History that moves slowly

Finally, it is known that they do not eat little children nor are they devotees of Satan. In theory, it is the organized proletariat. Bastard sons of thinker Karl Marx, communists believe in establishing social equality — which is why they are against private capital. Persecuted during the years of authoritarian delusions across the Earth, today they are well hidden. Indeed, not even they know where they are.

Anthropological studies certify that the politics of “for everyone” has existed since the most remote civilizations. That is why it is impossible to determine the date of the birth of socialist ideology. It is like trying to date the birth of religion, for example.

But let us get to the green-and-yellow facts.

1989. Esporte Clube Bahia is still Brazilian champion, Angela Visser is Miss Universe, Paulo Leminski dies, the Berlin Wall falls and Collor is president of Brazil.

In Brazil’s first direct elections in 29 years, the 22 presidential candidates and all other Brazilians of the Republic watched the start of the Workers’ Party (PT) soap opera to take power. Founder and representative of the PT, union leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva finishes second in the first round and loses the second to journalist Fernando Affonso Collor de Mello. The leftist dream “Lula-lá, a star shines” remains a dream for another 13 years.

The dapper man from Rio/Alagoas climbs the ramp of the Planalto and two and a half years later is rejected from there by impeachment, under accusations of corruption. In this country of tanned people, there was no more room for shouting to compensate for the imbecility of the political castes. And from the irrefragable stupid succession comes the Bahia-born man with the pompadour. Awarded “best inanimate object” in this report, Itamar Franco arrives with the Finance man’s URV (the unit of real value that preceded the Real).

It seems this story is going very slowly.

Itamar packs his bags and says goodbye to the Alvorada to make way for the foreign-educated sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso. For four years it was our daily FHC. (In those elections, Lula came second, once again.)

With a president of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB), a.k.a. the toucan, older Brazilians watched the national collapse promoted by neoliberalism — which defends tooth and nail private capital, the very one repudiated by communists — and younger Brazilians learned how things should not be done in their country. If FHC is the right, then “what is left is the left”: that is the lame thinking that assails the politicization of the painted-face children.

Each new sympathizer of this subjective left had his ideology promulgated by a national barbarity. Neoliberal shots that backfired. Privatizations head the list. When in 1997 the Companhia Vale do Rio Doce was sold at bargain prices to the Brazil Consortium (and with subsidy from the National Development Bank), a few thousand stateless young people took note of the government’s shady dealings. State companies in electricity, telephony, money… were graciously handed over to private capital, when not foreign. Of course any self-respecting leftist could not agree with that.

Option A. At the peak moment of revolt against the privatizations, the newborn nationalists take to the streets and demand the reappropriation of public goods — no.

Option B. The Student Movement closes universities, professors strike. High-school students block schools and demand the return of technical education — no.

Option C. Each Brazilian tends to their daily chores while FHC boards a plane for yet another secret diplomatic mission. When he returns, he advocates reelection in Brazil, runs a blue-and-yellow blackmailing campaign, wins the election and extends his term for four more years. (In those elections, Lula came second, once again.)

The wave of privatizations reaches Paraná. Also fundamental municipal services. The state’s assets are left at the mercy of large economic conglomerates.

Here, ex-PDT, then PFL-accomplice-of-the-toucans Jaime Lerner promotes the mechanical and media scrapping of Copel, to convince people of a supposed crisis the state company was going through. The litany did not hold up.

The tolerance of this timid and anomalous new left toward national imbalances ends with the 2002 presidential elections. Serra denied FHC’s support for his candidacy and the little star shining, once again. Regina Duarte saying “I am afraid” of Lula on television served to sink things further. The appeal came loud. It came ridiculous. Neoliberal.

National commotion. The most hermetic journalists report the victory with excessive enthusiasm. The toucan fell and the star rose. Finally, Lula-lá climbing the ramp.

The four years that follow are drawn by the population’s expectation about Lula’s actions.

A restrained economic stagnation is the price of a thin redistribution of income in the country through affirmative actions in social programs and university quotas. But soon the politically legitimized PT receives accusations of corruption. Valerioduto, mensalão, and with fellow parliamentarians also leeches (the “sanguessuga” scandal). But there was not enough scandal to prevent President Lula’s reelection. The left (Lula’s) was not bad.

Then, in the 2006 presidential campaigns, a moment of national reflection was found. Why was Lula ahead in the campaigns? Lula’s youthful opponent, Geraldo Alckmin, said “I will keep Bolsa Família.” The C, D and E classes, which had increased their purchasing power in the four years that had passed, thought about what the benefit of change would be. And there was none. Which is why they were still with Lula. The whole country knew of the corruption that had existed, but adjusted focus to this: “there has always been dirt in politics, buying of parliamentarians”… and that was not the most important thing at that moment. The most important thing was that the housewife had an installment booklet to pay for the new refrigerator and thought “life is getting better.” The left (Lula’s) was not bad.

That new, young and empirical left welcomes the classes economically subjugated by neoliberalism. And in the second term President Lula says no to the left. Balance. Misinterpreted by the prophets of chaos, the president still takes the trouble to explain it in words. It was not even necessary.

Latin America heads in the opposite direction. Venezuela and Colombia are the most radical examples of the leftist ideology that preceded us. While they establish authoritarian regimes they are harshly criticized by the world. Not that the world’s criticism is a maxim, but even the Christianity advocated by Hugo Chávez teaches something like “play the fool, to win the fools.” Brazil, in turn, with its peculiar left, is listed with Russia, India and China as set to develop broadly in the coming years. Controlled inflation (nothing like the 80% Regina Duarte said), country risk gradually falling, strong currency, increased purchasing power of the classes earning less than five minimum wages. There is more, but now surely this story is going very slowly.