKS LEFTIST AND ACTS LEFTIST. BUT HE IS NOT LEFTIST. If you could be here, comrades, you would see what a shame it is for a socialist/communist/anarchist (and so on) eye to see what he has become. He is capitalist.He is the president of a capítalist country, one where there aren't actual conditions for a revolution. You can argue that he is not working to create those conditions; but to imply that he could make such revolution by himself is completely absurd, and misses the actual point: a socialist revolution, the emancipation of the working class, must be achieved by the working class itself, or it isn't going to happen.


Communism in Brazil really seems to be dead. At least it’s what the appearances tell.So, because one single individual isn't all that some people dreamed about, a whole ideology is dead?


It is alive, at least implicitly.How can Communism be alive "implicitly"? Communism does not exist without communist practice, communist action, communist struggle - practice, action, struggle where it counts: workplaces, working class neighbourhoods, working class organisations.

That is what would be necessary to analyse, instead of the personal inclinations of someone in a position of authority.


If you take some Brazilian sociology/philosophy/history books and read the chapters that talk about Modern politics, their leftist intentions will be revealed.But, instead, we now turn even further from proletarian political action, to the academy and books.


My history book, for instance brings the following in the chapter that talks about the end of the Cold War: there is an image of a manifestation in post-soviet Russia, with women holding a poster close to the camera. Below, its description says (in Portuguese, of course):
“Pensionists’ manifestation in Russia (January 2005) against Putin government’s policies. The poster says: ‘A hungry retiree is more dangerous than a wolf’. Notice the old Soviet Union flags carried by the mob.”Because simply recognising a reality - that Russia entered a violent crisis upon its transition to free-market capitalism, and that common people were nostalgic of the old regime - is tantamount to a communist analysis?


My philosophy book is divided in sections, each of them talking about one single philosopher. Marx has the longer of all sections.And?


If so many cult people believe in Communism, why don’t we have strong leftist movements?I think you mean cultured people. But what evidence do we have that the Brazilian intelligentsia is sympathetic to communism? Two books, which, when misinterpreted, might imply their authors have some sympathy for Stalinist regimes?


We have quite a number of parties that hold socialist/communist names. To quote a few: PSOL (Partido Socialismo e Liberdade – Socialist Party), PCB (Partido Comunista Brasileiro – Brazilian Communist Party), PC (Partido Comunista – Communist Party) and PCdoB (Partido Comunista do Brasil – Brazil's Communist Party).But the PCB is a walking corpse; the bulk of the party left long ago, renaming itself the Partido Popular Socialista, which, in spite of the name, has absolutely no relation to socialism, and systematically allies with the right. What is left of the PCB is a minor party, with no significant presence in class struggle.

The PSOL is a feeble attempt to reissue the "good old" PT; and it shamelessly copies the worst features of its model, with a budding personality cult around Heloísa Helena. In fact, its politics is to try to convince us that the PT's problem is a problem of the personal character of Lula; replace treacherous Lula with a lady who was taught by her father not to lie or steal, and all is going to be solved.

The PC is even weaker than the PCB. In practice, it is inexistent.

The PCdoB is much bigger than the PC and the PCB together, and much more serious than the PSOL. It is also a solid ally of the PT.


It is disappointing, indeed, to have so much will to change things (like I do) but to not have the age or the courage to.
I am proud to be who I am: communist, atheist, animal rights defender, anti-racism/ethnicism, feminist and anti-homophobia, but sometimes only our beliefs aren’t enough to move us against the flux.I fear very much that you won't be able to address a working class that, as you point out, lives in misery, with foolery about "animal rights".


We need to be united, for union is our last hope. Union is all we have left.But what union? Union around what? About a superficial and psychologist analysis of the character of the country's president? Union against the Olympic Games?

This doesn't even start to address the issues...

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Luis made a pretty good post. I have a questions though:


a (...) country, one where there aren't actual conditions for a revolution

Can you elaborate this?

[Luís Henrique]

Luis made a pretty good post. I have a questions though:

Can you elaborate this?

The working class does not have enough political strenght to topple the bourgeois regime at this moment.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

OK, so you think that the subjective conditions are not present.

Would you agree that the objective conditions are present?

[Luís Henrique]

OK, so you think that the subjective conditions are not present.

Would you agree that the objective conditions are present?

Yes, of course.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

For a bourgeois party, I think the PT's administration has been relatively positive. As a communist, I dont't understand why you support them.
Like you said, it can be argued that Lula's not doing anything to create the conditions for a working-class revolution. You also said that he's not a socialist. Why would a non-socialist bourgeois party do anything in the way of creating the conditions for proletarian emancipation from capitalism?

I also want to bring this into question

While that dictatorship was certainly supported by Washington - even before its inception - it was a Brazilian dictatorship, with Brazilian leaders, Brazilian cops, and Brazilian supporters.While you are undoubtedly correct that it was a Brazilian dictatorship, I think it can only be understood within the context of the cold war and not through some sort of nativist analysis that I suspect you may be trying to hint at.

I agree with the rest of your points I think.
I believe our friend Arthur might be a victim of the lies of the mainstream press.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

cultured Marxist academics will be the salvation of the Brazilian working class -- reelect FHC
hahahaha
... or José Serra

so much for all our "cult people" "believing in communism" :lol:

[Comrade Arthur]

I'm sorry to say, Dr Rosenpenis, buy I am NOT the kind who's led by the mainstream press, as you put it. As a matter of fact, yesterday I just argued strongly against my father, who has several misconceptions becuas of what VEJA puts in his head. I have a very open mind and I accept anything people tell me AS LONG AS IT IS LOGICAL AND NOT PRO-CAPITALISM.

About your comments, Luís Henrique, I see you are a very inteligent person, by I'm afraid I believe you failed to correctly interpretate my text. It's utopic, romantic. Not rationalist. If you wish, we can discuss this subject through MSN, where our conversation can flow better.
Some of your points, such as "So we lack bourgeois representatives that make bourgeois laws on behalf of the people, instead of in behalf of the bourgeoisie?" were inconsistent and limited. You can't argue: if the bourgeoisie made laws FOR the people (a good-intentioned legislator, for instance), the proletariat got gather strengths easier and the revolution could happen.
A country NEVER lacks the "conditions for the revolution". The proletariat is the majority in number. Union will make them a majority in strength.
I agree with you when you say Lula is an awsome speaker, but when I say "terrible Portuguese" I mean gramatically. Perhaps you should pay more attention to the overall meaning of the sentences.

Thanks for your comments, everyone.

Arthur

[the last donut of the night]

What are your opinions on the MST?

[Luís Henrique]

For a bourgeois party, I think the PT's administration has been relatively positive. As a communist, I dont't understand why you support them.

The PT isn't a bourgeois party, it is a reformist working class party.


I also want to bring this into question
While you are undoubtedly correct that it was a Brazilian dictatorship, I think it can only be understood within the context of the cold war and not through some sort of nativist analysis that I suspect you may be trying to hint at.

What nativist analysis?

Of course the cold war was relevant, but the proper context is that of class struggle. It was the Brazilian bourgeoisie getting rid of a political team that did no longer represent its interests.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

It's utopic, romantic. Not rationalist.

Then this is the problem.


A country NEVER lacks the "conditions for the revolution". The proletariat is the majority in number. Union will make them a majority in strength.

But union doesn't exist at this moment, nor is there any magical method that ensures overnight union.


I agree with you when you say Lula is an awsome speaker, but when I say "terrible Portuguese" I mean gramatically.

His grammar is popular Portuguese grammar. Nobody speaks standard written Portuguese.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I'm sorry to say, Dr Rosenpenis, buy I am NOT the kind who's led by the mainstream press, as you put it.

Good. Then I hope you'll quit spewing all this rubbish about Lula being a dishonest, treasonous illiterate. These lies serve one purpose: To get the right back into power.

[dez]

And a splendid book it is. A must read for anyone interested in conducting urban resistance in the third-world.

Did you know that RAF read marighella?




But the PCB is a walking corpse; the bulk of the party left long ago, renaming itself the Partido Popular Socialista, which, in spite of the name, has absolutely no relation to socialism, and systematically allies with the right. What is left of the PCB is a minor party, with no significant presence in class struggle.


This as a view that is certainly propagated by a couple people, and considering the old wing of the party it is partly truth.
There are clear examples of historic militancy in the party, who had to deal with a reactionary wing that was only there due to the popularity of communism in brazil and/or due to a less forceful opposition stance concerning the military dictatorship involving that banner, and they had to go through a judicial battle to get the name Partido Comunista Brasileiro back from an organization that was only communist in name. Claiming that it is "a minor party, with no significant presence in class struggle" is largely ignorant of the reality within the party, given that it has been actively fighting allienation and exposing class struggle amongst the proletariat since the historical break with PPS. Even though most of the composition of the party is either elderly or young, there are people in between and associations with social movements, and time is passing. The party is rebuilding.



The PCdoB is much bigger than the PC and the PCB together, and much more serious than the PSOL. It is also a solid ally of the PT.


PcdoB is bigger than PSOL, PC, PCB, PCR, PSTU and PCO together.
They are a rather large party.

I actually almost joined UJS, and my experience with them was that they had a solid hierarchy and a sound plan of action, something that PSOL clearly lacks, but their ideals were hard to define. That being an euphemism.

[red cat]

Did you know that RAF read marighella?

I don't get your point.

[dez]

I don't get your point.

Back when it was written it wasn't exclusively a "third world urban guerilla set of techniques".

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The PT isn't a bourgeois party, it is a reformist working class party.

If you don't mind, I'd like you to expound on this.
What is a reformist party if not an euphemism for a capitalist party?
What does it even mean to be a capitalist working-class party?
To say that the PT is a working-class party is to affirm that the working class in Brazil is mobilized, no?
capitalists = bourgeoisie
I just really want to understand on what grounds you claim that the PT is a working-class party.
The Labour Party in the UK also has affiliated unions, but I hardly think anyone here would claim that it's a working-class party under any circusmtances.


Of course the cold war was relevant, but the proper context is that of class struggle. It was the Brazilian bourgeoisie getting rid of a political team that did no longer represent its interests.But in a more ample and important sense, Washington wanted to get rid of political team(s) that no longer represented its interests. The agenda and power of the Brazilian bourgeoisie in the coup and sucessively did not materialize domestically. In brief, I would say that that the Brazilian bourgeoisie is an agent of international capital.

[Comrade Arthur]

Good. Then I hope you'll quit spewing all this rubbish about Lula being a dishonest, treasonous illiterate. These lies serve one purpose: To get the right back into power.NONSENSE! How can you be leftist and support Lula? I don't care what the media says. He betrayed his former principles of which he spoke during our military dictatorship. And, YES, he spoke about communism/leftism/socialism at that time. Does he now? He speaks to poor people as though he were one of them! I am leftist, and I know that what I'm saying really sounds like something that comes from a blind VEJA reader, but to be leftist and to seek the truth while you support Lula/PT is a contradiction, because from the moment he "alied" with industry owners to be put to power, he showed himself weak. To be against Lula is not to be rightist. As a matter of fact, the opposite is what happens. As History teaches us, PT was formerly Leftist. Today it is capitalist, as you well pu it, Dr Rosenpenis.
I'm not trying to put rightist ideologies here, because I hate them. I'm trying to show people from other countries that Lula was socialist, and no longer is. I say again, understand this: to be agains Lula's policies is NOT to be againd leftism.



Originally Posted by Comrade Arthur
It's utopic, romantic. Not rationalist. Then this is the problem.Wake up! Communism has a very rationalist theory, I know, but isn't it all about our unity and botherhood? Aren't those our "emotional" principles? I know you think different (and I respect that), and I'm also rationalist, but I think we all need to dream a little more. To be rationalist is not necessarily to not be utopic. As Eduardo Galeano very well put it:
"Utopia lies at the horizon.
When I draw nearer by two steps,
it retreats two steps.
If I proceed ten steps forward, it
swiftly slips ten steps ahead.
No matter how far I go, I can never reach it.
What, then, is the purpose of utopia?
It is to cause us to advance."

Just think a little about that.
With this text, Luís Henrique, I intended to give people a basis for reflection (Socrate's method of Maieutics, as you may know): I''m not putting FULL, FINISHED, COMPLETE ideas into one's mind (neither is it what I intend to do). I'm opening his/her mind for complex reflections about the subject.



But union doesn't exist at this moment, nor is there any magical method that ensures overnight union.Who said anything about magical methods? I believe we can unite gradually through the spreading of the leftist ideology. As I said, I am utopic. Only our ideas last forever.
If I manage to change only one person, I've changed the world. Perhaps you should open our heart a little, LH. I'm not trying to offend you or anything. I just think that today, being communists, we must know our traditional rational theory (of course), but - above all - we must have a lot of sensitivity, for without it we cannot feel compassion for our brothers.

My sencere compliments,

Arthur

[progressive_lefty]

Leftism in Brazil

Brazil has more than 190 million inhabitants, more than 55 million poor people (24.7 million under the line of extreme poverty), which corresponds to more than 28% of the population. Though it may appear, that is NOT the worst of all. Our political system is decadent, corrupt and unethical. People suffer from droughts on the Northeast region. Public education is inefficient, poorly planned and structured.
I ask you:
Where is justice?
Where is harmony?
WHERE IS FREEDOM?


Eu foi brasil, falo portuguese mais or menos..
País muito bonito, mas tem muitos problemos por pobres pessoas.

I am going to Brasil for a second time in a couple of weeks, and I'm thoroughly looking forward to it. I'm sure it will be another eye-opening experience. The situation for the poor and all the violence that is associated with it, can be quite overwhelming.

[the last donut of the night]

Eu foi brasil, falo portuguese mais or menos..
País muito bonito, mas tem muitos problemos por pobres pessoas.

I am going to Brasil for a second time in a couple of weeks, and I'm thoroughly looking forward to it. I'm sure it will be another eye-opening experience. The situation for the poor and all the violence that is associated with it, can be quite overwhelming.

Pretty good Portuguese indeed.:thumbup1:

[Luís Henrique]

If you don't mind, I'd like you to expound on this.
What is a reformist party if not an euphemism for a capitalist party?
What does it even mean to be a capitalist working-class party?

A party isn't working class when we agree with its program, but when it is, in fact, made up from working class people.

I don't think there are "capitalist" parties; there are parties that are lead by bourgeois politicians, and there are parties that defend pro-capital ideologies. This doesn't make them "capitalist" parties; it makes them bourgeois parties, and, on the other hand, liberal parties, conservative parties, etc.

So a party's ideology, while certainly related to its class composition, cannot be reduced to it. That's the reason you can have reformist working class parties (indeed, most working class parties are, in fact, reformist).

Taking the opposite stand - ie, that a party's class affiliation is given by its program - will lead us to a platonic conception of the working class: actually, denying that the actual working class is the "real" working class, and imagining a fictitious "working class" that exists nowhere except the enlightned heads of a handful of (petty bourgeois, of course) "revolutionaries". Taken to its consequences, it produces authoritarian, jacobin, substitutionist "parties" of "professional revolutionaries" that are at best irrelevant, and at worst totally detrimental to the working class struggle. Not taken to its consequences, it produces cynical distancing from the actual class struggle, always deemed insufficiently "revolutionary" for the tastes of the individualist petty bourgeois intellectual.

All of this, of course, being the main problems the left as a whole faces nowadays.


To say that the PT is a working-class party is to affirm that the working class in Brazil is mobilized, no?

Mobilised towards what, exactly?


capitalists = bourgeoisie

Well, yes. I'm not sure what's your point here.

However, both words carry at least two different meanings. It is one thing to say that Bill Gates is a capitalist, or a bourgeois. Yes, he is a member of the bourgeoisie, aka capitalist class. It is a different thing to say that, say, Obama is bourgeois or capitalist; it means he upholds political and ideological positions that, in the long term, favour capital and the capitalist class.


I just really want to understand on what grounds you claim that the PT is a working-class party.

Because it is composed of working class members, perhaps?


The Labour Party in the UK also has affiliated unions, but I hardly think anyone here would claim that it's a working-class party under any circusmtances.

Well, I am not that familiar with the situation of Labour. Historically, it is a working class party. Recently, the leadership has made huge efforts to erase such affiliation; I don't know with how much success. But to the extent that it succeeds, it will not make Labour more a bourgeois party; it will destroy it, because Labour without a working class constituency is useless for capital.


But in a more ample and important sense, Washington wanted to get rid of political team(s) that no longer represented its interests. The agenda and power of the Brazilian bourgeoisie in the coup and sucessively did not materialize domestically. In brief, I would say that that the Brazilian bourgeoisie is an agent of international capital.

What does that exactly mean?

It is, first of all, an agent of its own capital. The extent to which is an "agent of international capital", therefore, is determined by the extent to which its capital is materially integrated to "international capital" (and not, as it could be implied, to the extent to which it is morally corrupt or something like that).

What does it mean to say that "The agenda and power of the Brazilian bourgeoisie in the coup and sucessively did not materialize domestically"? Of course it materialised domestically, "domestically" destroying Brazilian working class organisations.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

to be agains Lula's policies is NOT to be againd leftism.

Not necessarily, no. But, in practice, a lot of the hatred of Lula is rooted in the elitist belief that a common worker has no business in the Presidency of the Republic.


Just think a little about that.

I have been thinking about that, not a little, but a whole lot. That being the reason I dislike utopia.


With this text, Luís Henrique, I intended to give people a basis for reflection (Socrate's method of Maieutics, as you may know): I''m not putting FULL, FINISHED, COMPLETE ideas into one's mind (neither is it what I intend to do). I'm opening his/her mind for complex reflections about the subject.

Fine. I am sorry my reflections upon your text were not what you expected; but if the text is to start a dialogue, Platonic or not, then you will have to listen to the responses to it. As it is, I would say that your text doesn't make people reflect about what is actually necessary to rethink nowadays. It advances an abstract idea of unity, not grounded in actual struggle, and does not give us any basis to assess the reasons (and not even actually the issues) we are divided.


Who said anything about magical methods? I believe we can unite gradually through the spreading of the leftist ideology. As I said, I am utopic. Only our ideas last forever.

But how does leftist ideology spread?

I sincerely hope that our ideas do not last forever. They are ideas meant to put an end to exploitation and oppression; if exploitation and oppression cease to exist, our ideas lose their reason to exist. And, might I say, the sooner the better.


If I manage to change only one person, I've changed the world. Perhaps you should open our heart a little, LH. I'm not trying to offend you or anything. I just think that today, being communists, we must know our traditional rational theory (of course), but - above all - we must have a lot of sensitivity, for without it we cannot feel compassion for our brothers.

Nor am I trying to offend you. But this doesn't mean that we have to put down our respective ideas to show some kind of politeness to each other.

And of course our sensibilities are what move us first place against an iniquous order. But they cannot substitute for analysis. My frustration about the divided state of the left isn't enough to put forward a strategy of reunification - and if I try, it will only deepen the actual divides. What is necessary is to understand the causes of the present situation, for only this will give us the necessary insights for the left's reunification.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A party isn't working class when we agree with its program, but when it is, in fact, made up from working class people.

But practically all parties are made up mostly of working-class people. By your logic, PMDB and the Republican Party in the US are also working-class parties. How utterly meaningless.


Mobilised towards what, exactly?

Mobilized as a class towards its own interests. Does the PT accomplish this? I don't believe so. Unless we scrap the thesis that capitalism and class society are contrary to our interests.

[Luís Henrique]

But practically all parties are made up mostly of working-class people. By your logic, PMDB and the Republican Party in the US are also working-class parties. How utterly meaningless.

But, evidently, their leadership isn't, and the internal rules are such that ensures only bourgeois or petty-bourgeois politicians make into it.


Mobilized as a class towards its own interests.

But what are the class' own interests? Who decide what the class' interests are?


Does the PT accomplish this?

The PT corresponds, more or less, to what the working class thinks are its interests.


I don't believe so. Unless we scrap the thesis that capitalism and class society are contrary to our interests.

But how are we going to discuss with the class what it's interests are, if we start by refusing to even take into account what it thinks about it? How do we maintain that the "emancipation of the working class will be the doing of the working class", if we start by denying it even the ability to understand its own interests, on the base of its own experiences?

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So you're saying that since the working-cass (in Brazil) isn't presently united and mobilized in a mass class struggle against capitalism, we are unable to conclude that the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism are our goals?

We already know that capitalism works against our interests always. We don't need to waste time with bogus reforms to learn that.
It would be a million times more productive for workers to pick up a history book than vote for the PT.

[Luís Henrique]

So you're saying that since the working-cass (in Brazil) isn't presently united and mobilized in a mass class struggle against capitalism, we are unable to conclude that the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism are our goals?

No, I'm obviously not saying that.


We already know that capitalism works against our interests always. We don't need to waste time with bogus reforms to learn that.We, who?


It would be a million times more productive for workers to pick up a history book than vote for the PT.Really...

Do you think that reading a history book substitutes for actual experience?

And yet you mock Comrade Arthur like this...


cultured Marxist academics will be the salvation of the Brazilian working class -- reelect FHC
hahahaha
... or José Serra

so much for all our "cult people" "believing in communism" http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Luís Henrique

[Demogorgon]

If you don't mind, I'd like you to expound on this.
What is a reformist party if not an euphemism for a capitalist party?
What does it even mean to be a capitalist working-class party?
To say that the PT is a working-class party is to affirm that the working class in Brazil is mobilized, no?
capitalists = bourgeoisie
I just really want to understand on what grounds you claim that the PT is a working-class party.
The Labour Party in the UK also has affiliated unions, but I hardly think anyone here would claim that it's a working-class party under any circusmtances.
With apologies for jumping in here with a non-Brazilian perspective, I think it is worth explaining here that there is a big difference between reformist workers parties and bourgousie parties that like to make sure the scrap they throw to the workers are particularly meaty. Unfortunately the two are often confused here. In the latter category you have things like the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada or One Nation Tories in the UK. Patriarchal supporters of social welfare really. These parties are a hell of a lot better to live under than the extreme neoliberal ones but still cannot do anything for working class liberation and have absolutely no intention of doing so neither.

In the former category you have parties like British Labour Party in the past. It isn't like that anymore. The leadership has systematically worked to move it from being a reformist workers party to a Liberal(ish) Bourgousie party (like the Democratic Party in the United States). I disagree with Luis that this will destroy the party because actually the bourgeoisie love it. It means they can change management with the Tories mess up without having to conceed anything to the workers and also means they can defend their interests without having to go along with the Social Conservatism of the Tories. Not all bourgeousie feel the need to attack single mothers after all.

Anyway I digress, back when the Labour Party was a workers party it didn't achieve socialism or anything like that, but it did do extraordinary things in terms of getting workers to speak up. It gave the working class a political voice (a rather polite one that didn't like to stir things up too much of course) but it did create an environment where Trade Unions could function well and where genuine leftists could make themselves heard. It also made the Tories behave like the left-bourgeousie parties I described which was a welcome relief for a lot of people. None of this is to say it was a good party, but it was a potential base for one. It was perfectly possible that it could have formed the basis for a genuinely effective working class party. Of course it didn't, and the leadership of the last couple of decades or so has made sure that it can never ever happen, but the point was the potential was there. It was never there with any of those left-bourgeousie parties, and there you have the difference.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We, who?

Those of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system.


Really...

Do you think that reading a history book substitutes for actual experience?

So if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying here is that the working-class is acquiring experience by exerting power via the PT's administration... and that's because some of its leaders are members of the working class??

The membership of the PT tell us nothing.
Its policies, while progressive, in no way demonstrate that it is controlled by socialist interests.
And its leadership also tells us nothing.
And yet you want workers to get behind a party with a "pro-capital ideology"?
The PT stands squarely in the way of working-class mobilization against capitalism. Ergo, I conclude that it's counterproductive for communists to support their reforms.

On an unrelated (or related) note, who else didn't have power last night?

[Luís Henrique]

Those of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system.

And you think you are one of those people?


So if I'm not mistaken, what you're saying here is that the working-class is acquiring experience by exerting power via the PT's administration... and that's because some of its leaders are members of the working class??

No, I am of course not saying that.


Its policies, while progressive, in no way demonstrate that it is controlled by socialist interests.

Ah. So, can you explain how can the be "progressive" if they are not "controlled by socialist interests"?


And yet you want workers to get behind a party with a "pro-capital ideology"?

No. I want to retake the party for the working class' struggles.


The PT stands squarely in the way of working-class mobilization against capitalism. Ergo, I conclude that it's counterproductive for communists to support their reforms.

And what exactly do you think is productive for communists to do?

Luís Henrique

[Tribune]

The working class does not have enough political strenght to topple the bourgeois regime at this moment.

Luís Henrique

When you write "political strength," do you mean that they lack the capacity to understand their own conditions in proletarian terms, so that their actions are undertaken in a manner which still benefits their masters, because they are constantly subject to misdirection, amelioration and reformist programs?

Or do you mean that they have not achieved the ability to use the existing political system to their benefit?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And you think you are one of those people?

:crying:

yeah, I do


No, I am of course not saying that.So in what way exactly is it that the PT is controlled by the working class? The makeup of its membership is like that of any other major party. Its policies aren't socialist. And you just admitted that the class origin of part of its leaders is also not a factor. So what makes it a working class party, apart from you wanting it to be one?


Ah. So, can you explain how can the be "progressive" if they are not "controlled by socialist interests"?There is quite a bit of progress that this country can udergo without getting anywhere near socialism, obviously.


No. I want to retake the party for the working class' struggles.A number of parties that in fact attempt to work towards socialism have been cited in this thread. The PT isn't one of them.


And what exactly do you think is productive for communists to do?Participate in the struggle for communism, and not one for capitalism -- which is what the PT is (currently).

[Comrade Arthur]

There is quite a bit of progress that this country can udergo without getting anywhere near socialism, obviously.Totally agree with you, Dr. Let's take Norway, for example. It is capitalist (a little different from Brazil, but still capitalist) and it is the best place in the world to live! Of course, there must be exploitation between classes there, for the extinction of class strugles is not possible within capitalism.


A number of parties that in fact attempt to work towards socialism have been cited in this thread. The PT isn't one of them.I don't know if we are allowed to comment on this, but on the next presidential election I'm voting either for Heloísa Helena or for Marina Silva (who may not be socialist, but she has the courage to admit that PT has lost its way and leave it). They are both very strong women.



Participate in the struggle for communism, and not one for capitalism -- which is what the PT is (currently). Yeah. This is one thing that can prove Lula's inconsistency/lack of integrity: he criticized FHC's privatizations, but he did exactly the same thing on his government.
I still don't understand why you keep saying that Lula is a worker, Luís Henrique. He was a worker. He basically did what the bourgeoisie did during the French Revolution: ally to the proletariat until you rise to power. Then, you kick their butt and turn against them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

To be fair, Lula didn' privatize anything. Except maybe a few highways or something. It was nothing like what FHC did.

[Comrade Arthur]

actually, he did privatize some companies, highways and the government was actually considering the possibility of privatizing the amazonian forest!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Which companies?


the government was actually considering the possibility of privatizing the amazonian forest

stfu

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It is, first of all, an agent of its own capital. The extent to which is an "agent of international capital", therefore, is determined by the extent to which its capital is materially integrated to "international capital" (and not, as it could be implied, to the extent to which it is morally corrupt or something like that).

The relationship between Brazil's "own capital" and international capital, as we know, is one of imperialist domination. Not to say that boourgeois nationalism is a viable solution to said domination, as its power is materially dependent upon international capital. That's what I was getting at, but failed.

This is just about to get interesting, don't leave now.

[Luís Henrique]

:crying:

yeah, I do

In which case you certainly have read the Manifesto. Particularly, you have read this particular sentence:


The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

From it, it seems to be clear that there are working class parties that are not communist, ie, do not have the abolition of capitalism as their end. It also is clear that Communists do not stand in opposition to those parties.

Now tell us, how many people are "[t]hose of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system"? Do you think they are enough to make a revolution? Do you stand for a working class revolution, or for a revolution of "[t]hose of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system"? Do you stand for a dictatorship of the proletariat, or for a dictatorship of "[t]hose of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system"?


So in what way exactly is it that the PT is controlled by the working class?

Through its internal structures, which are elected by the rank-and-file.


There is quite a bit of progress that this country can udergo without getting anywhere near socialism, obviously.

Yes? So there is a fraction of the Brazilian bourgeoisie that stands for that progress? What fraction is this?


A number of parties that in fact attempt to work towards socialism have been cited in this thread. The PT isn't one of them.

But are they?

The PSOL, the PSB and the PCdoB are the only one of those that actually qualify as parties; the other are smallish groups with very little impact on Brazilian politics. Of these, the PSB and the PCdoB are allies of the PT. The PC, the PCB, the PCdoB and the PSTU (and the PCO, if you want to bring it into discussion) are ossified centralised structures, in which there is no place for dissent or democratic discussion. The PSOL is a smaller and more moralist version of the PT: it has run a pro-lifer for President, on a platform that systematically failed to advance working class positions - instead, it made a huge point of the personal honesty of Heloísa Helena, always implying that this would guarantee a "clean government".


Participate in the struggle for communism, and not one for capitalism -- which is what the PT is (currently).

And what is the struggle for communism, today, in Brazil?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

When you write "political strength," do you mean that they lack the capacity to understand their own conditions in proletarian terms, so that their actions are undertaken in a manner which still benefits their masters, because they are constantly subject to misdirection, amelioration and reformist programs?

Or do you mean that they have not achieved the ability to use the existing political system to their benefit?

I mean that if we actually tried to destroy the bourgeois State we would find ourselves defeated.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Totally agree with you, Dr. Let's take Norway, for example. It is capitalist (a little different from Brazil, but still capitalist) and it is the best place in the world to live! Of course, there must be exploitation between classes there, for the extinction of class strugles is not possible within capitalism.

Well, yes, both Norway and Brazil are capitalist countries, and life is a lot better in Norway than in Brazil. The question is, do you believe it is possible to Brazil - and all other countries in a similar situation - to become a country like Norway without breaking apart the imperialist system?


I don't know if we are allowed to comment on this, but on the next presidential election I'm voting either for Heloísa Helena or for Marina Silva (who may not be socialist, but she has the courage to admit that PT has lost its way and leave it). They are both very strong women.I won't vote for Heloísa Helena, as I think she is to the right of Dilma Roussef in some crucial issues - sexual morality being one of them. But more importantly, I think the political line her party is following is very problematic. There are many reasons the PT isn't fulfilling its promises; the personal honesty, or lack thereof, of its leaders is not one of them. A PSOL government would have to face the same problems and difficulties, armed with the conviction that Heloísa Helena's personal integrity is enough to overcome them. It is called political moralism, and I disagree with it enough that I won't vote for it.

Marina Silva was a minister in Lula's cabinet until a few weeks ago. I have never seen her expand on her supposed criticisms of Lula's government. I would say the PV - a party that has many times allied with the right, if it grants them some government positions - invited her to be their presidential candidate, and that she accepted it. It is no political base, I think, for a presidential candidacy. As a minister in Lula's government, Marina was not noticeable for her leftist positions; on the contrary, she always looked as the NGO's person in the cabinet. Nor was her relation towards environmental civil servants ever easy. She faced a few strikes, and was as hardline as everyone else in rejecting the workers demands.


Yeah. This is one thing that can prove Lula's inconsistency/lack of integrity: he criticized FHC's privatizations, but he did exactly the same thing on his government.Well, this is of course untrue. Privatisations started under FHC were kept and concluded; but no major privatisations were started under Lula. Outsourcing in civil service was halted and started to be reversed. So, no, it isn't what I would like, but it is also not "exactly the same thing".

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

From it, it seems to be clear that there are working class parties that are not communist, ie, do not have the abolition of capitalism as their end. It also is clear that Communists do not stand in opposition to those parties.

I agree. But I don't believe that such a party exists in this country.


Now tell us, how many people are "[t]hose of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system"? Don't know
Do you think they are enough to make a revolution? No
Do you stand for a working class revolution, or for a revolution of "[t]hose of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system"? the former
Do you stand for a dictatorship of the proletariat, or for a dictatorship of "[t]hose of us who have a Marxist understanding of the capitalist system"? Do you (PT) stand for a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or for a dictatorship of some sort of working-class vanguard?


Through its internal structures, which are elected by the rank-and-file.How can a working-class party be entirely alienated from the working-class struggle against capitalism?


Yes? So there is a fraction of the Brazilian bourgeoisie that stands for that progress? What fraction is this?

PT


The PSOL, the PSB and the PCdoB are the only one of those that actually qualify as parties; the other are smallish groups with very little impact on Brazilian politics.True working-class politics have very little impact on Brazilian politics, unfortunately.


Of these, the PSB and the PCdoB are allies of the PT. The PC, the PCB, the PCdoB and the PSTU (and the PCO, if you want to bring it into discussion) are ossified centralised structures, in which there is no place for dissent or democratic discussion.The PT itself has been accused on multiple occasions of repressing dissent in and outide of the party, as I'm sure you're aware.

[Luís Henrique]

Do you (PT) stand for a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or for a dictatorship of some sort of working-class vanguard?

I - and the MRS - stand for the dictatorship of the proletariat. The PT is a complex party, with many tendencies, which will have different standings. I believe the majority of the party doesn't frames thing on such way; they will tell you that they stand for a radicalised democracy where the working class would have a stronger voice than in a traditional bourgeois democracy. Other tendencies stand for a vanguard dictatorship.


How can a working-class party be entirely alienated from the working-class struggle against capitalism?If the working class as a whole is alienated from such struggle, what is the surprise?


PTThis is a non-answer; the PT is not a fraction of the Brazilian bourgeoisie (nor are the PSDB, PMDB, PFL, etc). A fraction of the bourgeoisie would be something like, "the industrial bourgeosie", or "the producers of goods for popular consume", or "the high-tech industry".


True working-class politics have very little impact on Brazilian politics, unfortunately.But, a few lines above,


How can a working-class party be entirely alienated from the working-class struggle against capitalism?So, to put the question back to you, how can "true working-class politics have very little impact on Brazilian politics", if the working class is by far the majority of the Brazilian population?


The PT itself has been accused on multiple occasions of repressing dissent in and outide of the party, as I'm sure you're aware.Evidently, and I have been in the taking side of such repression too often. But if I was an activist of the PSTU, PCdoB, PCO, PCB or PC, and expressed a similar degree of dissent that I express inside the PT, I would have been immediately expelled.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So long as the party has a democratic internal structure, it's a working-class party. Even if it doesn't engage in proletarian class struggle. :lol:


So, to put the question back to you, how can true working-class politics have very little impact on Brazilian politics, if the working class is by far the majority of the Brazilian population?

You just affirmed that the party that you consider to represent the working-class is alienated from the working-class struggle. What are working-class politics if not its insertion in the class struggle? What is proletarian class struggle if not the struggle against capital? What is the struggle against capital if not the struggle for socialism? I don't understand how you manage to disassociate these things in your mind.

As I see it, the PT, like other self-proclaimed leftist reformist parties, is a party that welcomes workers, yet alienates their struggle in favor of bourgeois policies, as your posts have shown. The PT represets a political faction of the Brazilian bourgeoisie, is what I meant.

[Luís Henrique]

You just affirmed that the party that you consider to represent the working-class is alienated from the working-class struggle.

No, I didn't.


What are working-class politics if not its insertion in the class struggle? What is proletarian class struggle if not the struggle against capital? What is the struggle against capital if not the struggle for socialism?

Don't be ridiculous. Class struggle against capital isn't by far the same as struggle for socialism. Or do you think a struggle for better wages isn't a struggle against capital? Or, perhaps, that it is a struggle for socialism?


As I see it, the PT, like other self-proclaimed leftist reformist parties, is a party that welcomes workers, yet alienates their struggle in favor of bourgeois policies, as your posts have shown. The PT represets a political faction of the Brazilian bourgeoisie, is what I meant.

What political faction?

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

But practically all parties are made up mostly of working-class people. By your logic, PMDB and the Republican Party in the US are also working-class parties. How utterly meaningless. But, evidently, their leadership isn't, and the internal rules are such that ensures only bourgeois or petty-bourgeois politicians make into it.

Would you say that the PT is different in any way from that?


So in what way exactly is it that the PT is controlled by the working class? Through its internal structures, which are elected by the rank-and-file.

Is this not what every party claims though? Why should we take the claims of a party which is at the moment at the ruling party of a state which you yourself have admitted to be capitalist more seriously than we take the claims of any other political party?

What makes, from a historical as well as a current political perspective, the claims to such "inner democracy" of the international social democracy or in that of in fact even liberal parties false while making PT's claim true?


From it, it seems to be clear that there are working class parties that are not communist, ie, do not have the abolition of capitalism as their end. It also is clear that Communists do not stand in opposition to those parties.

Did the true nature of such parties not become obvious internationally during WW1 and the revolutionary wave following it?


Class struggle against capital isn't by far the same as struggle for socialism. Or do you think a struggle for better wages isn't a struggle against capital? Or, perhaps, that it is a struggle for socialism?

Lenin once said "behind every strike lurks the hydra of the revolution". Is the (false) distinction between economical struggles and political struggles not exactly what needs to be destroyed by the mass strike as Rosa Luxemburg argued?

[Luís Henrique]

Would you say that the PT is different in any way from that?

Yes, I would. While the majoritaries have certainly been bending the rules to make participation ever more difficult, it is still possible to work inside the PT as a minority identified with socialism and the struggle against capital.


Is this not what every party claims though? Why should we take the claims of a party which is at the moment at the ruling party of a state which you yourself have admitted to be capitalist more seriously than we take the claims of any other political party?

I haven't "admitted" that the Brazilian State is capitalist. I have stated it clearly, and even polemised with those who believe it is not. It was never a grudgingly concession of my part.

The PT doesn't rule the State - a huge part of which is not elected, by the way (Army, Justice, bureaucracy, etc). It rules government (what Anglophones will perhaps call "administration"), and even this in coalition with other parties.

A revolution is needed to change the class character of a State. A socialist revolution cannot be done by government; it has to be the doing of the working class as a whole.


What makes, from a historical as well as a current political perspective, the claims to such "inner democracy" of the international social democracy or in that of in fact even liberal parties false while making PT's claim true?

The internal structure of each of those.


Did the true nature of such parties not become obvious internationally during WW1 and the revolutionary wave following it?

Did it?

Why did the workers councils in November 1918 in Germany elect a majority of SPD delegates? Why did the SPD remain the biggest party during Weimar Republic?


Lenin once said "behind every strike lurks the hydra of the revolution". Is the (false) distinction between economical struggles and political struggles not exactly what needs to be destroyed by the mass strike as Rosa Luxemburg argued?

If such distinction is "false", why does it need a mass strike to be destroyed?

It is a very real distinction, and it is what keeps "the true nature of such parties" from "becoming obvious". And the task of revolutionaries is not to abstractly deny the reality of that distinction, but to actually destroy it in and by practice.

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It rules government (what Anglophones will perhaps call "administration")

I believe that's just an American thing


It is a very real distinction, and it is what keeps "the true nature of such parties" from "becoming obvious". And the task of revolutionaries is not to abstractly deny the reality of that distinction, but to actually destroy it in and by practice.

How?
It looks to me like the PT has in fact worked to greatly distinguish what it claims to be working-class politics from the struggle against capitalism and socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

How?

By actually taking part on every working class struggle - strikes, factory occupations, you know - and using those practical experiences to point out the limitations of capitalism and of the bourgeois order.


It looks to me like the PT has in fact worked to greatly distinguish what it claims to be working-class politics from the struggle against capitalism and socialism.

Yes, that is what the majoritaries do - that's what reformists do.


the struggle against capitalism and socialism

The struggle against socialism?!

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

lol
of course I meant the struggle against capitalism and for socialism

Your reasoning sounds like it could be used to defend any party with a large support base that includes a socialist faction, regardless of what the party actually does

[-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-]

there are left wing malitias in some favellas i think

[Patchd]

Should this thread be in here, it looked like it belongs more in the Politics forum.

[Luís Henrique]

there are left wing malitias in some favellas i think

Your imagination is called "some favellas"?

Luís Henrique

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

he's probably thinking of Comando Vermelho and the like
these organizations are not political in any real way
they're nothing more than gangs
it's possible that their founders used a leftist discourse
but they are not "left wing militias" unfortunately

[Random Precision]

Luís, you make some good points, but I would like to know your and/or your tendency's answer to these questions: Do you think that the PT can be a vehicle for the revolution in Brazil? If so, why? If it cannot be, at what point will your tendency consider breaking from it?

I just think history has shown that it is pretty dangerous for revolutionaries to wed themselves to non-revolutionary organizations.

[Luís Henrique]

Luís, you make some good points, but I would like to know your and/or your tendency's answer to these questions: Do you think that the PT can be a vehicle for the revolution in Brazil? If so, why?

It depends of what you call "a vehicle for the revolution" - if it is a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks, then no, it cannot be, or become, a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks. The other part of the reasoning is, we don't think a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks would be "a vehicle for the revolution". We think that revolution is the business of the whole class, and we do not think that one centralised, militarily disciplined party is able to lead the whole class into toppling the bourgeois order.


If it cannot be, at what point will your tendency consider breaking from it?

At the point where the working class, as a movement, sees the party as no longer being useful to its ends. In short, this means not until the present situation of bourgeois offensive and proletarian retreat is over.


I just think history has shown that it is pretty dangerous for revolutionaries to wed themselves to non-revolutionary organizations.

There are two kinds of non-revolutionary organisations that revolutionaries are constantly wedding: amorphous reformist proletarian mass parties, and petty bourgeois ultraleftist vanguardist cults. Both are extremely dangerous; unhappily a third option isn't often at hand - it has to be built.

Luís Henrique

[Random Precision]

It depends of what you call "a vehicle for the revolution" - if it is a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks, then no, it cannot be, or become, a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks. The other part of the reasoning is, we don't think a vanguard party like the Bolsheviks would be "a vehicle for the revolution". We think that revolution is the business of the whole class, and we do not think that one centralised, militarily disciplined party is able to lead the whole class into toppling the bourgeois order.

A "centralized, militarily disciplined party" may accurately describe many of the caricatures of the Bolshevik Party since 1917. I don't know if you could describe the actual Bolshevik Party before and during the revolution like that though, at least not all the time. Lenin may have thought it looked like that, and many have expressed his desire for it to look like that in some of his writings, but historically it's quite questionable whether it was centralized and militarily disciplined in practice.

I don't think it's at all against seeing the revolution as "the business of the class" as you say to attempt to construct a party that resembles the historical Bolshevik organization.


At the point where the working class, as a movement, sees the party as no longer being useful to its ends. In short, this means not until the present situation of bourgeois offensive and proletarian retreat is over.

Fair enough I suppose. My concern however is that some revolutionaries will become, as I said, wedded to the idea of working within a reformist party and cling to it even when the working class deserts it. You probably would consider the Militant a "vanguardist cult" but I think that some of the positions they ended up taking (the idea of revolution passed by an Enabling Act, supporting British imperialism in the Falklands conflict) shows some of the negative effects of entryism.


There are two kinds of non-revolutionary organisations that revolutionaries are constantly wedding: amorphous reformist proletarian mass parties, and petty bourgeois ultraleftist vanguardist cults. Both are extremely dangerous; unhappily a third option isn't often at hand - it has to be built.

I agree.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

...

Your reasoning sounds like it could be used to defend any party with a large support base that includes a socialist faction, regardless of what the party actually does

[Luís Henrique]

...

... while you say that there are half a dozen proletarian political parties fighting for socialism in Brazil. All of them, however, disagree: an important part of their activity is decrying each others as reformist, opportunist, and treasonous.

Generalities are just that: generalities.

Luís Henrique