By ROMUALDO PESSOA CAMPOS FILHO*

The strategic errors of the Brazilian left in the fight against the extreme right and fascism

1.

Perhaps I am being harsh in my critical analysis of how the Latin American left has behaved in the face of the political choices they have had to face, of course, with our Brazilian case specifically.

To know how we are going to deal with this growth in influence, especially among the popular masses, of the extreme right, we need to know how and why we got to this point.

Some response needs to be given. There is no point in getting indignant about the choices people make, or how a large part of these people have incorporated this fascist or neo-fascist or neo-Nazi discourse. After all, are we going to blame those who have assimilated the discourse of the extreme right and simply treat them as ignorant and alienated? A flock of blind followers of “myths”, ridiculous characters of a new way of doing politics? As political scientists have nicknamed them: the outsiders. Is this the explanation for this whirlwind of conjunctural changes in politically radicalized societies?

I have learned throughout my political education, since I entered university as a student in the early 1980s, that the most important methodology for understanding reality is dialectics, created by philosophers in ancient times and perfected in the XNUMXth century by Hegel and later by Marx and Engels. Through this methodology, and its philosophical dimension, we understand how essential it is to understand the contradictions that govern our lives, in nature and in society.

Contradictions, their clash from the struggles of opposites, knowledge of objective reality, understanding the causes that generate facts, their effects and consequences, allow us to have a sense of objective and concrete reality.

Thus, we can say that there is no fact that cannot be explained by its generating causes. It, this fact, has a reason for existing. It does not arise from nothing, nor can we allow chance to guide the historical process. What we need is to know how to make a concrete analysis of objective reality. Period!

I want to be emphatic on one issue, as I believe it is consensual among those who have links to the left: since the turn of the 2000s, more specifically after the attack on the Twin Towers, reaching its peak with the crisis of the so-called “subprime” and real estate speculation in the US in 2008, as a consequence of the greed that is the engine of capitalism, the world entered a systemic economic crisis from which it has not recovered.

Since then, what we have seen on the planet is a strong geopolitical dispute for control of the economy, with the fight for hegemony between great powers, mainly the USA and China. Globalization has changed sides, being demonized by Donald Trump and defended by Xi Jinping.

Now, how has the left behaved since the fall of the Soviet Union and the crisis of so-called “real socialism”? We replaced revolutionary discourse, questioning the structures of the capitalist system as highly perverse and driving shameful social inequality, with electoral disputes through the paths of so-called “Western democracy.” In order to achieve political power, take political control and command the destiny of our country. Just as has also happened in other countries.

And it worked, politically. There was a wave of left-wing leaders elected to government in Latin America and other parts of the world. Even Barack Obama got involved. Although much of what he promised was not fulfilled. But he was important, like other left-wing governments, in one aspect: he strongly awakened the struggle for identity, anti-racist rights and women's empowerment. Important issues that reinforce the necessary fight for human rights.

It turns out that capitalism does not move along these paths. What determines its essence are economic issues, the base, or the infrastructure that builds the entire framework of the system. Including in terms of the success or failure of a given government, whether right or left.

2.

So we need to separate three aspects: the economic, the political and the social. When is it possible for a political group to achieve success in a democracy? When there is an economic failure in the leadership of the State, leading the population to lose faith in the party or ideological group that is in charge of the government. This happened for a long time, when we raised the anti-capitalist banner, in defense of a more socially just system, and against the structures built within the systemic capitalist logic.

As well as in the strong and ideological attack against the classes that commanded, and command, economic power, be it with the large corporations, banks and industries, the urban bourgeoisie; and against the large latifundia, producers of monoculture for export, perfidiously concentrationist. We began to combat rentierism and latifundia more and more. And the left grew, as the capitalist economic crisis intensified.

Now, with political power in hand, and control of the government, whether in the federation or in important states, what was the left's job to do? Here we can use the metaphor of the dog that runs after cars, baring its teeth at the tires. But what to do when these vehicles stop? There is nothing to do. Or there is little to do.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, even in this comparison. That's okay. I'll stick to my reasoning. Let's debate the issue, if anyone is willing. For a long time we have railed against the unequal, perverse and wealth-concentrating nature of capitalism, and that's why the left has gained an ever-increasing number of supporters, socialists or not. These people, through the left's discourse, understood the perversion in the systemic logic of capitalism.

However, what was offered to this mass? The discourse of social issues, human rights, gender and anti-racism. All absolutely important issues in an unequal and prejudiced society. But what about the criticisms made of the perverse, unequal and concentrated nature of capitalism? Or about the changes in the economy that would allow for an improvement in people's living conditions, who would no longer see paradise in the heavens, but the guarantee of a dignified life on earth?

The anti-system discourse was left aside and the task of saving capitalism, or at least trying to moderate its perversions, was completely ineffective. And, in control of the State, the difficult task of dealing with contradictions that imposed the necessary subservience of its governments to the powers of local lords, corrupt figures who for decades have dominated politics, passing on the inheritance of their wealth and political influence to their sons and daughters.

The regional agrarian oligarchies only grew stronger. And we began to change the name of the fight against these segments. We stopped calling them landowners and started referring to them as agribusiness. This is like stopping classifying the poisons that spread through production as pesticides and starting to call them “agricultural defenses”. This was one of the mistakes, because “agriculture became popular” and became the lever of the national GDP. And the landowners continued to expand their power and grab more and more land.

We have toned down our criticism of banks because they have become important partners in many government programs and policies. And they have adapted well to the discourse of “investment in social issues.” The bourgeoisie has shifted strongly toward rentierism, and Brazilian industry has been going downhill, supported by foreign investment in new sources of technology that, obviously, has thrown millions of people out of their jobs. And there goes the increase in the concentration of wealth and income.

We gradually lost our revolutionary discourses as we became aware of the possibility of rising to power through participation in the electoral process. And this happened, and it spread.

But without any change in the unequal nature of the system's structure, already in the midst of a serious crisis, resulting from failed globalization. States weakened themselves by bailing out financial corporations and even large automobile factories, and unemployment became increasingly widespread. At the same time, the largely conservative parliament insisted on cutting workers' rights, both in terms of employment and social security.

3.

And the left in power. In the midst of the economic crisis and trying to manage it. Because, of course, that is the role of those in government. Therefore, we have turned from stone into glass. People who believed in the discourse of building a new society and reducing inequalities have become angry, resentful, hopeless and weakened in their social conditions. Frustrated in their best expectations of living with dignity.

This happened for a while, for a large part of the population, through important social programs that alleviated the terrible living conditions of tens of millions of people. But this was not sustainable. Simply because it is not only rising from misery to poverty that makes people happy in capitalism. Even worse is that a middle class is not satisfied in its expectation of reaching the top of the social pyramid. Naturally, it becomes radicalized and throws away all the support given if its expectations are not met.

What we have seen in this century is an economic failure of states in their attempts to save a moribund system, but which keeps the ruling classes increasingly rich, at the limit of their shameful contradictions, as this occurs with a growing increase in the indebtedness of the majority of the population. Faced with this, and the impossibility of presenting what has been offered for decades, of the left assuming power to combat the inequality imposed by capitalism, what was left for progressive governments was to raise the tone in defense of social issues, radicalizing in the defense of legislation and policies that would at least alleviate the suffering of a large part of the population, subject to the most perverse prejudices possible.

However, this also awakened an extreme right that had been living in the depths of politics, without any kind of protagonism that would position it as an alternative to power, which has always been disputed between the left, center and center-left in the Brazilian political spectrum, since the country's redemocratization. It allied itself with evangelical fundamentalism and the charismatic Catholic conservative movement; some pastors became members of parliament and built a strong movement inside and outside the National Congress, influencing the direction of institutional politics and leading a group of disillusioned, failed people, frightened by the lack of perspective and growing insecurity.

It was easy to drag this crowd to swell the far right's agenda, bringing together the upper bourgeoisie, the landowners and the conservative religious movements.

On the other hand, an entire traditional and official media apparatus was instrumentalized in defending the interests of the dominant classes, and a wave of religious influencers and other opportunistic figures were used to deconstruct the entire discourse of the left in defense of an alternative system to capitalism. And, through accusations of corruption (always a risk for those who control the state) and of using institutions for ideological interests, constructing a false narrative of cultural war, spreading doubt and anger among the population.

As a result of this movement, and while the left was struggling to manage the crisis of the capitalist state, the far right came up with the “anti-system” discourse. This was an absolutely hypocritical stance, because this segment is against political structures and democracy (although they defend authoritarianism and dictatorships), not against the capitalist system. But this is an ambiguity that confuses people who do not have enough discernment to understand the full extent of each of these objectives. And the “anti-system” discourse of the far right began to involve mainly those who had long been the pillars of revolutionary discourse: the youth. This was very striking in Argentina, but also here in Brazil.

By combining strong, anti-system discourse with a conservative agenda of customs, in opposition to the struggles taken up by the left, and making it practically the main banner of its actions, the far right began to strengthen itself and build a strong reactionary discourse in defense of issues that were thought to be resolved, to the point that characters emerged defending the aberrations of military dictatorial governments. And this was accepted and disseminated in society, from the top to the bottom of the social pyramid.

In these circumstances, not created by the left, but by the attempt to adapt to them and alleviate the crisis (a natural condition for anyone who assumes government in a capitalist state), the extreme right has increasingly cornered the progressive sectors and presented the most diabolical and extremist characters, with clearly fascist speeches, riddled with all types of prejudice and strongly violent.

This led conservative sectors to build a huge parliamentary base, the likes of which had never been seen before in Brazilian politics, and to win elections in the states and in the Brazilian government, but not only here. This had already been happening in Europe (Italy, Poland, Hungary, Greece…), in the United States, and in much of Latin America, until the latest lunatic to be elevated to the position of president: the histrionic Javier Milei, elected president of Argentina.

Because everything I reported earlier, although focusing on Brazil, also happened in Argentina. And it will continue to happen in many other countries, as long as the left does not once again have a strong discourse, truly against the capitalist system, and objectively pointing out alternatives to these perverse structures that exist.

I am not presenting any recipe, and I know that this is the hardest part. But the only way to get out of a mess is to try to understand how it got there. And if I have gone on about this, saying what has always been obvious to me all this time, it is to say that there is no surprise in what is happening. The left needs to change its strategy. As the far right did. To return to a discourse that was already being made up until the beginning of this century. In other words, at that time when people began to believe in the discourse and elect left-wing parties to government, as a consequence of the systemic capitalist crisis.

I am not suggesting that we forget important causes in the fight for human rights, gender issues or anti-racism. But these cannot become radicalized clashes, of greater importance than those that show us, in general terms, what are the roots of all these evils that consume us. We need to move away from specificity and return to general causes, which are truly anti-systemic, in a clear ideological confrontation, in order to contribute to the political and intellectual formation of the oppressed classes, in the objective of what we have always aimed for, even if in a utopian hope, the construction of a more just and less unequal system.

Pointing out the flaws of capitalism, even for those who are members of parliament or in government, should be the objective of those who were elected by creating expectations and encouraging the dreams of the socially disadvantaged, and of a middle class that for a long time supported the agendas of left-wing parties.

The fight against poverty and social inequality cannot be waged without making it clear that these conditions are created by an unjust system, based on greed and usury. Only then will we be able to get rid of the Bolsonaros and the Mileis, who are multiplying, because the left is not being convincing in presenting alternatives to the capitalist system.

It is important to make it clear that the far right is not, and has never been, anti-establishment. Its fight is against liberal democracy and socialism. But it uses a discourse based on the false and hypocritical defense of customs, relying on the fear that is spread through the way this communication takes place, through religion, although it is also a reflection of the crisis: fragility, ignorance, fear and resentment feed the far right and make the shadow of fascism resurface.

Is it difficult to reverse this? Yes. However, it is more difficult to live in this political situation and in this systemic structural crisis. And while I was writing this text, I came across the latest work on social inequalities, reflected in the Oxfam Report on the consumption of the richest 1%, which is scandalously higher than that of the remaining 99%. And that “By 2030, emissions from the richest 1% in the world are expected to be 22 times higher than the safe limit of permitted emissions”.

In other words, there is no salvation for humanity as long as this logic that moves the capitalist system in an expansive way persists. It is the duty of the left to resume its anti-systemic revolutionary discourse and practice. To rebuild utopia and make people dream again of another world, without this perverse and unequal logic that capitalism imposes. Before it is too late.

*Romualdo Pessoa Campos Filho is a full professor at the Institute of Socio-Environmental Studies at the Federal University of Goiás (UFG).

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE