Critique of tearing reason

Image: Paulinho Fluxuz

By Henry Martins*

Without tactics or precise strategies, the world paints itself as infinite successive moments. It is only important to seize the moment and “seal”

Despite the fact that the title indicates the very existence of a form of rationality identified as lacradora, an expression popularly used to designate flashy and ineffective political behavior, the text actually goes in another direction. I don't know if there is exactly such a form of systematized rationality so that a profound and comprehensive critique could be duly exercised against it. Despite this, anyone who has contact with today's leftist movement in Brazil, mainly but not only the student movement, must recognize that there are numerous practices and problematic concepts. Among these, I chose some that seem to me to have some kind of connection with each other, possibly being particular manifestations of a more general phenomenon, here jokingly titled as the Lacradora Reason.

Understanding the current Capital offensive is not a task that can be carried out with reductionism, seeking a single cause. There is the objective factor, which stems from the very deepening of capital's structural crisis, which imposes a much more aggressive pace and quality of reproduction for human socio-metabolism. There are subjective factors, both from the pro-capital and pro-labor sectors. We want here to test an analysis of a particular and well-defined aspect, far from totalizing, about large sectors of the contemporary Brazilian left – its “tear-breaking” way of thinking and acting. Therefore, we refer to a growing predominance of a rationality focused on appearances, manifestation, repercussions of facts, rather than effectively on their ability or not to produce substantive inflections in reality. It is evident that for the most part, this does not operate in a fully conscious way, since the basics of the left are precisely that it is not consciousness that determines reality, but the opposite. In fact, in politics it is not always easy to define the correct composition among several factors to be taken into account when defining a position. Sometimes you are too pragmatic and lose programmatically, sometimes you are more cautious with the principles and lose your effectiveness at the moment, to illustrate just one of the many possible “dipoles” (for lack of a better word). If, for example, in a period of the history of the communist movement pragmatism prevailed in the name of Realpolitik, it may be that today the ethos part of the movement is leaning towards one of the extremities of one of these “dipoles”.

Related to this comes the theoretical and practical narrowing of the concept of politics. It moves away from the expression of the positivity of human sociability, as an activity that mediates the individual human being with the rest of society in order to organize/transform it, and takes on increasingly restrictive and impotent dimensions at a global level. Next, we will see the aspects selected to illustrate the problem of the so-called “Lacradora Reason”. Rather, it is worth warning that this was a rather thorny text to write, as everything I describe and criticize is not necessarily predominant in militant practice or the result of clear and conscious conceptions. Were that the case, the criticism could be made systematically. As it is not, I am obliged to deal with descriptions of apparently irrelevant situations or processes, in the expectation that those who read me will be able to relate them to what they witness in their political experience. Thus, it is important to read the text taking much of what I say as hypotheses to provoke reflections rather than necessarily as final descriptions of complex issues. No further,

Endogenous Militancy

Unless we are in a revolutionary situation, fighting against the system (it is understood as a capitalist system of social reproduction, historically determined) is a minority position in society. As is well known, the dominant ideology in a society is the ideology of the dominant classes, which control the means of production and ideological reproduction, as well as its means of diffusion, due to their economic and political strength. Even more, the very social relations engendered by capital, in its cycles, have a decisive influence on the maintenance of its ideology. Because the life that springs from these relationships is a life within capitalism, it is a life that is concretely focused on the reproduction of order. Therefore, everyday life, if not accompanied by a conscious and constant effort to break these relationships, leads to molding to order. It is worth noting, however briefly, that the dominant ideology does not always take the form of a single philosophical system. Today, both neo-positivism with its refusal of ontology in favor of mere epistemology, as well as the fragmentation of “postmodern thought” and its rejection of meta-narratives, are respectively direct and indirect apologies for maintaining the social order of Capital, and therefore, both must be avoided and fought by those who intend to achieve profound social transformations.

Thus, most of the population, generally politically apathetic, expresses the position of reproducing the system, not to mention the deliberately apologetic portion, defending the maintenance of order. In this way, meeting other people who also oppose the system in some way, even with all the conflictual diversity that this can encompass, can still be warm for the contestant heart. And not only that, collective articulation is an objective necessity, given that there is no significant political struggle that can be waged alone. However, referring to the maxim “who makes the revolution is not the party, but the class”, it is worth reflecting a little on the very common tendency on the left today to discuss mostly only among themselves. It is evident that, being a supporter of the tradition of Marxist-Leninist political organization, I defend the importance of creating a strong political cohesion between the leaders so that they can resolutely direct the movement and serve as a unifying pole. To varying degrees, this need applies both to party organization and to organizations representing categories. And as important as this articulation between those on the left is, it is not an end, but always a means to achieve the objective, which is to lead the masses in the direction of raising their levels of consciousness and organization. I call here endogenous militancy when such means gradually take the place of purposes and thus all militant efforts are turned to talking and articulating only with sectors that already have some political predisposition or ideological openness. Thus, the political universe in dispute is substantially reduced. It reduces for us, but not for the other side, as there is no vacuum in politics. The refusal to establish contact with those who do not share the same principles is a narrowing of the transforming capacity and potential of politics.

Close to that, and also related to the other topics to follow, is a serious confusion in knowing the varied spectrum of positions within the right. When we get used to talking only with people on the left, interacting with people “from the center”, or “inactionary” can lead to a shock and consider them incorrigibly right-wing. This is well illustrated when there are (truly) mass spaces where people of various political positions are brought together and moderately conservative, or even authentically conservative, manifestations are branded and embarrassed as if they were their extreme: fascist, racist, etc. It is essential that we know how to separate and react appropriately to what are conservative manifestations within the limits of reason and what are extremist positions, soaked in hate and that seek to retreat from civilizing milestones. Ensuring spaces for rational and democratic discussion requires a fierce intolerance against intolerance, but only against it. Defending security on the university campus via PM does not imply defending the genocide of the poor population on the outskirts; questioning (depending on the arguments) the effectiveness of quotas does not make anyone racist; defending the creation of a Junior-Company does not make anyone Anarcho-Capitalist, etc. These and many other examples are positions that the left has historically opposed and we are fully capable of holding a frank and determined debate without appealing to the disqualification and coercion of the masses. The situation is different when one sees individuals explicitly offending striking workers as vagrants, women as victimizers, extolling human rights violations and from there on down. In these cases, coercion and eviction, in order to isolate and constrain such unequivocally absurd positions, is appropriate and necessary. Not noticing the great gradient existing between these conservative positions and wanting to indistinctly isolate those who think differently from us can lead, on the contrary, to our own isolation.

Knowing how to lose in order to win again

The left and the Brazilian people as a whole have been suffering successive defeats, with increasing intensity in general, at least since 2013. Throughout this period, the pro-capital and anti-people movement did not fail to face some resistance, so that it was an open process. the dispute between political and social forces. This movement of the radical right of an increasingly coup-like character culminates in the 2018 election that gives victory to the most servile and aggressive fraction of the dominant bloc in Brazil, in the figure of Jair Bolsonaro. These elections, marked by Lula's unjust imprisonment and massive manipulation by fake news, can be repeatedly denounced, but at the end of the day we have to clearly accept that we were defeated. Celebrating that the largest bench in the Chamber belongs to the PT (since it has never been so small before), disdaining that Paulo Guedes does not know how the public machine works, that Bolsonaro does not know how to behave presidentially, etc., can sometimes be a way of wanting to lessen the impact of our enemies' victory. And in this situation lies a big problem. It is true that an army depends not only on its strength, but also on the morale of the soldiers, and in this sense the harsh reality of imposed defeats can be cruel to the spirit of popular leaders. However, circumventing this situation with bad judgments about reality is not a real remedy. Knowing reality is a prerequisite for facing it, and overestimating our capabilities, as well as underestimating the strength of the enemy, will fatally lead to our failure. Let us see a reflection by Gramsci in this direction:

The tendency to diminish the adversary - This tendency is, in itself, a document of the inferiority of him who is possessed by it. In fact, one tends to angrily diminish the opponent in order to believe in the security of victory. This tendency obscurely carries with it a judgment of its own incapacity and weakness (which wants to take courage) and one can also recognize in it the beginning of self-criticism (which is ashamed of itself, which is afraid to express itself explicitly and with systematic coherence ). The “will to believe” is believed to be a condition for victory, which would not be wrong if it were not conceived mechanically and did not turn into self-deception. (when it contains undue confusion between mass and chiefs and lowers the function of the chief to the level of the most backward and disorganized of followers: at the moment of action, the chief may try to instill in his supporters the persuasion that the adversary will certainly be defeated, but he himself must make an exact judgment and calculate all possibilities, even the most pessimistic).

One element of this tendency is of an opiate nature: it is, in fact, characteristic of the weak to abandon themselves to fantasy, to dream with open eyes that their desires are reality, that everything develops according to their desires. Therefore, one sees, on the one hand, incapacity, stupidity, barbarism, cowardice, etc. and, on the other hand, the highest endowments of character and intelligence: the fight cannot be dubious and victory already seems to be in the hands. However, the fight remains a dream and won in dreams. Another aspect of this tendency is to see things oleographically, in the climactic and highly epic moments. In reality, no matter where you start from, difficulties suddenly become severe. because they were never really thought about and, as it is always necessary to start with the little things (besides, the big things are a collection of little things), the “little thing” is disdained; it is better to keep dreaming and postpone action until the “big thing” moment. Sentinel duty is heavy, tedious, fatiguing; why "waste" the human personality in this way and not conserve it for the great hour of heroism? And so on. It is not thought that if the opponent dominates you and you diminish him, you recognize that you have been dominated by someone you consider inferior; but then how did he manage to dominate you? How was it that he overcame you and was superior to yourself in that decisive moment that was supposed to measure your superiority and his inferiority? But of course the devil "lent a helping hand". Well then, learn to bring the devil's little hand to your side.[I](emphasis mine)

Closely related to this issue is the absence or inexpressiveness of discussion of power in leftist circles. In the eagerness to obtain narratives of victory for those who listen to him, it is common to cling to elements that are not very relevant in the conjuncture but that supposedly demonstrate some fragility of the government. It is possible that in many cases ways are sought to demoralize and discredit government figures in the eyes of the population, especially its base. In this we can put the denunciations of Weintraub's academic training, the rejection of Eduardo Bolsonaro as ambassador, celebrations of the stock market falling and the dollar rising as a sign of Guedes's incompetence, etc. In this sense presented, they are fair accusations that make sense tactically, but on the other hand mean little in relation to the dispute for real political power. It is necessary to be clear about what are the real pillars of capitalist domination in Brazil and its political expressions in particular. The now weakened popular forces do not have the luxury of being directed towards targets that will not be able to produce sensible inflections and it is a task of the highest priority for us to point out the best path.

Manichaeism and standardization

Were we living in the era of slavery, the conflicting existence of social classes would be explicit, as economic exploitation is evident when the worker himself is a commodity. Capitalist society is based on a mode of production where exploitation is veiled (I am referring specifically to the Marxian discovery of surplus value), and on top of that, both the State and civil society reach the apex of complexity until then, being composed of a myriad of different institutions and social sectors. I understand that the communists must be the most resolute part of the proletariat, but certainly not the only social and political segment that is antagonizing the current order. Even the richest communist formulations have the need to form a broad historical bloc, that is, a bloc of all the forces that oppose the dominant power bloc, under the hegemony of the proletariat. The constitution of this bloc for the communists is conditio sine qua non for the seizure of political power and consequent implementation of structural changes. So complex is this task that it absolutely does not depend only on the will and efforts of the most resolute group. Social reality is objective and moves with innumerable heterogeneous causal chains, very few of these under the influence of organized groups, even indirectly. The road to building this bloc is long, steep and winding, but we know that it involves practical and theoretical efforts to confront the dominant bloc, progressively establishing political articulation between various social segments that have interests that are antagonistic to monopolies, large estates and imperialism. .

For us, tactics are the particular unfolding of our strategy as a function of the situation. In military terminology, tactics are the use of armed forces as a function of a battle, strategy being the use of battles as a function of war. This can lead to the reflection that in general for each situation there is only one suitable tactic possible. In this way, those who adopt another tactic in relation to ours (which we consider to be the correct one) we say are going in the wrong direction. This may very well be the case in many situations, but the scenario of great Brazilian politics today is different from a war where, in general, on each front two forces face each other with its unified command. In politics, even though we have two main opposing forces, especially in our field, its command is currently not unified – more than that, it is fragmented. This is an adverse condition, whose overcoming is essential, but still indisputably real. While we hold our positions, other sectors can adopt tactics that we could never consider employing without necessarily making them antagonistic.

To illustrate, let us remember what happened at the beginning of the Bolsonaro government, when Congress was appreciating the new anti-terrorism law (at the time, PL10431/18), which opened more loopholes for the criminalization of social movements. Faced with this, one could reflect that terrorism in Brazil is something with practically no real precedent and that legislation on this much would be by nature a decoy to, in essence, aim at the repression of social movements, and should therefore be rejected. in full, without negotiation. This was the posture adopted by PT and PSOL, and popular movements in general. However, PSB, PCdoB and PDT, parties to the left of the parliament's political spectrum, but which in the recent past have been vacillating in some respects, adopted another tactic. They sat down to negotiate and articulate with party leaders and managed to craft an agreement to expressly exclude social movements from the scope of the law. This tactic, which at first glance could be labeled a scuffle, or parliamentary cretinism by many, ended up achieving a more effective result than the mere denunciation made by the more left-wing sectors. Evidently, this movement could very well have ended in defeat and, in addition to not having damage containment/exclusion, we would possibly not even have any political balance that the more left-wing tactic of denunciation (in theory) provides.

Another event that continues to highlight this way of thinking was the fateful trip by Ciro Gomes to Paris during the second round of elections in 2018. Far from being a laudable attitude, what caught my attention was the shape it took. As soon as he was defeated in the first round, on the night of that day Ciro was already categorical in saying “Bolsonaro no” when asked who he would support in the second round. Having taken his side, it did not take long to launch its “critical support” to Haddad. The message for its 13 million voters was already evident, but of course, everyone expects to see the leadership's explicit word. Here, I won't even go into the merits of whether the “vote-turner” campaign in the second round really had any chance of success or was just “optimism of the will” on the left. But it is true that for us communists, the moment called for staying close to the masses, seeking to establish maximum contact with them. Ciro ended up not participating in Haddad's campaign nor declaring his explicit support. Even so, Haddad received about 16 million more votes in the second round (where could they have come from?) and in his reading (which I also do not enter into the merits here) that anti-PTism is a social force that will last longer than these elections, preserved his name for future elections. This attitude of protecting his image at the moment to preserve electoral pretensions in the future would be absolutely unacceptable for a communist, who knows that the key to facing fascism is the organization of the popular masses. But Ciro is not, and has never said that he is a communist or wants to lead the people to a revolution, or even a militant antifascist. It is one thing to criticize our partner saying that his popular leadership role could have been strengthened had he taken a different stance, but it would be unfair and an error of analysis to expect from someone what he never set out to be. In the end, Ciro's direct non-involvement did not make any substantive difference in reality, but many continue to denounce his "betrayal" as a way to annul any contribution he can offer today to the progressive field, and as a way to escape of facing the crass mistakes committed by the left itself.

It is worth thinking that the tasks and responses required by the situation vary for each sector. It is more up to a group of militants without parliamentary participation to organize the sectors it can around the given situations, aiming to raise their levels of consciousness. Agreeing with a position adopted by another sector does not mean saying that we should have done the same. When other tactics are put into left field, fighting them is necessary when they effectively present a setback on the levels of consciousness and organization of the people. If this is not the case, it is important that we know how to contemplate the multitude of teleological pores in social reality and remain firm and determined in our mission, but not necessarily committing forces to fight what does not need to be fought. Again, wanting to isolate others unnecessarily can be the spell turning against the caster.

Agitation and Analysis

Sometimes we can detect in some militants a confusion between two equally important but fundamentally different aspects of the political struggle: analysis and agitation. An agitation loaded with analysis, in the worst case, can be inefficient in what it originally proposes. However, an analysis that brings mixed elements of agitation can cloud rather than clarify the object under study. This is often the case, given that as a rule agitating is easier than promoting good analysis, and thus this first task is not only more common for the left but also tends to permeate the second when required of them. Philosophically, we could think of this question in terms of the consecrated relationship Sein-Sollen, that is, to be and to be. I'm not sufficiently versed in the long Western philosophical tradition to articulate a perfectly accurate explanation, so take my word for it. cum grano salis. Simply put, Being it is the category that describes the factual reality, whether past, current or future tendency; while Should refers to the teleological orientations that humanity designs and regulates for itself. About the proximity but irrevocable differentiation between being and ought to be, we can check the thought of David Hume, Scottish empiricist philosopher of the XNUMXth century:

In every system of morals that I have hitherto encountered, I have always noticed that the author follows for some time the ordinary way of reasoning, establishing the existence of God, or making observations about human affairs, when, suddenly, I am surprised to see that, instead of the usual propositional copulas, such as is and is not, I do not find a single proposition which is not connected to another by an ought or ought not. This change is imperceptible, but of the greatest importance. For as this ought or ought not expresses a new relation or assertion, it would need to be noted and explained; at the same time, a reason would have to be given for something that seems totally inconceivable, namely, how this new relation can be deduced from entirely different ones.[ii]

In this sense, even though both categories live in connection, it would be possible in our particular case to think that in the agitative activity the predominant moment Should, expressing to the masses an idea to be built; while in the analytical activity it would be Being the predominant moment, as it seeks to understand how things effectively were, are and tend to be. It is clear that good analysis opens up space and is even a precondition for a fruitful programmatic projection and we can also visualize in the “bad agitation” an eternalization of the immediate being, imprisoning political tasks to what is immediately set, ignoring that not only the immediate just as the possible is part of reality.

For illustrative purposes, let us consider the proposition already heard by all “education is not a commodity”. In a sense of agitation, it expresses the need for the educational service not to be conditioned by commercial relations; while, in an analytical sense, it brings up the reflection on whether or not education is effectively a commodity – insofar as it is empirically a process resulting from human work, conditioned by mercantile relations. To exemplify the relevance, knowing if education is in fact a commodity[iii] or not, it can be very important to understand the reproduction process of capital in the current society – and even in a process of socialist transition where the determination of Value still prevails and the direction of society needs to know which are the vital economic sectors in its production. If in an analysis Should predominates, the objective appears as a starting point, it is smuggled into the analysis as if it were an element of immediate reality, and effectively nothing is explained.

The separation between agitation and analysis may not even be spatio-temporal at all. If we are in a fierce street demonstration, the leaders need to know how to analyze among themselves and then agitate the people. If, for example, we are in a space like a rally, which is a mixture between demonstration and lecture, this can be even more mixed. There is an almost homogeneous symbiosis between analysis and agitation, as, as a rule, the aim is to excite and enlighten the masses at the same time. The problem is when, for example, an announcer utters a position that is indigestible to the audience present. Being a space of agitation, the impulse is to express opposition, but also being a space of analysis, one should know how to listen and ponder.

An extremely illustrative example was the pro-Haddad rally in Ceará, at the beginning of the 2018 second round campaign, which would ingloriously consecrate Cid Gomes' jargon “Lula is in jail, asshole!”. As inadequate as we may judge such a statement, its immediate antecedents are very representative of a way that I believe is very common to act and think in sectors of the left. Cid begins his speech by marking a position of support and then moves on to the non-protocol part, stating that if any PT comrade who succeeds him in the speech wants to set a good example for the country, he would do the mea culpa, a self-criticism in relation to the mistakes and nonsense that their governments made. The breach of rally protocol (cf. with the section on standardization above) makes some of those present shout against the speaker, who even more vigorously insists on pointing out criticisms (whose fairness one can agree or not, but it is criticism from an ally, not from the enemy) who thinks they should be assimilated by the PT. How do your critical interlocutors react? In chorus they shout: “Luuulaaa!!” (sic). To face an ally that deviates from the standardized speech of support, the caterva imposes a powerful cry of order. And then yes, we hear from the speaker “Lula what? Lula is in prison, asshole”. It can be argued with some reason that much of what was seen in this episode was enhanced by Cid's crude way of presenting his criticisms, but anyone who has lived with many PT affiliates in mass spaces in the last period must be able to attest that this was not decisive.

And, evidently, this is not restricted to fellow PT members. Sealing reason operates democratically across the left spectrum. What conclusion should we draw when seeing in assemblies a dispute of opposing positions, expressed by eloquent speeches being equally applauded by the same people? Or, when re-voting, an impassioned speech being able to shift the consensus from one side to the other? Has the audience really been convinced of another opinion or is it just reacting as a thermometer of the agitation capacity of whoever, at the moment, holds the microphone? It is clear that something so complex and diverse does not admit of a unilateral conclusion, but it should be clear that agitation overlapping with other aspects of politics is indeed a real and harmful element for the potential of a movement today.

collective apotheosis

With the worsening of the situation in recent years, the occurrence of student assemblies and other similar spaces has increased. The reason for the existence of the assemblies is to guarantee a space for discussion and deliberation that is broader than that of the board of directors or councils of representative entities. However, experience shows that this is not always the dominant aspect of such an event. Taking care not to make incorrect generalizations, it is still possible to see a certain trend in student assemblies that we will try to reproduce here to analyze. The environment crowded with people and a scenario of numerous attacks are perfect ingredients to stir the passions of those present. Far from claiming that the emotional aspects are intrinsically harmful to the political struggle, we cannot fail to denounce when they occasionally are – or, at least, they are irrelevant distractions. I am referring here to shouts and slogans, which – unlike spaces such as street acts where an attempt is made to present and disseminate an idea to the population, or put pressure on government officials – in a deliberative space has the power only to transform the space into a cheerleader fight. or, even more innocuously, in a collective apotheosis.

Assemblies are spaces that, by definition, guarantee the opportunity to speak for everyone present (albeit with limited numbers) to express and defend their positions, unlike a street demonstration. It is not intended here, evidently, to institute a manual of good manners for the assembly participant dictating when and how they should manifest themselves, only to provoke reflection on how much collectively shouting around a position during the assembly really serves something. When it comes to a cry that is basically consensual, as was, for example, “Fora Temer”, it seems that the only effect obtained from spending a few seconds shouting it is This a few seconds, since basically everyone there already thinks that way. When the cry is around a non-consensual position, this stops being a waste of time and becomes really harmful to the flow of the debate. Now, if one discusses, for example, the adhesion to a strike, or the installation of an occupation, which in essence are nothing more than tactical instruments for some purpose, one sector loudly harassing the enclosure with shouts of “strike” only serves to corner those who believe that this is not the time to make use of such a tactical device. It is evident that by the nature of an assembly, it will never cease to be a pressure space. Those who speak there must be prepared to have their ideas criticized. But loyal, if ruthless, criticism from a range of people is one thing, and collective coercion into dissenting positions is quite another. If this becomes a constant, several groups will tend to reduce their participation in these spaces, seeing that they do not provide the promised place for the debate of ideas, and in this case the representativeness (from which their political strength stems) of the assemblies tends to decrease.

If, on the one hand, imagining a student assembly in which cheers and ovations do not erupt occasionally would be idealistic, on the other hand it borders on futility when groups and parties organize themselves specifically to applaud, react intensely, and express like-minded reactions to speeches by people in their field. Before joining the game of other sectors that systematically use agitation as a form of collective embarrassment, or to artificially increase support for their position, the opposite should be done: intervene to de-escalate the fan fight and give more emphasis to the political content. -programmatic of what is discussed. The concern to obtain visibility for the party organization during the assemblies must be carefully considered. Between the organizations, it may be important to know what each of the co-contestants thinks, but for most of those present, what is seen is the succession of several very similar speeches. What kind of person seeks to approach an organization based on inflammatory speeches who would not also be approached by their texts distributed virtually or physically in the premises?

Militancy and Social Networks

It's not something close to the previous topics, but I think it's worth a brief reflection here because for now it's not enough to be a subject that I can dedicate a text of my own. The advent of social networks on the internet has admittedly been changing the way people interact with each other. Not so much in the picturesque description that young people don't put down their cell phones for nothing, but in the way of accessing and transmitting information.

By providing a space to do politics, it is plausible that they may also be changing some aspects of how we conceive of our own activity. The possibility of talking to thousands or even millions of people is enchanting for those who, like us, do not have media monopolies at their disposal to convey their positions. The issue of networks as a form of thermometer of reality has possibly already been largely overcome, knowing that the number of confirmations in an event, for example, does not mean much for the actual attendance. On the other hand, the advent of the facebook event seems to have marked the student movement in such a way that, in many cases, for the organizers of an activity, this is not properly confirmed until there is an event on facebook.

In addition, it is possible to see a trend of social networks evolving in a more or less clear sense of downsizing the ability to organize and publish content, which also draws attention. Orkut communities with its forum system gave way to Facebook with less organized groups and a dynamic feed system, and today we see more and more the strengthening of twitter with its limitation of characters and Instagram that provides even less space for discussion, especially with the advent of stories – a high expression of the ephemeral nature of communication. Whether this is a fortuitous trend or whether it has a historical social etiology behind it is difficult to know, but I believe that, in any case, it is worth reflecting on how and how much they influence our way of thinking politically, whether as individuals or as a collective. .


I close my reflections with words borrowed from a comrade:

“I believe that the Brazilian left lacks a materialist understanding of reality, which ends up culminating in a weak theory of the State and its consequent practical confusion. The revolutionary process is the work of putting one State (of a different kind) in place of another. This process begins before the effective seizure of power and admits the coexistence of different legalities in the same territory. It is completed, however, with the effective imposition of new social norms that subvert the forms of human interaction, especially in the economic sphere. This imposition can be more or less violent depending on the ideological apparatus dominated and used. Anyway, ultimately, it is the force that guarantees the “potency” of the new power.

Many of those who call themselves revolutionaries today legitimately want to change the state of affairs. Assuming that this will is not momentary – something that “comes and goes” – it is still worth thinking about which state of affairs this person analyzes as current, because that is what defines what he will deem necessary to put in place. The field of idealism is dangerous, it can form fanciful images, such as those that many right-wingers paint Brazil and the world scenario. With bad analyzes and inaccurate numbers, similar mistakes can be made, even with good intentions.

The fact is that without precise tactics or strategies, the world is painted as infinite successive moments. It is only important to seize the moment and “seal”. State that you are right as many times as possible. Thus, whoever is right the most times “wins”, unites their sectors and fights the others, even allies, especially those who could potentially take away their base. Well, of course, normally the recipients of the “lacração” are those who will share the same iconography and short phrases, the “niche culture”.

*Henrique Martins He is an activist in the communist movement.



[I] “Gramsci – Power, Politics, party”, ed. Emir Sader, p.55

[ii] HUME, David. Treatise of Human Nature. Translated by Débora Danowitzi. Book III, Part I, Section II. São Paulo, Editora UNESP, 2000, p. 509

[iii]An illustrative dilemma, because in fact it is not, since for Marx a commodity is a thing, an external object.

See this link for all articles


  • About artificial ignoranceEugenio Bucci 15/06/2024 By EUGÊNIO BUCCI: Today, ignorance is not an uninhabited house, devoid of ideas, but a building full of disjointed nonsense, a goo of heavy density that occupies every space
  • Franz Kafka, libertarian spiritFranz Kafka, libertarian spirit 13/06/2024 By MICHAEL LÖWY: Notes on the occasion of the centenary of the death of the Czech writer
  • The society of dead historyclassroom similar to the one in usp history 16/06/2024 By ANTONIO SIMPLICIO DE ALMEIDA NETO: The subject of history was inserted into a generic area called Applied Human and Social Sciences and, finally, disappeared into the curricular drain
  • A look at the 2024 federal strikelula haddad 20/06/2024 By IAEL DE SOUZA: A few months into government, Lula's electoral fraud was proven, accompanied by his “faithful henchman”, the Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad
  • Letter to the presidentSquid 59mk,g 18/06/2024 By FRANCISCO ALVES, JOÃO DOS REIS SILVA JÚNIOR & VALDEMAR SGUISSARDI: “We completely agree with Your Excellency. when he states and reaffirms that 'Education is an investment, not an expense'”
  • Strengthen PROIFESclassroom 54mf 15/06/2024 By GIL VICENTE REIS DE FIGUEIREDO: The attempt to cancel PROIFES and, at the same time, turn a blind eye to the errors of ANDES management is a disservice to the construction of a new representation scenario
  • PEC-65: independence or patrimonialism in the Central Bank?Campos Neto Trojan Horse 17/06/2024 By PEDRO PAULO ZAHLUTH BASTOS: What Roberto Campos Neto proposes is the constitutional amendment of free lunch for the future elite of the Central Bank
  • Chico Buarque, 80 years oldchico 19/06/2024 By ROGÉRIO RUFINO DE OLIVEIRA: The class struggle, universal, is particularized in the refinement of constructive intention, in the tone of proletarian proparoxytones
  • Why are we on strike?statue 50g 20/06/2024 By SERGIO STOCO: We have reached a situation of shortage of federal educational institutions
  • The strike at federal Universities and Institutescorridor glazing 01/06/2024 By ROBERTO LEHER: The government disconnects from its effective social base by removing those who fought against Jair Bolsonaro from the political table