By BRUNO MACHADO*
Social rupture should not be understood as an armed seizure of power by a political party, as Brazilian communists openly defend
Within the scope of the Brazilian center-left, the Nordic countries are a reference for a social and economic model. These societies would be seen as capitalist but at the same time egalitarian, being the social democrats' perfect union of two worlds. There are, however, two main problems in this practical reference of ideological political project.
Firstly, one cannot leave aside the functioning of international capitalism as a center-periphery system, therefore, the imperialist and even colonialist actions of these model countries in relation to the Global South are a fundamental pillar that enabled material abundance within its European borders. Thus, for any country in the Global South to repeat the economic development of these Nordic countries, an industrialization process would be necessary that would be much more similar to the lagging development processes of countries like South Korea and China.
Furthermore, the process of dividing the world into center and periphery made the national bourgeoisies of peripheral countries submissive to the bourgeoisies of central countries, not only materially but also ideologically and even culturally. Thus, in peripheral countries, a delayed industrial and technological development process, the so-called technological catch-up, is only possible politically through some degree of social rupture. An example of this was the rapid, but short process of economic and technological development in Brazil during the Getúlio Vargas governments.
Looking at this theoretical scenario described above, a possible conclusion is that only a communist revolution could cause this social rupture and implement a process of technological catch-up as occurred in China, which, unlike South Korea, put into practice a process of development facing the centrality of global capitalism, with its economic development neither provoked nor supported by central countries. However, the communist solution faces two major problems that have been repeated in past and present experiences: the international siege that generates military conflicts and the authoritarianism of the communist party in power.
Any peripheral country that goes through a revolutionary process that changes the current power arrangement, and, in this way, removes the national bourgeoisie submissive to the centrality of global capitalism, will suffer strong repression of the political, economic and military power of central countries. The strong economic siege against the Soviet Union followed by an intense civil war supported by the potential capitalists of the time demonstrated this in the last century. Furthermore, the embargo on Cuba and the strong US military tension against China also demonstrate the price that is paid when carrying out a revolution contrary to the center-periphery status quo of capitalism.
In this way, to maintain the post-revolution power arrangement and prevent the peripheral country from returning to the status quo prior to the revolution, the communist parties in power seek to close their regimes from a political point of view to protect themselves from financed counter-revolution attempts. and caused by the international capitalist siege built by central countries dissatisfied with their loss of power. Therefore, such post-revolution countries find themselves in a reality where freedom of expression, freedom of the press and even the right to come and go are lost in the face of a scenario of hybrid war and international siege.
If within the current system there is no solution for Brazil's economic development, and at the same time, a rupture via communist revolution also does not present itself as a solution that has given good results in history, it becomes more difficult to find a solution to the national issue. Brazilian. It is from this impasse that we have Leonel Brizola's dark socialism as a possible level of political achievement for Brazil.
It is a fact that, as Brizola himself said, Brazilian labor needs a revolutionary pepper, and Leonel's own story demonstrates that such a political leader was not a blind defender of the current institutions, as he appears to have become part of the Brazilian left of the time. As discussed, any attempt at economic development in Brazil, such as the National Development Project proposal by Ciro Gomes and the PDT, can only be put into practice in a peripheral country like Brazil through some type of social rupture. This does not mean that a complete break with capital is the only option. A nationalist, and even socialist, revolution does not necessarily need to be a communist revolution led by a Leninist communist party.
Looking at our history, Getúlio Vargas' government was a government that came to power after a rupture with the national bourgeoisie, however it did not represent a total rupture with the international capitalist system, provoking only moderate reactions from American imperialism. It would be difficult to imagine such a lasting Vargas government if Vargas were a communist and carried out a revolution in Brazil inspired by what the Chinese Communist Party did in China. Brazil would certainly enter a very strong international siege with a great possibility of entering into military conflicts, which would interrupt the industrialization process that Brazil went through with Vargas.
Therefore, there is the possibility of Brazil developing economically after going through a not-so-revolutionary revolution. Brizola's political project and Ciro Gomes' economic plan can be the pillars of a Brazilian revolution that identifies itself as socialist but does not deceive itself with social democracy, at the same time that it does not see the Russian and Chinese revolutions as a model to be followed in Brazil. A social rupture aimed at economic development cannot leave aside the indispensable aspects of democracy and the republic.
Taking all of this as a political guide, it is up to the left, therefore, to build a strong and popular socialist thought in Brazil that allows not only a victory at the polls for a dark socialist project, but also that raises the class consciousness of Brazilian workers to face the resistance that there will be against a project of national emancipation, and that in this way provokes the social ruptures necessary for the construction of a new country.
Social rupture should not be understood as an armed seizure of power by a political party, as Brazilian communists openly defend. A social rupture is, certainly, an imposition of reality, since there is no possibility of changing the disposition of power in the country without a reaction from the national and international bourgeoisie. However, it should not be ruled out that a socialist electoral victory that puts into practice a developmental agenda with popular support in the streets through protests, strikes and civil disobedience would be a process of social rupture, even if it is not violent.
It is, therefore, up to the Brazilian left to win the hearts and minds of the working class and build a socialist and nationalist thought strong enough for a victory at the polls, but also so that there is enough political force in the streets to change Brazil's power structures, in an inevitable process of confronting the current power of the national and international bourgeoisie in demonstrations, protests and general strikes.
*Bruno Machado is an engineer.
the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
