Under the title “Dilma’s Impeachment: “Don’t cry for me, Brazil”, Alejandro Iturbe published an interesting article justifying the policy of the International Workers’ League (IWL-FI) and of PSTU in front of the recent political crisis of Brazil, and the definitive removal of Dilma Rousseff of the presidency, assuming in her place Michel Temer, of PMDB. In a moment in which the polemics reached the poles in Brazil and there are differences among several left-wing tendencies, so polarized that the dialogue is merely impossible, I think we need to salute an article like Iturbe’s, aiming to debate in the field of ideas, analysis and characterization of policies. The article was published in Spanish, and there is still no version in Portuguese[1]. So I took the liberty of translating the quotations.
By Luis Leiria – Portugal, September 6, 2016.
Portugese militant, I lived for 17 years in Brazil, during which I was always part of the IWL-FI (of which I do not, nowadays), and even when I came back to Portugal, I continued accompanying Brazilian politics. I have written some articles on this matter, published in Esquerda.net, and in Citizen Courier, always keeping some prudence and mainly avoiding polemics. This time, however, I felt there are conditions to confront my vision to the vision of the IWL leader (with whom I have a friendship), fraternally, trying to clarify positions and always looking for the truth. I try to take advantage of currently not being part of any of the left-wing tendencies of Brazil, and not participating of the passionate debates to the interior of the IWL.
Avoided “materialities”
The goal of Iturbe’s article is to debate with the non-PT left, who fell for the speech of the PT, through a “certain number of procedures with the function of avoiding the heavy and fearsome materiality” of the facts, using the words of Michel Foucault. To the IWL leader’s opinion, the main problem of the left that did not celebrate the fall of Dilma is to use an incorrect method to define the relationship of forces between the social classes, only considering the super-strctural factors instead of the class struggle.
To Iturbe, “since the mobilization of June 2013, the regime of domination of the Brazilian bourgeoisie shows elements of deep crisis”; since that date, “there is a process of considerable increase of the number of conflicts and strikes”, and “This fact (the masses struggle) goes together with one of the most progressive and positive elements of reality: the rupture of the masses and the workers with the PT and its policy of class conciliation with the bourgeoisie and the imperialism”. And more: the author considers Temer’s government is weaker than Dilma’s, and this is why the “somber tone” of the non-PT left, which did not celebrate the impeachment, serves only as “an overflow basin, stalling the construction of the revolutionary alternative the workers need”.
Ignored facts
The problem of the analysis summarized here is that it makes the same mistakes it accuses its antagonists of. Iturbe produces a speech that, to keep Foucault’s quotation, has “the function of avoiding the heavy and fearsome materiality” of the facts. What facts?
What opened the road to this end are the demonstrations against Dilma, led by the right and extreme right wing. This is not a minor fact.
Let us recall: March 13th of this year, there were 300 demonstrations in favor of Impeachment, and against the corruption, with 3,6 million participants. São Paulo’s counted, according to the Data Folha, with half a million people, outstripping the biggest demonstration of the ’80 in favor of the Diretas Já (Direct Elections Now).
These demonstrations led to a series of protests against the corruption and defending “Out with Dilma”, during 2015: on March 15th, April 12th, August 16th and December 13th –with the participation of, respectively, 2 million, 660 thousand, 790 thousand and 60 thousand people in Brazil, and 210 thousand, 100 thousand, 130 thousand and 40 thousand in the capital of São Paulo.
No continuity with June 2013
By the analysis of Iturbe, there seems to be a continuity of the masses breakup with the government of PT since the demonstrations of 2013 and the ones of 2015 and 2016 (by the way, not quoted along the article). Nothing more wrong: neither for the goals nor for its class composition we can put an equal sign between the demonstrations against the increase of the bus tickets of June 2013, and the ones in favor of Dilma’s impeachment. The latest’s had ostensible right-wing leadership, like the MBL [Free Brazil Movement], founded to “promote the free market solutions for Brasil’s problems”, or the Revoltados Online [Revolted Online]; they counted with the support of the right-wing parties, and with the participation of the extreme right-wing organized around the Deputy Jair Bolsonaro.[2]
Even when the legitimate feeling against the corruption took many people to the demonstrations, the fact is those people had a partial vision of the phenomena, as they only denounced the corruption cases linked to the PT, leaving aside the governors of PSDB or even the scandal of the President of the Chamber, Eduardo Cunha. And the same demonstrators co-lived with no problem next to banners with slogans like “The people are sovereign! Military intervention is not a crime!”; “why didn’t they kill them all in 1964?”; and more: “Dilma, too bad you were not hanged in DOI-CODI”[3], just to put some examples.
Regarding the social composition, it was visible even for the more disperse ones the demonstrations in favor of the impeachment were completely white, mainly of middle and high class, with a major participation of the elder. This was confirmed by the DataFolha, which researched the demonstration of August 16th, 2015, confirming 50% of the demonstrators earned from $1000 to $4000 euros, and 17% earned even more.
The exact opposite of June 2013 demonstrations, with mainly youth, workers, and representing the racial diversity of Brazil.
What “masses”?
These demonstrations of 2015 and 2016 are undeniable facts. If those are not even mentioned in Iturbe’s speech, it is clear it is because those are “materialities” that make him uncomfortable and that he tries to avoid.
And more: to make a good analysis of the relationship of forces, it is not enough to say “the masses” broke up with Dilma’s government. We need to see what masses are those, and their behavior. Among the masses, there is middle class, petit bourgeoisie and working class, or proletarians (it is not the intention of this article to debate the definition of those concepts]. Taking a look at the pro-impeachment demonstrations, it becomes evident the main demonstrators were from middle class, polarized by the right and the extreme right-wing. And, if it is true there was a rupture of the working class, at least a partial one, with the PT (partial because Lula still has 20% vote intention), the reality is the organized workers’ battalions did not mobilize for the impeachment, neither in favor of Dilma.
It is true the social base of Dilma’s government was highly reduced, and that was the main element for the victory of the impeachment, but it is also true the right-wing that approved the impeachment in the Chamber [of Deputies] and the Senate was not limited to a parliamentary phenomenon –super-structural, but it was based on a social base that strengthened it-, as it had won, undeniably, the battle on the streets.
Like this, the dominant class decided to take the impeachment all the way, because it pretends to implement the adjustment, the labour reform, the social security reform and the privatizations in a much more accelerated and brutal way than Dilma’s government was willing to. But they also made this decision because the PT in the government was no longer useful, as it lost the hegemony on the streets. Their thought was: “a pure-blood government is better”.
Going back to the relationship of forces: an analysis of the classes intervening on the process that put an end to Dilma’s government shows us the middle and high classes mobilized under the leadership of the right wing in favor of the impeachment, and the working class did not defend the PT but stood observing, not participating on the demonstrations pro-impeachment, neither on the ones called by the PT to defend Dilma. Now, this does not confirm a relationship or forces favorable enough to the point of making the non-PT left militants celebrate Dilma’s fall. They would have another attitude if the working class were the one to overthrow the government of PT. The way the impeachment took place, August 31 of 2016, it was a somber day for me too.
After Temer, the take of power?
This does not mean the working class is defeated. I do not think that. But the left that wants to build a political alternative to take lessons out of the disastrous experience of the PT governments and present to the masses with a clean flag cannot have illusions on a free highway to socialism ahead of us.
I might have an incorrect interpretation, but the way Iturbe finishes his article seems to go this way. The IWL leader starts by agreeing with the fact that, now, the center is to struggle against the government and for the “Out with Temer”, and in this context the PSTU encourages every struggle, putting as an example the Day of Struggle of the Unions in August 16, or the struggle against the dismissals in Mercedes Benz. He however ponders the PSTU wants a serious struggle, and that is why they call for a general strike. From here, he presents a strategy that cannot be seen as anything else than the taking of the power in a short-time scale.
He says the following: “the struggle against Temer’s government and its measures must be placed in the perspective of a much more offensive strategy: the taking of the power by the workers and the masses. Thus, not only defeating Temer’s government but the corrupt, putrid regime serving the capitalism, to impose a new regime (based on completely different institutions), and initiate the construction of a new type of State, serving the workers and the masses instead. That is to say, the strategic perspective of the socialist revolution”.
Note that, here, Iturbe is not talking about a propaganda of socialism, the construction of a new State, based on workers’ democracy institutions, etc., propaganda that is always welcome. What he proposes is not propaganda but action. Unlike the “somber and sad” left, the IWL leader poses the take of the power and the socialist revolution as a short-time perspective, based on his analysis of a very favorable relationship of forces.
I was member of the IWL for more than 25 years, but I had never seen the perspective of taking the power this was (except during a short period, in Argentina, just before the explosion of the IWL, in the ‘90s), what takes me to believe there is a new theoretical and programmatic elaboration that I am not aware of, but clearly very different than the ones in times of Moreno.
Demonstrations for “Out with Temer” just in defense of the ex-president?
So maybe it is this “triumphalist” policy that explains the most recent position of the PSTU, assumed the very same day of the publication of the article in question: the denial of participating of the demonstrations against Temer, some of which are spontaneous, and even composed of youth, particularly, the day after the impeachment. In the official article, the PSTU repudiates the repression to the demonstrations, but also clarifies it considers all “the demonstrations in defense of the ex president and against an alleged coup”.
It states: “We do not support the demonstrations, and neither we believe there was a coup in the country”. And so there are no doubts, it highlights: “we do not agree with, and we will not participate of demonstrations defending an ex government that was nothing but the prelude of the current PMDB government, that attacked the workers and left prepared all the attacks the current government is implementing”.
Now, what happens it these events were called against Temer, the current government; the debate of “coup-not coup-palatial coup-parliamentary maneuver” might have been really important, but it makes no sense anymore; not even the PT wants Dilma back now, nor she considers to be in conditions of continuing. Dilma’s government is an old page in history. Were did they take, then, that the demonstrations are in favor of Dilma’s return?
It is evident there could be pro-Dilma sectors in the demonstrations, but those are a minority. Even if they were not: wouldn’t it be duty of the revolutionaries to struggle for those demonstrations to expand and dispute its leadership to make them events in favor of “Out with Temer”? The IWL I knew would have done this without a doubt.
But no, the PSTU members stood home this Sunday 4, when about 100 thousand people went to demonstrate to the Paulist Avenue against Temer, who attacked the demonstration saying “there were not more than 40 people breaking cars”. It was the biggest left demonstration of the last years and the PSTU was not present. Is this the way for taking the power and for the socialist revolution? It wit this policy the IWlLpretends to overcome the “overflow basin, stalling the construction of the revolutionary alternative the workers need”? In my opinion, the result will be a disaster. Who is alive will see it.
***
Notes:
[1] By the moment we translate this article, the original version in Portuguese is already available (also in English: http://litci.org/en/dilmas-impeachment-dont-cry-for-me-brazil).
[2] Reserve military and extreme right-wing politician.
[3] Information Operations Unit – Internal Defense Operation Center.
***
Translation: Sofía Ballack.
*Luis Leiria is a journalist of Esquerda.net
