History of Brazilian democratic socialism -

History of Brazilian democratic socialism

31/07/2024

Culture • History • Books • Socialism

By JORGE FERREIRA*

Preface to the recently released book by F. Alexandre Hecker

The first experience of expanded representative democracy in Brazil, between 1946 and 1964, did not receive the same dedication from historians as other republican periods. Studies on the First Republic, the first period of the Vargas government and the military dictatorship aroused wide interest, with research on various approaches and many publications. This was not the case with the Republic of 1946.

Thus, it is no coincidence that political studies on the Brazilian liberal-democratic experience received the dedication of our fellow sociologists and political scientists. If we restrict ourselves only to the party system, the works that have become notable are from those two areas of knowledge. As a result of doctoral theses in Political Science, we have the book by Lucia Hippolito on the PSD and by Maria Celina D'Araújo on the PTB. Lucilia de Almeira Neves' doctoral thesis in Sociology was also about the PTB. Another doctoral thesis, in Social Science, resulted in the book by Maria Victória Benevides on the UDN. Regarding the party system, it is worth mentioning the pioneering work of Maria do Carmo Campello de Souza and the research of Antônio Lavareda, both books resulting from his doctoral theses in Political Science. I do not include the Communist Party of Brazil (PCB), later renamed the Brazilian Party, because it is the most studied political party, whether by political scientists, sociologists, historians, anthropologists, journalists, among others.

In this tour of intellectual production on political parties in the Brazilian liberal-democratic experience, one must ask: what is the position of the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB)? The party was the object of interest in the area of history when, in 1988, Silvio Frank Alem defended his doctoral thesis at USP. The following year, Miracy Gustin defended her master's thesis in Political Science at UFMG. In 1994, Margarida Vieira presented her doctoral thesis in history at UFF. The following year, Margarida and Miracy, working together, published the book Sowing democracy. It was the first published work on the PSB, the result of research by the historian and political scientist.

At that juncture, condensing the historiographical knowledge then elaborated on the subject, F. Alexandre Hecker, a well-known Brazilian historian, defended his doctorate and published it in 1998, with the title of Sociable socialism: history of the democratic left in São Paulo: 1945-1965. Now, more than two decades later, the author offers Brazilian historiography a new and important contribution with History of Brazilian democratic socialism: Rio de Janeiro as a producing and disseminating center.

Therefore, what we want to highlight is that this professor of contemporary history at Unesp has dedicated himself over the years to various researches, with an emphasis on democratic socialism, but also on the history of immigration, especially in Italy. The political history of the PSB and the democratic socialism project, therefore, are not new to Alexandre. The book, evidently, results from the maturity of his previous reflections, but it is the result of extensive current research, with a multiplicity of documentary sources. Many interviews were carried out, several newspapers were browsed, archives and public libraries visited, research centers visited, memoirs and biographies consulted. The attentive reader will certainly be surprised by the vast documentary research that supports the reports in the book.

The author focuses the analysis of the trajectory of the PSB in Rio de Janeiro. Capital of the country for a long time, it was in the city that the Democratic Left emerged in 1945 and, two years later, its transformation into a political party. Great political debates were taking place in Rio de Janeiro and the two greatest socialist leaders acted there: João Mangabeira and Hermes Lima. From the country's capital, they brought together different groups that existed in the states. Democratic socialism attracted renowned intellectuals and professionals, such as Rubem Braga, José Honório Rodrigues, Joel Silveira, Evandro Lins e Silva, José Lins do Rego, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, Antonio Candido, Sérgio Milliet, Fúlvio Abramo, Aziz Simão, among many others. .

The socialists' effort was to develop a left-wing political project, but without the constraints in which the Bolshevik tradition tied Marxist thought. The project was to overcome capitalism with the socialization of the means of production, while maintaining private property, as long as it was necessary for the individual and did not harm society as a whole. The transition to socialism would occur consensually, gaining the support of the population. The PSB's motto was “socialism and freedom”, moving it away from communist models based on the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Finally, among the activists, not everyone necessarily started from conceiving the existence of an intrinsic contradiction between capitalism and democracy.

Despite the advanced political project and the names that became references in Brazilian intelligence, the socialists lacked votes. In the elections of October 2, 1945, the socialists, still called Democratic Left, elected only two federal deputies out of a total of 320. In the 1950 presidential elections, João Mangabeira, president of the party, received 0,1% of the votes. wishes. The reduced numbers of those elected continued in subsequent elections.

The reader will easily understand how the socialists positioned themselves in relation to their competitors on the left: the communists and labor. The PCB communists were defined as authoritarian and dogmatic; the workers linked to the PTB were nothing more than demagogues and manipulators – renamed by the author “populism”. It is understandable that socialists wanted to build their own identity and, to this end, they sought to distinguish themselves from their competitors among workers: labor and communists. The Democratic Left, for example, was born marked by anti-Getulism. Everything related to the labor tradition, for example, was defined as political deformation and skinism. Even social legislation was considered a derivative of fascism.

The PSB's electoral results were limited and the author gives us clues to understand the problem. F. Alexandre Hecker analyzes the elections that took place in Brazil during the period, revealing the results obtained by the socialists. The party had difficulties communicating with voters, particularly due to ideological elitism and what we call “academicism”. The episode in which Evandro Lins e Silva, candidate, goes to a street market in party clothes and does not even greet potential voters exemplifies the socialists' difficulties in increasing the number of votes.

I would also add: how could they gain the trust of workers by criticizing the two most popular parties among the working class – PTB and PCB – defining one as a result of Getulista demagoguery and the other as Soviet authoritarianism? And what about the trade union movement led by communists and labor, defined as “hard trade unionism”? How can we attract union support by dismissing union members themselves as “false leaders”? The PSB, in this way, emerged as a party full of names that formed Brazilian intelligence and with an advanced political project, but little familiar with the factory floor and the union environment. This set of questions leads us to assess the low popularity of socialists among workers, resulting in limited electoral counts.

The PSB also faced internal problems. While the São Paulo section was enchanted by Jânio Quadros, the Pernambuco section formed a leftist front. From 1960 onwards, especially during João Goulart's government, the party took a strong turn to the left, participating in the range of political, union, student and peasant organizations that fought for basic reforms.

Alexandre Hecker presents to the reader, in depth and with careful documentary research, the trajectory of the PSB from 1945 until its extinction in 1965. However, the author seems tireless in his research work on Brazilian socialists. He innovates when analyzing the PSB after 1985, discussing how much the party changed and how much it retained from the past before 1965. Documentary research, at that time, also draws the reader's attention, particularly the work with the oral history methodology: I refer me to the sixth chapter, entitled “refoundation in current times”. The author chooses to write History of the Present Time, a much discussed historiographical approach that makes reference, in particular, to the times of the military dictatorship. I believe it is time to think about the History of the Present Time as a period dedicated to post-1985. That's what F. Alexandre Hecker did.

The new PSB also emerged in Rio de Janeiro and once again renowned names from the Brazilian intelligentsia formed the national leadership, such as Antônio Houaiss. But that was just the beginning. Soon new leaders entered the party who became “professional politicians”. Their task was to build a political party strengthened by the popular vote.

In the early 1990s, Miguel Arraes took over as director of the PSB. The party was no longer part of an intellectual and professional elite, but assumed a popular profile under the leadership of the political leader from Pernambuco. The new leading group intended to make the PSB an alternative to the PT. Arraes' successor at PSB was his grandson, the young politician Eduardo Campos. But a tragic plane crash took his life.

Alexandre Hecker, without a doubt, carried out immense documentary research, covering the trajectory of a political party little present in Brazilian historiography, with clear and pleasant writing. The reader, at the end of the book, will learn about the adventure of Brazilian democratic socialists over a long period of time. Some theoretical options adopted by the author may surprise, such as classifying laborism as “mass manipulation” and trade unionism between 1946-1964 as “populist”.

The harsh way he deals with the PCB communists may also cause discomfort in some readers. At certain moments, the author even seems to assume the point of view of the socialists themselves. This, however, does not take away the brilliance and importance of the book or eclipse the talent and experience of the historian. With the book, readers interested in Brazilian republican political history gain, as well as the historiography on political parties is further enriched.

Finally, I draw attention to the fact that, in its first phase, between 1945 and 1965, the PSB made an effort to be an alternative to the left, competing with the PTB and the PCB. Failed. In its second phase, post-1985, it bet that it could present itself as an option for the PT. He didn't make it either. Before, there was the figure of Vargas and the popular PTB; then, Lula's leadership and the political growth of the PT. However, as the author highlights, the PSB contributed to the enrichment of Brazilian political culture, stating that the association of socialism with democracy was possible and viable, or, as the party's motto indicated, socialism was linked to freedom.

Socialists contributed to the dissemination of a democratic culture among the left, but democratic socialism did not prevail in Brazilian lands. In this case, paraphrasing Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, I would say that in Brazil socialism has always been a regrettable misunderstanding. After all, for many years only political regimes based on the revolution led by the Russian Bolsheviks were considered “true” socialism.

For those who, self-sufficiently, claim to be “revolutionaries”, the PSB’s democratic socialism was nothing more than – or nothing more than – “class conciliation” while the PDT’s moreno socialism was defined as “brizolista populism”. But in a country as conservative as Brazil and whose “revolutionaries” have no significant political expression, wouldn’t democratic socialism itself be revolutionary?

*Jorge Ferreira He is a retired professor of history at the Fluminense Federal University (UFF).

Reference