With the exhaustion of the New Republic, the country’s decline, the global economic crisis and the rise of the far right, the PSOL has returned to the arms of the PT.
By Mariucha Fontana
The decline in the popularity of the Lula government has generated various debates and a crisis in the left that supports and is part of the government, especially in the PSOL.
The PSOL defends the government and rejects even the slightest criticism. Hence the resignation of the economist David Deccache and, even more impressive, how it has washed its hands of any responsibility with respect to the attack on the mandate of the federal deputy Glauber Braga.
The PT and the PSOL have as their political axis the support of the Lula government in the fight against the far right. In this context, Valério Arcary, from the Resistance Movement and the PSOL’s Semente (Seed) thesis, has entered the debate through articles and interviews as the vanguard of the propaganda of this political line.
In this article, we have decided to engage with Valério first because the debate with him covers several angles, which allows us to go deeper and gives more clarity to the arguments that show that the policy of supporting the Lula government to fight the far right is wrong, unrealistic, and utopian. And because, contrary to what Valério says, the strategy of socialism, class independence, and the construction of a revolutionary and socialist organization is a necessity and a task of our time.
Fighting against the far right with the same policy that drives it?
Valério touches on many issues, all of which are worthy of discussion and to which we will return in other articles. In this article, we will focus mainly on the debate about whether the task of activists and the proletariat is to politically support Lula’s government or, on the contrary, to form a left opposition to it. We will also address the exhaustion of the party model represented by the PSOL. In addition, we will discuss whether, as Valério says, their policy is the same as Lenin’s against Kornilov, or if, as we argue, that their policy is the opposite of Lenin’s against Kornilov and the opposite of Trotsky’s against fascism and Nazism.
In an interview given on February 18 to the Faixa Livre program on YouTube, Valério said the following: “We are not at a stage where the balance of power between revolution and counterrevolution is evolving in favor of revolution in the peripheral countries. On the contrary, we are on the brink, in danger of a Siberian winter, of a historic defeat. That is why we need Lula, the moderate Lula, the Lula who negotiates governability with the Centrão (1) in the National Congress, the Lula who supported Hugo Motta. We need this Lula to defeat the far right, because we are on the brink of a historical catastrophe that will take a generation to overcome”.
In the same interview, he said that he was not one of those who expected Lula’s government to break with neoliberalism, but that he defended supporting it because we were in a “historical era in which the task is to defeat fascism and not the struggle for socialism. In other words, Valério’s argument is that it is possible to defeat the far right and “fascism” by supporting Lula’s government, with the current fiscal framework and all.
He went on to list several demands raised by the movements, but then said that “we cannot fight for 10 demands”, so we must fight and mobilize around a single axis: “No to amnesty”.
And he advised Lula’s government to “move to the left” by approving some demands that would not be anti-capitalist. But above all, he called on the government to take a stand against the amnesty for Bolsonaro and to support the mobilization called for by the FPSM (Frente Povo Sem Medo) and the FBP (Frente Brasil Popular) against the actions of Bolsonarists.
Valério has not demanded that the government break with the bourgeoisie or with the fiscal framework. He has even refused to demand that the government reverse the labor and social security reforms, or that Lula stop privatizations and renationalize energy and sanitation companies, for example.
Although he says he does not support Haddad’s “fiscal framework,” he has not called on anyone to fight against it
But how can we fight the Bolsonarist right, or even “fascism” with the neoliberal fiscal framework, when it is precisely this pattern of capitalist accumulation that has produced the new right? It’s more or less like saying that it’s important to be against diabetes, but the most important thing is to be with a democratic doctor, even if he keeps giving you sugar to eat.
It turns out that Lula’s government is applying the same economic policies as in his previous terms, which called “social-liberal”, “inclusive neoliberalism” or “third way” which are terms used to tie social democracy to neoliberalism. But the same policies are being applied today under different and worse circumstances. These circumstances have been shaped by and large by the previous governments of the PSDB and PT, aggravated by the global capitalist crisis and the subsequent governments of Temer (MDB) and Bolsonaro (PL). Lula’s economic policy now finds a world in deeper crisis and a country much more deindustrialized, focused on the production of raw materials, and with higher levels of job insecurity for the proletariat, a situation which has been built up over decades of the country’s subordination to the global imperialist division of labor.
The fall in the government’s popularity shows the unsustainability of its “social-liberal” capitalist project, which is generating more and more frustration among the working and middle classes. This is because, despite small concessions (which are being attacked) such as the increase in the minimum wage above inflation, the promise of a R$ 5,000 income tax exemption (which, if approved for 2026, will not be worth the same as it was in 2024) or the increase in (precarious and low-paid) employment, these measures are not enough to improve the lives of the vast majority. The cost of food is much higher than the increase in wages, precarious work means long hours and very low wages, while the government gives generous subsidies to the capitalist monopolies and leaves the profits of the financial system untouched. As if that were not enough, the government that symbolically put the poor and oppressed at the center of its agenda, is now abandoning them to ally itself with the Centrão and the right wing.
The Indians are being massacred, the STF (Supreme Federal Court) and the ruralist bench are legalizing mining on their lands and promoting the Marco Temporal. And Lula’s government not only does not deny any of this, but also embraces the President of the Senate, Davi Alcolumbre (União Brasil), in order to defend oil exploitation in the Equatorial Margin and attack Ibama (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources).
Moreover, after the defeat of the far right on January 8, the government and the Minister of Defense, José Múcio, have acted to keep the Armed Forces intact and the authoritarian ruins of Article 142 of the Constitution.
The “correlation of forces” excuse
Valério supports Lula’s “correlation of forces” excuse by saying that there is no correlation of forces. For him, the PT, Lula’s government, and its alliances with the bourgeoisie, the CUT and the PSOL itself are not part of the correlation of forces. This is not surprising. Valério was one of those who said that a general strike against Temer and the labor reform in 2017 was impossible (there would be no correlation of forces). But despite his predictions, this was the largest general strike since 1989. And there could have been another one, which could have even prevented Bolsonaro’s rise to power in 2018. But why wasn’t there another one? Was it because of the “Siberian winter”? Or was it because the PT, the CUT, the other trade union federations (with the exception of the CSP-Conlutas) didn’t want one.
In the same way, they now want to bring the struggle against the 6×1 wage scale onto the plan of parliamentary debate without trying to realize its potential for mass mobilization. While we all know that the end of the 6×1 requires a mass mobilization. The capitalists and Congress must be on the verge of losing their fingers in order to give away some rings. Such a mobilization would enormously strengthen the working class and certainly weaken the far right. But why is this not the policy of the PSOL, Valério and the Lula government? Because such a mobilization would clash with the capitalist monopolies, with the bourgeoisie with which the government is allied and for which it governs, and consequently with the government’s economic policies. Faced with such a mobilization, would the Lula government support it and go after the right and the bourgeoisie? Or would it do what Alckmin and Haddad did in 2013, refusing to freeze bus fares and repressing the students?
Why don’t Valério and the PSOL demand that Lula immediately call for a vote on income tax exemption for those earning up to R$5,000, the end of the 6×1 scale, the reduction of food prices or an increase in wages, the demarcation and immediate titling of all indigenous lands, support for Ibama, and call the people to the streets on this basis?
Once again, Valério knows that the government will not do this because of the agreements it has with the bourgeoisie. But he blames the correlation of forces and defends a utopian and reactionary policy and strategy, while at the same time he calls on the activists to remain tied to the government and its fiscal framework and to limit themselves to the fight for “No Amnesty.”
It is clear that we must demand Bolsonaro’s imprisonment and not amnesty. But it is not possible to promote this struggle without leaving aside the main demands and causes that affect the working class and the majority of people, such as wages, high prices, working hours and the 6×1 law, indigenous lands, and the climate. And all of them clash with the alliances and economic policies of Lula’s government and its fiscal framework. Because to achieve this, the capitalist monopolies of agribusiness, industry and banking would have to be attacked. Why doesn’t the government tax the capitalist monopolies, agribusiness, the financial system, the profits and dividends of the 150 or 200 largest companies and their billionaire capitalists? Why is the dollarization of food prices allowed internally, while wages are paid in reais?
The “no amnesty” policy, together with the support of the Lula government with Centrão and all, strengthens the right and leaves all the legitimate discontent of the workers at the mercy of the demagogy of the far right.
This Valério recipe, far from fighting “fascism,” feeds and strengthens the far right, which, faced with the possibility of Bolsonaro’s imprisonment, feels able to launch a counter-offensive, mainly due to the class collaboration policy of Lula’s capitalist government, which has generated so much frustration for working people.
An analysis-justification of a false politics
The strengthening of the new right worldwide, including Trump’s recent victory, is a fact. The far right should not be underestimated and must certainly be fought.
But it is necessary to know how to fight it and to make a realistic analysis. Valério says that we are on the edge of the abyss, of a counterrevolutionary situation (a Siberian winter), of a historical defeat. He provokes fear and powerlessness. He paints a picture in which he takes some elements from reality, but leaves out other very important ones.
It is also a fact that not even Trump’s government is a fascist in the strict sense. Historical fascism, or Nazism, has as its central characteristic an armed movement to destroy all the organizations and struggles of the proletariat, using the methods of civil war. The current far right, including Trump at the moment, is not this. They have a Bonapartist, authoritarian project, they are trying to organize and mobilize a movement. They are not just electoral superstructures, but their goal at the moment is to contest elections. And from the state, they want to tighten the political regime.
At the moment, they are not armed paramilitary organizations that massacre the organizations and struggles of the working class. And so far they have not managed to crush or defeat the working class or put an end to the inter-bourgeois divisions in each country. Precisely for this reason, Trump can be defeated by the struggle of the workers inside and outside the United States.
He wants to impose a different correlation of forces, but this is still a struggle, and its outcome has several possibilities. It is not a foregone conclusion that he will be able to inflict a historic defeat on the working class.
In Brazil, we are not facing an ongoing military coup, or a fascist movement using civil war methods in the streets, and there is certainly not the threat of a historic defeat. Bolsonaro’s government was defeated electorally and in its attempted coup on January 8. And he will probably go to jail.
This does not mean that the New Right is dead, nor that it should be underestimated, because the social conditions that gave rise to it, the social disintegration and the decline of the country – for which, in addition to the global capitalist crisis, the PT governments bear a great deal of responsibility – remain the same. And the PT government continues to do what it did before, in worse circumstances, which it helped to create. But now there is no coup in progress and no fascist movement in the streets. In fact, there is a policy of far-right mobilization aimed at 2026, facilitated by Lula’s Frente Amplio government and its economic policies.
The policy of fighting the far right is not to support the government and become even closer to it. It is to raise the banners of the workers against the capitalist monopolies, against the economic policies of the government and Congress, and against the far right. In short, it is about building the class independence of the workers against the bourgeoisie and Lula’s class conciliatory government, and being a left and socialist opposition to it, at the risk of delivering the working class into the arms of the right.
But let’s suppose that our analysis is wrong and Valério’s is right. Let’s suppose that we are about to face militias armed against workers’ organizations and our struggles, or that a coup d’état is underway.
The policy would not be to politically support Lula, with Centrão and all that, with Múcio and the fiscal framwork.
Our policy would have to be to call for the construction of armed self-defense detachments in the unions, at workplaces, within social movements, to build class unity with class independence and unified mobilization. The priority is to organize, unite and mobilize the class independently of the bourgeoisie. On this basis, it can form unity in action (and nothing but in action). In the case of a coup d’état, it is of course necessary to call for mobilization and united action with the government against the coup, but never to give political support to its capitalist policies, which the working class and youth rightly reject.
The lessons of history
In the 1930s, Trotsky completely rejected the Stalinist method of calling all right-wing governments fascist or Bonapartist. He sought to distinguish between what he called pre-Bonapartists (who had not yet succeeded in thoroughly defeating the workers’ movement) and fascists and Bonapartists, who stabilized a reactionary or counterrevolutionary regime after the defeat of the working class and petty bourgeoisie. Trotsky said that there are obviously no insurmountable walls between pre-Bonapartism, Bonapartism and fascism. And in this sense, the future of the far right is not predetermined, but defining what we are facing today is not secondary to fighting it better.
Valerio, unlike Trotsky, does not critically analyze the current reality.
In Germany in 1933, Trotsky essentially advocated for the antifascist united front, which consisted primarily of an agreement between the communists and the social democrats to mobilize and form self-defense detachments to confront the fascist gangs, especially militarily. The communists, under Stalin’s leadership, considered the social democrats to be the same as the fascists and refused to form a united front with them. But even in Germany, Trotsky did not advocate for even an electoral front between the Social Democrats and the Communists, much less a government with the bourgeoisie.
In France from 1934 to 1936 and later in Spain, the Stalinists changed their policy and began to defend the popular front, that is, the front with the democratic bourgeoisie. Trotsky never tired of saying that the political alliance with the liberal bourgeoisie was against the middle class and that therefore fascism could not be fought through elections, much less through a government of class conciliation. He argued that the most important thing was class independence, a clear program and united class action. Unlike Valério, he never advocated fighting fascism by supporting a government of conciliation with the capitalists. Nor was the central task to achieve unity of action with the democratic sectors of the bourgeoisie (although this could be achieved). The task was first to unite the class with class independence. From the unity of the class independent of the bourgeoisie, the latter could make agreements of action with whomever was necessary. But to fight fascism, starting from the unity of the class, the first task was the independent and unified mobilization of the class and the armed self-defense detachments of the proletariat. No electoral priority and support for a class conciliation government!
Lenin against Kornilov did the opposite of what Valerius advised
At one point, Valerio cites the struggle of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1917 against Kornilov’s attempted coup as an example, saying that the policy he defends is the same as Lenin’s. But not only were the circumstances different (there was a revolution and a military coup in progress, which is not the case now), but Lenin’s policy was the opposite of what Valério advocates. For Lenin never ceased to be the left, socialist and revolutionary opposition to Kerensky’s class conciliatory government.
Lenin’s party never participated in the government or gave it “critical political support,” not even when it prioritized united military action against Kornilov to defeat the coup. History does not repeat itself, but the lessons of history are fundamental because they help us to analyze and orient ourselves in the present reality. And in this sense, we believe that it is very useful for all activists to carefully read with their own eyes Lenin’s text on Kornilov and to compare Lenin’s policy with the policy of Valério and the Resistance. And see how it is the PSTU (which Valério calls ultra-left) that defends Lenin’s policy, not Valério. The policy defended by Valério and applied by the PSOL is not the one defended by Lenin and Trotsky, but the one defended by the Mensheviks in 1917 and by Dimitrov in the 1930s.
The exhaustion of the PSOL project and the validity of the socialist and revolutionary project
Although the Seed Thesis, to which Valério belongs in the PSOL, appears as an intermediate sector between the left of the party and its leadership, it is allied with the majority leadership. Valério himself says that he considers the general policy of the PSOL to be correct, with some mistakes here and there.
The PSOL was born out of a split with the PT during Lula’s first term, opposing the pension reform and thus reacting to the government’s neoliberal project. From the beginning, however, it was built on the basis of the model of the “broad party,” called anti-capitalist, as opposed to the revolutionary, socialist and Leninist party project. The thesis that justifies this conception of a party is the one defended by Valério: that the struggle for socialism is not set for this historical period.
His model is based on “uniting honest revolutionaries and reformists” on the basis of a program within the limits of the capitalist system and bourgeois democracy, with the aim of extending it. Its strategy is not workers power (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and socialism. That is why it is a party that prioritizes bourgeois elections over the mobilization of the working class and youth.
In Europe, this model ended up electorally capitalizing in some countries on large mobilizations emerging from the left, embodying the disappointment with social democratic governments that, like the PT here, adapted to neoliberalism and began to dismantle the achievements of the welfare state.
The development of this broad party model, called anti-capitalist, soon led to even broader parties that in most cases ended up reconciling with social democracy and the current institutional framework, participating in their governments and supporting the application of neoliberal adjustments against the working class. This is the case of Podemos in Spain and Syriza in Greece.
Even in Greece, where Syriza came to power in 2015 with Alexis Tsipras against social democracy, it ended up implementing the plans of the Troika (IMF, ECB, European Commission), causing total disappointment among workers in a country that experienced the worst economic crisis and almost an uprising between 2012 and 2015.
In Brazil, the PSOL is following the same path. With the exhaustion of the New Republic, the decline of the country, the global economic crisis and the rise of the far right, it has returned to the arms of the PT, joining the government and defending the current institutional framework and order.
This shows, contrary to what Valério says, that the space for a party with a radical face, opposed to neoliberalism and with a conciliatory government, without really questioning bourgeois democracy and the capitalist system, has narrowed. This shows the even more urgent need for a socialist and revolutionary project that organizes the working class independently of its class and of all capitalist governments, in order to defeat the far right and the social conditions that reproduce it. And that is why we must fight for the socialist transformation of this society, here and around the world.
Footnote
(1) A term used in Brazil to refer to a group of opportunist bourgeois political parties that negotiate their votes in parliament in exchange for perks or posts.
