The Brazilian Politics Thread

Im not very familiar with the voters in Brazil, but here in the US, an over-hyped fear of "communism" or "socialism" is often used as cover for fear of the poor, and by extension paying for the social programs that support them. Few people are willing to admit to an anti poverty bias (or to sounding like the villan in a Dickens novel), so they engage in anti communism rhetoric instead.

Edited by DeMarquis on Nov 15th 2018 at 4:51:43 AM

Our red scare is somehow much worse than the US's. It's been used to justify two far right dictatorships in the past, and that fear served to propel Bolsonaro's campaign as well. In the current political climate, nobody is safe from accusations of being a commie, even former right-wing presidents like Fernando Henrique Cardoso. It's honestly baffling.

Again, no insight into Brazil specifically, but most places that would be a sign of a well-funded, behind the scenes conservative propaganda machine.

It certainly is a sign of that as well. Every media outlet worth talking about in Brazil that is currently working is some level of Right Wing conservative, with the two biggest ones being so conservative that they're basically instruments of the right wing (in fact, that they're currently engaged against Bolsonaro should show you how far Right he went; it'd be like Fox News turning on Trump)

But in Brazil it goes a bit beyond just "fear of the poor".

So hatred of the poor and downtrodden?

Yes, but not only that. It's primarily a method of mass social manipulation by means of making different classes turn on each other, or to put it better, to make every class hate all the classes below them, which is coupled with making every class believe they're the class above the one they really belong to, something that's been happening since Lula's second term came to a close for several different purposes. Because Brazil has been rabidly capitalist since the end of the dictatorship, almost more than even the US, throwing the idea of socialism around is a simple way of getting people to dislike whatever or whoever it's pointed against. It's basically a "hate this thing" button.

Yeah, but people are not just passive instruments of someone else's manipulation. When someone is being duped by something, they usually have their own, generally unaknowledged, reasons for letting themselves be so duped. Social anxiety is behind a lot of it.

This isnt limited to the working class, but resentment of the classes immediately above and below them (the poor and professionals alike) is well documented.

Brazil does have a kind of self-hatred. There's a big facet of our culture based on tricking people for your own benefit/fun and proving yourself better than others. And, as said, a lot of our economical classes currently think they're actually the class above themselves an that only the others are being duped. It's a very big sociological and cultural mess.

The underlying reason is that people are afraid and frustrated and want an easy solution to complex problems that will take a long time to "solve".

Brazil is a dangerous country. People are always afraid of being robbed, extorted, or even killed, especially in the larger cities.

Our economy has been bad for years now. The real is the worst it's been for like 2 decades, at roughly 1/4th the value of the dollar. I literally cannot remember a time where it was worse than it is right now.

People are sick of political corruption and ineffective government. It feels as if every other day some new scandal breaks and another politician is exposed as a crook.

So on and so forth. What's happened is that the media (and a few politicians such as Bolsonaro) have capitalized on this pent-up frustration; they have successfully sold the Worker's Party as the root of all the country's problems, and themselves as the only solution to it.

Some people are beginning to see that maybe they have been deceived. A number of his supporters have taken issue with his government picks, such as Onyx Lorezoni, who's been accused of and admitted to accepting illegal campaign funds, and see it as him breaking his promise to "drain the swamp" (to borrow a term from the US).

Of course, this promise was always false because Bolsonaro is both a rotten man and an authoritarian, so corruption in his government was a guarantee, but that's beside the point.

We've had worse times of inflation, but considering how well our economy was going before Dilma stepped in, this has been a rather brutal and swift change. But right now, this:

Is the biggest problem Brazil faces. When Dilma was impeached from her presidency on what everyone knew were bullshit claims made by people far worse than her, almost the entire country suddenly ceased trusting politicians, with the rest of the country following suit over the course of the three following years. So right now, you have a self-loathing country filled with violence, physical or not, that has no trust in any of it's official systems and a culture of trying to one-up everyone we're surrounded by. It's a rather bleak situation.

Bolsonaro is also only going to make it worse when people finally realize that he's a crook. It's starting to sink in already for some of them, and we have 4 years left where he'll keep doing things that will only make it even more obvious. I can only see the political nihilism becoming worse and worse; after all, wasn't he supposed to get rid of all the corruption overnight and magically fix the economy? If we can't trust him, then who can we trust?

That's what happens when people buy into a laughable and transparently false messiah narrative; sooner or later, there's going to be a reality check.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 15th 2018 at 12:51:53 PM

Not everyone knew that but your point still stand. One way or the other, Dilma's impeachment caused a severe blow to our country's already shaky trust in the political class.

Why do I feel this whole chat is totally one-sided?

The issues with Dilma's impeachment where two fold:

The people calling for her impeachment in the streets didn't care about the reason why, they mostly wanted her gone no matter what. Once her approval ratings dropped catastrophically, the other politicians both in her support base and opposing parties, took vantage of the situation to promote themselves by supporting her impeachment in the congress. So, like it or not, the politicians played the protest groups asking for her impeachment like a fiddle.

And secondly, if her impeachment was truly about fighting corruption. The politicians calling for the impeachment should also be on trial. The congressmen casting the vote were as guilty as she was. Specially since the whole impeachment was due to fiscal irresponsibility laws not being obeyed, instead of the Lava Jato's investigation. The sheer irony of impeaching a president over fiscal irresponsibility is exactly how nearly every single other president since FHC second term, state governors and mayors, outright broke those laws. Including the people in the congress approving budgets and payment rolls that outright ignored the fiscal plans.

Edited by AngelusNox on Nov 16th 2018 at 2:01:54 PM

What, against fascism?

Do you people even know what Fascism actually is? What people were persecuted back in Mussolini's days? Or what the movement itself was composed of? Or is anything that's not Left-wing Fascist to you, as much of the anti-Bolsonarist propaganda has spread to the country? And I make that question to all the people in this thread after throughly reading TV Tropes' very article on Benito Mussolini and Fascist Italy, as well as Wikipedia's own entry on that, and people who actually studied History and knew about Fascism. So, before someone tell me to go study on that... Sorry, man, I already did the homework.

Also, the entire conversation is so grossly one-sided to the point I'm the only one actually disagreeing with a big chunk of what I see here. And what I see here as well is that people are banalizing the word "fascism" so much that it's getting stupid. I mean, really. This word has been thrown left and right like it's nothing this whole last year.

I tire of having to question alone this whole crowd, but someone has to make that question on the topic on hand. All I have seen here is people accusing the Right-wing of Red Scare and outright downplaying Fascism by associating Bolsonaro with it without having made a proper study on what Mussolini was or how he behaved, before the guy has even taken posse to tell us how it's gonna be.

"And oh, Bolsonaro is about to kill Democracy". Here's the news: it was Democracy that has put him in this current position of power. The same democracy that put Collor in power, then FHC, then the Workers' Party and Temer for 16 years. The so-called "wills of the many" that, in my opinion, can be easily manipulated or distorted to be whatever an individual wants. The same "wills of the many" to which the losing side is always subjulgated to.

Now, I can't predict what Bolsonaro will or won't do. I saw the Cuban Medic Program debacle, which started because he intended to fulfill one of his promises. He's now offering asylum to all cubans who want to stay. And this is from news I've seen. And honestly, I can't be bothered to be sad with that: No matter how dire our health system is, nothing justifies financing the dictatorship Cuba is. Cuba was taking 80% of the cubans' money, prohibited them from even becoming close to Brazilians, and they keep their families more or less hostage in their homeland. Bolsonaro wanted to bring the doctors' families to Brazil and give to these medics the full freedom Cuba negated them, alongside with the full payment. Now make yourself that question: why did Cuba refuse to these terms? The answer is obvious: to a dictatorship, people are property.

Which leaves us a gap on the health system now, as anything that could make the healthcare here better is criminalized by the State, and I have a video talking about that (not that you guys will ever watch it if I link it, as Libertarianism is apparently the bane of society here).

And like I said, I can't say what he'll do over the next four years, but I don't think it's near as bleak as you guys make it out to be.

And nope, I don't expect this man to be any sort of social or economical savior, nor any kind of "corruption cleanser", as he has his own track record (if small at that). Brazil is diving straight into its own economical bankruptcy and it would happen regardless of who would have become the next President. The question now is if this country can brace itself for when the time comes.

Yes, on my research I became aware that Mussolini was not the first nor the last Fascist leader. He's still the most recognized and remembered leader, however.

Edited by ZeroDozer on Nov 16th 2018 at 4:12:05 PM

You're aware that fascism isn't just limited to Mussolini's (or Hitler's for that matter) specific brand, right?

You're committing a classic error here: you're focusing too much on a strict adherence to every trait of a specific brand of fascism (Mussolini`s, rather than focusing on the reasons why people like Bolsonaro get accused of being fascistic, that being ultranationalism, authoritarianism, association with conservative religious institutions, disdain for minorities, and so on, which are all bad and the reason why he's trash. There are debates on whether Franscisco Franco fits 100% as well, but it would be foolish to deny the similarities between his regime and the others like Hitler's and Mussolini.

Also, not to be rude, but after seeing all the ridiculous accusations of "commie!!!" I've seen this election, you can get the fuck out of here with this shit. Geraldo Alckmin? Not a fascist. FHC? Not a fascist. Collor? Not a fascist. We have a whole spectrum of right-wing politicians in this country who aren't fascists, or even close. The one being accused of being fascistic is Bolsonaro, not them.

Are you trying to make some kind of point here? People voting against their best interest and to weaken their democratic rights is nothing new.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 16th 2018 at 2:20:58 PM

Don't worry, I've seen people throwing this one at Alckmin in the past. But it's not Alckmin we're discussing, are we? And even then, read above where I say that the word "Fascism" has been used so liberally through the last year that it's being banalized.

I really wish some of my Right-wing friends were members here so they could see the discussion and give an opinion on this. The first thing they would disagree with you is that the PSDB is a Right-wing party.

The point is that it's quite contradictory for people against Democracy using Democracy to elect him. If he'll take it down next year when he actually comes, no one knows, but right now... We can at least say that it wasn't us who put him in charge and we may pay for that or not, because that's what Democracy actually is: imposition of the majority over the minority. Strength in numbers indeed.

I mean, have you ever asked why the losing side has always to get the shaft from the winning side instead of, you know, just being respected?

Edited by ZeroDozer on Nov 16th 2018 at 4:25:52 PM

Accusing us of being rabid leftists who are too stupid to recognize Fascism is not a good way to engage the thread, Dozer. We are not accusing FHC, Collor, Serra, Alckmin or Aêcio (all right-wing candidates/presidents) of being Fascists, we're accusing Bolsonaro, the actual far-right candidate widely recognized as such by the media, of being a Neo-Fascist, which pretty much every serious historian in the country or outside can see why. The general consensus among historians seems to be "well he's not exactly a fascist but he's getting there."

Do you know what fascism actually is, Dozer, because it seems like you think if someone isn't Mussolini's second coming, they're not fascists. You have a candidate with a history of: praising fascist and totalitarian regimes, preaching hate towards minorities, talking in ultra-nationalism "our nation above all others" talk, a desire to take the country to a glorious past, support of the conservative religious wing, anti-intellectualism up the wazoo, use of Communism as a boogeyman, a distaste for the democratic process and a hatred towards the media. What more do you want? For him to scream Anauê?

If you're looking for a 1:1 Mussolini candidate, you're not going to find it. Fascism changed over the ages, it lost some aspects and gained others, but if you look at that list and go "I see absolutely no fascism in it", then you need to get around the block more.

The problem here Dozer is that you have a obsession with trying to downplay Bolsonaro's sins every time you come into this thread trying to find middle ground where there is none and expect us to follow suit with you. We're not having a one-sided conversation, we're having a reasonable one and you're the one trying to claim you're smarter than everyone by saying you know more about Fascism than everyone else in this thread.

I'm curious what exactly would be right wing for them if not the hardcore neo-conservatism of PSDB.

Heck, even at the time you had some very different fascist movements.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Nov 16th 2018 at 7:31:46 PM

Ahem...

"People are sick of political corruption and ineffective government."

That right there is an opportunity if someone of a progressive bent can take advantage of it.

I do not want to add to the list of Dozer's opponents here, but let me just say that I have issues with your definition of a democracy.

"that's what Democracy actually is: imposition of the majority over the minority."

This is true, but not the entire truth. Any functioning democracy has checks and balances to prevent a tyranny of a majority, and usually democratic politicians respect those who are not part of their agenda to some extent. Bolsanero has shown no such inclinations. That doesn't mean I can't understand why people have voted for him, but it is a reason why many are suspicious of him.

While it is true that Brazil doesn't have a true right wing party such as the Republicans in the US or large groups like the Tea Party, do you really want Brazil to have things like that?

Or have a run with far right parties like the Greek Golden Dawn, the British UKIP and the French Front National.

Even those hardcore libertarian parties preaching minimum state and free market being the best for society have done more harm than good, regardless of the country they have been at.

And we are not going to pretend that Bolsonaro doesn't pose a risk and a major set back to Brazil socially and politically, specially when we are seeing the mess that political outsiders are doing abroad in politics with the same rhetoric and mentality that Bolsonaro has.

And how our middle class essentially is fucking itself over trying to convince themselves that Bolsonaro is going to clean the house from corruption and how any change is welcome. Even though things can and do change for worse when you vote out of spite instead of actually listening and thinking through his policies, you should figure out that both don't work or a full of horseshit.

Specially his ideas to fight criminality being tried and worn without any effect in reducing crime.

There is also the counter-majoritarian clauses in law and the constitution to prevent abuses done with the argumentum ad populum specially to keep minorities from being abused or outright have abusive policies from being implemented because they are popular.

But those measures have any effectiveness as long as the Supreme Court says they have, if Bolsonaro's idea of increasing the number of seats from 11 to 21 so he can appoint 10 judges that are favorable to his policies.

Which itself should ring some bells, because rigging out the judiciary is still one of the moves authoritarian governments did to legitimize their policies. It was done by the Brazilian military junta and so was done in other authoritarian governments.

If he goes with his plan of increasing the seats in the Supreme Court from 11 to 21, you can kills good bye to any safeguard the constitution provides.

Edited by AngelusNox on Nov 16th 2018 at 6:02:01 PM

That doesn't exactly refute anything. Cognitive dissonance is a thing, and in all honesty, many wouldn't see using something to destroy itself as being a contradiction in the first place. Or to put another way, more than a few people believe (foolishly and wickedly) that democracy should be limited to certain groups of people.