#WORLD #WORLDWIDE #US #ANARCHISM #News #Journal #Update - en) #US, #BRRN: Anarchism in the Face of Fascism and the Electoral Debate By Rafael V. Da Silva, Kauan Willian and Victor Khaled (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

 Translated by S Nicholas Nappalos ---- This article was originally published by

Jacobin Brasil. ---- Introduction ---- With neither Bolsonaro (Liberal Party) nor
Lula (Workers' Party) able to secure an outright majority during the October 2nd
presidential election in Brazil, both advance to a run off election set to take
place on October 30th. There is a great deal of anxiety and tension surrounding
the electoral process in the country, which has seen extreme political
polarization not dissimilar to what is taking place in the United States. ----
This article was written as a response to a prior piece also published in Jacobin
Brasil titled "Anarchists in defense of the vote for Lula." The previous article
defended the tactical use of the vote to defeat Bolsonaro as a tool in the
antifascist struggle, which is the principal theme the authors take up here.

The authors of this article are associated with the Institute for Anarchist
Theory and History, a project supported by Black Rose / Rosa Negra.

Article
Anarchists understand that the radical transformation of society, in an
emancipatory and self-managed form, will only be possible with a growth of the
social power of the oppressed classes in an internationalist project. Fascism
must be crushed, but the ballot box is not capable of doing so. We will continue
the fight against fascism, without sectarianism, along side those who vote and
those who do not.

We are all obligated to live, more or less, in contradiction with our ideas; but
we are socialists and anarchists precisely in the sense that we suffer with this
contradiction and seek, so far as it's possible, to shrink it. The day we adapt
to this environment, of course, we would no longer have the desire to transform
it, and we would become simply bourgeois; penniless bourgeois, perhaps, but no
less bourgeois in deeds and intentions.

- Errico Malatesta

In my weekly speech in the Civil Construction Union, I will explain the anarchist
concept of law, as a bourgeois creation and as a revolutionary creation. There
are, in effect, two kinds of laws: those representing the pressure of the
possessors on the non-possessors, and those representing the conquests of the
non-possessors against their masters. These are laws imposed by revolutions, for
example: the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Men, the Law of 13th
of May, etc.[...]But to get such laws, it was never necessary to have
representatives in parliaments. Imposition takes place on the street, in
factories, mines, work centers and barracks.

- José Oiticica

This article is a response to the text "Anarchists in defense of the vote for
Lula", published in Jacobin Brasil on September 6, 2022. Anarchism has never been
a dogma, but there is a deliberate confusion in thinking that, due to its
anti-authoritarian stance, there are "as many anarchisms as anarchists", and that
anything defended by a self-styled anarchist has validity as part of "anarchism".
But this is not correct. Despite its diversity, when we look globally at the
history of anarchism in its 150 years of struggle, we can extract a set of
principles and elements that constituted it historically. To defend these
principles and criticize reformist deviations - since anarchism has always had a
revolutionary perspective - is not dogmatic or authoritarian. We cannot let
others try to impose strategic perspectives on anarchism that are foreign to our
ideology.

Let's start by talking about the Brazilian case of the experience of anarchism in
the face of Varguism[1]and trade union corporatism. In 1930, in the midst of the
political transformations that were taking place in Brazil with the rise of
Getúlio Vargas to power, many unionists, socialists and anarchists - who had
fought intensely the coronelista[2]policy known as the "coffee with milk
Republic"[3]- came to welcome the new government. This is because, among other
things, Varguism represented a fight against that prior political and economic
phase, in addition to promoting some workers' rights, which came from, at that
point, the struggle of many militants.

When a brutal repression against the most radical elements of the left was
installed, together with the rise of union corporatism in an open confrontation
with revolutionary trade unionism, most of these militants figured out that their
old positions were wrong. However, during those years, even before this
repression, other anarchist militants inserted[4]in their economic and political
bodies had already denounced the illusions of Varguism. In this case, the São
Paulo Workers Federation (FOSP) and the Rio Grande do Sul Workers Federation
(FORGS), as well as the the newspapers The Plebe, The Syndicalist and The
Lantern, were building a strategy to fortify the bases for the imminent attack.

In 1934, these same militants sought to reorganize the Brazilian Workers'
Confederation (COB),[5]aiming to form "a single whole of the working class, for
the common struggle against the common enemy that is the dominant and tyrannical
capitalism", respecting the "organization by local federations, these joined
together in state federations and all these unified in the federations of
industrial unions". The call for common action was intended to reinforce the
collective power of the class, since "associated, workers acquire the strength
necessary for their interests". This grassroots articulation could make "Brazil's
working class[have]a strong body of defense and struggle capable of placing the
organization of our class at the height of the needs of the campaign in favor of
our emancipation".

In the same period, anarchists made alliances with socialists of different
shades, against the presence of fascism and the Varguista authoritarianism of the
time. In dialogue with the National Liberation Alliance (ANL),[6]they warned that
"while the allianceists are in the opposition, in the fight against fascism,
latifundistas[7]and governmental tyranny[...], not deifying people, but fighting
for ideas, discussing and fighting around principles, anarchists and allianceists
would find themselves side by side".

This context, as well as in others where anarchists were together with the
working class debating the course of their own liberation, shows that far from
being "dogmatic" or "religious," anarchists were able to adjust their theories
and thoughts to the present reality. Without failing to make associations and
alliances with other forces, they presented criticisms, proposals and, above all,
practices and experiences that provided a framework of tools of struggle for the
oppressed. This allowed, at the same time, not to be swallowed up and diluted by
other ideologies, since they were not simply "in tow" with the decisions of their
adversaries or political opponents. Discussions followed just as much by its
bases (syndicalism) as by its political and ideological family. Those who hadn't
done the same exercise suffered political dilution, even moving to other
ideological ranks (cases of anarchists who turned into varguistas or corporatist
syndicalists were not uncommon) or faced repression without means of defense.

The Pillars of Capitalist Domination
We should understand society and the statist-capitalist system of domination from
a wider view. Anarchism and its theoretical currents across history sought to
understand that social reality is divided in three spheres: economic,
political/juridical/military, and cultural/ideological. The social reality is
fruit of a totality formed by these spheres and their interdependent relations.
The statist-capitalist system of domination maintains itself through the
domination of these three spheres, elections being part of that system. It would
be an illusion to think that social transformation, or the "choice of the most
favorable scenario", occurs in the ritual of the electoral process, every 2 years.

We do not choose the judges, we don't have control over the repressive apparatus,
we don't control the economic system, nor do we have a presence in the
innumerable state institutions that are not open to a vote. Furthermore, a
country on the periphery of the capitalist system like Brazil is hostage to the
action of imperialism and its political and economic tools. Agreements and
alliances - including those of progressive candidates - also considerably reduce
the margin for navigating within this system. The electoral system is open to a
certain extent, but the popular "choice" is always restricted and guarded.

According to the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU):

"Within what was produced by socialist thought, corroborated in large part by
social experiences, are theories about the mechanisms of reproduction of the
current system. Basic mechanisms that, even in highly differentiated social
contexts, operate in a similar way. As a basic set of related, articulated
"pieces" that make some things possible and prevent others. Allowing, for
example, wealth and poverty to grow; that the different fundamental powers always
be in the hands of a privileged minority; that the media conform to ‘ideals,'
‘values' and ‘cultural' standards, reaffirming the current system. So, talking
about elections is alluding to a ‘piece' of a power structure that is much broader".

The History of Anarchism Against Reformism
Anarchism is a revolutionary, socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-statist and
anti-authoritarian political ideology. Arising from the critique of different
forms of domination, anarchists understand that the radical transformation of
society, in an emancipatory and self-managed way, will only be possible with the
growth of the social power of the oppressed classes in an internationalist
project. This transformation will definitely not take place through the use of
the apparatuses of the dominant classes.

The emergence of anarchism in the second half of the 19th century is a historical
creation that has as a background not only the union struggle of the 1850s-60s,
but also the growing disillusionment of a sector of the working class with the
parliamentary disputes and with the republican revolutions, in which many of
those who later became anarchists participated. Anarchism matured as a socialism
without illusions about the state or its mechanisms of domination - parliament,
elections, etc. Therefore, it makes no sense for anarchists to use these
mechanisms or reinforce them as a political solution without calling into
question their own principles and their critique of the capitalist system. To use
a metaphor, wanting to occupy the state to change the system of domination is the
equivalent of wanting to become a boss to change capitalism.

Anarchism was constituted as an ideology within the International Workers
Association, from the 1860s onwards, developing its political physiognomy
strictly linked to the strategy of revolutionary syndicalism; a strategy of
struggle that was anti-parliamentary and in favor of a project of social
transformation led by the union of workers in their class organs. Anarchism is
born and develops, therefore, rejecting parliamentary action. This is as much an
integral part of its political practice, not an element open to discussion, as it
is an unavoidable historical fact.

Since the internal clashes in the International Workers Association (IWA), one
(amongst others) element separates anarchists and Marxists: the use of
parliamentary elections as part of the strategy for the emancipation of the
working class. Marx and Engels, who represented a sector of the labor movement at
the time, had a certain optimism about the use of the electoral tool, while
Bakunin and his group, the Alliance, who represented another sector of the labor
movement at the time, did not.

Our project, socialist and libertarian, intends to replace the current system of
domination with a political system of self-government: self-management. To this
aim, throughout history anarchist militants analyzed reality and, based on this
analysis, developed strategies of struggle (different for each internal current
of anarchism) to make popular movements move towards this proposal. Far from
being a stagnant idea in the air, on four occasions anarchism proved to be a
powerful material tool for the social transformation of reality: in the Mexican
Revolution (1911), in the Ukrainian Revolution (1921), in the Manchurian
Revolution (1929) and in the best known, the Spanish Revolution (1936). In all
four of these revolutions (and even in others in which anarchist influence was
marginal), the electoral process was peripheral to the triggering of
revolutionary processes. The core has always been the accumulation, construction
and strengthening of mass popular movements, which had as its objective a
revolutionary and anti-capitalist rupture.

Some would say: "but we're not talking about revolution, we're talking about
guaranteeing minimum reforms and blocking counter-reforms". Well ok. Whenever the
revolutionary perspective disappears from the horizons of social fighters,
pragmatism takes the place of utopia. Conference agreements replace grassroots
decisions and anti-capitalism is replaced by the reformist policy of "less bad".
But even in this aspect of reformism, the vote seems secondary to us. We will
quote here just two episodes so as not to abuse the patience of our readers.

The first one concerns the victory of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, in 1951. When
trying to carry out an agrarian reform in the country, a measure that is not even
properly anti-capitalist, Arbenz was overthrown by a coup d'état organized by the
USA. In fact, a young medical student who lived in Guatemala at that time began
to develop his thesis of revolutionary rupture based on the disillusionment with
the electoral strategy: Ernesto Rafael Guevara.

The other, which took place in Chile in 1970, was the election of Salvador
Allende, perhaps the most significant historical example of the use of electoral
strategy to promote reforms and stop the reactionary advance, resulting in yet
another coup that overthrew the government.

Reformism, therefore, does not solve the political, economic and social problem.

On the other hand, we have diverse examples that through the strategy of
revolutionary syndicalism (of anarchist origin) and combative struggle in
different countries where revolutionary processes were not conceived: various
labor rights were conquered, forcing the State to adhere to the demands sought
through direct action and self-organization of the working class, won with the
organization of strikes and other revolutionary tactics and demands.

The Real Polemics
The significant internal controversies (that is, recurrent in history and which
divided anarchism) never took place between voting and not voting, but on the
following themes: organization, the role of short-term struggles, and the use of
violence.

With organization, anarchism has historically been divided between
organizationalists and anti-organizationalists, the former being in favor of
anarchist action in mass bodies: unions, popular movements, etc. Within the
organizationalist camp some anarchists defend, in addition to in mass bodies, the
foundation of specific anarchist organizations. Anti-organizationalists, on the
other hand, are against formal organizations at the ideological (anarchist) and
social (popular movements) level, despite the fact that many of them maintained
relationships with various unions throughout history. It should be noted that
anti-organizationists were always in the minority.

We speak here as anarchists of the organizationalist camp, as we are in favor of
the accumulation of social power in mass bodies as the main lever of the
revolutionary transformation of reality. This does not end with the short
electoral calendar. Therefore, we are and will be, without sectarianism,
alongside other comrades who - regardless of their political position in front of
the polls - build these popular movements on a daily basis, beyond the elections.
This will be the greatest contribution to the defeat of Bolsonarism: a strong
unity of popular struggle for rights and against reactionary sectors.

On the role of short-term struggles, anarchism was divided between possibilists
and impossibilists. The former maintain that anarchist society will not emerge
overnight and, therefore, short-term struggles (for better wages, housing, work,
land and various other demands that meet the needs of the oppressed classes) play
an important role in the construction of a perspective of revolutionary
transformation of society, especially when won by direct action (of masses) and
social struggle. This idea became known in anarchist circles as "revolutionary
gymnastics". On the other hand, the impossibilists, on the other hand, believe
that small reforms divert the working class from the revolutionary path, helping
the capitalist system to adjust by not jeopardizing its foundations.

We stand on the side of the possibilists, understanding that the struggle for
better living conditions is fundamental in the revolutionary journey and that
there are only reforms and significant advances in social rights when we fight
for them.

Finally, on the use of violence, the division among anarchists was not between a
pacifist sector and another favorable to the use of revolutionary violence. This
is because pacifists were completely negligible in the history of anarchism,
although they were generally overvalued by a literature that does not look at
anarchism in a global manner. On this topic, the division is made specifically
between those who understand that revolutionary violence must be operated and
function in agreement with previously established popular movements (the
so-called mass strategy), and the insurrectionist strategy, which claims that
violence can function as a a trigger, a form of propaganda that could stimulate
the rebellion of the oppressed classes.

On this matter, we are on the side of the mass strategy and we believe that any
process of rupture, or even a serious confrontation with fascism, is impossible
without debating this issue. The ossified republicanism of our institutional left
has simply blocked discussion on this issue and this, after all, is yet another
symptom of the degeneration brought about by the electoral focus. In times when
fascists arm themselves and threaten public figures on the left, our self-defense
should already be actively debated.

We raise this historical and global panorama of anarchism, in its 150 years, to
affirm that the controversy about anarchists voting or not in bourgeois elections
is completely artificial and has no echo in the history of anarchism. If it is
true that in Spain the National Confederation of Labor (CNT) released its
militancy to vote on at least two occasions (which is different from having
carried out an electoral campaign), at the time the organization had around 2
million members, more than 20 years of uninterrupted struggle, a program of
transition to a socialist and self-managed economy, and its main intention was to
free its political prisoners. The CNT and the Iberian Anarchist Federation (FAI)
had to organize the fight against fascism at all levels, the opposite of what we
see in Brazilian social democracy today.

Other (much more important) controversies were recurrent and consumed more energy
from anarchist militancy than the issue of voting. The field of anarchism that we
adhere to, in short, has the strategy of transforming reality: the accumulation
of social power in popular movements, with struggles for reforms serving as
"revolutionary gymnastics" and the development of advanced forms of struggle,
placing the theme of revolutionary violence under discussion, having as a horizon
the construction of a revolutionary rupture. Any debate of confronting fascism
should also go through this strategy, not the individual decision between voting
or not.

The slow incorporation of the working class as "citizens" in the arena of the
incipient European bourgeois democracy of the 19th century was not seen by the
libertarian sector of socialism as a victory, but as a way of stifling the
radical struggles that took over Europe. In this sense, anarchism proved to be
correct, as the universalization of suffrage domesticated the revolutionary
sectors and produced a strong consensus that every two years profound changes
could be carried out, when in reality the social structures of exploitation and
domination remain intact.

To strengthen our argument, we will cite two structural elements that shape the
Brazilian reality. The first is structural racism, the fruit of the genocide
created by Portuguese colonialism in our territory and the slave trade. The
second is the high land concentration in our country. In which government in
Brazilian history (even those of the center-left) were there important structural
changes to promote the end of latifundios and the genocide of the black
population and the poor? We cite these two aspects of reality because we consider
them to be central to all revolutionaries, central aspects that fed proto-fascist
and fascist elements. How will this election combat them?

Understanding Fascism to Crush It
There are different interpretations of the characterization of Bolsonarism. There
are those who consider it a far-right movement, but not a fascist one. Others
characterize it as proto-fascist, and there is still another sector that sees
Bolsonarism as a neo-fascist movement. Regardless of the characterization, it is
correct to say that Bolsonarism is an extreme right-wing, misogynist,
patriarchal, militarist, racist and reactionary movement, supported mainly by the
latifundista ruling classes, by part of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie.

Bolsonarism also took root in sectors of the working class and spread through gun
clubs, neo-Pentecostal churches, low and high officers of the security and armed
forces (paramilitary or military), conservative entities and reactionary media.
Bolsonarism's arc of alliances includes neo-Pentecostal leaders, servile sections
of the high command of military, agrobusiness that supports the politics of
environmental crime, the proto-fascist business community and all those who
support an institutional coup from this diffuse tropical trumpism.

The lesson of Bolsonarism and its challenge to society in all spheres
(cultural/ideological, political-military and economic) attests that fascism only
advanced because fascists decided to contest society, with the electoral
occupation of the State (the political body of the ruling class) as a consequence
of this. The genesis of German and Italian fascism demonstrate the same. Their
electoral power came from conservative and reactionary political work within the
masses which transformed the movement into a regime.

Fascism also arises in historical contexts where there is erosion and crisis of
progressive governments. Examples of this were the rise of National Socialism
after the crisis of the Weimar Republic and Bolsonarism, conceived after thirteen
years of PT[8]governments. The popular demonstrations of 2013 (wrongly
characterized as part of a hybrid war)[9]put into relief the social demands unmet
by PT governments (issues around public transport, health, education, among
others) and put the PT management model in crisis. This model, it should be said,
ruled with the support not only of progressive movements, but also of sectors of
neo-Pentecostalism, bankers, the national bourgeoisie and latifundiarios linked
to agrobusiness.

Arising from the inability to deepen the reforms demanded by the bourgeoisie, it
was decided to abandon the PT model of class conciliation and support governments
opposed to reforms (such as the Temer[10]and Bolsonaro governments), which put
the oppressed classes in a defensive situation from 2013 onwards.

A Mass Line Strategy
As anarchists, our strategy involves strengthening base organizations and linking
popular struggle in all spheres of society with the aim of encouraging the
oppressed classes to leave their current defensive condition, advancing in their
struggles, even if at first on a small scale, so that we do not direct a new
round of class conciliation and a wave of the moderate-right, seeking to
strengthen our positions in the class struggle.

For this, it is not enough to hold your nose and ally with the liberal-right.
These alliances already show the limits that will be tolerated by the next
government. Anti-fascism and the advancement of our rights can only be operated
from the action of mass movements that confront the main bases of fascists (rural
and urban), and should not remain trapped in a countercultural or niche
stronghold. To be effective, the political action of anarchist militancy must
arise from social fronts of struggle, organizing from the bottom up, engaging in
distributive conflict and not reinforcing the apparent legality of republican
institutions with the electoral ritual.

It is necessary to take root, create and strengthen popular movements and unions
that increasingly should have a revolutionary perspective as their horizon. We
are certainly not alone in this endeavor, and of course we know that it is in the
medium and long term. The old grassroots work is the sea where anarchist
militancy must be. This daily work is not limited to an election Sunday. The
necessary front of the oppressed classes is urgent to win the streets and advance
in the struggle for rights. We understand that this is how fascism will be defeated.

We also understand, however, that, at the same time, we need to have a serious
debate on the social-democratic and PT hegemony within the unions and organized
popular movements. It is this hegemony that paralyzes any more combative action
and reduces the political horizon to the minimum possible.

The trap is set: if we do not have the accumulation of social strength on the
present horizon, the prospects of "easy" and immediate solutions grow, which, in
the end, empty the revolutionary perspective. This is where a dangerous
pragmatism enters for those who claim to be revolutionaries: "if we can't do
anything now, let us surrender to electoral reformism and give up contesting
society".

It was this same reformist perspective, hegemonic on the left since the 1980s,
that acted strongly to demobilize, bureaucratize and tame the mass movements. An
example of this was the extremely low capacity for mobilization in response to
the 2016 juridical-parliamentary coup and to Bolsonarism from 2018 onwards, the
result of the abandonment of prioritizing grassroots work and collective
construction alongside the working class. With little capacity for mobilization,
sections of the left began to defend the legalism of bourgeois institutions,
almost as a consolation prize, up to the point that conservative institutions
such as Rede Globo[11]and the Supreme Court began to be seen as "tactical allies".

In the meantime, Bolsonarism went on the offensive, spreading throughout the
entire Brazilian social fabric and questioning the system from the perspective of
a "revolt from within", while the hegemonic left limited itself to defending the
institutions and legality of bourgeois democracy, putting all their chips down in
the electoral contest.

What yields a basis for a long-term strategy is to broaden the accumulation of
social power in the short term, in what is called general strategy in the strict
sense, or in a limited timeframe. None of this involves adherence, critical or
otherwise, to electoral campaigns. But it must be the heart of the anti-fascist
struggle. In this anti-fascist struggle it is necessary to debate concepts as
well as fighting to take the streets from the extreme right. Even more important,
however, is to be present in the most exploited and oppressed social layers, not
allowing the working class and sectors of the Brazilian people to be at the mercy
of grifter pastors, paramilitary forces formed by police militias, and other
degenerations of bourgeois society. This is what we should be talking about, not
an individual and depoliticized adherence to the vote.

The day after the elections will not disorganize the reactionary political forces
present in the country. They can only be dealt with correctly if we do not dilute
our program into alliances with the liberal right and the center right - with
Alckmin[12]and company. Our perspective needs to aim toward a program of struggle
in popular movements and unions, putting the most important issues for the
Brazilian working class on the agenda.

If we want to build a broad socialist and revolutionary perspective, this
necessarily involves abandoning reformist and electoral illusions. Every time the
left joined parliamentary reformism, it degenerated into innocuous politics,
making professional parliamentarians and politicians more powerful than the
collective bases of popular organizations and movements.

It makes no sense to pressure or harass anarchists to vote. Our debate should go
deeper and analyze the implications of this intricate system of domination. For
this, it is important that we anarchists maintain our internal coherence, so that
we do not raffle off our project. In fact, if anarchism today had a relevant
force to the point of decisively influencing this election, the dominant classes
would be less concerned with our "possibility" of voting, and more concerned with
the real threat to this system of domination.

We anarchists will continue to vote: within popular movements (making decisions),
in union assemblies, community/student associations and our anarchist political
organizations to build another power: popular power. We will continue aligned in
the fight against fascism, without sectarianism, with militants who have
different perspectives from ours and who decided to vote in this election. As
long as they are with us at the bases and building that horizon, we will be allies.

About the Authors
RAFAEL V. DA SILVA is a doctor in History (UFRRJ), elementary school teacher,
union activist and researcher at the Institute of Anarchist Theory and History
(ITHA).

KAUAN WILLIAN is a doctor in Social History (USP), elementary school teacher,
trade union activist and researcher at the Institute of Anarchist Theory and
History (ITHA).

VICTOR KHALED is a master in Geography (UFSC), a technician in geographic
information and statistics at the IBGE, a union activist and a researcher at the
Institute of Anarchist Theory and History (ITHA).

About the Translator
S. NICHOLAS NAPPALOS is the author of the book Emergence and Anarchism, as well
as numerous other original works and translations.

[1][translator]Varguism is the ideology of followers of Brazilian president and
dictator Getúlio Vargas who had a critical role in the development of the modern
Brazilian state and whose ideology of fascistic populism combined elements of the
right and left. The Vargas dictatorship led to historic repression against
anarchists and some sections of the left.

[2][translator]This refers to a system where "colonels", non-military figures
generally rural land barons, reigned in corrupt fiefdom's unifying local
capitalist and political power in their domains through a web of patronage and
domination. It is associated with extreme corruption, violence, and abuse of
power and persists to this day literally in some parts of Brasil and in a mutated
form in other areas of society.

[3][translator]The coffee with milk Republic refers to the power sharing
agreement in the old Republic prior to the rise of Vargas between the states of
São Paulo (dominated by coffee plantation capital) and Minas Gerais (dominated by
dairy) with alternating presidencies between representatives of each state and a
reliance on regional colonels to maintain their power.

[4][translator]Insertion is a political term meaning roughly being present,
organizing, and agitating within social movements, rather than the sense of
merely placed within.

[5][translator]The Brazilian revolutionary syndicalist union largely built and
dominated by anarchist militants.

[6][translator]An anti-fascist and anti-imperialist organization largely built
and dominated by the Communist Party in response to the rise of fascism within
Brazil during the early years of Vargas.

[7][translator]Colonial feudal landlords who dominate rural areas.

[8][translator]Partido dos Trabalhadores, the Workers Party. Born near the end of
the dictatorship through an alliance of various left groupings centered around
union struggles which became the ruling center-left political force 2003-2016.

[9][translator]A common narrative from sections of the Brazilian left was that
the 2013 popular uprising around transit costs, and living conditions broadly,
was part of a covert war by imperialist powers (the US mainly) to dislodge the
left from power.

[10][translator]Temer, a center right politician, became unelected president when
Dilma Rouseff (PT) was impeached (which many on the left argue was a
constitutional coup) and initiated austerity measures.

[11][translator]A virtual media monopoly traditionally tied to the dictatorship
and the right, however like Trump with other organs of the established media,
came to be attacked by Bolsonaristas for any semblance of criticism or questioning.

[12][translator]Geraldo Alckmin is Lula's present Vice Presidential candidate in
the 2022 election. Previously he was a frequent opponent of the left, being known
for having attacked the workers movement, landless workers movement, and
conditions of the working class in São Paulo. Lula's decision to make an alliance
with Alckmin stirred discomfort in the left, but little resistance during the
election cycle.

https://blackrosefed.org/anarchism-in-the-face-of-fascism-and-the-electoral-debate/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca