Re: [PEN-L] Brazil: What Is at Stake in the Second Round

[michael a. lebowitz]

At 13:09 06/10/2006, Louis quoted Emir Sader's NLR piece (against his unequivocal support for Lula in the second round < http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/sader061006.html> ) as follows:

"The Brazilian Left faces a serious dilemma with regard to the Lula government. In power, the PT has not fulfilled any of its historic aspirations, and cannot even be described as a government of the left."

"But the transformation of the PT into a party capable of government­and in particular the compromise with finance capital in the ‘Letter to the Brazilians’ that helped him secure victory at the fourth attempt­blocked off that possibility. In effect, Lula governs in accordance with the ‘Letter’ and not his campaign commitments, still less in line with the original promise of his party. The result has been to deepen the insecurities and inequalities of Brazilian society: figures for violent crime and homicide continue to rise. Halfway through its mandate, the Lula government has lost its way politically and is plagued by allegations of corruption."

full: < http://www.newleftreview.net/?page=article&view=2564>http://www.newleftreview.net/?pa...ticle&view=2564

And, Louis asked:

So, if this is true, why vote to re-elect a government that is not of "the left" and which has "lost its way politically". It seems to me that it is Sader who has lost his way politically.

        My question, though, is what would it take to convince you that, at this point (I stress this because I think the first round was a different matter), it is appropriate to vote for Lula? If you can dismiss Sader's judgement so easily (intellectuals are fair game), would you also say that the Brazilian mass movements had lost their way because they didn't understand what is to be done in the struggle in Brazil?
        Here, from an interview on 5 October with Carta Maior, is a (roughly translated) statement by Joao Pedro Stedile, one of the most prominent leaders of the MST (the landless peasants movement, which certainly has much reason to be unhappy with the Lula government):

Alckmin represents the retaking of the power for the dominant classes..... It would be a great defeat for the working class and for the Brazilian people. Lula represents a composition of social forces, where there are also sections of the oligarchies and of the Brazilian bourgeoisie. But it represents the transition possibility for a project of national development. Therefore I don't have doubt. We need to defeat the Alckmin candidacy .
[The Brazilian capitalist class] gave a class character for the campaign, and it became unified around the candidacy Alckmin, when it noticed that it could defeat Lula. That change and class conscienciousness of the bourgeoisie that forced the second round, has totally transformed the campaign of the second round into a campaign different from the first: now, the candidacies will represent class projects, although diffuse. The bourgeoisie will become unified around Alckmin, and the working class, the people, needs to unify around Lula, it does not depend on their proposals.

....
CM-With  progressive governments coming in Latin America, the social movements - and especially Via Campesino, of which MST is part -, have been deepening the debate about the international relations and the integration of the area, from the point of view of the civil association. How does you see the two government options in this area?
JPS - Alckmin would be the return of the government to the United States hegemony on Latin America. Now, the continent is in a transition process, and in practically all of the elections the people have been voting in antineoliberal candidates. That has generated three groups of governments: a left group - Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba -, a group of governments of moderate character but in transition from neoliberalism, and that it faces the American politics on time [unclear!]- Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Ecuador -, and the group of the countries that are entrusted allies of the Americans - Chile, Paraguay and Colombia. A victory of Alckmin, would be the unbalance for-USA, with the departure of Brazil for the servile allies' group.

        in solidarity,
         michael

Michael A. Lebowitz

Professor Emeritus

Economics Department

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Currently based in Venezuela.

NOTE NEW PHONE NUMBERS

Can be reached at

Residencias Anauco Suites

Departamento 601

Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1

Caracas, Venezuela

(58-212) 573-6333, 571-1520, 571-3820 (or hotel cell: 0412-200-7540)

fax: (58-212) 573-7724