Brazil's protests have become fascist [Archive]

Drugged Out Communist

21st June 2013, 20:13

Source: Not mine but I've lost the original link. It's somewhere on reddit

I am here to give you information about what is currently going on in Brazil. I am brazilian, born and raised in the city of São Paulo, where I am currently speaking to you from.

The first thing I will tell you is that you should not pay attention to what the rest of reddit is telling you about the protests, and from what I hear comrades around the world telling me about their media reports, do not listen to them either.

The protests which are currently going on are severely dynamic, but they have taken a definite turn towards fascism.

The context of the protest is as follows:
The initial wave of protests were organized by the MPL, Movimento Passe-Livre, which is an autonomist anarchist movement, based primarily in public universities. Their main goal is and always was free, public funded transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport). The protests were organized in response to (left-wing, social democrat/liberal PT Worker's Party) mayor Fernando Haddad's and (right-wing, conservative, social democrat in name only PSDB governor) Geraldo Alckimin's hikes in bus and metro fares.

The protests were instantly joined by communist parties PSTU, PSOL and PCB. The MPL, due their anarchist ideology, denounced party participation. This will become important later on.

The media, at first, launched a total offensive against the protests, accusing it of vandalism, and of being made-up by extreme leftists. This is a prime example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=luLzhtSYWC4). They justified the actions of the armed Military Police of Brazil (which is a Gendarme), which was, at the time, shooting rubber bullets at people's faces (which is lethal), beating up primarily women, using lots of tear gas and pepper spray to disperse the movement, as well as several intimidation tactics, such as baseless arrests (including the famous arrests for vinegar posession).

The media realized that despite all of their efforts, the movement had a popular agenda and had been garnering support accross progressive sections of the population. One very popular ultra-conservative pig-loving anchor attempted to ask the extremely loaded question to his viewers: do you support vandalism in ongoing protests? (http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/600742_502485453138395_1652625808_n.jpg) only to have his primarily reactionary audience humiliate him live by voting yes. The media, realizing they could no longer discredit the movement, and noticing that their most reactionary viewers were ready to take the street, switched strategies.

As I predicted in this post (http://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1ggzfy/stand_up_with_the_proletarians_of_brazil_spread/cakfwgv), the raging anti-communist pundit withdrew his previous opinion and started favoring the protests (http://cbn.globoradio.globo.com/comentaristas/arnaldo-jabor/2013/06/17/AMIGOS-EU-ERREI-E-MUITO-MAIS-DO-QUE-20-CENTAVOS.htm), but also started claiming that the protests were about "much more", and started to tell his viewers that the protests were about the long running list of anti-leftist complaints that were traditionally presented by the media against the left leaning worker's party and used electorally by the right-wing PSDB. The rest of the media did exactly the same thing. They even set up the narrative on the international level, using this video that became the means through which reddit became aware of the protests (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AIBYEXLGdSg). This would later serve to legitimize the fascist coup in the eyes of the international audience.

Now here is the tricky part. As I said in a previous post about that particular video (http://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1ggzfy/stand_up_with_the_proletarians_of_brazil_spread/cak6y5g) you will notice that there is nothing intrinsically socialist about the video. Socialists, just as much as conservatives, are loathe to corruption, wasteful spending and the degradation of public services. HOWEVER, this has to be looked at in the context that the media has built over the years that the semi-leftist PT government has been in the presidency of the country.

Maybe one example most socialists here will be more familiar with is the Venezuelan media and it's participation in the attempted 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez, who was a friend to pink-tide brazilian president Lula who was current president Dilma's predecessor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZajyVas4Jg). What was the Venezuelan media's strategy? To constantly pound on the viewer's minds the idea that all leftism is corrupt, to fabricate accusations daily and to create the general feeling of constant crisis. The same has been absolutely true of Brazilian media since 2000.

In fact, Rede Globo, which has the near-monopoly of TV audiences, which is owned by the billionaire heirs of Roberto Marinho, who had a personal fortune of 60 billion dollars, had previously attempted in 2007 to spark an artificial "popular" march against the PT government led by several celebrities on its payroll (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_C%C3%ADvico_pelo_Direito_dos_Brasileiros ).

I SHOULD ALSO STRONGLY REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE 1964 MILITARY COUP WAS PRECEDED BY A MILLION STRONG REACTIONARY MARCH ON THE STATE OF GUANABARA ASKING FOR FASCISM AGAINST THE REFORMIST SOC-DEM JOÃO GOULART (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcha_da_Fam%C3%ADlia_com_Deus_pela_Liberdade). So to those who are simply enamoured by any public protest thinking its impossible that the right can muster popular support, stop being so fucking naive.

Now, you're probably asking, "how can you suggest that the current protests are fascist? You're out of your mind!". Well you are reading this and you are probably not in Brazil, watching how giddy the media is with the whole thing. You are probably not aware that the agenda against "corruption" was suggested by the military chief of police when negotiating with MPL (http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/brasil/sp/2013-06-17/comandante-geral-da-pm-sugere-politizacao-de-protestos-em-sao-paulo.html) You are also probably not aware that the large majority of the opposition to the Worker's Party does not come from the radical left, as I wish it did, as MPL does, but it comes from PSDB and half of their electors are nostalgic of our fascist dictatorship. So they are going out there and asking for a new one (http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/s720x720/972005_274587252681267_195263270_n.jpg).

The sign says "military intervention now. For the democratic government of civilians and military" which is, I'm sure, how he remembers the 1964-1986 period to be.

As I write this, thousands of right wing militants are BURNING RED FLAGS (http://imgur.com/hHL7oPo) in Paulista Avenue and demanding the impeachment of brazilian president Dilma Roussef. These militants are those who think that democracy only exists when married to neoliberalism, so in her place they want to install PSDB or the brazilian equivalent of Pedro Carmona.
Many leftists are only now waking up to this fact, there have been some interesting attempts to make people aware of the oncoming fascist coup by some artists (http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/936406_251728094965815_2063686524_n.jpg), which are conscious (http://www.pirikart.com.br/image/53331393870) of the media and right wing hijacking of the initial protests.

Context: The toucan is the mascot for the right wing party. The other comic shows how the protest's agenda was hijacked by right wing demands.
Now, the leftist parties have attempted to reclaim their movement and to fight against the reactionary agenda which always masquerades as "apolitical" demands for the moralization of politics. The right wing and the media have as such appropriated the anarchist "anti-party" discourse to denounce the left-wing in the protests, and some radical right wingers are demanding the extinction of parties, much like the 1964 military dictatorship proceeded to do. MPL and the anarchists are failing to react to this and are fueling the right wing rhetoric.

There are also sections of the left which are too isolated in their group of friends and comrades to realize that the majority of people participating in the marches are not their friends. The majority of people joined in after the calls of reactionary media pundits. In many cities which the protests were not started by the left the protests are solely about the right wing protesting against left-politics. Do not be naive, communists would not gather up and protest near former president Lula's house (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/manifestantes-protestam-perto-da-casa-de-lula-em-sao-bernardo-8739640).

Meanwhile, the Federation of Industries of São Paulo State (a business owner union, if there was ever full fascism in an organisation, its this one) is supporting the protests (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTydPLKxUbw). The brazilian Pedro Carmona sharpens his fangs.
So I find it extremely upsetting that clueless redditors, especially those who claim to be socialist inclined, are basically providing international support for a fascist coup.

So when the judiciary, which the media has built up as the great moralizing institution, its hero being the Supreme Court Justice Joaquim Barbosa, does some kind of maneuver to oust the left-leaning Dilma Roussef in favor of elections or whatever that bring back the neo-liberal PSDB to power, the international community will be ready to validate the coup. I should remind you all that this is the textbook tactic of 21st century fascism, as taught to us by Honduras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Honduran_constitutional_crisis).

Brazil is in danger of going fascist, and I am sick of clueless foreigners which find out about what is going on through some stupid youtube video sponsored by some think tank like the Millenium Institute or by the brazilian equivalent of Miami Cubans and think that this is an overall positive development.

Reddit disgusts me.

EDIT: Found the original with embedded links -khad

khad

21st June 2013, 20:22

check out this fascist:

p7GTJA7mIhU

The glorious proletarian uprising:

http://i.imgur.com/hHL7oPo.jpg

khad

21st June 2013, 22:02

Report from a person who was there today: (http://www.conversaafiada.com.br/brasil/2013/06/20/xad-na-paulista-se-lembrou-do-allende/)

Fascists, Fascists, you will not pass!

by Xad in 20/06/2013 at 21:35

I'm back from a rally in the Paulista Avenue, called up by PT's national directive. We were only about 200 militants.

At the gathering in Angélica Avenue I thought we would not be able to walk not even 100 meters. The hate of those occupying the Paulista was very high. This hate wasn't only against PT. It was against any social movement, any popular flag. The CUT (union organization) was there. The MPL. and the UNE (union of the students) too.

During the rally, lots of flags were attacked, ripped off and burnt under the yells of "get out PT, fuck you", "the people have awaken" and "corrupt!"

Since the beginning, we were shielded by the MPL people.

We suffered attacks during all the rally. We were booed. There were silence only when we sang the national anthem. We yelled: "no violence" "democracy" "take the streets against the bus fare" "this is insane, against parties is junta's thing" "Free transportation now!"

They tried to hijack our rally, threatened, provoked, harassed us. It was tense. I was fucking scared.

One of the most common slogans people were yelling was "People united don't need a party". While yelling, they took the sidewalks and waved their arms in the nazi fashion.

We walked to MASP. I don't even know how we managed it. Then people started to yell "put the flags down". And they attacked us. Skinheads and tough dudes threatened and kicked us. It was a terrifying scene.

When we arrived at the Trianon-MASP subway station we were surrounded. They were throwing fireworks and paper balls on fire at us.

We were told to hide our flags. I was carrying a flag of the Union of the students from the state of São Paulo and was draped in a worker's party flag. Someone took my flag and a comrade told me to hide the PT flag in my backpack.

I was in the second queue in the back of the rally and it was really hard to leave without being beaten up.

Then we began to chant: "Fascists, Fascists, you will not pass!"

We yelled in one voice, really strong. It wasn't the best moment but I even laughed when a girl who was next to me said: "comrades, they don't even know what it means. They'll think it's a provocation and we are minority."

We were minority. After a while we put down the flags, our rally was dispersed.

I went back home, with the flag in my backpack. I was thinking. I thought about Allende.

khad

21st June 2013, 22:18

More from Reddit

I just wanted to share this. A user /u/smithw sent us this message they'd sent to mods of another subreddit and that they'd written before they knew about /u/starmeleon's post on the same subject. I want to show it because it demonstrates that this is a view shared by other comrades in Brazil who also feel very strongly about fighting this current. Here is the message:

I'm writing to you because I really can't think of anyone else to write, and I (and my country) really need help. Right now, on the front page, there is a post with 3000+ upvotes glorifying the protests occurring in Brazil today. I need to tell someone, anyone, who's not in this country, the real story behind what's really happening here. I figured, since you people are in social justice movement, you'd be in a better position to undestand.

I'm not sure if you have been following international news in the last two weeks, so I'll summarise the facts. About two weeks ago, the major cities in the country raised the bus and train fares to a value too high for the average Brazilian (which does not speak English, does not visit Reddit and in many cases doesn't even have Internet access) to afford. The rate of this last increase was below inflation, but the accumulated rates of increases in the last 10 to 15 years easily surpasses it.

MPL (Movimento Passe Livre, Free Fare Movement), an organization which exists since the mid-2000s, and which is not affiliated to any political party (although it does maintain communication with minority left-wing parties), started calling for protests against the fare raise. The first two protests didn't garner much mainstream media attention, but when the third protest took over Avenida Paulista (Paulista Avenue), which is to São Paulo what the Times Square is to New York, the newspapers started to complain, painting protesters and the MPL as vandals and hooligans which only were interested in destroying the city. They had, in fact, used public trash bins as barricades against our violent PM (Polícia Militar or Military Police, a direct heritage from our military dictatorship period), which was using tear gas bombs, pepper spray and rubber ammunition on protesters indiscriminately.

This third protest occurred on Tuesday the 18th. On Thursday, the day scheduled for the fourth protest, two of the biggest newspapers in the country printed heavily opinionated editorials calling for the PM to "take action" and not be so "soft" on the protesters, and to defend the (mostly middle-class's) right to cars to run on the city's streets. What happened, then, was a massacre: the elite squad of the PM, Tropa de Choque, transformed the fourth protest in a reign of terror. I wasn't there, but I had close friends who were, and it was scary. The Tropa de Choque officers managed to split the protest into various small groups, and stablished a perimeter around the area so that no one could leave. They would surround any small group they could and relentlessly throw tear gas bombs. A journalist (and acquaintance of mine) was arrested on charges of carrying VINEGAR (since it can be used to alleviate the effects of tear gas and pepper spray). Two journalists were hit with rubber ammunition squarely on their eyes, and one of them, a photographer, lost his vision (and most likely his profession). Several journalists were arrested and injured, and the mainstream media, mostly because some of their own were injured, changed their discourse.

Since the disastrous procedure of the PM couldn't be buried under the rug (mostly because the noise on social media was too high), the mainstream media gave great exposure to this, instead. Throughout the weekend, anticipation started to mount for the next protest, scheduled for this last Monday. And that's when things started to get weird.

On Monday, the biggest (so far) protest occurred. At least 65 thousand people were on the streets of São Paulo alone, although people who were there were talking about figures of 200, 300 thousand. But it wasn't the people, it was the middle/upper classes, and right-wing extremists. Militants for small left-wing parties, who hold no political power whatsoever, were openly harassed by "protesters". The protest agenda was shifted right, mostly dropping the bus fare complaint to instead focus on "corruption" (which, in Brazil, is a right-wing demand, since the party holding the power is center-leftist), "high taxes", the "exploitation of the middle-class", the excessive public spending for next year's World Cup etc. The MPL and its demands were still present, but they were silenced by the elitists' demands. The newspapers suddenly stared glorifying the protests, and in the social networks memes like "O gigante acodou (the giant has awakened)" started popping up, implying there has been no social justice movement in Brazil before, which is a rampant lie - I can attest to that, since I am part of left-wing and feminist movements myself.

On Tuesday, there was another protest. This time, people destroyed the entrance to the City Hall in São Paulo. What's weird is that MPL, which called for the protest, scheduled the date and set the rendezvous point, did not go the City Hall's way. The rendezvous point was close to the City Hall, but the route MPL set for the protest was exactly opposite of the City Hall, and still a rather large group of people with national flags (which, in Brazil, is usually a sign of far-right fascist movements) and anti-taxes banners went that way. The PM, which was so ready to intervene before, stood and watched as the same people who destroyed the City Hall set a TV station van on fire on the middle of the street, according to people I know personally and who were there. Less trustworthy, but trustworthy (to me) nonetheless, rumours circulated on the social networks implying the state governor (which holds authority over the PM) had instructed the police -not to act- on any circumstances. The right-wing agenda instead continued being broadcast by the mainstream media, specially regarding the "impeachment" (lawful deposition, according to our Constitution) of the legally elected president - who is herself hated by the middle and upper classes, and adored by the lower classes. The nationalism on this protest was so thick you could smell it, as the fascism of it.

On Wednesday, São Paulo's mayor and the state governor (who are from rival political parties) went on TV together to announce the bus fare increased had been cancelled. The MPL scheduled another protest today, to celebrate the decision, but is has been another disaster.

This time, there was confront between the protester themselves. Left-wing protesters have been harassed. There are reports of anti-racism, feminist and anti-homophobia activists being beaten by right-wing protesters. Fascist skinheads have been spotted on the general surroundings of the protests, looking for victims. And the media is now reporting all the protests have been PACIFIC, which is an absurd lie. And the social justice people, on the social networks, have been conjuring a theory that actually makes sense, regarding our recent history.

In 1964, our country has suffered a coup d'état perpetrated by the military and the establishment forces together. In the days preceding the coup, there was uprising and political instability on the country, just as today. There was a big protest, aptly named "Walk of the Family With God For Liberty", which took place a mere two weeks before the coup, and on which about half a million middle and upper class people took the streets to protest against the center-left president João Goulart. What I mean is, we have been there, we know the feeling in the air, and the anger of the middle class against a president who has some pretty left wing policies is boiling and ready to explode.

From what I've seen, today's protest was very much akin to this 1964's Walk. The MPL's protests have been hijacked by the right, and since the left won't leave the streets to them, conflicts and confrontations are sure to take place. And, what's more dangerous, the police is now ignoring it, waiting for the popular clamor to call them back into action, so they can take over, possibly together with the military. There are rumours of a state of siege being prepared on the government dark corners.

I'm very worried, because these people who have "awakened" and who are now on the streets are people who look back to a time when they had unlimited and unchecked privileged, and who are so upset because that privilege has been slowly being taken away from them. They are people who hates on minorities, and who stand for exactly the opposite what I believe [you stand] for. And, mostly worrying, they have the full cooperation of the mainstream media, who had already shifted the protests' focus away from the bus fare and towards their demands since Monday.

Their discourse is becoming hegemonic, and if that happens, it spells a very dark future for my country. And that is happening on the mainstream media on Brazil, and now, as I see, on Reddit too. So please, if you can do anything to help shed a light on the OTHER side of those protests here, being it a meta post on prime (I mean, you don't have to take my word for it, Google Translator does an acceptable job on Portuguese to English texts, and I can link you to non-mainstream media news sources that will tell you the exact same story I've told), or anything really, I'd be really thankful.

I'm sorry for my bad English and for wasting you time with our 3rd world problems, but again, this is one of the only places I think I could be heard on Reddit.

Thanks in advance.

MarxArchist

21st June 2013, 22:22

Are they fascists or just ignorant mass glob of modern nihilistic "middle class" youth who think they know it all? Is there actual fascist parties/organizations and or ideology behind it? Forgive my ignorance as I'm thousands of miles away.

khad

21st June 2013, 22:24

Are they fascists or just ignorant mass glob of modern nihilistic youth who think they know it all? Is there actual fascist parties/organizations and or ideology behind it? Forgive my ignorance as I'm thousands of miles away.
http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/s720x720/972005_274587252681267_195263270_n.jpg

Look at this fascist, pining for the 1964 fascist coup.

The sign says "military intervention now. For the democratic government of civilians and military"

Sky Hedgehogian Maestro

21st June 2013, 22:36

Welp! Here comes full blown South American civil war. And because oil isn't involved, not a single American news network gives a damn. Unless the leftists win- then, of course, "world democracy has been threatened."

khad

21st June 2013, 22:56

Enjoy

http://f.i.uol.com.br/fotografia/2013/06/20/291329-970x600-1.jpeg

Sea

21st June 2013, 23:21

http://www.reddit.com/r/communism/comments/1gremb/brazils_protests_have_become_fascist/ << Here's the original link if anyone's interested.

Os Cangaceiros

21st June 2013, 23:28

The whole "fascism" thing seems like BS, unless you're one of those people for whom every neoliberal and/or military takeover represents a "fascist coup", but the whole description of the media and their shifting strategy regarding the reporting on the movement is very interesting, I think.

Kalinin's Facial Hair

21st June 2013, 23:36

Not entirely BS.

When fascist/neo-nazi boneheads incite popular lynching of communists, when people advocate "down with the flags! No parties, only THE PEOPLE!", "No red flags, only Brazil's!"; when people go around singing the national hymn as though they're in a church; when the only colours allowed are yellow and green (colours of the flag), when "the indivisible nation" is something sacred, I guess we get close to fascism.

Os Cangaceiros

21st June 2013, 23:39

Those things just sound like plain ol' vanilla nationalism and patriotism to me.

khad

22nd June 2013, 01:10

Those things just sound like plain ol' vanilla nationalism and patriotism to me.
The last time all political parties were outlawed in Brazil was in 1964 under the fascist coup.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

22nd June 2013, 03:00

Ewwwww

So, who wants to get the international brigades started up? I'm sure Gonzalo would be down once we break him out from prison.

Paul Pott

22nd June 2013, 03:40

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd June 2013, 03:44

Presumably, if there are flags from the Communist parties to burn, it means that the Communist parties were present in the rallies. Does the ability of rightwing brutes to take flags from Communist protesters and burn them or a few rightwing militarist signs show that the protest is fundamentally rightwing in nature? I did see protesters with Communist symbolism, and I've been to my share of protesters where anarchists and socialists mingled with antipartisan apolitical idealists and even rightwing loons (granted, blows were never traded between these three groups in those protests).

This doesn't mean rightwing fascist idiots aren't something to be worried about, but it doesn't mean that they are the heart of the protest movement. Also, it's not the 60s, and coups are much harder to pull off successfully except when pro-coup parties control legislatures or courts, so is that really a possibility, even a "worst case scenario", or just paranoia?

These are serious questions - not many people here are exactly experts on Brazilian politics as a whole, let alone the makeup of 2-3 day old protests or the state of their military alike.

dez

22nd June 2013, 03:45

I think fascists are a fringe element and that people are banning parties from demos as it has happened before coming from an anarchist petit bourgeois standpoint.

Seriously, there isn't a brazilian golden dawn nor there will be.

Now, something that worries me is the right "surfing" in the protests attempting to replace the worker's party with a more rightwinged flavour.

khad

22nd June 2013, 04:35

According to every article or report, this is certainly not Venezuela 2002 and the right is still a minority of the protest, not to mention the people calling for dictatorship, even if they are the most well organized. Their hooligans have specifically targeted leftist groups of all shades as well as unions.

So you actually read every article on this? Must have missed this one:

Report from a person who was there today: (http://www.conversaafiada.com.br/brasil/2013/06/20/xad-na-paulista-se-lembrou-do-allende/)

Fascists, Fascists, you will not pass!

by Xad in 20/06/2013 at 21:35

I'm back from a rally in the Paulista Avenue, called up by PT's national directive. We were only about 200 militants.

At the gathering in Angélica Avenue I thought we would not be able to walk not even 100 meters. The hate of those occupying the Paulista was very high. This hate wasn't only against PT. It was against any social movement, any popular flag. The CUT (union organization) was there. The MPL. and the UNE (union of the students) too.

During the rally, lots of flags were attacked, ripped off and burnt under the yells of "get out PT, fuck you", "the people have awaken" and "corrupt!"

Since the beginning, we were shielded by the MPL people.

We suffered attacks during all the rally. We were booed. There were silence only when we sang the national anthem. We yelled: "no violence" "democracy" "take the streets against the bus fare" "this is insane, against parties is junta's thing" "Free transportation now!"

They tried to hijack our rally, threatened, provoked, harassed us. It was tense. I was fucking scared.

One of the most common slogans people were yelling was "People united don't need a party". While yelling, they took the sidewalks and waved their arms in the nazi fashion.

We walked to MASP. I don't even know how we managed it. Then people started to yell "put the flags down". And they attacked us. Skinheads and tough dudes threatened and kicked us. It was a terrifying scene.

When we arrived at the Trianon-MASP subway station we were surrounded. They were throwing fireworks and paper balls on fire at us.

We were told to hide our flags. I was carrying a flag of the Union of the students from the state of São Paulo and was draped in a worker's party flag. Someone took my flag and a comrade told me to hide the PT flag in my backpack.

I was in the second queue in the back of the rally and it was really hard to leave without being beaten up.

Then we began to chant: "Fascists, Fascists, you will not pass!"

We yelled in one voice, really strong. It wasn't the best moment but I even laughed when a girl who was next to me said: "comrades, they don't even know what it means. They'll think it's a provocation and we are minority."

We were minority. After a while we put down the flags, our rally was dispersed.

I went back home, with the flag in my backpack. I was thinking. I thought about Allende.

The Douche

23rd June 2013, 13:28

Obviously there is always potential for these things to be manipulated by various forces. And especially when we're talking about a sort of "left-populist" government in south america, there is a high potential for the US to get involved in that manipulation. And the forces of reaction and imperialism have demonstrated recently in the middle east, that they are fully capable of funding and back certain elements of these movements, into leadership positions.

So yes, we should be aware of it, and understand it could be/probably is happening in Brazil. But then you people take positions like this:

Do not be naive, communists would not gather up and protest near former president Lula's house (http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/manifestantes-protestam-perto-da-casa-de-lula-em-sao-bernardo-8739640).

And you lose any claim to be a revolutionary and a communist. Lula was the leader of a capitalist nation and regional power. It certainly would make sense that communist would "protest near" his house.

ed miliband

23rd June 2013, 14:14

And you lose any claim to be a revolutionary and a communist. Lula was the leader of a capitalist nation and regional power. It certainly would make sense that communist would "protest near" his house.

oh yes, that was my favourite line in there.

also the implication that only the far-right would oppose dilma rousseff, various leftists allying themselves with the brazilian state and supporting the workers' party.

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2013, 16:10

The protests seem to be going into a kind of "destillation" process. Yesterday, in Brasília, Slut Walk held their demonstration - with no infiltration of right-wing or "anti-corruption" people - and, conversely, there was a demonstration against the proposed Constitutional Amendment #37/2011 (PEC 37), where the left was absent. Same goes for São Paulo: separate protests agaisnt PEC 37 and against "gay healing", with no intermingling. In Slut Walk and in the protest against "gay healing", people had no problem with their PT/PSTU/anarchist/whatever flags and t-shirts and whatnot.

To label the whole movement (or rather the set of different movements that for a while were unable to see the radical mutual incompatibility of their respective demands, proposals, and worldviews) "fascist" is completely mistaken. And it can only lead to an acritical support of the status quo.

Luís Henrique

The Douche

23rd June 2013, 16:24

From Libcom, a poster who is an ICC militant in Brazil relayed the following:

I read the latest posts. I'm a member of ICC in Brazil. I will comment on the possibility of right-wing coup.

Essentially, this is a discourse stimulated by the PT, which has reached the capitalist left (PSOL, Trotskyites, etc.) and also the organizations and groups that struggle to end capitalism and are out of state influence.

In my opinion, it is a spontaneous movement outside the influence of the left of capital (PT, PSOL, PSTU, PCO etc.), who traditionally control workers' struggles. There is rejection of institutions in general, but there is also a rejection of political debate and a strong nationalism. The parties showing face are being pushed and beaten. The right takes advantage of the rejection of the leftist parties and fills the space lost by them. Infiltrate anonymously and encourage aggression against leftists who raise their flags. Send down the flags of these parties, coming to aggression in many cases. Stimulate nationalism. However, this right is often not organized in the traditional right parties (DEM, PSDB), are neo-nazi, reactionary sects of the church, the military sects etc.. If they submit on behalf of their groups would also be expelled and beaten. It is rather a spontaneous nationalism, which has been stimulated by these nationalist groups.

We will address this issue in a future article, but I anticipate that all that strength on the right is only apparent, and is fed by PT to form around itself a unit of left anti-right, or anti-fascist. Of course, the PT will lose political influence after these episodes. But in my opinion there is no possibility of coup, because the social and political conditions both nationally and internationally do not support it. The current situation is totally different from 1964, but leftist want to convince you otherwise.

In short:
Negative elements: 1) there is a spontaneous nationalism, encouraged by the media and right. 2) in general, youth very depoliticized. 3) Pacifism predominant; 4) Lack of class identity.

Positive elements: 1) Some demonstrations of courage in dealing with the police, 2) The PT further revealing his face bourgeois.

http://libcom.org/forums/news/riots-brazil-14062013?page=1

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2013, 16:36

I think fascists are a fringe element and that people are banning parties from demos as it has happened before coming from an anarchist petit bourgeois standpoint.

The Brazilian anarchists are too weak to be able to do something like this. It is merely general bourgeois ideology, mixed up with a popular, and not exactly enlightened, feeling that parties are all instruments of the "elite" against them or even that everything that relates to politics or officialdom is evil.

And indeed the anarchists are scared of the genie they helped out of the bottle, as it can be seen in the anarchist-hegemonised MPL calling out protests.

Seriously, there isn't a brazilian golden dawn nor there will be.

There is, or rather, there are - many of them. What they won't be able to do - at least for now - is to set up a party and get 5-10% of the vote like in Greece. But I doubt their strategy is this anyway; rather, like the American far-right, they seem willing to continue to play a "no-party" game while attempting to kidnap some of the old, "respectable" right-wing parties into their line. So, the integralistas, the outright neonazis, the TFP, the Political Evangelicals, the nostalgics of the military dictatorship aren't to be feared in and of themselves, but for whatever influence and sway they might get over the DEM, the PSDB, the PTB, et caterva.

Like you say:

Now, something that worries me is the right "surfing" in the protests attempting to replace the worker's party with a more rightwinged flavour.

There is a further, and in my opinion unsolvable, problem for the rise of actual fascism in Brazil. It is the fundamental anti-nationalist worldview of the overwhelming majority of the Brazilian bourgeoisie. Being a right-winger in Brazil is not about being nationalist, but about being pro-American and/or a secessionist. The same people who are now embarking in green-yellow fantasies were explicitly blaming Northeasterns for everything that is "wrong" in Brazil three years ago. Bourgeois nationalism is a fringe position; its best representation is the PDT, which, besides being quite small, usually gravitates towards the broad left, in lack of anything better to do. This is a long held and deeply seethed position on the part of the bourgeoisie. It has long ago decided that its place in the world is that of a faithful minor partner of American imperialism, and, short of American hegemony effectively being destroyed, they have no wish of changing such a view. This is of course incompatible with actual fascism, as it is in fact incompatible with the epidermic nationalist rhetoric that has surfaced in the wake of the protests (unlike in Venezuela, we don't see American flags in the Brazilian demonstrations; I fear such flags would not be more secure against physical destruction than the red flags of Brazilian leftist parties. That, I think, marks the limits of the influence of bourgeois ideology among the Brazilian masses: while they can be manipulated into attacking red flags, they cannot be manipulated into supporting pro-American or outright fascist imagery. They can be used to harm the left, but they cannot be used to set up an actual third-positionist movement).

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2013, 16:45

About the possibility of a coup, I would say it is close to nil. The military aren't interested; their long and disasterous dictatorship marred their image. Those in the far-right resent the "ingratitude" of the people; most others think that politics is for politicians and want the military out from it. The bourgeoisie has also learned. In 1964 they were naive enough to believe that the military would oust the populists and gladly deliver political power to the traditional bourgeois parties. They now know this is a risky game, and, barring an outright threat of revolution or economic collapse, they won't dare furthering such fantasies.

Luís Henrique

Vladimir Innit Lenin

23rd June 2013, 17:04

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2013, 17:38

I will comment on the possibility of right-wing coup.

Essentially, this is a discourse stimulated by the PT, which has reached the capitalist left (PSOL, Trotskyites, etc.) and also the organizations and groups that struggle to end capitalism and are out of state influence.

I don't think this is true. There is no widespread fear of a right-wing coup, and the PT, or the government, are certainly not trying to summon it. There is surprise, and disorientation, that popular demonstrations could show such much anti-popular rage (against the left-wing parties, against women and feminists, and, more deeply, and more difficult for everyone to address - because the prejudices are shared by the left -, against the downtrodden, the "bandidagem" as they say - drug dealers, prisoners, the lumpen-proletariat in general). I don't think the MPL has called out demonstrations on the fear of a right-wing coup; they did so out of the quite down-to-earth realisation that they completely lost control of the movement. I don't think Slut Walk is calling separate demonstrations out of the fear of a right-wing coup, or in an attempt to make demonstrations of support for the government; they do so in order to avoid demonstrating side-by-side with unapologising sexists.

In my opinion, it is a spontaneous movement outside the influence of the left of capital (PT, PSOL, PSTU, PCO etc.), who traditionally control workers' struggles.

This is certainly true, but also it seems that it is not actually "a" movement; rather it looks like a conflation of several, mutually incompatible movements, which were lumped together by a series of coincidences (the Confederation Cup, Congress voting on polemic issues regarding abortion and homosexuality and on a constitutional amendment that raises strong corporative passions among policemen and State attorneys, the raise in bus fares all happening at the same time) and misunderstandings (the MPL decrying the attempt of political parties to ride the movement being misinterpreted as a cri-de-guerre against the leftist parties, the constitutional amendment being misconstrued as an attempt to suffocate investigations of corruption).

There is rejection of institutions in general, but there is also a rejection of political debate and a strong nationalism.

There certainly is a strong difficulty in trying to further political debate in the context, if for no other reason that the popular fury tends to reject any mediation and reflection as support for whatever they oppose.

But the "nationalism" isn't strong at all. It is completely superficial, contradictory, and mixed with the usual Brazilian self-deprecating attitudes. If it was serious, one would expect that a strong demand would be for the juridical system to finally tackle the issue of the huge corruption scandals regarding privatisations during the PSDB government. But we see none of this, albeit it would easily square with the "anti-corruption" flavour of the demonstrations.

The parties showing face are being pushed and beaten. The right takes advantage of the rejection of the leftist parties and fills the space lost by them. Infiltrate anonymously and encourage aggression against leftists who raise their flags. Send down the flags of these parties, coming to aggression in many cases. Stimulate nationalism. However, this right is often not organized in the traditional right parties (DEM, PSDB), are neo-nazi, reactionary sects of the church, the military sects etc.. If they submit on behalf of their groups would also be expelled and beaten.

Of course. If someone flies an integralist flag, or a TFP banner, or even a flag of the PSDB or DEM (supposing someone would be interested in doing the latter), such icons would be immediately destroyed - at least if the crowd is able to recognise them, which, considered the extreme fragility of these groups, it perhaps wouldn't.

It is rather a spontaneous nationalism, which has been stimulated by these nationalist groups.

Again I think this is quite an overestimation of nationalism, both of the crowd, which takes no national pride in the World Cup being played here, and of the right-wing groupuscles, which are either non-nationalist at all (TFP, the neoliberal right), or very superficial (supporters of military rule, whose "nationalism" consists in flying Brazilian flags while supporting the denationalisation of the economy) or extremely contradictory (neonazis and Southern/Southeastern secessionists, whose notion of "nation" excludes the overwhelming majority of the populace, or integralists, who fable a lot about Brazilian greatness but are unable to take any political stance to actually demarcate themselves from the non-nationalist right) in their "nationalism").

We will address this issue in a future article, but I anticipate that all that strength on the right is only apparent, and is fed by PT to form around itself a unit of left anti-right, or anti-fascist. Of course, the PT will lose political influence after these episodes. But in my opinion there is no possibility of coup, because the social and political conditions both nationally and internationally do not support it. The current situation is totally different from 1964, but leftist want to convince you otherwise.

Again, I think this is a fable. There is no immediate possibility of a coup, of course, but I don't see the PT, much less the PSTU or the anarchists trying to peddle it. There is an obvious trend to unite the several factions of the left - anarchists included - in some kind of response against the most reactionary aspects of the demonstrations; so far, it is the feminist and gay movements that have spearheaded this trend, probably because they are those who have more to lose and to fear if the right-wing manages to hegemonise the movement.

In short:
Negative elements: 1) there is a spontaneous nationalism, encouraged by the media and right. 2) in general, youth very depoliticized. 3) Pacifism predominant; 4) Lack of class identity.

The media encouraging nationalism? That's actually funny. I have already addressed the issue of "spontaneous nationalism": it is spontaneous flag-waving, but no actual nationalism. There is no depoliticisation; there is a strong politicisation in a flavour we dislike ("capitalist left" and "capitalist ultra-left" alike, as well as all those movements that strive for a less unequal society), but why is it politicisation only when it favours us? There is, of course, a lot of disinformation, some purposefully sIfpread by the right (Dilma is going to forbid the internet, prisoners are privileged people), some purposefully spread by particular interest groups who weren't able to predict the political use of their own rumours (the PEC 37 intends to gag the Ministério Público), some apparently spontaneus (vinegar counters the effects of tear gas, Joaquim Barbosa could be presidential candidate). But even the reason of much of this disinformation is highly political.

Positive elements: 1) Some demonstrations of courage in dealing with the police, 2) The PT further revealing his face bourgeois.

Hm. If there is no class identity, how can the PT reveal anything about its class allegiances? Seems to me mutually exclusive. Or is the PT demonstrating its bourgeois face only to a small group of class-conscious people, who probably already "knew" about it?

Well.

At least, nobody is yet seeing "popular assemblies" in the demonstrations.

(On a further note, there are also no strikes. Though it is rumoured that there is a general strike being called through Facebook. That, I would like to see...

The working class' core remains silent. If it moves, I predict it is going to uphold quite different slogans and demands.)

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

23rd June 2013, 18:02

So is this the classic move towards the farther ends of the right- and left-wing, a rejection of parties in the name of 'democracy' and 'anti-corruption'?

I can understand why some of our pro-party, pro-vanguard comrades on here might wish to shout 'fascism', and perhaps we are correct to highlight the presence of some overtly nationalistic elements in these protests, but if we do that too strongly then we will actually lose the positive essence of what the protests are about - money not being spent on public services and social welfare, but services being cut and prices of them increasing, all the while whilst doling out billions to host a football tournament (not that I don't love the world cup).

It would really be politically stupid to lose the initiative by turning inward and trying to control the protests by playing the 'fascism!' card. Sure, there must be jingoistic elements within the protests and these should be highlighted, but I imagine that soon enough, anybody not playing by the book of the left-of-capital 'mass' leftist parties and unions who generally direct labour struggle under capitalism, will be denounced in similar terms.

Well.

As a member of the "capitalist left" (the real one, that exist and acts in the real world, not that imagined in the dreams of the capitalist ultra-left), I have been doing my best to disprove the naive idea that these movements are fascists, and even that they are all oriented to the right. And, especially, I have been denouncing the idea that these demonstrations are "nationalist".

But would you like to demonstrate side-by-side with someone demanding the return of death penalty, or the lowering of penal age, or further criminalisation of prostitutes, or protesting the "gay dictatorship", or claiming that prisoners are a privileged group over "labourers"?

I wouldn't, and, no, it is not because they are not "playing by the book of the left-of-capital 'mass' leftist parties and unions who generally direct labour struggle under capitalism".

Luís Henrique

dez

24th June 2013, 03:17

The Brazilian anarchists are too weak to be able to do something like this. It is merely general bourgeois ideology, mixed up with a popular, and not exactly enlightened, feeling that parties are all instruments of the "elite" against them or even that everything that relates to politics or officialdom is evil.

And indeed the anarchists are scared of the genie they helped out of the bottle, as it can be seen in the anarchist-hegemonised MPL calling out protests.

There is, or rather, there are - many of them. What they won't be able to do - at least for now - is to set up a party and get 5-10% of the vote like in Greece. But I doubt their strategy is this anyway; rather, like the American far-right, they seem willing to continue to play a "no-party" game while attempting to kidnap some of the old, "respectable" right-wing parties into their line. So, the integralistas, the outright neonazis, the TFP, the Political Evangelicals, the nostalgics of the military dictatorship aren't to be feared in and of themselves, but for whatever influence and sway they might get over the DEM, the PSDB, the PTB, et caterva.

Like you say:

There is a further, and in my opinion unsolvable, problem for the rise of actual fascism in Brazil. It is the fundamental anti-nationalist worldview of the overwhelming majority of the Brazilian bourgeoisie. Being a right-winger in Brazil is not about being nationalist, but about being pro-American and/or a secessionist. The same people who are now embarking in green-yellow fantasies were explicitly blaming Northeasterns for everything that is "wrong" in Brazil three years ago. Bourgeois nationalism is a fringe position; its best representation is the PDT, which, besides being quite small, usually gravitates towards the broad left, in lack of anything better to do. This is a long held and deeply seethed position on the part of the bourgeoisie. It has long ago decided that its place in the world is that of a faithful minor partner of American imperialism, and, short of American hegemony effectively being destroyed, they have no wish of changing such a view. This is of course incompatible with actual fascism, as it is in fact incompatible with the epidermic nationalist rhetoric that has surfaced in the wake of the protests (unlike in Venezuela, we don't see American flags in the Brazilian demonstrations; I fear such flags would not be more secure against physical destruction than the red flags of Brazilian leftist parties. That, I think, marks the limits of the influence of bourgeois ideology among the Brazilian masses: while they can be manipulated into attacking red flags, they cannot be manipulated into supporting pro-American or outright fascist imagery. They can be used to harm the left, but they cannot be used to set up an actual third-positionist movement).

Luís Henrique

I meant trying to gauge support for PSDB in the next election, but nice analysis anyways. Can't say I disagree with anything you said.

Something that is worth noting is that brazilian nationalism is leftwing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism)

Devrim

24th June 2013, 08:51

(On a further note, there are also no strikes. Though it is rumoured that there is a general strike being called through Facebook. That, I would like to see...

You would like to see the general strike, or the call for a general strike? I am sure there will be a call for one. I am equally sure that it won't materialise.

There was a call on social media for a general strike on the Monday after the initial police attacks in İstanbul. It didn't happen.

I think that it is an important question though. Basically the people out in the streets in these sort of events tend to be young and university educated. It is quite a different demographic than that of the 'mass-worker' (i.e. the people who will make a general strike).

I don't think it is just that they can't manage to convince people of their message on Facebook, but that many of the people who they need to be aiming at don't even see their message as they don't do Facebook.

It reminds me of my younger sister buying my older brother a doll for his birthday because it is what she would have liked. They do Facebook so they think the world does, and it doesn't even occur to them that they are not even communicating with the people that they need to be.

I think there are more problems with the whole idea than this, but this is something that really stands out.

At least, nobody is yet seeing "popular assemblies" in the demonstrations.

Ha, you haven't forgotten this. If you remember it was Leo arguing this not me. I am quite sure that if it goes on the ICC will start to see 'popular assemblies". They are certainly wishing for them (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201306/8281/brazil-police-repression-provokes-anger-youth):

For the movement to develop, we have to create spaces where we can collectively listen to and discuss different points of view. This can only be done through general assemblies open to all, where the right to speak is guaranteed to all demonstrators. In addition, it is vital to call on the employed workers to join the assemblies and protests because they and their families are equally affected by the price increases.

Devrim

GiantMonkeyMan

24th June 2013, 10:45

Basically the people out in the streets in these sort of events tend to be young and university educated. It is quite a different demographic than that of the 'mass-worker' (i.e. the people who will make a general strike).
Right. Workers can't be young or university educated, check. :rolleyes:

Devrim

24th June 2013, 10:54

Right. Workers can't be young or university educated, check. :rolleyes:

Of course they can. It is making a massive generalisation. I still think that it is a useful one though.Of the people that you would expect to be involved in industrial unrest, in for example Turkey, some of them such as Teachers, will be university educated by definition. Most of them won't though. Some of them will be young. However, the fact that workers are spread across the entire age range while the protestors are predominantly young means that they will tend to be older. Lower recruitment over recent years amplifies this.

I would say it is a reasonable assumption to think that 'social media' isn't speaking to the overwhelming majority of the people who would make a 'general strike' in Turkey.

Devrim

GiantMonkeyMan

24th June 2013, 12:43

Of course they can. It is making a massive generalisation. I still think that it is a useful one though.Of the people that you would expect to be involved in industrial unrest, in for example Turkey, some of them such as Teachers, will be university educated by definition. Most of them won't though. Some of them will be young. However, the fact that workers are spread across the entire age range while the protestors are predominantly young means that they will tend to be older. Lower recruitment over recent years amplifies this.
I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. That protests are predominantly made up of young people? The bit where you say 'while the protestors are predominantly young means that they will tend to be older' makes little sense to me.

I would say it is a reasonable assumption to think that 'social media' isn't speaking to the overwhelming majority of the people who would make a 'general strike' in Turkey.

Devrim
If all they were doing to call for a general strike was making a facebook group then they deserve to fail.

Devrim

24th June 2013, 12:55

I'm not sure what you're trying to convey here. That protests are predominantly made up of young people? The bit where you say 'while the protestors are predominantly young means that they will tend to be older' makes little sense to me.

Try reading it again like this:

However, the fact that workers are spread across the entire age range while the protestors are predominantly young means that they[workers] will tend to be older.

What I was saying was that the demographics are very different. People in 'mass worker' occupations tend to be older and 'less educated', and therefore less likely to use Facebook, Twitter, etc*. Social media is important, and it can bring people into the streets. If it wasn't I doubt that police would be arresting people for twitting. I don't think that it can be used to call a successful general strike, as Luís says people are trying to do in Brazil, and people tried to do in Turkey. One of the reasons for this is, to put it in very general basic terms, the people they want to go on strike don't use these forms of media.

Devrim

*I don't look down on these sort of people. I am actually middle aged, worked in manual jobs (postman, bricklayer) for years, left school at 15, and don't use social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

LuÃs Henrique

24th June 2013, 14:19

You would like to see the general strike, or the call for a general strike? I am sure there will be a call for one. I am equally sure that it won't materialise.

Well, of course I would like to see a general strike; it would put the political discussion in better terms than we have now. But in this context, I was being ironic: I don't believe in the possibility of a strike, general or not, being called through "social media", moreso by people who have no militancy within the workplaces, no idea of how the union movement functions, no idea of what it takes for workers to decide to stop working, etc.

There was a call on social media for a general strike on the Monday after the initial police attacks in İstanbul. It didn't happen.

I think that it is an important question though. Basically the people out in the streets in these sort of events tend to be young and university educated. It is quite a different demographic than that of the 'mass-worker' (i.e. the people who will make a general strike).

I don't think it is just that they can't manage to convince people of their message on Facebook, but that many of the people who they need to be aiming at don't even see their message as they don't do Facebook.

It reminds me of my younger sister buying my older brother a doll for his birthday because it is what she would have liked. They do Facebook so they think the world does, and it doesn't even occur to them that they are not even communicating with the people that they need to be.

Well, I not sure that this is the main problem. The left tends to underestimate the number of people who have twitter, facebook, etc., and to overestimate the level of income of people who are in these "social media". My experience is that office-boys, for instance, have those things, even when they do not have internet access at home: they access it from their jobs, when the bosses are not looking. Sure, people in direct production can't access internet while on job; but they often have it at home or go to lanhouses to get it. It is nowadays extremely widespread.

I think there are more problems with the whole idea than this, but this is something that really stands out.

I think the central problem, though, is that it is extremely more difficult to stop work, especially in productive activities, than it is to got to the streets on one's free time. A strike brings immediately the possibility of loosing job, which a street demonstration doesn't. Repression within factories - and even shops and administrative offices - is in a very different level than in schools or households. That's the reason I don't believe in strikes called via internet: only actual workplace rank-and-file organisation can successfully call and organise strikes.

Ha, you haven't forgotten this. If you remember it was Leo arguing this not me. I am quite sure that if it goes on the ICC will start to see 'popular assemblies". They are certainly wishing for them (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201306/8281/brazil-police-repression-provokes-anger-youth):

Well, wishing for them is no problem, though evidently effectively trying to organise them would be better. As long as we don't mistake them for something very different. And, of course, "independent assemblies" are only really "popular" and only put an actual threat to the State if workers are in general strike; "popular" assemblies that workers cannot attend because they are held in the middle of the afternoon, when workers are inside factories and offices, don't tend to be very "popular", rather being attended by middle class and/or lumpen-proletarian types.

If the ICC starts seeing popular assemblies where there is none, I suppose I will learn it here in revleft; here in the ground it is unlikely that I meet them.

Luís Henrique

Devrim

24th June 2013, 17:03

I realised that you were being ironic. I also don't think that you can launch a strike over Facebook for various reasons including the ones that you outlined. There was a big discussion on Libcom last week where I was saying that these demonstrators won't be able to bring out workers, and even less can picket them out as some people seemed to be suggesting.

On the numbers of people having social media, I'm not sure if the left gets the numbers wrong. I'd imagine that less people have it in Turkey than in Western Europe. Also, it is what they use it for, and I think that is connected to an age demographic. I think that they can't bring workers out on strike using Facebook. I even think though in many cases they are not even talking to them.

Devrim

Ceallach_the_Witch

24th June 2013, 17:41

I don't have much to say about this that hasn't already been said (longer and better than I could manage) but I do know that one of my (lamentably right-wing) friends said it was "just about bus fares".

humph!

I have to say though, I hope that these protests, whether they are particularly marxist or not, will at least result in a greater tendency towards co-operation and political awareness amongst the population in Brazil

Sasha

24th June 2013, 23:07

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

24th June 2013, 23:24

it seems to me that we understand fascism and whatever the fuck's going on in brazil about as much as we understand quantum mechanics and whatever the fuck dark matter is.

because fascism doesn't seem to be well understood here, nor does what's happening in brazil.

Martin Blank

25th June 2013, 07:59

because fascism doesn't seem to be well understood here, nor does what's happening in Brazil.

I feel the same way. It seems like there is more "truth" than facts to be had on the situation in Brazil. I would like to see more factual information posted, which would allow for a more objective analysis, than individual anecdotes colored by party line.

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 15:12

I feel the same way. It seems like there is more "truth" than facts to be had on the situation in Brazil. I would like to see more factual information posted, which would allow for a more objective analysis, than individual anecdotes colored by party line.

"Facts" are always coloured by party lines, too.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 18:19

If political parties have shown it self totaly inept to not fucking over the people it makes all the sense to kick them from protests, I have done so many times and yes been called a fascist by the various stalinoid sects and reformist leeches. Still no fascist though.

Well, I hope you don't think that if the gay movement or the feminist movement or the Black movement have shown themselves inept to "not fucking over the people" it makes sence to kick them from protests. Because this is something that happened too; not only red flags have been torn, and militants of the PSTU or the PT kicked from protests; purple and rainbow flags were also torn, and feminists and gays movement activists were aggressively bashed, in a few cases even physically attacked. And while I am not certain about it, I fear that black flags and identified anarchist protestors didn't fare much better.

Luís Henrique

cyu

25th June 2013, 18:37

The media realized that despite all of their efforts, the movement had a popular agenda and had been garnering support accross progressive sections of the population. One very popular ultra-conservative pig-loving anchor attempted to ask the extremely loaded question to his viewers: do you support vandalism in ongoing protests? (http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p480x480/600742_502485453138395_1652625808_n.jpg) only to have his primarily reactionary audience humiliate him live by voting yes. The media, realizing they could no longer discredit the movement, and noticing that their most reactionary viewers were ready to take the street, switched strategies.

Rede Globo, which has the near-monopoly of TV audiences, which is owned by the billionaire heirs of Roberto Marinho, who had a personal fortune of 60 billion dollars, had previously attempted in 2007 to spark an artificial "popular" march against the PT government led by several celebrities on its payroll (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimento_C%C3%ADvico_pelo_Direito_dos_Brasileiros ).

Either you have weapons or you have the media. If you control neither, you don't have a revolution.

In Turkey, they were preparing to occupy the media - as was done in Oaxaca and Greece.

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/154/4/5/direngeziparki_occupygezi_occupygeziparki_dogus_by _mseyeq-d67nyy8.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/154/d/6/direngeziparki_occupygezi_occupygeziparki_ntv_by_m seyeq-d67nkif.jpg

Martin Blank

25th June 2013, 20:36

"Facts" are always coloured by party lines, too.

I think we have different definitions of facts, then. For me, a fact is something not in dispute: grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

I want to know the facts of what has been happening in Brazil. I want to be able to make my own analysis of what is going on, not have to rely solely on disconnected, individual anecdotal accounts that are fueled more by adrenaline and emotion than what is actually taking place. I don't think that's too much to ask.

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 21:38

Well, a movement for popular assemblies has been started. Since Sunday, there were three of them in São Paulo, and one each in Fortaleza, Belo Horizonte, and Brasília. But attention: while the demonstrations are counted in the tens of thousand people, the popular assemblies to this date have been much smaller - the biggest, in Belo Horizonte, had about 2,000 people. So, the movement is not directed by popular assemblies - those are an attempt to retake the movement for a left wing agenda; and the popular assemblies are by no means spontaneous - they are being called by leftist organisations and social movements (in São Paulo, for instance, by the MPL).

Today, at 19:00 (7:00 PM, gmt+3) there is going to be another popular assembly in the Museum of Art of São Paulo, which is going to try and discuss the issue of media monopolies. It seems it will be transmitted here (http://www.postv.org/).

Luís Henrique

Martin Blank

25th June 2013, 21:49

Devrim

25th June 2013, 21:55

Well, a movement for popular assemblies has been started.

To be honest I feel a little cynical about the whole assembly thing. I don't think they really represent anybody, more that they are just a collection of who decides to turn up to them. It is not the same as when you have a mass meeting at work. Those sort of meetings do represent people (i.e. the people who work there), and as such tend to have a more serious tone in that they commit people to something. Anybody can vote for a 'general strike' in a street assembly, but when you vote for a strike in a mass meeting at work, you commit yourself to losing money, and risking your job.

I think that the ICC makes a fetish of the assembly form, and deceives itself to the fact that the working class is still weak and unable to assert itself during these sort of movements.

Devrim

khad

25th June 2013, 21:58

Well, a movement for popular assemblies has been started. Since Sunday, there were three of them in São Paulo, and one each in Fortaleza, Belo Horizonte, and Brasília. But attention: while the demonstrations are counted in the tens of thousand people, the popular assemblies to this date have been much smaller - the biggest, in Belo Horizonte, had about 2,000 people. So, the movement is not directed by popular assemblies - those are an attempt to retake the movement for a left wing agenda; and the popular assemblies are by no means spontaneous - they are being called by leftist organisations and social movements (in São Paulo, for instance, by the MPL).

Luís Henrique

So after all the hand-wringing and logical leaps required to "problematize" the mass events in Brazil as "contested" terrain, can we just admit to ourselves that the "left" is being outclassed and dominated?

If the leftists had any real street power, we'd be reading about militarist, homophobic, and other assorted right wing banners being seized and burned.

Devrim

25th June 2013, 22:01

I think we have different definitions of facts, then. For me, a fact is something not in dispute: grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

I want to know the facts of what has been happening in Brazil. I want to be able to make my own analysis of what is going on, not have to rely solely on disconnected, individual anecdotal accounts that are fueled more by adrenaline and emotion than what is actually taking place. I don't think that's too much to ask.

I think that Luís has a point here. As you say one of the tendencies of the modern media is for lots of individual accounts with insane amounts of detail. However, 'facts' are still coloured, and analysis is tinted by political ideology. It is good to read this sort of thing and is certainly more informative than knowing exactly how many thousand people were present at a demonstration in which square in which provincial city, but 'facts', and certainly what they mean are in dispute and you still have to read between the lines.

Devrim

Devrim

25th June 2013, 22:12

khad

25th June 2013, 22:20

Is fascism then now a matter of how people line up in terms of international geopolitics?
The irony is someone like you and the rest of the board throwing your backs behind the Kemalist CHP and the openly fascist MHP, who are pretty much the two dominant forces behind the mass events in Turkey. I merely assumed that the fascism is obvious; hardly necessary for me to comment on it, and, as you can see, I haven't even posted on the subject.

In this case, with the initial economic imperative driving the demonstrations in Brazil, people might need a heavy dose of reality.

What's amusing is leftists constantly grasping at relevancy, trying to ride the coattails of bourgeois forces that regard them as, at best, an irritation and, at worst, a threat to be exterminated.

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 22:26

I think we have different definitions of facts, then. For me, a fact is something not in dispute: grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

The sun, for instance, doesn't rise anywhere; the Earth rotates around itself.

Anyway, I don't think it is possible to derive any politics from facts like that. The facts that interest us are social and historic, and I don't see how they can be even talked about in neutral ways. It is a "fact" that activists of the PT, the PSTU, the LBI, the PSOL, have been attacked in the street demonstrations, their red flags burnt and torn into pieces. It is also a fact that the demonstrations were started as protests against a rise in bus fares, within a movement that seeks free urban transportation (and, consequently, though I am not sure this is already understood by themselves, expropriation of the urban transport oligopolies), which is within the ideological reach of the parties whose flags were destroyed, but not within the ideological reach of those who benefit from such burnings. How can we understand that?

I am not a reporter for a bourgeois news outlet, who lies about things by being "factual", ie, by misinterpreting the ideological common sence of a capitalist society for a neutral point of view. So, while I will always attempt not to distort things or lie, I cannot be neutral; I see things through the glasses of class struggle, and this is not a "neutral" point of view. I am a Marxist, not a positivist.

I want to know the facts of what has been happening in Brazil. I want to be able to make my own analysis of what is going on, not have to rely solely on disconnected, individual anecdotal accounts that are fueled more by adrenaline and emotion than what is actually taking place. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Well, the "facts" are all (mis)represented in the bourgeois press. They don't need to directly lie to manipulate them. But what really imports is analysis, there is no way out of this. Some have said that the demonstrations ooze with nationalism; I don't believe that, because I do know Brazilian nationalism, and how it is very disconnected from what is happening in Brazilian streets. So how can I assert a coherent vision of what is happening in Brazil if I have to conceal such a knowledge, and pretend that flag-waving has the same social meaning here as it has in the United States?

Luís Henrique

Per Levy

25th June 2013, 22:32

The irony is someone like you and the rest of the board throwing your backs behind the Kemalist CHP and the openly fascist MHP, who are pretty much the two dominant forces behind the mass events in Turkey.

strawman arguments save the day every day. i mean why dont you ask you mod colleague Leo who was/is part of the protests if he was throwing his back onto the chp/mhp or otherwise show me a quote where devrim throws his back bedhin the chp/mhp. would you be so kind?

What's amusing is leftists constantly grasping at relevancy, trying to ride the coattails of bourgeois forces that regard them as, at best, an irritation and, at worst, a threat to be exterminated.

says the guy who supports the syrian bourgeoisie dictatorship, hilarious.

khad

25th June 2013, 22:46

says the guy who supports the syrian bourgeoisie dictatorship, hilarious.
First thing, learn your own terminology. The adjectival form of bourgeoisie is bourgeois.

My critical support for the Syrian state is because I seem to have the abhorrent opinion that a regional salafist uprising would be a disaster, and the only thing that can contain WWIII for the Middle East is Syria. Just yesterday over 300 people were killed and wounded in clashes between the Lebanese Army and Assir's radical Salafist sect in Lebanon seeking to support their bretheren across the border via overthrow of the Lebanese government. (I'm sure there are people on this board who would be so crazy as to support the takeover of the US by the militia movement, so feel free to disagree.)

The difference is this. I've stated repeatedly that no one is fighting for socialism in Syria. Yet you people are seemingly unwavering in your belief that somehow the nationalist and right-wing forces on the streets in Turkey and Brazil will somehow magically yield to true socialism.

How'd Egypt turn out for you guys?

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 22:55

Here's a question: Are we seeing two "movements within a movement" emerge -- one dominated by the right and one dominated by the left, each with their own special emphasis on certain slogans and demands?

Do you ask if this is a "fact" like "the grass is green"?

But yes, I do think the movement is splitting quickly. The protests started around an issue that the right cannot support - free urban transport. The political right, and above all the bourgeois press, have been able to influence the course of things, riding upon the political inexperience of the vast majority of protesters to turn the agenda into something that superficially looks like a liberatory demand - against corruption - but in fact detracts from the real problems of Brazilian society, and appeal directly to the ideology of crime-and-punishment. They were very swift, very clever, and very effective in so doing, and have caught the left completely by surprise, putting it, apparently, into a cruel dilemma - that of recognising the law-and-order agenda of the right as truly representative of the popular mood, or to abandon the streets as an important political theatre. The left - as usual - was much slower to react, but it seems to me that it is starting to regroup and reassert itself. The social movements - except perhaps the student's movement - remain outside the reach of the right, that is unable to build bridges towards feminists, anti-racists, unions, the gay movement or the "periferia" movement, and they are starting to take to the streets in a quite different move than that proposed by the right. Here (http://noticias.uol.com.br/album/2013/06/22/protestos-em-sao-paulo.htm?fotoNavId=pr10384200#fotoNavId=pr1038402 4), especially from pic #9 on, you can see a protest by the MTST (homeless), Periferia Ativa and Resistência Urbana. Unhappily the site doesn't allow me to link to individual photographs, but you can see that while the ant-corruption agenda isn't completely absent, the red flags are there and safe, and the demands are centered in much more class-related issues (urban transportation, police violence - not only in the repression of protests, but in the daily life of poor neighbourhoods -, housing, wages, etc.) It certainly doesn't look like a "fascist" protest, even if we take "fascism" in a very broad and imprecise meaning.

What is a problem for the right, I think, is that it is yet impossible to use the "anti-corruption" crowds to physically attack demonstrations like this. A few provocateurs can do it, but not true mobs, who may be duped into protesting for mistaken causes, but not into suppressing protests with a working class agenda.

Luís Henrique

Devrim

25th June 2013, 22:56

The irony is someone like you and the rest of the board throwing your backs behind the Kemalist CHP and the openly fascist MHP, who are pretty much the two dominant forces behind the mass events in Turkey. I merely assumed that the fascism is obvious; hardly necessary for me to comment on it, and, as you can see, I haven't even posted on the subject.

I am not going to comment on this after this point as it is pretty off topic.

If you think that the MHP is one of the 'two dominant forces' in these events in Turkey then you have obviously no idea what you are talking about at all. It is possible to construct an argument about the role of the CHP in these events, but the MHP is very marginal.

The fact that you have so little idea about one event which you are making such grand statements about gives me even less reason to believe whatever you have to say about Brazil.

Devrim

Devrim

25th June 2013, 23:00

towards feminists, anti-racists, unions, the gay movement or the "periferia" movement,

Could you explain what this means in this context, please?

Devrim

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 23:01

To be honest I feel a little cynical about the whole assembly thing. I don't think they really represent anybody, more that they are just a collection of who decides to turn up to them. It is not the same as when you have a mass meeting at work. Those sort of meetings do represent people (i.e. the people who work there), and as such tend to have a more serious tone in that they commit people to something. Anybody can vote for a 'general strike' in a street assembly, but when you vote for a strike in a mass meeting at work, you commit yourself to losing money, and risking your job.

I think that the ICC makes a fetish of the assembly form, and deceives itself to the fact that the working class is still weak and unable to assert itself during these sort of movements.

Yes, I think the ICC makes a fetish of that. This is made easier when there are no assemblies at all, though - since there were no popular assemblies in Venezuela, the student demonstrations there could be misinterpreted as "popular assemblies"; in Brazil, there are "popular assemblies", but they are also clearly distinct from the mass demonstrations so far.

A general strike, I fear, will have to wait. But as Brazil more and more approaches a violent crisis of its neokeynesian fantasy, it is also quite certain in the not-so-far future.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 23:08

Could you explain what this means in this context, please?

The "periferia" part?

It is the movement of exurban dwellers, where most poor people have to live, distant from jobs and entertainment opportunities. You can see them in action in the photos I linked to in a previous post (#54).

Luís Henrique

Martin Blank

25th June 2013, 23:13

I think that Luís has a point here. As you say one of the tendencies of the modern media is for lots of individual accounts with insane amounts of detail. However, 'facts' are still coloured, and analysis is tinted by political ideology. It is good to read this sort of thing and is certainly more informative than knowing exactly how many thousand people were present at a demonstration in which square in which provincial city, but 'facts', and certainly what they mean are in dispute and you still have to read between the lines.

I'm not denying that anecdotal reports are valuable. But they only provide one aspect from which to see events. Sometimes, you need the overview and the (relatively) objective, informational article to be able to grasp the complexity found in individual commentary. I'm trying to find out information and facts in order to be able to compose a compact but informative (and factual) article on what's happening. If I cannot find the information here, then I would like to know where I can find it.

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 23:28

So after all the hand-wringing and logical leaps required to "problematize" the mass events in Brazil as "contested" terrain, can we just admit to ourselves that the "left" is being outclassed and dominated?

If the leftists had any real street power, we'd be reading about militarist, homophobic, and other assorted right wing banners being seized and burned.

The mass events are certainly contested events. The right managed to attain an uphand position during the last two weeks, from about June 15 on. Is such hegemony durable, or does it reflect an ephemeral turn in class struggle? There are many reasons that I have outlined before, in this thread, that point to it being extremely frail; the position of the right is extremely contradictory (their state and city level governments, for instance, are certainly no models of republican dealing in public money, to say the least), and it has to rely in an alliance with the extreme-right, which has different objectives and tactics, and cannot be trusted with the conduction of a mass movement (it doesn't have, also, I think, real means of doing so): if the right wants a political victory, it needs to, at some moment, and probably as soon as possible, to be able to call out all demonstrations and reinstate "social peace". This is probably the role of provocateurs and vandals at this moment: to turn the populace against the demonstrations, in order to put an end at this (and, ironically enough, they even use the attacks against leftists to that end, haughtily denouncing the violation of the democratic rights of the PSTU activists...) The right is many things, but stupid it is not.

But I would like to understand what political consequences do you want to extract from your "analysis", besides despair or possibly political suicides. If the Brazilian masses are indeed fascists, what do we do? Line up behind Alckmin's police to suppress the demos? Demand that the Federal Government engages in the same line of political repression? Call a popular front uniting from the PSB to the PCdoB to the PCO and the PSTU to unite militarily in order to suppress the demonstrations in street battles (how, if the Brazilian left have no street power?) That we simply give it up since the far-right is more powerful than us?

The accuracy of a political analysis is measured, for the most part, from the political consequences it entails. I fear that you analysis is completely inconsequential, and, as such, deeply mistaken.

Luís Henrique

Martin Blank

25th June 2013, 23:35

The sun, for instance, doesn't rise anywhere; the Earth rotates around itself.

Really, Luís? This is your response? Wow.

Anyway, I don't think it is possible to derive any politics from facts like that. The facts that interest us are social and historic, and I don't see how they can be even talked about in neutral ways....

But here is the thing, Luís: I got more out the rest of the paragraph that starts with the sentences above than I have out of most of the posts in this or the other thread. Those "facts" you deride so much were rather helpful in aiding my understanding of what is happening in Brazil. Seriously, was it really so hard for you to write something like that?

I am not a reporter for a bourgeois news outlet, who lies about things by being "factual", i.e., by misinterpreting the ideological common sense of a capitalist society for a neutral point of view.

No one is suggesting you should lie or resort to the kind of "objective" editorializing that we find in bourgeois media. But at the same time, I would think you'd agree that when reporting on these events to an audience that is not standing in the middle of it, you need context to help explain why this is happening, who are the major forces involved, and (perhaps most importantly for us) how workers around the world should view these events. That requires facts and information, not emotional cries about "ZOMG fACISM!!!!1"

Well, the "facts" are all (mis)represented in the bourgeois press. They don't need to directly lie to manipulate them.

Well, gee, Luís. Could this be why I'm asking you for information, and not simply reading the articles from the Associated Press or BBC? Could it be that I consider your view on the situation more worthwhile and important to understand? Does it not make sense, then, that I would continue to ask you for more information and facts about what is happening so that I can continue to learn more about it?

Good god, do I really have to get out the crayons and draw a diagram?! :confused:

But what really imports is analysis, there is no way out of this. Some have said that the demonstrations ooze with nationalism; I don't believe that, because I do know Brazilian nationalism, and how it is very disconnected from what is happening in Brazilian streets. So how can I assert a coherent vision of what is happening in Brazil if I have to conceal such a knowledge, and pretend that flag-waving has the same social meaning here as it has in the United States?

You don't, because the differences between how "flag-waving" is seen in Brazil versus how it is seen in the U.S. is a fact, not an opinion. I don't know much about Brazil at all, but even I can see that.

LuÃs Henrique

25th June 2013, 23:40

Here (unhappily in Portuguese, and again I have not the time or will to translate it) is a quite good article (http://outraspalavras.net/blog/2013/06/23/primavera-brasileira-ou-golpe-de-direita-1/) (or perhaps a quite good series of eight articles) that I think much squares the issue. Our terrain is the streets, our terrain is mass demonstrations, our forces are the workers, the poor, the downtrodden, the exploited, the oppressed. If we can't struggle there, if we cannot struggle with them, we are nothing. The right is powerful, the right is resourceful, clever, cunning, even, when necessary, brave and bold. But it is not omnipotent, its slogans and practices aren't appealing to the majority of the population if it gives a thought about them, its aims are contradictory, its unity artificial and brittle, and it can be defeated. Moreso when they are playing a game that is not their game, and risking more than they would like to risk.

Luís Henrique

khad

25th June 2013, 23:58

But I would like to understand what political consequences do you want to extract from your "analysis", besides despair or possibly political suicides. If the Brazilian masses are indeed fascists, what do we do? Line up behind Alckmin's police to suppress the demos? Demand that the Federal Government engages in the same line of political repression? Call a popular front uniting from the PSB to the PCdoB to the PCO and the PSTU to unite militarily in order to suppress the demonstrations in street battles (how, if the Brazilian left have no street power?) That we simply give it up since the far-right is more powerful than us?

Or perhaps not launch a protest in the first place unless the left is more organized with a coherent vision of what it wants, and certainly not go to the streets chanting anti-party slogans which so ironically echo the policies of military rule.

But if want to ask what they can do in the present, little more than damage control.

LuÃs Henrique

26th June 2013, 00:05

But here is the thing, Luís: I got more out the rest of the paragraph that starts with the sentences above than I have out of most of the posts in this or the other thread. Those "facts" you deride so much were rather helpful in aiding my understanding of what is happening in Brazil. Seriously, was it really so hard for you to write something like that?

Not at all, and indeed I think I was merely repeating myself, probably to the point of boredom. There is an attempt to control the demonstrations by the Brazilian right, and the far-right is one of the instruments they are using to that end. The demonstrations however were not their invention, they have emerged from deep-felt popular demands. I have been saying this many times, both against the "ooooh the people on the streets, that's a revolution" crowd and against the "Good god, the fascists are coming, Brazil is turning fascist" mob.

No one is suggesting you should lie or resort to the kind of "objective" editorializing that we find in bourgeois media. But at the same time, I would think you'd agree that when reporting on these events to an audience that is not standing in the middle of it, you need context to help explain why this is happening, who are the major forces involved, and (perhaps most importantly for us) how workers around the world should view these events. That requires facts and information, not emotional cries about "ZOMG fACISM!!!!1"

Well, I don't make emotional cries about ZOMG fAsscims!!11onenone, nor I make emotional cries about Da Rebolution is commin, were gonna take pwer tommorrow. I try my best to give consistent analysis; I am not everywhere to see all facts, and my time is also limited; I have to work for a living, shop things in the supermarket, attend boring leftist meetings, etc, so my ability to report facts is very limited, and, anyway, except perhaps a few demos in Brasília, I have to rely on the bourgeois press for facts. It is their interpretations that I disagree with (as well as the usual foolish interpretations here in revleft, from the hay gobierno soy contra to the "oppose both" to "if there is unrest is because of the CIA-Zionist-Salafist-AlQaida conspiracy" brands). Sorry, I can't really provide anything more "objective" - even if I believed that something more "objective" actually existed.

Well, gee, Luís. Could this be why I'm asking you for information, and not simply reading the articles from the Associated Press or BBC? Could it be that I consider your view on the situation more worthwhile and important to understand? Does it not make sense, then, that I would continue to ask you for more information and facts about what is happening so that I can continue to learn more about it?

Thanks for the trust, but...

You don't, because the differences between how "flag-waving" is seen in Brazil versus how it is seen in the U.S. is a fact, not an opinion. I don't know much about Brazil at all, but even I can see that.

Yet people look at flag waving in Brazilian demonstrations and immediately conclude that the demonstrations are nationalist, perhaps even directed by nationalist parties (like - perhaps, I don't know Turkey enough to say - the demonstrations in Turkey by the CHP), and this is because they interpret the flag waving in the frame of how it is done in the US. And then I must come in the discussion and object, no, this is a mistake, there isn't deep nationalism at all, neither from the masses, nor from the bourgeois press or the political right in general, because the relationships between people and nation, and between nation and private property, are different in Brazil, where flag waving has little to do with the suppression of foreigners or asserting international might, and more with creating a Kumbaya moment in which class conflicts may be downplayed. Perhaps this is a "fact", but it is certainly not obvious as "the grass is green", and you will certainly find people, even Brazilians, who disagree with that and think that the differences are not so big, or have another meaning, etc.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

26th June 2013, 00:19

Or perhaps not launch a protest in the first place unless the left is more organized with a coherent vision of what it wants, and certainly not go to the streets chanting anti-party slogans which so ironically echo the policies of military rule.

But if want to ask what they can do in the present, little more than damage control.

Well, yes, chanting anti-party slogans is never a good idea, and being more organised is always good. But we can only organise in struggle, we can't really organise people while pretending to keep social peace. What can I do? I really don't like, much less use, anti-party rhetorics, which I think are an integral part of politics of ambiguity, and neither does the MRS, or the PT, or, for what it matters, the PCdoB, the PSTU, the PCB, the PCO, or the PSOL. But anarchists do, and I, or even the PT or the Federal Government, can't by any means forbid them from such (I hope they have learned, and it seems that at least the leadership of the MPL, considering their obviously scared reaction, have, but again this is not within what the neoliberal droids would call "my governability"). So, are you really suggesting that a small number of anarchists may really transform an otherwise pacific and passive nation into a tropical version of the NSDAP by merely agitating an anti-party discourse? Sorry, but upheavals of such dimension need another level of explanation, rooted in class struggle, strength relationships, etc., not this event-centered positivist "analysis".

And, oh, damage control by whom? The working class? The leftist parties? The federal government? According to you, they are all overwhelmed by a strong, though previously unsuspected, hegemony of the far-right, the fascist right indeed, over the overwhelming majority of the population, so how will they control damage? By police suppression of the demonstrations? By indiscriminate concessions to the crazed masses? By going deeper into their non-strategy of not taking to streets, not demanding, not confronting the bourgeoisie?

Luís Henrique

Jimmie Higgins

26th June 2013, 13:57

a fact is something not in dispute: grass is green, the sky is blue, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
The sun, for instance, doesn't rise anywhere; the Earth rotates around itself.LOL... best reply I've read all day. In terms of a responce, not commenting on the argument... I too would like to just absorb and learn as much as I can because outside some broad strokes I don't know that much about Brazilian popular attitudes and so on -- sorry my English and Spanish-language bias means that I'm more familiar with other parts of the Americas :).

First thing, learn your own terminology. The adjectival form of bourgeoisie is bourgeois.I thought the adjective form was "bourgie".

The difference is this. I've stated repeatedly that no one is fighting for socialism in Syria. Yet you people are seemingly unwavering in your belief that somehow the nationalist and right-wing forces on the streets in Turkey and Brazil will somehow magically yield to true socialism.

How'd Egypt turn out for you guys?I don't think anyone is arguing that these sorts of uprisings will spontaniously lead to worker's power. I think by people saying that these kinds of mass protests are "contested" in terms of politics and what they mean for the participants implies that they are not movements of the class for itself. But the point is, that these uprisings have brought workers into action (in various degrees) which holds the possibility of the development of more independant class forces and clearer class demands and so on. Your formulation seems to suggest that ideas and consiousness come before action while I think that history tends to suggest the opposite when it comes to mass uprisings (i.e. spontanious anger may lead to greater organization and consiousness).

Or perhaps not launch a protest in the first place unless the left is more organized with a coherent vision of what it wantsIn other words, never protest in this era almost defined by the lack of an organized and coherent left? This is a strange criticism when for the most part spontinaety and a sort of populist cross-class participation has defined many of these uprisings (even the smaller US Occupy protests had some far-right elements in some places, and early attempts by libertarians and later attempts by liberals to dominate the movement). All of these protests in various forms from Spain to the US to Turkey have been "confused" politically and very broad. Well there isn't much of an international revolutionary worker's movement and hasn't been for a long while, so how would we expect that to form? Trying to organize something out of these sorts of uprisings may result in creating new small networks, might result in a much broader working class movement that could take the lead in the unrest, or it could amount to nothing and capitalism re-adapts. Washing our (as in revolutionaries specifically and class militants generally) hands of the protests of the squares though guarentees that the dominant voices and arguments will be the middle class or maybe even the far-right if the crisis behind the discontent is severe enough.

cyu

26th June 2013, 18:37

If there are people in the streets, there are a few options for the "average" person:

1. Fight them
2. Join them
3. Do nothing

There are a few options for the ruling class:

1. Fight them
2. Co-opt them
3. Urge repression

If the current government isn't particularly fond of the ruling class, possible actions of the government:

1. Fight them
2. Stall and foot-drag
3. Divert into own policy directions
4. Use as mandate to start declawing ruling class

LuÃs Henrique

26th June 2013, 19:52

Well. Congress rejected constitutional amendment #37/2011 by 430 votes against 9 and two abstentions. So a very important fulcral point of the anti-corruption agenda - probably central to the right-wing press' efforts to control the movement - has been neutered. The logic line for the right is now to claim victory for the movement and call it over. The problem - for them - is: if they call people to put an end to demonstrations, won't they leave the streets back to the left? And if they don't, on what agenda will the people continue to protest? Of course, they still have a few demands that they could agitate, but it is unlikely that many of them can fit three requisites that are necessary to make them politically useful for the right: 1) being viable within capitalism; 2) being unacceptable for the government; and 3) having appeal enough for the masses that people will be stimulated to demonstrate for them.

The split of the demonstrations continues. Today in Brasília one group will demonstrate against "gay healing" and the representative that chairs the House commission on Human Rights, Marco Feliciano, who supports such absurd; another group is calling a demonstration against corruption; tomorrow the National Students' Union - UNE - calls a demonstration for the approval of the National Education Plan.

LuÃs Henrique

26th June 2013, 22:25

The split of the demonstrations continues. Today in Brasília one group will demonstrate against "gay healing" and the representative that chairs the House commission on Human Rights, Marco Feliciano, who supports such absurd; another group is calling a demonstration against corruption; tomorrow the National Students' Union - UNE - calls a demonstration for the approval of the National Education Plan.

In fact, the protest against corruption itself split, with one part accusing the other of being police controlled.

Luís Henrique

Sinister Cultural Marxist

27th June 2013, 03:04

LuÃs Henrique

28th June 2013, 00:02

How fucked are Brazilian politics that anti-corruption efforts are associated essentially with rightwing movements, and talking about anti-corruption empowers the right and not the left? I don't think some corrupt douchebags from the SocDem or PT parties taking state wealthy to buy a couple of condos in the nicest parts of Rio are doing anything for the working class, the oppressed, the peasants, the lumpen etc.

The problem is elsewhere. Corruption is intrinsic to the capitalist system, and the right, consequently, does not oppose it. What it opposes, indeed, is the exposure of corruption; but they use the fact that under democratic rule corruption is more exposed to claim to restrictions on investigations.

For this reason, the "anti-corruption" agenda is always abstract. "Nobody can support the corruption anymore", they shout. But what corruption? Exactly the corruption that is being shown and is leading people into jail. But then the corrupts must be tried and sentenced, and that must follow a due process. Which is the occasion where the suppression of the civil rights of the accused come into discussion. Was José Dirceu guilty? Probably. I haven't read the process, and I am not taking a position that involves the honour of a person with his biography without being very sure of that, though. The justices that tried him found him guilty, and I am not going to contest their judgement on abstractions such as the bourgeois character of the Supreme Court, as so many of my party comrades seem willing to do, either. But under no other government would a former minister be investigated, indicted, and tried, as Dirceu was. Under Fernando Henrique, the General Attorney was popularly know as General Drawer, for the number of processes he hid in his drawer, rather than prosecuting the tucanos. Under Dilma, as under Lula, the General Attorney indicts whomever he sees fit, under the conviction he forms from the investigations. This is an immense conquest of Brazilian democracy, much more important than the personal fate of Dirceu or his group. And yet, people believe corruption is bigger now than then. Which brings public clamour for the condemnation of people without due process, without evidence, without defence. It cannot be allowed, of course; but that makes those who defend the rights of the accused vulnerable to the accusation of defending corruption.

Perhaps instead of complaining of "fascism" when protesters take an anti-corruption line, why not try to reappropriate it? Corruption in politics is clearly a necessary component of bourgeois politics (though it often is legitimized as lobbying), and I don't see why the Left needs to give that debate to the right.

I don't think the protests are fascist, by no means. But there are problems with them, like people from the leftist parties, the unions, or the social movements being attacked by other protesters, and such attacks comes under the discourse of "anti-corruption". And then it becomes difficult for the PT people, or even the PSTU people, to uphold the anti-corruption struggle without being stigmatised as hypocritical. The right, when it goes to the streets, takes advantage of not identifying itself with political parties, and so they can agitate "anti-corruption" consigns without immediately appearing as liars.

Furthermore, there are other demands that imply class struggle directly, and the "anti-corruption" stance is obviously being used to suffocate them. So, while of course we could take to the streets and also shout "down with corrupts", we wouldn't be really reclaiming the struggle: we would be merely tailing the right.

In this context, "anti-corruption" functions as nationalism functions in other places: as a non-political and even anti-political ideology to "unite all" and make class divisions invisible an inoperant.

How is the PRESENCE of rightwing protesters at the Brazilian rallies proof of their PREDOMINANCE? It seems more like there is an active struggle within the protests, and if the right gains in that struggle it's not because the protests themselves were inherently "fascist" but because they were better organized.

The right-wing is by no means predominant within the protests. Nor is the left. The predominance is clearly of a multitude of people - workers, students, housewives, retired people - who have little experience of demonstrations, even less experience in confronting the far right at demonstrations, etc. and who are under the generic influence of bourgeois ideology as propagated in schools, TV, the press, the army, etc.

And the right isn't "better organised" either in the sence that they have parties or clubs with more experience in politics. They benefit from the press being able to influence the demonstrations from the outside, without the need of having organised people within them to consciously defend a political liine.

Luís Henrique