By RENATA COUTO MOREIRA and HELOISA RODRIGUES FERNANDES*

Presentation and Preface of the book by Florestan Fernandes

Presentation [Renata Couto Moreira]

The immense responsibility of contributing to the presentation of a book by the dear professor, politician and social scientist Florestan Fernandes takes us back to the dilemmas, challenges and tasks posed to socialist movements today, as well as the need to strengthen the construction of a collective subject, and of mass, able to face them. It is with, and through the construction of a collective conscience, not only of us men, but also of the human affirmation of us women, that we set ourselves in motion in the systematization and elaboration necessary for the permanent reflection on our tactics and strategy. In this sense, this presentation is structured around two topics that generate dialogue between 1978 and today, more than 40 years later.

We start from the perspective that reality is learned in its historicity, which leads us to briefly contextualize the time when the book was written and what happened to the concrete experiences of capitalism and socialism since then, the similarities and differences between them, as well as specific structural and historical elements. It is important to note that the book was written from class notes for the undergraduate course on the “Theory of Authoritarianism” at the Department of Politics at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (PUC-SP), at the end of 1977. we bring debates and categories presented in the text, which we seek to put in dialogue with reflections on the current situation of the class struggle and the expansion, in 2018, of coups d'état and authoritarian governments, as fascist and ultraliberal elements on the Latin American continent and on global capitalism, in its structural crisis, configuring the counterrevolution on a world scale.

Historical contexts of 1978 and 2018, revolution and counterrevolution forty years later

Our author writes at a time when the socialist experiences of the XNUMXth century, such as those of Yugoslavia, China, Cuba, the USSR, were in force and disputed world hegemony with the capitalist superpower, in a polarization between revolution and counterrevolution. The Cold War will be one of the main expressions of this dispute and brings to light important contradictions both for the socialist bloc and for imperialism. With regard to this, it is worth highlighting, on the one hand, the US defeat in the Vietnam War; on the other hand, the successful policy of fomenting civil-military coups in Latin America, which Florestan sees as a preventive counterrevolution aimed at preventing the emergence of “new Cubas”. As far as socialist countries are concerned, the USSR consolidates itself as a great pivot generating dependency and conflicts between the different nations in this field; remember, for example, the Sino-Soviet conflict, the invasion of Yugoslavia by Soviet military forces, etc. The debate on the authoritarian relations witnessed in both capitalist and socialist countries gains space in the political debate and in society.

In Brazil, in 1964, a civil-military dictatorship promoted and supported by the USA began, crushing the possibility of carrying out the basic reforms proposed by the João Goulart government with the support of leftist forces. In this process, according to Florestan Fernandes, Brazilian capitalist development and its autocratic character are consolidated. Our author, committed to those from below, assumes a clear stance of opposition to the dictatorship in his activity as a professor of Sociology at the University of São Paulo (USP). In April 1969, with the recrudescence of repression marked by Institutional Act 5 (AI-5) of December 1968, Florestan was compulsorily retired from his teaching duties due to his political positions; given this situation, he seeks exile rather reluctantly, as he did not want to leave his country, Canada, where he will work as a professor at the University of Toronto. According to Heloisa Fernandes (2009), it was at this time that Florestan dedicated himself to the study of revolutions.

He returns to Brazil in 1972, still under the dictatorship in its darkest times, going through an existence imprisoned in his house, which he called the “golden cage”, until 1977, when he returns to public activities. During these years, he deepened his study of the work of the Russian revolutionary VI Lenin, which became one of the axes of his theoretical production. Still according to Heloisa Fernandes (2009, p. 40), “now, socialist and sociologist are definitively fused in the same text and its project is to 'link Sociology, as a science, to socialism, as a revolutionary political movement' [...]”.

This work is part of the construction of the author's ideas about the changes of the State under the monopoly capitalism of the time, both in the central countries of the West and in the peripheral ones. It articulates, in this sense, the expansion of the movement and the strength of the counterrevolution worldwide, and authoritarianism that manifests itself in the solutions of capitalist governments, and are confused in socialist experiences, especially in the period of the world oil crisis, experienced by modern industrial society in the 1970's.

The confusion established, often deliberately, in the Cold War between the authoritarian regimes of the socialist transition, with great influence from the Soviet regime, and the intolerance of the fascist and totalitarian regimes of the Latin American dictatorships produced the terminological chaos conducive to advancing in the “hunt for the communism” and lead to an absence of theory and perspectives, as Florestan Fernandes already warned.

The capitalist siege, which was materializing at the national and world levels, intrinsically links the internal and external reality of the Cold War. The situation will permeate the life and work of Fernandes, who weaves his radical criticism of the instruments hidden in the bowels of the defense of “bourgeois democracy” in the center and on the periphery of the system. Among them, we highlight the capacity for direct and indirect co-option and coercion of the working class by the ideology of the ruling class. As the author emphasizes, the effort of order in capitalism stripped the social conflict of its political meaning, which continues to undermine the defense of the socialist revolution until today. The massification of culture, the fragmentation and fragmentation of the objective conditions of existence of a revolutionary class raised by the author continue their accelerated trajectory of development in imperialism, potentiated to the extreme with the new technological revolutions.

At the beginning of the XNUMXst century, we experienced an advance of counterrevolution on a world scale expressed in the return of fascist ideas, in the open defense of class totalitarianism and democracy restricted to the “most equal”, imposing on the pole of the revolution the need to resist and to reorganize for the defense and construction of a project of emancipation of the working class. The latter goes through the evaluation and criticism of the experiences of real socialism, to leave aside the misrepresentation of these widely disseminated by the defenders of order.

The economic and social forces that carry out this offensive are part of the same project that, at the time this book was written, sustained the civil-military dictatorships in Latin America and that implanted neoliberalism. The presence of large multinational corporations and trusts and the economic, social and political hegemony over nations were already elements highlighted in the 1979 text, and continue to draw the attention of scholars of contemporary capitalism. In addition to the now constituted generalization of the internationalization of capitalist production processes, ideological control is effectively consolidated, supported by greater flexibility for the increase of bourgeois despotism and its margin of self-defense and privilege.

It is still in the context of capital crises, World Wars culminating in a Cold War, or “armed peace” that the author will analyze the emergence of welfare state as a historical necessity to depress the power of pressure of the labor movement, on the one hand, and, on the other, the lowered agendas of reformist socialism in Europe and Japan: it was not a matter of “bourgeoisie generosity”. The institutionalized monopoly of violence in capitalism, which Florestan Fernandes associates with authoritarianism and bourgeois despotism, gives us elements to understand how the mobilization and participation of the mass in defense of “democracy” and of “capitalism” itself reinforced in history, and again in the present, the imperialism of the United States of America as an ideal model.

Much of the reality at the time was linked to the advance of imperialism of developed and hegemonic nations over colonies, semi-colonies and dependent nations on the periphery, with the movement of multinationals, increasingly internationalized over our territories, which already figured in the author's reflections. It is on these national and global conditions that Notes… will punctuate the method of reading reality, as well as identify fundamental elements and categories of analysis to understand the theory of authoritarianism and the dynamics of dependent capitalism that we have as a class. The text also contributed to our understanding and overcoming of authoritarian relations and the democratic/autocratic bourgeois state, which is transmuted and adapted to the current conservative and fundamentalist reactionary era.

Understanding how, when and why transfers of values ​​and wealth from the peripheries to the center take place, and the functions and faces that the capitalist State assumes, were and continue to be crucial issues for the elaboration of strategies against the risks of a colonial regression, or the control of the revolution process itself within the order of a subordinate bourgeoisie and “in solidarity” with imperialist interests.

Debates and categories in a 40-year dialogue

The concept of authoritarianism is presented by Fernandes as ambiguous. From the simple exorbitance of authority, the general idea of ​​authoritarianism fits even its most tyrannical version that leads to fascism. In addition, the author highlights the consolidation of bourgeois power and the self-defense of its class privileges, in which sociopathic aspects of constituted authority are strengthened, with different repercussions on the central and peripheral nations of the already globalized capitalism.

The analysis developed by Florestan seeks to establish the relationship between structure and history, that is, between the logic and dynamics of development of the phenomenon and its historical manifestations; In this sense, as exposed in the first part of the book, the understanding of authoritarianism only as its own political face of liberal political science proves to be flawed, since it does not relate it to the very movement and needs of expansion of capital and capitalism . Thus, he seeks to demonstrate how human behavior, in liberalism and in fascist and intolerant regimes of bourgeois despotism, the authoritarian element is understood as a structural and dynamic component of the preservation, strengthening and expansion of the “capitalist democratic system”. In the historical process, he analyzes how the bourgeoisie passes from the revolutionary class to the ruling class and thereby reproduces and accelerates reification and mystification.

However, the autocratic bourgeois state of the periphery dependent on capitalism will have its specificities in the functioning of the system in each pattern of accumulation. Florestan works exhaustively and deeply on this theme, which is his masterpiece: The bourgeois revolution in Brazil, 1975. For him, the autocratic bourgeois State on Generis of dependent economies arises from the specific combination of the form of external domination imposed by capitalist states of autonomous development and social-democratic order and the reactionary bourgeois despotism of a peripheral bourgeoisie that lives in counter-revolution and in permanent self-defense. These local bourgeoisies, under these conditions, are converted into an “internal link of external imperialist domination”, interposed between the limited realization of bourgeois democracy on the one hand and, on the other, the risks of the upheaval of order.

For Florestan, the State emerges as the exclusive, or main, locus of authoritarian relations, which brings to the center of the debate the conception and functions that the State assumes in its capitalist form. Thus, he deepens the understanding of the relationship between the State and the reproduction patterns of capitalism in general and the changes in the state machine in the industrial monopoly capitalism of that time. He presents us with the necessary coexistence of bourgeois domination in economic and political power as an adequate form of production and reproduction of order. Authoritarian relations, suggested by the author, develop in a generalized way, from micro to macro in capitalist society, unfolding in its institutions, structures, ideologies and social processes. The institutionalized violence that this network of authoritarian relations reproduces constitute forms of self-defense of the economic, social and political interests of the dominant classes, which Florestan highlights in the moment of capital crisis.

The author, therefore, separates the authoritarianism that emerges and becomes part of the “normality of bourgeois life”, in the “normal conditions of order”, from the State of exception that springs from the democratic State throughout Latin America at the time, which did not it's hard to recognize in the now, even with new guises. With the crisis, authoritarian relations grew, democracy only for a minority, of the “most equal” as Fernandes stresses, but also the conditions for a socialist revolution.

From the class conflict as a line of analysis and its multiple polarizations, still present in the criticisms and persecutions of today's capitalist siege, our author faces the debate on the dictatorship of the proletariat. As a majority democracy, or proletarian element of democracy, it completely differentiates it from authoritarianism and bourgeois despotism. Necessary debate and even more difficult to face today due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the crisis of the experiences of transition to socialism culminating with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, which removed from the near horizon the utopia of the revolutions that still inflamed the debate in the 1960s and 1970s. With the Washington Consensus, not by chance also in 1989, the neoliberal era is inaugurated with the hegemony of capitalism in the world and in the imagination of classes, whether oppressors or oppressed.

The relationship between the capitalist State and class domination in Marx is rescued by the author, who will show a liberal State not as a weak State, on the contrary. The global transformation of the State will be based on historical factors considered vital, namely: from the proletarian pole, the Russian Revolution; from the pole of capital, the technological revolutions that reach unimaginable dimensions and the increasingly accelerated articulation, and we add wide open, of the interests of the dominant classes and the State (within the “nation” and in the international structures of power). With the crisis of the 1970s, the lost decade of the 1980s and the neoliberal upheaval of the 1990s, we arrived at a new international crisis with the epicenter of the US bubble bursting. subprime, taking down the global financial system in 2008. While capitalism debates and reinvents itself in its flexibility of production and articulation of wealth, increasingly accumulated, the rigidity of the bourgeois State increases in the same dimension in its world counterrevolution.

The bourgeois autocratic state of the periphery coexists, in the proposed dialectic analysis, with the bourgeois democratic state of the imperialist center. The open class dictatorship in the context of political counterrevolution, modernization and industrialization under way in the 1970s is analyzed in its alliance between technocrats, civilians and military in counterrevolutionary roles. For Fernandes (2015), the ruling class in dependent economies bases its self-privilege and self-defense of its power on determinations of a fascist nature, intertwined with forms of organized and institutionalized violence in power structures and state machinery. Thus, fascism in Latin America acts on two simultaneous fronts: by weakening the political order ꟷ by blocking progressive advances and democratization as a process of structural change, interrupting any possibility of a bourgeois or nationalist democratic revolution with basic reforms in the sense of revolution “within the order”, and by the strategic use of the political space to adjust the State and the government to a clearly totalitarian conception of power against all socialist movements seeking to stop any movement of the revolution “against the order”. It impregnates all power structures in society with a high level of militarization and technocracy so that any change comes in the direction of maintaining the status quo. It doesn't matter who occupies the government, as long as it keeps the masses in check.

In other texts that make up his work, Fernandes highlights this historical movement of conservative polarization of the bourgeois conscience in Brazil that hides, as the other face of nationalism, its interests of class domination and class solidarity with foreign capitalists. With that, for him, the national revolution assumes limits that are compatible with the reproduction of dependence and underdevelopment, keeping it in a “closed circuit”, in which it creates a superstructure of oppression and blockage of any relevant social change. Bourgeois domination is naturalized as the only source of legitimate power and systematic oppression and mechanisms of repression are established that appear to be reconciled with the ideals of democracy. However, in essence, they hide the organized and institutionalized domination of bourgeois despotism, with a deep split between “civil society” and the “Nation”. The former composed of an “active” and “enlightened” minority, and the latter by a fiction around the bourgeois conception of what a “democratic order” should be. It thus maintains the renewal and strengthening of bourgeois power as an end in itself, articulating with the extreme social concentration of wealth, the draining out of a large part of the national economic surplus and the overexploitation of the Latin American workforce.

The internal instability of the system resides in fissures in the dominant class itself, as well as pressures from below that are constantly expanding from the popular classes and the proletariat, in a context compared to a latent civil war. There is, therefore, a constant need to guarantee order and development with “safety”. To reach them, it establishes an armed peace in a process of prolonged counterrevolution. Also in this book, Florestan not only opens up the guts of general laws and their determinations on the periphery of the capitalist system, but also systematizes three faces in which the autocratic bourgeois State can appear.

Its guise can be democratic, authoritarian and/or fascist, depending on class conflicts and the effectiveness of bourgeois and state power apparatuses (military, police and legal). The forms that the bourgeois State will assume accompany the movement of the bourgeoisie as a revolutionary class, consolidated and associated with foreign corporations, in which it becomes conservative, until its crisis and growing ultra-repressive needs and the “institutionalization of systematic oppression” against the movement trade unions and popular protests. How the reflections of the text dialogue with our current context. The constitution of a strong state, synthesized in the debate on bourgeois democracy and broad participation democracy, returns materialized in authoritarian, conservative and even ultraliberal governments that are widespread again in the Latin American continent.

Last but not least, the book presents founding elements of the structure and dynamics of fundamental questions of the dilemmas we live as an oppressed class in constitution in itself and for itself. In the context of contemporary capitalism, of dominance and crisis of the financial sphere and of fictitious capital over the real production of goods, we return to questions such as: what is the resistance and flexibility of capitalism? Where do the structural elements of bourgeois despotism reside? Will the exacerbation of the authoritarian element save capitalism? These are themes that the author proposes to discuss systematically in his time, yet so current and necessary in ours. They add valuable contributions in elaborating on our dilemmas and challenges under the limits of barbarism already established by the deep alienation in capitalism, as well as on the capacity of the socialist movement, as a negation of capitalism, to rise from the ashes.

Preface to the 1979 edition [Heloisa Rodrigues Fernandes]

How to write the preface to your own father's book? Impossible to translate on paper the true panic that seizes someone subject to such an intimate, direct challenge. Father and daughter are subjected to a more open face-to-face, more declared, more without subterfuge: who I am, who are you, in the root. A confrontation, an adjustment, a clash of two people who, in the end, are not two others, but products of each other.

Who you are is already indicated by the fact that you did not ask, but demanded, that I write this preface. Who am I is also suggested in this interplay: the daughter who is panicked by the confrontation, but who, in any case, accepts it, even if as a challenge. A personal challenge?

I therefore accepted the confrontation. I read and reread your work carefully, patiently, critically. I read, reread, redid the reading. And I can assure you that this book is flawless. A preface guarantees the dictionary, it means what is said at the beginning. It is therefore a warning, a prologue. Therefore, whoever writes the preface demonstrates to dominate, at some level, the book itself or its author.

As for the author, it is unnecessary to repeat here what everyone admits, including your opponents: you are an unsubmissive, restless and indomitable intellectual. An intelligence that is not domesticated, does not submit to the adversary: ​​those who dominate, oppress, repress. However, he submits himself to the iron and grueling discipline of intellectual work. Hours and hours of a life almost entirely consumed in libraries, research, book production, classrooms, conferences and political practice. In short, an intelligence that does not submit to domination because it has made a commitment to socialism and the historical task of the Revolution.

As for the book, it translates who produces it. The history of bourgeois domination presents itself to us as it is: wild, hard, structural, but, for that very reason, historical, pregnant with contradictions that assert themselves as potentialities, gaps; ruptures that his work not only alludes to, but points out and denounces. A historical reality impossible to be mastered by one person, but only by the revolutionary practice of a class. It is from her, about her and for her that this book is written. However, this class does not write prefaces. It acts, elaborates, recreates in the history of its own struggle. In this process, she incorporates an intellectual work like hers in a way that is specific to her: she appropriates theory as her weapon of and for practice. He does not write prefaces, but makes history. It is in this History that, in the reckoning, the “preface” of his book will be written as a realization.

However, if both the producer and his product are indomitable and do not lend themselves to the artifice of a preface that contains them in the lines of a summary, it is because they have “lines of force”, in the most vital and historical sense of the term. If intelligence does not submit, it is because it fights against and asserts itself in its own field. This struggle translates into lines of strength of the work itself.

first non-compliance. This can be highlighted in the more formal process that gave rise to the production of this book: it is about class notes for an undergraduate course for students of the Department of Politics at the Pontifical Catholic University (PUC) in São Paulo. Therefore, it is the result of a specific pedagogical work: they are classes whose purpose is to educate a certain university public. However, this does not mean that the themes are treated superficially. On the contrary, this limitation becomes the main vital force of the work: the themes are demarcated and examined in length and depth without any complacency or pseudo-paternalism, it is impossible even to carry out a full bibliographic survey of the authors used throughout this course. From the point of view of quality, no concessions are made to the public: they are subjected to serious, deep, extensive and, therefore, tiring pedagogical work. However, from there, a new line of force, respect for the public, is translated into the form of the exposition: clarity constitutes the pedagogical principle from which ideas and concepts are dialectically linked in the delimitation of the course's problematic. Principle that translates his conception of pedagogical work: to educate is to elevate, constructively and critically. Clarity is an instrument of this work.

second non-compliance. This occurs when the theme of the course itself is subverted. This subversion occurs in two moments. At first, with the justification of not being a political scientist, when, in fact, underlying this statement is a question of method: accepting “specific academic formations” meant, deep down, validating a posture that leads to the fragmentation of the process. of the real in compartmentalized, watertight “levels” and, for that very reason, sterile to political practice. Underlying the justification is, in fact, an attitude through which the essence of this process is preserved: its uniqueness, apprehended, however, in the multiple and mutually contradictory forms of its manifestation. In summary, an apparent personal limitation is once again transformed into a new line of force: reality is apprehended in its very historicity. It asserts itself, therefore, as a work that claims and affirms its place in the field of historical materialism.

In the second moment, when he subverts the problematic of the course itself. Here, in fact, the criticism is not surreptitious, but direct and radical. The work begins with a scathing and definitive critique not only of the theory itself that lends reality and concept and to the theme, but also denounces the social forces underlying this theory; forces through which “the 'defense of order' is established in the intellectual horizon of the political analyst. […] Therefore, political science closes itself within the bourgeois universe, and introduces the authoritarian element into the very substance of 'scientific reasoning'. Or is such a defense of order not based on the idea that the authority of 'science' confers a rational, definitive and eternal character on the model of democracy that resulted from capitalism?

That is, it denounces the problematic of the opponent who elaborates and justifies the very concept of “authoritarianism”, a concept that remains committed to the liberal bourgeois critique and whose true opponent is not, in fact, the fascist dictatorship, but the proletarian revolution and popular democracy. . Again, therefore, what indicated a limitation of the work ꟷ submitted to the demands imposed by a theme produced by the adversary's problematic becomes a line of force.

Through the critique of the concept, the opponent's problematic is rejected and, in the same process, the essence and limits of its own are affirmed: “Starting from the bourgeois element of democracy, the militant defense of liberalism or parliamentary democracy has been made. It is equally legitimate to do the opposite: starting from the proletarian element of democracy, to defend socialism and the social revolution. […] The equation that was highlighted: structure and history. This allows the sociologist to combine rigorous investigation and intellectual responsibility […]. What does this have to do with this course? All! First, we do not see power as a transcendental reality and in formal-deductive terms. But as a historical reality. Second, because we do not separate ourselves from the described social-historical process. […] It is this perspective that makes it possible to view recent capitalism in terms of social forces that 'face collapse', with a view to consolidating the defense of the existing order and its reproduction; and the alternative forces, which 'deepen the collapse', seeking to create within the existing conditions not only a 'change of order', but also, the social transition to a different social order”.

Thus, the central issue of this work is delimited: the forms of realization and reproduction of bourgeois domination and the forms of struggle and transformation of the proletariat. Structure and history apprehended by and through struggling social forces. Structure and history of bourgeois domination ꟷ apprehended in the very process of intensive and extensive realization of the capitalist mode of production. History of the struggles of the dominated classes and structure of a new history: of the socialist movement and the proletarian revolution (in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam…). A problem whose analysis is guided by the perspective that centers the perspective of the course: the class struggle, the capitalist siege and the problems inherent in the realization of “accumulation socialism”. History of our time, of our civilization, of our conjuncture. History that does not admit “prefaces”, but demands theoretical answers and practical decisions. Here is the core of this work.

However, non-submissions assert themselves within limits clearly demarcated by intellectual responsibility. The analysis that reconstructs the process of the real aims at practice, but at practice without idealism or dogmatism. Responsible and scientific non-compliance because it does not underestimate the scale of the task to be carried out in both fields.

On the one hand, because, under the field of bourgeois domination “the issue of the 'paper tiger' needs to be raised. Those who underestimate the flexibility of capitalism in the era of imperialism and the decision-making capacity of a threatened bourgeoisie must review the diagnosis […] to better interpret the present and not 'simplify history'. The capitalist siege is an external and internal reality to the functioning of capitalism at the national and world levels. We have to understand this to better understand the flow of history and the alternatives of counterrevolution and revolution”.

And, on the other hand, because, under the socialist camp, the “main economic consequence of 'socialism in one country' appears in the priority given to economic development over the socialist revolution itself” (see below on p. 156). However, more “than a democratic socialism, what is expected of Russia in this last quarter of the XNUMXth century is a demonstration of the viability of communism itself”.

Knowing and daring, structure and history, theory and practice, ideals with realism, this is the force field from which the problematic of this work radiates.

I purposely postponed one last insubmission. Insubmission that constitutes his personal strength: obstinate, inflexible, unbreakable. Insubordination of the one who refuses to be silent and asserts his presence at any cost: through every pore and every gap.

This work, as already mentioned, is the result of a course held at PUC. And not at the University of São Paulo. Not at USP to which you dedicated half your life. With which Myriam, Noêmia, Beatriz, Sílvia and I, and, a little less, Júnior and Lúcia, shared 25 years of its existence. And what a rival! How much love and dedication you gave him! How many thousands of hours of study, research, classes, hard work!

Until, in 1969, you were rewarded for your dedication: compulsory retirement. I know how hard that was. But you got through all that. You who had grown up from the university grew even bigger. His later work grew, the bonds of the academy were breaking. The space of the socialist of presentation and the scientist of the text has become denser. Today socialist and scientist are fused in the same text. The cracks that afflicted him were being filled. You've outdone yourself. You are not only alive for the university, but for society, for the social revolution.

And that's why I said your book is unreadable. Because he is a challenge. Not only to me who had this task, but to my entire “generation”. It is to her that I transfer this challenge: a work that is scientifically coherent, and socially and politically consistent. That it's not just a problem of integrity, but of intellectual courage. It is very easy to swim with the waves in your favor, but it takes extreme tenacity and stamina to swim against them. And you did.

* Renata Couto Moreira Professor at the Department of Economics at the Federal University of Espírito Santo (UFES).

*Heloisa Rodrigues Fernandes is a retired professor at the Department of Sociology at USP. Author, among other books, of policy and security (Alpha Omega).

Reference

Florestan Fernandes. Notes on the “theory of authoritarianism”. São Paulo, Popular Expression, 2019, 165 pages.