(pt) Anarkismo.net: Análise de conjuntura pós-eleitoral - passada uma semana da reeleição, a chantagem institucionalizada e o caminho para um governo acuado by BrunoL
Terça-Feira, 4 de Novembro de 2014 - 13:09:15 CET
O domingo dia 26 de outubro foi um marco na história política recente do país. O mesmo
projeto de governo emplacava seu quarto mandato consecutivo, realizando a proeza de
reeleger uma ex-guerrilheira indicada como sucessora de um ex-dirigente sindical. Tudo
seria um mar de rosas, se estas mesmas rosas, ao contrário do que disse Mestre Cartola,
não roubam "perfumes de musas do carnaval" e sim o odor fétido do submundo da política
oligárquica que todos vêem e ainda poucos são taxativos a este respeito. Se pudermos
caracterizar o momento do curtíssimo prazo pós-reeleição, trata-se de algo muito perigoso.
---- O deputado fluminense e eminente cardeal do Congresso Eduardo Cunha - líder do PMDB -
é apontado pelo ainda presidente da câmara baixa tupiniquim, o potiguar e também
peemedebista Henrique Eduardo Alves, como seu sucessor.
A chantagem institucionalizada e o cerco (putsch branco segundo o editorial da Carta Maior
datado de 29/10/2014, termo com o qual este analista concorda) continuam. Eu afirmei em
texto anterior que parte da esquerda votou em Dilma de nariz tapado (não me incluo, votei
em Zumbi e Sepé, como sempre) e que, novamente, viria o inexorável caminho em busca da tal
Tal caminho tem de um lado, os chantagistas de plantão, a começar pela ameaça de levar a
sério a CPI da Petrobrás - não nos esqueçamos do vice e seu partido -, passando pelo
bloqueio da pauta pelos tucanos e demos, chegando ao sentimento de frustração e traição da
massa que votara no retrato de Dilma quando ela ainda era militante da VAR-Palmares e não
na hábil negociadora da Casa Civil de Lula pós-José Dirceu.
O PT não enganou ninguém, talvez a seus próprios eleitores, além de promover um auto
engano de si mesmo, ao menos em suas bases. Em texto publicado na governista CartaCapital
(Lino Bocchini, em 30/10/2014) vai ao encontro do que digo acima. Mas, infelizmente, o
analista da publicação de Mino Carta navega pelo viés do cinismo, algo como análise
Se na Carta ao Povo Brasileiro Lula não mentira, tampouco podemos afirmar que seu
eleitorado conseguiu - e consegue - separar racionalmente o possibilismo macabro com o
qual sua legenda governa e os apelos simbólicos remetendo para idéias de câmbio, ainda que
difusas. Venho afirmando que o PT, na hora do sufoco, faz campanha por "esquerda", esconde
os aliados oligarcas e governa por direita. A panacéia já começou com a entrevista de
Dilma para o Jornal Nacional e logo na sequência veio a pressão "inexorável" para a pasta
da Fazenda. O texto do excelente portal Carta Maior (ainda que governista), datado de
28/10/2014, assinado por Pedro Paulo Zaluth Bastos e com o acertado título de "O terceiro
turno já começou. O austericídio também?" demonstra o cerco estratégico dos agentes de
mercado, justo os analistas ouvidos para compor o Boletim Focus e que têm a coragem de
falar em público a afirmativa de "o mercado gosta de ver os juros sendo elevados embora
não goste de ser surpreendido!". Tal preocupação se revela dentro das bases mesmo do
petismo. Para quem corre pela margem à esquerda da política, o poder começa a ser definido
em seus centros nervosos agora.
Também observamos a mesma capacidade de plantar nomes de ministeriáveis para a "equipe
econômica" para outras pastas, como o estratégico Ministério das Comunicações. Compartilho
o debate e a previsão tenebrosa (e tristemente REALISTA) do respeitado organizador da
democracia na comunicação, Jerry de Oliveira no Brasil. Plantado pelo petismo, está
Ricardo Berzoini e pelas oligarquias que sempre são governo, cogita-se um nome do PMDB.
Sinceramente, não vejo diferença substantiva se o Berzoini assumir a pasta das
Comunicações apenas para garantir direito de resposta (propósito enunciado na Folha de São
Paulo em 29/10/2014) e a posse de uma réplica de Hélio Costa e cia. Todos temos muito
respeito pela opinião deste militante e entendo que sua análise é cabível e deve ser
compartilhada, embora seja foco de crítica deste analista.
Pesquisas eleitorais, guerra midiática e mais da democracia concorrencial brasileira
Enquanto o governo Dilma, 2o tempo, tenta montar um Gabinete de Kerensky tropicalizado, o
lado mais "venezuelano" do Brasil mostra sua cara. O perigoso jornal de extrema-esquerda
Folha de São Paulo (o próprio) trouxe uma matéria suspeita de ser "pró-governo" e
"anti-tucana" apenas porque cruza informações e faz alguma checagem jornalística (rotina
obrigatória não cumprida por Veja naquela capa fatídica). Nesta matéria (de 30/10/2014,
atendendo pelo título de "Campanha de Aécio usou pesquisa com dados enganosos"), nota-se
que o instrumento dos institutos de pesquisa opera como ferramenta de guerra psicológica e
midiatizada. O único jeito de disciplinar estas máquinas de campanhas - consórcios
econômico-eleitorais - seria proibir a divulgação de pesquisas até no mínimo uma semana
antes de cada turno. Senão, episódios como estes, serão cada vez mais frequentes.
Os tucanos pelo visto entendem as eleições como um jogo "flexível". Contestar, ainda que
parcialmente, a lisura da urna eletrônica brasileira e o resultado final conformam uma
aproximação da tática de Henrique Capriles, governador do estado de Miranda e candidato
derrotado pela direita da Venezuela em acirrada disputa. Bem, se argumentar sobre a lisura
do pleito não for "venezuelização" - de blefe, mas é - então, por favor, digam onde está o
fenômeno? Tática utilizada pelos esquálidos da Venezuela, sendo que ao contrário do país
vizinho, aqui o processo eleitoral é muito, muito confiável. Tal fato não é especulação
deste analista, mas circulou em matérias jornalísticas como a publicada no G1, na 5ª 30 de
outubro de 2014 ("PSDB pede ao TSE auditoria para verificar "lisura" da eleição").
Vale ressaltar que não se trata de recontagem e sim auditoria. Portanto, soa como uma
tática de manter o tema visível, aproveitar o fim do mundo e não deixar o verão dispersar
a base tucana mais à direita. Enquanto isso, no submundo planaltino, Kerensky se equilibra
com o governo das maltas brancas ("aliadas"), mas sabendo que está seguro, pois não haverá
assalto ao palácio (não por esquerda, ao menos) e está ainda mais distante uma insurreição
à moda ucraniana ou formação de soviets.
Conclusão inicial: esse governo nem começou e, devido às escolhas terríveis, periga de não
anarkismo.net: Could a Revolution Happen in the US? by Wayne Price -
Will a Revolution Happen in the US in Time?
Why hasn't there been more rebellion in the US lately? What are the indications that a
popular movement may develop which leads to revolution? What is meant by revolution, anyway?
Throughout the USA there is discontent. Under the apparently placid political surface
there is bubbling dissatisfaction. Yet there has been only limited rebellion, all kept
within the limits of Democratic-Republican politics as usual. Certainly, to most people,
the possibility of a revolution -- an uprising against capitalism and its state -- seems
distant, if not absurd. I want to argue that a revolution is quite possible (but not
inevitable). And I want to clarify what revolution means.
Most political theorists ask why there are occasional rebellions and revolutions. I think
it is more fruitful to ask why there are not more rebellions -- popular struggles leading
up to revolutions. Consider the unfairness of a tiny minority -- the "one percent" --
ruling over and getting rich from the big majority. Consider the dangers of ecological
catastrophe, economic collapse, and nuclear war, not to mention many other issues of
oppression and unfairness. Why do people put up with this? Why isn't there at least a
large movement to get rid of this system?
Revolutions happen because people have not been sufficiently flexible to adapt social
institutions to changing conditions. Conditions may change gradually (feudalism is being
replaced by capitalism; global climate change develops over the decades, etc.). But
popular consciousness lags behind the change, and those who benefit from existing
conditions (such as the feudal lords or the owners of oil industries) resist gradual
changes. At some point there develops extreme tension between the existing consciousness
and institutions and the need for change. Then there is either an explosive revolution or
social disaster. The question is, why does it take so long, even when the need for change
has become drastic, for there to be a major movement for the necessary transformation: for
Essentially there are three reasons. First, there is widespread ignorance and miseducation
deliberately spread by the dominant institutions. From our schools, churches, newspapers,
television news, and other forms of mass media, US people learn a heavily distorted view
of the world. They have little knowledge of the power of the capitalist minority and the
inequality of wealth in the country. They know almost nothing of the record of the US
empire in other countries, especially the poorer nations. The white majority knows almost
nothing about the oppression of People of Color. Economic theory is a closed book to most
US people. US people are mainly in the dark about the dangers of climate change and the
possible alternatives. To most, "socialism", "communism", "Marxism", "anarchism" and
"radicalism" are words spoken by the devil. The range of debate, between "conservatives"
and "liberals", Republicans and Democrats, is incredibly narrow and uneducating; it is
almost unheard of for a significant issue to be be seriously debated.
The US is a bourgeois democracy, which is to say, it is not a fascist or totalitarian
state which simply suppresses dissent through police measures. Police measures are indeed
used, but in an inconsistent manner. It is possible to learn the truth about these
matters, if individuals are willing to look. There has always been a minority which is
interested in looking at alternate sources of information (the writings of Noam Chomsky,
socialist journals, radical blogs, etc.). But mostly this has been a tiny minority. The
question is why don't more people look at the alternate media and books which are
available? (This is exactly what people do in periods of radicalization.)
The second reason for popular quiescence is a certain level of comfort, or at least, of
being not too uncomfortable. This leads to people not looking for information outside the
conventional wisdom. The political psychology of this was expressed by Thomas Jefferson in
the US Declaration of Independence: "...All experience hath shown, that mankind are more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to which they are accustomed".
Accepting that existing "evils are sufferable" was most obvious during the prosperity
which followed World War II and lasted about 30 years (until the early '70s). Most workers
felt that they were doing better than they had been, and better than their parents. They
expected that their children would do better yet. From the many better-off workers to the
expanded "middle class", most (white) families had a house and at least one car, with only
one parent having to hold a waged job. Under these conditions, the radicalism of the
thirties died down.
Other reasons for the post-WWII decline of the Left, included the anticommunist repression
which drove the Communists and other leftists out of the unions, the universities, and
public and private employment. Another was the ugly reality of the totalitarian Soviet
Union, which was falsely labelled as "socialist" and "communist" by both its supporters
and opponents. But the prosperity was the main factor, which permitted the repression to
succeed with so little resistance.
It is just this factor which has changed. The economy has continued to decline. A "jobless
recovery" followed the Great Recession of 2008 and further decline (even a new Great
Depression) is likely within the next five to ten years. The ecological/energy crisis is
increasingly coming to affect ordinary people in observable ways, as climate change comes
closer to total catastrophe. And other issues continue to affect the people (such as
attacks on women's reproductive rights or on African-American voting rights -- things
which were supposed to have been settled). Meanwhile the Federal government appears to be
deadlocked and incompetent, unable to deal with the growing problems.
"Polling by Gallup shows that since June 2009...public confidence in virtually every major
institution of American life has fallen, including organized religion, the military, the
Supreme Court, public schools, newspapers, Congress, television news, the police, the
presidency, the medical system, the criminal justice system and small business....Banks,
organized labor, big business and health maintenance organizations...had the confidence of
just roughly a quarter of the population or less." (NY Times 10/22/14; p. A3)
So there is plenty of political unhappiness and social discomfort out there. One way it
has shown itself in the growth of the extreme right. The "conservative" (really
reactionary) Republicans shade into virtual fascists (those who want to overthrown
bourgeois democracy, as expressed in threats to rely on "second amendment remedies" if
they don't get their way through the electoral process).
But there have also been popular struggles that point in a different direction. The
movement of Latinos and immigrants (first massively apparent in the 2006 May Day marches)
is one. Since the Great Recession, there was the virtual occupation of the Wisconsin
government by workers. There was the Occupy Wall Street movement, which spread over the
country. There have been national movements for a higher minimum wage and for decent pay
for fast food workers. Following events in Ferguson, MO, and elsewhere, there has been a
movement against police brutality and racial oppression. 400 thousand people marched in
New York City against climate change. I am not covering everything. (I leave out the
impact of rebellions in other countries -- the Arab Spring, the occupations and general
strikes in Europe against austerity, the democracy movement in Hong Kong, etc.)
Yet all of these struggles in the US have (so far) remained limited. They have died down
or been defeated or kept marginal. The Wisconsin struggles, for example, did not go on to
make a general strike against the governor's anti-labor policies. Instead the union
leadership pulled the movement into electoral activities -- which were defeated. The
Occupy movement made an impact which is still being felt; but its encampments were
eventually dispersed by the police. The immigrant struggle has been channeled into
Democratic Party politics -- and gotten little or nothing for it. The Democratic Party
continues to play the role it has since the Populist era, of drawing movements of
opposition away from mass direct action into the dead end of electoral politics. This is
how it weakened the Civil Rights and antiwar movements of the 60s and it will do the same
to present struggles if we let it. The union bureaucrats know no other strategy -- and the
same goes for other liberal leaderships (of the Black community or of most ecological
The Power of the Working People
Which brings up the third main reason for a low level of rebellion. This is the sense that
nothing can be done, that there is no alternative. The establishment, the ruling class and
its institutions, seem all-powerful. What is the use of struggling? You might as well
worry about whether there will be an earthquake.
What people do not realize is the vulnerability of the ruling class. It has money and it
has armed force (police and military). But we, the working class and the rest of the
population, have our own potential power. We have numbers, being the big majority. As
workers, we have our hands on the means of production, transportation, and communication
-- which we can shut down if we decide to, and can start up again in a different way, if
we decide to. We have an appeal at least to the ranks of the military, daughters and sons
of the working class and middle class.
Everything would change with one big strike in a major city, one general strike which
shuts down a city while workers occupy their workplaces and youth really occupy the
downtown district (Wall Street or whatever). Our whole politics would change. The ruling
class fears this like the fires of hell. Liberals and conservatives, Democrats and
Republicans, union officialdom, will do all in their power to prevent this from happening,
because it would show the people the power that we really have. They would rather push all
opposition into the Democrats or even into independent electoral action (third parties),
away from mass action. But it could happen, especially if radicals put efforts into
advocating and educating working people about such a strategy.
What is a Revolution?
The first factor -- the miseducation of the people -- includes teaching people to fear and
dislike the very idea of a "revolution". This is peculiar for a country which prides
itself on its founding revolution of 1776. The Declaration of Independence asserted,
"Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....Under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government".
But look at this statement by Naomi Klein, in her popular book This Changes Everything,
about the need to stop the capitalist development of climate catastrophe. She strongly
advocates the need for a popular movement to fight climate change and all forms of
oppression. But instead of asserting the "Right of the People" to revolution, she writes,
"...Let's take for granted that we want to do these radical things democratically and
without a bloodbath, so violent, vanguardist revolutions don't have much to offer in the
way of road maps". (Klein 2014, p. 452).
Since this is her only reference to "revolution", it implies that revolutions are
undemocratic, vanguardist (elitist) and violent, certain to end in bloodbaths.
A popular revolution of the working class and all those oppressed by capitalism would be
the most democratic transformation possible. Revolution is not defined by being "violent"
or "bloody". "Revolution" means "to turn over" (revolve). It means one class overturning
another class. Under capitalism, it means the working class and its allies of all the
oppressed overturning the capitalist class and its state and other institutions, and
replacing them with new institutions. This is intended to develop a classless,
nonoppressive, freely cooperative society.
Such an overturn might be fairly nonviolent. This would be so IF the big majority of the
population is united behind it and determined to carry it through -- IF the workers boldly
seize industry and transportation and manage it themselves -- IF the ranks of the military
(who mainly come from the working class) come over to the side of the majority -- and IF
the ruling class is demoralized (especially if revolutions have been successful in most
other countries). All this is possible, but....iffy.
For example, the October Russian revolution which brought the Soviets to power had minimal
bloodshed. It was only later, when foreign imperialists pumped up counterrevolutionary
forces into fighting a civil war, that the revolution became bloody (and the worst traits
of the Bolsheviks were encouraged). It is likely that the US ruling class will try to
resist losing its power and wealth, as violently as "necessary".
The problem of violence, of a "bloodbath", depends on the extent of resistance by the
capitalist class and on little else. This is the most arrogant, self-conscious, ruling
class in the world, used to throwing its weight around as it choses. The best way to limit
its violence is to be prepared: to organize the workers and oppressed as solidly and
strongly as possible. This too shows the need for mass action and popular resistance.
Will there be a revolution? In time? Before ecological and economic or other catastrophes
crash down on society? This is impossible to predict. What is lacking is organization, a
layer of self-organized radicals, militants who are prepared to advocate revolution and to
link this goal up to the daily struggles of the people. The formation of such
self-organization is not a matter of prediction but of commitment.
Declaration of Independence (1776). http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters
Klein, Naomi (2014). This Changes Everything; Capitalism vs. the Climate. NY: Simon &
NY Times (10/22/14). "A Steady Loss of Confidence." Pp. A1, A3.
*Written for www.anarkismo.net
More information about the A-infos-pt